It seems to me that science and salesmanship belong on opposite ends of a spectrum (the precise use of language spectrum?) To be an effective salesman (woman) you grandstand, you exaggerate, you paint with a broad brush, you aim to incite passion. The scientist actively behaving like a scientist, on the other extreme, sticks to the facts and appeals to the intellect. You can't trust passion.
That is why I find it a little perplexing when arguments are made for scientists to be better communicators of science -- some even scold them for not preaching their word better (religion and sales seem more naturally compatible, in my book).
But wait! No responsibility is given to the dumb audience that demands emotional pyrotechnics to spice up all intellectual insights they attempt to consume. And so, we are told, "Dumb down the science."
Bullocks. Sure, cultural change is more difficult and slow. And yes, there may be a middle ground. But still. Let's not ask scientists to be salesmen and saleswomen.
With that said, here is a cartoon by treelobsters.com that got me thinking about the topic. It is so spot-on it deserves to be singled out. Well done!
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Many benefits of bogus treatments can be chalked up the "the" placebo response. Trouble is, we don't know a whole heck of a lot about placebo responses to treatments. How robust and perhaps even real are they?
In that second sentence I used the plural for placebo response intentionally. For the nature of a placebo response may differ when given as a different treatment for a different illness, etc. When we lump all placebo responses together, we may be combining different types of fruit. So to speak.
A few days ago news of a study into "the" placebo effect for pain control was released. The strongly scientific research looked into the actual brain mechanisms that could be responsible for "placebo analgesia." The release nicely summarizes the background information -
Placebo analgesia refers to an individual's relief from pain following administration of a chemically inert substance and is thought to be due to a person's belief that a potent pain medication was administered. Endogenous opioids, which are naturally produced by the brain in small amounts and play a key role in the relief of pain and anxiety, have been implicated in placebo analgesia. Brain imaging studies have shown that placebo analgesia stimulates release of endogenous opioids from higher brain regions associated with pain modulation and is associated with a decrease in signals from pain-sensitive areas.
In the new study, a drug that blocks opioid signaling, naloxone, was used to determine whether endogenous opioids do indeed play a role.
The researchers found that naloxone reduced behavioral placebo effects as well as placebo-induced decreases in pain-related brain responses. Most importantly, they also observed that, under placebo, cortical areas interacted with brainstem structures implicated in pain control and that these interactions were dependent on endogenous opioids and were related to the strength of experienced placebo effects.
Certainly, the above doesn't close the book on placebo analgesia. But thanks to the research we can more confidently say that this type of placebo does indeed precipitate real changes in the brain.
Is it possible that "heritable psychiatric conditions" (such as autism and depression) in one's family can predispose a person to having an interest in one field of study/career or another?
In an intriguing, though preliminary, bit of research out of Princeton University, it was discovered that there may be such a link:
Students interested in pursuing a major in the humanities or social sciences were twice as likely to report that a family member had a mood disorder or a problem with substance abuse. Students with an interest in science and technical majors, on the other hand, were three times more likely to report a sibling with an ASD, a range of developmental disorders that includes autism and Asperger syndrome. [source]
Hmm. Interesting. But did I find this so interesting simply because I have a number of "wing-nuts" in my family (I'm not getting any more specific than that!), and I likely share their genes? One has to wonder.
More seriously, a reason I find the link plausible is that each human being is born with a unique brain. Each of us has a nervous system that works somewhat differently. Because of that, we have differing responses to events, different preferences for stimulation type and degree, if you will, etc. Why wouldn't our unique nervous systems -- all other things being equal -- influence the field we are drawn to?
If you believe the headlines, we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic. While I find it likely that more and more Americans qualify as gravitationally-challenged--at a startlingly young age, even--I'm less confident that it qualifies as an epidemic.
I'm even less certain that we should legislate one or a number of a solutions to the problem. Why? To fix something you must understand the nature of the problem. Is it diet, lack of exercise, too much soda, not enough salad?
Maybe it's parenting. And not of the hippo-see, hippo-do variety (sorry!). One recent study shared this finding:
[T]oddlers who did not have a secure emotional relationship with their parents were at increased risk for obesity by age 4 ½. [source]
Thankfully, the report included "how much" increased. While 13% of children in the lowest relationship-stress category were at an increased risk for obesity, the number was 26% for those in the highest relationship-stress category. Hmm. What data and collection method was this finding based upon?
The researchers looked at data from 900+ participants in the "Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, a project of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Oh, they also "analyzed it." Meaning they looked for links between variables. And found one. And from there we get the jump to this statement:
This body of work suggests the areas of the brain that control emotions and stress responses, as well as appetite and energy balance, could be working together to influence the likelihood that a child will be obese.
Well, at least they qualify the assertion with "suggests."
Is stress part of reason why more children are tipping the scales as too heavy? In fact, during a podcast debate of the issue of whether or not the government should get involved in the "obesity epidemic," I heard one health official make this claim. And I doubted it then. Stress is a good catch-all scapegoat. And no one likes the thought of children in stress, so it may be a good way to elicit financial commitment to act . . . Yet it is really a causal variable?
I kinda doubt it. For stress can just as easily result in low weight. Or same weight. In my household of three we have one individual who absolutely can't eat a thing when stressed, one who eats a little less, and the third whose eating habits are unaffected. Of course, mine is a pitifully small sample size. Yet I haven't seen data that suggests a general tendency for stressed adults or children to eat more.
Sure, it could. But does it? Personally, I'd like to see cross-cultural studies on mother-child bonds and BMI measures. That might help.
Until we know more, I would hesitate to throw money at the problem. Sure, that may make us feel better, like we're doing something. But if the intervention misses the mark, we aren't helping anyone. On the contrary.
At this time I suspect that the increasing levels of obesity in our country may be the result of a sort of "perfect storm." Meaning that a number of variables acting in concert could be causing the increase in weight. But who knows. Maybe it's all viral. Meaning truly viral. Or something else.
Does texting cause a decline in language skills? From the headline to this ScienceDaily news release, you might think so:
Texting Affects Ability to Interpret Words
To affect (with an "a") means to influence. So it seems the new research has shown such an influence. But has it?
Here's what the researcher, Joan Lee, did to collect her data:
The study asked university students about their reading habits, including text messaging, and presented them with a range of words both real and fictitious.
And she found that -
those who texted more were less accepting of new words.
Which is certainly an interesting finding. Though I'd like to know just how less the "less accepting" was.
What this study revealed was a correlation between texting and language skills. For the "texting" variable was not manipulated to discover it's influence on language skills.
And yet a jump was made from correlation to causation. Such as when the report states:
texting has a negative impact on people's linguistic ability
Is the activity of texting really impacting people's linguistic ability? It may be. But from this study -- as far as I can tell -- that conclusion is premature.
Recent Comments