Research is the engine of science. But that engine should not be idling, it should be steadily propelling science forward. The extent of that forward motion is to be found in the estimated 10,000 papers spewed out every day by the world’s 45,000 or so peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Some of these papers are excellent and nudge science along, but there are also ones that describe sloppy, methodologically weak and over-interpreted research. Or in the worst-case scenario, present data that is fraudulent.

Then there are studies that may have been properly designed, carried out by reputable scientists and report reliable data, but do not add to our existing body of knowledge in any significant way. These can be likened to that idling engine.

The question I ask myself when perusing a paper is whether it reports any novel information that may somehow benefit society. Are the time and funds spent on the research justified? This is particularly pertinent when it comes to the ever-increasing number of studies that explore the relationship between health and diet.

Let me illustrate with an example. “Diet Quality and Dementia Risk in Older Adults with Alzheimer Pathology” was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) by a group of Slovenian and Swedish MDs and PhDs who analyzed data gathered by the Swedish National Study on Aging.

Between 2001 and 2004, Swedish scientists enlisted 1,865 seniors with no symptoms of dementia who were then followed for an average of eight years. Periodically the participants filled out food frequency questionnaires and had their blood tested for markers that signal a risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Eventually 240 subjects developed dementia. Some data dredging by the authors........

© Montreal Gazette