Just as alcohol comes in different strengths, so too does science. On one end of the spectrum you've got shots of pure vodka, on the other you have some hyper-fruity concoctions with only a slight hint of rum.
Mind you, sometimes you've got to start with the fruity stuff. Maybe often. You then progressively distill out the impurities and up the strength. Scientifically speaking.
A recent study on home births and midwifes struck me as quite fruity. Allow me to highlight the chunks of pineapple and candied cherries.
First, the title: Midwives Use Rituals to Send Message That Women's Bodies Know Best.
"Rituals" . . . fine. But it depends what they are. Might be a legit variable. Yet a ritual isn't good by default, simply because we like the word.
Then, "women's bodies know best"? That strikes me as pandering and at least partially mistaken. It implies always. There is plenty of research showing people don't really know their bodies well, nor are they skilled at interpreting what their body is 'saying.' Sometimes, sure. Maybe what the midwives are doing is giving the women greater confidence to . . . trust and accept the incredibly dynamic changes their bodies go through during childbirth. To relax (relatively).
Next we have a paragraph that has a cloying taste, to me -- one that manifests bias.
The midwife experience uses these rituals to send the message that home birth is about female empowerment, strengthening relationships between family and friends, and facilitating participatory experiences that put mothers in control, with the ultimate goal of safe and healthy deliveries less focused on technological intervention.
Um, technology isn't bad, nor is empowerment always good. These are mere words and we really have to get into the nitty-gritty to evaluate any goodness or badness.
Data source alert: in-depth interviews with midwifes and their clients. That's bottom-shelf, low-proof brew. Even when you add the 'in-depth' umbrella.
What strikes me as most cautionary and likely telling about the quality of the science conducted -- and the questionable intellectual diligence of the scientist -- is the use of jargon. The use of terms that are less scientific, more political. They are aimed at persuading by way of their first-sniff attractiveness or repulsion. Empowerment, rituals, participatory, mind-body connection, family, home . . . how can you not root for those? Technology, hospital, medicalized, equipment . . . who could have warm and fuzzy thoughts about something medicalized?
Consider this bit from the news release:
Cheyney also documented the use of common phrases to create birthing mantras. She lists phrases such as "don't fight it," "let your body do it," "open," and "let it be strong," as key components to the home birth ritual.
"Don't fight it" is a . . . mantra? Oy. Another colorful word with questionable substance behind it.
Oregon State University researcher Melissa Cheyney seemed to argue that home births were better than hospital births. And some times for some people, they no doubt are. For other people at other times, probably not.
Finally there is this, at the core of the issue -
Cheyney said evidence shows that hospital births result in about triple the rate of cesarean section for low-risk women compared to midwife-attended home births. Because of her unique role as both a researcher and midwife, Cheyney was able to gain access to hundreds of home births in various parts of the United States, and also witnessed more than 60 hospital births.
This is definitely an important issue. But is the solution to the unnecessarily high rate of cesarean births to instead opt for home births? Does a drawback to hospital births automatically make home births better? Though the two issues overlap, it seems to me that there are a number of things going on. For instance, maybe the more important factor is the profit motive (to avoid insurance claims, maybe, to pad the hospital bill, sadly maybe?) Hospitals don't like taking risks, so they tend to avoid them. And they do prefer to make money. Midwives lack the same incentive when it comes to risks, but might share the one about protecting their wallets. Is there an element to a turf war to this? I wonder.
Personally, I think home births are great if they can be done safely and you are into that sort of thing. Other times, hospital births are the smarter choice. But the only way to determine when one type of delivery might be better than the other is to do better science.
Public dis-service announcement: There may be alpha-terpineol, 4-methylpentanoic acid and ethyl propionate in the foods you eat! Details at 11:00.
Okay, that was a joke. Actually, many of us actually welcome the presence of those "chemicals" in our food. Here's the actual news release -
North Americans and Western Europeans love a good mix of alpha-terpineol, 4-methylpentanoic acid and ethyl propionate for dinner, flavor compounds shared in popular ingredients like tomatoes, parmesan cheese and white wine. Authentic East Asian recipes, on the other hand, tend to avoid mixing ingredients with many shared flavor compounds, according to new complex networks research from Indiana, Harvard, Cambridge and Northeastern universities.
[source: Shared flavor compounds show up on US menus, rare in Asian cuisines]
Oh. Chemicals can be scary sounding, but can also be good for you? What's more, just because something is a chemical (and what is devoid of chemicals?) or has a laboratory-sounding name, that doesn't mean it is toxic.
But the prejudice remains. And it rests upon the "naturalistic fallacy." Natural things are better because they are natural. Circular logic anyone?
As an example of just how deeply entrenched this prejudice is, consider this finding from out of the University of Maryland:
Food Coloring and ADHD - No Known Link, But Wider Safety Issues Remain: Researcher
Considering that the science part of the finding was "No Known Link" between food coloring and ADHD, I was surprised to the read this:
"The testimony I heard presents significant questions for me - issues that have not been adequately studied by scientists," says Chronis-Tuscano, a mother of young children, an associate professor of psychology and director of the University of Maryland ADHD Program.
