Episode Notes
Timothy Caulfield is a faculty member at the University of Alberta, where he is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, a professor in the Faculty of Law and the School of Public Health, and research director of the university’s Health Law Institute.
Timothy has published more than 350 academic articles on topics such as research ethics, public representations of science, and public health policy. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, he is also the host and co-producer of the award-winning documentary TV series A User's Guide to Cheating Death and the author of two bestselling books, including Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?: When Celebrity Culture and Science Clash.
Timothy joined host Ted Fox and Notre Dame student Lynnette Wukie, our intern during the University’s Winter Session, to talk about his latest book, Your Day, Your Way: The Fact and Fiction Behind Your Daily Decisions. It takes on questions like: Is there a scientific reason not to drink so much coffee? And: Is the coworker proselytizing about the benefits of their standing desk going a little overboard?
Related: This episode may or may not have been produced entirely at a standing desk.
The conversation also covered what Timothy describes as three social paradoxes complicating what would otherwise be routine decisions; implications of our chaotic information environment, particularly during the pandemic; and the natural uncertainty that comes with doing good science.
LINK:
- Timothy’s New Book: Your Day, Your Way: The Fact and Fiction Behind Your Daily Decisions
Episode Transcript
*Note: We do our best to make these transcripts as accurate as we can. That said, if you want to quote from one of our episodes, particularly the words of our guests, please listen to the audio whenever possible. Thanks.
Ted Fox 0:00
(voiceover) From the University of Notre Dame, this is With a Side of Knowledge. I'm your host, Ted Fox. Before the pandemic, we were the show that invited scholars, makers, and professionals out to brunch for informal conversations about their work. And we look forward to being that show again one day. But for now, we're recording remotely to maintain physical distancing. If you like what you hear, you can leave us a rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening. Thanks for stopping by.
Timothy Caulfield is a faculty member at the University of Alberta, where he is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, a professor in the Faculty of Law and the School of Public Health, and research director of the university's Health Law Institute. Timothy has published more than 350 academic articles on topics such as research ethics, public representations of science, and public health policy. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, he is also the host and co-producer of the award-winning documentary TV series A User's Guide to Cheating Death and the author of two bestselling books, including Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?: When Celebrity Culture and Science Clash.
Timothy joined me and Notre Dame student Lynnette Wukie, our intern during the University's Winter Session, to talk about his latest book, Your Day, Your Way: The Fact and Fiction Behind Your Daily Decisions. It takes on questions like, Is there a scientific reason not to drink so much coffee? And: Is the coworker proselytizing about the benefits of their standing desk going a little overboard? Related: I may or may not have produced this entire episode at a standing desk. We also covered what Timothy described as three social paradoxes complicating what would otherwise be routine decisions; implications of our chaotic information environment, particularly during the pandemic; and the natural uncertainty that comes with doing good science. (end voiceover)
Timothy Caulfield, welcome to With a Side of Knowledge.
Timothy Caulfield 2:11
Thanks for having me on.
Ted Fox 2:12
So I've never asked an author that I've had on before about the dedication to their book, but yours in Your Day, Your Way: The Fact and Fiction Behind Your Daily Decisions--it both made me laugh out loud when I read it, and it stopped me in my tracks. You wrote: "To science. Hang in there." Why?
Timothy Caulfield 2:33
(laughs) Look, science has had it tough recently; it's been a hard decade for science. You know, the misinformation that's out there right now, the many ways that it's twisted, particularly in the context of how it's represented to the public, right? That's really the the core there. But yeah, you know, I thought science needed a little bit of love. (both laugh) But you know, I think it's getting more love. I do think it's getting more love. And maybe that's something we can come back to. And look, it's been a big part of my research for the last couple of decades is studying how science is twisted and misrepresented. So yeah, hang in there science.
Ted Fox 3:18
(laughs) I love that. So you started the book talking about how we're living in a time when there are three paradoxes kind of complicating our daily decisionmaking, causing it to be more stressful than maybe it needs to be otherwise. They were things called the knowledge era paradox, the less-risk paradox, and the perfection paradox. Can you briefly explain what you're talking about with those three?
