Bad Research, Worse News

By: Craig

Kachanoff recruited 82 men and asked them to punish an aide with various volumes of sound each time he made an error while sorting photos, some with pictures of meat, and others with neutral images. The researcher had anticipated participants who watched the aide sort meat photos would inflict more discomfort on him, but he was surprised when those pictures did not provoke aggressive behaviour.

"[W]ith the benefit of hindsight, it would make sense that our ancestors would be calm, as they would be surrounded by friends and family at meal time," Kachanoff said in a press release.

A few months ago, every major and minor news agency I can think of ran this story. In it, psychology researcher Frank Kachanoff of McGill University asserts that contemporary Americans become calmed by the sight of meat because our ancestors would have been enjoying the meat amongst close friends and family. The assertion itself is one of bad theory and subsequently poor information; worse, however, is how this information was distributed to the masses.

First, why is this information flawed? The researcher could have shown his research to any decent anthropologist, sociologist, social psychologist, etc. and he would have it explained to him that culture is embodied; what is in our minds directly affects how we perceive and react to the world (see Merleau-Ponty, Pierre Bourdieu, or any number of embodiment and phenomenology proponents for more on this). Kachanoff may be partially correct in his association with friends and family, just not in the way he thinks. The participants have been encultured to enjoy meals with these groups; furthermore, many of them probably enjoy meat, and instantly recognize it as pleasurable. It is their own experiences creating these positive associations, not some evolutionary predisposition. What the participants physically perceive is reacted to according to their culturally informed bodies. And if this was some sort of evolutionary remnant, what could possibly be the selective advantage to being calmer during mealtimes, so much so that it has become ingrained in our subconscious mental processes? It simply does not make sense, and it dwells in an era of philosophy and social theory that was surpassed decades ago.

Now, on to the topic of how this was so widely publicized. One might assume that this came from a legitimate peer reviewed journal, but that would be in error. In fact, it was merely presented at McGill University's annual undergraduate science symposium. There was no peer review at all; nothing but the advisory of a professor. McGill University proceeded to run a press release on the study, and somehow, it was picked up by the major news agencies.

How this made into the mainstream media I will probably never understand, but it raises some serious issues as to what should be considered science worth reporting. It is a clear example of how just about anything can end up on the internet, and if it has the right associations, it just might be taken as legitimate information. Journalists cannot be expected to become specialists in every field, knowing what is and is not decent research, but they can strive towards using sources with higher legitimacy—such as academic journals and professional agencies that specialize in producing quality research. Maintaining high standards is essential to the information age; if these standards are not achieved, the general populace is doomed to being bombarded with misinformation and bad science.

(Original Press Release: 2010. “Caveman behavioral traits might kick in at dinner table before eating.” http://www.mcgill.ca/aoc/news/channels/2010/november/1/caveman-behavioural-traits-might-kick-dinner-table-eating)