Linking Sex and Oat Bran: That’s Science
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. And those who can do absolutely nothing, do research.
Maybe I’m overstating my case, but newspaper readers can’t help but observe we are in the midst of a research glut of hideous proportions. Since 1970, the number of scientific journals in the United States has doubled to more than 5,000. That’s one megachunk of research per every 100 people in a city the size of Stuttgart!
What is the point of this information avalanche, other than to increase the income of professors who already have one free ride?
I know we need some research. I understand that without research I would not enjoy many of the things I take for granted, such as lite ice cream and no cholera. I understand that without research the ranks of the homeless would be swollen with sociologists, sexologists and behavioral psychologists.
Rarely, one sees a well-done study. More often, the research seems to exist for no other reason than to get reported on in the press and commented on by commentators. One even suspects that university types are under pressure to get publicity. If Fred gets his study on “Humor and Endorphin Production” mentioned in the paper, then Bill must get his work on “Body Odor and Sexual Frequency” on the evening news, if he wants tenure.
It’s no longer enough to merely publish. Now, the slogan is: publicize or perish.
The responsible media, of course, play their part in mumbo-jumbification. The responsible media cannot report on hearsay like “I Saw Elvis in My Tortilla!” They must look to reliable sources. “Corn Fungus Associated With Weird Hallucinations, Says University of Nebraska Researcher.”
The public walks around discussing research as if it were the latest joke: “Did you hear the one about sex and cholesterol?”
A recent review of press releases from Dr. Grant Money, academic publicist, led me to conclude that most hot-for-the-press research falls into one of the following categories:
1. Proof of the obvious. Obviously, we must prove that a virus exists before we attempt to create a vaccine. But do we really need scientific proof that “Rich Women Are Most Likely to Get Liposuctioned”?
2. Proof of things we don’t want to know. “Heroin Makes You Feel Good, Says Research Team.” (Remember that the guys on the Manhattan Project gleefully pushed ahead until one day J. Robert Oppenheimer woke up and said, “Oops! We just figured out how to destroy civilization.”)
3. Proof of the irrelevant. “New Findings Suggest Shakespeare Wore Lace on Thursdays.”
4. Proof of things the funding agent wants proven. “Smoking Increases Genital Size, According to Tobacco Institute Study.”
5. Proof of things that create needless trouble. “85% of Women Think Men Are Real Jerks, Says Study.”
But what is most maddening about the current research climate is that when researchers finally do hit upon an area that is uncertain, complex and socially useful, we are then treated to Ping-Pong studies on the same subject for years to come. “Oat Bran Can Lower Cholesterol” is quickly followed by “Oat Bran Linked to Global Warming.”
Rather than waiting until final results are in, each researcher seeks to grab the spotlight with his inconclusive study. The effect is to leave the public unable to act intelligently. The public needs no help in this regard.
There are two solutions to the research glut. One is to have a panel of wise men and women decide that only thorough, long-term studies of significant problems will be conducted. The other is to lock all the researchers in a room with a finite sack of money and study what happens.
