For those of you who have followed Atkins a long time, you know that he begged for scientific study regarding the low carbohydrate diet. You know he offered to fund studies and have no part in them. Why? Because he KNEW what the inevitable outcome would be. He had walking examples in his office every day. And the studies that have come out once the scientific community relented and actually did some studies rather than dismissing his theory out of hand do support his assertions. All of the naysayers repeat that it is unhealthy based on no scientific evidence. They also seem to prefer the morbidly obese to have stomach reduction surgery rather than go on Atkins. (O.K., I am exagerating here. They want people to go on the one diet prescribed by the US Government food pyramid that was created without scientific study. Even though it doesn't work for many people.)
Michael Crichton, the scientist, doctor, and author has made an amazing speech where he exposes the political nature of science and how it reaches into the depths of our government agencies. It is truly a damning indictment... and it should be mandatory reading for all schoolchildren. It also talks about a fix where double-blind studies should be used, etc. With nutrition, we are actually lucky and more along the path of true scientific enlightment. His most damning points regard computer modeling.
An excerpt:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period...
As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?
Ironically, it was the New York Times Magazine's article by Gary Taubes which really made it OK to question the consensus.
And read the footnote to this Resolution article that demonstrates how Gary Taubes was treated after it was published.
Hat tip to One Hand Clapping and Instapundit.
Update: This is just going to continue until the empiricists in the scientific community take back the lab.
Comments