6 ms·

Or for Pete's sake... What I tell patients is, if you like coffee, go ahead and drink as much as you want and can," says Dr. Peter Martin, director of the Inst

by geoka9 14y ago

Or for Pete's sake... What I tell patients is, if you like coffee, go ahead and drink as much as you want and can," says Dr. Peter Martin, director of the Institute for Coffee Studies at Vanderbilt University. He's even developed a metric for monitoring your dosage: If you are having trouble sleeping, cut back on your last cup of the day. From there, he says, "If you drink that much, it's not going to do you any harm, and it might actually help you. A lot. What else can you expect from an "institute" with a name like this? And, surely enough, a little more digging brings this: Nashville's Vanderbilt University is to establish an Institute for Coffee Studies this fall, funded by $6 million from the Brazilian Coffee Association and other coffee-growing organizations. http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n3/full/nm0399_252b.html http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n3/full/nm0399_252b.html

gyardley 14y ago
That was a rather selective quote, given that the same article says this just a paragraph down: Institute director, Peter Martin, stresses that his research group wants to maintain "arms length" from the coffee industry for ethical reasons. "We are setting up a foundation to oversee the funds which will be administered by independent scientific directors to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest," he insists. In addition, the original article described a wide variety of studies done by many different institutions. I suppose it's possible that they're all just "studies" conducted by people in the pay of the nefarious coffee lobby, but we probably shouldn't start resorting to conspiracy theories without a little evidence.
- patmcguire 14y ago
  For the institute you have a situation where there's an institution regarded as objective and credible and someone who has a vested interest in the outcome donating money. This happens all the time. There's some form of regulatory capture in any industry, even if the regulation is something like "a general consensus among certain people that everyone in the industry respects that something is or isn't ok." Like in government, sometimes there is quid pro quo and sometimes there isn't, but I've never heard anyone come out and say, "Whoops, you caught us! We're totally taking money to sway our opinion!" The breadth of studies makes this look pretty legit. I just don't put much faith in obligatory denials.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 14y ago
  The described articles may be impeccable, but selected because they agree with whatever viewpoint an institute wants to present. It's possible they've ignored anything not agreeing with them. And it's probable that groups do research that isn't published when it doesn't agree with whoever's funding it. Ben Goldacre's book (pro science, about flaws in current system of research and science reporting) "Bad Science" is w useful read.
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  " ... to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest ..." Too late for that.
- fkdjs 14y ago
  Except the articles selected where in the pro-coffee camp, the articles against coffee were not selected. This is called selection bias. I'd take what this guy has to say with a grain of salt.
31reasons 14y ago
I am wondering how much of the world's (biased) research is being done by the special interest groups. As someone said (not sure who) "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  John Updike, I think.
  - sk5t 14y ago
    John Updike = Pennsylvania Dutch, funny accents, psychology of the middle class Upton Sinclair = Chicago stockyards, abuse of animals and immigrants
    - aptwebapps 14y ago
      Whoops! Up-something, anyway. ;)
- beagle3 14y ago
  Upton Sinclair
jrajav 14y ago
Ad hominem much? Anyway, the article doesn't rest on that quote by a long shot, it goes on in enormously satisfying detail. It's a humanizing lead-in, at best. I think this is a great summary of recent research on the effects of coffee and caffeine, and it links to supporting studies on nearly every substantial point.
- readme 14y ago
  Huh? That's not an ad-hominem. That's simply pointing out a conflict of interest.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrajav 14y ago
    Pointing out a conflict of interest, by itself, is indeed an ad hominem. Whether someone has a conflict of interest or not has nothing to do with their argument being right or wrong. It only indicates that they might be willing to put forth their argument without exploring any supporting evidence (or willfully ignoring it). Besides, in this case, I personally think that is very unlikely.
    - tinco 14y ago
      Except that it does. Regardless of the ethos of a scientist, when a scientist sets out to research with a certain goal, "the positive effects of drinking coffee", the only case in which the result would be unfavourable to coffee would be when coffee has no positive effects whatsoever. This is as shown obviously not the case. When you research "the effects of drinking coffee" it seems as though you are more neutral, but in fact there is still room for bias. Will you find every single effect of drinking coffee? How will you decide wether they are positive or negative? how will you decide the importance of these effects? Which effects will you research in more detail? This weighing and ordering depends in part on the researcher, who will have a bias. Ofcourse this is not a problem when there are lots of researchers all with their own biases, together they will paint a full picture. But if you only fund those researchers who have the kind of bias you like, then that full picture might be skewed (this is called publication bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias). In this case people worry if the coffee research institute has hired biased researchers, rewards only the researchers who publish good things about coffee or even publishes selectively. So it is a good thing to point out. And the argument is an attack on the reliability of the fundament for the argument, not necessarily on the researcher.
tatsuke95 14y ago
>Or for Pete's sake... Why do we assume that the Coffee Association is promoting bad science for their interests, rather than finding scientists who are working on things that relate to their business, and supporting those works? Who else is going to fund coffee studies besides people with an interest (and money) to fund it? This is how the free market works; as long as the science is sound, who cares who is behind it? I'd rather the coffee industry pay for the studies from excess profits than it coming from the public coffers. It's not perfect, but it isn't full on corruption, either.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  >>Why do we assume that the Coffee Association is promoting bad science for their interests, rather than finding scientists who are working on things that relate to their business, and supporting those works? This is the exact equivalent of the coal industry finding the minority of scientists who think climate change is not man-made and funding their studies. The problem with this is obvious, and it is not good science. >>This is how the free market works; as long as the science is sound, who cares who is behind it? Often times, those who are funding the science have an impact on whether that science is sound. It's called a conflict of interest because the source of the funding can corrupt the motivation of the scientist to practice good science.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacobwcarlson 14y ago
    > This is the exact equivalent of the coal industry finding the minority of scientists who think climate change is not man-made and funding their studies. No it isn't. This isn't about coal or climate change. It's about whether or not it's ok for people to drink coffee. If you think they've published bad science you should prove it. That's the awesome thing about science, it's refutable.
    - qq66 14y ago
      Not as easy as that: the coffee industry can easily spend $6 million to promote its interests, but there isn't an "anti-coffee" industry that can spend $6 million to refute those studies. This principle of "organizability" is one of the big drivers of political power -- those who can organize into an interest group win.
ScottWhigham 14y ago
Maybe you aren't familiar with Vandy but I assure you - they are a highly respected university in the US. There is zero chance - none - that Vanderbilt University is creating a shadow puppet institute. My brother and sis, who both went there, love to point out that it is called "The Harvard of the South"
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  It's not a binary proposition. You can have puppet institute and you can have a completely independent one. Usually you'll get something in between. I don't think that Vanderbilt's quality has a lot to do with it. This next bit may be a bit cynical: Even if they weren't funded by the coffee industry, however, they would have existential issues. If their whole purpose is to study coffee then I think that there will be a tendency to either promote coffee or to try to strike a balance. The latter is almost as bad as the former. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they would have no problem publishing nothing about negative results if that was what they got, but I would bet against it. If they get a string of negative results (and don't lose their funding), they are going to start looking for studies that have a more potential upside to balance things out.
- pseut 14y ago
  It is amazing that you're seemingly willing to stake your reputation that there's no possibility of a conflict of interest at an institution you're only distantly associated with. But, how serious are you? What odds will you give me that at least one conflict of interest scandal shows up at Vandy over the next, say, 30 years?
- sk5t 14y ago
  Do you have any idea--any notion at all--how respected is the football program at Penn State? Why, the mere suggestion of any impropriety is such a laughable proposition that my vest-buttons threaten violent detachment.
  - 14y ago
roedog 14y ago
Did you mean to to type 'oh for Peet's sake?'
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by geoka9 14y ago

