Science and faux-science

[ZenGum]

A LOT of things that are dismissed as a "dis"order are only negative in the context of the demands of our present society.

Attention deficit Hyperactivity disorder is loaded with judgement. Why not "shorter attention span, higher activity" (SASHA)? Must we drug them into conformity?

It makes sense for a species and especially for a society to have diversity. That enables specialisation, and that is the foundation of the success of our species.

Mind you, some varieties, such as sociopaths and psychopaths, are a problem for the rest of us. Mere difference alone is not a problem, but some kinds of difference are.

[HungLikeJesus]

But the anti-social types are useful when you need to invade another tribe's territory.

[Griff]

My days are spent helping kids to acclimate to the expectation of conformity our the Prussian American education system desires. I have very mixed feelings about it. If I don't help them develop their self control they will surely fail but it isn't fair at all that this is the system we use to teach kids. Modern society does not have reasonable expectations for us apes. We're expected to conform with non-family groups without a reasonable amount of exercise and play while digesting noxious foods. People are hyper-active, angry, depressed? Can't see why...

[monster]

I agree, Griff. And Zen. Escpecially as this conforming skill really isn't as necessary as people seemsto think it is in the adult world.

[Lamplighter]

Here's another one... but this one will eventually go in the waste basket.

Boston Globe
Deborah Kotz
August 23, 2012

Do men have biological clocks as new autism finding suggests?

After reading news reports linking a baby’s risk of having autism
with the father’s -- not mother’s -- biological age,
I’m guessing women felt a little vindicated;
finally, researchers have acknowledged that we’re not
the only ones with a biological clock that’s ticking away.

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature,
found that the number of DNA changes or mutations increase with age
making it more likely for older fathers to pass along mutations
involved in autism or schizophrenia.

While a young 25-year-old father passes along an average
of 25 new mutations to his child via his sperm,
a 40-year-old transmits 65 mutations.
Moms, on the other hand, transmit an average of 15 new mutations
regardless of their age, the Icelandic researchers found.

And the connection with autism is... ???
... sale of stock in their DNA-sequencing company, and
... $ for U.S. grants in the pipeline for autism

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

... $ for U.S. grants in the pipeline for autism

People love to say shit like this (or better yet, that parents are seeking a diagnosis because then they get "access" to all this magical school funding that doesn't exist,) and it is completely wrong. From Autism Speaks:

National Institutes of Health Funds Allocation

•Total 2011 NIH budget: $30.5 billion
•Of this, only $169 million goes directly to autism research. This represents 0.6% of total NIH funding.

Meanwhile, private giving is a drop in the bucket as well:

Prevalence compared to Private Funding:
•Leukemia: Affects 1 in 1,200 / Funding: $277 million
•Muscular Dystrophy: Affects 1 in 100,000 / Funding: $162 million
•Pediatric AIDS: Affects 1 in 300 / Funding: $394 million
•Juvenile Diabetes: Affects 1 in 500 / Funding: $156 million
•Autism: Affects 1 in 88 / Funding: $79 million

Meanwhile, when you add up the costs of all those individuals who cannot live independently...

•Autism costs the nation $137 billion per year

But nonetheless, you are right that this study actually has very little to do with autism, because autism is primarily environmental, not genetic. See multiple quotes from the pediatric neurologist in the article. The only "connection" is that many researchers are still desperate to prove otherwise.

[Sundae]

Re Aspergers:
Tiger understands most social rules under normal circumstances.
But if you disrupt a pattern which is important to him, he will react with according distress.

That person who pushed you out of the way and took your money from the ATM? That's Tiger's version of a child that came over and took a toy to play with when he had just settled them all into a sequence. He is justified in shouting and trying to snatch it back, so to shout at him in return is just confusing. Imagine a policeman seeing the theft and making out you were in the wrong. It's not making excuses or molly-coddling, there is logic in the reaction.

All autistic people are different. The above is just an example of why an autistic child might need an advocate in school. Although educated teachers help enormously.

[Lamplighter]

People love to say shit like this
(or better yet, that parents are seeking a diagnosis because
then they get "access" to all this magical school funding
that doesn't exist,) and it is completely wrong.
From Autism Speaks:

National Institutes of Health Funds Allocation

•Total 2011 NIH budget: $30.5 billion
•Of this, only $169 million goes directly to autism research.
This represents 0.6% of total NIH funding.

Come on, Clod...
Parents don't get $ from NIH research grants, and my post did not say anything like that.

We fully realize that parents of kids with any particular disease
feel that there is never enough research on their child's disease.
Unfortunately, they try to pit one disease against another.
Of course, then the parents of all the "other diseases" feel abused
that "their" disease is not getting enough, let alone a fair share.

"Only 0.6% of total NIH funding." is great preaching to the choir
in the autism community, but it doesn't carry weight within the medical research community,
and they are the ones that determine how $ is allocated among new research proposals.

By "pipeline", I'm referring to the increase in funding of research on autism that is occurring in NIH.
Here is a quote from NIMH (NIH) that shows what is happening with funding for autism research...

