It’s the Thought that Counts

Several stories have been floating about lately, all generally on the topic of popular understanding of science. Here are the highlights.

A court has ruled that the University of California was well within its rights to deny admission to students they found unqualified as a result of their having attended Christian schools. The schools in question taught many classes that were extremely Bible-centric, to the exclusion of nearly all other content, making it impossible to meet the UC admissions requirements with their courses misleadingly called “biology” or “history.” I found this personally interesting in light of my earlier comments on how far it’s appropriate to extend religious tolerance. Even though it has upset some religious people, the courts have ruled that it’s okay to assess religious descriptions of the world and find them academically lacking.

Speaking of lack of academic background, I was happy for once to read USA Today, which reported that 76% of Americans believe that improving science education should be a priority issue for presidential candidates. In keeping with this, about 26% say that they themselves have an adequate understanding of science, but more ridiculously “44% couldn’t identify a single scientist, living or dead, whom they’d consider a role model for the nation’s young people.” My reaction is similar to Doug Natelson’s: Or dead? Really? We couldn’t name, oh I don’t know, Einstein? Perhaps he is not hip enough for the youth. (Check out Doug’s post for some more details on presidential candidates and their support for science research funding, as well.)

The USA Today article discussed science literacy in the context of voting ability. If Americans aren’t sufficiently “science-savvy,” how can we make the right choices about science issues? It’s not just about budgeting for research, it’s also about healthcare availability, education, stem cells, abortion… and it’s about every issue that invokes statistics. A bit more math than science, yes, but if we were more educated about science we’d be better at identifying large enough sample sizes and acknowledging deviations from the mean. That applies to almost every issue on which there is public debate involving presentation of evidence.

I certainly agree that science education should be a bigger priority than it currently is, and my opinions were only reinforced by this report on end of life care, which stated that 57% of the American public believes that “God’s intervention could save a family member if physicians declared treatment would be futile.” Almost 20% of medical professionals share this belief. While I don’t believe in miracles myself, I of course can’t offer positive falsification of their existence. What we should all be able to agree on, though, is that if all medical signs point to imminent or already-real death, a miracle recovery is not coming this time. There are many other interesting outcomes in the study, such as differing opinions about persistent vegetative state and how long it is acceptable to demand continuing treatment of a dying loved one. Orac of Respectful Insolence wrote a very thoughtful and thorough treatment of all this, cautioning against becoming too preoccupied with the religion aspect. I agree wholeheartedly with his bottom line:

Indeed, the focus on religion takes away the focus from the real issue: improving public understanding of scientific medicine and what it can and cannot accomplish. Lots of patients have unrealistic beliefs about health care based on all sorts of things, be they religion, faith in pseudoscientific quackery, or just fears based on misinformation that is rife in the media (i.e., the claim by antivaccinationists that vaccines cause autism). … Persuading families and patients that what evidence-based medicine recommends is the best for their injured or ill loved ones requires a far gentler touch.

Tags: discrimination, education, pseudoscience, religion, science

Due to some scheduling freedom, I’ve lately become a bit nocturnal, and I’ve found myself watching a lot of late-night/early-morning TV. This has given me the opportunity to reflect on the ridiculous ads that companies save until we are maximally sleep-deprived and hopefully stupid enough to believe the crap that they are shoveling. Frankly, it is unbelievable.

I wanted to write something all about Dr. Frank’s No Pain Spray, because I’ve seen about nine zillion commercials for that. But once you get over the fact that it’s an oral spray that looks like a breath freshener but that’s supposed to provide all the way up to post-surgery level pain relief (no, I’ll take the Percocet, please), the fact that it claims not one but ten different homeopathic ingredients (slightly increasing the probability that a single non-water molecule might exist in the spray), and the fact that it’s only advertised at 3 AM (not a good sign for credibility), there’s really not a lot more to mock. Borrr-ing. Besides, someone else has done it more thoroughly than I would care to.

However, I think it’s important to say something about a more general problem I have with this class of advertisements. All these diet pills, “male enhancement” tablets, and so on make their claims of widespread success, then display the tiny text: “This product has not been evaluated by the FDA.” Is that enough to meet our legal standard for truth in advertising?

The Federal Trade Commission has this very clear FAQ about false advertising on their website. In particular I think it’s worth highlighting this one.

What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC’s Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

— Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
— Is “material” - that is, important to a consumer’s decision to buy or use the product.

It goes on to explain the process the FTC uses to investigate claims of false advertising, and uses the particular example of a mouthwash that claims to prevent colds. The FTC looks from the point of view of a “reasonable consumer” and evaluates both “express and implied claims,” checking to see if the advertiser has enough proof to back them up. In the particular example of medical or other scientific claims, the advertiser is expected to have “competent and reliable scientific evidence.”

I also found a page on the FTC’s website called Dietary Supplements: An Advertising Guide for Industry. It has a lot of important and relevant information, and in particular in section II.C.3 mentions the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) disclaimer, “that the statement has not been evaluated by FDA and that the product is not intended to ‘diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.’” DSHEA doesn’t explicitly apply to advertisements, but this document does say that it’s a good idea to include the disclaimer “to prevent consumers from being misled about the nature of the product and the extent to which its efficacy and safety have been reviewed by regulatory authorities.” I was glad to see this example used to illustrate the issue:

Example 34: An advertisement for an herbal supplement includes strong, unqualified claims that the product will effectively treat or prevent diabetes, heart disease, and various circulatory ailments. The advertiser does not have adequate substantiation for this claim, but includes the DSHEA disclaimer prominently in the ad. In face of the strong contradictory message in the ad, the inclusion of the DSHEA disclaimer is not likely to negate the explicit disease claims made in the ad, and will not cure the fact that the claims are not substantiated.

