Science:  The Pursuit of Truth
Larry Birnbaum, PhD, FASEP, EPC
Associate Professor
Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN  55811

One of the axioms of science is objectivity [1].  Scientists are supposed to remain impartial in their research, in their experimental design and when making observations and interpretations.  Surely all scientists would agree that it is essential that all bias be minimized as much as possible given the ultimate goal of research is to discover the truth.

Still, bias in science does occur, perhaps increasingly so.  For example, how many scientists follow the money and/or political agendas rather than the truth?  The history of politics and science is not flattering.  When scientists follow political notions, they are not pursuing the truth.  Indeed, any and all scientists engaged in advancing a political agenda are not advancing science.  It is essential that their peers correct them.  Yet, even in our “enlightened”, contemporary age, opinions that contradict the status quo or prevailing norm are suppressed, and scientists holding those opinions are oppressed by their peers and superiors.  They do not obtain promotion or tenure.  Their funding requests for research are rejected.  A recent example of this behavior centers on global warming [2].

Does bias occur in exercise physiology research?  Logically, yes.  We are all biased.  It is impossible to grow and mature in any society without developing some biases associated with our environment.  As scientists, it is imperative to recognize and acknowledge our biases.  It is also imperative to take every precaution to minimize those biases in our research.  A likely area in which researcher bias may occur in exercise physiology is nutritional supplements.  Exercise physiologists investigating supplements must first consider their own biases about the supplements (e.g., do they believe the claims of the manufacturers?).  They must also consider their funding sources, which are commonly the supplement companies.  If the research is funded by a nutritional supplement company, investigators will likely find it more difficult to report findings that contradict the claims of the company than if the funding is from a neutral source [3].  Such action would no doubt make it more difficult to obtain future funding for similar research.  Promotion and tenure opportunities would suffer as they are fundamentally tied to research publications.  No funding, no research, no publications, no promotion or tenure.  How can this dilemma be avoided.  The obvious answer is to find impartial funding sources, but such sources are limited. 

Nutritional supplements are big business [4] and include a wide variety of products.  Product claims include enhancement of weight loss, athletic performance, cardiovascular health, and sex, as well as reducing the risk of cancer and other diseases.  Considering the widespread use of these products and their claimed heath benefits, independent funding for evaluating these products should be readily available.  After all, doesn’t the public want to know if these products really work, and aren’t consumers concerned about their safety (short and long term use)?  Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.  Independent funding is relatively scarce and the public seems to believe manufacturer’s claims without question.  The power of advertising! 

Nonetheless, the responsibility for pursuing the truth lies with the researchers, whether they be exercise physiologists or other scientists.  Pursuit of the truth will, at times, require reporting unpopular results.  It must be done regardless of funding sources or personal biases.  If exercise physiologists are uncomfortable with reporting results that may reflect negatively upon their funding sources, perhaps they should realign their research interests.  For example, instead of researching ergogenic aids for the purpose of enhancing athletic performance, why not work with nutritionists (and epidemiologists) to investigate foods commonly consumed in the American diet to determine a host of potential effects?  There has been considerable debate about produce poisoned with pesticides and herbicides, milk produced from cows receiving supplements, meat from livestock that receive hormones and antibiotics and that are not free-ranged.  Proponents of organic produce and free-range, drug-free livestock argue that consumption of food contaminated with various poisons (herbicides, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics) leads to a host of chronic diseases.  Unfortunately, there is not consensus on this issue.  The research on potential nutritional differences in organic and non-organic food could be expanded to include effects on athletic performance and sexual performance.  While these nutritional issues are challenging and costly to study, the potential benefit to the health of Americans may be great and significant reductions in the cost of health care could be realized.  Exercise physiologists, as scientists and health care providers should be concerned with uncovering the truth about the nutritional value of the food we eat. 

Obviously, nutrition is just one area of interest to exercise physiologists.  The field of exercise physiology is very extensive.  Whatever the research interests are of exercise physiologists, they must work earnestly to curtail bias, avoid political agendas, and not allow money (i.e., funding sources) to influence their research.  Nothing less is acceptable when pursuing the truth.

References

1.  Hyllegard, R., Mood, D.P., Morrow, J.R.  (2000).  Interpreting Research in Sport and Exercise Science.  New York:  McGraw Hill.

2.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

3.  Boone, W.T.  (2006).  Is Sports Nutrition for Sale?  New York:  Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

4.  http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070508/nytu042.html?.v=100