I believe in science. I trust the thought process, the methodology, the hard data, the cautious, yet often daring conclusions. I’m a scientist and I always will be.

I’m not saying scientific studies are always perfect or earth shattering. But I don’t dismiss anything out of hand simply because it doesn’t jive with my personal experience. There is a difference between fact and anecdote.

So imagine my dismay when I read the responses to a post mipmup wrote for BlogHer yesterday that linked to mine on birth spacing. Mir left a comment which raised important points but derided public health studies in general.

Honestly, oughtn’t there be a law that such studies directly address causation vs. correlation?

In an ideal world, we would conduct a randomized trial in which we forced women to bear children at varying intervals as dictated by scientific protocol. And we’d do every invasive medical test available to determine the biology behind any perinatal outcome we observed. Hopefully, this type of controlled experiment would identify some kind of cause and effect relationship. Humans are animals and we support animal testing for the good of humans, right?

Sadly, I don’t think any ethics board would approve of studies like this. So public health practitioners and scientists are stuck with showing associations and correlations.

“Association does not mean causation,” we are taught. It’s a good general principle to keep in mind. But sometimes, we have nothing more to go on. To be stuck in one place and not take action because we don’t have the evidence of causation we wish for would be a great disservice to all the women and future children who would benefit from some discussion and debate (yes!) stimulated by studies like the one published in JAMA, a peer reviewed, prestigious journal that has made huge scientific advances impacting your health and mine.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments »