Read on Twitter
This article nicely illustrates a common phenomenon in contemporary feature writing: the use of science that the author very probably hasn't read to provide factoids.
A short thread. /1 https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1314806932872613889
A short thread. /1 https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1314806932872613889
The factoids in this piece are mostly concentrated into these three paragraphs. Let's start with the first. Multiple claims with no evidence provided, but everything sounds great (boosting our immune system, mental wellbeing, mindfulness), so I guess we don't need citations. /2
The second paragraph contains a dead link (.html should be .htm). Once fixed, that goes not to a journal article, but to a Science Daily puff. I don't know if the HuffPo author read the article; my first impression is that the benefits of greenspace may be confounded with SES. /3
And it's not clear if the benefits of greenspace were associated with living near it, or with actually taking exercise in it. Certainly we can't claim that country walks are better than other exercise. The authors acknowledged their limitations, but Science Daily didn't. /4
The third paragraph again links, not to a study, but to a "Harvard Health Letter" https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/a-prescription-for-better-health-go-alfresco
With the authority of "Harvard Medical School", it mentions "a study from 2008". /5
With the authority of "Harvard Medical School", it mentions "a study from 2008". /5
One would expect the Harvard Health Letter, from the prestigious Harvard Health Publishing, part of the prestigious Harvard Medical School at the prestigious Harvard University, to be a paragon of scientific rigour. But it doesn't even contain a link to the study. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ /6
Some googling suggests that this is the study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1087054708323000
It has a sample size of 17.
Again, I'm not sure that I would bet money that the author of the HuffPo piece actually read it before citing it. /7
It has a sample size of 17.
Again, I'm not sure that I would bet money that the author of the HuffPo piece actually read it before citing it. /7
But even if he did, look what he quoted (emphasis added by me): "**children with ADHD** scored higher on a test of concentration after a walk through a park than after a walk through a residential neighbourhood or downtown area" /8
That doesn't tell us anything about people other than children with ADHD. It probably shouldn't be used to claim benefits for walking in green spaces for the rest of the population. /9
There's nothing especially unusual or objectionable about the HuffPo piece. (I have other quibbles with it, but they're not relevant here.) It's entirely typical of the genre. You can find a dozen articles using these techniques every day. /10
My bigger problem is authors of this kind of feature using throwaway quotes from science that they haven't read (or had explained to them) as a source of feel-good support for their articles. (It also works equally well for feel-bad information.) /11
I'm not sure if there is a solution to this, but if there is, I'm guessing that it will start with education and awareness of what science can and can't do. /12 /end
