A Discussion on Science Denialism (THIS Thursday 9/22/11)

VIP Access for Students: A Discussion with Michael Specter and Michael Osterholm on Science Denialism

3:30-4:15 p.m., Sept. 22, Mayo 3-125

Don't miss this unique opportunity to talk about the public health implications surrounding the growing mistrust among people around the world of science and its byproducts. Faculty and staff are asked to encourage students to attend.

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=216652125058578

Broad Impacts Fall Schedule!

Broad Impacts is ready for the new semester and raring to go!

We start our jam-packed Fall program with a very special guest. On Wednesday September 21st, Dr. Kathie Olsen, a former deputy director of the National Science Foundation, will give the Graduate Program in Neuroscience colloquium on "Understanding Science Policy" (12pm, 2-137 Jackson Hall). Then, at 3:30pm, she will lead a Broad Impacts discussion about the challenges faced by women in science, which will be held in MCB 2-120. Please join us to talk about this very important issue that affects all scientists! Happy hour will follow at Kitty Kat Club.

Here is the full Broad Impacts schedule. You will notice that all but the first session are on Thursday afternoons. Also, we have scheduled two "Policy and Pints" happy hours, which will be fun opportunities for the group to casually get together over drinks and talk current policy events.

>Wed Sept 21st, 3:30-5, MCB 2-120. Topic: Women in Science, led by Dr. Kathie Olsen
>Thurs Oct 6th, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Policy Implications of Do-It-Yourself Bioscience, led by Rachel Penrod
>Thurs Oct 20th, 5-7pm, Kitty Kat Club. Policy and Pints Happy Hour, led by Eric Miller
>Thurs Nov 3rd, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Scientific Misconduct, led by Dr. Melissa Anderson, Professor of Higher Education
>Thurs Nov 17th, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic TBD, led by Marian Rodriguez
>Thurs Dec 1st, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Ethics and Policies of Animal Research, led by Dr. Ben Clark, faculty liaison for IACUC
>Thurs Dec 15th, 5-7pm, Republic. Policy and Pints Happy Hour, led by Tess Kornfield

It's going to be a wonderful semester! We hope to see you there!

Diagnosing Mental Health Disorders

This is a guest post from Paul, a graduate student in neuroscience. Enjoy!

A new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is in the works and will be ready for publication in 2013. The DSM is used by mental health professional primarily in the United States to diagnose patients with mental health disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and depression. Dr. John Sorboro, a psychiatrist, wrote an article for Skeptic Magazine¹ questioning the need for a new DSM (the DSM V) while criticizing the current one (the DSM IV-TR). His problems with the DSM are many, and he uses some analogies to incite a reaction, even if negative (e.g., comparing the DSM to the ‘Malleus Maleficarum’ aka ‘The Hammer of Witches’), but he does also make some valid points. In my opinion, the most important problem he points out is that there is an issue with a manual that uses strictly symptomology (most of it revealed subjectively) to diagnose a disorder, which is how the DSM works. Here’s his basic argument. Psychiatric disorders are constructs, models based on observations that fit a specific theoretical framework. In psychiatry, the Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) construct is defined by its symptoms² (shown below):

Must have at least 5 of these symptoms for at least two weeks:

• Depressed mood for the majority of the day on most day
• Loss of interest in most activities (otherwise known as adhedonia)
• Insomnia or hypersomnia
• Decreased concentration
• Increased fatigue or decreased energy for the majority of the day on most days
• Feelings of worthlessness
• Psychomotor agitation or retardation
• Suicidal ideation

Get Involved in Science Policy

I came across this succinct and very well-written plea to non-scientists to get involved in science policy. Science policy is important, both for scientists and non-scientists. In the recent Broad Impacts sessions we've been talking about a scientist's responsibility to accurately communicate his or her work to the public, but non-scientists are largely capable of understanding science and the policy implications of scientific research without being spoonfed blurbs and headlines. Creating a well-informed populace requires effort from both scientists and non-scientists.

Read the short article here.

Recap of Last Thursday's Session

Last Thursday (August 4th) we had a great discussion on the obstacles to accurately communicating science to the public and lawmakers. A lot of good points came up. To name a couple: 

1. It would be a good idea to train researchers in media communication. The University has an office dedicated to this, but many of the career development classes in our graduate programs do not feature a session. Perhaps in a future Broad Impacts session we can invite the Media Office. 

2. The realities of science need to be taught to high school students. Many non-scientists do not understand how long and arduous scientific discovery can be. Furthermore, they can begin to distrust researchers when new explanations for diseases are developed every year. The constantly evolving and self-correcting nature of science should be better emphasized.

If you have other points from our discussion, please post them in a comment for those who could not make the discussion last Thursday. The presentation is available for viewing here, for those of you who couldn't make it. Also, here is the presentation from the first Broad Impacts session. 

We hope to see you at the next session!

Pop Culture: Science Run Amok!

Our discussion last week centered on the communication of science to the public and to lawmakers. It is clear that there are many obstacles to creating an scientifically informed populace. However, what we didn't consider in our discussion is how movies and television represent science. In a recent post over at ScienceProgress.org (a great site for science policy news), author Jonathan D. Moreno writes about Hollywood's portrayal of scientific discovery leading to terrifying doomsday scenarios, particularly focusing on the new film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes".

Read the article here!

Maybe another barrier to the public acceptance and understanding of scientific progress is that the public resists if the research is too futuristic/creepy/engendering-of-word-destruction. For example: cloning? What if someone makes a clone army! Transgenic animals? What if a rogue scientist creates glowing people with four arms and aggressive tendencies! Gene therapy? What if the virus mutates and leads to a zombie apocalypse!

Perhaps it is the job of the scientist to ease the public's worry about these scenarios. For example, each episode of The Walking Dead could lead with a disclaimer: "9 out of 10 scientists agree that there is only a 0.5% chance of a zombie apocalypse occurring within the next 50 years."

Discussion question: do scientists really have it all under control?

HealthNewsReviews

At last Thursday's discussion Mary Butler mentioned a blog that fact-checks popular media news stories on new developments in Health Science. http://www.healthnewsreview.or​g/blog/ is the URL. I encourage you to check out the cartoon about science (from the Electron Cafe blog) as it is relevant to our last discussion and funny!