In an extraordinary editorial and feature article, Nature, one of the world’s pre-eminent scientific journals, has effectively admonished the chair of the Harvard School of Public Health’s nutrition department, Walter Willett, for promoting over-simplification of scientific results in the name of public health and engaging in unseemly behavior towards those who venture conclusions that differ to his.
Willett, who is one of the most frequently quoted academic sources on nutrition in the news media…
h/t Rob H
This is a good article about a legitimate scientific argument. The original publication was a “meta-analysis” AKA a study of other peoples’ studies, where no original work was done and the studied studies are disparate and generally cannot be compared.
I do not like meta-analyseses and am skeptical.
However, the Prof’s dismissal is clearly a bit more than objective.
But, it is a legitimate debate, as is NOT happening in crimate science.
“…one of the most frequently quoted academic sources …”
Funny how our open-minded media always seems to soul-source their ‘expert’ opinions. In Eastern Ontario here’s the approved list.
Legal opinions: Lawrence Greenspon
Safety/consumer issues: Emile Therien
Agriculture: Dwight Foster
Military: Col. Michel Drapeau
Censor: Someone who thinks they know more than you should.
This is happening with not only with medicine, but guns and climate. Stifling the voice of opposition should never be allowed.
Criticism is what keeps the debate open and honest. Well, open anyway.
I thought you might like that one, Kate!
I was just reading an article by lord Moncton that shows a temperature increase of less than 1 degree c since 1850. there is concern that the sun is going into one of it’s quiet phases and that we could see global temperatures drop during the next few years. I read many years ago an article from co2 science.org that speculated that by 2030 we would see an average drop in temperature of about 1.5 degrees c. that would mean there will be some very cold places that currently are not very cold.
Sez:
Willett, who is one of the most frequently quoted academic sources on nutrition in the news media…
No more, the Haav’d clique will destroy him in short order.
They are the ruling aristocracy, they can’t have every Dick and Harry contradicting them.
Look at the mayor of Calgary, now he is all upset that there are people that see things different then him of the Haav’d school.
// The Sound Of Settled Science //
You are quoted in the NATURE editorial —
The political mantra on public-health advice is clear: don’t send mixed messages. The media and those who get their information from the media prefer things in black and white: red wine is good for you; chocolate is bad for you. But, of course, science does not deal in black and white, hence the common criticism that scientists cannot make up their minds. One week, one group argues that extreme exercise is positive for health; the next week, a different set of researchers says the opposite.
[…]
The problem with simple messages and black-and-white statements is that they tend to be absolutes and so the easiest to falsify. The line that the science of global warming is ‘settled’ must have seemed like a good idea at the time, and when taken to refer to the narrowest of scientific questions it is correct, but it was (fairly) interpreted as insistence that no queries remained. Even legitimate debates on outstanding issues — climate sensitivity, say — can now be painted as unsettling not just to the scientific position, but also to the policy response it demands.
Just another clown in the media rolodex……..
Good article and I like the way it ends. “All things in moderation” and that’s the part control freaks, whether in health, climate and lifestyle etc have a problem with. There are always two sides to a story and when “experts” demand ownership to both sides of said story and try to shut down debate on same, it leads to premature conclusions and all too often failed end results. Far too often I have see two or more “experts” debate a problem and reach different conclusions. The primary qualification to being a expert in anything is often missing. It’s called common sense and can’t be taught in any University.
So what are you guys upset about? That science is actually critical and self correcting? Should it be more like religion or conservatism wherein one does not ever question the party line?
This is why science is healthy, because it is always challenging itself.
And no… this is not a reason to continue to deny that the climate is changing because sometimes scientists get it wrong. We have enough evidence that the climate is changing, and that human activity is behind it to act in order to minimize the risk. That conservatives are opposed to the perfectly rational goal of conserving energy would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.
Yes, and that is the rub. It seems much of science today has been prostituted to political agendas, and climate science is the most glaring example, although politicians dictating lifestyle based on junk science and political agendas are gaining fast on the socialist AGW crowd.
peterj, I replied to the email address of yours that the moderator sent me.
“And no… this is not a reason to continue to deny that the climate is changing because sometimes scientists get it wrong. We have enough evidence that the climate is changing, and that human activity is behind it to act in order to minimize the risk. That conservatives are opposed to the perfectly rational goal of conserving energy would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.”
Who has denied the climate is changing? Not we skeptics. As far as skeptics are concerned, the null hypothesis is that the climate of the Earth is constantly changing, and has changed, as far back as the history of the planet can be discovered. Some of these changes are cyclical, some are systematic, say due to changes in ocean circulation brought about by plate tectonics, and some are due to random events, such things as asteroid impacts or nearby supernovas.
You want to see real deniers of change, look no further than Mann and Trenberth, among others, who published papers that tried to deny the existence, or minimize the significance of well known historical climate events like the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, or the Little Ice Age. Had to flatten the handle of the “hockey stick” doncha know?
And no real conservative is against real energy conservation. You think we want to piss our money away? Maybe, for a brief spell, to make a point, like for Human Achievement Hour. But I added insulation to my own home, because, save money. And we object, strenuously, to taxpayer dollars going to fund scams such as large-scale wind and solar schemes, that wind up wasting both money and energy, in the name of energy conservation. Solar and wind work well for small needs, but they don’t scale well. But that’s science, and I know you don’t understand that, since you constantly seem to take the view that science is a body of received knowledge, rather than a disciplined way of understanding natural phenomena.
Received nothing Ken. Double check address ? Have contacted Prof. Penner in Guelph but no reply yet. Hope moderator forgives this rare transgression.
Nature, along with the Lancet and Scientific American have completely squandered their credibility. These once august journals have been hijacked by “progressive” scientists and editors who have published innumerable propaganda pieces on behalf of the leftist fraud known as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (aka, “climate change”).
What the left has done to science is unforgivable. It is time to take our culture back!
Gordinkneehill and Steve, well said. There are too many Trofim Lysenkos around looking for a government grant or kowtowing to a politician looking to scam more tax dollars or get more power over private enterprise.
peterj, try Lance.
From the Forbes article, directly quoting the Nature article: “‘Studies such as Flegal’s are dangerous, Willett says, because they could confuse the public and doctors, and undermine public policies to curb rising obesity rates. “There is going to be some percentage of physicians who will not counsel an overweight patient because of this,” he says. Worse, he says, these findings can be hijacked by powerful special-interest groups, such as the soft-drink and food lobbies, to influence policy-makers.'”
1. “Public policy” should be about protecting individual rights, not about imposing dubious health edicts that violate individual rights.
2. There is a strain of thought within ‘political correctness’ these days that would refuse to counsel overweight people because it “stigmatizes” them.
3. Isn’t it funny how so much dubious science goes hand-in-hand with anti-corporate attitudes?
Quote from the Forbes article: “In other words, findings, no matter how vague, are still good when Willett is involved in the study, even though they muddy the public health message on aspartame, which is that it is safe; but findings, even if they are stronger – as with Flegal’s – are bad when they muddy the public health message on weight gain.”
Science becomes corrupted when scientists are motivated by anything other than finding out the truth. Keeping the government grants rolling in qualifies in the category of “other than finding out the truth”. This likely helps to explain the hatred directed at global warming dissenters, HIV-AIDS dissenters, etc.