Eggs, cancer, and motivated reasoning

The following headline in the The Daily Express caught my attention this week:

“Ovarian cancer - could EGGS be the cause of disease? Vegan charity research REVEALED”Express.co.uk 14^th March 2017

The article goes on to explain that a Bristol based charity called Viva! Health has urged consumers not to eat eggs, claiming that one egg a week increases cancer risk by up to 70%. According to their own website, Viva! Health is a science-based health and nutrition charity, and being “science-based” you would expect them to have sufficient evidence to make a claim as eye-catching as the one above. So is this the case?Viva! Health claim that eggs are linked to ovarian and prostate cancer in two ways. First, the high cholesterol levels promote these cancers; and second, choline in eggs is linked to prostate cancer. They give references to scientific publications as evidence, but these publications show nothing of the sort. The journal article they point to regarding cholesterol explicitly states that any association between egg consumption and ovarian cancer risk is not due to the cholesterol in eggs. A quick look at the literature also shows that if there is any link between egg consumption and breast or prostate cancer, it is tiny. A similar pattern holds true for the link between choline and prostate cancer. The research that Viva! Health use to support their claim actually shows the opposite, that choline from eggs is not associated with cancer. It’s pretty clear, there’s nothing to worry about.It took me roughly six minutes to debunk both of these claims, using the identical publications that Viva! Health used to support their claims, so an obvious question is how a charity that clearly thinks of itself as “science-based” could come to the opposite conclusion to me. There is a well-known phenomenon in psychology called motivated reasoning. It describes a process by which someone who holds a particular belief seeks out information that confirms what they already believe, rather than rationally assessing the evidence.It is a fascinating mental trick that we are all guilty of. We all cling to different beliefs with different strengths. If I was to tell you that plastic bags are more environmentally friendly than cloth bags (unless the cloth bag is used more than 130 times), you are likely to look at the evidence and relatively quickly change your view without a huge amount of argument. On the other hand, if I was to say that immigration is economically bad for a country (or good depending on your point of view), you are far more likely to argue with me and ultimately reject that argument. Although both the plastic v cloth and the immigration arguments are contentious and depend on the studies you look at, the likelihood is that you reacted differently to each.A lot of recent research has started to dissect these distinct types of beliefs. We have normal beliefs that change with additional information, but we also have a set of beliefs that form the core of our identities. These often take the form of religious or political views, and when these beliefs are challenged we don’t take a rational approach. Instead we employ motivated reasoning, dismissing awkward facts and cherry picking the ones that agree with us. Indeed, if one of these core beliefs is challenged, it is likely that the belief will be ultimately strengthened rather than weakened by the challenge, something called the backfire effect.Motivated reasoning is extraordinarily common in pseudoscience. Topics like climate change and vaccine safety have decades of reputable research behind them, but despite this, deniers ignore the body of evidence and scientific consensus, deciding to rely on small bits of circumstantial evidence or simple untruths to “prove” their points. There seems to be very little we can do to convince people who hold these beliefs so tightly. However, the majority of the population doesn’t have beliefs like this at the core of their identity. They may have heard the arguments and be unsure about the topic, but with clear evidence and explanation, most people will make the right decisions. This is exactly why it is so important to talk about science and to educate people in how to recognize false claims.Motivated reasoning may be behind the Viva! Health claim that eggs cause cancer. They are a charity dedicated to promoting veganism, so it is entirely plausible that their beliefs regarding non-vegan foods are central to their identity. Alternatively however, they may just understand that if you link something to cancer (whether it is true or not), you are far more likely to make it into the papers, and have random bloggers talk about you!

Does Nutella cause cancer?

On a recent cycling trip in Canada, I ate an obscene amount of Nutella. It works as a great lunch, and dipping fresh bread in it is a delicious snack. When you are exercising all day every day, a tasty, spreadable, dippable energy source like this is extremely useful. Don’t get me wrong, it is a very unhealthy food, but despite this, I’m a fan.Which is why I was surprised this week to see Ferrero (the makers of Nutella) defending their product against claims that it causes cancer. A quick internet search revealed the problem. As the Tech Times put it: “Nutella Can Cause Cancer, Study Warns”. The Huffington Post ran with: “Stores Are Pulling Nutella After Report Links It To Cancer”, while the Daily Mail asked “Could Nutella give you CANCER?”. So what is this all about, and should you stop eating Nutella?As I’m sure you can guess, the simple answer is no, there is currently little evidence to suggest that you need to avoid Nutella. This panic was based on a study released by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) last year which suggested that when palm oil is refined at above 200°C, it releases something called glycidyl fatty acid esters (GE). Previous work has shown that at high levels this chemical can cause cancer in rats. Ferraro do indeed use palm oil in Nutella, so people have made an assumption that it therefore contains GE. However, Ferrero have clearly stated that they do not process their palm oil at 200°C, so no GE is produced in the process. Case closed.But for the sake of argument, lets pretend they do refine their palm oil at 200°C. Would the hypothetical amount of GE in Nutella be a cause for concern? In the EFSA report they quote the levels of GE that cause tumours in 25% of rats (10.2 mg/kg/day in case you are interested). Now obviously we would want to play it safe, and wouldn’t want to consume anywhere near that amount. So for argument’s sake, lets see how much Nutella we would need to eat to get 1/10,000^th of that amount (thanks to this article for calculating the numbers). It turns out that the average adult would need to eat nearly 100g of the stuff every day to reach 1/10,000^th of the amount that gives rats cancer. That’s over two jars a week, and if you are eating that much Nutella, then cancer is the least of your problems. The same amount of Nutella (800g) contains over 450g of sugar, which is double what your TOTAL sugar intake should be for a week.Simply put, concerns about cancer are a terrible reason to stop eating Nutella. Their use of palm oil has many other problems associated with it, including the devastating environmental impact, but that is another argument. As always, this is a case of poor journalism. The study itself didn’t mention Nutella, and was just focused on the GE. Some simple fact checking would have shown that Nutella does not process their palm oil in a way that produces GE, but there is nothing like a food scare to attract clicks.

Hot drinks and cancer

You may have seen a frankly terrifying headline this week:

“Hot drinks probably cause cancer, warns World Health Organisation”Telegraph, 15th June 2016

Almost every news source carried this story, and the headlines were universally similar to the one above. This story comes from a report by the WHO, which looked at the association between coffee and mate (a South American herbal tea) and various forms of cancer. In short, they found that there was no association between coffee or mate and cancer, but that the temperature of the beverage may be linked to oesophageal cancer. This, of course, is nothing to worry about. The report classifies hot drinks as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, group 2A in their classification. Other items in this category are the act of frying food, working as a hairdresser or barber, red meat, and working night shifts. This categorisation tells us about the hazard of hot drinks, but not about the risk.The words "hazard" and "risk" are regularly used interchangable, so the distinction between them is one that is lost on most people. Hazard is whether something can happen or not. Risk is the likelihood that it will happen. There is a hazard of crashing when you are driving with your eyes open or with your eyes closed. However, the risk is quite different in each of these cases. This report tells us about the cancer hazard of hot drinks, but nothing about the cancer risk, so the fact that hot drinks are on this list isn’t very informative.So what do we know about the risk of hot drinks. Firstly, this applies to drinks consumed at 65°C or above. So if you put milk in your tea or coffee, then you’re ok. Even if you don’t, oesophageal cancer isn’t very common, so even a big increase in risk wouldn’t translate into many more cases (see below for an explanation of this). If you want to do something to decrease your already small chance of getting oesophageal cancer, then consider stopping smoking, stopping drinking, eating more fruit and veg or losing excess bodyweight, all of which are known risk factors.The system of classification used by the WHO is unfortunately ripe for misinterpretation. It is almost impossible to prove a negative, so proving something definitely doesn’t cause cancer is difficult. The WHO has now classified 1,051 different things for their likelyhood of causing cancer. Of those, they have only rated a single one as “probably doesn’t cause cancer”. (For those who are interested, that one thing is Caprolactam, a compound used in the production of nylon).Nearly half of the rest fall into the “not classifiable” category because we just don’t have enough evidence to say either way. This may be because the evidence is inconclusive, or because studies have never been done. In reality, if the WHO analysed whether swivel chairs caused cancer, they would fall into this category rather than the "probably don't cause cancer"one, because we have never needed to study it.So by the WHO system, we can't say that the following don't cause cancer: chlorinated drinking water, caffeine, mobile phones, fluorescent lighting, hair colouring products, magnets or tea. They are in the “not classifiable” category. However, aloe vera, pickled vegetables and dry cleaning are all classified as “possibly cause cancer”. As you can see, this classification causes more confusion in the general public than anything else.When you understand the difference between hazard and risk it becomes far easier to interpret the constant health scare stories in the media. “Mobile phones may cause cancer” is a terrifying headline, until it is put into this context. The increased understanding of risk is a vital tool in the rational toolbox. And because large parts of the media don’t seem to possess this, it is one that we can get a lot of use out of! Absolute risk v relative riskI mentioned above that even a large increase in risk of oesophageal cancer doesn’t mean many extra cases. To understand this you have to understand the difference between relative risk and absolute risk.Have a look at the diagram below. In both situations you have a 100% increase in relative risk. However, in one case this means your absolute risk goes from 1% to 2%. In the other  it goes from 35% to 70%.To to bring it back to hot drinks, imagine a crazy situation where they give us a 50% increase in risk for oesophageal cancer. (Just to be clear, there is not a 50% increased risk with hot drinks, I made that number up as an example of a large increase.)The rate of oesophageal cancer is around 15 cases per 100,000 people, so your risk of getting it is 0.015%. A 50% increase in risk means that the rate would rise from 15 to 22.5 cases per 100,000. In this case your risk has now gone from 0.015% to 0.0225%, an increase of 0.0075%.You can see how an enormous increase in your relative risk (50%) can mean only a tiny increase in your absolute risk (0.0075%). So when you hear someone say that x increases your risk of cancer, your first question should be “but what is the risk of me getting that cancer in the first place?”. Once you know that you will have a far better idea whether the rest of the claim needs to be listened to.

