This may be a bit bizarre as a topic for this column, but I guess it bothered me enough to write something about it, trivial though it may be.
At least five years back there was a study suggesting that when babies nap after learning a simple skill, they retain the skill the next day. This was repeated recently and the results were the topic of some recent articles. If you missed any of the write-ups, I'll share that it was pretty simple and compelling; only those babies who napped after learning the skill were actually able to repeat it; those who were not allowed to nap thereafter had to be taught it all over again.
Wednesday morning, the ABC "Good Morning America" show did a little fluff piece on the study, with a guest going over the findings and explaining what had been tested. Nothing to note; nothing to write home about -- until the end.
One of the hosts asked the very reasonable question, although partly in jest, as to whether there was an application to adults, and whether we, too, would benefit from an occasional nap as an aid in retention. The guest, and I'm paraphrasing, said that he didn't know, but he "thought so." He made no rationale for saying that, whatsoever. Worse yet, the last exchange between host and guest was essentially telling us (adult viewers) to take a nap because it would help.
Maybe one person in 1,000 would take offense at that, and maybe I'm that one, but here goes. We were constantly taught in med school that "babies are not small adults" or words to that effect. Babies are strongly developing organisms whose systems are attuned to growth and whose minds are attuned to learning. In other words, what applies to babies is never to be assumed to apply to adults in the same way.
Yet here is a guest, ostensibly some kind of expert in the field, thoughtlessly extrapolating all over the place. Think about it -- science is not an "I think so" subject. Science is a "prove it" subject. Had the guest simply given the right answer to the "adult" question and said "We don't really know, because babies are very different creatures", all would have been well.
But no, he gave no credible reason to "think so", went on to let the host advise people to nap based on an unconnected study, and let it go. TV is a very bully pulpit, and now some of the millions of viewers will make decisions based on unscientific speculation.
No, I don't think having a few people nap is a bad thing, and it might be quite good. But when ABC does a piece founded on a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study, the rest of the piece needs to be equally sound in its science -- and its conclusions. Just remember how many people think that there's a connection between vaccination and autism because Jenny McCarthy, that renowned expert in biological research, went on TV to claim her son's autism was caused by a vaccine, despite zero evidence of it.
OK, it's just me. But after 40 years, I probably have to find an actual use for that biology degree hanging on the wall. If it is in defense of scientific method, and in contempt for meddling amateurs who don't quite understand what their audience can and cannot distinguish, all the better.
Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
No comments:
Post a Comment