Posts tagged » science
August 18, 2008 at 4:51 pm · Filed under Art Freak Culture + Science & Skepticism
It’s National Science Week — in Australia. The US used to have an official National Science & Technology Week which ran from 1985-1999, but unfortunately our current admin doesn’t seem to think science is all that important to celebrate. Well to be honest, the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) and NASA attempted to sorta bring the idea back to life once in 2005 with the Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education (ESTEME) Week — an awkward name birthed by bureaucracy and doomed to die a forgotten death.
But who cares about our lame science hating government! We can celebrate the AWESOME POWER OF SCIENCE Aussie style with Professor Funk!
Like some science-punk crossbreed between Yahoo Serious and Vyvyan Basterd, the Professor Funk drops the science with a hilarious self-aware dorky psuedo-hipness in his YouTube video series Saturday Night Science with Professor Funk: “A video series on the science behind weekend culture. Take a look at the strange, sexy and stupid side of sex, drugs, music, money and fashion.”
Professor Funk uses actual scientific surveys to ask important questions such as Mac or PC Which Makes You Sexier? or Do Stripes Actually Make You Look Taller? The best has to be his video on musical synesthesia where he shows just what the Imperial March from Star Wars might taste like by eating a range of items from tonic water to grass to water to used q-tips!
p.s. For more great Aussie science, I also highly recommend the excellent All In the Mind, the Australian ABC Radio National podcast about neuroscience and psychology. The program is always interesting, each broadcast dedicated to a single topic.
Related posts
February 8, 2008 at 11:25 am · Filed under Science & Skepticism
BBC News reports Acupuncture ‘boosts IVF chances’ others such as the Chicago Tribune are a bit more sober, yet still misleading, using the headline Acupuncture might help with fertility.
To be true to the meta-analysis study, the headline should really read:
Acupuncture might help one out of ten women get pregnant via IVF treatment at Chinese clinics that have relatively low rates of success; patients in European clinics with high rates of success will get no benefit.
Let me break this down into easy to read bullet points:
- This is not a new study just a meta-analysis of seven previously published studies
- These studies used different methodologies and we don’t know what the selection criteria was or what bias there might have been
- The studies at European clinics showed no effect
- The only studies that showed any effect were Chinese IVF clinic studies
- Since the only positive research came from Chinese research this calls the entire meta-analysis into doubt
- Unless — acupuncture only works in China — Ha!
For a more in depth breakdown on this recent study, read Peter Sanderson’s blog post Misleading acupuncture / IVF headlines.
In another study back in september, acupuncture was shown to have no effect beyond the placebo effect. Again the media distorted this acupuncture study. Others have already done an excellent job dissecting the acupuncture back pain studies here and here.
The only real conclusion to make from all of this is that acupuncture has one solidly empirical benefit: with enough positive manipulation any researcher can get international headlines.
Related posts
January 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm · Filed under Minds, Brains, & inbetween + Science & Skepticism
A lot of science geeks enjoy lambasting the press for their excessive use of hype in reporting science and medical news. The excellent Bad Science blog specializes in this sort of media skewering, as do several ScienceBlogs writers and other science bloggers.
One problem with all this finger pointing is the fact that scientists and doctors often infuse quite a bit of hyperbole themselves whenever they discuss their research. The discussion section of any paper is often where the forest of wild tangents lives. This is especially true with basic science research where they use this section to say “See! See! Our research is relevant too! It’s worth the funding since it’ll lead to new cures for the Whathaveyou Syndrome.”
Case in point, I was recently gleaning a few recent cocaine research study news releases and I noticed a distinct lack of reality with the conjecture. All these come from Science Daily which prints articles in their original form from universities and research organizations. This all hyperboles are coming straight from the horses mouth.
“We have a brain hard-wired to appreciate rewards, and cocaine and other drugs of abuse latch onto this system. We are looking at the potential for new medications that reduce the brain’s sensitivity to these conditioned drug cues and would give patients a fighting chance to manage their urges.” (Subconscious Signals Can Trigger Drug Craving) 1
“Based on this study, it appears that promising new therapies for addiction may be based on treatments that mute the desire to escalate cocaine intake by blocking the elevation of brain reward thresholds produced by chronic cocaine use.” (Research Helps Explain Why Perception Of Pleasure Decreases With Chronic Cocaine Use) 2
Anyone with an ounce (28.3495231 grams) of scientific skepticism can see right through any of this, tear into the meat of the study, toss out the wild tangents, and hunt for connections to broader theories and future research ideas. This however is not the journalist’s job. There job is to make the science seem more like SCIENCE!