Trust in science

As with every other week, the last 10 days has brought a slew of tabloid stories, linking various things with causing or curing cancer:GOOD: antacids, Chinese herbal remedy, berries and tea, anthrax, frying foodBAD: being tall, tonsils, artificial football pitches, The RAF, oral sexAs always, these stories are largely nonsense, suitable only for the bin. Unfortunately, they are reported credulously and are widely read, and this saturation of health-related articles has several negative consequences.The constant bombardment of people with often-contradictory health information can drown out real health advice, making people think that eating some nuts can offset the effects of a terrible lifestyle for example. There is an enormous industry based on the peddling of cancer-preventing foods and supplements, often with a thin veneer of scientific respectability, and thanks to tabloid reporting, a much wider reach than should be allowed. It’s infuriating.However, the most insidious problem with poor media portrayal of science is the gradual erosion of trust in science. This may not seem like a significant issue, but it may be the most important. The rejection of vaccines, denial of climate change and resistance to genetic modification of foods, for example, are all rooted in science denial.This is an issue with many causes. Both political and religious beliefs play a major role in our view of the evidence, as does self-interest, meaning that arguments are often politicised or financially motivated. When Andrew Wakefield, for example, “found” a link between vaccines and autism, he personally profited from people not using the MMR.The driving force behind denialist movements are often organisations that stand to gain from the confusion (climate change denial has largely been funded by groups that will suffer most from restrictions on fossil fuels). There has been a deliberate drive to manufacture controversy in many areas, most famously by the tobacco industry, whose tactic was not to win the debate, but to “foster and perpetuate the illusion of controversy in order to muddy the waters around scientific findings that threaten the industry”. A leaked memo to George W Bush on climate change tactics from 2002 suggested that although the scientific debate was closing, it was important “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate”. Media organisations are often complicit in this, and there are many examples of the deliberate undermining of the scientific process, most notably by Fox News in the US.That being said however, the large majority of people who subscribe to denialist views are people who have no such motivation. These people appear to have a basic mistrust of science, and are swayed by the anti-science rhetoric. It is easy to understand why parents hesitated to vaccinate after the initial reports of a link to autism, but despite this link being definitively shown to be false, vaccination rates in large parts of the world are still suffering. Be it the left-wing embracing of alternative medicine, the right-wing support of climate change denial or religious creationism, the anti-science movement is a pervasive one, largely based on the mistrust of science.There are several roots of this mistrust. An obvious one is that science can undermine deeply held beliefs. When this happens, people are likely to reject the evidence, rather than give up their belief. In fact, when challenged on such a belief, people are more likely to strengthen their belief rather than the other way around (known as the “backfire effect”). This needn’t be a religious belief, and is something that has been observed in many areas of life, such as the belief in superstition or alternative medicine. If science continuously challenges these beliefs, then people stop believing in the science.It is also the case that a misunderstanding of what science actually is also contributes to this issue. Many people see science as an “institution”, something that is telling us what to do. The reality is that it is a process. This misunderstanding of science makes it much easier for people to rationalise the rejection of valid conclusions, regardless of the strength of the evidence. The power of anecdotal evidence is a classic example of this: “my father smoked 20 a day, and he lived ‘til he was 90”. This view of science as an “institution” also feeds into an anti-establishment mentality that can also result in science denial. This is the same mentality that is behind the belief in grand conspiracies.And this brings me back to the tabloids. If you are told every day that random things are making you sick, or are essential to health, it is likely that you will become desensitised to them. It is easy for people to reject science-based advice, because tabloid reporting makes science appear far more confused than it actually is. The reporting of preliminary findings, or of badly carried out science, leads to a confused picture of our current understanding. Scientists are constantly studying and learning, working towards the truth. Bad science and incorrect results are inevitable in science, but it is a self-correcting process that gradually works to show what is real and what is not.Our entire civilisation is based on scientific innovation and progress. While that progress cannot be halted, it can be slowed by the mistrust of the public in the scientific process. That can only be a bad thing.

