“The incremental progress of ordinary science is one thing, as individual treatments are progressively replaced by better variants. We all happily accept that kind of revision. But medical reversal, the authors’ sober term for sudden flip-flops in standards of care, unnerves and demoralizes everyone, doctors no less than their patients.”
“Some people have felt relief from homeopathy, but feeling relief is not the same as proving that something is scientifically valid as medication. Theplacebo effect is a very real thing, and that’s all homeopathic medications are: expensive placebos.”
This article offers us another example of the ceaseless advancement of new and innovative applications of genetic engineering. With all this advancement come more questions about the ethics of such techniques.
“What rules should apply to gene editing is an increasingly pressing question for not just agencies such as the FDA but also scientists and medical ethicists as the technique moves from the animal world to the human realm. Although gene editing holds the promise of significant medical breakthroughs, it also could open a Pandora’s box of eugenic-like applications.”
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-micropigs-20151005-story.html
“Psychological research sheds new light on ‘magical thinking’ — and why we fall prey to pseudoscientific phenomena.”
“The ongoing dispute over the authenticity of a scrap of papyrus from the ancient world highlights a larger question of how history is established.”
“Both sides are looking at the same credit-card-sized scrap of papyrus, with the same words in the same hand in the same ink. Both sides are represented by members of the same academic community—those who continue to push for the authenticity of the GJW are highly respected scholars, as are those who are calling it a forgery. Yet the two sides are approaching the papyrus from completely distinct angles, and getting completely different results.”
Earlier article on the same subject
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-curious-case-of-jesuss-wife/382227/
Here is an interesting story about research that found a correlation between height and incidence of cancer. Generally I despise health news covered by television news because they generally butcher the science or oversell the conclusions that are appropriate based on the research. What I like about this story is that if you listen carefully there are elements here relevant to our class.
One last thing to think about is whether a study done in Sweden can be applicable to people in general. Is there something unique about the environment there? Diet? Genetics? Would these results still be true if done in a country that gets more sunlight year round?
Considering all these factors should illustrate to you why it’s so hard to come to conclusions about human health.
“Scientists who tallied diet and health records for several thousand patients over ten years found, for example, that contrary to the government advice, people who consumed more milk fat had lower incidence of heart disease.”
“It was the first time edits had been confirmed to have been done on reproductive cells and the news caused deep divisions within the scientific community. Some expressed optimism and hope that such research could eventually lead to the eradication of genetic diseases from the face of the Earth. Others were horrified — warning that genetically modifying humans is unsafe and could have devastating consequences on future generations of our race that no one can foresee.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/api/print.html?id=4c92e97901b450352df9f3f89c5f4496
“We like to imagine that knowledge advances fact upon dispassionate fact to reveal precise and irrefutable truths. But there is hardly a better example of just how messy and emotional science can be than Wegener’s discovery of the vast, turbulent forces moving within the earth’s crust. As often happens when confronted with difficult new ideas, the establishment joined ranks and tore holes in his theories, mocked his evidence and maligned his character. It might have been the end of a lesser man, but as with the vicious battles over topics ranging from Darwinian evolution to climate change, the conflict ultimately worked to the benefit of scientific truth.”
“Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But I’ve spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and I’ve learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it’s plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard — really fucking hard.
“If we’re going to rely on science as a means for reaching the truth — and it’s still the best tool we have — it’s important that we understand and respect just how difficult it is to get a rigorous result. I could pontificate about all the reasons why science is arduous, but instead I’m going to let you experience one of them for yourself. Welcome to the wild world of p-hacking.”
TOK Topics 