Science and Society

EDUC 4200

Professor: Wayne Melville

By: Imran Malik

October 16, 2016

A) Bad Eating Habits Can Start in Daycare

Source: Rapaport, L. 2016. Reuters Health News. Retrieved from:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-eating-habits-kids-
idUSKBN12E2ED

1) What is the situation the article describes?

This article focuses on eating habits and strategies in state-licensed

daycare centres in the United States. Specifically it talks about
controlled feeding practices used at mealtimes in such institutions. The
article discusses how although past research has indicated that
controlled feeding practices can lead to children losing their ability to
follow their own hunger cues, and often the ability to stop eating when
theyre full, some daycare workers mistakenly believed that a clean
plate club approach would encourage children to develop a healthy
appetite. The article claims that forcing children to eat until their plates
are clean at every meal may often cause them to gravitate towards
sugary foods and snacks, increasing their risk of becoming overweight
or obese.

The article claims that a new study found that many childcare
providers are still providing food as rewards to children, and praising
children for cleaning their plates, as in eating all of their food. The
article also notes that many childcare providers often adopt this
approach out of fear of parents negative reaction to finding out their
child did not eat their food.

2) What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

Because early childhood is a pivotal developmental stage for the

emergence of healthy habits (according to the article), daycare culture
around meals is of great importance. The main scientific issue
mentioned is that early childhood eating culture can lead to increased
weight gain and obesity, and the development of unhealthy eating
habits in children if done improperly.

3) What claims are made in the article? Who is making the claims?

The article makes the claim that many early childhood education
centres are still using unhealthy mealtime strategies to get children to
eat, even though many are aware that research has shown the
potential negative effects of such strategies. It is also claimed that the
driving reason for the continuance of these meal-time strategies is fear
of parents negative reaction to their kids having not eaten their food,
and that using food as a reward aids them in getting children to
complete tasks they are not too keen on.
The article also claims that many daycare providers are unaware of the
negative correlation between the two suggested in past research, and
that they mistakenly use approaches such as a clean plate club to
encourage children to develop a healthy appetite.

The article also claims that parents should ask how childcare providers
approach mealtimes when they are making a decision on where to
send their children. This claim is quoted from Nancy Zucker, an eating
disorder researcher at Duke University.

All of the other claims made in this article are said to be derived either
from past research studies, or for the most part from a new research
study done by Dev et al., published in the Journal of the Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics on September 17, 2016.

4) Are these claims substantiated?

All of the claims in this article are said to be based off new and past
research. This article did include a reference to the new Dev et al.
research article, unlike a few others that I read. The study does back
up the claims made by the article that, and when reading the study it
became apparent that this article is basically a summary of the new
research study.

However the article is careful to note that the study is small, and
doesnt prove that daycare-feeding policies cause obesity or lead
children to have bad eating habits.

5) What are the implications of these claims?

These claims, if found to be accurate, may have great implications on

early childhood centres policies around mealtimes strategies. In a
society where we are seeing an increase in childhood obesity, and with
the knowledge that research suggests that early childhood is an
important stage in developing healthy habits, this research may give
us great insight into one of the potential sources of this increase.

The claim that many daycare providers are using strict mealtime
strategies as a way of promoting healthy appetites, and that they are
unaware of past research indicating the potential negative effects of
these strategies will need to be addressed. Maybe all early childhood
centres will need to do a better job of educating their employees on
such issues. The claim that other workers do know about past
research, but are still using dangerous mealtime strategies out of fear
of the parent, or to increase child participation is troubling, and may
have great implications if true. This would mean that workers are
knowingly putting their best interests above the long-term health of
the children.

6) Would you be prepared to accept these claims, giving reasons for

your answers?

I think this article makes some interesting claims, most of which seem
to make common sense, however most are based on a very small
sample size. The study by Dev et al. only interviewed 18 early
childhood workers, and all of them were female. It is clear even among
this small sample size that background knowledge and application of
mealtime strategies varied, as did the reasons for using particular
strategies. Also this study is very short-term, and we would need larger
and longer studies to determine the long-term effects of such mealtime
strategies. Because of this I would need to see further research or
evidence before I could fully accept these claims.

This article also focused solely on the negative effects of practices

such as clean plate clubs and only mentioned that some workers use
them as a way of promoting healthy eating habits, but did not expand
on that idea, or provide scientific reasoning as to why this is incorrect,
they only said that past research found this to be incorrect, without
giving examples of any studies. I would be interested to see the effects
of leaving eating decisions in the childrens hands, and to compare the
effects of strategies to promote eating versus strategies that leave
eating decisions up to the children.

B) Gene Mutation Drives Compulsion to Eat Fatty

Foods

Source: Nogrady, B. 2016. ABC Science. Retrieved from

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-05/gene-mutation-drives-
compulsion-to-eat-fatty-foods/7901522

1) What is the situation the article describes?

This article describes a gene mutation in the gene for the

melanocortin-4-receptor (MC4R) that drives a compulsion to eat more
fatty, energy-dense foods in those who have it. The article mentions
that this receptor influences what we like to eat and how much of it,
and notes that the defects in the gene are found in 1-5% of obese
individuals, resulting in sever obesity with an early age of onset.
2) What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

The specific scientific issue mentioned is that having a mutation in the

MC4R receptor may lead to a desire to eat more fatty, energy-dense
foods in those who have it. Scientifically, it mentions that our brains
appear to have the ability to determine nutrient content of food, even
we tightly control the appearance and taste of food.

The article also claims that the MC4R developed on nerves in the brain
as part of a system to protect us during times of famine, by driving us
to seek out high-fat foods instead of high-carbohydrate or sugary foods
due to the higher energy return of fatty foods over sugary ones.

