You’ll find a good example of bad science journalism in the latest issue of The New Scientist. There’s a teaser on the cover that says “The Antioxidant Myth: How we fell for a medical fairy tale.”
The bulk of the article is devoted to describing research that alleges no benefit from taking antioxidant supplements. The gist of the article is this. Populations with diets of antioxidant-rich foods have better health. Tests in the lab on cell cultures show that antioxidants reduce harmful free radicals. Yet when clinical trials are conducted with antioxidant supplements, the outcomes are disappointing.
It’s not until the end of the article that a dissenting voice is heard. A representative from the Council for Responsible Nutrition points out that antioxidants don’t work like drugs, that antioxidants work together. The article lingers not on this topic, but does take the time to note that the Council is the trade organization for supplement manufacturers. You, the reader, are smart enough to know what that means: dismiss what they’ve said because it’s obviously biased.
Let’s start here with why this is bad science journalism. The Council’s view is shared by a wide range of researchers and practitioners. Why wasn’t someone from, for instance, the Linus Pauling Institute interviewed and quoted? Because it wouldn’t give the odor of bias provided by a quote from a trade association. Speaking of odor, the author of the article “is science writer in residence at the Novartis Foundation in London.” Novartis is a leading pharmaceutical company. Pharmaceutical companies and the science that blossoms from them don’t like vitamins and minerals—at least unpatented vitamins and minerals. But I digress. Or maybe not.
The shameful thing about this article and the editorial that covers it, what makes it bad science journalism is its gross bias and condescension. Let me review the bias very quickly. A major criticism of antioxidant clinical trials is their faulty design. In addition to the very important issue regarding how antioxidants work together, these experiments often ignore the test subject’s unique metabolism and nutrient status. Practitioners and civilians who successfully use antioxidants and other supplements know this. Antioxidant clinical trials have also been sloppy about what form of antioxidant the researchers use.
The condescension is perfectly captured by the cover’s subtitle “How we fell for a medical fairy tale.” The New Scientist’s editorial centers on their receiving supplements from a PR firm and how, by golly, they weren’t going to fall for that nonsense. The article itself bemoans the alleged fact that, despite all of the great science showing antioxidant supplements don’t do anything, people will continue to take them. We’re just a gullible bunch of yahoos towed around by the promise of health made by unscrupulous sellers of potions and nostrums. You see, you and I are too stupid to realize when we’re being conned. The objective, scientific folks at The New Scientist, on the other hand, have a firm grasp of the evidence, have decided that antioxidants don’t work, and believe that you’re a fool to think otherwise.
The Enlightenment philosopher Spinoza observed that, because we are finite creatures, we of necessity view the world from a perspective. He thought we should strive to understand that perspective so that we are not its captives. The New Scientist is not alone in allowing its perspective to degenerate into bias. The problem is that they don’t think they have a perspective. They have science, so they can’t be biased. I think you and I know better. That antioxidants don’t work is the real antioxidant myth.
The issues in this article are developed (with references) in issue #4 of the Progressive Health Observer in a review article titled “Antioxidant Follies.”
Related resources are available on the Food and Nutrition page and on the Orthomolecular Medicine page.
