People went crazy about Mozart in the 1990s. They proclaimed that his music could improve test-taking ability. That it could heal the body. That it could make babies smarter. In 1998, Zell Miller, the then governor of Georgia, even announced that he wanted the state to spend $105,000 a year to provide every child born in Georgia with a tape or CD of classical music. Yet the “Mozart effect”, as it was called, proved to be garbage. More than twenty follow-up experiments failed to reproduce the results of the original (and poorly designed) study. The trumpets were for nothing.
Every day, we see another provocative article on Facebook about the latest breakthrough study. Does Advil cause dementia? Can video games cure ADHD? Will Luminosity make you smarter? Is driving dehydrated the same as driving drunk?
This shouldn’t be a surprise. Media outlets need to grab attention fast and leave their readers with a key takeaway. Words and space are limited. Competition is fierce.
Most people would rather be punched in the face multiple times than be forced to carefully read “Association of dietary, circulating, and supplement fatty acids with coronary risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” That’s why the New York Times article that covered the key nutritional paper was simply “Butter is Back”.
Unfortunately, I have a sad truth for you. Science is imperfect and usually boring. Shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses don’t happen anymore. The field advances slowly; researchers are wrong all the time. It takes years for anything useful to be found. Funding is scarce. Most research isn’t deserving of a headline — or even close.
In an effort to illustrate how often medical studies can be flawed, the popular news website Vox put together a graph showing how common foods like coffee, beef, and butter are linked to cancer. Their conclusion: everything we eat both causes and prevents cancer, because you can get some very different results based on how you design your experiment (which is based heavily on who puts up the money for the study — usually large corporations with interests to protect).
Still not convinced most science journalists pawn off untrue or incomplete information as fact? Time once ran the headline “Scientists Say Smelling Farts Might Prevent Cancer”. The study mentioned, however, never talked about “farts”, or “cancer”. Fortunately, reader backlash prompted Time to change the headline and issue this correction three days later: “An earlier version of this article incorrectly summarized the findings and implications of this study.” In other words, the journalist fibbed everything to drive clicks.
Society will always be attracted to the flashy headline. Marketers will try to tell us that one thing or activity or product can make you smarter. More productive. More successful. Happier. A better person. Don’t get suckered into this “get something for nothing” mentality. It’s an overly simplistic approach.
No, Adderall will not make you go blind. No, using a laptop in class will not lower your chances of getting an A. And no, Jersey Shore will not lower your IQ (even though I have some doubts about this).
The point is: catchy titles aren’t going away, so be critical. Ask questions. Look at the source. See if the findings actually apply to you. Consult with experts. Default to skepticism.