Re: Radon and lung cancer

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

A recent post said, in part:

>If I had been on the O.J. Simpson jury, and if the DNA evidence placed him 
>at the scene of the crime, the defense would have had to work very hard to 
>show why that evidence was flawed,  to convince me that O.J. was innocent.  
>They would have had a barrier or burden to overcome on that issue.

To reiterate my point, science does not work like a court case.  There is
no vote.  Science advances by persuasion, not by fiat.

I'll assume you meant the vote as a metaphor for persuasion.  I would note
that even in court, jurors are told to withold judgement until all the
evidence is presented.  (But I'm not optimistic that jurors can really
maintain that level of objectivity.)  The studies will be done.  Let's see
what they reveal.    Dr. Fields (for example) has no axe to grind.  He'll
be satisfied whatever the results show.  To use the voting metaphor, it's a
little early to call the question.

Another excerpt said:
>The others need to hit it back pretty hard with the results of a case control
>study, if they are to show that there IS a positive correlation between low
>doses of radon and lung cancer.

I'm not sure what this means.  I can think of a few possible outcomes:

(`1) Suppose the case control studies (CCS) replicate Cohen's result.  Then
no problem.  We all hail him as a visionary.

(2) Suppose the CCS show a positive cancer-radon correlation that is
sinificant down to the level of Bernie's threshold.  Again, no problem.  I
assume this is hitting the ball pretty hard.

(3) Suppose Bill Field's Iowa study produces results that are inconsistent
with Bernie's data for Iowa counties at high doses but cannot address the
threshold question.  Does this raise questions about the ecologic methods?
Where is the ball at this point?

If Dr. Cohen's results are confirmed, we will be that much closer to a
resolution and we'll all be better off.  But scientists always demand
confirmation of a result using different techniques.  We shouldn't prejudge
the results of these other experiments.  

Fermi may be right that the opponents just die off.  But it might be
important that results are confirmed by younger scientists in the meanwhile.

Regards,
Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu