How else is one to study this issue? Much of health research is precisely the same, due to obvious ethical concerns, including the research on alcohol and heart disease. This is also old news (there are previous studies which find the same relationship among women). I've been advising my students for several years, especially females, to consider the cancer studies whenever they hear the research that alcohol is heart healthy. Given that there are other ways to protect the heart than drinking alcohol, it seems prudent to warn students that there is an association between even small amounts of alcohol and breast cancer - despite the fact the research is correlational. I mean, what else do we have? Where would we be with smoking and lung cancer research in humans if we ignored correlational research?
>From the article I cannot tell if important variables were controlled (poo on >them if they weren't). I too continually get students to distinguish between >correlational and experimental research, including when portrayed in the >media, but some correlational designs are better than others. And from this >popular article, not surprisingly, I cannot tell how well the study was >designed. Does anyone know before we call it a "ridiculous" correlational >study? We should use this opportunity to educate students on the ethical >limitations of experimental research and the necessity for understanding more >complex correlational designs. Dean M. Amadio, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Siena College, Psychology Department 432 Roger Bacon Hall 515 Loudon Rd. Loudonville, NY 12211 [email protected] <<Subject: BBC NEWS | Health | Drink a day increases cancer risk From: "Christopher D. Green" <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:39:25 -0500 X-Message-Number: 1 Here's more in the list of ridiculous correlational studies that are sensationally publicized as finding causation effects. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7906355.stm Chris>> --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
