1

Chapter 1 Process of Science

j What You Will Be Learning
1.1 Conflicting Conclusions
1.2 Science Is a Process: Narrowing Down the
Possibilities
1.3 Anatomy of an Experiment
1.4 Sample Size Matters
1.5 Everyday Theory vs. Scientific Theory
1.6 Caffeine Side Effects
1.7 Correlation Does Not Equal Causation
1.8 From the Lab to the Media: Lost in
Translation
Java Report
2
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
Chapter 1 Process of Science
I
n 1981, a study in the New England Journal of
Medicine made headlines when it reported
that drinking two cups of coffee a day
doubled a persons risk of getting pancre-
atic cancer; five or more cups a day supposedly
tripled the risk. Study Links Coffee Use to
Pancreas Cancer, trumpeted the New York
Times. Is there cancer in the cup? asked
Time magazine. The lead author of the study,
Dr. Brian MacMahon of the Harvard School of
Public Health, appeared on the Today show to
warn of the dangers of coffee. I will tell you that
I myself have stopped drinking coffee, said
MacMahon, who had previously drunk three
cups a day.
Just five years later, MacMahons research
group was back in the news reporting in the
same journal that a second study had found no
link between coffee and pancreatic cancer.
Subsequent studies, by other authors, also
failed to reproduce the original findings.
A sometime health villain, coffees repu-
tation seems to be on the rise. Recent studies
have suggested that, far from causing
disease, the beverage may actually help
prevent a number of conditionseverything
from Parkinson disease and diabetes to cancer
and tooth decay. A 2010 CBS News headline
announced, Java Junkies Less Likely to Get
Tumors, and a blog proclaimed, Morning Joe
Fights Prostate Cancer. The September 2010
issue of Prevention magazine ran an article
titled Four Ways Coffee Cures.
Not everyone is buying the coffee cure, how-
ever. Public health officials are increasingly
alarmed by our love affair withsome might
say, addiction tocaffeine. Emergency rooms
are reporting more caffeine-related admis-
sions, and poison control centers are receiving
more calls related to caffeine overdoses. In
response, the state of California is even consid-
ering forcing manufacturers to put warning
Java Report
Making sense of the latest buzz in
health-related news
CHAPTER 1: PROCESS OF SCIENCE
3
labels on energy drinks. Never-
theless, caffeines energizing
effect is advertised on nearly
every street corner, where,
increasingly, youre also likely
to find a coffee shop; as of 2010,
there were 222 Starbucks within
a five-mile radius of a Man-
hattan zip code according to
Foodio54.com; nationally, the average within
the same radius is 10.
Conflicting messages like these are all too
common in the news. From the latest cancer
therapies to the ecological effects of global
warming, a steady but often contradictory
stream of scientific information vies for our
increasingly Twitter-size attention spans.
Why the mixed messages? Are researchers
making mistakes? Are journalists getting their
facts wrong? While both of these
possibilities may be true at
times, the bigger problem is
widespread confusion over the
nature of science and the mean-
ing of scientific evidence.
Consumers are flooded with
a firehose of health information
every day from various media
sources, says Gary Schwitzer, publisher of the
consumer watchdog blog HealthNewsReview.
org and former director of health journalism at
the University of Minnesota. It can beand
often isan ugly picture: a bazaar of disinforma-
tion. Too often, he says, the results of studies
are reported in incomplete or misleading ways.
Consider the grande cup of coffee or the Red
Bull you may have had with breakfast this morn-
ing. Why might consuming coffee or caffeine be
Consumers are
flooded with a
firehose of health
information every
day.
Gary Schwitzer
4
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
associated with such dramatically different
results? The risks or benefits of a caffeinated
beverage may depend on the amount a person
drinksone cup versus a whole pot. Or maybe
it matters who is drinking the beverage. The
New England Journal of Medicine study, for
example, looked at hospitalized patients only.
Would the same results have
been seen in people who
werent already sick? Some-
times, to properly evaluate a
scientific claim, we need to look
more closely at how the science
was done (Infographic 1.1).
Science Is a Process
Science is less a body of established facts than
a way of knowinga method of seeking
answers to questions on the basis of observa-
tion and experiment. Scientists draw conclu-
sions from the best evidence they have at any
one time, but the process is not always easy or
straightforward. Conclusions based on todays
evidence may be modified in the future as
other scientists ask differentand sometimes
betterquestions. Moreover, with improved
technology, researchers may uncover better
data; new information can cast old conclusions
in a new light. Science is a never-ending
process.
Lets say you want to investi-
gate the energizing effects of
coffee scientificallyhow might
you go about it? A logical place to
start would be your own per-
sonal experience. You may notice
that you feel more awake when
you drink coffee. It seems to help
you concentrate as you pull an all-nighter to fin-
ish a paper. Such informal, personal observa-
tions are called anecdotal evidence. Its a type
of evidence that may be interesting but is often
unreliable, since it wasnt based on systematic
study. You could perhaps poll your classmates
to find out if they experience coffee in the same
way.