Gluten-free diets

The last few years have brought an increased awareness of the presence of gluten in our diets. In line with this, the Daily Mail recently ran an article headlined “Could going gluten-free boost your brain power? Landmark study reveals diet 'reduces fatigue and increases energy levels'”.The article in question was published on the Mail Online. In it they report on a study that links a gluten-free diet to decreased fatigue, flatulence and bloating. There is so much wrong with the piece it’s difficult to know where to begin, so I’ll start with the most concerning issue: that the study was funded by Genius Gluten Free Foods.That’s right, this “Landmark” study was funded by the very people who will benefit most from its result. This fact alone throws up big red flags, but reading further brings up some other major issues.The study has not been published, neither online or in a peer-reviewed journal. I contacted the University of Aberdeen, The Rowett Institute and authors of the study, to try to get my hands on the data (or the press release the journalist was working from), but to no avail. From the article in the Daily Mail, I can say that the study itself had fewer than 100 people in it, far too small a sample size to say anything concrete unless the study used extremely stringent criteria (which it did not).Furthermore, the article itself points out that the participants ate a healthier diet while on the study, making it entirely possible (and likely) that the effects seen were not as a result of the gluten-free diet, but as a result of eating better in general.I could go on all day, but I’ll leave it at that. The article is clearly rubbish, but it does highlight the recent popularity of gluten-free diets however, and this is a topic about which there is a lot of controversy.Removing gluten from the diet has become big business. According to the BBC, 29% of American adults (70 million people) say they are trying to cut back on gluten. This results in a gluten-free market in the US of almost $9 billion. Here in the UK, sales of gluten-free foods were around £184 million in 2014, which shows just how common it has become.It is safe to say that there are certainly people who do benefit hugely from a gluten-free diet. These are people with coeliac disease, an autoimmune disorder that results a decrease in the ability of the intestine to absorb the nutrients it needs. It is thought that around 1% of the population have some level of coeliac disease, so it is a relatively common disorder. Additionally, most of that 1% are undiagnosed, so it is certain that a gluten-free diet can improve the symptoms of some people.Another group that may benefit from the diet are those with non-coeliac gluten sensitivity, but this is controversial, as it has not yet been shown that gluten sensitivity actually exists. The most definitive study into this (in 2013) showed that gluten was not causing the symptoms of the patients in their study. They laid the blame at the door of a group of carbohydrates known as FODMAPs (which are partially eliminated in a gluten-free diet). Other research has blamed ATIs, plant proteins that are common in grains. Regardless, diet clearly influences the symptoms in these people.With the caveat in mind that going gluten-free will help some people, it must be pointed out that the large majority of people trying to reduce the gluten in their diets have no need to. Studies have shown that at least two-thirds of people who claim they have non-coeliac gluten sensitivity cannot tell if they have been exposed to gluten or not. The design of that study also makes us confident that this is an underestimation. The same study showed that symptoms often got worse if the subjects thought they were eating gluten, suggesting that the nocebo effect plays a large role in their symptoms (I’ve previously written about the nocebo effect here. Put simply, it is an ill effect caused by the suggestion or belief that something is harmful).“Gluten-free” is a fad diet, albeit an extremely popular one. Gluten is widely perceived to be unhealthy, a contention for which there is little evidence. Celebrities (Gwyneth Paltrow, Miley Cyrus) and sport stars (Novak Djokovic) have further propagated this myth, leading to the boom in sales we have seen recently.The problem is that there are risks attached. It is known that some foods that are free from gluten are actually less healthy than the original variety because they may contain more fat or sugar and thus more calories. In order to attain the same texture and consistancy, starches and binding agents are often added. It has also been shown that avoiding wheat products can lead to deficiencies in nutrients such as folate.The majority of people who are gluten-free do it because they are under the impression that it is better for you. In reality, they are spending more money on products for no real benefit, and feeding an industry that encourages people to unnecessarily buy more expensive foods. Eating more fruit and vegetables is a much wiser investment.As I’ve already pointed out, there are people who benefit from a gluten-free diet. However, that is not the case for the majority. I’ll leave the final word to Dr. Ruth Kava, who is a Senior Nutrition Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. She commented that “The bottom line is that if you don’t really need to go gluten-free, don’t bother. And to determine if you do, consult a gastroenterologist, not a celebrity diet guru.” Well said.

