Well, it appears that I did not get my flu shot fast enough, since this week has been spent blowing my nose and taking decongestants so that I may be able to breathe. The best laid plans...

Most scientists try to keep up with the literature, but this is becoming extremely difficult as more and more information is being published. When I was a graduate student, I spent a few hours browsing the most recent Current Contents to stay up-to-date. Today, I am lucky to be able to sit down in the library for even a few minutes, and the published version of Current Contents is out-of-date by the time it arrives. Internet time has hit research publications. I can download articles from NEXT month's edition of several journals. Databases, such as Ovid, now have the latest editions of Current Contents or Medline available weeks before we receive a printed version.

The downside of this easy access is the deluge of information that is available. This is not strictly a problem of biological research but it can have important ramifications on information flow in research. One of these is the difficulty in critically evaluating new publications.

There is an interesting article in The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice (you may need to register to see it). A problem faced by doctors today is the easy access to biological information by their patients. The article gives a case study of a patient waving a press release in front of the doctor, saying that they wanted to get the therapy discussed. This reverses the normal direction of patient care and is somewhat intimidating to the doctors. I have personally witnessed examples of this sort of behavior. My mother, who ran in horror whenever anything technical was discussed during my graduate school days, has been on the Internet for almost 4 years now. She uses it to do genealogical research, watch her investments and get news. She also now knows a lot more about medicines and makes sure her doctor knows. Now, a lot of the news for the general populace is generated by press releases, either directly or after a reporter massages it. My mother sees some bit of information on the Internet and I get call (or e-mail) about it. I am her trusted source, to help filter the information and provide perspective.

A recent press release serves as a good example. The title ('Long phone call results in 'mini-stroke' for psychiatrist ') is sure to get someone's attention. Can you suffer "stroke" symptoms from using a phone? Now as a scientist, I find it interesting that some people can cut off the flow of blood to their brain by bending their neck. Considering how relatively unprotected our neck is compared to the relative importance of all that passes through it (i.e. food, blood, nerves), it is amazing that more problems do not occur. But many people do not have the ability to critically analyze something like this. So I get a phone call from my mom wondering whether she should do all of her talking on a phone via speakerphone, in order to make absolutely sure she does not suffer from a "transient ischemic attack" (of course I have to explain what ischemic means first).

It becomes even more difficult when the data are more ambiguous. Take these 3 press releases, all describing the same report:

Research: Day care affects mother-child interactions

Only small link found between hours in child care and mother-child interaction

Study finds that Child Care Does Impact Mother-Child Interaction

Now which is it? Does day care have an impact or is there only a small link? Well, you can have a look at the article itself. In the first place, the authors themselves say that the effect is small and that the educational level of the mother is a much stronger factor. But here is my favorite quote:

The apparent consistency over time of the small negative association between hours of care and mother—child interaction may suggest that the effect is more a product of differences in mothers who use more hours of care than it is a consequence of hours of nonmaternal care. That is, the findings may indicate that mothers who are less sensitive to their infants' signals (or who have children who are less engaging) use child care for more hours.

In other words, the study can not really tell if the correlation means that putting children in day care longer results in less sensitive mothers or whether less sensitive mothers put their children in day care longer. It can not determine cause and effect. Now this aspect is not mentioned in any of the headlines. If mentioned at all, it is buried deep in the article. Of course, saying insensitive mothers leave their children in day care longer is not as "sexy" as saying that leaving their children in day care produces less sensitive mothers. Of course, educating the mothers may completely negate either effect but who wants to hear that, right?

So, how does one read this sort of information in a critical fashion? Well, one of the first steps is to emphasize the word "critical". One of the primary traits of a good scientist is to be skeptical of almost anything. It is so easy to fool yourself when you are dealing with a biological process. The whole purpose of peer review is to bring skeptical minds to the problem, let them attack it and see what remains. Press releases can be useful for identifying an interesting paper, but their purpose is to get your attention, not to necessarily further knowledge. So, try to read the original article. Nothing beats reading exactly what the authors wrote. It is usually a simple matter to determine whether the press release accurately describes the research by reading the abstract, introduction and discussion.

Also remember that very little research is the FINAL word on the subject. Often the research needs to be repeated or it creates many new questions. If it describes a small effect or something startling, withhold acceptance. Someone said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'm not sure who that was, but I'll go check right now---on the Internet.