<<Disclaimer:  Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

The recent series of postings on the controversies about whether grain
alcohol, grain vinegar, and oats are or are not GF and Jim Lyles' appeal
for suggestions about how these controversies might be resolved reminds
me of a famous paper by psychologist Paul Meehl.

Meehl argues that all scientists are prone to make errors of one type or
another: errors of simplemindedness or errors of muddleheadedness. We
tend to make simpleminded errors when we define problems narrowly and try
to exclude all "extraneous" variables, as often happens in laboratory
experiments conducted to test existing theory. Errors of muddleheadedness
tend to occur when problems are more broadly defined and tested under
conditions that are less well controlled. Although I do not recall Meehl
saying so, close to 30 years as a psychological researcher have led me to
believe that a field benefits from a creative tension between the two
approaches. Although the simpleminded folks dominated American psychology
for a long time, our research became much better able to account for
real-world phenomena as our theories became more complex and made more
allowance for individual differences.

How does this conceptualization bear on the current "Is it GF?"
controversies? (a) Those of us who are convinced that we react to the
questionable substances could test our "muddleheaded" convictions by
submitting samples of the actual products we
think we react to for testing by Don Kasarda, if he is willing to do
this, or some other expert. As suggested in previous postings, perhaps
there is gluten detectable in the products, even if the process by which
they are created makes that theoretically unlikely. (b) Those who
believe that they react to a substance could register to participate in a
blind tasting study such as the one mentioned by Don Kasarda. I'd be willing
to volunteer for a (brief!) canola oil trial. (c) Those who are
enthusiastic about studies in which no one in a small sample of celiacs
has reacted to a substance such as oats should insist upon replication of
those findings with larger samples in which extremely sensitive celiacs
are well represented. The standard scientific caveat about drawing
conclusions from null (no effect) findings certainly applies here. (d) If
the results of (b) or (c) suggest that it is necessary to rethink current
theories about the protein fragments that trigger celiac reactions, the
opportunity for new theorizing should be embraced by those who can do it.

Nancy Jackson, Iowa City, IA, USA <[log in to unmask]>