6 ms·

Toxoplasmosis is an extremely interesting parasite. I wouldn't be surprised if it is recognized as an important public health issue in the coming decade. Is ha

by lima 9y ago

Toxoplasmosis is an extremely interesting parasite. I wouldn't be surprised if it is recognized as an important public health issue in the coming decade. Is has been linked to all sorts of disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Prof. Jaroslav Flegr contributed many important studies, especially in the early stages of toxoplasmosis research [1]. He was also featured by an Atlantic article, which was one of the first to bring public attention to the field of research [2]. One particularly interesting finding is how it interacts with the RH factor. It might explain the relative stability of the distribution of the two types in the population even though one of them should have a serious disadvantage (birth complications) [3]. The hard question is how to prevent it. Due to how many different infection vectors there are, the only sound pieces of advice are "eat your meat well done" and "avoid getting in contact with garden soil". Development of a vaccine for cats is a promising solution since the parasite can only be transmitted by cats. [1]: https://web.natur.cuni.cz/flegr/publ.php https://web.natur.cuni.cz/flegr/publ.php [2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/308873/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-you... [3]: https://web.natur.cuni.cz/flegr/pdf/rhWho.pdf https://web.natur.cuni.cz/flegr/pdf/rhWho.pdf

sillysaurus3 9y ago
After learning about the perverse incentives for publishing scientific papers, I find it extremely difficult to trust new research. Any tips for reversing this mindset? I know it's not too great to be feeling this way. Scientists have immense incentives for publishing new results. As someone quipped, "there is no cost in getting something wrong; the cost is not being published." Toxoplasmosis in particular seems intuitively like the perfect combination of new research plus massive prestige for whoever publishes papers on the topic. And we can't trust articles written on the topic either; they do little more than parrot whatever the scientists say, and don't really cast a critical eye on the methodology or findings. Which makes sense. I mean, how could they? None of us are experts the way a scientist is an expert. But it used to be a hobby of mine to dig through research papers and find subtle inconsistencies. Take fatal familial insomnia, for example. It's not fatal due to the insomnia. That's a misnomer. But the fact that it wasn't related to the insomnia was buried on the 7th page of the report as basically a footnote. I don't know. I just wish it were easier to take a lot of this at face value.
- theprotocol 9y ago
  I share your concerns, yet can't think of a solution. I think the only thing that can be done is to factor in a large amount of doubt, and amortize that doubt as more definitive studies come in over time.
- autokad 9y ago
  the biggest problem is the reliance on linear models and their interpretations. its easy to have something statistically significant but yet produce a shitty prediction. they then take this horrible model and use its coefficients to make ridiculous claims, like doing X makes you Y times more likely to Z. thats great for a business wanting to find ways to make money, but when this crap gets in the government level these crappy models are used to legislate us.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"After learning about the perverse incentives for publishing scientific papers ..." Can you be more specific, what was the source or your learning? Was there a particular piece or pieces you read? If so would you be able to share them?
- DanBC 9y ago
  > I find it extremely difficult to trust new research. Any tips for reversing this mindset? I know it's not too great to be feeling this way. Why is it not great to feel this way? You give a bunch of good reasons why it is okay to feel as you do. In general you should ignore any new research until it's had a large well run meta-analysis of it. Until then, it's all "we think" and "maybe". And that's ok, unless you're forcing people to take a treatment or depriving them of their liberty based on the research.
- epistasis 9y ago
  >Toxoplasmosis in particular seems intuitively like the perfect combination of new research plus massive prestige for whoever publishes papers on the topic Eh, not really much prestige, but perhaps lots of press. The big thing is to not take any single paper as "scientific truth" like what you read in a textbook. The scientific literature is not a textbook, it's the place where science's self-correction happens. Things in text books have been battle-tested, and widely accepted usually due to replication. And even then, textbooks have errors and perpetuate some falsehoods! Any individual scientific paper will not even likely be replicated, because it's working on something that did not turn out to be fundamental to the path of science. Scientific papers in the literature are how scientists share their small steps while exploring the n-dimensional world. That n is very high, so there are lots of directions to explore, and most of them will not be that interesting. If it is, somebody else may decide to take a look too. If it's a hot-topic, then many many people will. Scientists have to operate in a world where they are exploring what is and is not true, and their relationship with uncertainty is strong; it's absolutely essential to embrace uncertainty. The biggest thing is to distrust news reporting about science. It's correct about 1% of the time. The motivations of a reporter trying to somehow make an interesting article by deadline on a topic they don't understand are far more distorted than the scientists publishing a paper they expect 30-50 people to ever read. And that's if you actually get a real reporter to look at these things; most articles are just press releases that are cut and pasted from a university press lackey into the newspaper's publishing system. Those are usually even worse.
tr1ck5t3r 9y ago
Its a biological weapon thats been in used since Ancient Egyptian times considering their worshiping of cats. One of thing, freeze your meat, and whilst theres very few reliable tests, most people can self diagnose by looking for floaters in their vision. In males in causes and increase in testsotorone and thus dominant aggressive risk taking behaviour, in women it causes the opposite, shy, timid, risk averse behaviour. In a way, its probably got its own survival strategy sorted when looking at the procreation habits of its hosts, but so little is known.

