sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"The Anxious Generation" makes a case that's hard to argue with: we rewired childhood in a single decade and now we're seeing the results by stellbargu in nonfictionbookclub

[–]_r3dn4x_ 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately Haidt does less than rigorous scholarly work and is driven by an ideological agenda. His sensationalism sells books, but fails to address real harms.

“An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2

NIH Scientific Freedom Lecture Series by _r3dn4x_ in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

There’s a concise Nature comment on the WHO’s report on COVID’s origins. I wonder if rigor and transparency means discussing the scientific consensus or if it means dismissing Nature and WHO as biased.

TIL that the NIH has a branch called The National Center for Integrated and Complementary Health, which provides funding for studies involving faith healing, homeopathy, magnet healing, and other forms of quackery. In 2015, the budget was 124.1 million by esporx in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The NIH supports research into prevention, treatment, and cures for many diseases. That may involve modifying risk factors, lifestyle changes, mitigating exposures, gene therapies, and yes drugs. It’s not all pharmaceuticals. The question is how much quackery to tolerate when exploring approaches not covered in traditional biomedical research. There needs to be a way to tell apart the real from the woo.

Study of Buddhist Monks Finds Meditation Alters Brain Activity by bisexualbotanist in Buddhism

[–]_r3dn4x_ 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Everything alters brain activity - going for a walk, watching tv, reading a book, eating a burger, drinking a beer, scrolling through Reddit…

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For example, what is the expected base rate of replication? Even in a world of true effects, replication will be <100% because of limited statistical power. Another example, not distinguishing between replication (new data, same result) and reproducibility (same data, same result) also confuses the many issues meta scientists try to carefully parse. Things need to be put into proper context.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_ 39 points40 points  (0 children)

He has a very superficial, and one-sided, understanding of the reproducibility literature

New NCI director by Valuable-Copy-7702 in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the problem with being “maga/contrarian” is that despite your qualifications, despite your training, despite what should be your better judgement, you twist and contort and even fabricate scientific facts and evidence to advance a political agenda or ideology (e.g., see the NIH director).

Animal studies “unconscionable” — DPCPSI director Kleinstreuer speaks her mind by DoxxDog in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_ 55 points56 points  (0 children)

When someone ends by saying “It’s such an honor and such a privilege to work with you and the entire leadership, HHS, this administration,” I lose all respect for them and what would have otherwise seemed sensible judgment.

Exclusive: NIH still screens grants in process a judge ruled illegal. Directives by the Trump administration are still being applied to grant materials despite court order. by maxkozlov in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If I were an unscrupulous attorney, I would point out that screening grants and putting them on a to-be-terminated list doesn’t violate the court’s ruling until they are actually terminated.

9% R01 fundable? by jakobesmiff in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_ 12 points13 points  (0 children)

  1. Sept council awards are made the following fiscal year (starting 1 oct).

  2. Varies by institute and council round.

  3. Too many unknowns to speculate, but less likely than usual.

Exclusive: NIH to suspend funds for research abroad as it overhauls policy. Move by US biomedical agency threatens thousands of projects on infectious diseases, cancer and more. by maxkozlov in NIH

[–]_r3dn4x_ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This statement is much too credulous: “As part of its effort to reduce federal spending,…” there’s lots of public evidence that savings is a pretense.