JAMA 2
<p>new? 9/16</p>
<p>
see AMA, NE j med, lancet</p>
<p>
===
see mann attack on glantz
</p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an 1020</font></p><p>n<a data-ga-action="Home Headlines: Headline" href="https://www.democracynow.org/2020/10/8/headlines/new_england_journal_of_medicine_calls_on_voters_to_vote_against_trump_in_first_ever_endorsement" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(241, 242, 243); color: rgb(64, 78, 92); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: 700; text-align: center;">ew England Journal of Medicine Calls on Voters to Vote Against Trump in First-Ever Endorsement</a></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> =</font></p><p></p><p>icn 520</p><p>...</p><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Enstrom's 'Odd Man Out' Study</b></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</b></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom's study almost wasn't published. "I have never read a paper that so willfully ignored the breadth of scientific evidence and attacked a specific study/group of investigators," said a reviewer for the<b> New England Journal of Medicine</b>, one of the scientific journals that rejected the manuscript.</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But Enstrom finally got the paper in print by reaching out to </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts, who had submitted a letter in support of Enstrom during his fight with UCLA.</b></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">
</b></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Calabrese was a founder of the International Dose Response Society, </b>an organization that holds that exposure to low doses of toxic agents can be beneficial—a position embraced by many industry groups and rejected by many advocates of strong environmental protection policies.</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He was also the editor of the society's journal, Dose-Response. Aware of the controversy Enstrom's study would stir, Calabrese agreed to publish, but warned Enstrom he would give the authors Enstrom challenged a chance to respond. "I said you'll have to take your whacks by the people you're going to hit, and they're formidable people," Calabrese recalled.</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In fact, the authors of the original ACS study and the Health Effects Institute (HEI) reanalysis soon published a detailed response, citing a litany of problems they had identified in Enstrom's work.</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The most significant fault, they wrote, was Enstrom's use of old, county-level PM 2.5 readings instead of employing newer methods now widely used to estimate exposure more precisely. The authors of the critique had just published their latest follow-up study of the ACS cohort, using seven different methods of estimating pollution, including satellite remote sensing, and finding even more significant associations between PM 2.5 exposure and premature death. </font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom rejected the critiques of his study—in fact, in an interview last year, he refused to accept that the substance of his work had been called into question at all. ...</font></div><p>==</p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The fall of a prominent food and marketing researcher may be a
cautionary tale for scientists who are tempted to manipulate data and
chase headlines.</font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brian Wansink, the head of the Food and Brand
Lab at Cornell University, announced last week that he would retire from
the university at the end of the academic year. Less than 48 hours
earlier, <em>JAMA,</em> a journal published by the American Medical Association, had <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2703449">retracted</a>
six of Wansink's studies, after Cornell told the journal's editors that
Wansink had not kept the original data and the university could not
vouch for the validity of his studies.</font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an internal review spurred by a wide range of allegations of research misconduct, a Cornell faculty committee <a href="http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/09/provost-issues-statement-wansink-academic-misconduct-investigation">reported</a>
a litany of faults with Wansink's work, including "misreporting of
research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly
document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship."
Cornell apologized for Wansink's "academic misconduct," removed him from
his teaching and research posts, and obligated him to spend the
remainder of his time there "cooperating with the university in its
ongoing review of his prior research."</font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font><aside id="ad-backstage-wrap">
</aside><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was a stunning fall from grace for Wansink, who had
become famous for producing pithy, palatable studies that connected
people's eating habits with cues from their environment. Among his many
well-known findings: People eat more when they're served in large bowls,
and when they're watching an action movie, and when they sit close to
the buffet at an all-you-can-eat restaurant. His work was cited in <a href="https://www.today.com/series/one-small-thing/weigh-yourself-day-week-most-accurate-reading-t87046">national</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/how-post-workout-food-rewards-can-sabotage-your-goals/2015/01/12/1a556c16-8af2-11e4-9e8d-0c687bc18da4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.68a4cb9b589e">news</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/business/02leonhardt.html">outlets</a>, including <a href="https://www.npr.org/search?query=brian%20wansink&page=1">NPR</a>, and he had a hand in developing the new U.S. dietary guidelines in 2010.</font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font><div id="res651852250" class="bucketwrap internallink insettwocolumn inset2col ">
<div class="bucket img">
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font> <div class="bucketblock">
<h3 class="slug"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/">The Salt </a></font></h3>
<h3><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/28/410313446/why-a-journalist-scammed-the-media-into-spreading-bad-chocolate-science" data-metrics="{" category="category" story="Story" to="to" action="action" click="Click" internal="Internal" link="Link" label="label" https="https" www.npr.org="www.npr.org" sections="sections" thesalt="thesalt" why-a-journalist-scammed-the-media-into-spreading-bad-chocolate-science="why-a-journalist-scammed-the-media-into-spreading-bad-chocolate-science">Why A Journalist Scammed The Media Into Spreading Bad Chocolate Science</a></font></h3>
</div>
</div>
</div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wansink's perch at the top of his field began to wobble in early 2017. That's when <a href="https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/tim-van-der-zee#tab-1">Tim van der Zee</a>, a doctoral student in<strong> </strong>educational
psychology at Leiden University in the Netherlands, went public with
the results of an investigation that began when he stumbled across a
blog post Wansink had written on his <a href="http://www.brianwansink.com/">personal website</a> the year prior.</font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170312041524/http:/www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no">post</a>,
since removed from Wansink's site but accessible today as a cached
version, was aimed at aspiring academics. The most promising
postdoctoral students, Wansink wrote, "unhesitatingly say 'Yes'" to
research projects, "even if they are not exactly sure how they'll do
it."</font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But van der Zee was more interested in Wansink's
description of the work he was assigning to his postdocs. Those
descriptions, van der Zee says, appeared to contain a "strange
admission" of "highly questionable research practices."...</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/09/26/651849441/cornell-food-researchers-downfall-raises-larger-questions-for-science">https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/09/26/651849441/cornell-food-researchers-downfall-raises-larger-questions-for-science</a>
</font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><p>
</p>