It seems that there are so many opposing research forces in the world – and an equally large amount of publications – that there is no consensus on scientific findings.

Cellphones cause cancer, coffee can increase height or decrease libido, and eggs are terrible one month and nature’s protein-rich miracle food the next.

The problem is individuals jump to conclusions about research after seeing a tag on Facebook, subscribing to a trustworthy-looking talking head on the local news or catching hearsay on their way to the office.

Too often, people spread this misinformation for shock value, for a chance to appear like they’re ahead of some global phenomenon or out of genuine concern for personal health and wellbeing.

Unfortunately, this kind of relay system acts as a game of telephone that maintains tainted preconceived notions about science, producing headlines like Time Magazine’s “Scientists say smelling farts might prevent cancer.”

Media illiterate individuals, however, are not solely to blame. In fact, science is at times guilty of perpetuating the problem.

Research most often viewed by the public belongs to peer-reviewed journals and collegiate scientific publications. Their future (and often funding) depends on distributing information all together at an alarming rate – a concept known as ‘publish or perish.’

Essentially, their goal is to distribute large amounts of up-to-date experimental findings at a fast pace.

One of the quickest ways to do this while still being a relatively accepted form of research in the scientific community is by using a casual-comparative or correlational method of research.

In his conference report called “Understanding and enjoying research,” Len Kravitz, program coordinator of exercise science at the University of New Mexico, defines correlational research as an attempt “to determine how related two or more variables are.”

This method of research looks at relationships alone and doesn’t compare the questioned variables.

Casual-comparative research, however, directly involves comparison variables but falls flat on validity as it is not as meticulously reviewed as it should be, given the advent of multiple and potentially unknown effecting variables.

These two methods of research are performed when causation is not established, yet a hypothesized or theorized relationship exists – in other words, when there is a tentative assumption of potential outcomes.

The tricky aspect of correlational and causal-comparative research is that most individuals outside of the scientific community are completely unaware of individual intricacies for each research method.

Moreover, casual-comparative and correlational research are usually performed with lower budgetary expectations, which allows for quick turnaround in the scientific community.

As such, ironclad corroborations do not surface until much later when experimental research can fully replicate and verify findings.

But that does not stop the general public, the media, and your friends and family from spewing nonsense about how they read on the internet that an oyster or two at dinner will immediately lead to unwanted pregnancy.

Take this study for example, published on April 12 by WSU: “Hope for saving salmon lies in reducing stormwater pollution.”

This finding acts as a causal-comparative form of research, which, as we known, can sometimes be faulty due to their low budgetary nature and the effects of many outside factors on the questioned variables – though I am sure that WSU researchers are aware of research potentials and pursued due diligence.

Additionally, I recognize that some readers are media literate, intellectually savvy individuals and know to read past headlines.

As such, we understand the premise of Jenifer McIntyre’s study, “Urban stormwater runoff carries a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, some of which are toxic to the cardiovascular system of animals, into fish habitats.”

Great, that’s good information to know if the world wishes to help preserve the population of Coho salmon.

Unfortunately – and I’m afraid to put this information out there in fear of someone actually believing it – someone might simply read the headlines and communicate to people, “If you drive on the road when it’s raining, you’re a fish murderer.”

Do yourself a favor, look deeper into research studies and fully read and comprehend the literature.

Really do your homework. It’ll be worth it when you don’t look like you don’t know your facts in front of intellectually savvy individuals. And who knows, you might actually learn something that changes the world.

Tyler Delong is a senior communication major from Moses Lake. He can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of the Office of Student Media.