Links and interesting bits

Despite my insistence in the last post that I would have a new post up within two weeks- here we are a month later and still not even a hint of a deep brain stimulation post! I'm starting to realise that trying to balance blogging with any semblance of regularity, numerous PhD commitments and life in general isn’t exactly easy. So after finally coming to that realisation I’ve decided my best bet is to start making more regular but smaller posts, maybe giving a quick summary of some interesting recent research or pointing you in the direction of any interesting science-y related article out there in cyber space. That way I can take a bit more time over the longer posts without feeling under pressure and hopefully as I gain a bit more confidence and competence with this writing lark I can make the bigger topic driven posts more frequent!

So here are a few things that have caught my eye online in the past few weeks……

Science and the American public

If you read a lot of science blogs or even just a handful you probably noticed a big brouhaha around a recently published study from the Pew research centre (find it here).

The study used surveys to gauge the outlook of the American public and scientists on different aspects of science. Probably the main positive takeaway message of the study was that in general the majority of the U.S. public believed that scientific research was a force for good that has improved lives and should be given continued supported through government funding. But on specific topics the views of the public were less in step with those of scientists (members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS) and in some cases way out there! One of the starkest differences came with the revelation that whilst 88% of AAAS scientists believe that GM crops are safe to eat only 37% of the public questions agreed with this statement. A much smaller gap, but still significant was found with views on the current hot media topic – childhood vaccinations, 86% of scientists believed childhood vaccinations such as MMR should be required whereas only 64% of the public agreed with that statement.

This kind of discrepancy isn’t just an interesting quirk but has potential ramifications for scientific research in the future. In particular with a large disconnect between the opinions of the public and scientists on what avenues of science are worthy of further research and which are already ‘solved’ or should be avoided this could pull governments and private science funders in all kinds of unexpected directions. Unsurprisingly a lot of column inches have been devoted to the implications of this study, here's my summary of the more interesting articles I’ve come across with links.

The most obvious reaction to these results is that scientists just aren’t sci comm’in hard enough and we all need to get down from atop our ivory towers and turn the sci comm up to 11 (e.g. in this article which ironically the public can't access without going through a registration process!!). However with the absolute explosion in science writers and bloggers over the past five to ten years coupled with the hundreds of seminars and lectures and even entire conferences devoted to communication and outreach for scientists I feel that the level of communication is only half the story. The idea of just opening more and more lines of outreach to try and educate the public about science without thinking more about how they would be best reached brings to my mind this clip from Family Guy!

Some of the more interesting takes on the Pew study have pointed out that when considering what people see as ‘facts’ it isn’t access to the latest scientific findings on a particular topic that is the most influential factor but their political, cultural or religious ideologies (e.g. here and here). People will tend to focus on information that supports their world view whilst ignoring information that doesn’t – well summed up with this quote “People on both sides of the issue think science is on their side. It’s like when nations at war each think God is on their side, and they think the other side is godless” (taken from this very good article from the Atlantic). Its worth noting that scientists are be just as prone to this parsing of information to fit their beliefs as any member of the non-scienctific community –for example as is pointed out in the atlantic article whilst the vast majority of scientists surveyed (87%) believed that humans are most to blame for climate change – that still leaves 13% who don’t agree with this statement –despite scientists in the field of climate research being almost unanimous in there belief that humans are the significant driver.

So how do we overcome peoples underlying beliefs and biases? Some suggest we need to change the way we communicate – we can’t just bring the cold hard facts because they can be easily ignored, explained away or fudged and interpreted in different ways by different people (see The Atlantic article for a good discussion of this).

Another approach might lie in science education in schools. Anyone who has completed a university degree in a science will tell you that the long list of facts that you are taught at school bears no resemblance to scientific research, the scientific process and what it means to be a scientist and further anyone with a PhD will tell you that a lot of what they learnt in their degree has very little bearing on their understanding of the scientific process. Yet the vast majority of us will only encounter science in a formal setting up to school leaving age – where we are taught very little about science and how its done and the philosophy and structures underlying research. I believe (and this I cannot stress enough is only an opinion) this lack of understanding of processes in research such as peer-review and the practicalities of scientific research has an influence over how much importance people tag to scientific evidence when comparing it to opinion, how people compare one scientific ‘fact’ with another and how people evaluate the claims of a single doctor, scientist or media outlet.

Anyway, in my opinion by far the best article on this topic is here. It addresses the importance of framing science communication in a way that goes beyond just presenting the facts but addresses peoples biases and beliefs and it goes further and addresses the importance of teaching people from school age about the scientific method and the scientific way of thinking, summed up in this quote – “Scientific thinking has to be taught, and sometimes it’s not taught well, McNutt says. Students come away thinking of science as a collection of facts, not a method.”

Neuroscience in Europe: a history

Something a bit more positive I’ve come across- this really succinct history of neuroscience – how it came to be, how it developed and its future. If you enjoy this I really can’t recommend any of Steven Rose’s popular neuroscience books enough, he is a fantastic science writer and in particular I would recommend “The making of memory”. It is a history of neuroscience, mixed with an auto-biography of his life in science, mixed in with a great insight in to the life and processes of a scientist working towards answering their research questions. It was a book that really helped me decide to pursue a career in science. Whilst the book obviously presents scientific progress as far more linear and serene as it usually turns out to be it gave me a little insight as an undergraduate student in to what a career in science might look like.

Reconsolidation and PTSD

Here is this post by one of my favourite bloggers Neurocritic concerning how research into the phenomena of reconsolidation is being adapted for use in clinical settings to treat PTSD. The study the post covers is particularly eye-catching as it focuses on people who were potentially effected by the Boston marathon bombings in 2013. As a quick explanation of reconsolidation- in memory research there is a well established process known as consolidation, which is a physiological process or set of processes in individual nerve cells or circuits that lead to the long term storage of memory traces. The relatively newer concept of reconsolidation refers to the process in which changes that have previously occurred as a result of consolidation may become plastic again when the memory is recalled- this could theoretically lead to strengthening of that memory trace or modification of the memory whenever it is recalled. The reason it is of interest in PTSD research is because if the memory trace of a harrowing experience becomes labile – it could potentially be behaviourally or pharmaceutically targeted to disrupt re-consolidation and remove this memory. Even more promisingly some studies have found that disruption of reconsolidation might potentially be targeted in such a way to disrupt the negative emotional aspects of the memory whilst leaving the factual representation intact.

Running will kill you. Maybe?

Finally, nothing to do with neuroscience- a recent study in to the effects of running on health got a lot of coverage in the press recently (here, here and here). As a keen runner I read this study with interest as it seems to show that faster running (and in a previous related study – higher quantities of running) are bad for your health, in fact just as bad as being entirely sedentary – which is really bad news given that the current scientific evidence points to a sedentary lifestyle being about the most dangerous thing for your health since bungee jumping and sky diving! The particular article I wanted to direct your attention to is this one… Which gives a brilliant take down of this research in a really accessible and easy to understand way and really drives home the importance of paying attention to the numbers!