The other side
When I undertook responsibility for this column, Mike Patrick, managing editor of The Press, told me I could write about anything I wanted. Today I am going to check the boundaries by commenting on his recent editorial - "Dare to study the other side" - published on Friday, June 25, which was my daughter's birthday, coincidentally.
Patrick argued we should consult multiple sources, preferably ones that contradict our own views; if you like Huffington, read Drudge. If you favor FOX, watch MSNBC. I am amazed at how many people in North Idaho - and probably everywhere else - find ways to circumvent that notion even though it is basic to research.
The number of sources we cite is irrelevant; "more" counts for nothing in research. Years ago, a student in a research course I taught tried to show a link between consumption of aspartame and brain cancer. She cited multiple sources to support her thesis; but additional research showed the same person had written all of her sources under different names. That was a learning experience for her, I hope. I did not lower her grade. She had been deceived by a snake oil salesman.
A while back, anti-abortion advocates argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer; women who had abortions, they said, are more likely to get breast cancer. I have heard and read many good arguments against abortion; increased risk of breast cancer is not one of them. The National Institutes of Health did a study and found no evidence for a link.
Of the entire blue ribbon committee, which numbered more than 100 cancer researchers, there was one dissenter: Joel Brind, Ph.D., a professor at the State University of New York. His work is cited repeatedly by anti-abortion advocates. Brind's academic and professional credentials are excellent. He also characterizes himself as a born again, pro-life Christian. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of that and Brind deserves whatever credibility he has earned. But the other scientists on the panel deserve what they have earned, too.
If there is an abortion/breast cancer link, women should be informed about it. Any legitimate effort to discover the truth in this important matter, however, should come down firmly on the side of the huge NIH committee, not on the side of the single dissenter. Does this make Dr. Brind wrong? Not necessarily; Columbus thought the world was round when hardly anyone else did. Citing his work, however, while ignoring the work of his more than 100 esteemed colleagues is disingenuous, to say the least.
Legitimate researchers study all pertinent studies and evaluate them objectively; they do not seek out sources supporting their hypotheses and reject those that do not. Similarly, legitimate researchers trust huge studies with appropriate scientific controls undertaken by reputable institutions; they give less, if any, weight to sources that do not have reputations for outstanding and objective research.
Accordingly, in discussing the abortion/breast cancer link, everyone should prefer the study by the National Institutes of Health, an additional study of 100,000 women by Harvard, and a well controlled study in Denmark of 1.5 million women to another study, often cited by anti-choice websites, done by the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka, which is impossible to verify for scientific methodology.
The next time we read a letter to the editor that cites numerous websites for support, readers should consider quality as well as quantity. I apologize, in advance, to all Press advertisers selling snake oil.
Tim Hunt, the son of a linotype operator, is a retired college professor and nonprofit administrator who lives in Hayden with his wife and three cats. He can be reached at [email protected].