NIH funding has increased markedly,
from $50 million in 2000 to $218 million (including $58 million
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) in 2010.
NIMH has invested the largest fraction of NIH funding, contributing $120 million in 2010.

I haven't looked, but I seriously doubt that any other disease
has seen such a percent increase over such a short time period,
let alone expectations of further increase in the near future.

Research funding through NIH is based on the current status
or existing progress of new findings in the research community.
That progress must be scientifically valid, not wishful thinking,
for there to be new $ allocated to grants in the coming years.

That's the main reason I question the connection between
autism and the results of the study from Iceland.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I haven't looked, but I seriously doubt that any other disease has seen such a percent increase over such a short time period, let alone expectations of further increase in the near future.

Nor has any disease seen such an incidence increase over such a short period of time, which still far outstrips the money increase.

But many people will continue believing the lie that there is tons of research money (a whole pipeline's worth, even) just flooding in trying to solve this problem. It may not be nice to pit one disease against another, but that's exactly what the NIH budget is supposed to do. You give more money to the bigger (or more expensive) problems, but that's not what's happening here. It's poor fiscal management, as demonstrated by the amount of money the country is spending on people who already have the disease.

Yes, I do get your point. I just believe it's wrong. If Icelandic researchers are looking for easy money grants, they'd be more successful looking elsewhere.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But nonetheless, you are right that this study actually has very little to do with autism, because autism is primarily environmental, not genetic. See multiple quotes from the pediatric neurologist in the article. The only "connection" is that many researchers are still desperate to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

That progress must be scientifically valid, not wishful thinking,

As someone who is interested in what is scientifically valid, and not wishful thinking, you may find this article to be of interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/op...m.html?_r=1&hp

[Lamplighter]

Yes, I had already read it and thinking about posting about it... maybe later.

It certainly does belong in this thread.

[Griff]

And really, if you spend enough time wading through the science, Dr. Parker’s idea — an ecosystem restoration project, essentially — not only fails to seem outrageous, but also seems inevitable.

Since time immemorial, a very specific community of organisms — microbes, parasites, some viruses — has aggregated to form the human superorganism. Mounds of evidence suggest that our immune system anticipates these inputs and that, when they go missing, the organism comes unhinged.

[tangent] This is a familiar pattern in modernity from agriculture through health care. I saw a TED Talk on fish farming in Spain where the "farm" was an enormous restored wetland the health of which is monitored by the health of the predatory flamingo and purity of the out-flowing water. Other fish farms feed waste proteins (mmmm... chicken parts) and pollute the water they use. The imbalance of modern life is killing us. [/tangent]

Do you know any parents going the hookworm route? I'm eating more raw/live foods and if my recent blood work is any indication my body prefers it.

[Clodfobble]

I know some who have done it, but only on national boards, not locally or in person. Which is to say, I know them about as well as I know most of the people here. I also know a couple who have done a fecal transplant themselves (without physician oversight,) for that matter, to restore an appropriate flora when diet plus full-strength probiotics and antibiotics just haven't been able to get the job done.

[Lamplighter]

As I moved through my career, one of my jobs took me into management training.
Some of this training included "role playing" exercises and small group dynamics.
Some of it was fun and silly, but I felt I learned a fair amount.
But then some of it would fit well into this thread about "faux science"

Here is an article today that intrigued me, and I'm curious how other Dwellars respond to it.

NY Times
ADAM GRANT
7/20/13

Why Men Need Women
WHAT makes some men miserly and others generous?

Here is the "experiment" that reminded me of my management training classes...
[I've snipped and re-arranged some parts to make it more readable here]

To figure out what motivates people to act generously, Professor Van Lange
and three colleagues set up a game in which more than 600 people made choices
about sharing resources with someone they didn’t know and would never meet again.
The participants chose between these basic options:

(a) You get $25 and your partner gets $10.
(b) You get $20 and your partner gets $30.

The first option is the selfish one; you’re claiming most of the resources for yourself.
The latter option is more generous as it involves sacrificing a small amount ($5)
to increase your partner’s gains by a much larger amount ($20).

The players expressed consistent preferences in each of the nine rounds they played ....

You'll have to read the article for the results...
But here is some more of the article.

In a provocative new study, the researchers Michael Dahl, Cristian Dezso and David Gaddis Ross
examined generosity and what inspires it in wealthy men.

New evidence reveals a surprising answer.
The mere presence of female family members — even infants —
can be enough to nudge men in the generous direction.

Daughters apparently soften fathers and evoke more caretaking tendencies.
The speculation is that as we brush our daughters’ hair and take them to dance classes,
we become gentler, more empathetic and more other-oriented.

There are even studies showing that American legislators with daughters vote more liberally;
this is also true of British male voters who have daughters, especially
in terms of referendum and policy choices about reproductive rights.

Is it possible that proximity to infant girls prompts greater generosity?

I found the article interesting, despite the use of Bill Gates as the lead example.

4802

[DanaC]

My bullshitometer is ringing like a mother fucker.