The Ethics and Dangers of Relaying Research Findings

Source: Illustration by Alex Robbins

Caveat emptor—the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for ensuring the quality of goods before purchasing—has been the underlying philosophy of research consumerism. Research, and more often pseudoscience, has become increasingly accessible to the public. But who has the responsibility of ensuring accurate understanding of research outcomes and pseudoscientific claims?

Pseudoscience is defined as a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly believed to be the product of the scientific method. Alternative medicine, astrology, and UFOlogists are all apt examples of pseudoscience. When presented alongside true science, or even in isolation, lay consumers often take pseudo-scientific articles at face value. While policing pseudoscience in mainstream media remains an ethical concern, there is plenty of room for misconception with regard to true science as well.

Take, for example, the onslaught of headlines suggesting that sugar is more addictive than cocaine that emerged in the early 2000s and were often accompanied by fMRI images depicting activation of the nucleus accumbens—a structure activated during any pleasurable or rewarding experience. Articles of this nature continue to surface, and while the methods of the scientific studies they reference are representative of true science, their findings have been grossly misrepresented and misunderstood by the general public.

Specifically, laypeople may not realize that these studies are only replicable in animal models, when sugar intake is restricted to a two-hour period. Interestingly, when the rats in these studies could have sugar whenever they liked—which is akin to a human model—there is no observable “addictive behavior,” nor are there any true withdrawal symptoms. Moreover, evolutionarily speaking, rats would be much more motivated to seek out a naturally occurring sweet taste as opposed to cocaine. Complicating factors such as these are often missed by the general public, but what remains is the false belief that sugar is more addictive than cocaine.

The sugar studies are only the tip of the iceberg of misunderstood science. Andrew Wakefield’s notorious publications regarding the false association between vaccines and autism continue to plague society today, highlighting the cruciality of accurate understanding, portrayal, and dissemination of scientific findings.

Thus, the question remains: whose responsibility is it to ensure accurate understanding of research outcomes? In a 2014 study by Joachim Kimmerle, Danny Flemming, Insa Feinkohl, and Ulrike Cress, the psychological processes underlying how medical research findings were perceived by laypeople were studied. Their conclusions suggest responsibility should lay with the media to promote public understanding of research findings. The study even offers suggestions to journalists for how to appropriately convey the tentativeness of research findings, despite the media’s tendency to minimize or avoid study limitations in favor of sensationalism.

Elements of research including design and methodology, sample size, and statistical power are vital to accurate interpretation. These elements are also outside the scope of the lay reader as well as, often, that of the lay journalist, rendering the caveat emptor philosophy of research a dangerous one.

While efforts have been made in recent years to promote clarity and transparency of limitations, we are left with the issue of media adaptations of studies that tend to provide only a watered-down snapshot of the abstract. While these issues are not specific to psychological science, they tend to be especially pervasive in psychological research when compared to other scientific fields of study. This is perhaps due to the public’s general interest in psychology and human behavior. Thus, the onus should remain with the practitioner of research rather than the layperson who is ill-equipped to interpret it. While caveat emptor may apply best to material goods, when it comes to research: caveat venditor.