Responsibilities of an academic researcher/writer - new piece at Asthma Allergies Children

New piece at Asthma Allergies Children

Myths abound when it comes to food allergies - no doubt about it. Even worse is when the popular media feeds the myth machine. Science journalism is tough because the work needs to be readable, factually accurate, and give non-scientist readers a sense of its significance and potential impact without over- or under-selling the complicated science itself. In other words, science writers translate what seems like a whole other language (academic journals) into something average human beings can understand and appreciate. When done well, science journalism/writing is a work of beauty. Some days, it feels about as rare as winning a Pulitzer Prize.

Most science writers are knowledgeable about science, but are not scientists themselves. Mistakes happen, and scientists endlessly gripe about how the media seem to get it wrong more than they get it right. Scientists who also happen to write for the popular media are a rare, but powerful voice. I love the branding of The Conversation - academic rigor, journalistic flair - because I want to believe it. Is this finally a media outlet that can marry those two worlds?

Academic rigor, journalistic flair?
By Greek , possibly Athenian (Princeton University Art Museum) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

I'm now skeptical after reading "The myth of flying peanuts: not so deadly after all." I expected so much more from author, Tim Spector, who has both serious science and writing credentials. You don't get to be a professor at a well-known institution by making unsupported claims in your peer-reviewed journal articles. Why should it be any different in the popular media? Those rare, mythical Centaurian-like creatures are in a powerful position to influence change for the better in the media. Unfortunately, they are also in a position to do incredible harm when they appeal to their baser media flair side. Scientists shouldn't get to take a vacation when they don't have the threat of peer-review. I wish we lived in a world where regardless of a person's credentials, their work could be judged by the merit of their arguments. We don't live in that world. Appeal to authority speaks loudly because people just don't have the time or energy to vet everything for themselves.

I've vetted "The myth of flying peanuts: not so deadly after all" for you at Asthma Allergies Children in the following piece - “Rigor” Mortis: Post Mortem on an Airborne Allergy Article.

A big thank you to editor, Henry Ehrlich.

Communication Breakdown - No, I Didn't Say Treatments are Cures

What's quoted in the media isn't always what it seems. Unfortunately, I was reminded of this because of a misquote involving me that reared its ugly head after googling "Jessica Martin food allergy." (Always good to occasionally google yourself to make sure all is good with your public, digital self).

The good news? The Food Allergy Sleuth blog is the top google hit (yay! I'm #1)!

The bad news? Discovering a misquote floating on the internet from my foray into being the science interviewee (at least it was on page 2 since most people don't go beyond the first page, right? RIGHT?!). In the words of the infamous Homer, "Doh!"

Photo credit: Flickr user hobvias sudoneighm

So what went wrong?

Why YOU should participate in a food allergy research study (Northwestern University currently seeking participants)

Research scientists must continually pitch their ideas.  Scientists “pitch” a funding agency when they write a grant – an elaborate document of their proposed studies, often including significant preliminary data to convince grant reviewers that their ideas are “going to work.” Writing grants is an essential part of a scientist’s job because without the money supplied by grants, research grinds to a halt (even for a university researcher!). And if that isn’t challenging enough, the scientists performing studies with human subjects must “pitch” their ideas to recruit a sufficient number of study participants to acquire enough data to draw trustworthy conclusions. It is true – the job of a scientist is part salesperson!

So here’s my pitch to all of you.

Share this post with as many people as you know because:

1. It will help a great group of food allergy researchers at Northwestern University recruit participants to better understand a concerning problem for food allergies – what makes adolescents/young adults (14-22 year olds) more at risk from their food allergic reactions.
2. Participating is easy – it is a short survey that can be accessed by internet (i.e. you don’t have to drive to Chicago to participate!).
3. Answering the study questions will undoubtedly spin off many more questions that will help fund future grants, thus driving our understanding of this problem forward and ultimately improving the lives of those affected by food allergies.

I am including the details of the study with appropriate links below. If you’re already “sold” on sharing this widely or even participating, great! Scroll down to the section - STUDY OVERVIEW - to read the details provided directly by Dr. Ruchi Gupta’s team at Northwestern. If you need a little more “evidence,” I’ve got that, too. Read on.

Dr. Ruchi Gupta and her team with Illinois state Attorney General Lisa Madigan this past July. Dr. Gupta and her team helped advocate for a new law to expand Illinois' existing stock epinephrine for schools law.