SCIENCE
The process of using
observations and
experiments to draw
evidence-based
conclusions.
ANECDOTAL
EVIDENCE
An informal
observation that has
not been
systematically tested.
PEER REVIEW
A process in which
independent scientific
experts read scientific
studies before their
publication to ensure
that the authors have
appropriately
designed and
interpreted their
study.
HYPOTHESIS
A testable and
falsifiable explanation
for a scientific
observation or
question.
The national average number of Starbucks within a five-mile radius of a single zip code is 10.
Science is less
a body of
established
facts than a way
of knowing.
CHAPTER 1: PROCESS OF SCIENCE
5
INFOGRAPHIC 1.1
Conicting Conclusions
A variety of studies published in peer-reviewed scientic journals report
diferent conclusions about the risks and benets of cofee. In order for
the public to understand and use these outcomes to its advantage, a closer
look at the scientic process and the factors that surround cofee drinking
is necessary.
May cause pancreatic cancer
Is linked to infertility and low infant birth weight
Lowers the risk of Parkinson disease
Does not cause pancreatic cancer
Reduces risk of ovarian cancer
Scientic studies report that drinking cofee...
Chemicals naturally present in cofee,
including cafeine
The climate and soil in which diferent cofee plants
are grown (which in turn inuences the chemicals
in cofee)
How the beans are roasted and processed
How much cofee a person drinks
The gender, age, and general health of a cofee drinker
Other social factors, such as whether cofee is
consumed with a meal or with a cigarette, or with other
foods and beverages that may interact in some way
with cofee
Other unknown factors that just happen to
correlate with cofee drinking
So, is it really the cofee?
Or other factors associated with drinking cofee?
scientific findings. To further reduce the
chance of bias, authors must declare any pos-
sible conflicts of interest and name all funding
sources (for example, pharmaceutical or bio-
technology companies). With this information,
reviewers and readers can view the study with
a more critical eye.
Based on what you learn from reading jour-
nal articles, you could formulate a hypothesis
to explain how coffee improves mental perfor-
mance. A hypothesis is a narrowly focused
statement that is testable and falsifiable, that
is, it can be proved wrong. A hypothesis repre-
sents one possible answer to the question
under investigation. One hypothesis to explain
coffees effects, for example, is that drinking
coffee improves memory. Another might be:
high levels of caffeine increase concentration.
Not all explanations will be scientific hypoth-
eses, though. Statements of opinion, and
hypotheses that use supernatural or mystical
explanations that cannot be tested or refuted,
fall outside the realm of scientific explanation.
(Some call such explanations pseudoscience;
astrology is a good example.)
With a clear scientific hypothesis in hand
coffee improves memorythe next step is to
test it, generating evidence for or against the
idea. If a hypothesis is shown to be falsecoffee
does not improve memoryit can be rejected
and removed from the list of possible answers
to the original question. On the other hand, if
data support the hypothesis, then it will be
accepted, at least until further testing and data
show otherwise. Because it is impossible to test
whether a hypothesis is true in every possible
situation, a hypothesis can never be proved true
once and for all. The best we can do is support
the hypothesis with an exhaustive amount of
evidence (Infographic 1.2).
There are multiple ways to test a hypothesis.
One is to design a controlled experiment in
which you measure the effects of coffee drink-
ing on a group of subjects. In 2002, Lee Ryan,
a psychologist at the University of Arizona,
decided to do just that. Ryan noticed that mem-
ory is often optimal early in the morning in
adults over age 65 but tends to decline as the
TESTABLE
A hypothesis is testable
if it can be supported or
rejected by carefully
designed experiments
or nonexperimental
studies.
FALSIFIABLE
Describes a hypothesis
that can be ruled out
by data that show that
the hypothesis does
not explain the
observation.
EXPERIMENT
A carefully designed
test, the results of
which will either
support or rule out a
hypothesis.
Nevertheless, this anecdotal evidence might
lead you to formulate a question: Does coffee
improve mental performance? To get a sense of
what information currently exists on the sub-
ject, you could read relevant coffee studies that
have already been conducted, available in
online databases of journal articles or in univer-
sity libraries. Generally, you can trust the infor-
mation in scientific journals because it has been
subject to peer review, meaning that indepen-
dent and unbiased experts have critiqued the
soundness of a study before it was published.
The aim of peer review is to weed out sloppy
research, as well as overstated claims, and thus
to ensure the integrity of the journal and its
6
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
INFOGRAPHIC 1.2
Science Is a Process: Narrowing Down the Possibilities
Multiple scientists doing multiple experiments narrow down the pool of possible hypotheses. Those
that are rigorously tested and supported by other experiments emerge with greatest condence.
Initial
observations
generate
questions.
Study peer-
reviewed
scientic
literature.
Make
scientic
hypotheses
that are
testable and
falsiable.
Q 1
Q 2
Q 3
Q 4
Publish results in peer-
reviewed publications.
Rigorously test this hypothesis
with more experiments.
Carry out
controlled
experiments.