Timothy Caulfield 3:45
Yeah, for sure. And really, as you know, a global theme in the book--you know, you try to have fun in the book, it's quite lighthearted--but sort of the grander ambition is to talk about all these forces that shape our daily decisions. And in doing that research, I really noticed the strength of these three paradoxes. And the first is the knowledge paradox, which is: We have never had access to as much information as we have right now, right? It's incredible. You know, first of all, on the production side of things, there's just never been this much science out there. And it's increasing still, there's so much science and, holy cow, over the pandemic, it's accelerated even further. So we have all of this science out there. But probably more importantly, for the average individual that isn't part of the scientific community, is people have access to this stuff now. They have access to it. You know, I could get on right now and get to The New England Journal of Medicine, and I'd be at, you know, the table of contents in 30 seconds, right? I mean, I can remember (laughs) when I was doing my graduate work, it wasn't like that. So you have this incredible access to it. In addition to that, you have more and more people writing about science, talking about science, posting it on social media. And of course, social media's a big part of that equation there. So the paradox is, despite--you know where this is (both laugh)--despite all that information, are we any more informed? Maybe we are more informed, but I also think we're more confused, and our decisions aren't any more scientific. Now, as you know, at the beginning of the book, a huge qualifier, a huge caveat, you know, I totally know that people don't make all their daily decisions based on science, right? I'm interested in the fact that often they think they are or their intentions don't fit what the evidence actually says. And that's part of the knowledge paradox.
Ted Fox 5:40
So when we talk about a less-risk paradox, I know we're not saying, No, we shouldn't be more informed and make things safer than they were maybe, you know, 50 years ago or 20 years ago. But you're getting at, I think, something a little more nuanced there, that maybe we're a little obsessed with reducing our risk.
Timothy Caulfield 6:00
That's right. Now this is--it's hard to talk about risk being in the middle of a pandemic, right?
Ted Fox 6:05
Right.
Timothy Caulfield 6:05
You know, when you're seeing the death average going down, life expectancy going down, for the first time in a long time. But take this, you know, really horrific blip-- and it is, you know, I don't think it's even fair to call it a "blip." But this occurrence, if you don't think about the pandemic and just look more globally at the numbers, this is the best time in human history to be alive, right? When you're just talking about safety. And a lot of people say, Oh, that's just in the developed countries. So it's primarily in the developed countries, but if you look at, like, poverty rates, you look at almost any metric really, the big metrics, it's the best time to be alive, ever. But as you pointed out there, I'm not saying there aren't problems, you know, that this is some kind of utopia. (laughs) You know, on the contrary, we have incredible, you know, justice issues, we have climate change, we have issues about things like, you know, a variety of diversity issues, you know, on and on and on. So there are challenges out there. But so many of our concerns around risk are about that safety thing, this idea that we're living in this dystopian world--you know, the Mad Maxian dystopian world I joke in the book, and that's not the case at all from a health perspective, right? And so the other reason I think it's really important to recognize that--and some of the researchers, other researchers who have pointed this out, public health experts who have pointed this out--one of the really important reasons of noting this is because it allows us to focus on the stuff that really matters, right? You know, you sort of get rid of all that other noise out there and focus on those things in society that we really should be trying to change, to do better. And all this other noise about risk just takes our eye off the ball, so to speak.
Ted Fox 7:46
The third one, the perfection paradox, I think if I'm remembering right--I mean, you mentioned social media a few minutes ago. And kind of this--"model" is probably the wrong word--but we have these examples of things that are presented to us as, Oh, this is the way you're supposed to be or this is the way you're supposed to be in the world, in a way that maybe we've never had at any other point, at least not to this degree.
