Category: Natural Sciences

Building a Better Human With Science? The Public Says, No Thanks

July 29, 2016

We will increasingly have to deal with questions and issues raised by our increasingly sophisticated abilities to alter genes and enhance humans through the use of biotechnologies. As our scientific abilities increase so too do the questions around the ethical use of such technologies. This article discusses public opinions around the abstract uses of these technologies.

What should the limits of the uses of these technologies be? What criteria should we use to determine these limits?

“Americans aren’t very enthusiastic about using science to enhance the human species. Instead, many find it rather creepy.

“A new survey by the Pew Research Center shows a profound distrust of scientists, a suspicion about claims of progress and a real discomfort with the idea of meddling with human abilities. The survey also opens a window into the public’s views on what it means to be a human being and what values are important.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/upshot/building-a-better-human-with-science-the-public-says-no-thanks.html

Are GMOs safe? Yes. The case against them is full of fraud, lies, and errors.

July 17, 2016

“GMO labels won’t clear this up. They won’t tell you whether there’s Bt in your food. They’ll only give you the illusion that you’ve escaped it. That’s one lesson of the Non-GMO Project, whose voluntary labels purport to give you an “informed choice” about what’s in your food.”

“That’s the fundamental flaw in the anti-GMO movement. It only pretends to inform you. When you push past its dogmas and examine the evidence, you realize that the movement’s fixation on genetic engineering has been an enormous mistake. The principles it claims to stand for—environmental protection, public health, community agriculture—are better served by considering the facts of each case than by treating GMOs, categorically, as a proxy for all that’s wrong with the world. That’s the truth, in all its messy complexity. Too bad it won’t fit on a label.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html?wpsrc=sh_all_tab_tw_top

The Quest to Resurrect Extinct Species

July 17, 2016

“A father-son duo of biologists has set the stage for so-called de-extinction. But should we be doing this at all?”

“In the past, scientists played their cards close to the vest as they developed, then commercialized, powerful new technologies. Often, they were sure that what was best for the science was best for society. And time after time, their secrecy and paternalism fed fears that sparked a public backlash — over technologies as diverse as test-tube babies, cloned animals like Dolly the sheep and genetically modified organisms. “The reason we’re in this situation with [the backlash against] genetically modified organisms is because we didn’t talk about it clearly enough, early enough,” Church says.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/14-jurassic-arke

Sorry, There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

May 23, 2016

“Good reviews of all the observational research note the methodological flaws in this domain, as well as the problems of combining the results of publication-bias-influenced studies into a meta-analysis. The associations should be viewed with skepticism and confirmed with prospective trials.

“Few randomized controlled trials exist. Those that do, although methodologically weak like most nutrition studies, don’t support the necessity of breakfast.”

This article raises some interesting points about what is “good science” and also raises the issue of how hard it is to “know” things when it comes to nutrition. Though not the main focus, the article also touches upon whether the funding source of a study affects the conclusion and how ethical it is to fund a self serving study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/upshot/sorry-theres-nothing-magical-about-breakfast.html?_r=0

Tweaking Genes to Save Species

April 18, 2016

Should humans intentionally try to kill of a species? What if this tactic resulted in the complete extinction of these mosquitos? What if this extinction resulted in saving human lives?

“BIOTECHNOLOGISTS have engineered the mosquito that spreads the Zika virus to pass a lethal gene to its offspring. Another team of researchers has devised a way to spread sterility through the mosquito population, using a technique called gene drive to wipe out the offending insects.

“If regulators approve this genetic tinkering, these insects could become a powerful weapon against the spread of mosquito-borne diseases to humans. But bugs like these, and the techniques used to create them, might have another role to play: helping to protect the earth’s biodiversity.”

Another article on the same topic.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/02/03/zika-gene-drive-gene-editing/

In N.F.L., Deeply Flawed Concussion Research and Ties to Big Tobacco

March 24, 2016

This article connects to some interesting TOK issues. Clearly we can discuss the ethics, or lack of ethics, in the NFL’s manipulation of data to disprove conclusions that undermine its business.

This also illustrates how math can help us understand and possibly prove complex issues like the connection between football and health issues like concussions and CTE.  Rather than observing or intuiting a causal relationship between two phenomenon, we have to use math along with the methods of proof in the natural sciences to establish truth and construct knowledge. By misrepresenting data, one might reach incorrect conclusions, which seems to have been the case here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/sports/football/nfl-concussion-research-tobacco.html

A second article about how flawed data undermines our ability to construct knowledge.

“Researchers primed to believe that the NFL has concussions under control, a data set that’s missing important information, and publication in a journal edited by a consultant to the NFL — it looks more like an attempt to create evidence for a predetermined message than good science. But even if we throw out these studies, we can’t yet conclude that football inevitably leads to lasting brain damage.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nfls-shoddy-science-means-we-know-even-less-about-concussions/

Human cycles: History as science Advocates of ‘cliodynamics’ say that they can use scientific methods to illuminate the past. But historians are not so sure.

March 20, 2016

“What is new about cliodynamics isn’t the search for patterns, Turchin explains. Historians have done valuable work correlating phenomena such as political instability with political, economic and demographic variables. What is different is the scale — Turchin and his colleagues are systematically collecting historical data that span centuries or even millennia — and the mathematical analysis of how the variables interact.”

http://www.nature.com/news/human-cycles-history-as-science-1.11078

Could this be the end of physics as we know it? Strange particle behavior calls standard model into question.

March 10, 2016

This article is a great illustration of how models and paradigms work in the natural sciences. Scientists propose models that embody paradigms that best explain and also predict observable data. When predictions are confirmed with experimental data the models and paradigms are also validated (see Einstein’s Gravitational waves for a recent example). When data does not come in as expected then the model itself is called in to question. Either the model needs to be amended or needs to be tossed in favor of a model that better explains data.

The standard model of particle physics is the focus of this article.

“These are not small, insignificant errors. The standard model makes precise predictions. If these new results are correct, it means that there must be a fundamental flaw in how we think about physics.”

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/standard-model-physics-called-question-strange-particle-behavior

Homeopathy effective for 0 out of 68 illnesses, study finds

March 7, 2016

“The review found “no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo” and concluded “there was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered”. ”

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/homeopathy-therapeutic-dead-end-systematic-review-no-evidence-it-works-a6884356.html?mc_cid=c28053bf7b&mc_eid=34e2887073