In mainstream media, everywhere from Fox News to Time (and here on Science 2.0, though with a little more skepticism) a bizarre study is all the rage - pesticides and other environmental toxins will give your kid a malformed penis and cause autism. And state regulations...prevent it.
This overturns all of epidemiology, right? Now something has to be done. Autism causes might be okay to debate in a reasoned fashion but the public will not stand for giving American men tiny penises. We're already in a new Cold War with Russia and Russian men are supposedly huge.
Well, no, it doesn't turn over anything except the stomaches of people who know how to read a study. They don't actually know if there are any chemicals, toxic or otherwise, involved. Instead, they searched for malformed penises among insurance claims. And those must be caused by environmental toxins, right? It's our old friend the surrogate marker.
How can you claim chemicals are causing autism and have no measurements of chemicals?
Disease clusters have to be factored carefully anyway, especially when it comes to something like autism. If you go to rich areas of Los Angeles, for example, you will find a lot of pediatricians, and you will find a spike in autism diagnoses for kids who move there. Does being rich in Los Angeles cause autism? It does if I write a correlation paper and my credit card payment clears with an open access publisher.
The American Council on Science Health oscillates somewhere between apoplectic and stunned in their coverage. I got on Skype with Ana Simovska and you can tell I was thinking about articles on both direct evidence for inflation and Cosmos, because I couldn't decide what is a better similarly ridiculous metaphor - correlating the rates of "Hello Kitty" dolls or the number of Whole Foods stores in a county to autism. So they used both:
I hate to be mean to peer-reviewed journals but, come on, this is clearly an attention-grab.
Luckily, I suspect the rash of Environmental Working Group and NRDC fundraising claims ('donate now if you don't want your child to have a micropenis') will be offset by legitimate analyses of the actual study. Writing in Forbes, Emily Willingham dissects the story while somehow managing to make no jokes. I applaud her for that.
Dr. Josh Bloom is even more aghast than I am about this study. Because he is a chemist and actually knows what he is talking about, I presume. Unlike the authors of the paper.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Suggestion: The EM Drive Is Getting The Appropriate Level Of Attention From The Science Community
- It's Naive To Pretend Differences Between Women And Men Are Just Genetics
- Bang! Meet The Highest-Energy Hadron Collision Ever Imaged!
- Will Aspartame Critics Now Be Less Bitter?
- GMOs Have Formaldehyde? Bizarre Claim Challenged By Experts
- Bees: Activists Remain Silent While This Pollinator Killer Decimates Millions
- Kepler 452b - Things That Could Go Wrong With Habitability & If It Is - Could We Detect Intelligent Life There?
- "I just wonder if this EM device could be in some way interacting with space itself? I mean there..."
- "Hints are not evidence...Only ghosts in the shell...431..."
- "Hi Tomasso. Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps I will making some posts on statistics at my blog..."
- "Hi Amarashiki,you point to several issues, not one... I did treat some of them in the past in this..."
- "I haven't been there long enough to receive funding from anyone, but I can tell you 99.9% of our..."