I like Twitter."  Without it, I would not have "met" Dr. Anas Younes, a researcher at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, nor Dr. Robert Baker, who is relentless about the research linking Vitamin D and cancer prevention."  Without it, many of you would not be reading this article.

What is troublesome at best and potentially dangerous is forwarding misinformation and mis-interpretation of scientific studies.

Two very recent cases:

1) Discover magazine published a story that is now being "buzzed up," tweeted, and re-tweeted without critical thought."  On the basis of a single study on rats, the overwhelming conclusion is that cancer itself causes depression."  Never mind that the article states that the hippocampus regulates emotion (can't find THAT astounding news anywhere in recent texts or a review of studies). "  Where are the sources for these interpretations? Scientific method and research ethics require us to guard against such broad, sweeping statements on the basis of a single study.

Small digression: in my first graduate class in neuropsychology,"  my professor recounted the story of students inferring emotion and motivation about a rat in a maze."  The rat was presented with a large object resembling another rat. The researcher moved the object around, and the rat stood still."  Psychology students inferred that the rat was frightened or depressed. In actuality, the rat was blind."  Lesson: we bring our preconceived notions to data and read into it what we will.

2)"  A report on findings regarding diet and prostate cancer prevention, published on the website of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, warned the public against taking dietary supplements to prevent prostate cancer."  Readers can click on a link, which opens a page to an abstract, which by professional standards is supposed to summarize the hypothesis, the methods, the results, and warranted conclusions."  What does this abstract provide? A very high-level description of diet and the conclusions about potential negative consequences of taking dietary supplements."  If readers wish to review the article in its entirety, they can purchase it for $43.31. "  Most people will be tempted to take the site's word for it.

I wasn't tempted to purchase the article, because if the abstract was so poorly executed, I could only imagine what corners were cut during the actual research.

This type of "reporting" can be very damaging."  Well-intentioned tweeter may view such "findings" as headline news and spread them around cyberspace, tweeting and retweeting to garner attention.

With a 140 character limitation, it's tempting to reduce all truths to memorable one-liners (for example, "aspirin prevents heart attacks"; "saccharin causes cancer"; "eggs raise cholesterol")."  Truth is rarely so simple.

The scientific method is one of continuous inquiry and refinement of findings, in order to advance knowledge about particular subjects."  Dialogue should not be cut off, nor should a door be closed, because nothing is every totally learned about a subject.

It is tempting to take shortcuts, but, where a person's health is concerned, such shortcuts could exact a high price.

" 

"