Showing posts with label research funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research funding. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

It's About Time!!


Way back in 1992, I began doing research on vitamin D deprivation. At that time, there were only a few other researchers looking at this topic. If anyone else thought of vitamin D at all, they figured it was a very minor problem resolved by drinking milk; and that it only affected bones. My research pointed to vitamin D deprivation being a widespread problem that affected multiple regions in the body beyond bones. But trying to get most of my colleagues to take this seriously was an arduous, disappointing process.

Between 1999 and 2001, I submitted grants to NIH trying to get funding to do a major research study on vitamin D deprivation among heavily-pigmented women. There was no interest in such research at that time. I wrote articles on vitamin D deprivation that have been widely cited, but still the issue wasn’t considered important enough for the NIH.

Part of the reason for this is the massive public relations campaign against sun exposure launched and carried out by dermatologists and their media friends. Yes, too much UVB exposure can be a problem; but not enough exposure is a much bigger problem. Only in the past year or so has the media finally, finally realized this. Now we are seeing articles on vitamin D deprivation and the importance of maintaining optimal levels of vitamin D if one wishes to avoid multiple health problems such as heart disease, cancer, auto-immune conditions, and, of course, keeping the skeletal system strong.

And FINALLY the NIH is going to fund a major study on vitamin D deprivation. It’s only taken almost two decades, but better late than never. This study will enroll 20,000 participants from throughout the nation. However, the group is limited to women who are 65 or older, or men who are 60 or older. Also, they need to be free of any major health problems. The study will be double blind in that participants and researchers will not know whether the participant is receiving actual vitamin D3 (2000 IU/day) or a dummy pill. The vitamin D dosage is also large enough that effects should be noticeable, unlike other recent studies where the dosage was much lower.

The study begins in January 2010 and will run for five years, so we cannot expect to read about results any time soon. However, It’s About Time! Maybe we will now see many other major research projects done on this important topic.

Just today a large cancer research study [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070702252.html ] found that even after controlling for a variety of factors, African Americans had higher rates of adverse outcomes for breast, colon, and ovarian cancers than was true of European Americans. This study evidently did not look at vitamin D levels, but, as I pointed out in one of my articles (Health Disparities: Reframing the Problem. Medical Science Monitor 2003; 9 (3): SR9-15), vitamin D deprivation is the probable factor involved in this disparity [ http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=4712 ]

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that taking 2000 IU of vitamin D3/day causes problems; and there are many studies that indicate there are important benefits. So, take your vitamin D every day and you will be ahead of the curve when the NIH study is finally analyzed and published.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Examine the Fine Print

You know that you need to read the fine print in contracts, but it may not have occurred to you that you also need to examine the “fine print” in scientific articles. Now, you may say, “I don’t read such articles anyway, so who cares?” Well, you should care because it is in this “fine print” that conclusions that affect your health can be “massaged” for particular purposes.

The fine print (some journals actually do use a smaller font size) occurs in the Materials and Methods, and Results sections of the article, and in the Acknowledgements. If the reader gets past the Abstract, s/he will probably read only the Introduction and Conclusion/Discussion sections. Few readers, other than those also doing work in the same field, will read the Materials and Methods, and Results sections. And even fewer will note who funded the research described in the article. For many types of research, this may not matter. But for research studies that affect our health, it matters a great deal.

For instance, if you see news releases proclaiming the benefits of dairy products, find the original article. You may have to get it through inter-library loan to avoid paying the high journal fees. Check the article to see who funded the research. The odds are that it was funded by the dairy producers in some form or other. Then you need to examine the fine print in the Materials and Methods, and Results sections. If you do not have a background in that field of research, it may be difficult to understand, so you will probably need to find a friend who can help. This effort matters because how the results are presented in the Abstract and the Conclusion/Discussion may not be fully supported by what is actually in the Results section. The conclusions may be massaged in a way that those funding the research would approve.

Certainly, not all research will have been massaged, but whenever new information on health issues is trumpeted in the news, be cautious in accepting the results. Examine the fine print.