by Chris Beierschmitt

BA Biological Sciences – Columbia University

PhD candidate in Molecular Biology – US San Diego

Although the internet and social media have been boons for the distribution of information and ideas, most will agree that they have served as a double-edged sword. For every fact-based and informative article shared, it seems that there are two more that dabble in pseudoscience or outright lies. As professional piercers, we have a unique opportunity (and maybe an obligation) to utilize our platform to educate our clients and fellow industry people about a wide range of subjects. The problem is: scientific literature is written with language that allows researchers to appreciate the mechanical and technical nuances of a given topic, but it’s nearly indecipherable to the general public (i.e.: the taxpayers funding the research). Tackling this divide between scientific writing and comprehension by the average reader is a rough task, and while this burden should largely fall on the shoulders of the scientific community, there are methods piercing professionals can use to sift out pearls of relevant information from these daunting piles of data.

Consider the Source

In order to stay profitable, news organizations rely on click traffic to their websites so advertisers will buy ad space from them. It’s no mistake that headlines often share similar architecture, a la: “Scientists prove…;” “…you won’t believe what happens next;” or “Doctors are baffled by….” The unifying theme behind a majority of these articles is that, somewhere deep down, they are rooted in some intentional or accidental distortion of a real scientific finding. Like a childhood game of telephone, where an initial message is gradually corrupted as it passes from person to person, so do the relevant findings of a scientific publication as it is interpreted and communicated by people who don’t fully understand it. Before sharing one of these articles, it is our responsibility to find out how the authors came to their conclusion and if it makes sense. This means reading the article with a skeptical eye and finding the root of the author’s claims. Hopefully, the base of their writing can be found in apeer-reviewed scientific journal. The struggle isn’t over here, though, as many journals are behind paywalls and/or so jam-packed with difficult language that they are nearly unreadable. Knowing this, why should we strive to find a peer-reviewed source instead of just taking someone’s word for It?

Why Does Peer-reviewed Matter?

A scientific paper is (in most cases) the result of months to years of hard work and revision. In order to be published, it must be submitted with some novel finding, have published references for any claims about previous research, and must have data for any new claims. After submitting a paper to a scientific journal, it is preliminarily reviewed for novelty and general content. If this is found acceptable, it is given to several scientists unrelated to the journal for review. After weeks to months of review, the journal decides whether the author should be allowed (or is able to) address any concerns that the reviewers had. If the journal decides that the author will be able to revise their paper to address reviewer concerns, they will be given time to perform the necessary experiments and/or gather the appropriate data to do so. This revision process will take anywhere from a few days to a few months, depending on how demanding the revisions are. Finally, the paper is re-submitted with revisions, the journal performs any necessary editing for grammar and format, and in a few weeks to months, the paper is published. Authors must declare where their funding is coming from (e.g.: government, private industry, etc.), as well as any potential conflicts of interest. If an author is found to be lying about these details, they risk ruining their reputation as well as the journal redacting their paper.

Where Do I Find Peer-reviewed Papers?

This is where things get a bit tricky. While open-access journals are steadily becoming more and more common, many papers are stuck behind paywalls. University systems, research institutions, and some libraries pay subscription fees so their members can access these pay-to view journals, but this leaves the average reader with the option to only read the paper’s abstract or buy access to an article. There are some legal grey areas and blatantly illegal ways to circumvent paywalls for science articles. For legal reasons I won’t be naming them in this article—though, if you spend a short bit of time on a search engine, I’m sure you wouldn’t have trouble figuring it out. If we wish to remain within the law, it’s best to first read a paper’s abstract to determine if it might contain information that is interesting or relevant. In a vast majority of cases, an abstract will let you know if it is worth investing your time in decoding a paper in its entirety. A repository of listings for nearly all research articles can be found at PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/), which is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine, located at the National Institutes of Health. While not all listings on PubMed contain links to the full-text of an article, you can at least find an abstract and contact information for the author(s) of a given paper. If you are a taxpayer in the US, you are paying for this archiving service, so don’t be shy about making use of it.

What If I Can’t Find the Full Text?

Since every listing in PubMed should have contact information for the author(s) of a paper, you have a direct way of contacting the researcher and/or physician who knows the most about the article you are interested in. While there is no guarantee, I can say with high confidence that if you send an email to a paper’s author requesting a copy of their work, they are going to be happy to send it to you directly. This might seem a bit weird, but it’s more common a request than you think. To increase your chances for success, try to send an email to the first author listed on the paper. The order in which names are listed for a research paper are (for the most part) organized in such a way that the person who contributed most to a project will be listed first, and the person who runs the lab where they are employed is listed last. As such, by sending a correspondence to the first author, you are directly asking for information from the person who probably knows more about the paper’s contents than anyone else on Earth. After you do your due diligence and carefully read the paper, you could even send an email back to the author to ask them any questions you may have. If you decide to ask questions, be sure to give the researcher an “out,” and ask them if there is someone else you should be contacting with questions (e.g.: a postdoctoral worker or graduate student in their lab). Don’t be surprised if responses take a while; researchers are often inundated with mountains of email and it takes a while to sort through all of them.

Working together with scientists

Reaching out to the scientific community is a step forward in the direction of further legitimizing the piercing industry. If we want to be regarded as professionals who are progressive and interested in the health of our clients (as well as ourselves), we should be using resources outside of the piercing community to prevent our well-intentioned sentiments from becoming an echo chamber. The next time you see a health or science-related news article shared on social media, take a moment to evaluate the source and investigate it yourself. Start a dialog with fellow piercers about what the findings of a publication might mean for client health. Encourage others to engage with this material and ask questions of their own. Together, with a keen set of skeptical eyes and help from scientific literature, we can be sure our industry will continue to improve for years to come.