“Brainy” mice raise hope of better treatments for cognitive disorders
leeds.ac.uk
leeds.ac.uk
A sentence like this:
> For example, the “brainy mice” showed a better ability than ordinary mice to recognise another mouse that they had been introduced to the day before.
Who is the brainy mouse? Why is he meeting this other mouse? Are they meeting in a bar? At Dolores Park? Are they fighting? Are they being given a standardized state administered quiz? Can I see a picture of this Morris maze?
How am I even supposed to unpack this and why would I even care? Science communication is supposed to be a two-way street, not an unexpectant ejaculation of "data" for someone else to "comprehend", "digest", "understand". Show me what's cool about this. Show the process, the failures, the papertrail, that would be cool. The prestige of the journal, the authors multitude of titles or affiliations, and some generic stock imagery is not cool.
And for god sake, at least make the primary source accessible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_deficit_model#Defi...
[2] I'm intimate to this problem because we've created a robotic press release generator for Experiment's users. PRs serve a purpose, which is not public outreach, it's a journalist to journalist protocol.
[3] trying to solve this problem of science communication for funders - http://experiment.com/vanek
The "brainy mice" are pretty clearly the ones with the inhibited PDE4B enzyme. What is it you're mocking here, the use of the buzzwordy phrase?
> at least make the primary source available.
They give the contact information of the researcher and cite the paper, mentioning that it is available upon request. How does its open availability fall under the responsibility of the journalist?
Sure, PDE4B-inhibited mice might be less scared than cats, and sure, even if it's p-hacking I'll let that statement fly. But you know what other ways you can get mice to be less scared of cats? Brain parasites. Sleep deprivation. Probably meth or something like that. Or, I'm sure there's other genes that knock out fear. But they probably also knock out teeth.
The point is that if the goal of the outreach is understanding, it doesn't provide the tools for the context of that understanding. A link to the paper is one such tool. Infographics, video interviews, lab protocols, primary observations, and source code are all valuable tools that help achieve this goal.
Meanwhile, human investigations of identical twins brought up in separate households, including a striking recent case in Colombia of two pairs of twins in which one twin from each pair ended up with the other twin's family to be brought up,[1] continue to show that identical (monozygotic) twins tend to resemble each other more than siblings typically do, even if raised apart, but also can differ from each other in a variety of ways, including in IQ, and especially in IQ if they are not brought up in the same household. Environment always matters in human development, for every trait. That's called the Third Law of Behavior Genetics.[2]
After edit: Here is a link[3] to a description of the Morris Water Maze test, which this press release says was used in the study trumpeted to the press here. I'd like to see how the variance in performance of their study mice compares to mice used in previous studies with the water maze as a criterion variable of mouse intelligence, as there have been many, many studies like that.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/magazine/the-mixed-up-brot...
[2] http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/9/5/160.abstract
Unfortunately, the PDE4 inhibitor that they used in all the mice studies, Rolipram, causes vomiting in people in very low doses. Thus, there has been a lot of research around trying to find one that works just as well without causing vomiting. These gene tweaking studies just further confirm that these are good drug targets worth spending the lab time on to develop.
We shouldn't have submissions like this to Hacker News. Hacker News should be reserved for articles that have survived peer review (and preferably for independent journalism that comments on published, peer-reviewed articles based on interviews with scientists who didn't do the publication), and we shouldn't be discussing press releases here except to decry them.
If there were good reason to believe the gene modification were safe and the increase in mental abilities would transfer to humans: would you let your next child be modified as an experiment?
Still, I'd do it. Homo sapiens sapiens will evolve. My child is almost 3 yrs old.
I owe it to my child not put them through that because I alone have the desire to make them relatively more intelligent.
There is also evidence that stimulants can aid in concentration and learning, but I wouldn't force that on a child that didn't want to deal with the side effects.
The amazing thing is the human population is so large these days that if you look hard enough you can find people with mutant versions of any non-lethal gene. Pharmaceutical companies are just starting to make use of this to develop new drugs although it won’t really take off until everyones genome is sequenced.
1. http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/vaop/naam/abs/npp2015240a....
EDIT: Its also a great time to dump karma. But I really do think that the idea of creating superhumans, in relation to other humans, is a worthy goal indeed.
But the problem isn't just with the Nazis. The problem is with Nietzsche. The Ubermensch is superior to other humans, and can re-define morality as he (or she) sees fit. That will almost always work out badly for the other humans...
