It’s pretty frustrating when some of the most “reputable” scientific institutions in our country lead us astray…and then, when their methodology is debunked, they correct themselves…but they do so very quietly. 

Case in point: The American Medical Association published an erroneous survey in March 2006 about underage drinking claiming that girls were drinking excessively on college spring break tours.  A shocking finding…if it were true. 

The study was a non-random Internet poll of volunteers.  And of those volunteers, only about 27% had even BEEN on spring break! Nevertheless, the Associated Press jumped on it without even a question as to the validity of the methodology and proceeded to run a story on the “findings” shortly after the release of the study. 

 Fortunately, we have watchdogs out there like the American Association for Public Opinion Research and Mystery Pollster that caught this study and exposed the AMA for their deceptive findings. Though the AMA eventually modified its release, the amendments were hardly publicized and, of course, garnered MUCH less attention then the initial study.

You may be asking yourself why I’m writing about this in January of 2007, nearly one year later.I’ll tell you why: the drama goes on. 

The Columbia Journalism Review and the AP have been bickering over the AP’s role in perpetuating this bogus study on the pages of the Review.  Last month, the CJR wrote a “dart” criticizing the AP’s “delayed reaction and impaired judgment” on this study.  The latest chapter unfolds in the January/February issue in which the AP responds in a Letter to the Editor (which, unfortunately, isn’t available online) to the CJR’s criticism of how the AP handled the situation.

I’m not going to get into all of the details of the mud-slinging, but the point I want to make is that here we not only have a case of a special interest organization using dubious data to further its own agenda, but we also have an example of the AP, one of the most preeminent news wires in this country, adding fuel to the fire.

I don’t want to blame the individual reporter or bureau that issued the story because I think this is really a larger issue that I’ve seen in assorted news organizations across the country.  As budgets are cut and staffing is reduced, we - the consumers of news - are often the victims of misinformation.    

My suspicions were right! Apparently the American Medical Association (AMA) has previously reported “junk science” as fact when it comes to alcohol consumption. Thank you, Rachel R., for bringing to my attention the Op-Ed in PR Week by Greg Schneiders. It’s nice to know that folks are beginning to pick up on the truth surrounding these loosely characterized “studies.”

According to the Op-Ed, in 2001 the AMA released a “study” on college binge drinking, but again their polling methodology was flawed.

It’s a shame that the AMA didn’t use more scientific polling to conduct their studies as they are typically a credible organization that serves to improve the health of our nation. I’m shocked that when it came to underage drinking and alcohol abuse they didn’t ensure that their polling methods were more accurate.

In contrast, I thought I’d draw your attention to a study that Anheuser-Busch commissioned recently, which found that a vast majority of American drinkers ages 21 and over (94 percent), say they drink responsibly and in moderation. The survey assesses the attitudes and behaviors of American adults regarding responsible and moderate drinking and found overwhelming public support for moderation.

While we’re pleased to hear these results, what’s more important is the methodology that was applied to the survey and lends a great deal of credibility to the results. A-B partnered with Harris Interactive, a leading, reputable market research firm, widely known within that industry. The methodology was laid out in the original press release announcing the findings:

Harris Interactive conducted the telephone survey on behalf of Anheuser-Busch between March 2-6, 2006, among a nationwide cross section of 963 U.S. adults ages 21 and over (26 and over in California), of whom, 816 drink alcohol beverages. The data were weighted to be representative of the total U.S. adult population on the basis of education, age by sex, race/ethnicity, region, household income and number of telephone lines in the household. In theory, with a probability sample of this size, one can say with 95 percent certainty that the overall results, as well as the results for those who drink alcohol beverages, have a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire U.S. adult population had been polled with complete accuracy.

I find it comforting when groups who conduct important studies of this nature disclose how they arrived at the results. The Harris study is a perfect example.

As I’ve said before, it’s impossible to fix a problem if the information we receive about it is a result of unscientific polls, studies that inflate the problem without evidence, or just bad data. If the AMA would apply the same ideals to alcohol that they apply to other areas of health, we could collaborate with them on finding solutions to our common challenges.

Hopefully, they’ll give Harris Interactive a call for their next study!
Cheers,
Guy

Since we began this blog discussing misleading studies, I thought I would turn our attention to a recent �??study�?? by the American Medical Association.

Back in March, the AMA released a �??study�?? on alcohol and sex during spring break trips.�� The AMA said that the study was based on the responses of 644 college women and graduates ages 27-35.�� Their study noted a number of things: spring break trips involve more or heavier drinking; women use drinking as an excuse for outrageous behavior; and that alcohol is easy to get on spring break.

Now, I�?Tm not saying that college students don�?Tt drink and party on spring break trips.�� However, what I do want to bring everyone�?Ts attention is that what the AMA is claiming as scientific research is not as scientific as they would like us to believe.

Howard Kurtz from the Washington Post accurately points out, �??this poll had zero scientific validity.�??�� Randomly selected respondents were not the participants in the poll �?’ it was an Internet survey with self-selected participants.�� According to Cliff Zukin, president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, (a bona fide expert in the field of public opinion research) dismissed the AMA survey as �??scientifically useless.�?? [Note: This quote is excerpted from a Wall Street Journal article.�� To access the article, you must log on to www.wsj.com.]

And of course after the study was released (and before the truth was exposed) the media ate it up.�� Mystery Pollster has noted that stories on the poll appeared in thousand of newspapers across the country.

This leads me to conclude a couple of things: 1) how many �??studies�?? has the AMA released that we just accept as scientific fact; and 2) why isn�?Tt the media more responsible with their reporting?

As I have said a number of times, underage drinking is unacceptable.�� But passing off bogus studies as scientific fact is not the answer.