gyardley 14y ago

That was a rather selective quote, given that the same article says this just a paragraph down: Institute director, Peter Martin, stresses that his research group wants to maintain "arms length" from the coffee industry for ethical reasons. "We are setting up a foundation to oversee the funds which will be administered by independent scientific directors to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest," he insists. In addition, the original article described a wide variety of studies done by many different institutions. I suppose it's possible that they're all just "studies" conducted by people in the pay of the nefarious coffee lobby, but we probably shouldn't start resorting to conspiracy theories without a little evidence.

patmcguire 14y ago
For the institute you have a situation where there's an institution regarded as objective and credible and someone who has a vested interest in the outcome donating money. This happens all the time. There's some form of regulatory capture in any industry, even if the regulation is something like "a general consensus among certain people that everyone in the industry respects that something is or isn't ok." Like in government, sometimes there is quid pro quo and sometimes there isn't, but I've never heard anyone come out and say, "Whoops, you caught us! We're totally taking money to sway our opinion!" The breadth of studies makes this look pretty legit. I just don't put much faith in obligatory denials.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 14y ago
The described articles may be impeccable, but selected because they agree with whatever viewpoint an institute wants to present. It's possible they've ignored anything not agreeing with them. And it's probable that groups do research that isn't published when it doesn't agree with whoever's funding it. Ben Goldacre's book (pro science, about flaws in current system of research and science reporting) "Bad Science" is w useful read.
aptwebapps 14y ago
" ... to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest ..." Too late for that.
fkdjs 14y ago
Except the articles selected where in the pro-coffee camp, the articles against coffee were not selected. This is called selection bias. I'd take what this guy has to say with a grain of salt.

