Omphaloskeptic

(I started writing this in July 2010 when I saw the article about belly button location and sprinting prowess. Unfortunately, I lost my way trying to explain why I thought the science was wrong-headed. I put it aside, and never went back to it... until now... )

"Omphaloskepsis" -- the contemplation of one's own navel, either as an aid to meditation or as the act of the terminally self-absorbed -- is one of those words that's always guaranteed to generate smirks.

And smirking was my first reaction when I started reading reports of a study that attempts to account for the observed Olympic dominance of black sprinters and white swimmers based on the location of their belly buttons.

But, as this summary in the London Telegraph makes clear, the researchers are terribly earnest about their work, and so it would be wrong to dismiss it as the work of cranks.

Indeed, Adrian Bejan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University in North Carolina, and Dr Edward Jones of Howard University seem quite conscious that publishing such work will be a lightning rod for controversy, with some accusing them of racism, and others drawing unwarranted conclusions. As Prof Bejan said, "It’s a physics paper, not an opinion paper. I urge other people to read what I’ve written and then safeguard against attempts to misuse it."

But here's the thing, this is just the latest in a long line of research studies that are, in a sense, ill-conceived from the beginning. Here's how it happens: a pattern is observed in which a particular group dominates some physical or intellectual arena. Researchers attempt to find a single explanation for that dominance. Observations and measurements confirm that the group has some unique characteristic. That characteristic is then identified as the explanation for the behavior. What follows is depressingly predictable. A paper is published. There is controversy about what the research means. The researchers are accused of discrimination. They respond witrh counter-charges that their critics are only interested in political correctness. The researchers claim that they have no bias or political axe to grind; they are only scientists working in the service of objective truth.

Here's the problem with this recent study and all such studies: the observed behavior that makes the research seem compelling -- winning Boston Marathon titles, earning swimming gold medals, or dominating Olympic sprinting -- is not a simple consequence of a single cause; it is the result of a hugely complex network of contributing factors, both physical and social. Thus, the correlation found between, say, ratio of leg length to body height in a population and the number of sprint gold medals in that population, is suggestive, but never conclusive. Physical "gifts" never fully explain why one athlete is a champion and another similarly endowed athlete never makes it. Likewise, physical characteristics never fully explain why one culture dominates a sport.

When I make this argument, I often begin with a question: what country produces the best marathon runners? Over the past 100 year, the answer has shifted dramatically, and each time, some natural trait or genetic advantage has been offered as the explanation. Americans, Canadians, Finns, Japanese, Ethiopians, Djiboutians, and Kenyans have all had periods of dominance. Who knows... maybe someone, some day will demonstrate that there is an inherent advantage is the genes (or the water, or the food) that explains why some particular group is guaranteed to be better than everyone else. But I'm guessing that there will always be doubt, because so many things have to come together for an individual to reach the top -- not just physical gifts, but the right motivation and support.

In science and in sport, it's still true that if you want to be a champion, you must look to your training not to your navel.