As a retiree, I enjoy listening to National Public Radio on mornings when I’m not rushing out to get in a bicycle ride. Meghna Chakrabarti hosts a program called “On Point” that airs on Colorado Public Radio weekdays at 10:00 am. Last Monday my Friend Ruth and I were returning from a Mandolin Camp in Kingston, NM and were on the road somewhere north of Santa Fe, streaming Meghna’s show. The topic was peanut allergies among children, and how research conducted in 2015 (The Leap Study) resulted in new guidelines for parents of infants, changing what had been recommended since 2000. Meghna’s guests were Dr. Robert Wood and Dr. David Hill, who shared their in-depth knowledge of both the Leap study and facts about peanut allergies in general.
The Leap Study was a randomized, controlled study examining the effect of exposing infants to peanuts at an early age. It concluded that early exposure to peanuts (between 4 and 11 months of age) reduced the incidence of peanut allergies. This finding contradicted the earlier guidelines that instructed parents to avoid exposure to peanuts until at least three years of age.
A typical randomized, controlled trial is often an investigation into a medical treatment or other intervention or environmental exposure. It involves comparing one group that is randomly exposed to the intervention with a second group (control group) that is not exposed. Data analysts are blinded from knowing which group is which, but compare outcomes, trying to take into consideration (controlling for) differences in age, gender, culture, ethnicity, and other factors between the groups.
What impressed me about this broadcast was not so much the specific findings of the Leap study, but how important the scientific method is in advancing our knowledge and developing methods, practices, and products that improve our quality of life. I thought about how much we owe to the intelligent, insightful, educated, and patient women and men who dedicate their lives to science and scientific thinking. I could not help but contrast their work to what we observe today in the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, contemporary policy shapers who are making decisions based on self interest and biases, and followers whose beliefs are based on assertions for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
I wondered, as I listened, what leads some people to be forever inquisitive and pursue answers to their curiosity using the best known methods available, while others fall for myths, mistaken beliefs, and conspiracies. I imagine there is a continuum of people that ranges from those who insist on facts, or at least the best available evidence, to those who fall for the types of nonsense that is spewed by QANON, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, FOX News, religious fanatics, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and others swayed by superstitions and fallacious assumptions. One might think that this continuum would be represented by a bell-shaped curve, but looking at contemporary American culture, I fear that it is an asymmetrical distribution, with rational people severely underrepresented.
I’m encouraged by the results of elections on Tuesday, but I also fear that if our current political environment persists, we will continue to take resources away from education and healthcare. Doing so will only add to the imbalance of rationality. On the other hand, Mehgna Chakrabarti is one of the most impressive journalists I know of. She seems to able to interview anyone from any field and discuss detailed topics with in-depth level of understanding. I can say the same thing about Terry Gross, who hosts “Fresh Air” on NPR. For the past several years Terry has been stepping back and having others host her show, but “Fresh Air”, like “On Point,” keeps a retired senior like me well-informed and curious.