Published May 19, 2009
by dbazely
The reason why I found blogging so tough to sustain, was that I could not overcome my urge to check into every last detail, and the time needed to fact-check my blogs was getting way out of hand. Here's one hitherto unpublished blog: last May, 2008, the Globe & Mail's Life section had an article about the research of Dr. Phil Edwards, Senior Lecturer, and Prof. Ian Roberts, at the prestigious London School of Hygeine & Tropical Medicine. Basically, the Globe (along with other media outlets, including the USA's MSNBC site, CNN and the UK's Daily Telegraph) carried the story, entitled "Obesity adds to global warming", about the research that describes how obese and overweight people "require more fuel to transport them and the food they eat", and then makes the link between this and the greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, that is driving climate change. I interpreted this as leaving me with the following take home sustainability message - "eat less and lose weight, and not just for for your own health, but for the environment."
This reported research finding illustrates two really important things about the pain of peer-reviewed research: As scientists, we often take years to show that intuitive ideas and guesses do hold. There are no surprises about this particular result - it takes more energy to move heavy goods (you pay more for it at the post office). BUT - I am more likely to take this finding seriously because it comes from academics who have published their research through the highly-scrutinized peer-review process. This is known as "publish or perish" and it's what makes university-based research more reliable than non-refereed, unscrutinized research.
The second thing, is that as a scientist, it's not enough for me to read about this in the newspaper. I immediately went to access The Lancet, the prestigious journal in which the study was published. And this is where the fun began. First, I could not find any such article in the latest on-line issue, which I accessed through the York University Library. So, I searched the entire contents of the journal. I found a just-published article called "Transport Policy is Food Policy" by the two authors, which I thought MUST be the journal paper that all the media outlets were referring to. BUT, the download link to the pdf was wrong and it gave me another article (this does occasionally happen with on-line science journals). After a bit more persistence, I DID get the article, which turns out not to be a full journal article, but an item of correspondence. Hmm - I wonder what the review process is for 'correspondence'?
Next I found, by googling a bit more, that there are numerous peer-reviewed journal articles making the links between greenhouse gas emissions, food transportation policy and obesity. Wow - I had no idea that this was such an academic issue. Next, I read some articles that quote a bunch of US Academics who counter the point of the Edwards & Robert's paper. Wow, this could have taken the entire weekend to research, so, in the end I gave up my Saturday morning blogging in frustration at the time sink I was turning it into, and grabbed another cup of coffee. Next time someone asks me exactly how the kind of thinking that I do about sustainability differs from non-professorial sustainability thinkers, I will direct them to this blog.
Dawn Bazely
Posted in: Blogs | IRIS Director Blog