Confused by what you read in the papers?

There are constantly contradictory science news articles in the papers, particularly surrounding our health. Aspirin, milk, breast-feeding, money, sex and pizza have all been reported in the main stream press to both cause and prevent cancer (amongst many other things; this website is well worth a read!).Take, for example, statins. This week it was reported that they can reduce complications after surgery. This may confuse you; didn't the same papers warn us this year that statin use may be killing hundreds? Although, don't statins cure prostate cancer? And make women angry?Statins are the most commonly prescribed drugs in the UK. They are used to lower cholesterol levels, and as such help prevent cardiovascular disease. Sir Roger Boyle, the government’s former National Director for Coronary Heart Disease, claims that statins save 9,000 lives a year in the UK alone (I have been unable to find a source for this claim however, so cannot guarantee its accuracy).However, while it is well established that they are effective in high-risk groups, the evidence for their effectiveness in low-risk groups isn’t as strong. Two papers in 2013 suggested that statin use in low-risk patients did more harm than good, but both of these papers have been heavily criticised, and the authors of both have retracted statements regarding the frequency of side-effects. A large review of the literature confirmed that statins were safe and effective at reducing heart attacks and stroke in low-risk groups, but that the benefits were quite small, and that more could be done through life-style changes than statin prescription.The point of this blog is not to write about the use of statins however; it is to highlight the terrible way in which it is reported. A cursory glance at the infographic above shows how confusing the reporting on statins is. As the graphic shows (click image for expanded view), in the Daily Express alone there has been 15 separate stories about statin use this year, 8 negative and 7 positive. The Daily Express isn't alone in this. The Telegraph had 7 stories (3 positive and 4 negative) and the Daily Mail had a staggering 27 (14 positive and 13 negative).The current consensus is that statins do far more good than harm, however poor reporting such as this causes people to stop taking their medication. This happened in Australia following a documentary into statin use, when an estimated 60,000 people stopped taking their prescription. This almost certainly led to fatalities. Shortly after that, an investigation concluded that the documentary had breached standards of impartiality, and the programme was withdrawn. We have seen the same pattern with vaccine use, among other things.Science is an ongoing process and studies into things such as health must be put in to perspective. Most stories in science need to be seen in context, something which rarely happens in tabloids. Reporting on every little study, regardless of the quality of the study, can leave people with the impression that disagreement within the scientific community is much greater than it actually is. This can lead to problems, as we have seen in climate change and vaccines for example.Science communication and reporting is absolutely vital for generating enthusiasm in science, which itself is essential for progress. The more scientists and engineers we have, the better.Unfortunately, people are too easily persuaded to stop taking their prescriptions, or to stop vaccinating their kids. It is true that there must be some public oversight of health interventions, but the pages of tabloids is not the place for this. Unfortunately, scare stories and testimonies of miracle cures sell papers, so this is a problem that we may unfortunately be stuck with.

The dangers of anecdotal evidence

Occasionally (too often) a newspaper publishes a story that is just downright irresponsible. This story from the Daily Express fits into this category.

'I beat cancer by eating pineapples' Brave woman, 31, shuns chemotherapy to self-medicateDaily Express – 30/03/15

Any reader of this blog will understand that this is rubbish, but it’s worth looking at why anecdotal stories like this are useless as evidence for therapy.Anecdotal evidence is essentially a story told by an individual or individuals. We are a story-telling species, and people generally find anecdotes highly compelling. That isn’t surprising really. In the past it was advantageous for us to err on the side of caution; it is usually harmless to mistakenly see two things as connected (my friend ate those berries and got sick), while not seeing things as connected could do you real damage (my friend ate those berries and got sick, but I’m sure I’ll be fine). As I discussed in a previous blog, we are very good at seeing patterns, whether they are real or imaginary. While that was a very useful strategy in the past, in the world of scientific medicine our trust of anecdotes is a damaging thing.An example of this is the old story of “smoking can’t be dangerous; my granddad smoked 20 a day and lived to 92”. This is known as reporting bias. If the granddad had died earlier (or the woman in the article above had not recovered) the story would not have been repeated. We only hear about it the times when something appears to have worked, and not the times when the same thing didn't work.This is also similar to another form of bias that we are all prone to, confirmation bias. This is the well-known phenomenon that we are more likely to remember something if  it confirms an opinions we already have. So people who believe that chemotherapy is doing more damage than good are more likely to remember and repeat a story like this than another with a worse outcome.Another major fault with anecdotal reports is that they are seen in isolation and not in a wider context. If someone is feeling ill they may try multiple things to see if they feel better. Most of the time they will get better all by themselves, but will give the credit to the last thing they tried. This is how most cold and flu "medicines" work, relying on the fact that people make this mistake. Just because one event happens before another (I took this product and then felt better), doesn’t mean that the first caused the second.Modern medicine uses clinical trials as evidence for whether a therapy works or not. In many ways they are the exact opposite of anecdotes: they are blinded, so control for doctor and patient bias and the placebo effect; they expect random results like spontaneous regression and can see them in the wider context; and they typically have large numbers of people included (thousands) as opposed to tiny numbers of people in anecdotes.So back to this article. The author credits “cancer-zapping bromelain” for the regression of the cancer. In fact, there is very little suggestion that bromelain has anticancer activity. There are some studies on cells growing in a dish, but these are not reliable. It has been suggested to be effective in lessening the side-effects of chemotherapy, but there is no evidence for this (there was a registered clinical trial, but this has been completed and not reported results, suggesting a negative outcome).The reality of this story is that people sometimes get better spontaneously. Even the deadliest cancers have spontaneous, unexplained regressions. A story like this can do no good, and has no place in the public sphere. Congrats Daily Express, you are just as bad as the Daily Mail.

Does the "Mozart Effect" exist in adults?

It used to be thought that listening to Mozart when pregnant or when a child was under three made for smarter babies. This has been thoroughly disproven and explained by the fact that children from houses where classical music is played tend to be better educated. However, people keep jumping on the bandwagon every time a study about classical music is published. This article was published in the Daily Mail on the 15^th of March:

Classical music can help slow down the onset of dementia say researchers after discovering Mozart excerpts enhanced gene activity in patients-Daily Mail (15/03/15)