Timothy Caulfield 8:08
You're right. So the perfection paradox--and this is actually something I wrote about quite a bit in my last book, the book Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? (both laugh) Because that was really a book about celebrity culture and its impact in our lives. And that perfection paradox plays big there, right? It's a big part of that. And there's a lot of really interesting research on this. And huge caveat here--you know, you're a scholar, so you'll appreciate this. Huge caveat--
Ted Fox 8:34
I play one on TV or in a podcast. (both laugh)
Timothy Caulfield 8:38
It's hard to study this well. It's hard to study these phenomena. So in some ways, I'm a little bit of a hypocrite because I'm such a science geek, and I would say, Well, we need the science. And it's hard to study this stuff well. Having said that, there's some really interesting research that suggests that, you know, this constant drive to perfection is hard on us. It's hard on our stress levels, and it's hard on even our behavior and our decisions, whether you're talking about trying to be a perfect parent, whether you're talking about trying to be a perfect student, whether you're talking about trying to look a particular way, whether you're talking about trying to find the perfect career. And why it's a paradox is that often--and this is where social media and I think pop culture comes in--often the destination is an illusion, right? You know, the actual destination is an illusion. So that's one paradox. And the other one is that, even if you attain it, and this is interesting around celebrity culture, it's not gonna make you happier. And that's supposed to be the whole goal, right? It's supposed to make you feel fulfilled. And the little bit of research we have--for example, people have actually done studies on celebrities. They are no happier, right, and sometimes less happy, right? But also the other problem, of course, is the things that we do to try to get there often don't even work. So this paradox is all over the place. So you know, just ignore the noise.
Ted Fox 10:00
The book itself is structured around the types of choices we make on a daily basis. It starts with when we wake up and then progresses chronologically throughout the day; it goes anywhere from hour-to-hour to half-hour-to-half-hour, occasionally minute-to-minute, which I love, all the way to bedtime. And the goal is, again, helping people cut through some of the noise of these unfounded assumptions and claims and misinformation that influence our decisions. So here, I thought we could discuss just a few of those things that we're spending time on every day and the evidence--or as you often show, the lack thereof--at play when we're talking about these. So the first one that I picked out was breakfast being the most important meal of the day. And we have our intern, Lynnette, who is with us during the Winter Session here. And I wanted to ask Lynnette: What would you say the state of breakfast consumption is among current Notre Dame undergraduates? Is that a common thing for Notre Dame for undergraduates to take part in? Or are we just kind of skipping through to whenever the first class starts?
Lynnette Wukie 11:03
I think especially with COVID, it's a lot of skipping until first class because it's hard to get to the dining hall, a lot of the kind of convenience stores we have around campus are a little less convenient than they were previously. (Ted laughs) I don't know if you've been on campus a lot, but if you want to get Starbucks, you literally have to order it a full hour before. Because you can't go into the Starbucks, you have to order on the app, and the line is always 133 people long. So I would say for sure, breakfast--
Ted Fox 11:34
133 people virtually long. We'll point that out.
Lynnette Wukie 11:37
Yeah, exactly.
Ted Fox 11:38
It's a virtual 133-person line. (all laugh)
Lynnette Wukie 11:41
No, they're not all in one place. You can see, like, how many people ordered ahead of you on the Grubhub app. And it's always very daunting.
Ted Fox 11:48
Do you--and I'll just ask you a quick follow up--do you feel like, again, kind of setting aside the pandemic, do you feel like, is my impression that college students are probably skipping breakfast based on my own experience 20 years ago, is that still accurate? Or is that no longer accurate?
Lynnette Wukie 12:01
I think it depends. If you're on campus, then usually if you're having breakfast, it's like a bar--like a granola bar or something. But once you move off, I think a lot more people-- because you actually have access to, you know, a stove, a fridge, those kind of things that you don't have in the dorm. So breakfast is a thing of the past until you have your own home pretty much, or apartment.
Ted Fox 12:25
So I asked that then--and thank you, Lynnette, very helpful.
