gustavo, it ALWAYS makes a difference who is funding the research. Good
science starts with a genuine question - bad science starts with a premise
that someone "wants' the data to prove - hence the danger that somewhere
within that process, data will be altered or non-supportive data deleted.
It's not that these studies will come up with wrong answers - much of the
time, they will probably be on the right track. But a skeptical person will
always want to double check the data that comes from a study paid for by a
group looking for a particular result.
Just this week, the Sugar Council of American tried to put pressure on
the US to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization because one of
WHO's most recent studies was atrributing the rapid increase in obesity
around the globe to the fact that peoples' diets now include a very large
percentage of sugar calories. The study found that 10% of calories from
sugar is ok, but more than that starts to increase the danger of obesity.
The sugar council says, "oh no, OUR research proves that a diet with 30%-40%
from sugar calories is perfectly healthy". Well, I know which of those two
studies I'm likely to trust......even without looking at the
methodology.....
wrote in message
news
Sorry Dr. Solo, but that's a cheap shot. I wouldn't comment except you
say you are actually responsible for teaching students. Sorry state of
affairs when someone at your level of ignorance is entrusted with that
responsibility.

Can you take issue with the methodology, the data, the results? If
not, what difference does it make who's funding the research.

Every working scientist knows that research that doesn't get funded
doesn't get done. There is a clear health benefit to omega 3 oils. We
know that from reams of scientific data. Walnuts are fairly high in
omega 3 oils. One can logically conclude that there is a health
benefit to eating walnuts. So, should we leave it there OR should we
do the experiment and demonstrate it scientifically.

Doing the experiment is how science works. Can we agree on that? If
there is a benefit to, for example, the walnut growers of California,
then why not fund the research that is based on valid scientific
hypothesis. It's not like a bunch of walnut farmers did the research,
as your assinine comments imply. Reputable scientists in the US and
abroad conducted multiple studies all leading to the same conclusion.

Attack the study, the methodology, the data, the results or the
interpretation of those results. If you have legitimate cause to doubt
any of those, put it out there. That's how science works. But some
cheap shot about who may or may not have funded the research is an
absurd comment. That's not science; it's stupidity.

I hope your students have a chance to study with real scientists who
can undo whatever damage your nonsense has done. With teachers like
you on the loose it's no wonder we have a president who doesn't accept
evolution.




On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:18:43 GMT, wrote:

|LOL.. this is the example I use for my students when talking about how
who is paying
|creates a bias in science.
|this is the example cause the "study" was funded by the walnut growers of
|california".
|http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~bchem280/omega.html
|Ingrid
|
|
wrote:
|I should add that we'd all be better off if we ate more walnuts. The
|omega-3 oil they contain (same as oil from cold-water fishes) is one
|protection against heart disease. Well and truly documented by solid
|scientific studies here and abroad. Eat a handful a day; live until
|something else kills you. Of course, drinking that Lake county wine is
|proving to be beneficial too.
|
|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
|http://puregold.aquaria.net/
|www.drsolo.com
|Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
|compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
|endorsements or recommendations I make.