I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of Nietzsche use of the word. Yes, Nietzsche advocated defining our own values. However, this is contrasted with an alternative of allowing others to define values for us.
He felt rationality leads to values which benefit humanity as a whole. Again contrasted with Christian values which are ostensibly focused on benefiting man after death rather than in life and in practice benefit the few while victimizing the herd that follows those values thoughtlessly.
He advocated living an intensely human existence (übermensch) rather than a mindless, animal existence. And through that rising above a fixation on death ("going under") and shifting to a fixation on life ("rising over" or über). By doing so, we lead authentic lives that allow us to project our unique and individual contributions into the human experience to the benefit of all man kind.
For a practical example, think of Shakespeare, Socrates, Plato, Marie Curie, or Martin Luther King. They fought against group think, forged their own path, and projected themselves so forcefully that their ideas and creations dominate our discourse even today. And most would argue for the betterment of humanity. And they did so by being intensely authentic human beings.
He would not and, in fact, did not advocate any sense of the word as being literally superior to other human beings. He was horrified by Nazism, denounced National Socialism, and cursed anti-semitism.
Becoming übermensch is a state of being attainable by every man and woman equally. And while it is a more authentic state of being, it was not remotely indicative of a social caste or order. I think Nietzsche would say every great moral or intellectual advancement mankind has had stemmed from men and women who defined their own values, pursued them intensely, and projected those values into society.
> He felt rationality leads to values which benefit humanity as a whole.
Other philosophers would disagree. de Sade, for example. (Yes, he was a philosopher, and his writings and actions were an expression of his philosophy.) And even human history seems to show that Nietzsche was overly optimistic on human nature on this point.
In "The Abolition of Man", C. S. Lewis argues that rationality, by itself, can never give real values. That can only come from "practical reason", not mere reason, because it has to tie reason to values and emotions. (I'm not stating it well - go read Lewis. It's really short, only a hundred pages or so, and very readable, though it does take some thought.)
Everyone is -- unalterably -- defining their own values, and quite often those doing so consciously are doing so quite selfishly, sure. Those doing it unconsciously are often just defining their own values by uncritically internalizing some (possibly distorted and misunderstood) set of values that someone else defined (either selfishly or not.)
> Once you remove morality, then you have nothing to give any positive direction to your values, because you have no basis for defining what "positive" means, other than your own feelings and thoughts.
Arguably, "morality" is just a label for your own feelings and thoughts about what is positive and negative, and recognizing that is the first step in thinking about morality on something beyond a cargo cult level.
No, that's not morality, at least not the feelings part - more like the opposite, in fact. Morality is what I believe is right or wrong, especially when it goes against my feelings.
There are only two options: define morality for yourself, and own it completely, or allow someone else to define it for you.
Morality is a construct that stems solely from man. What Nietzsche condemns is accepting the morality of others like sheep instead of critically. You cannot own a moral construct until you have fully evaluated that construct and accepted its consequences yourself.
Further, he claimed that a morality based on what happens after you die is bereft of any real meaning. He advocated a morality rooted in the human condition and defined by its relation to humanity, not its relation to dead gods as defined by moral potentates.
While it was coopted by the Nazis, the meaning as conveyed by Nazis was very different from how Nietzsche used it.
The Nazis felt that they were the Übermensch. It wasn't something to achieve or become. They also thought of it in racial terms, whereas Nietzsche's formulation couldn't be further from something as shallow as race.
Nietzsche was also a staunch and very vocal critic of National Socialism and anti-semitism.
To be critical of the OP, though, he does seem to refer to the concept of Übermensch as meaning "superior man" which is closer to the shallow interpretation of the Nazis rather than the way that Nietzsche used it. He clearly intended it as meaning "intensely human" or "over man" where 'over' is a spacial pun on life's position with reference to death. And presented it as a contrast to Christians who are obsessed with what happens after we stop being human in the after life.
Anyway, as an admirer of Nietzsche's writings I felt compelled to add context as Übermensch is not Nazi terminology and I would hope that's not how he intended its use.
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/fear-fearless-bra... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201012/the...
While on the one hand, there may be cases where a lack of fear may be beneficial (and for some people, fear may be debilitating--for example, for those suffering from PTSD)--it can often act as a useful check on dangerous impulses. So, while I'm excited by the positive potentials here, I think that one has to be aware of the potential downsides.