By Sally Raskoff

Did you see the news
about the relationship between chocolate and Nobel Prizes? Dr. Franz
Messerli reported in a New England
Journal of Medicine article that a country’s chocolate consumption is positively
and statistically significantly associated with their rate of winning the Nobel
Prize. If a country has high chocolate consumption, they are also likely to
have many winners of the Nobel Prize.

The story was picked up by media around the world and most articles
acknowledged the humor that is implicit in the situation. Many took the angle
that eating chocolate makes you smarter!

Only a few pointed out that correlation is not causation. One
source discusses how countries with high chocolate consumption and win the most
Nobel Prizes are also those with high levels of wealth. It might be the wealth
that explains this relationship between chocolate and Nobel prizes since wealth
may explain both the chocolate consumption and Nobel winning patterns. Thus the
relationship between chocolate and prizes is a spurious one, meaning
that a third factor really explains the relationship. They are related, but indirectly
– through their relationships to wealth.

Another issue that was not often mentioned in the coverage is
that the data are country level data
– not data from individuals. Thus a legitimate interpretation would focus only
on the country level issues. To take country level data and apply it to
individuals is to commit an ecological fallacy or
apply data to from a macro level of analysis to the individual level. We can’t
make any connections between individual behavior (eating chocolate) and Nobel
Prize winning from this study.

While there may be a relationship between chocolate and
Nobel prizes, unfortunately eating more chocolate will not necessarily make us
become smarter! A more logical conclusion is that in countries where a lot of chocolate
is consumed, more Nobel prizes will be won – but not because of the chocolate.  Most likely, wealthy nations provide
significant educational opportunities and also healthy funding for research. Considering
the other variable, wealth, it follows that the wealthier a nation, the more
chocolate eaten and the more Nobel Prizes are won.

So, how do we make use of this data? We can better
understand that both Nobel prizes and chocolate are related to having
resources. If a country wanted to win more Nobel prizes, they should attempt to
gain more wealth – not consume more chocolate. Of course, there are cautions
here since the wealth connection is not documented in these articles – it is
simply mentioned as speculation.

Interestingly enough, the author of the article started plotting
the data because of a review he was doing on flavanols (a component in
tea, wine, and chocolate) and its positive effects on cognitive functioning. His
interest in the chocolate – brain functioning relationship began with research
at the individual level.

I will not commit an ecological fallacy but I will do my
part by consuming some nice dark chocolate in case the relationship does hold
true at the individual level. What other spurious correlations can you think
of—edible or otherwise?