Broken Hearts and Dubious Studies pt. 2

What brought me to my chosen career was a belief that maybe I could do some good without sinking into the "publish or perish" trap I saw so many others fall into. As an undergraduate I rotated through a medical technology course at a local hospital, where I saw some incidents that led me to decide that practical medicine was not for me. As a high school teacher, I saw the depths to which the educational system could plunge to insure public funding at the expense of real, rigorous education in the sciences and elsewhere. After graduate school, I was immediately hired to instruct a variety of courses in college and there I decided that this was where I really belong. I was already 30 years old when I entered my doctorate program so, like an athlete of similar age, it seemed to be that I was considered almost "past my prime." I am sure that while many of the courses I took were necessary to insure that my metriculation as a "scientist" were worthy, I realize now that they were probably nothing more than a part of the trial by fire that all graduate students must face in order to assure that the mighty title Doctor of Philosophy is given only to those chosen few who really do have the scientific equivalent of Tom Wolfe's "Right Stuff." Once, at a meeting of the Ecological Society of America where I was to give a talk, I was shown a large chart that traced the succession of American ecologists from the beginnings of the field. I was on that chart, even though I had yet to publish my dissertation or my first peer-reviewed article as primary author. It was obvious that great things were expected of me, even though I had assured my major professor that after graduation my real goal was to teach- not research. After my dissertation defense, I was informed that while I was an excellent instructor, I was a "poor researcher," to which I replied "I already know that, but did I pass?" Yes I did. Not only that, but later, when my dissertation and subsequent research was published, it was well-received and cited. I've done very little hard research since, concentrating instead on trying to turn out well-informed students and champion better science education in my own small way. Increasingly, this has included taking a hard look at science both in the positive and negative sense. I will never publish a hundred papers before I die. I will not be remembered in the vast halls of science. But what I will do is pass on what I have learned for others to judge themselves. And that is enough.

Science progresses with or without the Dr. Joes of the world. This progression is rife with controversy, back-biting, and sometimes bitterness, as was expressed by one of my professors in an early graduate class who assured us that we really did not want a thankless job like his. He was, of course, correct. What we wanted was to be great- to become tops in our field, champions with diplomas and heaps of awards and papers to prove it. As I mentioned earlier, I was pedigreed even before publishing so I had to be something special. The pressure to prove oneself in academia can be more intense than the average person will ever believe. Is it suprising then that data is sometimes fudged, finagled, massaged or transformed to make it "fit" one's expectations, thus become something worth publishing? Personally, I have come to develop a great respect for the science of statistical analysis and when making comparisons of significant data tend to use very conservative techniques such as the HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) of Tukey when analyzing findings. Practice what you preach. I tell students that even if something is not significant, it is still important. A lack of difference in findings is in itself just as informative about how nature works as any other discovery. We should report all of our findings honestly, because if we don't the consequences can be great.

As implied by the title of this post, I want to return to the previous study about "broken hearts" and heart disease. A small study, done with a small sample size, yet ballyhooed out of all proportion by the press. We all want publicity since it is that notice that stimulates interest, which in turn stimulates support, which in turn stimulates money for more research. My concern is that if such studies are not more thoroughly reviewed before release, policy and diagnostic decisions might be modeled from it that will have unwanted consequences. Now, I'm not saying that the findings are wrong- I did not do the study and am not an MD- I am saying that we should have more care to insure that there is a great degree of statistical certainty before releasing our findings.

"Old School" Space Science - Threatening?

Yesterday the Baltimore Sun published an article concerning President Bush's new vision of space exploration and NASA's role. In the article, Bush set the tone for what he called a "new course," in that we as a nation must build and prepare for new levels of exploration. His concept of what this new vision is, however, has caused concern among NASA and other space scientists, since it offers a more centralized way of sending man into space. There is nothing really new about this. After all, centralized planning got us to the moon in record time in the 1960s and stimulated a new era of national pride, technological innovation, and a rebirth in the value of science education. Unfortunately, our zeal for space cooled quickly after Apollo, and this, coupled with a massive decline in funding by subsequent administrations forced NASA to turn inward, seeking to find new ways to economize. This "inward thinking" did not end even with the successes that followed in unmanned exploration and the wealth of new knowledge delivered by the Hubble Space Telescope. It seems (to me anyway) that space science has lost its luster as scientists choose to spend more and more time pondering their navels in the pursuit of "pure science," and reject those driving principles that made what got them into their careers in the first place. The thrill of discovery and drive to conquer insurmountable odds pushed our fledgling space program and brought new and practical applications we all take advantage of every day. In the December issue of Wired Magazine, explorers James Cameron and Burt Rutan questioned the policies of our national space program, and rightly so. Sometimes, the best way to stimulate the acquisition of new knowledge is to "boldly go." If our tax dollars aren't used appropriately, surely private enterprise will fill in the gaps. What would otherwise have been owned by all will be taken and made available to only the privileged few.

The Scientist :: Ernst Mayr dies

Sad news today in the world of biology. The Scientist :: Ernst Mayr dies Mayr was one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of the Twentieth Century. Concepts such as the Biological Species Concept have led to debates and new ways of thinking about how all life came to be as we know it and challenged researchers to find alternatives, furthering the science of biology. Mayr's theories catalyzed the work of such scientists as Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, Lynn Margulis and others who have shaped the way we now view how living things change with time. He will be sorely missed.

Broken Hearts and Dubious Studies

Today this article, MSN Health & Fitness - Sometimes a Heart Attack Is Really a 'Broken Heart' appeared on MSN. I'd heard about it on the radio a couple of days ago, so it doesn't suprise me that it took a while to appear. What does suprise me is the small sample size used in the study. Now I don't have any doubt that stress play a role in our general health and that it can sometimes play a major role in the onset of some illnesses such as heart-related events, but frankly, a 20 subject study does not constitute a statistically valid sample size. These "mini-studies," while interesting, should never be taken as gospel, though they almost always are by the media. Just like oatmeal, eggs, popcorn and pizza, we can only see trends- not real valid and repeatable results from studies such as these. More later.