An Existential Science Crisis For The USA (And The Planet)

"This week, in response to President Trump’s ongoing cuts to scientific research and staffing at federal agencies, nearly 2,000 of the country’s leading scientists signed a letter urging the administration to 'cease its wholesale assault on U.S. science.'

“'We see real danger in this moment,' the letter, which was signed by a number of Nobel Prize winners, stated. 'We hold diverse political beliefs, but we are united as researchers in wanting to protect independent scientific inquiry. We are sending this SOS to sound a clear warning: the nation’s scientific enterprise is being decimated.'

"Last week, the journal Nature published a poll it conducted of more than 1,600 U.S. scientists: 'Are you a US researcher who is considering leaving the country following the disruptions to science prompted by the Trump administration?' the poll asked the group. In response, 75.3% of those polled said yes, while 24.7% said no."

Click here for the full article.

Replacing Animals In Medical Studies?

" - - - Around 90 percent of novel drugs that work in animal models fail in human clinical trials—an attrition rate that contributes to a $2.3-billion average price tag for every new drug that comes to market.

"Today Morales Pantoja is a postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, where she is helping to develop lab-grown models of the human brain. The goal is to advance scientific understanding of neurodegeneration while moving the field beyond what some researchers see as an antiquated reliance on animal models.

"Millions of rodents, dogs, monkeys, rabbits, birds, cats, fish, and other animals are used every year for research purposes worldwide. Exact numbers are hard to come by, but advocacy group Cruelty Free International estimated that 192 million animals were used in 2015. Most of this work occurs in four broad domains: cosmetics and personal products, chemical toxicity testing, drug development, and drug-discovery research."

Click on the link below for the details:

Next-Generation Biotech Is Rendering Some Lab Animals Obsolete

Science Itself Is In Crisis

There is much scientific activity but such has yet to lead to the type and amount of progress that has happened historically. Sabine Hossenfelder exposes the roots of this situation: a focus on the quantity of research rather than the quality. Click on the link below for the details:

Scientific Progress is Slowing Down. But Why? 

Transgender Treatment Satisfaction

While the Republican Party and conservatives, in general, are supporting bills in many states attacking transgender treatment (link), the largest satisfaction survey of individuals who have received transgender treatment was just released. The bottom line is that they are overwhelmingly satisfied with the results of their treatment. Click on this link for a 3-minute video presenting the details. Just another example of anti-expert/anti-science from the Republican Party.

Resurrecting Extinct Animals

"It sounds like science fiction, but a couple of groups of genetic researchers are actively working on bringing back extinct species like the wooly mammoth and the Dodo bird. It’s a complicated issue, filled with all kinds of ethical questions and scientific advancements but when all is said and done, it could be a boon to genetic research and serve as a springboard for technologies that could make our lives better."

Click on the link below for a 17-minute video presenting the details:

Why Resurrection Extinct Animals Is Actually A GREAT Idea

Psychological Science: A Key To Understanding And Combating Health Misinformation

"There is widespread concern that misinformation poses dangerous risks to health, well-being, and civic life. Despite a growing body of research on the topic, significant questions remain about (a) psychological factors that render people susceptible to misinformation, (b) the extent to which it affects real-world behavior, (c) how it spreads online and offline, and (d) intervention strategies that counter and correct it effectively. This report reviews the best available psychological science research to reach a consensus on each of these crucial questions, particularly as they pertain to health-related misinformation. In addition, the report offers eight specific recommendations for scientists, policymakers, and health professionals who seek to recognize and respond to misinformation in health care and beyond."

MAIN POINTS:

• RECOMMENDATION 1 Avoid repeating misinformation without including a correction.
• RECOMMENDATION 2 Collaborate with social media companies to understand and reduce the spread of harmful misinformation.
• RECOMMENDATION 3 Use misinformation correction strategies with tools already proven to promote healthy behaviors
• RECOMMENDATION 4 Leverage trusted sources to counter misinformation and provide accurate health information.
• RECOMMENDATION 5 Debunk misinformation often and repeatedly using evidence-based methods.
• RECOMMENDATION 6 Prebunk misinformation to inoculate susceptible audiences by building skills and resilience from an early age.
• RECOMMENDATION 7 Demand data access and transparency from social media companies for scientific research on misinformation
• RECOMMENDATION 8 Fund basic and translational research into the psychology of health misinformation, including effective ways to counter it. 

Click on the link below for the full 44-page American Psychological Association Consensus Statement:

Using Psychological Science to Understand and Fight Health Misinformation

Happiness Research

"Most studies on happiness find older people and ask them to recall what made them happy. But as we've just seen, memory is unreliable. So a better way to conduct a study would be to follow people throughout their entire lives, capturing the choices they make and how those affect their happiness. That is really hard to do. But there is one study like this that's been running since 1938. Now, 85 years is a long time to run a study so it has been passed down from one generation of researchers to the next. It's currently run by its fourth director, Robert Waldinger. What is the claim to fame then of the study? You know, the claim to fame is that it is, as far as we know, the longest study of human development that's ever been done. The longest study of any depth. These are studies that take deep dives into people's lives and their mental and physical health."

