<<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]>