You can trust them to continue diving into the science of nutrition. The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.
Consider what's happened: First, health authorities made observations about diets and various diseases, creating hypotheses along the way. Next, they gathered some data and analyzed it. They drew conclusions from that data and made recommendations based on those conclusions.
Over time, more observations were made. More hypotheses were developed, more data was collected and analyzed, and the conclusions changed. This is the nature of science. We make decisions based on what we know at the time. If new evidence is found, we revise our theories and make different recommendations.
I think there is a problem, but it doesn't lie with the health authorities themselves. (Not that there aren't problems in the health field, but that's for another discussion.) Instead, the problem lies in how various other authorities use the information provided by the health professionals.
As the information and recommendations make their way through government, the issue becomes politicized, and politics frequently wins out over science. As the information is reported by the mainstream press, it is also sensationalized and frequently blown out of proportion. Going by the headlines in many publications, everything that is bad for you becomes good for you and vice versa every few years.
Rarely, if ever, do you see an attempt at understanding nutrition, the nature of the scientific process behind the recommendations, or a call for simple moderation. Yet that's what we need. We need government officials who are willing to listen carefully to the health professionals without allowing lobbyists to influence their decisions. (Corn sugar? Really?) We also need a press that is willing to educate the public rather than simply splash attention-getting headlines and content-free articles everywhere.
I doubt we'll see either of these things happen in our lifetimes, so it's up to us to educate ourselves, our families, and each other. Then, maybe, we'll start eating right and enjoy a healthy life.
Being in the midst of a global obesity epidemic brought on by thirty years of following the nutritional advice of scientists really isn't "a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method". Especially when the government and most other health authorities are still actively promoting the bad science that caused the problem to begin with.
This was bad science not politics. Dr. Lustig (of Sugar the bitter truth fame: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) explains the details of it, but to sum up; Ancel Keys authored the Seven Countries Study that linked heart disease with dietary fat that that study formed the foundation of our nutritional knowledge ever since. According to Lustig, Keys preformed the first multivariate regression analysis and messed it up but we have been teaching it and living by it for 30+ years. Its still a challenge to get
Everybody loves to place science on some pedestal and pretend that politics is the source of all our problems.
We have found scientific justifications for our racism and other quirks, habits and general prejudices for a very long time:
Don't think that because <1950s commercial narrator voice>This information was brought to you by Science!</1950s commercial narrator voice> that it is necessarily correct. I spoke to James Flynn (The guy the Flynn effect is named after) and it turned out that he only got into studying IQ to disprove the science of the day showing that blacks were inferior. He has gone on to show that women are also equally intelligent (Imagine!). He is still working on debunking racist, sexist science decades later. The science around nutrition is no more reliable and no less subject to being shaped by our cultural prejudices.
>The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.
This is actually not very good PR for science. The wonderful illustration here is that after billions of dollars and millions of lives we realized we were wrong? What system couldn't do that?
To me, what this actually illustrates is the mistaken way we use science today:
Today: "Ok, it looks like it's probably fat that's bad. Ok, everyone! No more fat"
And everyone laughs and points at all the stupid uneducated fundies still eating fat.
Tomorrow: "Oh, we were totally wrong about everything we said. Ok, everyone! Stop what ever you're doing!"
And now we get to laugh at all the stupid people who don't eat fat anymore.
Scientific method never proves anything, it's only good for disproving things. If a (valid, i.e. falsifiable) theory doesn't get proven wrong we develop more and more confidence. That still doesn't mean it's right though.
The problem isn't science or the scientific method. It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it. The studies themselves are probably littered with probabilities, statistics and caution conclusions. That doesn't work when you're trying to sell snake oil.
Just look at the whole anti-oxidant craze with cranberries, pomegranate and acai berries. Suddenly people are buying gallons of juice. The scientists didn't do that.
>It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it.
In most case; scientists are salesmen/marketers. They have to be because they're salaries come from grant money. There are plenty of examples of scientists themselves trumping things up.
Religion, for one. Alternative medicine for another. Any fixed mindset philosophy that has no feedback loop between "reality" and "what it advocates".
You know tomorrow is predicted to be judgement day, right?[1] Do you think that guy/group is going to change his/their philosophy one iota when tomorrow is not judgement day? Even when they've predicted it before and been wrong before?
[1] http://search.google.com/search?q=judgement%20day%20may%2021... and http://www.wecanknow.com/ claims "the date of the rapture of believers will take place on May 21, 2011 [..] Study the proofs that God has so graciously given in His Word showing us that these dates are 100% accurate and beyond dispute.". In a couple of days, find those people and ask about their "100% accurate and beyond dispute" claims.
Wrong. All religions have, in fact, adjusted to changing realities. The Pope has made changes, the Jews don't sacrifice animals anymore, etc. You have a point with "alternative medicine" though.
You can trust them to continue working on the research that gets them grant money. Where that grant money comes from tends to have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of the research. This is a problem that must be addressed before science is actually science and not marketing.
Consider what's happened: First, health authorities made observations about diets and various diseases, creating hypotheses along the way. Next, they gathered some data and analyzed it. They drew conclusions from that data and made recommendations based on those conclusions.
Over time, more observations were made. More hypotheses were developed, more data was collected and analyzed, and the conclusions changed. This is the nature of science. We make decisions based on what we know at the time. If new evidence is found, we revise our theories and make different recommendations.
I think there is a problem, but it doesn't lie with the health authorities themselves. (Not that there aren't problems in the health field, but that's for another discussion.) Instead, the problem lies in how various other authorities use the information provided by the health professionals.
As the information and recommendations make their way through government, the issue becomes politicized, and politics frequently wins out over science. As the information is reported by the mainstream press, it is also sensationalized and frequently blown out of proportion. Going by the headlines in many publications, everything that is bad for you becomes good for you and vice versa every few years.
Rarely, if ever, do you see an attempt at understanding nutrition, the nature of the scientific process behind the recommendations, or a call for simple moderation. Yet that's what we need. We need government officials who are willing to listen carefully to the health professionals without allowing lobbyists to influence their decisions. (Corn sugar? Really?) We also need a press that is willing to educate the public rather than simply splash attention-getting headlines and content-free articles everywhere.
I doubt we'll see either of these things happen in our lifetimes, so it's up to us to educate ourselves, our families, and each other. Then, maybe, we'll start eating right and enjoy a healthy life.