And, of course, we would also have to say that the evidence of beneficial effects of a drink a day on the heart also come from correlational, epidemiological studies, not human experimentation.
Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3055 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [email protected] (479)524-7295 http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman "That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood....Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights." Barack Obama, Inaugural Address, January 20, 2009 -----Original Message----- From: Shearon, Tim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:56 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] BBC NEWS | Health | Drink a day increases cancer risk Marc- While I agree with you for the most part, I still think saying smoking *causes* cancer is a bit problematic given that there are also huge numbers (large # of data points!) of folks who do smoke and do not get cancer. Perhaps I don't know the data as well but it seems to allow for a genetic predisposition toward cancer, with smoking contributing or triggering, as much as it allows an explanation that smoking causes cancer unless you have a genetic predisposition to prevent the insult from causing cancer. Perhaps I'm being a bit persnickety but I tell my students that the term *cause* should be reserved for cases where there is experimental evidence. So saying "nicotine in specific high doses causes cancer in mice" is acceptable to me but saying "nicotine causes cancer in humans at the levels of smoking" I do find problematic - as a scientist (I also tell them smoking is dumb!). I still prefer to say contributes to causing cancer- you are absolutely correct that the evidence is unequivocal re the contributions of nicotine to cancer whereas the purely correlational alcohol data that is being used to imply a causal connection to cancer does not rise to the same level or degree of assurance. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Marc Carter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:52 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] BBC NEWS | Health | Drink a day increases cancer risk If all the data on the carcinogenic and atherosclerotic effects of smoke were correlational, I'd agree with you. But they're not. There are animal models, there are _in vitro_ tissue studies, and there are complex correlational techniques that all point to the health effects of smoking. To claim that smoking "causes" these things is based on far more than simple correlation. That's why I can say smoking "causes" cancer to my students and not be a hypocrite. I cannot say (with the same confidence) that alcohol causes cancer, or reduces heart disease. m ------- Marc L Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Baker University College of Arts & Sciences ------- "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it the right way, did not become more complicated." -- Paul Anderson urg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
