Although working nearly full time, I still try to read, and now I’m reading, slowly and intermittently, the 2016 version of Deep Nutrition by Catherine Shanahan, which I love, because I am very simpatico with the author, at least in the way we view the world. At work I  spend time with a wide variety of people, several of whom have quite different world views from mine, and reading this book feels like having a lively discussion with a knowledgeable friend.

The discussion part is in my mind, since obviously she’s doing all the talking.

In this post, I am will share two examples of scientific research corrupteded by corporate funding. Both involve the author, an MD, sharing contradictory findings or hypotheses with working research scientists at UCLA.

In scenario uno,* an epidemiologist funded by Big Ag consistently finds that eating fruit is healthy. He is “surprised” to learn that excess fruit consumption can lead to health problems, including elevated triglycerides, due to fruits’ high sugar/nutrient ratio. He is “fascinated” by a study in which pregnant women following US healthy diet guidelines give birth to babies with deficiencies of vitamin A, associated with eye, skeleton, and organ defects. He nonetheless “admitted” that not only did his funding depend on continuing to produce pro-fruit results, neither he nor any of his colleagues would be able to pursue these findings without large industry support.

Scenario dos involves a researcher working under state-funded grants for medical clinics serving Hispanic immigrants to investigate an aspect of the Hispanic paradox, specifically why recent immigrants from Latin American countries have healthier babies than their Caucasian counterparts. The author proposes that might be due to the benefits of the healthier homeland diets they had enjoyed through their pre-immigration lives. The researcher had not considered that possibility, instead hypothesizing that stronger networks of social support somehow lead to fewer premature births and birth defects, social support networks that are reinforced by community medical clinics.

Should we even call these examples research? I think these are marketing.

When I encounter material that concords so well with my own views, I feel the need to challenge myself. I want this to be correct, but is it? This is a big book with a lot of ideas, and I will be seeking both corroborating and contesting evidence for a while. Since it’s a nutrition book that largely supports the nutrition plan I have been following with good success for eight months now, I already have some real-world evidence in its favor. The complexity level behooves me to keep digging, though.

Both fact-digging and consideration of opposing views are surely brain builders, though we are unlikely to prove or disprove that assertion from industry-funded research.

=======================

* I’m still studying Spanish, and need to practice.