Analyze
experimental
data.
Make
conclusions
supported
by data.
Test alternative
hypotheses.
Results do
not support
hypothesis.
Results
support
hypothesis.
H 1
H 2
H 3
H 4
EXPERIMENTAL
GROUP
The group in an
experiment that
experiences the
experimental
intervention or
manipulation.
CONTROL GROUP
The group in an
experiment
that experiences
no experimental
intervention or
manipulation.
PLACEBO
A fake treatment
given to control
groups to mimic the
experience of the
experimental groups.
day goes on. She also noticed that many adults
report feeling more alert after drinking caf-
feinated coffee. She therefore hypothesized
that drinking coffee might prevent this decline
in memory, and devised an experiment to test
her hypothesis.
First she collected a group of participants40
men and women over age 65, who were active,
healthy, and who reported consuming some
form of caffeine daily. She then randomly
divided these people into two groups: one that
would get caffeinated coffee, and one that would
receive decaf. The caffeine group is known as
the experimental group, since caffeine is
whats being tested in the experiment. The
decaf group is known as the control groupit
serves as the basis of comparison. Both groups
were given memory tests at 8 A.M. and again
at 4 P.M. on two nonconsecutive days. The
experimental group received a 12-ounce cup of
regular coffee containing approximately 220
270 mg of caffeine 30 minutes before each test.
The control group received a placebo: a
12-ounce cup of decaffeinated coffee contain-
ing no more than 5 to 10 mg of caffeine per
serving.
By administering a placebo, Ryan could
ensure that any change observed in the experi-
mental group was a result of consuming caffeine
and not just any hot beverage. Moreover, partici-
pants did not know whether they were drinking
regular or decaf, so a placebo effect was also
ruled out. In addition, all participants were
forbidden to eat or drink any other caffeine-
containing foods or drinkslike chocolate,
soda, or coffeefor at least four hours before
CHAPTER 1: PROCESS OF SCIENCE
7
each test. Thus, the control group was identical
to the experimental group in every way except
for the consumption of caffeine.
In this experiment, caffeine consumption
was the independent variablethe factor
that is being changed in a deliberate way. The
tests of memory are the dependent variable
the outcome that may depend on caffeine
consumption.
Ryan found that people who drank decaffein-
ated coffee did worse on tests of memory func-
tion in the afternoon compared to the morning.
By contrast, the experimental group who drank
caffeinated coffee performed equally well on
morning and afternoon memory tests. The
results, which were reported in the journal Psy-
chological Science, support the hypothesis that
caffeine, delivered in the form of coffee,
improves memoryat least in certain people
(Infographic 1.3).
Because other factors might, in theory,
explain the link between coffee and mental
performance (perhaps coffee drinkers are
more active, and their physical activity rather
than their coffee consumption explains their
mental performance), its too soon to see these
results as proof of coffees memory-boosting
powers. To win our confidence, the experi-
ment must be repeated by other scientists and,
if possible, the methodology refined.
Size Matters
Consider the size of Ryans experiment40 peo-
ple, tested on two different days. Thats not a
very big study. Could the results have simply
been due to chance? What if the 20 people who
drank caffeinated coffee just happened to have
better memory?
One thing that can strengthen our confidence
in the results of a scientific study is sample
size. Sample size is the number of individuals
participating in a study, or the number of times
an experiment or set of observations is
PLACEBO EFFECT
The effect observed
when members of a
control group display
a measurable
response to a placebo
because they think
that they are receiving
a real treatment.
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE
The variable, or factor,
being deliberately
changed in the
experimental group.
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
The measured result
of an experiment,
analyzed in both the
experimental and
control groups
SAMPLE SIZE
The number of
experimental subjects
or the number of times
an experiment is
repeated. In human
studies, sample size is
the number of
subjects.
The studies in scientific journals are reviewed by experts before publication to ensure
accuracy.
8
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
repeated. The larger the sample size, the more
likely the results will have statistical signifi-
cancethat is, they will not be due to random
chance (Infographic 1.4).
News reports are full of statistics. On any
given day, you might hear that 75% of the Ameri-
can public opposes a piece of legislation. Or that
15% of a group of people taking a medication
experienced a certain unpleasant side effect
like nausea or suicidal thoughtscompared to,
say, 8% of people taking a placebo. Are these
differences significant or important? Whenever
you hear such numbers being cited, its impor-
tant to keep in mind the total sample size. In
the case of the side effects, was this a group
of 20 patients (15% of 20 patients is 3 people), or
was it 2,000? Only with a large enough sample
size can we be confident that the results of
a given study are statistically significant and
represent something more than chance. More-
over, its important to consider the population
being studied. For example, do the people
reporting their views on a piece of legislation
represent a broad cross section of the public,
or are most of them watchers of the same tele-
vision network, whose views lie at one
extreme? Likewise, in Ryans study, are the
65-year-old self-described morning people
INFOGRAPHIC 1.3
Anatomy of an Experiment
There are many ways to approach a scientic problem.
