There are multiple ways to assess (evaluate) Scientific Evidence. Within these evidence frameworks one can ask:
How “shaky” is “flimsy evidence”?
0ne point and two questions:
1. Please give examples of scientific truths that might be considered to rest on a “shaky-flimsy foundation”. Also
2. Who or what determines the “shakiness” and/or “flimsiness” of this type of scientific foundation?
3. On what level of “shakiness/flimsiness” does the new era of “genetic risk” information in biotechnology rest: “weak, strong, or otherwise”?
1) There is no "scientific truth" that rests on a shaky or flimsy foundation. There are maybe some theories or ideas that have no solid backing, but any "truth" is not in that ballpark. The number of theories or ideas that are based on flimsy and shay evidence rises exponentially with the flimsy/shakiness of the evidence. I can come up with about 10 theories per hour which have no solid evidence to support them.
2) The data determines the solidity of the foundation. If I have story about a cousin who tole me she knows someone who got sick after he got vaccinated, that is not good data. If I have study following 10,000 vaccinated children it can be very good even if there is not a perfect placebo control group because it would be highly unethical to follow 10,000 children and watch them die of smallpox. The "perfect study" cannot always be done, but we can still design very very good studies.
3) There is no such thing as "the new era of genetic risk". There are thousands of different areas where we can link specific diseases or risks of disease to specific genetic markers, and tens of thousands more where we suspect some linkage. There is a whole spectrum from solid proof that a single point mutation is lethal, to weak speculation that some combination of genes leads to a slightly increased risk for some detrimental health outcome.
Flimsy means 'very, very weak indeed', or 'not worthy of being taken into account'. It's the kind of 'evidence' that gets court cases dismissed by the judge and scientific papers rejected by the editor before the case wastes any more time.
As regards " the new era of “genetic risk” information in biotechnology", I'm not sure what you're referring to.
(1) Risks associated with consuming food made from gene-modified organisms?
(2) Risks associated with release of GMOs into the environment?
(3) Risk of disease associated with particular gene variants.
Could you clarify with an example or two?
Brian and Andrew.
You are both right on target, especially regarding genetic testing in humans. And can you think of any mistakes in testing of humans, particularly in early research on human genes where we are in new territory in many medical diseases and conditions regarding the true-positive, false-positive true-negative, false-negatives rates of such testing can cause problems for humans?People and patients are being attracted to such testing by advertisers. And people and patients are being attracted to undergo such testing either privately in labs—publicly advertised on televised media or internet-based media—or as recommended by their physicians in cases where individual patients simply want to live their lives and then the recommendation comes down from the physician. Who is to provide the warnings of such testing, and what form(s) should these warnings take? Are government regulatory agencies providing enough oversight and what are the specific oversights being provided?
I think the problem here comes when the tests offered become separated from the scientific literature, with its customary qualifications and reservations. The general public seem to have difficulty grasping the weak and sometimes tentative associations between genetic variations and disease risk. Similarly, sales personnel are very much committed to 'believe in the product' and 'qualified belief' is virtually a contradiction in terms. In addition, in this day and age, it's easier to generate masses of genetic information than it is to understand the statistics needed to avoid chance associations. I would suspect that the evidence for some of the purported associations is decidedly shaky.
On the other hand, in modern times when genetic testing can be ordered over the internet from a foreign country with lax laws, attempts to regulate it seem futile. I fear that all we can do is to apply the principle of 'caveat emptor', while trying to make people aware that it's a jungle out there on the net.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioscience
- Biotechnology