Bruce Boissonnault on Science and Society |
 OurBlook interview with Bruce A. Boissonnault, president & CEO, Niagara Health Quality CoalitionWith the country embroiled in public debates around healthcare and the economy ... and upcoming with U.S. energy policy ... what problems do the public and experts face in discussing science and statistics? If science can be used, can it also be abused? BB: There is very little science in the public discourse on health care reform, and even less fact checking in the news about it. Here's some practical advice for those filtering the scientific information in the debate on reform: 1) Opinions held without evidence are neither faith nor truth; they are a window into our own desires. 2) People who are paid to think a certain way rarely change their mind. 3) If something is advertised on TV, you already know it costs too much, and it's probably bad for your health, too. 4) The louder someone shouts, the less they probably have to say. What can scientists and science teachers do to help the public understand the data and the general debates? Is their objectivity called into question when they do so? BB: Serious scientists, even social scientists, must always evaluate their findings in comparison to something concrete. To evaluate the U.S. healthcare system's performance, scientists should evaluate how the U.S. performs compared with other nations. Healthcare researchers in most countries evaluate their performance compared to other nations routinely, and as a consequence, they get better results. The World Health Organization is one entity that compiles such comparative evaluations. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. healthcare system delivers the worst results in the developed world in terms of keeping people alive when they have conditions that can be treated by healthcare professionals. Moreover, other sources agree that the U.S. has an estimated 75 million un- and under-insured. Access for these people is more restricted in the United States than in any other developed country, and U.S. personal bankruptcies related to medical expenses are the highest in the world. Finally, the U.S. infant mortality rate is among the worst in the developed world. Most important, despite having the world's worst results, the per capita cost of healthcare in the United States is higher by far than it is in any other nation in the world according to the OECD. (Editor's note: OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of countries with free-market economies and democracy.). How does science benefit from the public better understanding it and the possible practical consequences of the work? BB: Nothing sanitizes like sunshine. The public doesn't like secrecy, especially for information they pay for with their tax dollars. Moreover, I think many people are beginning to realize that studies funded by cigarette companies about smoking safety might not be as unbiased as studies by independent researchers. For many years, the rate of growth in what I term "advernews" has outpaced the average reader's ability to recognize advernews for what it is ... a marketing message wrapped in a lab coat. Nonetheless, I have seen in recent months a growing and healthy skepticism among Americans about information they see in the media. They don't want healthcare statistics from healthcare or health insurance organizations. They want it from healthcare watchdog groups. And, they understand that to be a good watchdog for consumers, a watchdog group has to nip at the industry once in a while when the industry's comparative results are poor. In a survey of 937 scientists who are members of the Society of Toxicology, the Center for Media and Public Affairs and its affiliate site stats.org found that WebMD is the only news source a majority of them (56 percent) regard as accurate in covering chemical risk. Wiki came in second at 45 percent. Trailing badly at 15 percent were the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. USA Today took the print booby prize at 6 percent, and network broadcast news recorded an embarrassing 5 percent. Why are even the most prestigious mainstream media organizations so mistrusted by scientists? BB: Scientists (e.g., from the Society of Toxicology) prefer publications that are more science-oriented. Print media readers, however, want simple, crisp conclusions about the news, and they may not want copious information about specific health problems that are not relevant to them. If there is a serious problem, how can the media do a better job in dealing with science and statistics? BB: Some opine that high debt levels in media corporations' ownership structure are making it increasingly difficult for media outlets to put their duty to the public good ahead of ratings and ad revenues. In the news business, it's ad revenues that keep the lights burning so they can still be in business to continue reporting tomorrow. This emerging fact of life in the news business may be at the heart of the emergence of "advernews" as a major problem in scientific reporting. As I opined earlier, though, over time, citizens may be catching on and asking some of the questions they need to about scientific reports and statistics. Eventually, one can hope that citizens will recognize the difference between media reports that are just advernews ... advertising dressed up in a lab coat ... vs. real science. The Niagara Health Quality Coalition, in collaboration with the Alliance for Quality Healthcare, publishes the New York State Hospital Report Card. Bruce Boissonnault has held executive positions with Walt Disney, May Department Stores and Price Waterhouse. He has an MBA from the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 634 Trackback(0)
Comments (0)
 Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
