Let me state up front that I have no doubt BPA — a chemical used in the manufacture of many modern goods, including in the past many water bottles and sippy cups — is something we should get rid of in any connection to food. But at the same time, I have to speak out when a scientific study’s findings are misused to forward political agendas.
The findings here come, once again, from the journal Pediatrics. It seems like a month doesn’t go by when this journal is publishing more crappy science, and then draping it in a public relations campaign that gets everyone’s attention. (Actually, to be fair, the science is sometimes fine; it’s the over-reaching conclusions drawn by the researchers and the PR media machine that is truly vomit-inducing.)
In this case, the researchers set out to followup on a previous study that found higher gestational (in the womb) BPA levels increased hyperactivity and aggression scores in 2-year-old girls. They wanted to determine if these findings continue as the children age, whether executive functions were impacted by higher BPA levels, and whether it was gestational BPA as opposed to childhood BPA levels that were more important.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. Click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines.
Post a Comment:
Copyright © 1995-2013 Psych Central. All rights reserved.
Site last updated: 22 May 2013
|
Dr. Grohol, given how exercised you already are from the Pediatrics article, I urge you to read the following quote from the study only while doing transcendental meditation or under heavy sedation: “We examined the P-values for this interaction term and considered values of <.10 to be indicative of modification, because our statistical power was limited by sample size."
Let me paraphrase: These researchers jettisoned the traditional, highest acceptable p-value for statistical significance, .05, because the combination of small sample size AND small effect size AND a standard of .05 in their study would have rendered their findings non-significant, their hypothesis unconfirmed, and their study unpublishable.
If these researchers had been District Attorneys would they have dared address the Court: "Your Honor, due to our not being able to gather sufficient evidence, we are not able to meet the traditional burden of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. But surely, your Honor, you have no objection to substituting a lesser standard in this case. Yes, yes, we realize that perhaps an innocent man will be found guilty as a result, but…."
How can it be that what would be a farcical proposal in a judicial setting is Standard Operating Procedure in a scientific one?
Barth…. Thank you and good catch — something I missed (and of course, just naturally assume that researchers use the accepted standard of 0.05 and not make up their own “new” standard).
Which means this data and finding is even weaker than I suggested above.
I believe the peer reviewers at Pediatrics are either asleep at the proverbial wheel, or the editors simply don’t care about their journal’s reputation any more. Astounding.
Dr. What is BPA,is it posible that you could use complete words or explain what the letters stand for,Thank you yours truly manuela
Maya: Bisphenol A (BPA). FOUnd in many plastics, among other things. Can leach into food when microwaved.
Another great post about junk science. I read another article recently that stated in the Methods that they “randomly selected” and in the SAME SENTENCE admitted they gave only females the particular test they were examining for effectiveness due to “evidence that women perform better with that kind of measure.” Are you kidding me? How is this stuff being published? That particular article was forwarded to all mental health providers doing work with a large county in California, seemingly to promote the use of this kind of therapy with a specific diagnosis. Unbelievable.