The Ghanaian Way of Disputing Research Findings

Photo credit: http://in-progress.org/research/

Science is a body of knowledge that prides itself on reproducible research information. Science is tentative and lends itself to change in the face of alternative independently verifiable information. However, science is not a feeling and not a belief. Although Science has stood against conservatism as witnessed in the days of Galileo and Co, it nonetheless has a screened liberalism.

Much of what we know of science today is several years of cumulative change driven by research. And with advances in technology, the body of knowledge of science is on a constant revision. This revision, however, is not on the basis of individuals or groups assumptions of facts. Science in much of its communication on new findings employs modest expression such as “could have an association with”, “has the potential” etc. and shuns sounding authoritative.

Skepticism and disputes of scientific findings are welcome. Such an enterprise should, however, be based on at least informed reasoning argued on available information. We should be minded in the fact that the apparent absence of evidence is not evidence absent. This helps to coil off the tendency to repulsively show opposition to what challenges our comfort zones with a crescendo of mere noise charges against perceived enemies.  

In recent times Ghanaians have expressed misgivings and in some instances outrage against scientific findings that they consider in their estimation, a threat to their options of nutrition and delicacies. They argue if indeed such risks exist they might not have lived to this day. In effect, they see these research red lights against their mouthwatering delicacies as nothing short of Western prejudices against what is uniquely theirs.  

Prof Odamtten had warned against the used of fungal infested ripe plantain for preparation of “kakro”, a popular Ghanaian cuisine. The fungal infested plantain exposes consumers to the carcinogen aflatoxin. Individuals who consume aflatoxin infested food above acceptable limits risk cancer diseases. Sensational newspapers in dire need of sale gave headlines that suggested “kakro” was the carcinogen. People lazily failed to read the details beyond the headlines and started a verbal crucifixion of the report. The few who manage to read, ignorantly quizzed; “How can aflatoxin survive the great heat of hot oil?” They seem to suggest heat could kill anything however inanimate. Aflatoxin is a chemical release by Aspergillus species, a fungus into their substrates. You can’t clean off the chemical by simply washing off the black spots of fungal growth on food material. Aflatoxin is also heat resistant.  

Ghanaians again are on a frenzy rejecting research that finds coconut oil unwholesome based on agreed standards of nutritional quality. The claims of the health benefits of coconut oil got the curious investigative attention of scientists and into the lab, they went. Their report shows coconut oil has a high amount of saturated fats, a marker of an unhealthy food product. They refute the snake-oil claims of coconut oil, describing it as bad for our health. The news headings in their click-bait strategy tagged coconut oil with “poison”. “A poison that never got us killed all these years of consumption?” They wondered in disbelief. The research is in the dustbin of many a Ghanaian. They call the bluff of the report posing in cameras taking coconut drink or its pulp. They ridiculously suggest if coconut oil is a “poison” then anything coconut must pose a similar danger. A needful red herring? The bruised will hold onto anything for a defense. Saturated fats are considered a health harzard to cardiovascular health. This, however, is being disputed by researchers such as Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a UK cardiologist and co. in a recent publication. One would have thought in our doubts, we would go into the lab with the oil or better still conduct a meta-analysis of the health status of coconut oil consumers before taking arms against our perceived Western research enemies. Do we even have the labs? Maybe I should say we should make our findings from our dotted sacred religious monuments of worship. Don’t ask me how or why. Our leaders know best. Better still ask a cathedral advocate.

The feeble defense against research reports of potential harm from products has been lack of immediate apparent causative association. People ignore the cumulative long-term effects of harm. Just as chronic ill health conditions last a lifetime, their phenotypic expressions are years of cumulative genotypic injury. In the course of these accumulations, a person’s genetics and environment are key determinants of the expression of ill health. A person’s genetics could offer resistance to the injury of cellular poisons. Furthermore, a person’s lifestyle and nutrition could offset or exacerbate these incremental injuries. Thus a complex of factors interplay to determine one’s health status. Surviving a motor accident without a crash helmet or fastened seat belt is not a defense for a refusal to use these safety products. 

We do not have an alternative to research and sound logical reasoning in expressing misgivings against what challenges our familiarity. We must rise up and do the difficult needful things if we want to be taken serious in this competitive knowledge driven world.

Martin Akandawen

MPhil Pharmacology (student)

University of Ghana.

martinakandawen@gmail.com