SCIENCE! journalism — as opposed to science journalism — is useful for keeping science interesting and relevant to the public at large, and hopefully inspiring the next generation of scientists. Of course, it also has it’s problems in that distorts the science, but as I mentioned, scientists are pretty good at doing that themselves.
Footnotes
- I.E., put the addict on an antipsychotic (aka dopamine antagonist). Antipsychotics have fun side effects like the desire to sleep a lot, reduced libido, weight gain, and a general anhedonia (they don’t get too exited about anything). Sure it may deaden the cravings (and possibly protect D2 receptors), but will addicts really willingly take a drug that makes them feel like they are in continual withdrawal?
- I.E., somehow get the addict to take some sort of anti-psychotic when they are in the middle of their drug binge — even better if it’s their first drug binge. Sorry to burst your bubble but this ain’t gonna happen.
- The cocaine vaccine while not a panacea shows some promise — if ethically awkward. I’ve been meaning to write something on it but I want to put a bit more research into that post.
Related posts
November 21, 2007 at 12:31 pm · Filed under Politics + Science & Skepticism
Recent stem cell advancements have been been exploding across the headlines. If you somehow missed these headlines, the bulk of it is “researchers have figured out how to reprogram adult cell into a state that is nearly indistinguishable from embryonic, pluripotent stem cells.”
Unlike some science stories in the news this isn’t pure hype; it is truly important and has been tested by multiple labs. However, like normal, the media reports are mostly lacking in details and full of loud pronouncements about how this tolls the end of the culture wars and how using embryonic stem cells is now “old-fashioned.”
Like always the truth is more complex. And of course the fabulous ScienceBlogs lays it all out where the media falls flat. PZ Myers, of Pharyngula offers an excellent explanation of the research and it’s implications entitled Stem Cell Breakthrough. Also, the Denialism Blog has a great post about it entitled, Reprogramming adult cells into pluripotent stem cells - what do these new results mean. The blog Framing Science wrote two posts detailing how this is going to effect the future of the stem cell debate: The Next Stage in the Stem Cell Debate Begins! and THE DISCOVERY: What It Means for Framing & News Coverage.
I highly recommend you read these excellent articles, but for those of you who are too busy I offer a few important bullet points:
- “Americans did not make this discovery; Japanese researchers did. It required understanding of gene expression in embryonic stem cells, an understanding that was hampered in our country. ” (PZ Myers)
- This discovery is truly important and has been tested by multiple labs.
- “What the investigators have accomplished is to discover the reset button for the cell, but the way they currently press it is by hitting it hard with a ball peen hammer.” (PZ Myers)
- This new method is still somewhat crude and this means that the cells cannot be used for theraputic purposes as these cells have a higher chance of becoming cancerous than embryonic stem cells.
- This does not spell the end of embryonic stem cells as in order to find a more eloquent way of switching the “reset button” more research using embryonic stem cells will be needed.
Sadly, I think science has already lost the (religiously polarized, scientifically illiterate) American public on this issue. The media has already spin this as a win for the Christian Right and is ignoring that fact that it is really a win for embryonic stem cell researchers — and more importantly that more embryonic stem cell research is needed.
Related posts
July 27, 2007 at 11:58 am · Filed under Life, Meaning, & Selfhood
The subject line quotes a recent twitter made by a friend of mine and I couldn’t agree more. Neil deGrasse Tyson, is the exuberant astrophysicist who is the host for NOVA Science Now and the director of the Hayden Planetarium. He explodes with a passion for the mysteries of the universe in a way only an atheist could. His cheerful enthusiasm for science is contagious and in that way many have compared him to the late Carl Sagan; however, Tyson is really a unique figure.
One of my favorite blogs One Good Move recently posted a great video clip from Neil deGrasse Tyson’s recent interview on the Daily Show. He was also previously interviewed on the Daily Show in January of this year for his book Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries.
Neil deGrasse Tyson was also a speaker at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference. I know I’ve mentioned this conference before, but I feel the need to mention it again. I seldom watch many things more than once, but I find myself going back and listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson the most. His rebuke to Dawkins (short and poignant), his connection between art and the love of science (16min speech that is absolutely amazing and energizing), and much more on YouTube are all worth watching.
In my book, he’s right up there with Buckaroo Banzai.
Related posts