This is a good standard to have. There are two prongs to the DSHEA disclaimer; I’ve usually only seen the first half used (in small and hard-to-read print, no less). The second half, that the product is not intended to provide any actual medical service, would seem ridiculous when compared to the explicit claims of medical service made over and over again in the ad. Of course it’s intended to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure something! The first half of the disclaimer, though, is even less effective at offsetting the false advertising. The lies may not have been evaluated by a regulatory agency, but that doesn’t make it okay to lie. It’s the advertiser’s job to make sure what’s in the ads is true, and this feeble attempt to displace blame is laughable.

The problem, then, is not that we don’t have a good standard delineating what’s false advertising, bur rather that the standard is not being enforced. These advertisements aren’t just stupid, they’re nefarious — they’re lies told only when viewers are expected to be at their weakest emotionally and blurriest rationally.The FTC needs to step it up and get these cranks off the air.

Tags: health, law, pseudoscience, science

The last issue of Newsweek reports on Laura Day, a New York-based psychic business consultant. I was horrified to read the opening bit about the very technically competent hard drive company Seagate hiring her to run a management workshop. I guess motivational speakers at management workshops are always sort of nine parts fluff to one part content, but hiring a psychic seems like going a little too far. Interesting that they were impressed by her ability to intuit a disconnect between R&D and marketing. She must have gone to great lengths to divine that insight — like maybe reading a Dilbert comic strip before she arrived.

Perhaps Day does have some powers of intution — at least enough to realize that she’d get better business by avoiding that stigmatized term, “psychic.” From the Newsweek article:

Day is one of a small but expanding cadre of corporate psychic consultants—the professionalized face of an occupation better known for hokey headscarves and crystal balls. Rebranded as “intuitionists” or “mentalists”—terms more palatable to mainstream America—psychic advisers in recent years have been crossing over into the world of legitimate business, where they are used by decision makers in law, finance and entertainment looking for an edge in a down economy. “I specialize in nonbelievers,” says Day, referring to her roster of “red-meat-eating, Barneys-shopping, Type A personalities.”

Well, they’re not that hard to win over, because they’re willing to pay $10,000 a month for Day’s services. I don’t know if that’s really the mark of a nonbeliever.

“Intuition” is a real phenomenon, based upon almost subconscious detection of important cues that might be hard to consciously identify. You might notice that a person’s facial expressions, tone of voice, or way of moving are slightly different from what’s usual, which could clue you in to the idea that something is troubling them. Intuition is a valuable skill for management consultants, as they have to synthesize an accurate understanding of events from different people’s perspectives, watch individuals working together and analyze the dynamics, and give advice based on the trends they observe. People don’t usually come out and say to each other, “I hate taking orders from you” or “I disagree with your philosophy of how this office should be run;” it’s all much more subtle than that, so intuition about others’ feelings is essential.

After perusing Day’s website, though, I don’t think she really bills herself as not-a-psychic the way the Newsweek article suggests. The Experience Intuition section contains recordings on how to “send healing” to people or situations who need it and how to give your own “intuitive reading.” In describing the books she’s written, she says she “showed readers how to apply [intuitive] techniques in their professional and romantic lives while developing a variety of advanced intuitive skills such as telepathy and precognition.” In the first sentence it does sound like this might be just another take on relationship advice. (When your girlfriend says nothing’s wrong but then slams the door in your face, use your intuition….) But then she goes all Philip K. Dick on us! What is this, Minority Report?

“Remember when doing a reading that when you give to another, you give to yourself, because we are all really one energy in the circle,” Day says in the “Prologue to intuitive reading” recording. Um, right. Then she says you might get only glimmers of impressions that won’t make much sense to you, so you have to ask the person you’re doing a reading for to fill in the details for you — a classic psychic reading trick that makes the subject feel like they’re getting some information while really they’re explaining it all themselves. (Example: “I sense a man… the letter J is associated with him somehow.” “Oh yes, my uncle! His middle initial is J!” “Yes, I’m now getting a strong uncle sense….”) Thankfully she does tell people not to give medical advice using these techniques, though the natural question is, if these techniques really work, then why not?

Speaking of medical advice, I found this thread in a part of the forum dedicated to “Health and Healing,” which seems to be about half people asking for healing energies to be sent to their ailing loved ones, and half requests for help with specific medical problems — blatantly ignoring Day’s directions. I liked this thread in particular not only because it was for a really weird-sounding medical ailment that really ought to have a doctor’s attention (the topic is “Brown lower eyelids - dry & wrinkly”), but also because most people are giving really general and obvious advice. The most “intuitive” they get is having sensed the word “nutrition” while thinking about the problem, but (a) it’s not that mind-blowing to say “Are you eating a balanced diet?” when someone asks you for medical advice, and (b) I’m particularly unimpressed by the poster who mentions it after having read it already in the original question.

Like all alleged psychics, Laura Day and her followers do a decent job of making educated guesses while padding their readings with nonsense. There’s something to be gained by using a bit of intuition to supplement cold, hard intellect, to tell you when you can’t trust a new business partner who offers you a deal that looks lucrative on paper or to warn you that a close friend or relative might be hiding some important information from you… but intuitive skills like those aren’t worth $10,000 a month. My favorite part of the article was this:

(Though she admits her teenager can be psychically distracting as well: “I don’t want to see what he did with that girl until 2 a.m.,” she says. “But I can.”)

Are you kidding me? Is there any mother who doesn’t “see” what their teenage child is up to when they’re out until the wee hours with a significant other? It really doesn’t take psychic powers.

Tags: pseudoscience, psychics