In my TA class a few weeks ago, the other TA and I led a discussion of Epi in the News. I really like the concept behind this part of the class, since there are SO MANY PROBLEMS with the way clinical research is covered by the news, and I think it's great for the students to talk about the problems with various studies, and how they're presented by the media.
The challenge though, has been getting the students to think more like scientists, and less like activists. I mean, it's great that you have a political viewpoint, and this study happens to agree or conflict with it. Tell us more. But while you're at it, please also tell us some of the problems with the actual methods that were used in the study. Thanks.
Case in point. One student (who is an excellent student, I might add) presented NYT coverage of an intervention study aimed at reducing perinatal deaths in African American women in Pittsburgh. I think it was covered a few weeks ago. Anyway, the study found that perinatal deaths went down after the initiation of the program, and the article (at least how it was presented in class) turned into this piece on how horrible it is that funding for the program is getting cut.
Ok fine.....
So I tried really hard to get them to think of alternative explanations for why perinatal mortality went down following the initiation of this intervention, besides, "The intervention caused the decline."
To their credit, the students were able to come up with a couple on their own, for instance, what if the control group was systematically different than the people in the intervention group? I thought this was a great start.
Then I threw in:
What if perinatal deaths were declining in that population for reasons that had nothing to do with the intervention?
What if perinatal mortality rates jump around such that the decline observed was just random variation?
What if the patients who received the intervention were not the same ones that the perinatal death rates declined in (since the study was ecological)?
Anyway, I felt like a total social conservative in saying these things to the class, and I wonder what they thought of me telling them these things. But come ON!! We are trying to train them to be scientists here, not knee jerk liberals or conservatives. Go ahead, have your political agenda, but make sure you know how to critically read a research study while you're at it.
And for the record, I think the idea for these types of programs is really solid. It's just that I just want to see them studied in a rigorous fashion. How else will we ever get good enough data on which to base our public policy?
8 Pearls of Wisdom:
How else will we ever get good enough data on which to base our public policy?
Aye, but there's the rub. Public policy is not based upon scientific data, unfortunately.
Yes I am a nerd...but that sounds like fun (taking apart studies in the popular media). It is also an extremely important thing to learn how to do, and I am forever grateful for the CCU attending that made us sit down for hours each week going through all the "big name" studies that a lot of cardiology dogma was based on. Good for you for trying to teach kids to THINK!
I think that's a really cool segment that you (or the professor) is trying to integrate into the course. Let's face it, most forms of "critical thinking" in science involves "what happens to compound B if you add 2-methyl-somethingthatwillexplodegloriously?"
Aw, MSO -- So cynical! Some policy is based on data, though most is based on popularity. So that has to be my solution: be right AND popular. Haha.
Ana -- I used to be really intimidated by the literature. Now I have so much more confidence in my ability to assess study quality. Such a valuable skill. I wish more people were into it.
Mingle -- I think it's cool too.
See, when I read stuff like this, it actually makes me want to get off my ass and really study epi properly, instead of the half-assed shlock that's fed to us at our school. I wish I had command over that subject like you do (though I could never do the work required to be a PhD).
Good on you for cutting past the BS and actually getting them to think outside their own biases.
That sounds like a great class. I would love to take it. It also sounds like something every college undergrad should go through.
I'm so glad there are courses like yours. I only wish that everyone had to take them...
A facebook friend who I know only vaguely through a contact of a contact posted this link on her status today (scroll to the interpretation of the Lancet study). http://naturalsociety.com/a-flu-vaccine-timeline-the-recent-history-revolving-around-vaccine-dangers/
Argh!
I wish I had classes like that. Keep hammering at them-it's so important to know how to analyze.
Apart from the political activism, what you're saying mirrors what I've noticed as I've been doing research. It used to be that my postdoc would tell me what to do, interpret my data and tell me what to think, but once I got better, he started pulling away and started prompting me about what my data meant and now, I bounce ideas past him and 8/10 times, I'm usually on the right track. He said that ultimately, I should be thinking of new avenues and new questions as I work on my research, which is a) hard, but b) something I need to get better at. Thinking vs. blindly following.
Post a Comment