No verdict yet on fish oil capsule benefits
10:20am Wednesday 2nd April 2008
EDUCATION bosses still cannot say whether giving fish oil capsules to thousands of schoolchildren improved exam results last year.
In September 2006, Durham County Council revealed it was planning to give more than 3,000 teenage pupils free daily fish oil capsules to boost exam results.
Rather than conducting a scientific trial, with some children receiving fish oil and some receiving dummy capsules, the authority chose to give out free fish oil capsules to any pupil willing to take part.
More than 3,000 teenagers signed up to take the capsules, provided free by Equazen, the maker of food supplements, although only 832 took the capsules throughout the trial.
Eighteen months later, the council has been criticised for not revealing the results.
At the weekend, Ben Goldacre, who writes the Bad Science column for The Guardian, criticised organisers of the Durham fish oil initiative for failing to publish the results of the study.
Mr Goldacre has been a critic of the Durham experiment from the outset, saying it was scientifically unsound.
Durham education officials have also come under pressure from Paul Thompson, a former County Durham headteacher, who has criticised the initiative from the beginning, describing it as a farce. Mr Thompson, who has questioned the ethics of the council working so closely with a private company, has repeatedly asked officers for more information about the initiative.
Last night, David Ford, the head of achievement services at Durham County Council, said he believed the council had been unfairly criticised.
He said that because of the scale of the study, it was taking a long time to analyse all the data.
He also dismissed claims that last summer's GCSE results in Durham were poor.
He said: "We actually had our best ever set of GCSE results in County Durham last summer.
"We have been extremely cautious about saying anything we cannot be absolutely confident about. What we are hoping is to give people indications that there might be something worth following up."
Mr Ford said it was hoped the data would lead to the publication of a paper about the Durham initiative in a scientific journal.
Previous studies in Durham primary schools involving fish oil supplements produced dramatic improvements in reading, writing, concentration and behaviour.
Your Say YourNorth-East
Steve Jones, Hull says...
8:55pm Wed 2 Apr 08
So what results do we know - only that Durham results were the best ever and their performance improvement was substantially above the average. We don't know at the moment whether it was 'the fish oil' that did it or something else. Not only this but improvements may have been hidden - after all a child going from a 'G' to a 'D' or a 'B' to an 'A' will not affect the percentage increase in children with A* - C results.
So how will Durham analyse 832 children? They have predicted scores and final scores and no doubt they can compare the results of these children with 832 similar children and see if there is a difference. They haven't announce any results but there must be an awful lot of data to go through - not to mention obtaining compliance data from the schools.
Another point, of course, is that the exams are GCSEs, whilst it might seem logical for scientists in their ivory towers to insist on placebos, it would certainly be unfair on the children! Perhaps Durham would re-do this as a RCT with children who are only having SATS.
All this is beside the point. Mr Goldacre for some reason has been pursuing for 18 months a personal vendetta against Durham Council and its members, resorting frequently (despite his comments disparaging this) to ad hominem attacks of the vilest nature, totally against the objective principles of true scientists. Has he a hidden agenda or is it just courting publicity?
To make a personal attack on the different interpretations of the word 'trial' strikes me as being the attitude of a very small, narrow minded person.
sprat, seaham says...
8:11am Thu 3 Apr 08
Mark Swithun, Alnwick says...
8:12am Thu 3 Apr 08
"We don't know at the moment whether it was 'the fish oil' that did it or something else"
Exactly. This is the whole point of Goldacre's article. Not only do we not know, but we will never know, because we have no data on uptake, placebos, compliance (did the kids take them or throw them away?), confounding factors (were any of the ones not taking the pills already taking cod liver oil from home) etc etc etc.
The point is that Durham COULD have done a good sized study on efficacy, but instead, no meaningful results can ever be obtained, due to terrible procedure.
It is clear that Equazen (the "possibly mentally enhancing" drug pushers) are not keen for the trial to be too scientific, in case it shows no effect over placebo, at which point sales would take a fairly largely hit.