Lynnette Wukie 12:29
Of course. I love it. (laughs)
Ted Fox 12:31
Tim, I ask you that--so we've always heard: Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Should we be gravely concerned about all these Notre Dame undergraduates who are opting to forego their breakfast? (laughs)
Timothy Caulfield 12:42
So Lynnette, I joke about my undergrad experience--you know, I had no money, I had no money, right, when I was an undergrad, so I would skip, I wouldn't eat until 3:00. And then I'd go for the highest calorie thing I could find. And on campus, there was this place that sold chicken burger and fries. And I got--I mean, it was terr ... Holy cow, it tasted good. (Ted and Tim laugh) But it was, you know, the worst thing you could eat. And I bring that up for a reason, not just so we can commiserate a little bit. (Lynnette laughs) But because you know, it really is about eating well and eating healthy, right? It's not just about the timing. So it is fascinating when people, you know, you probably hear this, too, Lynnette right? Most important meal of the day, it's going to help your productivity, help your creativity. And if you look at the evidence, and this is one of the reasons I chose this topic, it's way messier than portrayed. I think that's the best way to characterize the research around breakfast. It's incredibly messy, doesn't really support this idea of weight loss. Sometimes you get these correlation studies that say it's associated with it. But if you do better controlled studies, it doesn't look like it. The bottom line is the data around the health value of breakfast is really equivocal and that's, you know, I'm gonna land on that. I know that's not a very sexy conclusion, (Ted and Tim laugh) but it's sort of what the evidence says. And what's really interesting also, if you look at the history of why we think it's healthy, it was a big marketing thing for Kellogg when he was selling his cereal, and it was portrayed not just as healthy for you, but almost like a moral thing to do, like a virtuous thing to do is like, you know, have your breakfast, it's what virtuous people do. And then the wars came along, and it was important for soldiers to have a lot, you know, the calories so they could fight the enemies, and you saw posters that said that, and we kind of embraced it and it stayed with us. And then, you know, then we sort of got this science that people suggested supported it, even though the evidence is there, isn't there. So the bottom line I think is, evidence way more equivocal; the really important thing is to find a healthy--healthy, not chicken burgers and fries once a day (Ted and Tim laugh)--a healthy pattern of eating that works for you.
Ted Fox 15:00
You mentioned it there just briefly, but I wanted to make sure that--because this was something, it came up at multiple points in the book, but I thought it was a really good point. And it came out very strongly when we're talking about breakfast, is how often not only as media consumers, but even journalists reporting things in the media, how often studies that show association just kind of get melded as then saying, Well, this is causation, and that those two things are not one in the same.
Timothy Caulfield 15:28
Yeah, that's huge. And it actually became a bigger theme in the book than I anticipated. Because you know, I work in this area a lot, and I knew that was a big issue. That's a theme that goes through a lot of the book, you know, this correlation/causation. And I talked to a lot of--you know, we've done research in this area ourselves, so I'm not totally surprised with this response. But I talked to a lot of experts all over the world on this topic, and many of them said, you know, science communication experts, many of them said, this is the number one thing that the media gets wrong, portraying correlation as causation. And the other reason breakfast is a good story, and so is coffee (laughs), is that it highlights how it's hard to do this research. These are hard studies. So one of the reasons that breakfast often is--you know, you get these studies that make it seem like breakfast is good for you--is it's a correlation, right? So who has a healthy breakfast? You know, someone who has money, who has time in the day, who's giving priority to their nutrition, and those people are gonna have other things going on in their lives that, you know, make them healthy. It's not necessarily the breakfast; that's just a marker of someone who lives a healthy lifestyle. So yeah, I think it really does highlight how tough it is. Now, of course, the big caveat here, like, if you're an athlete or if you have a job that's really demanding that you're going to burn a lot of calories early in the day, of course breakfast is a good idea. (laughs) And I would say globally that, you know, the data maybe signals slightly towards the idea that a healthy breakfast is a good idea. But you know, big theme throughout the book, just don't let that moralizing, the pop culture representations, freak you out.
Ted Fox 17:04
On that note, one that I felt like coming away from this, it was exactly that kind of finding that happy medium. And so it was your entry for 1:45 in the afternoon, which was the standing desk. And you mentioned being an early adopter of the standing desk. I, since I've been working from home since March, have purchased myself a standing desk for at home because I missed it from my office so much. And, you know, truth be told, my back was starting to hurt a little from all the sitting. But you kind of take on this really bold claim that's been put out there--and I certainly read this before I bought a standing desk--was "Sitting is the new smoking." Are we all getting a little bit carried away with how bad sitting is for us?
