The Wild, Wild Web

Dr. Barry Starr Post on Jan 18, 2010 by
Topics: Health
Print Friendly Print Get a PDF version of this webpage PDF

Share:

It can be hard to tell which science is good, bad, or ugly on the web.

I have often thought that the percentage of good scientific information on the web must be pretty low. So I decided to test the idea out on a question I was recently working on.

Someone asked me if humans started out with O blood type and then only later developed A and B.  A quick look at PubMed showed that this was not the case.  Most of the recent genetics studies point to A coming first, followed by B about 3.5 million years ago and then, finally, about 1 million years ago, O.

This makes some intuitive sense if we think about what A, B, and O are.  O is a form of A that doesn’t work any more because of a mutation*.  This makes the idea that a broken gene came before a working one pretty unlikely.  Not impossible, just not all that likely.

Now I researched this answer the way I usually do—I headed straight for PubMed to get the hard scientific data.  I can do that because I work for Stanford and so have access to lots of journal articles and I have the scientific background to decipher the geneticsese these reports are written in.

What I also did this time was to try to find the answer without PubMed.  I started out on Yahoo searching for human blood type evolution.  Yikes.

Links 1, 2, and 7 talk about primate A and B blood types.  Gorillas have B and chimpanzees have A and a bit of O.  From this the authors try to conclude that we are somehow a mix of these two…perhaps gorillas and Neanderthals are closely related to each other and so are chimps and Cro Magnon.  In this scenario, humans come from a mix of Cro Magnon and Neanderthals.

This is certainly not the case.  Gorillas do have a blood type similar to B but it isn’t the same as ours at the gene level.  And if current evolutionary history is to be believed, we split from gorillas way before our B blood type was born.  So we did not get our B from gorillas.

Also, chimpanzee O is not the same as our O…it developed well after we split as well.  We even know that Neanderthals have our O blood type and not a chimp’s (and certainly not a gorilla’s!).

Links 3, 5, and 9 use blood type genetics to show that Adam and Eve could have founded the human race.  Links 4, 6, and 8 talk about the blood type diet.  And link 10 connects blood groups to aliens.

Google does a bit better.  You get eight similar links but you also get an NPR piece that does pretty well and a Dawkins forum comments piece that can get you to the answer eventually.  However, you have to wade through a lot of stuff to get there and you only know to home in on the comment with the correct information if you already know the right answer.

Obviously what is popular isn’t always what is right.  (And the prize for stating the obvious goes to Dr. Starr!)  I thought I’d try Wikipedia next.  Wikipedia can have many factual errors but it often gets the overall story line correct.  Unfortunately there isn’t an article on this subject.  There is on one the blood type diet though…

So what is a non-scientist to do?  There don’t seem to be a lot of options.

There are websites like mine at Understanding Genetics that try to give the real scoop on what current science says about various issues.  But they tend to focus on a single topic and don’t often appear at the top of a website search.  (Understanding Genetics is an exception in that it gets enough hits to often be on the first or second page if the query is worded in the right way.)

I am not sure what the answer is to getting better science via the web.  Maybe we need a web based encyclopedia about science written by scientists.

The tricky part will be to get them to do it.  And to have it make sense to anyone but another scientist in that particular field.  And for them to do it impartially.

I’m curious how other people find their science online.  And how they make sure it is reliable.

* This isn’t weird, blue eyes and red hair work the same way.

37.7749295 -122.4194155

Tags: , , , , ,
Print Friendly Print Get a PDF version of this webpage PDF

Share:

  • http://microecos.wordpress.com neil

    A bit of digging on Wikipedia does turn up some information:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABO_blood_group_system#Distribution_and_evolutionary_history

    It displays typical Wikipedia equivocation, "source A says ____ while source B says ____ " but at least it provides a link to a recent relevant scholarly publication, Calafel et al. 2008 (doi:10.1007/s00439-008-0530-8).

    Like you I have the benefit of access to technical literature through a university library and the educational background to make use of it. That others are limited by these factors underscores the value of open access scientific publishing (e.g. PLoS) and the value of solid scientific education. This education should not just focus on rote learning of textbook information, but also train students how to successfully navigate and discriminate among the ever-growing body of scientific and pseudo-scientific information on the web. I can hardly think of another skill we could be teaching students that would be more valuable.

    Just reading abstracts and book excerpts available to everyone through Google Scholar/ Google Books (or just straight old Google) can often answer many questions, for those who know how to construct and refine queries effectively and identify reliable sources.

    I would say that rather than going to the efforts of launching separate "authoritative" databases (like the Encyclopedia of Life, which I like), scientists would probably be better served to take the time to learn how information is presented and "peer-reviewed" within Wikipedia and utilize that platform which already has the benefit of frequently popping up in the top list of search results. Sure, there is a chance your words could be distorted or deleted altogether, but in my experience well-written, well-sourced and factually coherent material tends to be pretty durable in Wikipedia. Academic departments should also start to recognize such work by their faculty as an important form of public outreach/service and it should count for things like tenure review and advancement.

  • Jim kirkpatrick

    Chricton's book on climate warning was an eye opener for me! The big problem is sorting out his fiction vs facts. Yes, I know he has references to a huge amount of data but he also has the freedom to pick, choose and mold the data to fit his story.
    I am not the climate warmer theorist I was once upon a time!

  • John Fiorentino

    The Web in fact has a wealth of knowledge.

    Proper search techniques should be taught early on in our schools.

    There seems to be way too much altering, etc. on Wikipedia. In all my writing, I have referenced Wikipedia as a source only one time, and even then regarding only a general interest point in my article.

    It's all there, if you know how to get it. If you don't, chances are you never will.

  • http://www.thetech.org/genetics/index.php Barry Starr

    John-That would be a great thing to teach in schools. I have learned how to search by trial and error but it would have been nice not to have to go through that.

    I agree Wikipedia is a bit dicey. Without understanding how editing happens and who makes the decisions, I am leery of referencing it as well.

    Jim-I haven't read that book. What was the basic message?

    Gunnar-I agree with your thoughts on science education. As I become more involved with K-12 students, I become more and more convinced that textbook learning is less important than understanding how science works and what makes for good science. Of course, to do that we'll need to revamp the science curriculum so that instead of training scientists, it is teaching people how to be good science consumers. No easy task!

    I think your incentive comment is so important that I'll devote my next blog to it.

  • John Fiorentino

    Just a thought on Michael Crichton whom I see mentioned above.

    I was so shocked and saddened when he passed away.

    Most people know little of the man and generally think of him as a "fiction" afficianado. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    His lucidity of thought and honest questioning of some of the more established precepts made him a man after my own ideals.

    A few thoughts from Michael:

    Re: Barry's question. Michael questioned much of the thinking (as do I) relating to the anthropogenic causation of climate change.

    "When a theory or interpretation can no longer be questioned, it leaves the realm of science and moves into the realm of holy, untouchable, religious dogma."

    Michael Crichton

    However, Michael Crichton (best known for his novels but also a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a former postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies) warned his audience of the dangers of "consensus science" in a 2003 speech,

    "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

    "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

    "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

    Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.

    In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid—and merits universal acceptance—only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't.

    Thus, when adhered to, the scientific method can transcend politics. And the converse may also be true: when politics takes precedent over content, it is often because the primacy of independent verification has been overwhelmed by competing interests.

    Michael Crichton
    Testimony before the United States Senate
    Committee on Environment and Public Works
    Washington, DC
    September 28, 2005