31reasons 14y ago

I am wondering how much of the world's (biased) research is being done by the special interest groups. As someone said (not sure who) "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

aptwebapps 14y ago
John Updike, I think.
- sk5t 14y ago
  John Updike = Pennsylvania Dutch, funny accents, psychology of the middle class Upton Sinclair = Chicago stockyards, abuse of animals and immigrants
  - aptwebapps 14y ago
    Whoops! Up-something, anyway. ;)
beagle3 14y ago
Upton Sinclair

jrajav 14y ago

Ad hominem much? Anyway, the article doesn't rest on that quote by a long shot, it goes on in enormously satisfying detail. It's a humanizing lead-in, at best. I think this is a great summary of recent research on the effects of coffee and caffeine, and it links to supporting studies on nearly every substantial point.

readme 14y ago
Huh? That's not an ad-hominem. That's simply pointing out a conflict of interest.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jrajav 14y ago
  Pointing out a conflict of interest, by itself, is indeed an ad hominem. Whether someone has a conflict of interest or not has nothing to do with their argument being right or wrong. It only indicates that they might be willing to put forth their argument without exploring any supporting evidence (or willfully ignoring it). Besides, in this case, I personally think that is very unlikely.
  - tinco 14y ago
    Except that it does. Regardless of the ethos of a scientist, when a scientist sets out to research with a certain goal, "the positive effects of drinking coffee", the only case in which the result would be unfavourable to coffee would be when coffee has no positive effects whatsoever. This is as shown obviously not the case. When you research "the effects of drinking coffee" it seems as though you are more neutral, but in fact there is still room for bias. Will you find every single effect of drinking coffee? How will you decide wether they are positive or negative? how will you decide the importance of these effects? Which effects will you research in more detail? This weighing and ordering depends in part on the researcher, who will have a bias. Ofcourse this is not a problem when there are lots of researchers all with their own biases, together they will paint a full picture. But if you only fund those researchers who have the kind of bias you like, then that full picture might be skewed (this is called publication bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias). In this case people worry if the coffee research institute has hired biased researchers, rewards only the researchers who publish good things about coffee or even publishes selectively. So it is a good thing to point out. And the argument is an attack on the reliability of the fundament for the argument, not necessarily on the researcher.

tatsuke95 14y ago

>Or for Pete's sake... Why do we assume that the Coffee Association is promoting bad science for their interests, rather than finding scientists who are working on things that relate to their business, and supporting those works? Who else is going to fund coffee studies besides people with an interest (and money) to fund it? This is how the free market works; as long as the science is sound, who cares who is behind it? I'd rather the coffee industry pay for the studies from excess profits than it coming from the public coffers. It's not perfect, but it isn't full on corruption, either.

enraged_camel 14y ago
>>Why do we assume that the Coffee Association is promoting bad science for their interests, rather than finding scientists who are working on things that relate to their business, and supporting those works? This is the exact equivalent of the coal industry finding the minority of scientists who think climate change is not man-made and funding their studies. The problem with this is obvious, and it is not good science. >>This is how the free market works; as long as the science is sound, who cares who is behind it? Often times, those who are funding the science have an impact on whether that science is sound. It's called a conflict of interest because the source of the funding can corrupt the motivation of the scientist to practice good science.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobwcarlson 14y ago
  > This is the exact equivalent of the coal industry finding the minority of scientists who think climate change is not man-made and funding their studies. No it isn't. This isn't about coal or climate change. It's about whether or not it's ok for people to drink coffee. If you think they've published bad science you should prove it. That's the awesome thing about science, it's refutable.
  - qq66 14y ago
    Not as easy as that: the coffee industry can easily spend $6 million to promote its interests, but there isn't an "anti-coffee" industry that can spend $6 million to refute those studies. This principle of "organizability" is one of the big drivers of political power -- those who can organize into an interest group win.

ScottWhigham 14y ago

Maybe you aren't familiar with Vandy but I assure you - they are a highly respected university in the US. There is zero chance - none - that Vanderbilt University is creating a shadow puppet institute. My brother and sis, who both went there, love to point out that it is called "The Harvard of the South"

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
aptwebapps 14y ago
It's not a binary proposition. You can have puppet institute and you can have a completely independent one. Usually you'll get something in between. I don't think that Vanderbilt's quality has a lot to do with it. This next bit may be a bit cynical: Even if they weren't funded by the coffee industry, however, they would have existential issues. If their whole purpose is to study coffee then I think that there will be a tendency to either promote coffee or to try to strike a balance. The latter is almost as bad as the former. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they would have no problem publishing nothing about negative results if that was what they got, but I would bet against it. If they get a string of negative results (and don't lose their funding), they are going to start looking for studies that have a more potential upside to balance things out.
pseut 14y ago
It is amazing that you're seemingly willing to stake your reputation that there's no possibility of a conflict of interest at an institution you're only distantly associated with. But, how serious are you? What odds will you give me that at least one conflict of interest scandal shows up at Vandy over the next, say, 30 years?
sk5t 14y ago
Do you have any idea--any notion at all--how respected is the football program at Penn State? Why, the mere suggestion of any impropriety is such a laughable proposition that my vest-buttons threaten violent detachment.
- 14y ago

roedog 14y ago

Did you mean to to type 'oh for Peet's sake?'

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]