Photos by Ellen Weiss.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Red wine, resveratrol, and the credibility factor
On Tuesday we blogged about the latest Hot News that resveratrol, the long-established purportedly disease-protection ingredient in red wine and other foods, isn't protective after all. The study was a modest-sized one in the Chianti region of Italy where the wine is good and the sunshine warm and welcoming.
Though not large or in any sense exhaustive, this study made the news outside of Vatican City only, we might suggest, because it seemed to contradict the literature that has for many years praised resveratrol, and red wine, for its benefits for supposed physiological or biochemical reasons. Naturally, the news media were hot to seize on the new study. It stirred controversy, a favorite of the media.
But how do we know which to believe? Should this study cast doubt on the prior studies' results? If it is a good and reliable result, one can see why it could be reported as News. But hold on.
On what possible grounds would this study be viewed as definitive, or at least definitive enough, to cast doubts on the extensive prior work? If a responsible reporter were contacted by the author or a journal about this, why should the reporter believe or even report these results?
Given the numerous studies supporting a protective effect for resveratrol, on what grounds would this be viewed as credible, or should the media assume there may be problems with the study and that possibility be the headline and basis of the the story? One can think of many issues to do with the epistemology of this kind of study, such as confounding, including confounding socioeconomic factors, as we mentioned in our original post on this story. Why isn't the first reaction of the media that there must be something wrong with the latest results, and the study's bottom line be incorrect?
Indeed, why shouldn't the media treat this as a junk study, not worth reporting, since it did not seem to have any clear or definitive reason for countering prior results? Or at least ask what other factors may have been correlated with exposure to resveratrol, to negate its normally reported effect?
One possibilities is that the result is just a statistical fluke, and the actual resveratrol effect in the Chianti population is protective but that the roll of the sampling dice by chance turned up an opposite result. How would we know?
We can put this another way: doesn't the study show that the media, and perhaps some scientists, treat this as a more definitive study than the prior work, and that that is what they seem to assume makes it newsworthy? One can ask whether we can't expect this one study to be used as a rationale for proposals for funding for yet more, larger studies to resolve this 'controversy'. Or, should we not expect that next week or next year another study will appear, and be given credibility by the media and authors, that will reverse the current wisdom?
The idea that one factor has an important net effect that will be realized is the kind of reductionistic thinking we often criticize, including in our prior resveratrol post. No author would admit to thinking in a one-factor way, because we all know that would make us vulnerable to criticism, but this story shows that underlying the work is just that sort of approach. At some point, if this is the kind of result we get, and we don't assume the current study is flawed, we should say we know enough to conclude that resveratrol has a protective effect, and go forth with other studies rather than repetitions of this one.
Or, if for some reason we actually give credence to this story, we need to ask why so many prior studies were junk studies, and then the question arises as to who to believe, and when we actually have an answer--rather than just another rationale for not going on to something more important, or at least to questions that have actual answers.
Or, it's possible that both results are correct; resveratrol is protective in some populations and some contexts, and not in others. As always, it's hard to know how to interpret contradictory results, and too often it's the latest results that are given most credence for no reason other than that they are the latest results.
Meanwhile, drink red wine if you like red wine, but then don't drive, because that is a risk factor we should actually believe!
Though not large or in any sense exhaustive, this study made the news outside of Vatican City only, we might suggest, because it seemed to contradict the literature that has for many years praised resveratrol, and red wine, for its benefits for supposed physiological or biochemical reasons. Naturally, the news media were hot to seize on the new study. It stirred controversy, a favorite of the media.
But how do we know which to believe? Should this study cast doubt on the prior studies' results? If it is a good and reliable result, one can see why it could be reported as News. But hold on.
On what possible grounds would this study be viewed as definitive, or at least definitive enough, to cast doubts on the extensive prior work? If a responsible reporter were contacted by the author or a journal about this, why should the reporter believe or even report these results?
Given the numerous studies supporting a protective effect for resveratrol, on what grounds would this be viewed as credible, or should the media assume there may be problems with the study and that possibility be the headline and basis of the the story? One can think of many issues to do with the epistemology of this kind of study, such as confounding, including confounding socioeconomic factors, as we mentioned in our original post on this story. Why isn't the first reaction of the media that there must be something wrong with the latest results, and the study's bottom line be incorrect?
Indeed, why shouldn't the media treat this as a junk study, not worth reporting, since it did not seem to have any clear or definitive reason for countering prior results? Or at least ask what other factors may have been correlated with exposure to resveratrol, to negate its normally reported effect?
One possibilities is that the result is just a statistical fluke, and the actual resveratrol effect in the Chianti population is protective but that the roll of the sampling dice by chance turned up an opposite result. How would we know?
We can put this another way: doesn't the study show that the media, and perhaps some scientists, treat this as a more definitive study than the prior work, and that that is what they seem to assume makes it newsworthy? One can ask whether we can't expect this one study to be used as a rationale for proposals for funding for yet more, larger studies to resolve this 'controversy'. Or, should we not expect that next week or next year another study will appear, and be given credibility by the media and authors, that will reverse the current wisdom?
The idea that one factor has an important net effect that will be realized is the kind of reductionistic thinking we often criticize, including in our prior resveratrol post. No author would admit to thinking in a one-factor way, because we all know that would make us vulnerable to criticism, but this story shows that underlying the work is just that sort of approach. At some point, if this is the kind of result we get, and we don't assume the current study is flawed, we should say we know enough to conclude that resveratrol has a protective effect, and go forth with other studies rather than repetitions of this one.
Or, if for some reason we actually give credence to this story, we need to ask why so many prior studies were junk studies, and then the question arises as to who to believe, and when we actually have an answer--rather than just another rationale for not going on to something more important, or at least to questions that have actual answers.
Or, it's possible that both results are correct; resveratrol is protective in some populations and some contexts, and not in others. As always, it's hard to know how to interpret contradictory results, and too often it's the latest results that are given most credence for no reason other than that they are the latest results.
Meanwhile, drink red wine if you like red wine, but then don't drive, because that is a risk factor we should actually believe!
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Red wine doesn't prolong life -- we whine about reductive science
We're still away traveling, but we can't ignore this story: red wine isn't magic after all! The BBC reports that in a study of 800 Italians in Chianti, red wine neither prevented heart disease nor prolonged life. The association between red wine and health has long been reported, and the ingredient that has been thought to be responsible, resveratrol, had been identified years ago. It's supposed to reduce inflammation, and associated disease. Indeed, a whole industry has grown up around this reductive finding, with yet further studies of its effects ongoing, and producers of the chemical gearing up to encourage people to take a resveratrol capsule every morning, along with their statins. The rare miracle that also allows pleasure!
Some epidemiological studies have suggested that chocolate, red wine and berries, which all contain resveratrol, are associated with reduced risk of heart disease and longer life and that this may explain why the French, who generally have a high fat diet, have less heart disease than the US. But the Italian study doesn't show the same effect; nor did researchers find any indication of reduced inflammation.
Some epidemiological studies have suggested that chocolate, red wine and berries, which all contain resveratrol, are associated with reduced risk of heart disease and longer life and that this may explain why the French, who generally have a high fat diet, have less heart disease than the US. But the Italian study doesn't show the same effect; nor did researchers find any indication of reduced inflammation.
Prof Semba said: "The thinking was that certain foods are good for you because they contain resveratrol. We didn't find that at all.
"The story of resveratrol turns out to be another case where you get a lot of hype about health benefits that doesn't stand the test of time."
He says any benefits of drinking wine or eating dark chocolate or berries, if they are there, must come from other shared ingredients. And it's not clear how much you might need to eat or drink.
"These are complex foods, and all we really know from our study is that the benefits are probably not due to resveratrol."Even so, the results of this study will be ignored by many. Resveratrol must be protective. Again, according to the BBC,
Maureen Talbot, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "The results of this study, while interesting, will not change the dietary advice we provide. People should continue to eat plenty of fruit, veg and wholegrains.
"We recognise the need to learn more about the action of resveratrol though, so are funding research into its reported disease-combating properties and how it affects the heart and circulatory system.
"This research is vital as it could form the basis of future medicines."So, yet again, reductive epidemiology is turned on its head. Or, should be. Complexity and confounding are serious, inherent issues in understanding cause and effect, and yet study design after study design after study design ignores the issues. According to the BBC, "Experts say more research is needed to get a definitive answer." No, what's needed instead is the recognition that there is no definitive answer -- reductive science isn't going to prevent heart disease and prolong lives.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Logical Reasoning in Human Genetics, Aug 18 - 22, Helsinki
Logical Reasoning in Human Genetics 2014
Time: August 18-22, 2014.
Every day 9.30AM - 5:30PM. Friday we may end earlyPlace: Seminar Room 3 (SH3), P-Floor, Biomedicum 1 (http://www.biomedicum.fi/), Haartmaninkatu 8, Helsinki, Finland.