I wonder if Mr Jones would have been keen for other companies to come into the locals and give 'safe' drugs to children on the grounds of physical excellence, rather than educational excellence - naturally occuring (and beneficial) steroids, perhaps? He would probably insist on some regulation.
Durham Council have behaved disgracefully in this whole affair and it is good that our media are chasing them for 'results'.
Chris K, Cheltenham says...
8:13am Thu 3 Apr 08
Children can get all the vitamens and nutrients they need by simply eating a healthy diet. Surely *that* should be encouraged rather than promoting a dubious reliance on pills - or are you keen to swell the profits of companies like Equazen?
Richard Burnham, Shrewsbury (former Durham resident) says...
9:00am Thu 3 Apr 08
I am conducting a trial
You are abusing the Freedom of Information Act
He is carrying out a personal vendetta
The whole thing was a scientific nonsense as has often been explained (no control group, etc.) and if it has backfired on the council and Equazen that is entirely because they did not listen to (and tried to suppress) the valid criticisms that were made at the time.
Curious, Essex says...
10:50am Thu 3 Apr 08
TZ1, UK says...
3:01pm Thu 3 Apr 08
The benefits of a well-balanced diet as an adequate source of nutrition is well understood by parents and "experts" alike. Had the Council chosen to enhance the food quality served in school cafeterias there would be no controversy. That they chose to partner with pill pushers hints at some hidden agenda being involved.
I wonder, how many steps further than "fish-oil capsules" are other mental performance enhancing substances such as Caffeine or Cocaine? At least we know they work.
emily, says...
3:33pm Thu 3 Apr 08
Paul Thompson, Great Lumley says...
5:07pm Thu 3 Apr 08
Anyone interested in the nutritional aspects of fish oil should contact the Food Standards Agency. They have commissioned tests and their recommendation is to eat a portion of oily fish every so often. Much better all round for children. TZ1 is absolutely right with the comment on a balanced diet.
With regard to the comment about public accountability, people should be asking their County Councillors just what they knew about this farrago and what scrutiny (if any) was made by the appropriate member (who I believe at the time was Councillor Claire Vasey) Did the left hand know what the right hand was doing? The Members and Officers have been apparently singing from the same hymn sheet since the excreta hit the gyrating blades, but who is writing the hymns?
Neil C Millar, says...
7:28pm Thu 3 Apr 08
It's not about the word "trial"; it's about experimental design. The critics' point is that it's poorly designed, whatever you call it.
And this isn't "ivory tower science" either; it's GCSE science. GCSE pupils study "How Science Works", and (in the AQA exam) this includes drugs trials, control groups and placebos. I have used the Durham story as an evaluation exercise for my GCSE pupils and they can readily appreciate the problems due to the lack of a control group. Ethics is not a problem, as the fish oil does not have any proven effect on exam performance (which is why a proper trial in Durham would have been nice), so it's not unethical to withold fish oil from the control group.
Finally, your suggested analysis is very poor. A well-designed study could have had sophisticated analysis. And it could be done in a lot less than 7 months!
So I'm afraid the only result is that Durham Education and its "Excellent Psychological Service" are the laughing stock of scientists and GCSE pupils everywhere.
Paul Thompson, Great Lumley says...
11:38pm Thu 3 Apr 08
Your sayYourNorth-East
Add your comment
Register for a FREE The Advertiser Series account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
In this section
- Bus firm urged to reconsider cuts
- Trust fights on to preserve city
- Head defends academy plan
- End of an era
- Health care milestone
- A blooming good idea
- Man given interim Asbo for nuisance calls to 999
- Police seek witnesses after fatal road accident
- Police seek witnesses after fatal road accident
- Optician’s prompt action helps save schoolgirl’s life
Sponsored Links
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Paul Thompson, Great Lumley, County Durham says...
6:00pm Wed 2 Apr 08
So after a lengthy analysis of the data, David Ford hopes to be absolutely confident about possibly giving people an indication that there might be something worth following up?
Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut! What still isn't clear, and probably never will be, is why David Ford ever undertook his "trial," that could never yield any meaningful results by its very nature, in the first place? Because he believed in the value of fish oil? Come on David, you'll be spouting religion next!