• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
spygirl

Science v. bossy public sector wimmin with clipboards ...

Recommended Posts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49877237

A controversial study says cutting down on sausages, mince, steak and all other forms of red or processed meat is a waste of time for most people.

The report - which disagrees with most major organisations on the planet - says the evidence is weak and any risk to people's health is small.

Some experts have praised the "rigorous" assessment.

But others say "the public could be put at risk" by such "dangerously misguided" research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statisticians have broadly supported the way the study has been conducted.

Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, called it an "extremely comprehensive piece of work" .

And Prof David Spiegelhalter, from the University of Cambridge, said: "This rigorous, even ruthless, review does not find good evidence of important health benefits from reducing meat consumption

"In fact, it does not find any good evidence at all."

This study has, quite frankly, gone down like a lead balloon, with many in the field disagreeing with how the findings have been interpreted.

Public Health England officials told BBC News they had no intention of reviewing their advice on limiting meat intake.

Dr Marco Springmann, from the University of Oxford, said the "dangerously misguided" recommendations "downplay the scientific evidence", which, in any case, comes from a "small number of meat-eating individuals from high-income countries".

https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/people/dr-marco-springmann/

In his doctoral research, Marco has focused on the distributional impacts of national and global climate policies, and on options for integrating the responsibility for consumption-driven greenhouse gas emissions into policy-making. Earlier research projects dealt with climate change adaptation, the relationship of sustainability and long-term discounting, and the effects that aerosols have on local air pollution.

Marco holds two Master degrees, one in Physics from Stony Brook University, New York, and one in Sustainability with concentration in Ecological Economics from the University of Leeds, UK. He has taken part in a structured graduate program at the German Institute of Economics Research (DIW Berlin), and he completed internships at the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, and research visits at Resources for the Future, the European Investment Bank, and the China Energy and Climate Project (CECP) of Tsinghua University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The counter argument from the article

 

One of the main concerns has been around bowel cancer. 

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer created headlines around the world when it said processed meats do cause cancer.

It also said red meats were "probably carcinogenic" but there was limited evidence.

 

so, they have been basing advice to shut out red meat on the basis of no scientific evidence. 

Twats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spygirl said:

I would guess the WHO is goign the same way as the UN - international body stuffed full of cranks and loons, sent by various bent countries.

 

Going? 9_9

That isn’t a comment on your kretboard by the way. Although it also works as one. ;)

Edited by Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutrition has for so long been a "feels" based psuedo science where people regurgitate whatever is the latest fashionable advice and keep pumping it out long after it has been disproved: the NHS with its low fat diet, Gillian McKeith with her mail order degree.

There's also a wide streak of self-flaggelation (if you like it then it must be bad for you) which combined with the vegan lobby has been trying to clamp down on everything from steaks to bacon for years.

None of those VIs with their psuedo qualifications are simply going to look at the evidence, admit that they are wrong, and shut up.

Nope they will keep banging their drum: eat low fat because, don't eat red meat because.

 

The closest parallel of which I can think is government policy on drugs where they call in experts in the field to advise them. The experts advise them as to what they should do. They look at the advice, decide that it will lose them votes, sack the experts and carry on as before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dgul said:

[I'll admit that I've got a chip on my shoulder about this.  I was an academic when younger and worked on a new area/theory in a niche science (not saying which).  This went completely against the mainstream and had significant push-back to the point that when I got to about 30ish couldn't get any more posts, other than zero-value lecturer at crappy oolyuniversity (so I changed approach to my career; I stopped doing that sort of thing)  Now, I'm happy to admit that it might be because I'm crap, but the fact that the theories I was proposing back then are now completely mainstream (and are the new 'club') does grate somewhat]

Sounds very much like the pushback from mainstream statisticians against the self-learning / neural network algorithms I experienced in the early nineties, the area went seemingly dead for a while and then exploded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgul said:

when a decent %age of scientists are just going with the established theories, and the %age that would challenge it haven't got a job in the field because no-one will employ or publish them because their theories aren't mainstream.  The few 'challenger' scientists tend to be those who are already established (perhaps close to retirement -- both 'senior' and with less to lose), or those from other fields (less exposure to the 'club').

This is what I found. I did a PhD in understanding what limits the efficiency of LEDs and lasers emitting visible wavelengths. Theoretically, the devices shouldn't emit any light due to the material quality being poor. Engineers in Japan gave it a go anyway and they were way more efficienct than expected. There were 3 camps to explain what was going on. Groups would always align themselves with that of their group and contribute research backing up the claim. 

You could often interpret the results differently and if you were modelling you could model it with different ideas. After getting papers rejected, prob because it went against the reviewer's opinion of the cause, I thought screw this. I didnt want my career to be in the hands of someone who may not give a fair review. 

The other issue is that scientists now get judged on how many papers they have produced. Its then better to just publish shit loads and stick that on the CV. Ill admit it's been a few years so it may have changed.