Controlled experiments are one way. As
illustrated here, controlled experiments
have two groups: the control group and
the experimental group, which difer
only in the independent variable.
Population of 40 men and women over age 65
Control group Experimental group
Random placement into equivalent groups
(with respect to age, gender, health, activity level, etc.)
Independent variable
(the variable that is changed
in a systematic way)
Dependent variable
(the variable that is
measured in the experiment)
Result
Evidence-based conclusion:
Cafeinated cofee improves memory
in this population.
Placebo treatment:
12 oz. decafeinated cofee
(30 minutes prior to test)
Test treatment:
12 oz. cafeinated cofee
(30 minutes prior to test)
Memory test score:
Tests given morning and
afternoon on multiple days
Memory test score:
Tests given morning and
afternoon on multiple days
Memory test scores were
worse on afternoon tests.
Memory test scores were
the same on morning and
afternoon tests.
STATISTICAL
SIGNIFICANCE
A measure of
confidence that the
results obtained are
real, rather than due
to random chance.
CHAPTER 1: PROCESS OF SCIENCE
9
who regularly consume coffee
representative of the wider
population?
If you search for caffeine
and memory on PubMed.gov
(a database of medical research
papers), youll see that the mem-
ory-enhancing properties of
caffeine is a well-researched
topic. Many studies have been conducted, at
least some of which tend to support Ryans
results. Generally, the more experiments that
support a hypothesis, the more confident we
can be that it is true. A hypothesis that continues
to hold up after many years of rigorous testing
may eventually be considered a scientific the-
ory. Note that the word theory in science
means something very different from its
colloquial meaning. In everyday life we may
say something is just a theory,
meaning it isnt proved. But
in science, a theory is an expla-
nation that is supported by a
large body of evidence com-
piled over time by numerous
researchers, and which re-
mains the best explanation we
have for an observed phenom-
enon (Infographic 1.5).
This Is Your Brain on Caffeine
Caffeine is a stimulant. It is in the same class of
psychoactive drugs as cocaine, amphetamines,
and heroin (although less potent than these, and
acting through different chemical pathways).
Caffeine boosts not just memory and mental
activity but physical activity as well. One study,
in 2004, found that 33% of 193 track and field
INFOGRAPHIC 1.4
Sample Size Matters
The more data collected in an experiment, the more you can trust the conclusions.
Data from only eight participants: Data from dozens of participants:
Conclusions drawn from these data might
suggest that cafeine has only a slight positive
inuence on memory, a 15% average increase,
but could easily be inconclusive, because of
the small sample size.
These data show a more convincing positive efect of
cafeine on memory, a 45% average increase, because
it is supported by more data. A statistical analysis would
show that this positive inuence is signicant in other
words, it is not due to chance.
S
c
o
r
e

o
n

m
e
m
o
r
y

t
e
s
t
100 0 200 300
mg cafeine per day
Efect of Cafeine on Memory
0
20
40
60
80
100
S
c
o
r
e

o
n

m
e
m
o
r
y

t
e
s
t
100 0 200 300
mg cafeine per day
Efect of Cafeine on Memory
0
20
40
60
80
100
In science, a
theory is the
best explanation
we have for an
observed
phenomenon.
SCIENTIFIC THEORY
A hypothesis that is
supported by many
years of rigorous
testing and thousands
of experiments.
10
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
athletes and 60% of 287 cyclists said they con-
sumed caffeine to enhance their performance.
Recognizing caffeines reputation as a perfor-
mance-enhancing drug, the International
Olympic Committee prohibited
athletes from using it until 2004
(when it decided to allow it, pre-
sumably because it had become
too common a substance to
regulate).
While the exact mechanisms
are not fully understood, scien-
tists think that caffeine exerts its
energizing effect by counteract-
ing the actions of a chemical in
the brain called adenosine. Adenosine is the
bodys natural sleeping pillits concentration
increases in the brain while you are awake and
by the end of the day promotes drowsiness. Caf-
feine blocks the effect of adenosine in the brain
and keeps us from falling asleep.
Though our understanding of the chemistry
is relatively new, humans have enjoyed coffees
kick for more than a thousand
years. Its said that an Ethiopian
goatherd found his goats acting
unusually frisky one afternoon
after munching the leaves of a
small bush. Chewing a few of the
shrubs berries himself, he got a
caffeine buzz, and the rest was
history. Today, caffeine is the
most wildly used stimulant on
the planet (Table 1.1).
In fact, consumption of caffeinated beverages
has skyrocketed in the past 25 years; for exam-
ple, young people now drink far more soda than
milk. A 2009 study in the journal Pediatrics
INFOGRAPHIC 1.5
Everyday Theory vs. Scientic Theory
In everyday life, people use the word theory to refer to an idea that they would like to follow up.
In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has never been disproved, even after many years of rigorous testing.
Everyday theory:
Great idea based on a persons experience and knowledge
Scientic theory:
Important hypotheses supported by
thousands of scientic experiments
Cell Theory:
All living things
are made of cells.
Theory of
General Relativity:
Gravity inuences
time and space.
Theory of Evolution
by Natural Selection:
Populations of organisms
change over time, adapting
to their environment.
If you carry an
umbrella with you,
it wont rain.
The freezer is
the safest place
to keep valuables.
You feel more
cheerful when
you wear bright
clothing.
Some researchers
contend that
coffees mind-
boosting effects
are an indirect
result of the cycle
of dependency.
CHAPTER 1: PROCESS OF SCIENCE
11
a significant amount of coffee every day may
notice that they dont feel quite right if they skip
a day; they may be cranky or get a headache.
These are symptoms of withdrawal. In fact,
some researchers contend that coffees mind-
boosting effects are an indirect result of the
cycle of dependency. Improvement in mood or
performance following a cup of coffee, they say,
may simply represent relief from withdrawal
symptoms rather than any specific beneficial
property of coffee.
To test this dependency hypothesis, scien-
tists could conduct an experiment. They could
compare the effects of drinking coffee in two
groups: one group of regular coffee drinkers
who had abstained from coffee for a short
period, and another group of noncoffee drink-
ers. Does coffee give both groups a boost, or
only the regular coffee drinkers looking for their
fix?
In fact, this very experiment was done in
2010 by a group of researchers at the University
of Bristol in England. Their study, published in
the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, looked
at caffeines effect on alertness. Researchers
gave caffeine or a placebo to 379 participants
and asked them to take a test that rated their
level of alertness. The study found that caffeine
did not boost alertness in noncoffee drinkers
compared to those drinking a placebo
(although it did boost their level of anxiety and
headache). Heavy coffee drinkers, on the other
hand, experienced a steep drop in alertness
when given the placebo.
What this study does is provide very strong
evidence for the idea that we dont gain a ben-
efit in alertness from consuming caffeine, the
study author, Peter Rogers, said. Although we
feel alert, thats just caffeine bringing us back
to our normal state of alertness. Of course,
this doesnt really explain why people get
hooked on coffee in the first place.
Finding Patterns
Performing controlled laboratory experiments
like those discussed above is one way that scien-
tists try to answer questions. Another approach
is to make careful observations or comparisons
INFOGRAPHIC 1.6
Cafeine Side Efects
Despite potential benets as a memory-enhancer,
the cafeine in cofee has some powerful side efects.
Central
Irritability
Anxiety
Restlessness
Confusion
Delirium
Headache
Insomnia
Muscular
Seizures
Trembling
Twitching
Overextension
Respiratory
Rapid
breathing
Urinary
Frequent
urination Systemic
Dehydration
Fever
Visual
Seeing ashes
Ears
Ringing
Skin
Increased
sensitivity
to touch
or pain
Heart
Rapid
heartbeat
Irregular
rhythm
Gastric
Abdominal pain
Nausea
Vomiting
(possibly with blood)
found that teenagers consume up to 1,458 mg
of caffeine a daynearly five times the recom-
mended maximum adult dose of 300 mg. Caf-
feine can cause anxiety, jitters, heart
palpitations, trouble sleeping, dehydration,
and more serious symptomsespecially in
people who are sensitive to it. In 2007, two
high school students in Colorado Springs, Colo-
rado, were hospitalized with stomach pain,
nausea, and vomiting after drinking one
8-ounce can of Spike Shooter, a potent bever-
age that packs a walloping 300 mg of caffeine
the equivalent of almost four Red Bulls
(Infographic 1.6).
For regular coffee drinkers who crave their
morning buzz, such symptoms are unlikely to
convince them to kick the habit. This may be
because, like many other psychoactive sub-
stances, caffeine is addictive. Those who drink
12
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
of phenomena that exist in nature. This is the
approach taken by scientists who study epide-
miologythe incidence of disease in popula-
tionsor some other area, like the movement
of stars or the nature of prehistoric life, that
cannot be directly manipulated.
For example, if an epidemiologist wanted to
learn about the relationship between cigarette
smoking and lung cancer, he could compare the
rates of lung cancer in smokers and nonsmokers,
but he could not actually perform an experiment
in which he made people smoke cigarettes and
waited to see whether or not they got cancer.
Such an experiment would be highly unethical.
Although epidemiological studies do not
provide the immediate gratification of a labora-
tory experiment, they do have certain advan-
tages. For one thing, they can be relatively
inexpensive to conduct, since often the only
procedure involved is a participant question-
naire. And you can study factors that are con-
sidered harmful, such as excess alcohol or
smoking, that you would be unable to test
experimentally. Finally, epidemiological stud-
ies have the power of numbers and time. The
Framingham Heart Study, for example, is a
famous epidemiological study that has tracked
rates of cardiovascular disease in a group of
people and their descendants in Framingham,
Massachusetts, in order to identify common
risk factors. Begun in 1948, the study has been
going on for decades and has provided moun-
tains of data for researchers in many fields,
from cardiology to neuroscience.
Most of the health studies featured in the
news are epidemiological studies. Consider a
study on coffee and Parkinson disease pub-
lished in the Journal of the American Medical
Association ( JAMA) in 2000. Researchers
examined the relationship between coffee
drinking and the incidence of Parkinson dis-
ease, a condition that afflicts more than 1 mil-
lion people in the United States, including men
and women of all ethnic groups. There is no
known cure, only palliative treatments to help
lessen symptoms, which include trembling
limbs and difficulty coordinating speech and
movement.
EPIDEMIOLOGY
The study of patterns
of disease in
populations, including
risk factors.
CHAPTER 1: PROCESS OF SCIENCE
13
For more than 30 years, researchers at the
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Honolulu
followed more than 8,000 Japanese-American
men, gathering all sorts of information about
them: their age, diet, health, smoking habits,
and other characteristics. Of these men,
102 developed Parkinson disease. What did
these 102 men have in common? Epidemiolo-
gists found that none of them drank caffeinated
beveragesno coffee, soda, or caffeinated tea.
By contrast, coffee drinkers had a lower inci-
dence of Parkinson disease. In fact, those who
drank the most coffee were the least likely to
get the disease. Men who drank more than two
12-ounce cups of coffee each day had one-fifth
the risk of getting the disease compared to
noncoffee drinkers.
So does coffee prevent Parkinson disease?
The occurrence and progression of many dis-
eases are affected by a complex range of fac-
tors, including include age, sex, diet, genetics,
and exposure to bacteria and environmental
chemicals, as well as lifestyle factors like drink-
ing, smoking, and exercise. Although the study
discussed here suggests a linkor correla-
tionbetween caffeine and lower incidence of
Parkinson disease, it does not necessarily show
that caffeine prevents the disease. In other
words, correlation is not causation. Perhaps
the people who like to drink coffee have differ-
ent brain chemistry, and its this different
brain chemistry that explains the differing
incidence of Parkinson disease among coffee
drinkers (Infographic 1.7).
Indeed, other studies have found that ciga-
rette smoking also correlates with a lower risk of
Parkinson disease. Both coffee drinking and
smoking could be considered types of thrill
seeking, behavior observed in people who
enjoy the high they get from stimulants such
as caffeine or nicotine. The lower risk of Parkin-
son disease among coffee drinkers might there-
fore result from thrill-seeking brain chemistry
that also happens to resist diseaserather than
being caused by either smoking or drinking cof-
fee per se.
Moreover, the study followed Japanese-
American men. Would the same relationship of
caffeine and Parkinson disease be seen in
other ethnic groups or in women? Several
CORRELATION
A consistent
relationship between
two variables.
How Much Caffeine Is in Our Beverages?
TABLE 1.1
BEVERAGE SERVING SIZE QUANTITY OF CAFFEINE
Coffee 8 oz 95 mg and up
Red Bull 8.3 oz (1 can) 76 mg
Rockstar 8 oz (half can) 80 mg
Amp 8.4 oz (1 can) 74 mg
Coke Classic 12 oz (1 can) 35 mg
Mountain Dew 12 oz (1 can) 54 mg
Barqs Root Beer 12 oz (1 can) 23 mg
Sprite 12 oz (1 can) 0 mg
Source: Mayo Clinic
The FDA Recommends No More than 65 mg of Caffeine in 12 oz.
14
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
other epidemiological studies have found a
correlation between caffeine consumption and
a lower incidence of Parkinson disease in men
of other ethnicities. But in women the results
have been inconclusive. All in all, theres still
no direct evidence that caffeine actually pre-
vents the disease in either men or women.
While our study found a strong correlation
between coffee drinkers and low rates of Parkin-
sons disease, said the studys lead author,
G. Webster Ross in a press release issued by the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, we have
not identified the exact cause of this effect. Id
like to see these findings used as a basis to help
other scientists unravel the mechanisms that
underlie Parkinsons onset.
To get a clearer picture of caffeines role in
Parkinson disease, researchers could conduct a
type of experiment known as a randomized
clinical trial, in which the effects of coffee are
measured directly under controlled condi-
tions. One could divide a population into two
groups, put one group on coffee and the other
on decaf, and then follow both groups for a
number of years to see which one had the
higher incidence of disease. The problem
with such a study is that it is often very expen-
sive to conduct, and it can be difficult to get
!
INFOGRAPHIC 1.7
Correlation Does Not Equal Causation
While the data shown below show a convincing correlation between reduced cafeine intake and an increased risk
of Parkinson disease, it is impossible to state that less cofee causes Parkinson disease. Other factors that were
not tested or controlled for could be causing the reduced risk.
Possible explanations
for these results:
Drinking cofee reduces risk of
developing Parkinson disease.
People who are at risk for
developing Parkinson disease
are less likely to drink cofee.
Drinking cofee masks the
symptoms of Parkinson
disease, thereby reducing the
rate of diagnosis of Parkinson
disease in cofee consumers.
Pitfalls for making decisions from a single epidemiologic study:
Complexity of a disease makes it unlikely that every variable can be controlled for.
Small sample sizes can inuence accuracy of results.
The specic population in the study may not be representative of the general population.
Nondrinkers
48
1216
2024
28+
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
c
e
,

%
10 0 20 25 15 5 30
0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
3.5
Cofee intake, oz/day
Less cofee
correlates with
higher incidence
of Parkinson
disease.
More cofee
correlates with
lower incidence
of Parkinson
disease.
Year of follow-up
RANDOMIZED
CLINICAL TRIAL
A controlled medical
experiment in which
subjects are randomly
chosen to receive
either an experimental
treatment or a
standard treatment
(or placebo).
SOURCE: ROSSETAL., JAMA2000; 283:26712679
CHAPTER 1: PROCESS OF SCIENCE
15
people to stick to the regimen for the length of
the study. (And such studies are unethical if
the experimental treatment is likely to cause
harm.)
Getting Beyond the Buzz
While a lower risk of Parkinson disease repre-
sents a potential boon to coffee drinkers, the
news for caffeine addicts isnt all good. Over the
years, epidemiological studies have linked caf-
feine consumption to higher rates of various
diseases, including osteoporosis, fibrocystic
breast disease, and bladder cancer. As with
the link to Parkinson disease, however, such
correlations do not necessarily prove that
caffeine causes any of these diseases.
Nevertheless, such studies are often quite
influential and newsworthylike the supposed
link between coffee and pancreatic cancer that
made headlines in 1981. That study was based
on a single epidemiological study, which was
later discounted by further research.
Journalists face unique challenges in cover-
ing health news, says Gary Schwitzer of Health-
NewsReview.org: They must cover complex
topics, do it quickly, creatively, accurately,
completely and with balanceand then be sure
they dont dumb it down too much for a gen-
eral news audience. . . . If they cant do it right,
they must realize the harm they can do by
reporting inaccurately, incompletely, and in an
imbalanced way (Infographic 1.8).
INFOGRAPHIC 1.8
From the Lab to the Media: Lost in Translation
The data as reported in peer-reviewed journals are often very complex.
Scientists interpret these data in lengthy discussions, but the public
receives them as isolated media headlines.
Data from scientic studies
provide a large amount of information.
But media reports dont
have the time and space to
explain all the information.
So the general public may not receive important
details and potential limitations of the single study.
Translation of complex data into
media headline
As shown in the data table, even some cofee drinkers
develop Parkinson disease, so not everyone will benet.
The results are reecting a correlation, not a causation.
This is not direct evidence that cofee is a cure.
This study was carried out with a particular male
population, so we cannot generalize the results
to other populations (e.g., women).
Unadjusted and Age-Adjusted incidence of Parkinson Disease (PD) According to Amounts
of Coffee Consumed per Day
Based on 30 Years of Follow-Up After the 1965 to 1968 Examinations:
Incidence Rate/10,000
Person-Years
Coffee Intake
(oz/day)
No. Cases of
PD/No.
Subjects at Risk Unadjusted
Adjusted
for Age
Adjusted Relative Hazard (95%
Confidence) Compared with Top
Category of Coffee Intake*
Nondrinker 32/1286 10.5 10.4 5.1 (1.8 14.4)
4 to 8 33/2576 5.5 5.3 2.7 (1.0 7.8)
12 to 16 24/2149 4.7 4.7 2.5 (0.9 7.3)
20 to 24 9/1034 3.6 3.7 2.0 (0.6 6.4)
28 4/959 1.7 1.9 Reference
Test for Trend p<0.001 p<0.001 p<0.001
Nondrinkers
vs. Drinkers
2.2 (1.4 3.3)
* Adjusted for age and pack-years of cigarette smoking.
Significantly different from nondrinkers, p<0.01
Significantly different from nondrinkers, p<0.05
Significantly different from nondrinkers, p<0.001
Significant excess risk of PD, p <0.01
Significant excess risk of PD, p <0.001
ADAPTED FROM: ROSS ET AL., JAMA 2000; 283:26712679
16
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
Science is an ongoing process
in which scientists conduct
carefully designed studies to
answer questions or test
hypotheses.
Scientific hypotheses are
tested in controlled experiments
or in nonexperimental studies,
the results of which can support
or rule out a hypothesis.
Scientific hypotheses can be
supported by experimental data
but cannot be proved absolutely,
as future experiments or
technologies may provide new
findings.
The strength of the
conclusions of a scientific study
depends on, among other
factors, the type of study carried
out and the sample size.
Every experiment should have
a controla group that that is
identical in every way to the
experimental group except for
one factor: the independent
variable.
The independent variable in an
experiment is the one being
deliberately changed in the
experimental group (e.g., coffee
intake). The dependent variable
is the measured result of the
experiment (e.g., effect of coffee
on memory).
Often a control group takes a
placebo, a fake treatment that
mimics the experience of the
experimental group.
In epidemiological studies, a
relationship between an
independent variable (such as
caffeine intake) and a dependent
variable (such as development of
Parkinson disease) does not
necessarily mean one caused the
other; in other words, correlation
does not equal causation.
