Science, Public Health, and Risky Sex
Liberals, like yours truly, always like to use the "science" argument when debating about public health.
A common version of the argument:
Conservatives: Telling kids about condoms makes them have premarital sex!
Liberals: They have premarital sex anyway. Condoms are scientifically proven to prevent pregnancy and STIs. We should definitely tell people about condoms.
Science is empowering. When people have the right to access accurate, rigorously tested information, they can make informed decisions about their own health. But what happens when the science - the real, statistically relevant science - isn't likely to encourage any healthy choices?
If you're a dedicated reader of this blog, you already saw Alanna's post on recent research suggesting that withdrawal may actually be an effective form of birth control. (For more information, take a look at the Guttmacher Institute study here.)
The New York Times published an article about the study this week, its headline proclaiming, "Withdrawal method finds ally." The Times' treatment of the subject got me thinking: What exactly is a publication's responsibility when it comes to controversial health news?
Science, that reliable argument for causes like comprehensive sex education, is also subtle, slow, and rarely as clear-cut as we would like - not exactly headline generating material. So when science does make the news, it tends to be oversimplified and sensationalized.
A quick browse through most major publications' health sections yields stunningly contradictory health news. To lose weight, don't eat carbs! To prevent cancer, drink green tea! And almost as quickly as the news arrives, new studies take their place, telling confused readers the new miracle cure for that which ails them.
It's easy to laugh when it comes to news on trendy weight-loss schemes. But what about an issue, like pregnancy and STI prevention, where the stakes are higher? How should journalists cover it, when the data are limited and likely to cause confusion - yet it's data nonetheless?
A decisively unscientific survey of some of my friends who work in public health yielded a pretty standard response to this issue. "Famous last words," one friend told me when I asked her about the New York Times article. Most people I talked to worried that the coverage of the study would give people an imaginary free reign to have unprotected sex. After all, the science seems to say, withdrawal is just as effective as condoms.
But the Guttmacher Institute study's leader author makes a compelling counter-argument: debates about public health should be data-driven, and she's got data. We should no more blindly trust the status quo in family planning than we should blindly hope teenagers won't figure out how to have sex if nobody talks about it.
What do you think? How should the mainstream media - and the public health community - cover an issue like this?
COMMENTS (2)