The resveratrol in red wine is good for you. It’s science.
Unless it’s not. In yesterday’s New York Times, a researcher named Dipak K. Das was charged with widespread fraud by his employer, the University of Connecticut– a case that includes 26 articles published under his name in 11 scientific journals. It’s suspected he may have falsified hundreds of articles, 117 of which focus on the health benefits in red wine, especially resveratrol’s reportedly positive effect on the heart. Yesterday, a journal already printed a retraction and removed Das as co-editor in chief.
In Greatist‘s article on red wine, we cite his research twice. Shit.
Luckily, the New York Times reports his research was “low visibility,” appearing mostly in specialty journals, and ultimately peripheral to its central principles. Though we cite two of his studies, neither are (to my knowledge) under investigation nor the outcome of his research alone (both have at least one other researcher named). Nonetheless, we are working to remove both citations and update the article now. The truth is his work was ultimately peripheral to most of the influential research on the effects of resveratrol and, in fact, the New York Times quotes Harvard Medical School Professor David Sinclair, a “leading resveratrol expert” know for his work on longevity, remarking: “Today I had to look up who he is.”
We cite 7 other studies in the article (whose researchers, I’m assured, haven’t been charged for fraud), all of which confirming the general science suggesting that resveratrol in red wine is, in fact, likely pretty good for you.
So Das’ research may not have been that important, but it hits home an important point: not all studies related to fitness, health, and happiness are well done or reputable. Scientific misconduct or simply mistakes can go undetected– and sometimes even published by legitimate, well-respected journals. It’s the same for any publication. Heck, the New York Times publishes article corrections nearly every day.
So that’s in part why we do what we do at Greatist, going to lengths that are unexpected and unasked to present the highest-quality research we can on a subject or topic. And sometimes it’s true the generally-accepted wisdom on topics changes and shifts dramatically, often rapidly. That’s not the case here (and, hey, I’m drinking red wine as I write this), but it doesn’t mean it won’t be the case elsewhere. But it’s our jobs as both an editorial unit and in general as a team of educated people passionate about this space (who dove headfirst into this to do things the right way precisely because we believe people deserve better than what’s out there now) to do the best we can to summarize the best information that’s available (plus communicate it in a way that’s relatable and down to earth). And then it’s also our job to, if something changes, act fast to adapt it to reflect new circumstances.
There’s a reason we cite every single fact with a PubMed study, link out only to an internally-approved list of high-quality sources, edit every single sentence with a fine-tooth comb (not literally), and have multiple experts (never just one!) approve every single article. And there’s a reason we don’t write articles on topics without the right research, present definitive conclusions when the science is murky, or write irresponsible sensationalist headlines. Not because anyone asked, but because that’s what you (and your body) deserve. I’ll be the first to admit we’re imperfect, we’ve made mistakes and will make mistakes. But we’re working our hardest not to, for the right reasons, doing everything that is humanely possible to produce only the highest-quality content in the health & fitness space on the web.
Ultimately, it’s important to maintain a certain skepticism about everything you read, from scientific studies to celebrity advice (oh really, Kim Kardashian?). It’s why we started Greatist. It’s what we do everyday. And despite the fact that we’re doing our absolute best to give you the highest-quality go-to fitness, health, and happiness resource on the web… sometimes a researcher just goes ahead and cuts & pastes images of western blots to come to fraudulent conclusions . Rest assured we’ll tell you anytime that happens– and what it actually means.