Why I strongly support Dr. Gupta’s research group:

Any food allergy researcher who “pitches” their work to a funding agency, whether it is the federal government, a non-profit organization, or private investors must convince reviewers that food allergies are in fact a significant problem. Dr. Gupta’s group is behind many very solid studies that other researchers cite in their grant proposals to do just that – convince reviewers that yes, food allergies are in fact a large problem. Her group recently defined how prevalent food allergies are among U.S. children (1 in 13 children under 18 years of age)¹ and just how enormous the economic burden of food allergies truly is on the U.S. economy (estimated at nearly $25 billion annually).²

I have no doubt that the outcome of the current study will serve as a research catalyst for herself and other researchers - a prominent citation in a grant proposal to justify further research funding to define why adolescents/young adults are more at risk of fatal anaphylaxis from their allergic reactions.^3,4,5 While this is tragically a recognized problem, researchers still don’t fully understand why. Is it part psychology (e.g. teenagers/young adults tend to take more risks in general)?  Is it part biology (e.g. something about the biology of this age group drives stronger reactions)? Or is it some combination of both? Her work just may start to tease out the evidence to address those very questions in the future. If we understand the problem, we can design strategies to mitigate them.

Dr. Gupta “gets it.” As a mother to a child with food allergies herself, her work is not only driven by her scientific integrity, but also a very personal drive to make a difference in the lives of all who are touched by food allergies. The scientific questions she asks truly come from a deep understanding of food allergies. In addition to her busy job, Dr. Gupta lends her voice as a prominent researcher to advocate for and support the larger allergy community as a whole. She has written a book, The Food Allergy Experience, and regularly updates her blog, chronicling the many events where she has given back to the allergy community in very powerful ways.

Please help Dr. Gupta’s research group help all of us! Participate. Make a difference.

STUDY OVERVIEW:

Researchers at Northwestern Medicine are conducting a research study entitled “Risk Taking Behavior among Adolescents with Food Allergy," which is currently enrolling participants.  The goal of this study is to learn more about the risk taking behaviors of food allergic adolescents – both in regard to general risk taking and risk taking as it relates to food allergy.  In order to participate in the study, adolescents between the ages of 14 and 22 years who currently have a food allergy are being asked to complete an entirely anonymous and confidential electronic survey.  No protected health or identifying information is being collected.  No compensation is being offered in exchange for study participation. All aspects of this research study have been approved by the Northwestern Institutional Review Board, IRB STU00097291.

If you are between the ages of 18 and 22 and are interested in participating in this study, please click on this secure link to access the anonymous and confidential survey [https://redcap.nubic.northwestern.edu/redcap/surveys/?s=TcT8XLeZeA].

If you are a parent with a food allergic child between the ages of 14 and 17 and have no objections to your adolescent child participating in this study, please forward him/her this link [https://redcap.nubic.northwestern.edu/redcap/surveys/?s=TcT8XLeZeA].  The link will take him/her to the completely anonymous and confidential survey.

If you would prefer for your child not to participate, no further action is required.

If you have any questions prior to making your decision, please feel free to contact me directly at jacqueline.pence@northwestern.edu, or Dr. Gupta at r-gupta@northwestern.edu.

References:

1.           Gupta RS, Springston EE, Warrier MR, et al. The prevalence, severity, and distribution of childhood food allergy in the United States. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):e9-e17. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0204.

2.           Gupta R, Holdford D, Bilaver L, Dyer A, Holl JL, Meltzer D. The economic impact of childhood food allergy in the United States. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(11):1026-1031. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2376.

3.           Bock SA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA. Fatalities due to anaphylactic reactions to foods. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;107(1):191-193. doi:10.1067/mai.2001.112031.

4.           Pumphrey R. Anaphylaxis: can we tell who is at risk of a fatal reaction? Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;4(4):285-290. doi:10.1097/01.all.0000136762.89313.0b.

5.           Sampson HA, Mendelson L, Rosen JP. Fatal and near-fatal anaphylactic reactions to food in children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(6):380-384. doi:10.1056/NEJM199208063270603.

Too good to be true science - creating mistrust or assurance?

While science is our greatest sense of hope, it can also be a source of immense frustration. Today I'm reminded that the products of science are influenced by imperfect people, and at least for me, feeling "frustrated" understates things a bit.

