There’s been no shortage of discussion about the validity of published research findings, and whether any apparent discrepancies can be attributed to honest errors or to research misconduct. We’ve found some additional chapters in that debate that we thought we’d share. They involve diet-related research overseen by well-known researcher Brian Wansink. You may not know his name, but you’ve probably heard of his research. He has done a lot of work on factors that influence people’s decisions on what and how much to eat.
The New Yorker published a story recently about Wansink’s review of recipes in different versions of the cookbook classic “Joy of Cooking.” BuzzFeed News also did a more in-depth piece about Wansink’s lab.
We found these pieces interesting not just for the discussion of these particular methods, but because of their highlighting of how difficult diet-related research is to carry out in general. One piece notes that the same item’s nutritional value can vary based upon things like how it’s prepared and even how well it is chewed. And it is difficult to control for the many, many factors that go into individual decisions about what to eat. The ideal diet study — in which people’s diets are closely controlled and in a closely controlled environment — would likely be unethical.
The BuzzFeed article also touches on another concern of those working in academic medicine — the pressure to publish.
Please take a look at these two articles. If you have trouble accessing either, please contact the IRB Blogs Original Sources department at paalediths@uams.edu for assistance.