3 ms·

The article itself is light on details. The IU report, here: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabetes-peptide.shtml http://news.indiana.ed

by debacle 12y ago

The article itself is light on details. The IU report, here: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabetes-peptide.shtml http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabete... Is equally useless, nearly a copy/paste. The older report, here: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-wide/2013/10/dimarchi-obesity-study.shtml http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-wide/2013/10/... Makes it very clear that this is a treatment for diabetes, not a cure.

tokenadult 12y ago
Thank you for explaining the background to this eye-catching submission. Many, many submissions to HN are based at bottom on press releases, and press releases are well known for spinning preliminary research findings beyond all recognition. This has been commented on in the PhD comic "The Science News Cycle,"[1] which only exaggerates the process a very little. More serious commentary in the edited group blog post "Related by coincidence only? University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles"[2] points to the same danger of taking press releases (and news aggregator website articles based solely on press releases) too seriously. The most sure and certain finding of any preliminary study will be that more research is needed. All too often, preliminary findings don't lead to further useful discoveries in science, because the preliminary findings are flawed. The obligatory link for any discussion of a report on a research result like the one kindly submitted here is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[3] by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Check each news story you read for how many of the important issues in interpreting research are NOT discussed in the story. [1] "The Science News Cycle" http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 [2] "Related by coincidence only? University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coincidence-only-journal-press-releases-versus-journal-articles/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coi... [3] "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html P.S. The sparsity of details in the press release recycled by ScienceDaily reminds me of the many past complaints from Hacker News participants about the poor quality of ScienceDaily as a source. ScienceDaily is just a press release recycling service, nothing more. I learned from other participants here on HN that there are better sites to submit from. Comments about ScienceDaily: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992206 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992206 "Blogspam. "Original article (to which ScienceDaily has added precisely nothing): http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/abundance-of-rare-dna-changes-following-population-explosion-may-hold-common-disease-clues http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/abundance-of-rare-dn... "Underlying paper in Science (paywalled): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/05/16/science.1219240 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/05/16/science.1... "Brief writeup from Nature discussing this paper and a couple of others on similar topics: http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-variants-1.10655 http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603 "Everything I've ever seen on HN -- I don't know about Reddit -- from ScienceDaily has been a cut-and-paste copy of something else available from nearer the original source. In some cases ScienceDaily's copy is distinctly worse than the original because it lacks relevant links, enlightening pictures, etc. " . . . . if you find something there and feel like sharing it, it's pretty much always best to take ten seconds to find the original source and submit that instead of ScienceDaily."
- ggrothendieck 12y ago
  This is a bit harsh on Science Daily. In fact, Science Daily is much better than many other sites of its kind because it does consistently give its sources and provides citations as it did here.
  - tokenadult 12y ago
    I wonder if earlier comments on news aggregation sites (like Hacker News, but probably more influentially Reddit) may have changed the practices at some of the press-release recycling services. Maybe they are getting better (although I would still much better like submissions of actual independently reported journalistic stories about science here) because people have been complaining.
    - ggrothendieck 12y ago
      Over the years that I have looked at Science Daily it has always provided sources and citations. I don't think there has been any change.
pistle 12y ago
I find the terminology of 'cure' for diabetes distracting, if not confusing. My understanding is that type-2 diabetes has a genetic component and environmental component (typically obesity). You can treat the obesity and assuage the symptoms, but the genetic component/risk remains and if obesity returns, the symptoms would likely return. Since these hormones don't change the genetic risk, it is a treatment which can have lasting effects, but unless obesity is suppressed, it is no cure. Also, the symptoms can happen without obesity and this wouldn't be a cure for them, but could be a treatment. Anybody know otherwise?

by debacle 12y ago

tokenadult 12y ago

Thank you for explaining the background to this eye-catching submission. Many, many submissions to HN are based at bottom on press releases, and press releases are well known for spinning preliminary research findings beyond all recognition. This has been commented on in the PhD comic "The Science News Cycle,"[1] which only exaggerates the process a very little. More serious commentary in the edited group blog post "Related by coincidence only? University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles"[2] points to the same danger of taking press releases (and news aggregator website articles based solely on press releases) too seriously. The most sure and certain finding of any preliminary study will be that more research is needed. All too often, preliminary findings don't lead to further useful discoveries in science, because the preliminary findings are flawed. The obligatory link for any discussion of a report on a research result like the one kindly submitted here is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[3] by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Check each news story you read for how many of the important issues in interpreting research are NOT discussed in the story. [1] "The Science News Cycle" http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 [2] "Related by coincidence only? University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coincidence-only-journal-press-releases-versus-journal-articles/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coi... [3] "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html P.S. The sparsity of details in the press release recycled by ScienceDaily reminds me of the many past complaints from Hacker News participants about the poor quality of ScienceDaily as a source. ScienceDaily is just a press release recycling service, nothing more. I learned from other participants here on HN that there are better sites to submit from. Comments about ScienceDaily: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992206 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992206 "Blogspam. "Original article (to which ScienceDaily has added precisely nothing): http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/abundance-of-rare-dna-changes-following-population-explosion-may-hold-common-disease-clues http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/abundance-of-rare-dn... "Underlying paper in Science (paywalled): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/05/16/science.1219240 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/05/16/science.1... "Brief writeup from Nature discussing this paper and a couple of others on similar topics: http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-variants-1.10655 http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603 "Everything I've ever seen on HN -- I don't know about Reddit -- from ScienceDaily has been a cut-and-paste copy of something else available from nearer the original source. In some cases ScienceDaily's copy is distinctly worse than the original because it lacks relevant links, enlightening pictures, etc. " . . . . if you find something there and feel like sharing it, it's pretty much always best to take ten seconds to find the original source and submit that instead of ScienceDaily."

ggrothendieck 12y ago
This is a bit harsh on Science Daily. In fact, Science Daily is much better than many other sites of its kind because it does consistently give its sources and provides citations as it did here.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  I wonder if earlier comments on news aggregation sites (like Hacker News, but probably more influentially Reddit) may have changed the practices at some of the press-release recycling services. Maybe they are getting better (although I would still much better like submissions of actual independently reported journalistic stories about science here) because people have been complaining.
  - ggrothendieck 12y ago
    Over the years that I have looked at Science Daily it has always provided sources and citations. I don't think there has been any change.

pistle 12y ago

I find the terminology of 'cure' for diabetes distracting, if not confusing. My understanding is that type-2 diabetes has a genetic component and environmental component (typically obesity). You can treat the obesity and assuage the symptoms, but the genetic component/risk remains and if obesity returns, the symptoms would likely return. Since these hormones don't change the genetic risk, it is a treatment which can have lasting effects, but unless obesity is suppressed, it is no cure. Also, the symptoms can happen without obesity and this wouldn't be a cure for them, but could be a treatment. Anybody know otherwise?