Monday, September 17, 2007

Epidemiology's Methods

Several recent articles have highlighted how epidemiologists conduct research and some have criticized their results.

An LA Times article discusses some of these results, methods, and criticisms. Some of the past results have been 180 degrees apart. Look at the results they cite about coffee and its effects. In 1981, a study concluded that two or three cups of coffee a day tripled the risk of pancreatic cancer. In 2001, another, larger study concluded that the earlier results were not true. Similarly, a 1981 study found that drinking coffee reduced the risk of colorectal cancer. Predictably, a later study in 2005 contradicted it.

Most epidemiological studies are observational. As we discuss in chapter 10, observational studies (e.g., naturalistic observation and participant observation) do not alter the situation under observation. Other ways to conduct epidemiological research is through cohort studies, case control studies (or retrospective), and cross-sectional studies.

The big advantage of epidemiological studies is that they are relatively cheap to conduct. However, they do not allow researchers to make cause-and-effect conclusions about the variables under investigation.

Much better results are provided by randomized clinical trials (or what we call true experiments). Randomized clinical trials are the medical version of true experiments. In a clinical trial, two (or more) groups are created by a random procedure.

Another LA Times article highlights some of the recent research discrepancies discovered by observational methods vs. clinical trials.

A long New York Times article also covers the issues inherent in observational research. That article concludes:
  • "All of this suggests that the best advice is to keep in mind the law of unintended consequences. The reason clinicians test drugs with randomized trials is to establish whether the hoped-for benefits are real and, if so, whether there are unforeseen side effects that may outweigh the benefits. If the implication of an epidemiologist's study is that some drug or diet will bring us improved prosperity and health, then wonder about the unforeseen consequences. In these cases, it's never a bad idea to remain skeptical until someone spends the time and money to do randomized trial and, contrary to much of the history of the endeavor to date, fails to refute it."
Our final word echoes our advice in chapter 1, learning about methods is a good thing.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

You be good, see you tomorrow...

It's unique for a parrot to have last words: "You be good, see you tomorrow. I love you."

Those were Alex's last words before he went into his cage on Thursday, September 6, 2001. Alex, of course, was Irene Pepperberg's famous African Grey parrot. She had taught him over 150 words, revolutionizing the area of animal cognition in the process.

Alex had been with Pepperberg since 1977 and was 31 years old. Her research continues with two other parrots: Griffin and Arthur.

Rest well Alex, and well done.

Here is a link to a New York Times article about Alex's life. Here is a link to The Alex Foundation, a Web page devoted to Alex and his work.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Types of Science

In chapter 1, we discuss science in some detail because we believe it is important for students to know where psychology fits within science itself and how its methods compare to other scientific disciplines.

Diana Rhoten's recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (The dawn of networked science, Vol. 54, Issue 2, Page B12) adds much to the story of how science has developed in the last 100 years.

She provides the following classification of science: bench-top science, big science, team science, and networked science.

Two good examples of bench-top science are Mendel's research on peas and Goddard's research on rocketry. Both were low-budget and conducted alone or in small groups.


Here's a picture I took at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC showing one of Goddard's early rockets (that's Robert Goddard in the background). He and his collaborators used to drive out to the country with their disassembled rockets in the back of a pickup truck. They would put the rockets together, shoot them off, and sometimes had to run from local farmers afterward.

After World War II, rocket science became a part of big science. The United States government captured many German V-2 rockets along with many scientists and began a major research project in rocketry. That research led to ICBMs and to manned spaceflight. If it costs a few million dollars or more, it's probably big science.

Big science not only costs lots of money, it also requires a top-down infrastructure. Rhoten notes research such as the Manhattan Project and the Hubble Space Telescope as examples of big science.

Team science, she says, "is often centered on researchers whose main ties are to the given intellectual challenge." (and not to a particular institution). An early and successful example of team science is the Human Genome project. In that research, scientists from many disciplines from laboratories all around the world collaborated to solve a particular problem. They did so ahead of schedule and under budget.

Networked science is emerging now thanks to advanced computer technologies and networks. New and virtual entities such as InnoCentive and the Biomedical Informatics Research Network offer opportunities for scientists everywhere to solve problems (and get paid for it). Rhoten cites the case of Edward Melcarek. He is a scientist who works on problems for InnoCentive. Click here for a Wired.com article on Melcarek.

Networked science may offer a mechanism to return to a model more similar to bench-top science than to big science.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

J. Michael Bailey: The Rest of the Story

On page 334 (in chapter 10), we mention the travails of J. Michael Bailey after he published his book, The Man Who Would be Queen (2003).

Specifically, we wrote:
  • Another ethical concern involves informed consent and communication with participants. Because most small–N research involves close and extended contact between researchers and participants, a personal relationship is more likely to develop than in other types of psychological research. The perils of relationship and role confusion in small-N research were evident after Bailey (2003) published a book about transsexuals. After its publication, several of the transsexuals studied accused Bailey of failing to inform them that their interactions with him constituted research. One “participant” claimed that she and Bailey had sex during the time he later claimed he had been observing her as part of his research.
A recent New York Times article follows up on this story and provides more details on what has happened since we wrote the paragraph above.

Bailey has been confronted by several critics, the most prominent is Lynn Conway from the University of Michigan. She maintains a Web page investigating the publication of Bailey's book.

An ethics scholar, Alice Dreger, has conducted an investigation of the case. Her report can be found at http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/. It will be published soon in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The participant who accused Bailey of sexual misconduct did so five years after the alleged incident. Whether or not the incident actually took place has never been determined.

Two of the other participants who complained about being mentioned in the book were not, in fact, mentioned. The other two said they knew their stories would be in the book.

In short, much ado about something has marked this case. We still stand behind our advice, communication and documentation are essential in small-N research. Bailey could have avoided much of what happened had he made things more clear to his participants at the beginning.