Timothy Caulfield 17:47
Yes. We are. (both laugh) And again, this is a little bit more complicated than just a simple, Yes, we're getting carried away. Because for sure, as you know from the book and then you know other stuff, I'm a huge advocate of an active lifestyle. It's so important; movement, so so important. So I'm not saying sedentary behavior is bad. But again, the role of a standing desk in trying to combat that is way more complicated than advertised. And you gotta remember, marketing's a big part of this story, right? And also how it's being represented in the popular press. Yeah, and I was totally an early adopter, which is very off-brand, by the way. (both laugh) I'm not the normal kind of--I don't normally adopt wellness strategies right away, but it just seemed to make so much intuitive sense. And I really did like it. So I had the standing desk. I use it like from, you know, 11:00 to 3:00 every day, right? I just like the change up. But is it going to really have an impact on my sedentary, you know, my health markers? Probably not. And weight loss? Probably not. It really has to be, you know, a part of a global strategy to move more. There is some concern about--and we don't have good data to back this up--there's some data [that] suggests, and I refer to it in the book, about even compensation behavior. So if everyone adopted a standing desk, in the aggregate would some people actually exercise less? Because they thought, Well, I was at a standing desk all day, I'm good to go.
Ted Fox 19:17
Right, right.
Timothy Caulfield 19:17
When in fact you want to be able to, you know, keep moving. And again, we have this correlation/causation thing. Because think of the people who are going to buy, you know, be the early adopters, right? People who are already into fitness, people who are already--so these are people, probably be the part of the population that needs standing desks the least. So again, data way messier than often portrayed, not a solution to a complicated problem. And in fact, there's a study that came out just, I'm gonna say last week or the week before, that again showed very little actual impact on things like weight loss and, you know, measurable outcomes. But still, if you enjoy them--and I do enjoy my standing desk, I like the change up, like you I think it kind of feels good just to stand and have that little bit of movement--you know, go for it.
Ted Fox 20:02
Right. So you kind of get a sense of there's a whole bunch--I mean, this is the book. You go through all these things that we all encounter day in and day out. One more that I wanted to ask about just because--in part because that I love that there's a psychologist who studies this: parking lot behavior. And when we show up in a parking lot and think, Alright--and I believe you, you know, I have my Seinfeld background up, and I believe you used a George Costanza storyline--
Timothy Caulfield 20:27
I did.
Ted Fox 20:27
From Seinfeld to illustrate this. But we all--I think all of us that have ever driven a car, but we think, Well, no, I'm the good parker, I know how to find the spot in this lot. But there's actually research that suggests, maybe get over yourself when it comes to parking the car, and you might have a little bit less stress in your morning. (laughs)
Timothy Caulfield 20:43
Yeah, I love that. I could have written a book on parking. (Ted laughs) My editors were like, you know, Whoa, let's make this a little section. (both laugh) I loved it. There is a whole science to parking. And first of all, people hate it; it completely stresses them out. Now you guys in Notre Dame there, you know, I've been to beautiful Notre Dame, I don't think it's a huge issue there. But you go to any major city, anywhere in the world, and this is a huge, dominant issue, right? It's a dominant issue. New York City, people spend 104 hours a year trying to park.
Ted Fox 21:21
Oh wow.
Timothy Caulfield 21:21
So like, what is that, 4.5 days? And there was one study that said people trying to find the right parking spot cost the economy $70 billion, right? So people are obsessed with it. And what's really funny, people totally stress about it, is everyone thinks they're a great parker, right? They're the ones that can do it. (both laugh) And so they drive around trying to find the perfect parking spot. And that's the George Costanza quote. And, you know, you can tell it's a little bit dated because I don't know how appropriate it is, but if parking is like sex, why would I pay for it when I can get it for free? It's something like that.
