As I understand it, the scientific process is to propose a hypothesis and design an experiment to test the validity of the hypothesis. The Biobank project, it seems to me, is not science; it is an attempt to gather a random collection of data in the hope that some correlation between lifestyle and diseases could be determined.
As I am sure the Biobank project designers are well aware, correlation does not imply causation. Sheffield is a deeply divided city, if you compare the inhabitants of, say, S2 and S10, every single social indicator, mortality, morbidity, free school meals, what you will, correlates. The propensity for any particular disease is bound to be linked to lifestyle issues generally so what useful data could Biobank possibly generate?
The results of these sorts of studies invariably end up as headlines in the popular press of the sort "eating such and such is x times more likely to give you cancer". They are usually ridiculed by the public and are deeply damaging to the credibility of science in general.
Until the scientific community can propose a rigorous theory that explains how the process by which the food we eat and our lifestyle actually causes changes to our health, rather than vague generalities, I think projects such as Biobank have little purpose.
However, I am sure Rory Collins, the Biobank Investigator whose letter was published last week, will have a different point of view. I would be interested to hear it.

BUY ONLINE: The Sheffield Telegraph and Property Guide are now out every Thursday. To sign up on line click here.



MORE:
Local News
Local Sport
Arts Guide
Community News
Listings Guide
Restaurant Guide
Letters