Science matters at The 100 Year LifestyleⓇ. It always has and always will. We often write about and cite recent studies to bring you up to date on the latest information regarding your health and lifestyle. And while we do our research before bringing those studies to you, we aren’t there, usually aren’t part of the studies, and have to rely on the researchers. That’s why transparency matters.
When a study is presented to the public, when a group of researchers make a claim and put their names on the report, we believe it’s safe to make some assumptions. We assume that the researchers did rigorous work, that all the findings were published, and that the data they used was strong. But what if we’re wrong? What if there wasn’t total transparency? Could they have withheld findings that weren’t part of what was ultimately published? Could the data have been manipulated in any way?
Studies are designed to be neutral in that they aren’t looking for a specific outcome, just the truth. Transparency in science is supposed to be non-negotiable. But is all that true? Is it possible that information gatekeepers with financial and power-related incentives have combined to create rules about publishing data that you and I don’t know about?
It’s an interesting question at the heart of Del Bigtree’s most recent film, An Inconvenient Study.
Invisible Research
Scientists are trained to show me, don’t just tell me. Everything they do professionally is open to scrutiny, replication, and challenge. They must constantly provide detailed clarity about how their studies are designed, the study limitations, the data extrapolated, and how that data was analyzed. It’s the uncompromising nature of their profession. If the standards individual scientists hold are any less than this, then all of the scientific community comes under question.
Yet, the “file drawer problem” still exists. That when studies with, for whatever reason, undesirable or null results (meaning all or most of the researcher’s hypothesis were not supported) stay in someone’s “file drawer.” Meanwhile, the positive or news-worthy studies get published, often receiving substantial media attention. Publication bias, or the selective publication of studies based on their results, is real.
Why does this problem exist? It’s actually pretty easy to figure out. First, researchers need journals to publish their work in order to advance their careers. What do the journals want? They want clicks to stay at the top of a very competitive heap. And when it comes to the funders of this research, whether it’s universities, foundations, hospitals, or the pharmaceutical industry, they want the findings to be “impactful.” That means the more social media likes and media coverage, the better. If you’re chasing that type of momentum, no wonder total transparency often takes a back seat.
A Black Hole
So, in 2018 an analysis was done of ClinicalTrials.gov, the official registry. The analysis found that 11% to 43% of completed trials had no associated publication. The findings of the authors of the analysis were that stronger requirements for public reporting were needed. As things stand, transparency isn’t being achieved because the public does not have access to the unpublished information which could and likely would expose biases.
So, here’s what we’ve got. People volunteer for scientific studies, often making themselves vulnerable to untested medicines, protocols, and procedures. Often, they get their hopes up regarding a health challenge they might be experiencing. Someone funds the studies. Institutions and researchers design and work on the studies, often for years, from conception to the review of findings. And then nothing. Whether the findings were neutral, negative, or politically inconvenient, they vanish into institutional archives. From a transparency standpoint, that’s a black hole.
The Gatekeepers
Who are the gatekeepers who are making the decisions about what happens after all the work has been put in? Well, we’ve already looked at who is funding these studies. And it’s those same funders who decide if the study was rigorous enough, if the standards for publication have been met, and if the information should be released or put in the drawer. Even if those decisions are perfectly valid, the point is we will never know because they are rarely transparent. We have no idea what criteria were used or if there may have been conflicts of interest between the funders and the general public. Lack of transparency creates doubt.
Published But Not Transparent
Even studies that make it to print can hide more than they show. It has been reported (ironic, right) that researchers whose research was intended to have specific results will change the results they highlight once the data has been analyzed. They’ve even gone as far as to omit outcomes from the research that don’t fit in with the expectations they held.
When we talk about transparency, we’re not just talking about sharing what you want us to see. We’re talking about sharing all the data, whether it supports the narrative you want to put forward, or not. Anything short of this erodes confidence in science and the people and institutions involved.
So What?
If you made it this far in reading this article you might be thinking, so what? I don’t usually spend my time reading scientific studies. You’re right. Much of the population doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean those studies don’t affect your life—a lot.
Science and scientific studies are at the root of everything, from your healthcare to the food you eat. They literally touch every aspect of your life from the chemicals in the cleaning products the government says are safe to use, to the way our farmers are allowed to grow our food. With that in mind, are you good with only partial information being shared? How does that impact your “informed decisions?”
A Few Tips
So, now that we know we should be looking at the science, how can we read it with confidence?
By asking a bunch of questions. Is the study published in a peer-reviewed journal? Are the methods used by the data and the raw data from the study available to the public?
Did the researchers “pre-register” the study, meaning they declared in writing their hypotheses and methods before the study was completed and the results were in?
Did anyone involved (including funders) have any conflicts of interest?
Once you’re done asking your questions, apply your own common sense to the situation. Don’t be daunted by the big terms and the scientist’s credentials. You can, and should, be involved in this process.
Truth
Ask any type of scientist and they will tell you that science is the pursuit of truth. Unfortunately, the process of uncovering that truth has been chipping away at its own trustworthiness for some time now.
The learning process is the same for young children as it is for highly credentialed scientists. When we can see the path from question to method to data to conclusion, we can evaluate and learn. When any step along the way is hidden from us, we’re left to guess.
If science, real science, has a superpower, it’s the willingness to be challenged. But that’s only possible with transparency. By letting transparency fall by the wayside, we’re turning science from a process of discovery to one of control.
To partner up with a healthcare provider who has your back and will give you the whole truth about your body’s innate ability to heal, find a 100 Year LifestyleⓇ provider near you today.
The post Transparency Matters appeared first on The 100 Year Lifestyle®.
