A new study shows that there are too many studies

Doesn't it seem sometimes that too many groups are conducting studies to confirm things that we already know? There should be a study proving that researchers (dare I call them studious?) are being paid to restate the obvious.

At a certain point, we are so overloaded by the latest scientific research that our brains turn off - for the record, that is just my opinion without any formal study to back it up. Unless a study concludes something more concrete that "suggestions," it is hard to get too excited. Hence, I was underwhelmed by the latest television-attention study. Of course, television is blamed for every problem not already attributed to transfat or UV rays so that could also account for my lack of shock.

Days later another study failed to amaze me. It's findings? That most East Palo Alto residents feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods. Yes, in an area where drug deals, shootings, and assaults appear to be a daily occurrence, 65 percent of residents reported feeling "unsafe" or "very unsafe." To use a childhood phrase - possibly learned from too much TV - well, duh. A more shocking study would have been one that found that residents in East Palo Alto felt warm and fuzzy about the safety of their community.

I know that these types of studies do have their uses. Occasionally they do discover something unexpected. They can be used to secure state and federal money to fight problems such as crime or traffic congestion. But for the most part, they usually seem to be a waste of time and money. Do Canadian researchers really need to measure how much methane is released by belching cows? The government thinks so and is spending $50,000 to see if bovine burps are affecting climate change. Was it that important to document that purebred dogs resemble their owners? U.C. San Diego researchers thought so. No word yet on how that information is going to alter day-to-day existence.

Even when studies appear to be a little more grounded in reality, it is hard to lend them much credence. What one study "suggests" today will be completely contradicted the next week. Health studies are the best at this. One will tell women to drink red wine to combat heart disease while another finds that alcohol increases breast cancer. One study tells us to eat fish. Another scares sushi fanatics everywhere by noting an alarming rate of mercury in fish.

Studies then only become noteworthy when they help justify an action, a food or a vice that is previously considered suspect. The same day people in East Palo Alto were feeling unsafe, researchers announced some touchy-feely news for at least the male demographic: frequent sexual activity will not increase the risk of prostate cancer and might even reduce the danger.

This study most likely had men across the world leaping for joy, and not because they may avoid being one of the estimated 230,000 annual victims of the disease. Whether or not the study turns out to be valid, the male population will take the news and run with it. Every rebuff of "...but I have a headache" will now be countered with "Don't you care about my health? They did a study, you know ..."

These researchers may one day have statues erected in their honor.

Michelle Durand's column "Off the Beat" runs every Monday and Thursday. She can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 104. What do you think of this column? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com.