Sorry folks, but confusing the uses corporations and/or special
interest groups put to research and research itself is a logical
fallacy.

The quality of the science is at issue, not how it was funded. If the
science is bad, attack it. That's how it works. If we shut off the
funding pipeline, there would be no more research. Someone has got to
pay for it.

In the case of the walnut study, no one would have done so. It was
clearly in the interests of the walnut growers to test experimentally
what was a reasonable scientific hypothesis. The result support the
hypothesis. The fact that the funding agency may benefit does not, in
any way, invalidate the results.

Would the reseach have been done if they had not supported it.
Probably not. There are too many researchable questions in nutrition.
It is unlikely a senior scientist would have proposed this research to
a funding agency like NSF or NIH. It is unlikely that such an agency
would have seen it as a high enough priority to support. But, the
walnut group was able to get the work done because they were willing
to support it.

Frankly, if you look at the facts of the hypothesis, it was pretty
much a slam dunk to predict that if you eat enough of your lipid
calories as walnuts, there will be a beneficial effect on serum
cholesterol. But, you can't say that without data. All they did was go
out and get the data. Why do you find that so offensive?

Your examples are illegitimate uses of research data taken out of
context. This is not the same thing.

And, I never said to not be skeptical. Reread what I wrote and you
will see I encourage it. What I'm saying is don't trash good science
simply because it was done with an agenda.

gg


On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:19:28 -0400, "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:

|gregpresley wrote:
|
| 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.
|
|
|A case in point is the famous Framingham study which studied cholesterol and
|heart disease. The study indicated there is no correlation and yet
|pharmacutical companies have taken bits and pieces out of the study and
|ignored other data and concluded there was a link. Of course, they are
|making tons of money convincing the public there is a link and making
|cholesterol lowering drugs.