The Current - How magic sparked Joe Schwarcz’s passion for science

Episode Date: January 28, 2025

Joe Schwarcz has made it his life's work to debunk misinformation and snake oil salespeople in the scientific world. Now, the director of the McGill Office for Science and Society  has been named to the Order of Canada.

When a body is discovered 10 miles out to sea, it sparks a mind-blowing police investigation. There's a man living in this address in the name of a deceased. He's one of the most wanted men in the world. This isn't really happening. Officers are finding large sums of money. It's a tale of murder, skullduggery and international intrigue. So who really is he? I'm Sam Mullins and this is Sea of Lies from CBC's Uncovered, available now.

This is a CBC Podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and this is the Current Podcast. A new study found most of the black plastics tested have alarming levels of toxins. The FDA today banning a controversial red dye found in so many foods sold in the US, citing a risk of cancer. When you take a traditional vitamin C supplement, up to 80% of it can remain unabsorbed in your colon.

So please consider our version, which took us years to develop, and it has only the highest quality ingredients. All sounds pretty good, doesn't it? It is stories like these that command the attention of Joe Schwartz. developed and has only the highest quality ingredients. All sounds pretty good doesn't it? It is stories like these that command the attention of Joe Schwartz. The professor has made it his mission to demystify science for the public and as he puts it, separate sense from nonsense.

Now he's been appointed to the Order of Canada in recognition of this work. Joe Schwartz teaches chemistry at McGill University. He's been director of the McGill Office for Science and Society since it was created 25 years ago. He's in our Montreal studio. Joe, good morning. Hey, good morning. Congratulations. Well, thanks very much. What does it mean to receive an honor like this for you? Of course, it is very pleasing after having worked in this area now for five decades or so.

Frightening to think back on that, but that is how long it has been. And you know, when you are recognized by your country, this really is something. How was magic for you a way into chemistry? This goes back a long time to when I was in grade six. I was invited to a birthday party and the entertainer was a magician. Most of the tricks he did I have long forgotten, but there was one that turned out to be life-changing. He had what looked like three ropes and he said he was going to magically fuse them into one with his invisible magic chemical that he took out of his pocket, and he sprinkled it on these three ropes, and magically they turned into one long rope.

And of course, I knew that it wasn't done with any invisible magic chemical, but I wondered why he had chosen those words, why magic chemical. And I went to the school library and took out a book on magic, and I took out a book on chemistry, and I followed both of those ever since, which probably sounds like a strange juxtaposition because chemistry, of course, is a hard science firmly rooted in the laws of nature. And magic is quite the opposite, right? What do magicians pretend to do? Defy the laws of nature. They make subjects levitate into the air, they cut women in half and restore them, right? But of course, I soon realized that everything a magician does is explicable by perfectly scientific means. And in chemistry, things can look magical. You can pour two liquids

together, you get a color change, it looks absolutely magical. And if you don't know anything about acids and bases and indicators, you can't really explain it. So I saw that my role really was to take the magic out of science and explain really what is going on. And as you can imagine these days, it is a very significant battle. Every day we get press releases, news releases of some miracle happening out there. And contrary, on the opposite side, we also get press releases about poisons that are going to shorten our life. And it's difficult to navigate. Let me ask you about one of those poison stories. And I ask you this because you and I spoke with just last month about this study that it seemed like

everybody was talking about. Black plastics had this high unsafe level of toxin that you should take the black plastic spatula that you have in your kitchen and throw it into the garbage immediately because it's going to kill you. We dialed you up to give us a sense as to, you know, how poisonous is black plastic? What should we think about it? And a sense as to, you know, how poisonous is black plastic? What should we think about it?

And immediately in this interview, you said, well, actually there's a mathematical error in this study, a missing zero. It magnifies the risk of, of what might be in this black plastic tenfold. Nobody else seemed to pick up on it. And it completely changed how you're the first person, I think, to pick this up.

It completely changed how people you were the first person, I think, to pick this up, it completely changed how people think about these black plastics. What is, aside from you being right and ahead of the curve, what is the lesson for all of us in this? That you can't rely on just one study. Science doesn't work like that. You always have to look at the overall consensus. And furthermore, even on individual

studies, you have to read them carefully because science is very often in the detail. Do you understand why this is confusing for people though? Because they look to the studies that get the headlines will often come out of a journal that people look at as having high standards. Absolutely. And indeed, in the world of science, we kind of revere peer-reviewed literature, right? We worship at that altar, I think, justifiably, because that is the best way to disseminate information. However, we also have to recognize that the peer-reviewed literature is not set in stone, because humans, after all, are human, and they make mistakes, and sometimes they commit fraud. So that's why one always has to be suspect and make sure that you check all of the information.

And that's what happened with the black plastic story. They described that the amount of flame retardant in the plastic was very close to the dangerous level. However, it turned out that there was much less of a risk than they had portrayed. It wasn't an error as they first said that there was just a printing error of misplaced decimal points. They got the math wrong. They got the math wrong. And they really did believe that they had it correct. I mean, the whole paper was based on that. Part of this is a trust issue. It's not just whether people get the math right or not.

