McCain targets SDSU drunkenness study as stimulus 'waste'

San Diego State UniversityFlickr photo by Andrew GordenSan Diego State University

Two Republican senators have lambasted a half-million-dollar grant to San Diego State University researchers who are studying whether placing certain health messages on menus might persuade drinkers to imbibe less.

U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., last week put out their third report highlighting what they consider 100 examples of misdirected spending on "questionable goals" in the federal government's $862 billion stimulus bill.

The report sneers at the fact that San Diego State researchers will conduct some of their field experiments on subjects experiencing "various levels of natural drunkenness" in and around the campus, which is frequently named one of the nation's top party schools.

"Can people at bars be persuaded of the benefits of moderate drinking?" the report asks. "Researchers at San Diego State University think so, as they plan to spend almost half a million dollars to research whether better nutritional and alcohol-content labeling will affect consumption of alcoholic beverages."

Principal investigator James Lange, who is coordinator of alcohol and other drug initiatives for the university, defended the study as a necessary precursor to future efforts at making policy that might require alcohol-content labeling on restaurant menus.

"Frankly it surprised me, and even seeing the report it wasn't clear to me what their criticism of the study was," Lange said.

"We've made great strides in reducing the rate of drunk driving in the U.S., but over the last several years the decline has not been progressing, so there's quite a number of researchers out there looking for ways to move the needle and keep reducing the number of deaths on the highways that are entirely preventable."

The main goal of Lange's research is to test the impact of different types of messages and information on drinkers' alcohol intake, particularly at restaurants and bars. The experiment tests an approach to alcohol that is similar to posting the calorie content of belly-busting dishes on restaurant menus.

His experiment is in an early phase. Researchers set up laptops on campus on Thursdays and Fridays for five weeks and did computer surveys of 442 undergraduates. On the questionnaire, some of the students were shown the U.S. government warning that you'd typically find on a beer bottle. Others saw a "persuasion message" – something such as:

If you decide to drink, drink moderately. You will drive more safely, stay healthier and maintain your weight. You will make better decisions.

Or, in a more heavy-handed approach:

Excessive drinking considerably increases risks for car accidents, serious illnesses and gaining weight. It impairs good judgment and decision making.

Then students reported the number of drinks they intended to have tonight, tomorrow and the day after. Overall, the "drink moderately" message worked best to reduce people's intentions to drink, Lange reported. The government warning, however, was counterproductive for heavy drinkers, he said. The findings were presented at a symposium of the Kettil Bruun Society in Switzerland, in the city of Lausanne.

At a later point, SDSU researchers will head to the local bars at night to test out the messages on people who are actually poised to drink. Patrons would see the alcohol content of their drinks and one of the pre-tested health messages.

Lange acknowledged that posting the alcohol content of drinks could actually cause more drinking – and that, he said, is why more research is needed before policy is crafted.

"It isn't as simple as you put the information out there and people will use it and be more responsible … Before asking or requiring bars or restaurants to disclose alcohol content we really need to know if it's going to reduce excessive drinking and reduce drunk driving – or there are some people out there who are going to try and maximize the amount of alcohol they are going to consume," Lange said.

 

Filed under: Higher Ed, Daily Report

Comments

Comments are closed for this story.
Moravecglobal's picture
Here's another example of waste in times of budget cuts.The hefty price of University of California Berkeley OE Program. The UC Berkley budget gap has grown to $150 million, and still the Chancellor is spending money that isn't there on $3,000,000 consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the consultants "thinking, expertise, and new knowledge". Does this mean that the faculty and senior management of the UCB world-class research & teaching institution lack the knowledge, integrity, impartiality, innovation, and professionalism to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years? The consultants will glean their recommendations from faculty interviews & the senior management that hired them; yet $ 150 million of inefficiencies and solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor and his & Provost Breslauer were doing the work of their jobs. The victims of this folly are Faculty and Students. $ 3 million consultant fees would be far better spent on students & faculty. There can be only one conclusion as to why creative savings & solutions have not been forthcoming from faculty & staff: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility & the trust of the faculty & the Cal Academic Senate leadership – C. Kutz/F.Doyle. Even if the faculty agrees with the consultants' recommendations - disagreeing might put their jobs in jeopardy - the underlying problem of lost credibility and trust will remain. Contact your representatives in Sacramento: tell them of the hefty $ being spent by California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau and Provost Breslauer.
igre's picture
Does this mean that the faculty and senior management of the UCB world-class research & teaching institution lack the knowledge, integrity, impartiality, innovation, and professionalism to come up with solutions? Igrice
Moravecglobal's picture
Public universities are into a phase of creative disassembly where reinvention and adjustments are constant. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being shed by United Technologies, GE, Chevron, Sam’s Club, Wells Fargo Bank, HP, Starbucks etc. and the state, counties and cities. Even solid world class institutions like the University of California Berkeley under the leadership of Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer are firing staff, faculty and part-time lecturers through “Operation Excellence (OE)”. Yet many employees, professionals and faculty cling to old assumptions about one of the most critical relationship of all: the implied, unwritten contract between employer and employee. Until recently, loyalty was the cornerstone of that relationship. Employers promised job security and a steady progress up the hierarchy in return for employees fitting in, performing in prescribed ways and sticking around. Longevity was a sign of employer-employee relations; turnover was a sign of dysfunction. None of these assumptions apply today. Organizations can no longer guarantee employment and lifetime careers, even if they want to. Organizations like UC Berkeley paralyzed themselves with an attachment to “success brings success’ rather than “success brings failure’ are now forced to break the implied contract with employees – a contract nurtured by management that the future can be controlled. Jettisoned employees are finding that the hard won knowledge, skills and capabilities earned while being loyal are no longer valuable in the employment market place. What kind of a contract can employers and employees make with each other? The central idea is both simple and powerful: the job or position is a shared situation. Employers and employees face market and financial conditions together, and the longevity of the partnership depends on how well the for-profit or not-for-profit continues to meet the needs of customers and constituencies. Neither employer nor employee has a future obligation to the other. Organizations train people. Employees develop the kind of security they really need – skills, knowledge and capabilities that enhance future employability. The partnership can be dissolved without either party considering the other a traitor.
comemyblog's picture
Automotive: Male Aiao Di, women love BMW,Replica Louis Vuitton rates were 37.4% and 31.2%.Wear: White collar 30% of women has Burberry, nearly 40% of men White Collar has Armani.Cosmetics:Louis Vuitton Purse Estee Lauder, Lancome and Shiseido most white-collar welcome.

via Twitter

© 2013 California Watch   /  development:  Happy Snowman Tech   /  design: