Page 61 - summer2016

Reading Between the Lines
By Merinda Teller, MPH, PhD

Zika and the Rush to Judgement

Not infrequently, individuals who assert- pharmaceutical zeitgeist, as the uncritical rush
ively proclaim that “the science” and “the facts” to judgment about the Zika virus reminds us.
buttress their position on a given topic do so with The virus’s reported arrival on Latin Ameri-
the intention of shutting down debate and cast- can soil in 2015 has prompted a steady and
ing aspersions on those who ask inconvenient increasingly heavy-handed barrage of alarmist
questions. How often have we been told that the headlines and agency responses. On February
1
case is closed because “the science says so”? Yet 1, 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO)
a 2010 editorial in The British Journal of Psy- quickly issued its highest level of warning for
chiatry openly admits that published scientific Zika, declaring the virus to be a public health
studies often present false results due to biases emergency of international concern—only the
embedded within the “social fabric of science.” third time that the WHO has put forth an alert
2
Some of the explanations for skewed results of this magnitude. The U.S. Centers for Disease
7
are fairly obvious. Publication bias, for example, Control and Prevention (CDC) followed suit on
involves the tendency not to publish studies February 8 by elevating its Zika response to the
that generate negative or null results, and no highest level.
8
3
one would deny that funding sources also can The Zika virus has been around for almost
give rise to blatant conflicts of interest. There seventy years without attracting much attention.
4
are other less overt influences as well. Scien- Zika was first isolated from rhesus monkeys by
tific journals with a high “impact factor” are a Rockefeller Foundation-supported research
less likely to accurately report effect sizes (the institute in Uganda in the late 1940s. At pres-
9,10
magnitude of difference between two groups) ent, the Zika virus is a commodity that can be
than low-impact-factor journals. The country purchased on the Internet for about six hundred
2
in which a study is conducted also plays a role; seventy dollars. In the very small number of
11
North American studies overestimate effect human cases of Zika infection documented
sizes by roughly 10 percent compared with through 2007, infected individuals either exhib-
studies conducted outside of the U.S. This is ited no symptoms or had mild symptoms that
2
important because effect sizes attest to a study’s spontaneously disappeared.
practical (as opposed to statistical) significance. 5 The current bout of Zika-related concerns
As renowned theoretical physicist Carlo has to do with the virus’s alleged link to a surge
Rovelli reminds us, “The very expression ‘sci- in northeastern Brazil of an otherwise rare The Zika
entifically proven’ is a contradiction in terms.” brain-related birth defect called microcephaly virus has
Rovelli says, “The core of science is the deep (smaller-than-average head circumference). The
awareness that we have wrong ideas [and] previously benign Zika virus also is purported been around
prejudices.” When those prejudices remain to contribute to Guillain-Barré syndrome in for almost
6
unacknowledged or are denied outright, their some contexts. seventy years
influence on the scientific enterprise in turn From the beginning of the recent news cov-
goes unexamined. erage, the mainstream media have displayed a without
convoluted logic toward Zika. On the one hand, attracting
INTRODUCING…THE ZIKA VIRUS reporters have been splashing down headlines much
Careful scrutiny of scientific reporting that present the virus as “insidious, cunning, and
seems warranted in the current medical- evil” (see sidebar, page 63) while communicat- attention.
12
Wise Traditions SUMMER 2016 Wise Traditions 61