A randomized clinical trial is
one in which test subjects are
randomly chosen to receive
either a standard treatment (or
placebo) or an experimental
treatment (e.g., caffeine).
Scientists rely on peer-
reviewed scientific reports to
learn about new advances in the
field. Peer review helps to ensure
that the scientific results are
valid as well as accurately and
fairly presented.
Most of the general public
relies on media reports for their
scientific information. Media
reports are not always
completely accurate in how they
portray the conclusions of the
scientific studies.
Scientific theories are different
from everyday theories. A
scientific theory has withstood
the test of time and extensive
testing and is supported by a
significant body of evidence.
Summary
Journalists and scientists arent the only ones
who bear the responsibility of determining what
information is trustworthy. As consumers and
citizens, we can become more knowledgeable
about how science is done and which studies
deserve to influence our behavior. Whether its
the latest media report linking cell phones to
brain tumors or vaccines to autism, the only
way to really judge the value of a study is to sift
through the evidence ourselves. Of course, to do
that, we might first need a cup of coffee.
CHAPTER 1: PROCESS OF SCIENCE
17
PROCESS OF SCIENCE
Science is a method of seeking answers to questions
on the basis of observation and experiment.
HINT See Infographics 1.1. and 1.2.
j KNOW IT
1. When scientists carry out an experiment, they
are testing a
a. theory.
b. question.
c. hypothesis.
d. control.
e. variable.
2. Of the following, which is the earliest step in the
scientific process?
a. generate a hypothesis
b. analyze data
c. conduct an experiment
d. draw a conclusion
e. ask a question about an observation
j USE IT
3. When a scientist reads a scientific article in a
scientific or medical journal, he or she is confident
that the report has been peer reviewed. What does
this mean? Why is peer review important?
DESIGNING EXPERIMENTS
Many considerations go into the design and
implementation of a scientific experiment.
HINT See Infographics 1.31.4.
j KNOW IT
4. In a controlled experiment, which group receives
the placebo?
a. the experimental group
b. the control group
c. the scientist group
d. the independent group
e. all groups
5. In the studies of coffee and memory discussed,
the independent variable was __________ and the
dependent variable was _______________.
a. caffeinated coffee; decaffeinated coffee
b. memory; caffeinated coffee
c. caffeine; memory
d. memory; caffeine
e. decaffeinated coffee; caffeinated coffee
j USE IT
6. You are working on an experiment to test the
effect of a specific drug on reducing the risk of
breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Describe
your control and experimental groups with respect
to age, gender, and breast cancer status.
7. Design a randomized clinical trial to test the
effects of caffeinated coffee on brain activity.
Design your study so that the results will be as
broadly applicable as possible.
EVALUATING EVIDENCE
Many factors can influence the strength of a
scientific claim.
HINT See Infographics 1.41.8.
j KNOW IT
8. From what you have read in this chapter, would
you say a 21-year-old Caucasian female can count on
caffeinated coffee to reduce her risk of Parkinson
disease?
a. yes, because the results of a peer-reviewed
study showed that drinking caffeinated
beverages reduced the risk of Parkinson disease
b. no, because subjects in that peer-reviewed
study were Japanese-American males; it cannot
be inferred that the same results would hold for
Caucasian females
c. no; she would have to restrict her
consumption of coffee to decaffeinated coffee
to reduce her risk of Parkinson disease
d. yes; coffee is known to reverse the symptoms
of Parkinson disease
e. There is no data on the relationship
between drinking caffeinated beverages
and Parkinson disease because it would be
unethical to conduct such an epidemiological
study.
9. In which type of study would you have the most
confidence?
a. a randomized clinical trial with 10,000
subjects
b. a randomized clinical trial with 5,000 subjects
c. an epidemiological study with 15,000
subjects
d. an endorsement of a product by a movie star
e. a report on a study presented by a new
organization
Chapter 1 Test Your Knowledge
18
UNIT 1: WHAT IS LIFE MADE OF? CHEMISTRY, CELLS, ENERGY
j USE IT
10. Your friends mother has always been a coffee
addict. She recently received a diagnosis of
Parkinson disease. Does her experience negate the
results of the JAMA study described in this chapter?
Why or why not?
11. Depending on the television station that you
watch, you may have seen advertisements that
show beautiful people with clear skin who claim
that a specific skin care product is scientifically
proven to reduce acne. The product reportedly gave
these people their glowing, clear skin.
a. Is their testimony itself strong enough
evidence for you to act on? Why or why not?
b. What kind of scientific evidence would
convince you to spend money on this product?
Explain your answer.
SCIENCE AND ETHICS
12. You know that scientific reports are subject to
peer review before being published in scientific
journals. Do you think that scientists should also
review media reports about their studies and work
to correct any misleading statements? Why or why
not? Who is ultimately responsible for what is
reported in the popular press?
13. Your grandmother has told you about the
changes she is making to her diet because of stories
she has read in the news. Make a checklist of things
she should consider before changing her behavior.