5 ms·
> Researchers will track how various factors — including diet, sleep patterns, gender, race, economic circumstance, air quality, and exercise habits, as well as
by klagermkii 10y ago
> Researchers will track how various factors — including diet, sleep patterns, gender, race, economic circumstance, air quality, and exercise habits, as well as substance use — correlate with changes in the subjects’ brain scans over the years.
> "How cool will it be if we can collect data on 9- and 10-year-olds that will help predict how all young people will function in later life?" asks Garavan. "This is the sort of information that will truly help people parent, and legislate, and educate, and live healthy lives."
I'm not as enthusiastic about that future as Garavan is, and especially not the idea that it could shape legislation in any kind of significant way. Doubly so if it's going to be done via statistical models and correlation, rather than a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- srtjstjsj 10y agoOh it could shape legislation: "low-functioning" children would be kicked out of school, watched closely and sent to jail for their "anti-social" tendencies, while "high-functioning" children will get expensive education, and their mishaps forgiven.
- dpark 10y agoI hate this cynical "they're trying to get us" view on politics and laws. Yes, there's potential for misuse of data. There's also the potential for correct use of data. It took scientific data to get leaded gasoline banned. Opposing scientific studies because they could be misused is no better than opposing scientific studies because they might not support your views. Both cases are fundamentally anti-science and there are no bonus points for trying. If you support science, then you support it. If you oppose science when it might not yield the results you want, then you are anti-science and have no place in a progressive society.