*first and foremost – credit to confessionsofawinegeek.com for the name of this post – though I admit I found your site after wanting to use the title, but having a sneaking suspicion that this phrase was already being used by some creative blogger…
I have a confession to make.
I love science. In a wine chemistry course this week (with Dr. Susan Ebeler of UC Davis), I was shaking with excitement simply to be talking about mass spectrometers and chemical structures and functional groups after such a long time. I am a huge geek.
I have an insatiable craving to play with numbers and formulas.
The issue here, the recent focus of my blog, is not, and has never been in any way counter to that. It is to elucidate the aspects of science that frustrate me the most. The “unexplainable” that is off-handedly dismissed, the inapplicability of a carefully controlled experiment to the real world, the lack of rigor of a poorly controlled experiment, the public (read: media) interpretations of a single experiment that lead to sweeping generalizations, panic, elation, or, simply, fads.
These frustrations are often enhanced in the wine world – wine scientists are often funded by industry and thus looking for solutions, for quick fixes, that don’t necessarily reflect the complexity of the system.
-Wine is not a simple liquid, but a complex mixture made from a complex process involving physical, chemical, and biological changes. You make one quick fix and you destabilize the equilibrium of the system, initiating a domino-effect with often unpredictable repercussions.-
(HPLC instrument for separating nonvolatile compounds in wine – Vitec, Spain)
-Sensory science tries to break up a complex system into its component parts, which do not necessarily have the same impact individually. The perception of mixtures is often not a sum of its parts, complicating a discipline already confounded by individual physiological differences and experimental obstacles.-
(Sensory analysis laboratory – Vitec, Spain)
-Wine and health is an incredibly controversial subject, due to methodological differences between studies on the subject, generalized application of epidemiological studies that don’t always take into account confounding factors and individual variability. And even if the authors of the study are careful (not always the case) in their wording, relying on the subtlety of language to avoid suggesting that a correlation indicates a causal relationship, it is almost sure that someone will race to proclaim the life saving (or noxious – depending on the study) properties of drinking a ‘moderate’ amount of wine (which is how much, anyways?).-
Clearly, as we begin to probe more complex systems such as wine, to pose more complex questions, the methodology of investigation needs a major overhaul. This is at the heart of what I’m looking for. We need a multivariate system. A holistic approach that doesn’t sacrifice rigor.