"Beginning in the womb, developing brains are particularly sensitive to toxins," Chrois-Tuscano explains. "It's important to get better information about how much of these substances American children consume, and whether these levels are dangerous. [emphasis added]
Oh please. Toxins? Why not include a statement about evil spirits while you at it. Both include voodoo-like connotations.
Hmm. On second thought, shouldn't the news release title have included the word "Artificial" before "Food Coloring"? I don't think anyone would be afraid of the anthocyanin that gives blueberries their blue color. Or would they?
Anthocyanin? Why, that's a chemical!
Egads. As has been said before, arsenic is a natural compound. Just as is dihydrogen monoxide. If you haven't heard of this potentially dangerous chemical before, I suggest doing some research. The stuff can kill you (if you ingest too much or fall in it and drown).
Do hornets have free will? Do I?
It's a serious philosophical issue. I guess. I'm not fond of it -- the issue, hornets can be another matter. Until free and will are clearly defined, I just as soon enter into a discussion about it as I would stir up a hornets' nest.
Okay, now I understand why Fox news does what it does. You know, throw inflammatory accusations from the mouths of its talking-heads. Because it works.
WANT TO DEFEAT A PROPOSED PUBLIC POLICY? JUST LABEL SUPPORTERS AS “EXTREME”
Researchers at Ohio State University conducted a number of clever experiments and discovered a link between hyperbolic language and the rejection of the public policy positions.
In one experiment, researchers found that people expressed higher levels of support for a gender equality policy when the supporters were not specified than when the exact same policy was attributed to “radical feminist” supporters.
Relatively speaking, we can see why those PBS intellectuals fail to make a dent in public policy.
Me, I find some forms of political rhetoric to border on linguistic terrorism. The aim is to frighten voters into behaving as they wouldn't otherwise. And so we hear about the evil "radical feminist," "socialist," "environmental extremist" position on the other side of our . . . more neutral, friendlier side.
Why does FOX news use politically inflammatory terms? Not because they are factual, but because they work. Politically speaking. No, they don't actually inform and educate. In fact, they do the opposite. The question is, what do you want from your news?
On another front . . .
Abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinent behavior, UGA researchers find
Previously I've seen a few studies that found a lack of efficacy for abstinence-only programs. And one that went the other way. Here's a link for another one, with a good quantity of data behind it, and some amount of controlling for extraneous variables, that also generated a "doesn't work," conclusion.
An interesting clip from the news release:
Along with teen pregnancy rates and sex education methods, Hall and Stanger-Hall looked at the influence of socioeconomic status, education level, access to Medicaid waivers and ethnicity of each state's teen population.
Even when accounting for these factors, which could potentially impact teen pregnancy rates, the significant relationship between sex education methods and teen pregnancy remained: the more strongly abstinence education is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rates.
Hmm.
As I've argued before, even it these programs did work, I wouldn't be for them. Why?
I’d opt for sex-ed programs that include not-only abstinence information. For I believe in providing education for education’s sake, with an eye out to pragmatic concerns, sure, but not limited by them. My values include honoring the freedom of all individuals and families to select their own path in a full range of alternatives.
It has been known for decades that meditation and other relaxation techniques can lower stress. Which is good for "body and mind." (As if they were two separate things -- some might say that mind is what a body does, with a crucial role played by the brain.) A new study has confirmed meditation's efficacy in perhaps a novel subject pool and/or setting.
In, Transcendental Meditation effective antidote to record stress levels in school students, I learned,
A new study published in the Journal of Instructional Psychology found the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique significantly decreased psychological distress in public school students. The study, conducted with at-risk minority secondary school students, showed a 36 percent reduction in overall psychological distress. Significant decreases were also found in trait anxiety and depressive symptoms. [emphasis added]
While I don't doubt the study finding -- I'm a fan of meditation myself -- I do have a question, a compliment, and a criticism.
The question: How was psychological distress measured? This is an important bit of information.
The compliment: The foot of the news release contained a list of "Study Facts," including such things as number of subjects, subject ethnicity, etc. I wish all press releases for science findings included such a handy list. But why wasn't the means of measuring improvement included?
The criticism: The title to the news release, the name of the program (Transcendental Meditation Quiet Time), and the multiple mentions of TM (a coincidently trademarked term and supposed unique technique) imply that there is something special about this type of meditation as it pertains to stress relief. There isn't. An analogous study would claim that Tylenol effectively decreases pain. That write-up would be all about the benefits of not acetaminophen, which is the generic term and active ingredient of Tylenol, but rather of Tylenol. I imagine the makers of Tylenol would love it. Free marketing!
Tylenol is to acetaminophen as Transcendental Meditation is to meditation (or focused/intentional relaxation?). Better science pares down variables to their most basic element(s).
Me, I practice, um, call it Extraordinary Ordinary Meditation. EOM.
Recent Comments