Science in the attention economy
Will Cole either can't read a study, or doesn't care to
Science studies are often challenging to read. And the sheer volume is daunting: 5.1 million academic articles are published annually, averaging out to 14,000 per day. As some researchers are prone to the same drive for attention as everyone else, low-quality studies that fulfill contrarian fantasies can rise to the top.
What’s really baffling, however, is when people run with narratives that don’t even exist, or extrapolate from extremely broad information to jam a study into their narrative.
As I covered on Wednesday, an observational, hypothesis-generating study about the role of arachidonic acid (AA) in the body was weaponized by wellness influencers who made the astounding leap from linoleic acid, which is minimally converted to AA in the body (roughly 0.2%), to seed oils (which contain linoleic acid) driving an increase in colorectal cancer in younger people.
The study, which again was not a clinical trial, never mentioned seed oils. From there, “functional” chiropractor Will Cole not only called the fake findings “bombshell health news,” he claimed the researchers suggested switching from seed oils to olive and avocado oil. The irony, of course, is that the study is freely available for anyone to read. If you took the time to do so, you’d quickly discover that:
Seed oils are never mentioned
The researchers never made that dietary suggestion
I’m guessing many of Cole’s 677k followers didn’t bother to take those extra steps. The study has been picked up by 131 news outlets and posted on Twitter 290 times. In contrast, Cole’s post about the study has been liked 9,352 times.
Even worse, Scientific American ran with the story, publishing “Ultraprocessed Foods High in Seed Oils Could Be Fueling Colon Cancer Risk.” The author talks to one of the study’s authors, who says that the lipids in question come from a variety of sources, including corn-fed beef, and notes, “Not everybody with seed oil exposure will probably suffer a problem from [colorectal cancer].” He says overconsumption of ultra-processed foods could be driving health problems (a rather common statement), making it a question of volume—which is not what the headlines states.
This isn’t the only recent study to be contorted as it stumbles through social media. In June, headlines ran with the idea that fake meats are linked to heart disease and early death. Yet as a recent Vox article notes, meat alternatives accounted for only 0.2% of the calories in question in this study. Most of the calories came from industrial-packaged goods.
I suppose telling people that eating too many Twinkies isn’t great for health isn’t going to grab attention. And so headline-baiting writers homed in on vegan meat.
Consumer trust and knowledge is lost in the attention economy, however, further eroding trust between journalists and their audience. The end result, as I noted earlier this week, is often the promotion of eating disorders.
As the author writes,
The American food environment is unhealthy and disease-promoting, and the food industry bears much of the blame. But ultra-processed foods — a framework “so broad that it borders on useless,” as Oxford nutrition researcher Nicola Guess argued in the New York Times this week — does little to clarify the reasons why. Taken at face value, it could even steer consumers away from healthier, more planet-friendly plant-based foods.
Good science takes time, requires a lot of input, and is sometimes counterintuitive. Researchers miss things; they get some things wrong; if they’re honest about it, they make corrections.
Unfortunately, once a brain worm is released into the public, it’s hard jamming him back into his den. Thoughtful journalists should take the time to read the full studies in discussion and present nuanced, detailed arguments.
Since that doesn’t play well in the attention economy, however, it once again falls back to us to try to figure things out. That’s the gap the wellness influencer exploits.