« Skeptics Ahoy! | Main | Wish I'd thought of this First »
February 04, 2008
Why the Media Ought to Keep their Noses Out of Scientific Journals
Here's a great example of how the media manage to distort and draw misleading conclusions from scientific studies:
Now, I think it is probably reasonable, and certainly won't cause any harm, to NOT use these products on your baby. But that, in my mind, ought to be the main message here. You don't need to scrub and sanitize your baby with the latest from Johnson & Johnson. Kids don't need special hand soap.
Instead, the news piece sets off alarm bells for already terrified parents by jumping to conclusions that are not in the study. I also think it's asinine that someone can't find the time to do some sort of conclusive study somewhere to sort this out, but in the meantime saying "phthalates cause reproductive problems in lab animals" + "we don't know if they do the same in humans" + "we don't know if they are in these baby products or not" + "we don't know if the infants in the study were exposed to phthalates in the products used on them" equals a whole lot of nothing. What are other environmental sources of exposure? And what infant hasn't "recently" been exposed to baby shampoo, lotion, powder, etc.? (well, mine, but we're weirdos).
Unfortunately, here's a case where both science and skepticism fail us. There are numerous compounds (including chocolate, onions, and grape skins) that we know are extremely harmful to certain animals, but are harmless or good for humans in the quantities we normally consume them. So animal studies aren't always a good indicator. On the other hand we have powerful pharmaceutical companies who are heavily financially and politically invested in the status quo, so it's hard to know if consumers are getting accurate information about what's in their cosmetics, let alone any possible harmful effects.
What am I getting at here? I wish the news media wouldn't construct something out of inconclusive preliminary studies, and wouldn't make leading statements that cause people to draw conclusions that aren't there (the phrase "correlation is not causation" seems lost on most people). But I also wish we had some better research going on as to the real effects of some of the chemical soup we live in on a daily basis. And I wish we could start collectively realizing that our obsession with having everything smell like a daisy all the time may very well come with some unpleasant side effects. I just feel frustrated as a consumer, but unwilling as a skeptic to go "bah, nothing wrong here." I'm one to talk, as I can't seem to give up my tinted sunscreen or my black eyeliner, but I also seem to draw some line in my mind as to what risks I'm willing to take for myself vs those I'm willing to inflict on my progeny.
That desert island life is looking better and better all the time. Better start compiling my ipod songlists...
Posted by mwashburn at February 4, 2008 12:53 PMPosted to Skepticism
Comments
Very good post. I work for an organization that puts together risk assessments on cosmetic ingredients. (http://www.cir-safety.org/). Phthalates have been a very big issue for us in the past few years. What gets me is that the media is quick to report on the studies that show how bad something may be but the studies that prove that debunk the "horror" studies are never mentioned in the news. Funny how that works.
The key to everything is moderation. Water is an essential element in organic life, but too much will kill you (either by drowning or throwing off sodium/potassium levels, etc.)
Posted by: Christina at February 5, 2008 11:54 AM
Thanks for the link, Christina; I will definitely check it out! You are so right about the media often failing to present retractions or debunkings.
Posted by: flygrrl at February 5, 2008 11:58 AM