I think science is a good thing, but I can't say the same for most science journalism. The news media is awash with junk science stories, and among the worst are the stories on the supposed health or other benefits of chocolate. Dozens of such stories appear every year, especially around Christmas time. They all aim, in one way or another, to promote the misconception that shoving chunks of sweet brown lard into your mouth is anything other than an unhealthy and faintly disgusting practice.
It's a sad thing to say where science is concerned, but when one sees such dubious research reported in the media, one has to ask: who funded it? And invariably you'll find a chocolate company somewhere in the background, directly or indirectly pulling the strings. Take the latest chocolate wonder story on BBC News: Chocolate 'better than kissing', based on a study performed by "The Mind Lab", a private PR/research company run by a Dr. David Lewis. "The Mind Lab is funded by members of the food industry," the BBC article says, "although no firm can be linked to any individual study." That said, given that the "study" (where is it published?) happens to coincide with the release of "a new 60% cocoa dark chocolate from Cadbury", and given that the new Cadbury chocolate was used in the study, and given that the article quotes a Cadbury spokeswoman happily commenting on the procedure, I think it's safe to say that the Cadbury chocolate company have a more than tenuous link to the whole thing.
The ground-breaking results of the study? To quote from the article:
"Chocolate caused a more intense and longer lasting "buzz" than kissing, and doubled volunteers' heart rates. [...] Dr Lewis said: 'There is no doubt that chocolate beats kissing hands down when it comes to providing a long-lasting body and brain buzz. '"
Let's get one thing straight. This is not science; it's a perversion of science. It's not a genuine attempt to explain reality; it's an attempt to throw scientific garb around a marketing stunt. The methods of science are used not in an attempt to uncover truth, but to push lies, to sneak a blatant advert into the press in the false guise of a scientific breakthrough. The scientists who put their name behind this are a disgrace to the profession.
Who are these scientists? "The Mind Lab", it turns out, is not a real research institute, but a public relations consultancy masquerading as one. Its website is quite open about this. Dr. Lewis, it says, "has worked with the majority of the world's foremost Public Relations Consultancies," and founded The Mind Lab "in response to increasing interest, on the part of his clients, in the use of scientific research projects as a route into the media." The stated purpose of the company is "to devised[sic] and execute valid and news worthy scientific studies within budget and to a tight deadline." The media whores on the staff include neuroscientists, a neuropsychologist, and a mathematician, who no doubt can be depended on to come up with the next bullshit "equation for perfect chocolate" when called upon.
Here are futher suggestions for The Mind Lab: repeat the chocolate/kissing experiment, but this time hook the guys up to a penile plethysmograph, so that you can monitor the changing circumference of their cocks as the chocolate slowly melts on their tongues. We know chocolate is stimulating, but just how stimulating? I think we need to be told. Another suggestion: maybe you can get the Church of Scientology to co-fund a study of the effect of eating chocolate while holding an E-meter. Can you "choc" while you "clear"? It's an important question. And while you're at it, why not do a comparative study between the waist measurements of people who appear in chocolate advertising, and those of people who actually eat the stuff on a regular basis. I'm genuinely interested in what the results would be. But I doubt you'd get Cadbury to fund that one.
One could argue that the original study could have had even more dramatic results, because Cadbury's isn't even good chocolate. It's rubbery junk. If I had my way, I'd introduce legislation to change its name from "chocolate" to "chocolate-flavoured rendered vegetable fat"; I'd make it be sold in greaseproof paper. Cadbury's has all the texture of a spare tyre, and all the taste of Cussons Imperial Leather (with which it shares half its ingredients). Lindt it ain't. If you put a chunk of Cadbury's on my tongue, my heart rate would double all right, as my body geared itself up for a powerful retching reaction.
The BBC must take at least as much blame for reporting this stuff, and not just because they're a public service media source giving free publicity to a chocolate company. The succession of trivial, flippant science stories like this gives the public a false impression of what science is. They reinforce the populist perception of hopeless "boffins" wasting everyone's time and money, toiling away uselessly at extracting sunbeams from cucumbers. The automatic response to reports like this is "I don't need to spend my tax dollars on scientists just for them to tell me that chocolate makes me happy." And even though the funding for these reports comes not from your tax dollars, but from your chocolate money, there is the chance that this attitude will run over into public funding of science. Increasingly, in return for public money, scientists are being forced to make their research "accountable" (i.e. potentially profitable). Which is not what science is about.
What's more, in reporting these bogus stories, the media obscure the real science behind chocolate, which is that it's an unhealthy foodstuff consisting almost entirely of sugar and fat, with little other nutritional value. A diet high in sugar and fat puts you at a greater risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and just about every other disease going. My advice, kids: stick to kissing.