It’s a big step up from literally drowning lab rats as an experiment, but we’ve got a long way to go before we get even reasonably ethical with lab animals 😔

To be fair if anyone was gonna not kill them when they’re done, this lab seems like they might be the ones.

Yes, but if a review board were to sign off on them and then someone managed to significantly hurt or damage themselves, one could theoretically apply some of the blame to the review board for not doing their job to ensure that a study was safe. The whole idea of having ethics as a part of the review board was born of some of the studies they used to sign off on that were ultimately problematic and resulted in seriously damaging some individuals, such as minorities and kids.

Sorry by experimental what I meant here is something which is not ready to be tested in humans - this scientist was skipping a bunch of the necessary steps to show this is a safe thing to do (in lab grown cells first, for example) to proceed to human experimentation.

Ethically speaking, we should not be experimenting on humans, even with their explicit consent. It’s not allowed by any credible review board (such as the IRB) and in many countries you can be held legally liable for doing experiments on humans.

With that being said, there have been exceptions to this, in that in some countries we allow unproven treatments to be given to terminal patients (patients who are going to die from a condition). We also generally don’t have repercussions for folks who experiment on themselves because they are perhaps the only people capable of truly weighing the pros and cons, of not being mislead by figures of authority (although I do think there is merit of discussing this with regards to being influenced by peers), and they are the only ones for which consent cannot be misconstrued.

This isn’t related to science, feel free to repost in news

My understanding of the word comes from how I’ve seen it used in American culture. I’m not enough of an etymologist or a sociologist to accurately claim where the term itself was first created or how prevalent its various uses are and will gladly defer to others with more expertise. Thank you for sharing the wiki article for those who are unaware of genders outside the binary in different cultures 💜

are both older derogative terms for trans women

Absolutely a possibility. Depends on how often people are using VPNs, whether there’s a distinct difference between political ideology and VPN usage, and the average distance to a VPN exit point. I think it’s fairly safe to assume a similar distribution of VPN usage across political bounds and generally speaking geographically distributed fairly evenly, with perhaps major cities and higher educated areas using VPNs slightly more often but with the exit point also being closer to the true point of access.

To be fair, they also do the same with… well everyone. They like a strict hierarchy with straight white married christian cis men at the top.

Just want to acknowledge the the writing and title choice in the article itself are annoyingly smug, but the data analysis itself I found interesting.

I appreciate your warning, and would like to echo it, from a safety perspective.

I would also like to point out that we should be approaching this, as every risk, from a harm reduction standpoint. A drug with impurities that could save your life or prevent serious harm is better than no drug and death. People need to be empowered to make the best decisions they can, given the available resources and education.

Venus rhymes with a piece of anatomy often found on men. Obviously they got it backwards

Like most science press releases I’m not holding my breath

Game changer for smart watches if this turns out to work and scale well

Honestly I would argue we need to expand our definition of what a mental illness is, in order to help these folks get treatment before they go and shoot a bunch of people.

With that being said I think it’s important to call out this distinction for two major reasons. For one, it shines a light on the fact that someone having any mental illness does not mean they are going to go on a mass shooting. For two, it also shines a light on the fact that the people who do break in this way aren’t understood well - if they don’t classify neatly into the existing mental illnesses we have, we by definition do not have good research on the subject. Do patterns exist among this population of mass shooters that we can identify? Are there specific ways that they think which are maladjusted and can be corrected through existing education and mental health offerings? Might they belong to a larger group of illness which also includes other folks who are suffering in other ways, where studying this group might shed light on other folks who need help?

But they do exist, and while it’s great to be optimistic about a future in which they don’t exist, it’s also counterproductive to advocate against a better future which is much more likely to exist.

How about, in addition to attempting to publish null results in existing journals, you also publish them in free online federated databases? Or better yet, work to establish a federated database which focuses on publishing null results to serve as a repository for articles which seem to struggle with getting published, so that scientists can draw upon it as a useful resource.

Great thought process! Yes, fMRI imaging is very vulnerable to p-hacking, which is more or less what the dead fish paper is pointing out (even when properly calibrated, it’s a problem with how noisy the raw data is in the first place). By classifying broad patterns, however, you eliminate some of the noise that the dead fish paper is showing can be problematic by abstracting away from whether micro structures meet statistical probability for being activation and move that to the more macro. While the dead fish paper may have shown activity in specific areas, if you were then to look at activity across larger portions or the entire brain, you would detect no statistical difference with rest (or dead fish, in this case).

Furthermore, this study doesn’t stop there- it asks the question of whether these groupings tell us anything about these groups with regards to treatment. Each group is split up into subgroups based on treatment modality. These different treatments (therapy, drugs, etc.) are compared from group to group to see if any of these broad groupings by the fMRI machine make any kind of clinical sense. If the fMRI grouping was complete bogus and p-hacked, the treatment groups would show no difference between each other. This two step process ensures that bogus groups and groups which do not have any difference in clinical treatment outcomes are lost along the way via statistical rigor.

Completely agreed, which is why it’s promising that they’re looking for patterns rather than specific areas of activation and they are pairing up findings with treatment and using statistics to see if certain treatment modalities work better for certain broad patterns.

This is just a reminder to be nice on our instance - this could be read as hostile or not extending good faith to the other user.

Meganucleases can work in quite a few ways. Typically speaking cleaving describes a process in which a section of genome is removed (cutting in two places), but not always. The article doesn’t go into too much detail of the specifics of the meganucleases used in this study, but the literature they cite might.