Ted Fox 21:59
If I apply myself, I can get it for free. Right. (both laugh)
Timothy Caulfield 22:05
The other interesting psychological component to it--because it also shows some of our cognitive biases. We remember getting that great parking spot, you know, we remember it. So we think, I'm gonna do it again. And it feels good. It's almost like we're in a parking competition and you won, you know, you got points. (laughs) There is no parking competition. And if you look at the mathematical modeling, the best thing to do is take the first parking spot you see; that is what the science says. And then you get a little bit of a bonus of a walk. Try it. Like, you have to park pretty far away to make make it an advantage to try to get closer to the door. It's almost never a good idea.
Ted Fox 22:43
Right. At least two of us I think are drinking coffee on this; Lynnette, I don't know if you're also drinking coffee or not.
Lynnette Wukie 22:49
I got water, don't worry.
Ted Fox 22:50
(Lynnette and Ted laugh) You got--good for you. But again, as a, you know, a self-admitted however, whatever I want to call myself as a coffee drinker and how many cups I have a day, that again seems to be like one of these things that maybe we get these messages online that, Oh, well if you're a healthy person, you wouldn't be drinking all this coffee. Is there science at this point that supports that idea of, Boy, all you coffee drinkers, you've really got kind of a degenerate problem here. (laughs)
Timothy Caulfield 23:19
No, there's not. (Ted and Tim laugh) And like you, I love coffee. It's like one of my favorite things in the whole world. You know, I don't know where I'd put it compared to my kids, but maybe a little above, I don't know. (Ted and Tim laugh) I love it, right? And so there may be some confirmation bias going on, too. (laughs) But if you look at the body of evidence, it signals towards coffee not being bad for you, and probably a little bit good for you. You know, it's associated with--again, we have to be careful not over-interpreting this data--you know, things like lower cancer risk and things like that. And we're talking not like one or two; some of these studies are looking at the consumption of quite a few cups of coffee throughout the day. Now of course, if you're putting a lot of sugar and milk--I drink it black--so that's different, right? Cuz then you have other issues. But if we're just talking about the coffee, probably good for you.
But it's another really good example of what we've already been talking about: correlation/causation, you know, and how you have this flip-flopping in the popular press. You know, coffee is terrible for you, coffee is good for you. And many of the wellness gurus out there have kind of jumped on the bandwagon. I think that's one of the reasons you still hear the idea that coffee is bad for you. It's been associated with fake ailments like adrenal fatigue. Have you heard of that? You know, that's not a real thing, adrenal fatigue. In fact, Gwyneth Paltrow's doctor told me that I have, you know, adrenal fatigue because I drink too much coffee, which is, you know, wrong on so many levels. (Ted and Tim laugh) Yeah, it's--coffee's okay for you. But the other interesting thing about this, and in one of the latter chapters I bring this up in connection to coffee, is how the media loves these kinds of stories, right? There's been studies that have shown that the media is more likely to do a story on an observational study, a correlation study, than a really good causation study, like a randomized controlled trial. So that's one of the reasons we have these perceptions. And partly, of course, because a lot of these observational studies are on things that we love like coffee, like the things that we eat, and it just makes for a better headline than a randomized controlled trial on some very particular molecule, for example.
Ted Fox 25:28
So we've laughed a lot, which I think is great. But I think something that bears highlighting here, and the coffee example is good with this, you talk about it in the book with nutrition more generally. But even if it seems to be something silly like, or a little silly, like, How much coffee can I reasonably drink in a day? The existence of bold and then contradictory claims can make people less likely to trust actual science or think, Wow, this is all so confusing, there's no way, or they're changing--they're changing the advice again. How how big of a problem is that when we kind of really give life to these things that aren't really grounded in fundamental science that then get disseminated out and people start making decisions based on that?