According to the article, classical music can help slow the onset of dementia. The study they are talking about was published in PeerJ, an open access journal. However, to be clear, there is nothing at all in the actual study to suggest that listening to classical music delays the onset of dementia (more on that below).Sadly, the blame only partially lies with the tabloids. It was the press release that accompanied this paper that made a lot of the exaggerated claims that were repeated in the Daily mail article, including the dementia one. While the tabloids did exaggerate the claims, the press release opened the door by suggesting a link to neurodegenerative diseases.This problem of a bad press release isn’t an isolated one apparently. A study from the University of Cardiff recently suggested that most poor science reporting is as a result of a bad press release. Journalists do, however, further exaggerate claims from these press releases. While it remains the case that News Outlets have a responsibility to check the claims of their sources, this obviously highlights a major issue in the communication of science to the general public. I may expand on this in a future blog, but for the time being it is safe to say that the “Mozart Effect” is still firmly in the domain of rubbish science.What’s wrong with the study?In this study, the authors try to address what effect listening to music has on the global activity of the genes. It is a very good example of what we call in science “a fishing trip”, which is a broad experimental approach that will give you a big amount of data to see what you can get from it. It is actually not in the scope of the study to research a link between classical music and dementia, and the paper does not conduct any experiments to explore that.The authors look at gene expression in the blood (assuming that this is the same as the gene expression in the brain, which is not the case). They divide their sample in “highly musically educated people” versus “less musically educated people” and compare their blood after listening to 20 minutes of classical music versus 20 minutes of conversation. In the less musically educated group they discard the changes they see because they are not “functionally relevant” (great, discarding data because you can’t make sense of it). In the more musically educated group they do find “functional relevance” based on small changes in a small subset of genes; changes that they do not confirm by any other technique.So where does dementia fit in to this? One of the 97 genes they found to be changed has previously been associated with neurodegenerative diseases. This is essentially nothing.So to conclude, the authors (a) study the wrong samples (b) to come up with conclusions their data didn't back up and (c) didn't confirm their findings in any other way, which is something you learn to do on your first day in the lab. Good science guys.

Best (worst) tabloid story of the week - 12/05/15

MailOnline: Incredible moment baby shocks his parents by saying 'hello' at just SEVEN WEEKS oldAccording to the MailOnline, a baby was filmed saying hello to his parents (video below). While undeniably cute, this isn’t a genius child, mastering language at 7 weeks. It is, however, an example of pareidolia. Pareidolia is the effect of seeing patterns in random things, and is a fascinating quirk of the brain. Well known examples are seeing a face on the moon or hearing words in a song played backwards.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITyxSN1MggsPareidolia is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation to help us spot enemies or predators in low visibility conditions. The advantages to our ancestors of being able to quickly identify potential danger (whether real or not) are obvious. In a world where this is no longer important though, pareidolia has resulted in us thinking we see a face on Mars, or hearing a baby say hello amid its random gurgling.It’s obvious to anyone watching the video that this is just a baby, making baby sounds. With lots of news outlets reporting this (including the Daily Mail, The Mirror, CBS and ABC), apparently that’s enough to make it into the tabloids. Although, considering that the video has so many views, it isn't very surprising! <Edit: Even The Guardian has this story now! It appears that cute babies are enough to make good papers too.>

Best (funniest) tabloid "health" story this week - 05/03/15

Our selected piece of the week is this ground-breaking report from the Daily Mail (we're not going to link to the story from here. There's no point in giving the Daily Mail any additional hits. Google will direct you to the story if you really want to see it):

Daily Mail Online Health Section: How your star sign could dictate your dieting success

This hard-hitting piece reveals that Leos should avoid sauces. Poor Leos. Luckily, light marinades are ok. We are also informed that Geminis should avoid fast-food, which I take to mean that it is ok for everyone else. Except for Cancerians, who have to avoid unhealthy food they ate in childhood. If they didn't eat fast food in their youth however, it seems to be ok.Of course, this is astrology, and hence nonsense. The idea that the apparent positions of stars and planets at the moment of you birth can have a lasting effect on your personality is nothing short of ridiculous. As such, this blog should be some light-hearted hilarity, but unfortunately there is a depressingly relevant news story associated with it.British MP David Tredinnick, suggested this week that astrology be used by the NHS to treat patients. What's worse is that Tredinnick sits on both the Health Select Committee and the Science and Technology Select Committee. He supports homeopathy and radionics (the use of blood or hair to heal people remotely), and in 2009 told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon. And, I'll repeat, he sits on both the Health Select Committee and the Science and Technology Select Committee. You have to despair if this is the level of science literacy required for positions like these.Instead of despairing though, I'm going to as much ice-cream as possible. After all, as an Aries that's perfectly ok for me to do!