Click on the link below for the results of the longest-running study on happiness:

What The Longest-Running Study on Happiness Reveals

Animal Studies In Psychology

I recently re-posted a commentary on Facebook supporting the value of John B Calhoun's mice studies in understanding the stresses of over-population. Unfortunately, some readers focused on the individual making the commentary (the messenger) because of some of his comments (particularly at the end), and his history of bigoted, unsupported ideology of which I was not aware. Some of the readers even challenged the validity of animal research on human behavior. In light of such, below you will find justification and validity of such:

- - - - - - - 

"Part of the justification for why nonhuman animals are studied in psychology has to do with the fact of evolution. Humans share common ancestry with the species most commonly studied in psychology: mice, rats, and monkeys. To be sure, each species has its own specializations that enable it to fit into its unique ecological niche; but common ancestry results in structural (e.g., brain) and functional (e.g., memory) processes that are remarkably similar between humans and nonhumans. In addition, we can better understand fundamental processes because of the precise control enabled by animal research (e.g., living environments, experimental conditions, etc.). We can also ask and answer certain questions that would be difficult or impossible to do with humans. For example, we know what the connections are between the amygdala and other brain regions, but how does activity in the amygdala affect brain functioning? Using a new technique, it is now possible to temporarily inactivate the amygdala in a monkey and see how other brain areas (including those that are not directly connected to the amygdala) change their activity (Grayson et al., 2016). A study such as this not only helps us better understand how the brain works but also has enormous potential for developing treatments for people who have abnormal patterns of brain activity, such as those with epilepsy or Parkinson’s disease. Ten years from now, students may very well read in their textbooks about a “new treatment” to help people with Parkinson’s disease. Will this monkey study, which enabled such a discovery to be made, be described? Probably not, in much the same way that nonhuman research that permitted a significant human study to be conducted is rarely described in today’s textbooks." 

(https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psn/2017/01/animal-studies#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20we%20can%20better,impossible%20to%20do%20with%20humans)

- - - - - - -

More support for the study:

(https://web.archive.org/web/20200614090726/https://www.victorpest.com/articles/what-humans-can-learn-from-calhouns-rodent-utopia)

Wikipedia: Can YOU Handle The Truth?

I have commented several times regarding the value of Wikipedia, and its limitations. Click on the link below for a scholarly opinion on it. My bottom line: it is excellent IF you take the second step: click on the research presented on each claim pertinent to your search: 

“Wikipedia Is the Most Accurate Form of Information Ever Created”

"I Did My Own Research"

This is what one can hear or read from the anti-science folks. However, if one is a science-based thinker, one does need the proper methods and tools to find out what is the scientific consensus on any topic. Click on the link below for a video by Sabine Hossenfelder outlining a step-by-step process for the non-scientist/researcher:

Do your own research, but do it right

For starters: 

• Be knowledgeable about the elements of scientific research
• Don't cherry-pick
• Never trust 2nd-hand sources - - - but look at them anyway
• If there is data, look at it and don't trust the text

Beware Of Sex/Gender Studies Supported By Conservatives

"It’s a science thingy breakdown! This one can barely be called a science thingy. It’s not great. Dr. Alan Smerbeck is here to debunk one of the go-to citations for conservatives’ homophobia. Does it hold up? No. Look I’m not going to pretend like it’s a close call. Listen to find out why this is a shit study."

Click on the link below for a podcast exposing the usual bad studies on this subject:

How Different Are The Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?

A Simple Way To Tell If Someone Is Lying?

"To spot a liar, ignore everything except the level of detail in a person's story, new research suggests.

"If a person provides rich descriptions of who, what, when, how, and why, it's likely they are telling the truth. If they skim over these details, they are probably lying.

"Using this very simple test and nothing else, people can separate truth from lies with nearly 80 percent accuracy, researchers from the University of Amsterdam have found."

Click on the link below for more. Call me a skeptic. *One study does not maketh a scientific truth. Replication, please, and then we can talk about this.

*9 Studies, but essentially trials using the same method and participant (students) criteria.

This One Strategy Will Reveal if Someone's Lying With 80% Accuracy, Study Finds

Heros, Empathy, Apathy, And The Brain

"Scott Pelley meets with Carnegie Hero Fund awardees and reports on a possible difference in brain make-up for those who commit heroic acts."

What makes up a hero? Who has what it takes to be one? Are all of us pre-programmed towards empathy or apathy in a life-threatening emergency? Click on the link below for a recent "60 Minutes" segment that presents the latest scientific findings attempting to answer these questions. 

What's in the heads of heroes?

I finish with a serious suggestion for research. Since it is clear to anyone paying attention that there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding empathy, select samples of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans and brain scan them looking for the same findings presented in this "60 Minutes" segment. If there are significant differences, a second/repeat study could be performed on the same subjects after an appropriate educational process of critical thinking and scientific findings regarding the brain and free will.

Be Aware Of Where "Statistics" Are From

"The manufacturers of Covid-19 vaccines say they are 95% effective. Peter Doshi re-examined the evidence and estimates they are only 19-29% effective. This pre-print of an as-yet unpublished re-analysis raises many questions but doesn’t support the claims being made on antivaccine sites.

"A correspondent asked for my opinion about a study that he said has been appearing widely on COVID-19 vaccine disinformation sites with claims that it proves that the vaccines are not safe or that it shows there is ' - - - a 300% greater chance of landing in the hospital from the vaccine than from Covid itself.' I read the study. In the first place, I don’t think it showed any such thing. In the second place, there were several things about the study that made me distrust it: - - - "(STATISTICAL SHENANIGANS?)

A Reminder: Your Brain Alone Is Not Reliable

Recently, I have received a great deal of push-back on my Facebook page regarding some topics, for example: chiropractic, acupuncture, corporal punishment, GMOs, and nuclear power. Frankly, their arguments are no different than the Intelligent Design folks. As I frequently say, tell me what other than the consensus of scientists actually working in the discipline under discussion will give you a better understanding of reality regarding such.

Regarding consumer products, including food from GMOs, unfortunately, there is a strong unsupported conspiracy theory that for-profit corporations cannot perform unbiased scientific studies. Should we ignore any research funded by companies or special interest groups? Certainly not. These groups provide invaluable funding for scientific research. Furthermore, science has many safeguards in place to catch instances of bias that affect research outcomes. Ultimately, misleading results will be corrected as science proceeds. (link)(link)

The Evidence Is Clear Regarding The Social Effects Of Abortion

The research supporting Roe v. Wade was clear: "Possibly there is no social measure with a higher benefit-to-cost ratio than the legalization of abortion, and therefore none more qualified to be given number one priority on the agenda of needed domestic social reforms." (American Journal of Public Health, 1972)

The latest research continues to support the social benefits of abortion. (The State of Abortion Rights Around the World)

Reporting Of Early Scientific Research

"Science journalists need to get a grip on reality. They need to develop a better appreciation of how science works. All too often they are content to just copy from a press release without any critical analysis. They commonly confuse correlation with causation and make recommendations not justified by the data. They may report preliminary studies as if they were proven facts. Enthusiastic predictions based on preliminary research may raise hopes for new treatments, but all too often those hopes turn out to be false. Not exactly 'fake news' but surely misleading. It’s fun to speculate, but it’s not reasonable to ask people to take medicines or change their diet or lifestyle based on untested speculations."

One does not have to look far to see "clickbait" using such teasers as "Breaking News" or "Scientists find Amazing (Something)." While such sensationalism does not seem harmful if it is not talking about a drug or a medical procedure, such media reporting tends to prime the public to make more out of preliminary findings in medicine than they should. Click on the link below for five examples of premature press releases/media reports of scientific studies:

Poor Science Reporting and Premature Enthusiasm

A Lesson In Accepting Claims

The anti-vaccine crowd is touting the results of an Israeli study that found that natural immunity post-COVID-19 infection was much more effective against the Delta variant than two doses of vaccine (link). However, they ignore the very important recommendation of getting vaccinated anyway! In addition, this was just ONE study narrowing in on the Delta variant. 

If one were to do their homework on the issue, one would easily find several studies supporting vaccine being superior to natural immunity (link)(link)(link). 

Science-based thinkers do not "cherry-pick" their research.

How To Confirm Your Bias In Research

"Recently, a study by Lisa Littman has been making the rounds among the anti-woke. You may remember Littman mentioned in the amazing 2 part series debunking The End of Gender. She is the inventor of the transphobic bull shit concept "rapid onset gender dysphoria" which is science words for "kids these days." In this two part series, Dr. Lindsey Osterman breaks down both of her bogus studies and why they are terrible science thingies."

There are many ways to pervert scientific research in an attempt to confirm your biases. Click on the links below for an example of how it's done and how to call bogus on it:

Lisa Littman's Bogus Trans Studies, Part 1 

Lisa Littman’s Latest Trans Study is Garbage

Even Scientists Can Be Unscientific

"I was asked to write an article addressing the question of whether some research in physics has become too speculative. I did as I was asked, and all seemed fine, until someone on the editorial board of the magazine decided that physicists would be too upset about what I wrote."

Sabine does it again: exposes the human frailty of some fellow physicists, Click on the link below for the details:

Can Physics Be Too Speculative? An Honest Opinion.