3) What claims are made in the article? Who is making the claims?

The article claims that 1-5% of obese people have a defect in the gene
for the MC4R our or will be severely obese, and that this obesity will
have an early onset. This defect is claimed to lead to an increased
drive to consume fatty foods. It also makes the claim that the drive to
eat is not purely a matter of self-control, but rather is controlled to a
large extent by a genetic component. These claims come from a new
study by Van der Klaauw et al., published in Nature Communications in
early October 2016.

The article claims that the MC4R was part of a system that evolved to
encourage us to eat foods with a higher energy return during times of
famine. This claim is quoted from Professor Amanda Salis of the
University of Sydneys Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise
and Eating Disorders at the Charles Perkins Centre.

4) Are these claims substantiated?

Most of the claims in this article again come from a new research study
in humans. This study is said to build upon past research done in mice
that showed similar results. The article does not provide any references
for past research, other than Van der Klaauws new study, however
that study does provide further references to other studies to support
their claims.

As mentioned, the claim that MC4R evolved as part of a system to fight

during times of famine comes from a quote by Professor Amanda Salis.
The article does not provide any reference to support this claim, just a
quote from Salis.

5) What are the implications of these claims?

These claims imply that maybe we do not have as much control over
our dietary preference as wed like to think. For myself I can see this in
me, I definitely find that I am consistently reaching for high-fat and
high-salt foods over sugary ones, and even healthier options. Perhaps
if defects in MC4R are found to be linked to high-fat consumption, then
we can use this as a biomarker for such conditions, and potentially
work on ways to combat the effects of this mutation. Perhaps we can
use this gene as a target to improve weight loss, reduce obesity, etc.

6) Would you be prepared to accept these claims, giving reasons for

your answers?

The claims made in this article seem to be based off studies published
in fairly reputable journals. Because of this I am inclined to accept the
findings of the main study referenced (Van der Klaauw et al., 2016).
This study does build upon, and support the findings of previous
research done in mice. However again this study seems to be one of
the first such studies done in humans, and has a sample size of only 14
people. As with the first article, I would need to see repetition of the
study, and similar studies, and to have those studies support the
claims made in this article before I could fully accept them.

The article does not provide any reference to support Professor

Amanda Salis claim, just a quote from Salis, and while it lists her
qualifications, we cannot be sure of any biases she may have. I would
like to see some scientific support for this claim before I can accept it.

C) Coulrophobia: Why Clowns Trigger Our Fear

Reflexes

Source: Burnett, D. 2016. The Guardian Science Brain Flapping.

Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-
flapping/2016/oct/14/coulrophobia-why-clowns-trigger-our-fear-reflexes

1) What is the situation the article describes?

This article talks about the clown craze happening in the UK and now
North America, and looks at why clowns are a source of fear for many.
The article claims that this fear is triggered deep inside our brains, and
that it is based of; the uncanny valley effect in which we are scared
of those that are almost human, but not quite, our childhood fears, as
well as the uncertainty and unpredictability of clowns.

It also notes how the norm in our society when it comes to clowns has
become the scary-clown stereotype. It notes that most of our most
famous cultural examples of clowns fit this scary-clown stereotype, like
the Joker or Stephen Kings Pennywise, not the fun-clown one.

2) What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

This scientific issue raised by this article, is why do clowns tend to

activate fear reflexes in our brains. The article then attempts to
scientifically analyze clown behaviour and movement, and societys
past experiences with clowns, and how those experiences may have
shaped our view of clowns.

3) What claims are made in the article? Who is making the claims?

This article makes the claim that our society has promoted more of a
scary-clown stereotype rather than one of a fun, joking clown.

The article claims that our fear of clowns is also in large part due to the
uncanny valley effect, where objects/animals that are close to
human, but not quite there, are incredibly unsettling to most, as with
ventriloquist dummies.

It also claims that part of our fear of clowns is based on their

unpredictability, and the fact that they behave in ways that defy
normal human behaviour, which causes distrust and apprehension with
them.

They also claim a childhood component to clown fear, noting that most
lasting phobias stem from early childhood events, and that phobias are
often learned from the parents, and as such can persist through
numerous generations.

The article itself makes all of these claims, but it uses various journal
articles and the BBC News to try to provide support for its claims.

4) Are these claims substantiated?

The article does attempt to use previous research to support its claims,
however the relationship of the previous research to clowns is done by
the article itself. The claims of an uncanny valley effect, that phobias
develop during childhood and can be passed on by parents, as well as
the distrust and apprehension caused by unpredictable behaviour are
substantiated by past scientific research, but again there is no mention
to their application to clowns other than in the article.

5) What are the implications of these claims?

I think with the current scary-clown craze happening the implications of
these claims may be important for people to understand. It seems to
suggest that these clowns have not hurt anyone yet, but fear is
spreading due to the claims presented in this article. These claims may
have implications in decreasing fear by allowing readers to understand
where their fear is coming from, and that it is coming more from a
deeper human fear of the not quite human, rather than the danger
presented by these clowns.

6) Would you be prepared to accept these claims, giving reasons for

your answers?

While this article does a decent job of using scientific research to

support its claims, it makes certain leaps and assumes that the past
research extends, and can be applied to scary clowns as well. While I
am inclined to accept the claims themselves, such as that phobias
develop early and can be passed on by parents, or the uncanny valley
effect, I am hesitant to accept that they apply to the current clown
craze. I would need some scientific research to be done on clowns
themselves, to help determine whether or not the claims made in this
article, and the research used to support them do in fact apply to
clowns as well.