Edited by UnconventionalWisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, last two posters. I started out as an academic scientist, found it almost impossible to get published on many occasions. I even personally had the experience of having a paper rejected once then accepted when we put an FRS as an author. I had a reviewer make personal and disparaging remarks on a review, whereupon I complained to the publisher and they told me nothing they could do, the reviewer is a respected senior academic. So I left to work in industry, where they don’t so much care about these things as they do do your ideas work reliably and can we make money from them.

Academic science isn’t what most people think it is.

Edited by Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Melchett said:

Indeed, last two posters. I started out as an academic scientist, found it almost impossible to get published on many occasions. I even personally had the experience of having a paper rejected once then accepted when we put an FRS as an author. I had a reviewer make personal and disparaging remarks on a review, whereupon I complained to the publisher and they told me nothing they could do, the reviewer is a respected senior academic. So I left to work in industry, where they don’t so much care about these things as they do do your ideas work reliably and can we make money from them.

Academic science isn’t what most people think it is.

I think its mainly brown nosing andor shagging the senior researcher/budget holder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dgul said:

There was a tiny section on R4 'inside science' a week or so back, where the presenter happened to talk about scientific rigour and how once you get to 'overwhelming scientific support' you move from hypothesis to accepted theory (and perhaps 'fact').  This was presented as a positive thing, showing that science 'works' and gravitates towards the 'correct solution'.

I wanted to shout at the radio.  Science doesn't work like that.  Science works by clubs.  Once a theory becomes established by the dominant club it becomes very difficult to challenge it.  This includes things like publishing -- even the peer reviewers won't like hypotheses that go against the club.  Scientists generally aren't people who dispassionately review the underlying data and then go with the theory that best fits the data -- rather, they'll think up whatever reasons they can to dismiss new data because/whenever it doesn't fit in with existing theories.

This can be seen in this study -- people who 'aren't in the club' (statisticians) can see the data with a clean eye and report without prejudice, whereas those in the club (nutritionists) rage against it.  And even then it isn't clean -- the statisticians are happy only because the study conforms to the fundamentals of their club.  

This is reflected in quantity of peer reviewed papers, number of experts, etc.  There is never any point in saying 'this is supported by the vast majority of scientists in the field, and the majority of peer reviewed papers' -- when a decent %age of scientists are just going with the established theories, and the %age that would challenge it haven't got a job in the field because no-one will employ or publish them because their theories aren't mainstream.  The few 'challenger' scientists tend to be those who are already established (perhaps close to retirement -- both 'senior' and with less to lose), or those from other fields (less exposure to the 'club').

This effect is magnified a million fold if/when it comes to sort-of* scientists involved in policy, who have put years of work ('learning' rather than 'investigation) into their careers and can't work against their interests (at a subconscious level).  

[* ie, have a scientific background but have never actually done science, usually because they've not got the right mind for it.  They often are completely in the 'cult of science' and will rage against heretics]

[I'll admit that I've got a chip on my shoulder about this.  I was an academic when younger and worked on a new area/theory in a niche science (not saying which).  This went completely against the mainstream and had significant push-back to the point that when I got to about 30ish couldn't get any more posts, other than zero-value lecturer at crappy oolyuniversity (so I changed approach to my career; I stopped doing that sort of thing)  Now, I'm happy to admit that it might be because I'm crap, but the fact that the theories I was proposing back then are now completely mainstream (and are the new 'club') does grate somewhat]

One of my favourite quotes:

You can judge the eminence of an academic by the length of time they hold up progress in their field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you basically do the big three sensible things which are:

1. Don't smoke.

2. Don't get fat.

3. Eat the best quality of food you can afford, meat or otherwise.

Then you'll probably be grand and any stricter controls on what you eat are probably for very minimal benefit. You'd probably be better at concentrating your efforts at that point in other aspects of your life e.g. spending time with good friends and reducing stress - that'll probably help you live longer than an extra serving of kale.

Edited by JoeDavola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hatred of chips is my bugbear. The hatred started long before the low carb / keto stuff begun. It started when MacD's was being targetted as MacD makes a big profit from french fries which, IIRC, are not even made from potatoes. Or they didn't use to be when the anti-chip guff started - back in the 1980's.

The same people who were telling us to eat veg and no meat to save the planet decided, without any evidence offered by them at the time, that potatoes were evil. It clearly was all part of the anti-US anti-MacD anti-capitalism anti-meat agenda disguised as a health and environment one.

Yes, eat less potatoes but do so for the right reasons and not the manipulative marxist stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Professor of Boobology

emily-ratajkowski-defends-dress-tim-gunn

And dot say boobology is made up.

If it is, sos History of art and american studies

 

21 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

Care to upload a pic and enlighten us? ;)

EDIT: sorry I realized you were talking about people that work ;)

The blokes, I’m on about the blokes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Melchett said:

Indeed, last two posters. I started out as an academic scientist, found it almost impossible to get published on many occasions. I even personally had the experience of having a paper rejected once then accepted when we put an FRS as an author. I had a reviewer make personal and disparaging remarks on a review, whereupon I complained to the publisher and they told me nothing they could do, the reviewer is a respected senior academic. So I left to work in industry, where they don’t so much care about these things as they do do your ideas work reliably and can we make money from them.

Academic science isn’t what most people think it is.

It's why I didn't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.