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."
no idea. it's garbage tier.
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.
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!
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});
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.
Silicon Valley Is Replacing Libertarianism With Socialism, In Mice.
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.
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.
This isn't a joke (the original article), it shows that most 'science' is a waste of time, and much of it is fraudulent.
No it doesn't. Data is data, and information is information. It's all useful, it just means that you shouldn't place TOO much stock in any theory or observation that hasn't been independantly verified yet. It doesn't mean that the science is useless.
If "product A" is shown to cause cancer, and then later retests disagree... that doesn't mean the original test was "wrong", it means, we need to look more into the methods used. Perhaps something else caused the cancer and by studying what went wrong we can help determine something else useful. Or perhaps it was "statistical noise"- it happens. A "product A" causes cancer is a good start to reinvestigate something, even if it turns out to be false, it's a better lead than "random product" for investigation.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch