[QUOTE=jimbo2012;721677]Renowned Harvard nutritionist gives us even more reason to cut back on the carne
On Sunday, the Boston Globe Magazine featured a profile of Harvard professor Walter Willett, calling him the “world’s most influential nutritionist.” Willett’s influence comes as much from his ability to debunk or reframe studies about food and nutrition as it does from his original work.
Appears Willett has some problems:
Top Science Journal Rebukes Harvard's Top Nutritionist
Top Science Journal Rebukes Harvard's Top Nutritionist - Forbes
This is more than merely unsporting: Such a brazen double standard is a warning that what counts as “science” in public health is a mixture of data – good, bad and middling –, methodological limitations, and interpretation. The goal – to save the public either from themselves or external threats – influences what is researched and how that research is interpreted. Given the complexities of the problems and the challenges of measurement (think about how much “evidence” is generated in nutrition from people recalling what they eat), the political need for clear conclusions and recommendations, combined with the academic need for findings to be published in scholarly journals that want positive findings, means that public health messages are often scientifically weaker than they sound. And, as Nature noted in its editorial,
The problem with simple messages and black-and-white statements is that they tend to be absolutes and so the easiest to falsify… It is easy to see why those who spend their lives trying to promote the health of others gnash their teeth when they see complex findings whittled down to a sharp point and used to puncture their message. It is more difficult, from a scientific perspective, to agree that these findings should not be published and discussed openly, warts and all, purely because they blend uncertainty into a simple mantra. Make things as simple as possible, Einstein said, but no simpler. And simple, black-and-white messages can cause confusion of their own. All things in moderation — and that should include the language we use.
Science is complex, and Willett’s message to his fellow scientists appears to be that the public can’t be trusted with this complexity (except, as noted, when it might be something that he thinks is worthy of research); the question, which the public might ask in turn, is whether Willett can be trusted with complexity given his apparent intolerance for it in other scientists?