Timothy Caulfield 26:17
I think it's huge, I think it's huge. And you're right, you know, this is one of the big themes in the book, right? And that's why I sort of structured it around your typical day because I thought it would be a fun and relatable way to explore these broader issues that are a real challenge in society right now. And there have been a number of studies that have shown exactly what you just described: When people are confronted with conflicting information, when people are confronted with a chaotic information environment, they are more likely to feel confused, no surprise, and may become less trusting. In fact, there has been really recent research about this playing out in the context of the pandemic, where when you are just bombarded with all this information, you kind of start to just feel confused, less trustworthy. And interesting research has shown--again, with the caveat that it's hard to study this well--interesting research has shown that you're also more likely to believe misinformation, right? So I think that there are really big global challenges with not addressing these kinds of claims critically. So it may seem frivolous, but it allows, sort of invites magical thinking, invites us not to think about the science behind it. And in addition to that, once that headline, that definitive headline is countered, it does erode our trust a little bit. And how you fight that, of course, is deploying critical thinking skills all the time.
Ted Fox 27:48
Right. And I mean, I'm glad you--I mean, you brought up during COVID. You mentioned in the afterword to the book, the World Health Organization has referred to the "COVID infodemic" because of all the misinformation that has been put out there. And I've certainly encountered this next thing in my life. And just wondering, just for you explaining to people out there how science is supposed to work. You talk about in the afterword one aspect of this infodemic is people not trusting science simply because over time, our knowledge gets better. And they say, Well, they used to tell me this, now they tell me this, and you had a line where you said, "Accepting uncertainty and being humble about what we do and don't know aren't indictments of science; they are central to doing it well." And I was just wondering if you could expand on that idea a little, and what do you say to someone who takes the approach of, Well I don't trust scientists because once upon a time, they told me not to do this, and now they're saying, hey, maybe that's a good idea to do this.
Timothy Caulfield 28:45
It's such an important point. I'm glad you brought it up. So often, science is portrayed, particularly in pop culture, as a list of facts. And if one of those facts is wrong, science is wrong. But science isn't a list of facts. Science isn't an institution. Science isn't a university. Science, you know, it isn't a person, and it isn't an industry. Science is a process. And we have to always remind ourselves of that. And so if there is a science-informed entity, like a public health authority, and they change their minds based on the science, that's a badge of honor. You should view that as an entity that is doing its best to aggregate the science in a responsible manner and create recommendations that reflect that science.
So the best example, of course, and I'm sure you were thinking about this in your question, are masks, right? I still get hate mail about masks and people saying, Oh, you said this, and now you say that. You know, early days in the pandemic, we really did not know--we're talking, you know, February, March--we really did not know if masks were beneficial. And there were scientifically plausible reasons to think that they might even be harmful. There was worry about complacency--you know, you put a mask on, you're not gonna physical distance. There was worry that, you know, people would talk louder and the particles would actually spray more. There was worry about face-touching; you guys heard all of this, right? And so you had the World Health Organization, the CDC, you know, Public Health Agency of Canada, National Health Service in the UK, all saying the same thing that they're uncertain that masks are a good idea and perhaps they're not. As the evidence accumulated, we started to get a body of evidence, and this is a big theme in the book, right? Always turn to the body of evidence. So there were laboratories suggesting that they may be beneficial. There were observational studies that were suggesting it might be beneficial. There were policy studies, so where you compare jurisdictions, you know, based on whether they had masks or not, that suggests that they might be beneficial. And by the way, the science is still accumulating. You know, we don't have really good laboratory studies on this, like randomized controlled studies on this. So it is challenging, but you have that body of evidence starting to accumulate, and then the public health authorities say, Okay, now we have this evidence, and now we think that the best advice that we can give is x, y, or zed, which is basically wear a mask. Now, could the public health authorities have done a better job communicating this? Yes. And I've written stuff suggesting that. But they're learning a fantastically tough job, right?
Ted Fox 31:17
Right.
Timothy Caulfield 31:17
The science was still unclear. But they're getting better, I think, because they're learning, too. But that's a really good example of how, you know, science evolves. And as science evolves, the recommendation should evolve. That was probably more than you wanted, I apologize.
Ted Fox 31:32
No.