The course is meant primarily for graduate students and post-docs in human genetics. The course is sponsored and organized by the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL; http://www.thl.fi), Helsinki Biomedical Graduate Program (HBGP; http://www.hbgs.helsinki.fi), EU's FP7 and BBMRI-LPC; http://www.bbmri-lpc.org).
Why
This course is designed to examine the conceptual, empirical, and theoretical approaches to understanding the complex cause and effect relationships underlying human variation. Despite a century of quantitative research on evolutionary biology and genetics, our hypotheses about the phenogenetic (genotype + environment + culture -> phenotype) relationships underlying human variation seem poorly focused and often based on unnecessarily naïve models. In this course we will review the basics of evolutionary biology, genetic epidemiology, gene mapping, and how to integrate these three disciplines to address questions of causality in human genetics.It is hoped that through this course, students will develop critical thinking and logical reasoning skills to try and learn from what negative experimental results tell us about the architecture of disease and to question the assumptions underlying their experimental approaches to develop better study designs based on better hypotheses for future studies. The reason experiments are said to "fail" is usually because the question was poorly posed or the hypotheses being tested were incompletely thought out and justified, not because of technical or analytical errors. In fact, the results have been a major success in showing that the causal landscape is more complex than had been widely expected, but is in fact consistent with biological and evolutionary theory.
Agenda
Social program
The social program will include: Wine & Cheese, course dinner, and already legendary LR Spårakoff ride (Pub-tram, only one in the World!) with local guide Markus "The Defensive Victory" Perola, including funny commentary from Professor Ken Weiss. Details of these will be given at the beginning of the course.To whom
The course is meant primarily for graduate students and post-docs interested and/or working in human genetics, but applies also to the evolutionary and experimental genetics of wild or model species as well. More senior scientists are welcome, however, in the case there are too many applicants, the priority will be given to below-PI level people.
Course Faculty
Joseph D. Terwilliger, PhD, Associate Professor of Neuroscience (in Psychiatry, in Genetics and Development, and in the Columbia Genome Center), Columbia University, New York, USA and National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland. (Joe's profile page in Columbia University)Kenneth Weiss, PhD, Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Genetics, Department of Anthropology, Penn State University, USA. (Ken's profile page in Penn State)
Anne Buchanan, PhD, Adjunct Senior Research Associate in Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Penn State University, USA.
Markus Perola, MD, PhD, Research Professor, Public Health Genomics Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and FIMM.
Tero Hiekkalinna, PhD, Public Health Genomics Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and FIMM.
How to apply
We will be able to accept only about 50-60 students for the course and the students will be selected according their applications.Registration deadline is 15th of July 2014.
If you have any trouble with the registration form, send email to teaching assistant Tero Hiekkalinna tero.hiekkalinna(at)thl.fi.
What does it cost
You will have to pay for your own travel and accommodation. There is no fee for Helsinki Biomedical Graduate Program (HBGP) students. For the others the course fee is 250 euros (academics) or 500 euros (industry). The details about the payment will be sent with the acceptance letter.Questions
Dr. Markus Perola, e-mail markus.perola(at)thl.fi, phone +358408612557 (applications accepted only via the website above).Accommodation
You can search hotels from here (English): http://www.visithelsinki.fi/en/stay-and-enjoy/accommodationTransportation, maps and weather
(In English) http://www.visithelsinki.fi/en/come/welcome-helsinki/public-transport-helsinkiSome pictures from the previous courses 2004, 2006 and 2013
Ken, 2013
Joe, 2013
Ken, 2006
Picnic at Suomenlinna fortress, 2006
Ken and Joe, 2004
On private tram ride...SpåraKoff! 2004
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Tuscany
We'll get back to science when we get back to reality…
 |
| Olive trees |
 |
| Lucignano d'Asso |
 |
| Rosemary hedge |
 |
| Anthocharis damone? |
 |
| Artichoke |
 |
| Choro de Rua |
Monday, May 5, 2014
Choro in Tuscany
Anne and I are in Tuscany for a few days. Apparently we had to come here to learn about the Brazilian street music called choro. It should be much known. Photos to come soon, from a computer that we actually understand!
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Sigarette elettroniche
Ken wrote about e-cigarettes the other day, after inadvertently wandering into a vapor convention in Washington DC. We're in northern Italy now for a few weeks, and, wandering around the small town where our daughter lives, we ran across this e-cig shop. How quickly this thing is spreading, even with wildly differing views of whether or not they are safe. Someone was telling us yesterday that they are worse than cigarettes. Good subject for epidemiologists in another decade or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)