Can Negatives Really be Positive: An Epidemiological Dilemma?

Reports of scientific investigations generally present findings of a positive association. This can be illustrated through a hypothetical example. A study report suggests that off gassing of a chemical from a building component was the causative agent of health problems for some of the building’s occupants is ‘‘declared’’ as probably true. In study design this is often the sort of goal that has to be established; we simply want to look for the affirmative. When an experiment or study does not provide the positive data or results we would have liked these may be rejected. Seldom do we ask the question: why? Perhaps we should look at the results and say, these negative results are really a positive and offer the prospect of future additional work. They should not simply be regarded as negative results – we should not say the experiment or investigation was not a success. But can negative results from an experiment really be a success? What happens when we look at the potential hazard from a chemical or mixture and find that ‘‘yes’’ it does have undesirable effects, stop at that point and publish? I would like to suggest that sometimes events that are reported as harmful also have a positive benefit. How can this be – can a negative really be a positive? In environmental and occupational scenarios can there be benefits from exposure when evidence of disease is found. The idea is generally not considered relevant, because how can a disease event be looked at as positive. The type of study where an ‘adverse’ but positive effect is found for a chemical or mixture is for pharmaceutical or potential pharmaceutical agents. The adverse effect is shown to reverse the disease process. However, suggesting a positive benefit from an industrial hazard is, on first examination, something that is in the world of science fiction. When a chemical does exhibit a positive influence it may be claimed as a result of the hormetic effect [1], or more cynically some error in the control or investigative process. The question that I raise is this – why are there not other possible explanations? Maybe, this lack of looking at negative results as positive findings is due to the dogma established early in the development of our thought processes. Since the first experiments as freshman in college, we were all trained to search for the positive result. Never once did a Professor tell my fellow classmates or me congratulations, the experiment you undertook obtained no outcome; you did not find any positive results. Well maybe, just maybe, observations of no ‘‘positive’’ results were a good finding; although in many of my college classes, at least at the time, they were not viewed as positive. Well maybe I should qualify the statement by saying that at the time it was not true; yet these experiences may actually have been a benefit for me in the long term. Thus, a negative at the time was a positive. When there is no (positive) result from an experiment, the experiment is deemed a failure, with failure defined as observation of what we did not want. But, is this the true scientific method or I am now delving into the world of science fiction rather than science fact? I don’t think so. Rather I believe this is the way science should be approached and examined; without so much preconceived