Slashdot Mirror
Fake Mouse On Twitter Mocks Overgeneralized Scientific Research (twitter.com)
DevNull127 writes: Research scientist James Heathers is a postdoctoral research associate working on bio-signals and meta-science research at Northeastern University, with a PhD from the University of Sydney. He's also pretending to be a mouse on Twitter. And every tweet consists of the exact same two words...
Heathers retweets articles about scientific studies — usually articles with glossy photos and enticing headlines like "Exercise during pregnancy protects children from obesity, study finds." His tweets add the two crucial missing words. "In mice."
In this case a doctoral student at Washington State University measured a specific protein's level in the offspring of mice that performed 60 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise every morning during pregnancy — and in regular mice. On the basis of that he recommended "that women — whether or not they are obese or have diabetes — exercise regularly during pregnancy because it benefits their children's metabolic health."
The name of the Twitter feed: JustSaysInMice.
Other mouse-based studies turning up on the Twitter feed:
Heathers retweets articles about scientific studies — usually articles with glossy photos and enticing headlines like "Exercise during pregnancy protects children from obesity, study finds." His tweets add the two crucial missing words. "In mice."
In this case a doctoral student at Washington State University measured a specific protein's level in the offspring of mice that performed 60 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise every morning during pregnancy — and in regular mice. On the basis of that he recommended "that women — whether or not they are obese or have diabetes — exercise regularly during pregnancy because it benefits their children's metabolic health."
The name of the Twitter feed: JustSaysInMice.
Other mouse-based studies turning up on the Twitter feed:
- How Fatty Diets Stop the Brain From Saying 'No' To Food
- Reused Cooking Oil Ups Risk of Metastases In Breast Cancer Patients
- Keto Diet Not Effective, Causes Blood Sugar Problems In Women
- Growth Hormone Acts To Foil Weight Loss: Study
When you read those headlines, just remember to add those two words...
"In mice."
Is this abortion of an article?
Clearly it's astroturfing, but wow they paid too much to the wrong people.
no idea. it's garbage tier.
Clearly it's AstroTurfing, but wow they paid too much to the wrong people.
Obligatory Fortune Cookie based version.
Reminds me of the fortune cookie game where you say "in bed" at the end.
Just another day in Paradise
Everything has to be spectacular and groundbreaking and changing everything. Here is news: Most research is incremental or not directly applicable and the rest is almost never groundbreaking. Deal with it. This is a slow process and over-hyping results is a huge disservice to all of humanity.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
might as well go for a bible nobody dies nobody cries
What I want to know is if this academic will dare to question climate 'science' and climate 'scientists'.
Will he point out how it's scientifically questionable to use 'adjusted' data to come to conclusions, for example?
Will he call out the many past climate 'science' predictions that didn't just fail to materialize, but that were totally wrong?
Will he address how left-wing politicians use climate 'science' as a tool to manipulate gullible and fearful left-wing populaces?
Or will he just play it safe and ignore how climate 'science' is shaping up as being one of the biggest debacles in the history of science?
... in mice.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
In the era of millennial 'science', that is truly awesome and epic, even if his intent were to the contrary (and if it was, I hope his entitlement-driven meltdown is equally epic). Pretty much all millennial science could be summed up euphemistically and thusly. Bravo.
Science *reporting*. The science is fine, some of it is really cool, but science reporters need to be given a pair of concrete shoes.
That sounds like a good argument for burning a bible then, instead of a Koran.
... in mice ... who were in the BBQ pit with the Bible.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I need some clarification: is "DevNull127", the submitter of this very odd /. submission, an account used by the "James Heathers" individual mentioned in the summary as running the Twitter account being focused on? Is this a case of him trying to bring attention to his own Twitter account?
The real problem here is that scientists and academics resort to way too much fancy gibberish. Instead of explaining concepts that are actually quite simple by using straightforward language, they instead resort to overly-technical terminology derived from little-known languages like Latin and Ancient Greek.
From what I understand, 99% of the mice experiments findings and results also apply to humans because our DNA is so similar. Is this wrong? How often does something affect mice differently than humans?
When I was in university decades ago, the headline then was, "study concludes laboratory research causes cancer in mice".
The root of the strory coming from paper after paper purporting consuming one thingbor anotber caused cancer. No, silly! It's the research, the lab lighting, the little cages and poking and proding that is giving mice cancer, not what they are consuming.
Nice to see the internet finally caught up and updated the joke for a new generation!
And remember, the belief in God is not backed by any evidence
I assume you mean evidence which, by today's standards, would be considered scientific. I've seen plenty of 21st-century evidence of God's existence that I consider reliable, but because it is not scientific, it is unreasonable for me to expect those who demand only scientific evidence to accept it, so I don't bother trying.
the historical record shows that its a creation of man. Superstitious nonsense.
I know enough about history to know that historical records, particularly those more than a few hundred years ago, are spotty. I also know that they can be un-reliable: Those who win military or philosophical or cultural wars are the ones that write the history books. If you had said "the historical record strongly sugguests..." instead of "shows..." or "historical evidence which is generally considered to be reliable enough on this matter shows..." and you said "the God desribed in [insert particular holy book here]" instead of just "God," then I would at least be willing to listen to evidence to support your claim (evidence you did not provide, by the way). When you say it "[definitively] shows..." then that's basically a faith statement, which is kind of ironic given your claim that God is made-up by man.
And what kills me is that 40% of scientists believe in God. Completely irrational. So much for the theory that science education makes one more rational or logical.
I think the number is a lot higher than that, expecially among the "hard" sciences. I'm just speculating here, but perhaps like me they have seen reliable non-scientific evidence which has led to their personal belief (aka "world view") but, like me, they know the evidence is not scientific.
---
By the way, there are scientists who are trying to use scientific principles to prove this-or-that religion. Some are total shams. Some are well-meaning scientists who are blinded by their faith and don't see that they are not really applying scientific methodology. Others are actually using scientific methodologies. As far as I know, the latter group is having some success in proving certain historical events written about in this-or-that holy book are either likely or at least plausible, but AFAIK none has ever come close to scientificly proving the existence of God.
Likewise, I have never seen - and do not ever expect to see - any scientific proof that there is not an intelligent, omnicient, onmipresent, omnipotent entity that created the universe and still exists today.
In short, to make a scientific claim that such an entity ("God" - not just the specific God of any specific holy book) does not exist is not a scientific claim at all - it is a statement of faith masquerading as science.
--
Personally, I do believe in the God of Genesis. I also beleive that this same God interacts with people today. But I do not expect anyone reading this to believe in this God based on anything I say here on Slashdot. The best I can hope for is that, if they know me personally, they will come to know that I am sincere in my beliefs, and that these beliefs affect who I am and the decisions I make, for the better for myself and for those around me.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Climate scientists don't typically use mouse models if that's what you were asking.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Millennials tend to have a severe aversion to criticism of any kind, no matter how minor or how true it is. Anyone who has worked with Millennials will know this all too well.
Software code reviews with Millennials are particularly terrible. If you find a bug in their code, it's not unheard of for adult male Ruby or JavaScript programmers in their late 20s to start crying (literally with tears and whimpering) and flee the code review session because their feelings have been 'hurt'.
This total aversion to criticism is a big problem when it comes to science, because criticism and questioning theories are what science is all about. By definition, you can't be doing science if you aren't subjecting all theories and observations to the highest degree of criticism possible.
Most Millennials just can't do real science because they're so afraid of giving and especially receiving criticism. Millennial traits and ideology are wholly incompatible with the scientific method.
True, mice are not humans. At least with mice, you can control the environment. You can even examine the exact physical effects. Mice also grow up faster and can be bred to exhibit symptoms faster, so a human can observe them throughout the experiments.
Compare this with "we found statistically significant correlation between X and Y (over 20-40 years) across 20 people". This is what most published medical science amounts to these days. Absolute bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Also, nearly impossible to reproduce, because it's bullshit.
I'm still trying to figure out why some black people smell like shit. Also why do they walk so slow but run so fast?
You donâ(TM)t need scientific proof. You canâ(TM)t prove that Jesus isnâ(TM)t the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either.
Thatâ(TM)s equally ridiculous as the Christian fairy tale
That is the dumbest thing Iâ(TM)ve read all day.
Wondering if youâ(TM)re a bible thumper or an anti-vaxxer.
Have gnu, will travel.
Fuck science
I think the subject of pro-creaton and attempted pro-creation has been heavily studied and published in reliable, peer-reviewed journals.
No. Itâ(TM)s science. Look up the Replication Crisis.
You can't prove that Jesus isn't the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either.
In principle, you could. Unfortunately the evidence of the FSM's sterilization at the hands of the Great Pasta Fork prior to reaching puberty has been lost to time.
Oh, I fixed your quotation marks for you.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
.
Their reaction to my emails that include scans of stuff from the '40s or '50s is often quite interesting. It often goes well past what they think they've discovered and was not adopted for any number of practical reasons the new guys haven't addressed, willfully or otherwise - they might just be dumb.
It also desensitizes people to truly important things. I feel that there would be a lot less backlash to things like climate change if they weren't force fed bullshit nonstop. Thanks in large part to useless science reporting, people believe that science is indecisive and incompetent. I still remembering wtf'ing about the back and forth "eggs are good" "eggs are bad" a couple decades ago.
IMO a reporter needs to have taken courses in stats and spend time doing actual research before being allowed to report it.
Have to get that grant money somehow. See you have 9 boring applicants and 1 applicant whose grant request stands out and is filled with empty buzzwords.
As a corrupt bureaucrat who works in 'grant approval' and only cares about preserving his position which report will you choose?
Remember - we like shiny things that show our dear scientist is 'passionate about his/her work'. Can't have boring scientists around can we?
People could see it and think - wtf are they wasting my money on - buzzwords are a guarantee they will more likely embrace the work as important.
'Humanity' is fucking dumb. Deal with it. :)
Ruby and Javascript programmers are mostly transmen, that's why they cry at the drop of a hat. No one with actual testiscles works with that bullshit. All the male-to-female trannies work at Google and Apple on real-serious-stuff.
IMO a reporter needs to have taken courses in stats and spend time doing actual research before being allowed to report it.
If they had the ability to do real research, they would not be reporters.
At best journalists with PhD experience are third string or burnt out.
AC's feelings don't care about your facts.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
I heard him today afternoon on NPR (WABE-Atlanta). Here is a transcript of his show. I think he more than just a few tweets. He actively tries to help identify scientific papers that have errors or outright falsehoods.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/17/695536889/volunteers-fight-bad-science
Silicon Valley Is Replacing Libertarianism With Socialism, In Mice.
Indeed. When everything is hyped, even scientists have a hard time separating hype from fact. It becomes excessively tiresome.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The last common ancestor between humans and mice lived 75 million years ago. As a comparison, the last common ancestor between cows and orcas lived 50 million years ago, but nobody would think it would be a good idea to use cow studies to determine what's best for an orca.
Scientific studies have linked internet cancer inversely to Slashdot article quality. Needless to say, there is now so much internet cancer that it has roused the body of the late Senator Ted Stevens, may he rest in a series of tubes. The Senator's skull was heard saying "chomp chomp chomp" which roughly translates to "cancerous computer plumbing."
Translation: I have no actual rebuttal
Wow! 25+ words just to say "No".
It's ok, I've already started a twitter for climate scientists. After every paper, I append, "on earth." "Glaciers melting" on earth. "Oceans rising" on earth. I'm just sick of these ETs getting too hyperbolic misinterpreting the material on their own planet, the heliocentric fools.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...replicated...
https://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated
This isn't a joke (the original article), it shows that most 'science' is a waste of time, and much of it is fraudulent.
You don't need to be a researcher in order to read the effing paper beyond headline before you write a news article about it. And you don't have to be a researcher in order to not make shit up that the original paper doesn't actually include.
Those are apostrophes, not quotation marks.
But they DO use mice ... On computers
When you read those headlines, just remember to add those two words...
"In mice."
So, is this like the new fortune cookie rule? If anyone is still unfamiliar with the fortune cookie rule, you're supposed to add ", in bed" to the end of your fortune.
Now for any research article we're supposed to add ", in Mice" to the end.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
over-hyping results is a huge disservice to all of humanity.
Sure it is.
Now convince those profiting the most from over-hyping bullshit of this.
Good luck. You would stand a greater chance convincing Kim Kardashian that obscene narcissism is a bad thing.
Single quotes, you insensitive clod!
Nope. Academia is set up to produce *lots* of competent scientists, mostly because grad students and postdocs are cheap, highly skilled labor. About 1% of those get a faculty job somewhere. Some others marry someone with a good enough job that they can entertain their academic habit as a research associate or equivalent. Most of the rest head off to industry, often doing things that are tangentially, or not at all related to their training. But quite a few try to become science popularizers, writing blogs, making YouTube videos, etc. Hire some of them as your science journalists.
When everything is hyped, even scientists have a hard time separating hype from fact. It becomes excessively tiresome, in mice
FTFY
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Can you perform research studies on mice orcan you perform research studies on cows?
Thank you, tip your waiters! I'll be here all week!
Well off to get more coffee took me too long to realize you said Koran and not Korean.