Top Science Journal Rebukes Harvard's Top Nutritionist

Top Science Journal Rebukes Harvard's Top Nutritionist - Forbes:
"Willett was the co-author of a study published last fall that generated enormous controversy when its dramatic conclusions were retracted at the last minute by the publicity team at Harvard’s teaching hospital, Brigham and Women’s. The study had been promoted to the media as showing a link between aspartame and cancer: “The truth isn’t sweet when it comes to artificial sweeteners,” said the press release. But the truth was that the statistical findings were so weak and confusing that no such claim could be supported, especially given that many systematic reviews of the evidence on aspartame had not found any such link.

At the time, Dr. Steven Nissen, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s cardiovascular medicine department told NBC News: “Promoting a study that its own authors agree is not definite, not conclusive and not useful for the public is not in the best interests of public health.” As NBC’s Robert Bazell put it, “the situation is a great example of why the public often finds science confusing and frustrating.”
....This is more than merely unsporting: Such a brazen double standard is a warning that what counts as “science” in public health is a mixture of data – good, bad and middling –, methodological limitations, and interpretation. The goal – to save the public either from themselves or external threats – influences what is researched and how that research is interpreted. Given the complexities of the problems and the challenges of measurement (think about how much “evidence” is generated in nutrition from people recalling what they eat), the political need for clear conclusions and recommendations, combined with the academic need for findings to be published in scholarly journals that want positive findings, means that public health messages are often scientifically weaker than they sound."