Category: Natural Sciences

Why can’t scientists agree on e-cigarettes?

October 18, 2016

“As a Cochrane review of e-cigarettes is published, its author asks why vaping devices have divided the academic community.”

“The good news is there’s lots of research going on – finally. The most recent update of the Cochrane review found 26 studies in the pipeline that will help answer questions about the safety and effect of using e-cigarettes to quit smoking. The more studies we have looking at a question, the more certain we can be about the answer. The irony is that until we have the answer, narrow interpretations of the results of individual studies risk doing further harm, undermining public confidence in science and possibly discouraging quit attempts.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2016/sep/14/why-cant-scientists-agree-on-e-cigarettes-vaping?mc_cid=38a162efbc&mc_eid=34e2887073

Radiolab Podcast: Antibodies Part 1: CRISPR

August 16, 2016

“Out drinking with a few biologists, Jad finds out about something called CRISPR. No, it’s not a robot or the latest dating app, it’s a method for genetic manipulation that is rewriting the way we change DNA. Scientists say they’ll someday be able to use CRISPR to fight cancer and maybe even bring animals back from the dead. Or, pretty much do whatever you want. Jad and Robert delve into how CRISPR does what it does, and consider whether we should be worried about a future full of flying pigs, or the simple fact that scientists have now used CRISPR to tweak the genes of human embryos.”

http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/

Why People Oppose GMOs Even Though Science Says They Are Safe

August 15, 2016

“Intuition can encourage opinions that are contrary to the facts.”

“By tapping into intuitions and emotions that mostly work under the radar of conscious awareness, but are constituent of any normally functioning human mind, such representations become easy to think. They capture our attention, they are easily processed and remembered and thus stand a greater chance of being transmitted and becoming popular, even if they are untrue. Thus, many people oppose GMOs, in part, because it just makes sense that they would pose a threat.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/

Strongest opponents of GM foods know the least but think they know the most

“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”

The finding has echoes of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the observation from social psychology that incompetence prevents the incompetent from recognising their incompetence.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/gm-foods-scientific-ignorance-fuels-extremist-views-study

How social media can distort and misinform when communicating science

August 11, 2016

Interesting article about how we acquire and spread information. How we close ourselves off to voices we disagree with and how the frequency with which information is shared is not necessarily validation of its truthfulness.

“The problem is that social media is also a great way to spread misinformation, too. Millions of Americans shape their ideas on complex and controversial scientific questions – things like personal genetic testing, genetically modified foods and their use of antibiotics – based on what they see on social media. Even many traditional news organizations and media outlets report incomplete aspects of scientific studies, or misinterpret the findings and highlight unusual claims. Once these items enter into the social media echo chamber, they’re amplified. The facts become lost in the shuffle of competing information, limited attention or both.”

https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-can-distort-and-misinform-when-communicating-science-59044?mc_cid=6e8e6bd94e&mc_eid=34e2887073

Whatever the soul is, its existence can’t be proved or disproved by natural science

August 11, 2016

“When his results were first published, critics argued that the weight loss could be explained by physiologic factors, such as evaporation. Moreover, his report failed to mention several patients in whom he found no weight loss. Finally, subsequent attempts to reproduce his results failed to find any weight loss. Indeed, MacDougall’s vision may have been clouded by confirmation bias, the tendency for investigators to see what they expect.”

https://theconversation.com/whatever-the-soul-is-its-existence-cant-be-proved-or-disproved-by-natural-science-61244?mc_cid=6e8e6bd94e&mc_eid=34e2887073

Two articles on why we have trouble adopting new ideas

August 2, 2016

Why bad ideas refuse to die

“They may have been disproved by science or dismissed as ridiculous, but some foolish beliefs endure. In theory they should wither away – but it’s not that simple”

“Many ideas have been brilliantly upgraded or repurposed for the modern age, and their revival seems newly compelling. Some ideas from the past, on the other hand, are just dead wrong and really should have been left to rot. When they reappear, what is rediscovered is a shambling corpse. These are zombie ideas. You can try to kill them, but they just won’t die. And their existence is a big problem for our normal assumptions about how the marketplace of ideas operates.

“The phrase “marketplace of ideas” was originally used as a way of defending free speech. Just as traders and customers are free to buy and sell wares in the market, so freedom of speech ensures that people are free to exchange ideas, test them out, and see which ones rise to the top. Just as good consumer products succeed and bad ones fail, so in the marketplace of ideas the truth will win out, and error and dishonesty will disappear.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/28/why-bad-ideas-refuse-die?mc_cid=1e136768f2&mc_eid=34e2887073

Personal beliefs versus scientific innovation: getting past a flat Earth mentality

“Almost by definition, the most important and innovative scientific findings often go against people’s existing beliefs. If research that conforms to personal beliefs is favored, then any research that is based on new ideas runs the risk of being passed over. It takes a leap to imagine a round Earth when everyone’s always believed it to be flat.”

https://theconversation.com/personal-beliefs-versus-scientific-innovation-getting-past-a-flat-earth-mentality-58842?mc_cid=1e136768f2&mc_eid=34e2887073

The limits of intellectual reason in our understanding of the natural world

July 30, 2016

“This overreliance on science and reason makes it difficult to communicate with the general public. It also blinds us to the full scope of the issues we now face, which can be fully grasped only through the emotional, cultural, ethical and spiritual perspectives on the world.”

“Finally, scientific reason seeks to explain all phenomena through words and numbers. And yet there are many experiences that defy articulation; classical pianists or professional athletes often have great difficulty verbalizing the essence of their experience when they are perfecting their craft.”

https://theconversation.com/the-limits-of-intellectual-reason-in-our-understanding-of-the-natural-world-60080?mc_cid=1e136768f2&mc_eid=34e2887073

How juice companies game science to perpetuate the myth that cranberry prevents UTIs

July 30, 2016

“Conflict of interest in nutrition research is nothing new. Health food is a billion-dollar business, and the more virtuous the food, the better it sells.

“From walnut growers to grape juice producers, there are hundreds of examples of companies and industry groups funding so-called independent studies that corroborate marketing claims about their product’s ability to improve health and fight disease.”

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/17/11937908/cranberries-urinary-tract-infections%20?mc_cid=1e136768f2&mc_eid=34e2887073