To whom it may concern:
In regards to the article "Soda linked to pancreatic cancer" I think an important detail missing is the factor of nature: genetics. It does not say anything about nature being the possible cause of pancreatic cancer, or even the cause of a possible predisposition. It is only the one environmental factor of soda that causes one of the most deadly cancers? Somehow I think more research needs to be done. Both sides, nature and nurture need to be investigated before a cause can be determined.
I am concerned with the evidence surrounding this bold statement that regular soda is the reason for pancreatic cancer. The 87 percent increase of getting pancreatic cancer due to drinking regular soda really does not conclude anything. Correlation does not indicate causation. Environmental factors are hard to test on subjects because there are so many differing factors. Although some of the bases were covered; age, general health, and diet, there is absolutely no indication that genetics could be a factor. Should people now worry about drinking soda, when in fact, this really might not be the cause of pancreatic cancer? I do not think so. Not all bases were covered and one experiment that led to a visible correlation cannot conclude causation.
I propose investigating the genetics behind it. Could there be a possible expression of genes that leads to the promotion of the growth of tumor cells within the pancreas? Could it possibly be a genetic factor that increases the blood's rise in sugar levels? I think one major factor mentioned within the article might really be a key point that seems to be overlooked. Diabetes is mentioned as having a correlation to pancreatic cancer. This should be investigated further and the genetics should be regarded as a possible cause as well as environmental factors.
**Hopefully I can get some tips from ya'll!
Well done Maggie. You've cited a key issue that many news reports on research often disregard--that correlation doesn't indicate causation, or for that matter even relevance. Usually, too much emphasis is put on the empirical data (i.e results) and not the overall conclusions made by the authors themselves. I mean do they quote the professor saying "though significant correlation has been observed...further research is necessary to determine all factors involved"..? My guess is no.
ReplyDeleteIn the first paragraph you begin by describing your issue with the article and then end with your resolution (corrective). I would suggest leaving mention of further research etc. until your last paragraph. That way the reader wont feel that your conclusion at the end has become repetitive or just space fillers/extra text. I feel that with the length of an op ed this would be appropriate. but... just my opinion.
your second paragraph is good, with strong/concise analysis of your issue. You might consider combining it with your first paragraph if the latter is shortened from my previous suggestion. Also, if space permits you may want to include an example of somethings that correlate but have nothing to do with each other (like a study on shoe size and hygiene...[bad, made-up example])
Third paragraph looks great as well. maybe change the first 'genetics' to 'possible genetic factors'... or just something more descriptive of what you want. I like the possibilities you pose as well--it shows you know your stuff and therefore have business writing about it.
Hope all this was helpful!!! Good luck...
-DH