The average person who is reading or hearing about a study like this trusts that the science is sound. And so if people can't trust science stories, what do you think the fallout of that is? Yes, and this is of course a real concern to us. This is what we deal with all the time. However, the vast majority of studies published in reputable journals are correct. But of

course, when you come across one that is incorrect, people extrapolate from that and they suspect all scientific studies. And, you know, it's sort of up to us to scrutinize the scientific literature and see where things have to be straightened out. It speaks to the Governor General's citation for your Order of Canada, which is that you have promoted not just evidence-based science, but also critical thinking. Yes, critical thinking is, let's just say critical, because it is the ability to look at data and see what it really means.

And also take a look to see what motivation there might be behind the data. See where it comes from, who sponsored it. And it takes a lot of investigation to get to the bottom of those rabbit holes. Can I ask you about another story that's circulating right now, which is this story about in the United States,

they're banning red dye number three. Yes. This is banned in foods in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, still allowed in Canada. Should we be worried that something like this is still in our food here, but apparently other people seem to think that it has no place in their food? I don't think we should be worried. But before going further, let me just say that I'm no big fan of food dyes. I think they are put into food purely for cosmetic reasons, and they attract people to foods, mostly highly processed foods, that are of questionable nutritional value. So I don't mind seeing food dyes evaporate from our food system.

But that being said, in this particular case with red dye number three or erythrosin, which is its chemical name, the studies that they claim show cancer causing ability just don't stand up to rigorous investigation. They were done on rats. And in the case of male rats, and only male rats, not female rats, not mice, not gerbils, not dogs, but the male rats, when fed a grotesquely large amount of red dye number 3, did indeed have an increased incidence of thyroid cancer. But the real issue was the gigantic amount that was fed to these animals, which was thousands of times greater than what any human would be exposed to. And then there was a study in 1990, and that's the one that they really refer to, in which they fed large dose of

red dye number three to test animals, and they didn't even check for cancer. What they checked for was thyroid hormones. The red dye number three did increase the level of thyroid hormones once again in the male animals, and the extrapolation of that was that this increase on thyroid hormones meant that the thyroid gland was being stimulated into greater activity, and greater activity of the thyroid gland has in some other studies been linked to a greater risk of thyroid cancer. But this study in 1990 never looked at thyroid cancer, so I don't think that banning it based on its supposed toxicity holds water, but I would not be opposed

to eliminating food diets from our diet because of concern that they navigate people towards foods that are suspect nutritionally. Which is why there are certainly not everybody, but there are many people in the United States for example Who were excited to see someone like RFK jr. Come in to lead their health and human services department He wants to do away not just with red dye, but all ultra processed foods So putting someone like RFK in charge of NIH is really bizarre Why you have someone who has no scientific background whatsoever and who has a history of questioning legitimate science. His views on vaccination, of course, are certainly not

scientifically supported. Neither are his views on stem cells. He takes numerous supplements, which do not have scientific backing. Now, it is true that he's against highly processed foods and that's justified, but let's face it, even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn. So just because he is right about that should not give a pass about all of the other nonsense that he promotes. What are you up against? And it's not just the Trump administration. We've talked to this program as well about the supplement industry, the fact that it's advertised extensively on the podcasts that are listened to by millions and millions of people.

What are you, as somebody who is trying to get people to think critically, up against in that universe? Yeah, social media has certainly played a giant role in people's absorbing of science and pseudoscientific information. And I certainly emphasize with the people who are confused, because there's so much confusing information. You know, there are some supplements that in some situations for some people are worthwhile However, I think that any time that you go to some social media platform and someone is advertising

a supplement that they are selling Immediately direct yourself away from that because legitimate Scientists do not sell their Supplements on online and yet you'll hear people who say, I'm doing my own research. That I, you know what, I don't need you to tell me what's good for me. I've done my research and I don't trust, this goes back to the trust issue.

I don't trust the authorities anymore. Yes, this is a real problem. And yes, it's not a bad thing to do your research, but you have to have some background that allows you to separate the fact from the myth. And the fact is that a lot of these pseudoscience promoters sound very, very convincing. Just before I let you go, what do you say to people who, yeah, they want to stay healthy, they want to be, you know, the best they can be, and in an open and curious way,

they are looking for information that might help them in that. What would you say to those people? Look to our website, mcgill.ca slash OSS, because we have hundreds of articles, and we shine the limelight on evidence. I can't tell you, obviously obviously that we're the only source,

of course not. I mean, there are websites like Science Based Medicine and the major journals have excellent websites. There's just no simple solution to telling people what to do. They do have to work at it. And, you know, I mean, of course I struggle with this every day, because as you can imagine, I get emails, phone calls every day asking, is it true that? The answer almost always is no, right? But then you have to follow up by telling people why you think that it is no, and try to explain how we scientists think we know what we know and why they should believe us instead of believing the numerous others who are out there promoting themselves, usually for profit.

They will all try to sell you something. Soon as you see that, steer away. Joe, it's good to talk to you again about your work and congratulations again on the recognition. Well, thank you very much. Joe Schwartz is director of the McGill Office of Science and Society, the author of several books and a new member of the Order of Canada.