Timothy Caulfield 31:33
You kind of cranked me up a little bit there. (laughs)
Ted Fox 31:35
No, I think that's great. Because as I said, I mean, I'm not gonna name names--I've encountered that argument in my own life. And I think one of the things of being at, you know, working at a university for as long as I have is, I mean, you really come to have a good understanding of, Yeah, that's how science works. It's not just this dispassionate thing that's there. It's like, No, we have to do the work to learn things. And sometimes when we learn things, we learn new things that might change the way we understood something before. And I think it's--I think one of the best things we can do as universities and other institutions like that is convey that honestly to people that, no, exactly what you said, it is a process, it's not an institution.
Timothy Caulfield 32:14
You're so right about that. Science is hard. It's messy. It's interesting because I often get people also complaining about the retractions, right? The retractions that have happened in the context--as if that was some huge gotcha moment. No, that's exactly how science works. And holy cow did that retraction come fast. You know, some retractions take, you know--and that retraction being, there was the big retraction in Lancet, which is one of the most prestigious journals, around the harm of hydroxychloroquine because of bad data. That retraction came quickly. It's almost an example of science working, not science being broken. Yes, that study should never have been published. Yes, the peer review should have been better. But they responded quickly and retracted. And it's interesting, I always joke that people are watching science right now more than they usually do. You know, they're watching it unfold. They're watching the sausages being made, and they do not like what they're seeing. But this is how science plays out. Yes, there's been a whole bunch of problems with COVID science, by the way. I had the opportunity to coauthor a piece for the Royal Society of Canada on exactly this, right? You know, how science is being represented in the COVID age. There have been mistakes, we got to learn from them, but hey, science is tough. And I will say this: the vaccines? Holy cow. I don't think we champion the science enough there. This is like a moon-landing moment.
Ted Fox 33:33
Yeah.
Timothy Caulfield 33:34
A moon-landing moment that they pulled this off, that they have this incredible science, really impressive science behind it. And you know, I've studied vaccines for a long time. It's one of the areas where I do a lot of research. And if you'd asked me in February if we were going to have a vaccine, I would've said, Ahh, maybe it's going to be 60 percent. And holy cow, really exciting stuff. And by the way, the science is also hopeful for vaccines going forward, right? We're really starting to learn a lot about the RNA technology; it's going to be beneficial in other areas, too.
Ted Fox 34:06
So last question. I don't want to ask you to clearly give away everything in the book. But what's one thing someone listening to this can do to better navigate the sea of misinformation in which we find ourselves swimming on a daily basis?
Timothy Caulfield 34:22
So I'll give two broad--as you know, in the book, I kind of go into a little more detail, I get very specific. (laughs)
Ted Fox 34:27
Of course. Yes.
Timothy Caulfield 34:28
We've touched on one of them, right? And that is really kind of ignoring that noise out there. And also, you know, I'll put as a little bit of a sub-recommendation to that, is to take a break from social media. There's a lot of really interesting research highlighting how important it is to take a break from the news, to take a break from your phone, to take a break from social media. Not only does that lower your stress level, it might also make you better [at] critical thinking because you sort of take a break from the noise.
But my big one recommendation would be: Stick to the science-informed fundamentals. You know, it's just stick to those fundamentals. (laughs) We know what they are in health, right? We know what they are. Don't smoke. You know, you exercise, you eat real food--that sounds like a cheat; it's not. We know what that is--lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, healthy proteins. You know, you get a good night's sleep, you take your preventative steps, which means washing your hands, vaccines, wear a seatbelt. And you surround yourself with people you love. I mean, there really is no more magic beyond that.
Ted Fox 35:26
The book is Your Day, Your Way: The Fact and Fiction Behind Your Daily Decisions. Timothy Caulfield, thank you so much for making time to do this today. I really enjoyed it.
Timothy Caulfield 35:36
Well, thanks very, very much. And of course: Go Irish!
Ted Fox 35:39
(voiceover) With a Side of Knowledge is a production of the Office of the Provost at the University of Notre Dame. Our website is withasideofpod.nd.edu.