Creative commons license: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_scientist#mediaviewer/File:Mad_scientist.svg

The Sanctity of Science

As the years go by, I grow more and more convinced that the scientific process is a perfect process for its intended purpose - to test ideas in order to explain how natural phenomena work in the realm of space and time.  Natural phenomena can range from at one end - the known universe - to at the other end - the seemingly infinitesimally small Higg's boson (aka - God particle).  At either of those extreme ends of natural phenomena, questions of science often meet the philosophical - e.g. was there a BEFORE the big bang? Most of us, however, reside somewhere in the middle of this spectrum.  Even in the in between, there is still so much we have to learn - about ourselves, about our world.  I believe the wonder, awe, and beauty of the unknown will always be a part of our existence because it is central to being human to question, wonder, and desire to know.  I have yet to meet a person without these traits. I have to agree with a recent incredibly thought-provoking interview of Richard Dawkins on the Daily Show that this curiosity just may lead to humanity's demise (Really, watch it.  It's fascinating).  Yes, I agree that how certain humans will choose to use our accumulated knowledge will likely destroy us long before our use of the scientific process has a fighting chance of coming anywhere near understanding all there is to understand.  Like an addiction to a bad drug, we can't stop our craving for knowledge.  And I know we never will; I hope we never will.  We need solutions to humanity's problems like food allergies, and understanding the problems should go a long way in helping us fix the problems.

Whew, that was deep!  I hope you don't mind my random musings (the best thing about a personal blog, in my opinion!)  But, back to what I really wanted to discuss - the scientific process in all its perfect glory.  The process is perfect.  Humans are not.  Therefore, how humans use this process is inherently imperfect.  The steps - observation, question, hypothesis, test the hypothesis (experiment), analyze the data, conclude - gets repeated over and over and over... it's like an upward spiral staircase continuously climbing higher in our knowledge.  Any wrong ideas (hypotheses) will eventually be uncovered through experimentation.  This is the beauty of the scientific process - it self corrects our wrong ideas.

Science Fun - It's Electric!

Whether we are destined to become scientists or not, understanding the scientific process is crucial to our ever growing complex world.  Think about all of the articles that report scientific findings on food allergy alone - how do you separate the wheat from all the chaff in how science gets reported?  Understanding the process will go a long way in discerning claims that are truly supported by evidence versus the many over-sold or outright unsupported claims frequenting our online communities.

As an introductory-level college biology instructor, I'm seeing way too many students coming into my classroom lacking a basic understanding of the scientific method - i.e. how do scientists make the discoveries versus what is established scientific knowledge.  For too long, curriculum has focused on what I like to call "biology history" as opposed to "doing biology."  Yes, you need to know a good amount of the "history" to get to the bleeding edge, but the scientific process can and should be integrated all along the way.  There is hope that things are changing (Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education:  A Call to Action).

“Appreciating the scientific process can be even more important than knowing scientific facts. People often encounter claims that something is scientifically known. If they understand how science generates and assesses evidence bearing on these claims, they possess analytical methods and critical thinking skills that are relevant to a wide variety of facts and concepts and can be used in a wide variety of contexts.”

-National Science Foundation, Science and Technology Indicators, 2008.

In other words, teach a man to fish instead of giving him a fish. There is just too much new knowledge being generated for any human to keep up.  I strongly believe that an understanding of the scientific method begins many, many, MANY years before getting into undergraduate level science courses.  It begins in childhood.  I have to say, I'm encouraged by what I'm seeing in children's programming - in one of JR's favorite shows, The Dinosaur Train on PBS, one of the characters, Buddy, routinely shouts, "I have a hypothesis!"  As a result, JR routinely goes around the house shouting, "I have a hypothesis!"  (Hypothesis = educated guess to explain observation).  Sweet, beautiful music to this Mom's (and Dad's!) ears.  The seeds of scientific understanding are being planted.

Check out My Guest Post for Asthma, Allergies, Children!

I am very honored to have authored a guest post for the website, Asthma Allergies Children, which is the web-resource component to the book by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Dr. Larry Chiaramonte, and Henry Ehrlich.

If you have not checked out this website, it is a fantastic resource.

Here is Part 1 of 2.
http://www.asthmaallergieschildren.com/2013/03/15/dr-martin-and-ms-food-allergy-mom-grad-school-never-prepared-her-for-this/

Update on Friday, March 22:
Part 2 of 2 is now published.  Check it out.  Thank you again to Asthma Allergies Children!
http://www.asthmaallergieschildren.com/2013/03/22/dr-martin-and-ms-food-allergy-mom-part-2-the-parent-talks-back/  

I hope it encourages much thought and discussion.  Happy reading!

Research from Scientific Meetings - Cautious Optimism

In light of the recent meeting of the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), I wanted to take a little time to explain to the non-science folks out there:  1) what is a scientific meeting and 2) what can we conclude from meeting highlights that are press-released and thus have been shared like wildfire across various social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.  By the way, those live tweets from various scientists/MDs, such as the Allergist Mommy, convinced my to join Twitter (FYI - you can find me at FdAllergySleuth, although I have NO idea what I am doing!).

1) What is a scientific meeting?

Poster session from a recent meeting for the Society for Neuroscience.  Image source:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/helloooo/4045778043/