by lima 9y ago

sillysaurus3 9y ago

After learning about the perverse incentives for publishing scientific papers, I find it extremely difficult to trust new research. Any tips for reversing this mindset? I know it's not too great to be feeling this way. Scientists have immense incentives for publishing new results. As someone quipped, "there is no cost in getting something wrong; the cost is not being published." Toxoplasmosis in particular seems intuitively like the perfect combination of new research plus massive prestige for whoever publishes papers on the topic. And we can't trust articles written on the topic either; they do little more than parrot whatever the scientists say, and don't really cast a critical eye on the methodology or findings. Which makes sense. I mean, how could they? None of us are experts the way a scientist is an expert. But it used to be a hobby of mine to dig through research papers and find subtle inconsistencies. Take fatal familial insomnia, for example. It's not fatal due to the insomnia. That's a misnomer. But the fact that it wasn't related to the insomnia was buried on the 7th page of the report as basically a footnote. I don't know. I just wish it were easier to take a lot of this at face value.

theprotocol 9y ago
I share your concerns, yet can't think of a solution. I think the only thing that can be done is to factor in a large amount of doubt, and amortize that doubt as more definitive studies come in over time.
autokad 9y ago
the biggest problem is the reliance on linear models and their interpretations. its easy to have something statistically significant but yet produce a shitty prediction. they then take this horrible model and use its coefficients to make ridiculous claims, like doing X makes you Y times more likely to Z. thats great for a business wanting to find ways to make money, but when this crap gets in the government level these crappy models are used to legislate us.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"After learning about the perverse incentives for publishing scientific papers ..." Can you be more specific, what was the source or your learning? Was there a particular piece or pieces you read? If so would you be able to share them?
DanBC 9y ago
> I find it extremely difficult to trust new research. Any tips for reversing this mindset? I know it's not too great to be feeling this way. Why is it not great to feel this way? You give a bunch of good reasons why it is okay to feel as you do. In general you should ignore any new research until it's had a large well run meta-analysis of it. Until then, it's all "we think" and "maybe". And that's ok, unless you're forcing people to take a treatment or depriving them of their liberty based on the research.
epistasis 9y ago
>Toxoplasmosis in particular seems intuitively like the perfect combination of new research plus massive prestige for whoever publishes papers on the topic Eh, not really much prestige, but perhaps lots of press. The big thing is to not take any single paper as "scientific truth" like what you read in a textbook. The scientific literature is not a textbook, it's the place where science's self-correction happens. Things in text books have been battle-tested, and widely accepted usually due to replication. And even then, textbooks have errors and perpetuate some falsehoods! Any individual scientific paper will not even likely be replicated, because it's working on something that did not turn out to be fundamental to the path of science. Scientific papers in the literature are how scientists share their small steps while exploring the n-dimensional world. That n is very high, so there are lots of directions to explore, and most of them will not be that interesting. If it is, somebody else may decide to take a look too. If it's a hot-topic, then many many people will. Scientists have to operate in a world where they are exploring what is and is not true, and their relationship with uncertainty is strong; it's absolutely essential to embrace uncertainty. The biggest thing is to distrust news reporting about science. It's correct about 1% of the time. The motivations of a reporter trying to somehow make an interesting article by deadline on a topic they don't understand are far more distorted than the scientists publishing a paper they expect 30-50 people to ever read. And that's if you actually get a real reporter to look at these things; most articles are just press releases that are cut and pasted from a university press lackey into the newspaper's publishing system. Those are usually even worse.

tr1ck5t3r 9y ago

Its a biological weapon thats been in used since Ancient Egyptian times considering their worshiping of cats. One of thing, freeze your meat, and whilst theres very few reliable tests, most people can self diagnose by looking for floaters in their vision. In males in causes and increase in testsotorone and thus dominant aggressive risk taking behaviour, in women it causes the opposite, shy, timid, risk averse behaviour. In a way, its probably got its own survival strategy sorted when looking at the procreation habits of its hosts, but so little is known.