Winston Churchill once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." One can say the same for the Scientific Method as a means of discovering the truth. But while it's the best we have, it can all too easily be subverted. Add the profit motive along with a few celebrity advocates and what chance does the average Joe have of figuring out studies and statistics, experiments and results? Indeed, even reasonably competent people can't always tell the flat-out finding from the fudge factor.
Take me for example. On one occasion, following a talk I'd just given, a fellow in the audience asked where I'd gotten a certain statistic. Checking my notes, I gave him my source - arguably the world's most prestigious medical journal - to which he replied: "Oh that rag...the mouthpiece for Big Pharma." I was stunned. What an idiot!
Alas, he was right. A few months later, the senior editor of that same publication admitted that perhaps a third of the work published might be linked to vested interests. This was not to say there was any out and out fraud but just maybe the lead writer owned stock in the company.
I should not have been surprised. As an undergraduate, I once wrote to researchers at another university asking for the original data in a study they'd published. Would you believe it had all been lost in a lab fire? I did...at least until everyone else in my department fell down laughing at my naiveté. I'd actually fallen for the old "fire in the lab" story.
Later I learned that, when big-time grants and funding are involved, it doesn't always pay to publish your initial findings. It's not a matter of cheating so much as doing it until the deep pockets are happy. Who's to say repetition can't sometimes...maybe eventually...result in significance. Had we just done that tenth trial first....
Later still I learned that when you're playing with major corporations (and much money is on the line) what your study proves is what your statistician says it proves. It's a lot like having lawyers on staff. Really sharp mathematicians can produce the most beautiful ends even when starting out with the ugliest means. In other words, when it's a matter of getting FDA approval for a new bazillion dollar drug...you better believe you found a cure.
And should you think it's always about big bucks, it's not. There's Publish or Perish and don't forget about Reputations. In a quote often attributed to Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State supposedly said that academic battles could be so contentious precisely because the stakes were so small.
For all of the above reasons, it's difficult not to be bemused when readers ask to see "empirical evidence" or "statistical studies." Peers won't ask because they know how to find such things on their own and laymen - even with a couple of semesters at a community college - wouldn't know where to begin evaluating the references you might provide. It's like the TV producer who puts a Biologist and a Creationist together on a panel and thinks it's balanced.
Then too, people mostly ask to see your data when they disagree and are hoping for confirmation of their bias. Writing about homeopathy, I was asked to prove it didn't work. Did you ever try to prove a negative? I was also sent no less than a dozen testimonials and at least as many studies showing the truly magical, therapeutic value of water with a memory. Ditto with magnetic insoles, colon detoxifying, blood purifiers, ear candles...you see my point? Being a nice guy, I once sent a lady an article on stem cell research. In return, I received fourteen passages from the Bible
Look At It This Way
In any list of national math/science standings, the USA always ranks near the bottom. It's not what we do well. American Idol - Yes. Standard Deviations - No. So don't ask for what you can't possibly use. Demand proof and that man with the $4800 copper-lined mattress will hand you a sack of empirical evidence and statistical studies. Then what?
I began with a quote from Churchill and shall end with yet another: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
