When the Media Stitches Up Scientists: PBS Pulls a Fast One on Phthalates

One of the most depressing things about writing for STATS was the discovery that many scientists are deeply reluctant to talk to journalists. Most cite the fear of being misquoted or having their positions misinterpreted to fit a black and white narrative that, in scientific terms, is marked by numerous shades of gray. Just as depressing is the discovery that those who talk to journalists are often reluctant to correct mistakes because they fear jeopardizing their future access to the paper. Not all journalists are like this; we have been immensely impressed with how much effort some reporters put into trying to understand complex issues; but the reality is too many either don’t care or are presold on one side of a controversy.

We got a taste of that in the last few weeks, having been approached by PBS’ “NOW” for balance on a story about the supposed risks of phthalates. We could only wish that the media treated more pressing public health problems, such as tobacco and lung cancer in women – with the avidity they have gone after this topic. But nothing quite prepared us for the degree to which “NOW” edited out information that challenged the show’s narrative. It’s not that my colleague Rebecca Goldin, a woman recently honored by the Association of Women in Mathematics for outstanding work, was trying to make the case that phthalates were safe; she was simply saying that the evidence that they were dangerous was very weak.

Perhaps because a significant amount of the scientific evidence on phthalates contradicts the alarming message that Mark Shapiro, an investigative journalist from Berkeley, pushes in his new book, Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products’ (which formed the basis for the NOW show), it was deemed confusing or inconvenient in the face of an urgent appeal by one scientist – Dr. Shanna Swan, the primary source in the NOW program – to respond to the possibility of risk.

But it’s hard to accept that as a possible explanation given that the arguments against Swan’s work (made by independent experts one might add, as well as the plastics industry) were ignored. And the degree of deception really hits home when you consider the full facts behind the strongest argument marshaled by Shapiro and NOW for phthalates being a risk: Europe’s ban on phthalates in toys for children under three.

The permanent ban in 2007 succeeded a series of temporary bans which were not supported by the scientific evidence presented by the European Union’s own risk assessments and which elicited some harsh criticism from the scientists involved in conducting these assessments (see the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Journal of Environmental Monitoring and EurActiv).

This was left, so to speak, on the editing room floor. And so the question of whether there was sufficient scientific evidence for precautionary legislation in Europe, and whether there is a need for such a ban here went unasked. Instead, the journalists at NOW made a decision: there ought to be a ban.

And here is a mathematician’s reply.

Time to Chill Out Over Drugs in the Water

Maia Szalavitz

A recent investigative report by the Associated Press has found traces of various medications – ranging from painkillers to sex hormones to antibiotics – in the drinking water of various locations around the country. The report has now sparked Senate hearings over what is to be done.

But what this intensive investigative report lacks is context and clarity. For example, the story said the drugs were found in concentrations ranging from parts per billion to parts per trillion. The distinction between the two is not trivial: Imagine telling someone that they either owed $100,000 $1,000 or $1,000,000. One might be affordable, the other, catastrophic.

And the AP’s reporting doesn’t tell us anything about whether drugs can have effects in such minute quantities. Homeopathic “medicine” is based on the idea that extremely diluted substances can cure illness, but research suggests that any results are limited to the placebo effect. If I drink water with 1 part per billion of codeine in it (say, 1 billionth of a gram or .000000001 grams) but the effective dose is 60 milligrams, I am highly unlikely to get any pain relief – or any side effects. The dose, as they say, is what makes the poison. If it wasn’t, the naturally-occurring chemicals in vegetables would kill us.

The story also doesn’t provide any means of comparison – how many parts per billion of oil or gasoline or other kinds of contaminants (some of this water comes from treated sewage, scary to think about what lurks in parts per trillion levels there!) are normally found in drinking water? The AP cites possibly dangerous effects on fish, but doesn’t note that these could also be due to other pollutants.

After all this, it’s worth pointing out that the New York Times covered this issue much more thoughtfully a while back, here.

Napping Vs Sleeping

Rebecca Goldin, Ph.D and Jenna Krall

A new study published in Journal SLEEP claims that naps assist in memory retention. As reported by the Washington Post, sleeping during the day may increase the ability to memorize facts. Individual participants showed marked improvement in tasks that they had previously undertaken after napping.

The study specifically analyzed non-REM sleep during the day and did not consider whether the same effects could be seen with increased hours of regular sleep. Scientists have already acknowledged the effects that good sleeping habits have on learning in the classroom. A study from 2002 praises naps for their restorative qualities, but neither this study, nor the one previously mentioned, compares naps with nighttime sleep habits.

Newsweek published suggestions for napping a few months ago under the premise that “a whole body of research shows [naps] increase productivity and alertness in the workplace,” citing the 2002 study. While science may seem to favor midday naps, would these same effects be seen with increased hours in bed at night? Perhaps the real argument is that if scientists cannot convince people to sleep more at night, at least they can persuade them to catch up in the daytime.

Acupuncture and Fertility

As my colleagues Rebecca Goldin Ph.D and Jenna Krall note on STATS.org, acupuncture isn’t the only thing that’s prickly. Take odds ratios, the media keep confusing them with odds, which has news organizations to wildly overhype the powers of acupuncture to increase fertility.

Finally, Oil Prices Really Have Hit a Record

For those of you frustrated by several years of “oil sets new [nominal] record” news stories, the news today, is that it really did surpass the record of $39.50 a barrel set in the 1980s, once adjusted for inflation: $103.95 vs $103.76  Hurrah! Or, rather, not.

Okay, Maybe One Woman and Several Editors are Math-Challenged

The blogosphere is burning over Charlotte Allen’s opinion piece in the Washington Post’s Outlook section this weekend, titled “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?“, for its perpetuation of stereotypes about women. According to to Outlook editor John Pomfret, the piece was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek meditation on women going Beatle-manic over Obama and what it all really means vis a vis gender differences and innate abilities. At one point, Allen writes:

Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true. Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men’s 5.1, though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women.

If you use a common denominator such as “accidents per million miles driven,” the fact that men, overall, drove more miles has already been factored in. Having said that, the idea that women are at an innate disadvantage in math is weak argument for reasons we explain here.