I was skimming through recent scientific discoveries when this title caught my attention: "Chemicals in soap can cause male infertility". It comes from The Independent, a British newspaper and claims that chemicals in household products could be the cause of unexplained infertility in males. Why did that particular article catch my attention? I am a girl, why should I be concerned or interested? Well, first I thought that was an interesting take as I had truly no knowledge of chemicals affecting such parts of the human body (being a biology geek I felt very uninformed). Second, it is quite a recent claim and thus provides a rather large space for analysis.
To be more specific, the article talks about household products such as toothpaste, sunscreen, soap, even plastic toys, as well as humans consuming food and drinks. ALL of which are apparently contaminated by what scientists call endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Those would, in certain cases, mimic female sex hormones (oestrogens) and other cases the male sex hormones, which cause a disruption in men's reproductive systems. The chemicals would actually damage the sperm's swimming agility and its ability to fertilise the egg Such a statement can be a bit overwhelming for anybody. However, the articles states that scientists believe they have found a way to test how chemicals in household products affect the human sperm. Phew, men can be reassured, the products they use on a daily basis will no longer affect their ability to reproduce....but how can we be sure of that? As a reader, how do I know that for sure? Especially as people who are not necessarily experts on the matter.
This article seems accurate in the way it is so assertive and detailed, but the keyword is seems. After a more thorough read, I noticed that is selectively detailed and remains relatively vague.
The most interesting "sub claims" let's call them, are "It is the first time that a study has found a direct effect of the many ubiquitous man-made chemicals in the environment on a vital function of human sperm." and "but the researchers believe they have developed a new way of testing the impact [...] which will allow regulatory authorities [...] to decide whether to ban or impose restrictions on their use in certain products". The first claim goes back to what I said about the article being so assertive. It seems accurate because it expresses confidence, but it is so confident about its claims it forgets to support them. Furthermore, it lacks detail and I have no confirmation that this is really the first time a study finds a direct relationship between a factor and the human sperm. The second claim shows less confidence but it also forgets to explain what that new way is. This is where my point about the article being selectively detailed comes in. When the reader needs information he/she does not really get a clear definite answer, however we are told all about which chemicals do what and in which products and so on. In other words, it seems the article does not really focus on how chemicals cause male infertility. They tackle the subject once or twice but in my opinion there should be more details and more science to the overall explanation.
Now, I want to question the criticism I offered earlier by taking a look at the 3 S's. The source is obviously professional, there seems to be no personal input and the article has an informational purpose. Thus there is no bias from the author and no one is trying to convince anybody. Thus, my criticism on the selectivity of detail can be questioned. The statements that are being made are relatively clear and explanatory. Now, I have to look at my self. I reacted rather violently to a simple article and attacked its confidence. The reality is that I am an endlessly curious person and once I learn something I need to know everything about it. I need to be explained things clearly otherwise they don't make sense. Besides, being a ToK student, I will question most things I encounter. Thus, this article could have been perfectly satisfying, reasonable and explanatory to another reader.
Because of what I mentioned, which is the lack of informational detail, the few/rare specific scientific explanations and the strong confidence of the article, I feel that the accuracy of this claim can be questioned. I would need a more scientific article. Although the claim does somewhat explain how chemicals affect the human sperm, there is a lack of coherence in terms of what I know and what am I told in the article. I am not given enough information to validate this claim as true.
Word count: 785
While reading your evaluation of this article, I felt the same way about the lack of scientific information, which also makes me skeptical when reading these kinds of pieces because I find it hard to believe certain claims without concrete statistics that show its validity. I think this relates directly so some of the fallacies we learned last year, such as appeal to authority, or in this case, a lack thereof-- because there was no scientific evidence coming from a notable source, it made you doubt the entire claim. I also found it interesting how you wrote that because the author seemed confident and provided a lot of details, it almost made the article seem believable without the need for more explanations behind the science (as you say, the key word is "seems"). One question I had while reading was when you evaluate the article using the 3 S's and say "no one is trying to convince anybody," how are you so sure that the author is not trying to convince the reader? Perhaps you should rethink this point, because if he is trying to prove his point and make it believable to the reader, it could be interpreted as trying to convince them, which could be a flaw in the logic. Perhaps another approach you could take towards this article is by thinking: what does the author want to reader to think after reading the article, and what is he trying to prove?
ReplyDeleteNice work, Lucille. I see lots of evidence of critical thinking and you have an effective, engaging writing voice. I am most interested in your main point, which is that the article doesn't have enough science in it to completely convince you that the claim is true. That's an interesting and reasonable stance. So take it a bit further: would it be possible for you to access the original study? If you could find it, would you be able to read it? Do you think you have enough scientific expertise at this point to be able to evaluate a published paper? Your answers to these questions would give your excellent response another layer.
ReplyDelete