|1. The ownership of the site should be clear.
||Is the name of
the organization or individual posting the information in clear view? Look for
highlighted text that tells you more about the author of the site. In some
programs, the ownership can be found by clicking "View" and then
"Document Source" or "Document Information."
|2. The information provided should be based on sound
discover truth by testing their findings repeatedly, to be sure that their
thinking and methods are not flawed, influenced by their own assumptions, or
marred by special circumstances. Studies with hundreds of participants or cases
bear more weight than descriptions of a single case. The most useful studies
compare the findings in one group of people or cases with the findings in another
group (control groups). A mark of sound scientific study is that the
findings are endorsed by groups or institutions dedicated to science, such as
professional associations or universities.
|3. The site should carefully weigh the evidence and
acknowledge the limitations of the work.
What does the weight of the evidence indicate? If conclusion #1 is found
in three studies, but conclusion #2 is found in 30 studies, which is more likely
to point to truth? Be wary of people who proclaim that they, and only they, have
discovered the "hidden truth." The scientific approach takes time, and
often, answers are slow in coming or don't come at all. This can be very
frustrating if the answers will have an impact on our--or our children's--health
and well-being. Solid researchers, however, are not afraid to address the
weaknesses as well as the strengths of their findings, to say that the findings
were inconclusive, or to say that additional research is needed before any
conclusions can be drawn. A scientifically sound web site will reflect these
|4. Beware of "junk science" and suggestions of
||The hallmarks of
junk science are hasty, and often sensational, claims that other scientists have
not seen, reviewed, or verified. Media attention does not necessarily mean a claim
is true. "Conspiracy" theories often offer a quick and exciting answer
to a puzzle. Think: If I take apart the pieces of "evidence,"
do they really fit together again?
|5. The individuals or group providing the information
should be qualified to address the subject matter.
information attributed to unnamed "noted researchers" or
"world-renowned scientists." A researcher who has done good, solid work
would insist that his or her name be attached to that work, even if it's
controversial. Who stands behind the information? What educational background do
they have that relates to the health topic area? What other work have they
published, and where?
|6. Arguments should be based on facts, not conjecture.
||Beware of sites
that mix fact with fantasy, without distinguishing between the two. As with junk
science, the resulting "theories" can be sensational but are not
|7. The motives of the site should be clear.
||Is the site a
sales and promotional device? There is nothing wrong with selling books and tapes,
or enlisting you in a cause, but motives should be clear.
|8. The information provided should make sense.
||Is it too good to
be true? ("Rub peanut butter on your knees and you'll never have
cancer!") Or too awful to be true? ("Millions die when injected with
vaccines!") Then it probably isn't true.
|9. One sign of a scientifically sound Internet site is
that it contains references from and to recognized peer-reviewed publications.
|10. You should be able to obtain additional information if
you need it.
||Is an e-mail or
postal address, or a telephone number, provided for further information? Is a
reading list or source list provided? Is the reading available through a public
library, or is the list a source of income for the site owner?
If government documents or publications are referenced, remember that they are
usually available free or at low cost through the publishing
agency or the Superintendent, Government
Printing Office, in Washington, DC, toll-free telephone 1-888-293-6498; fax