A couple of neat things I discovered this week:
Just judging by the name, you might think that ScienceWatch was one of those tedious attack sites going under the guise of "watches" (naming no names). But it's actually about "tracking trends and performance in basic research". By analysing citation data and so forth, they claim to be able to identify "hot papers" and, more interesting, hot "fronts" or themes in research. It's a commercial enterprise, but a lot of the material is free. They just mapped out the hot topics in current OCD research (although the results were hardly surprising).
Then there's Pology Magazine, which is a travel magazine, but with an anthropological/social science approach - and lots of extremely pretty pictures. It's well worth a visit.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
A Couple of Links
A couple of neat things I discovered this week:
Just judging by the name, you might think that ScienceWatch was one of those tedious attack sites going under the guise of "watches" (naming no names). But it's actually about "tracking trends and performance in basic research". By analysing citation data and so forth, they claim to be able to identify "hot papers" and, more interesting, hot "fronts" or themes in research. It's a commercial enterprise, but a lot of the material is free. They just mapped out the hot topics in current OCD research (although the results were hardly surprising).
Then there's Pology Magazine, which is a travel magazine, but with an anthropological/social science approach - and lots of extremely pretty pictures. It's well worth a visit.
Just judging by the name, you might think that ScienceWatch was one of those tedious attack sites going under the guise of "watches" (naming no names). But it's actually about "tracking trends and performance in basic research". By analysing citation data and so forth, they claim to be able to identify "hot papers" and, more interesting, hot "fronts" or themes in research. It's a commercial enterprise, but a lot of the material is free. They just mapped out the hot topics in current OCD research (although the results were hardly surprising).
Then there's Pology Magazine, which is a travel magazine, but with an anthropological/social science approach - and lots of extremely pretty pictures. It's well worth a visit.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The Entirely Legitimate Encephalon #67
(Updated! New post from Channel N -see below.) Welcome to the 67th edition of Encephalon, the regular neuroscience and psychology blog roundup. In honor of the recently revealed hilarious petty corruption in British politics, I demanded a hefty bribe to do this post... Wait, did you just read that? I'll give you £50 if you keep quiet about it. Ok, £100. I've got a reputation to uphold.
Anyway, in no particular order - certainly not in the order of the sum they paid me - here are your links for this edition:
Anyway, in no particular order - certainly not in the order of the sum they paid me - here are your links for this edition:
- New! Channel N features a talk by MacArthur Genius and neuro-robotics pioneer Yoky Matsuoka. If you ever want a bionic limb, she's the person to call.
- In honour of old St Paddy, PodBlack Cat deals with the psychology of "luck", superstition, and Irish movies. Apparantly, there are now breeds of clovers which always have four leaves - where's the fun in that?
- Neurophilosophy's Mo writes about a pair of fascinating neuroimaging studies about limb amputation and the brain's construction of the body image.
- Ward Plunet of BrainHealthHacks has three recent posts looking at possible links between obesity and cognitive ability - could be controversial.
- Ouroboros discusses an interesting discovery which reveals another piece of the puzzle about the genetics of familial Alzheimer's disease.
- Hesitant Iconoclast of the NeuroWhoa! blog presents a well thought out two-part post about the search for the brain's "God Spot", and what it might mean if there isn't one.
- The Neurocritic is, as ever, critical, about lie detection and about the latest potential weight loss pills.
- SharpBrains, the homeland of Encephalon, has a useful set of links to the best brain health articles from the past month, and also discusses the deeply unhealthy goings-on at JAMA regarding conflicts of interests, an antidepressant trial, and some impressive academic fisticuffs.
- Neuronarrative discusses two fMRI studies which are rather topical in the current economic climate. One is about what happens when we take expert's advice when making decisions and the other about the "money illusion". Finally, there's a post featuring four expert responses to the Susan Greenfield Facebook-destroys-the-brain controversy (which I wrote about previously) which are rather enlightening.
- BrainBlogger provides a typically accessible write-up of a small but exciting study about the possible utility of lithium in Lou Gherig's disease, and a large study of the possible cognitive consequences of the metabolic syndrome.
- Finally, The Mouse Trap's Sandeep has an extensive and very thought provoking two part series of thoughts on the psychology of pleasure, pain and bipolar disorder, and to round out this issue, discusses an imaging study about how we know the difference between reality and fiction. Did I really accept bribes to produce this issue?
The Entirely Legitimate Encephalon #67
(Updated! New post from Channel N -see below.) Welcome to the 67th edition of Encephalon, the regular neuroscience and psychology blog roundup. In honor of the recently revealed hilarious petty corruption in British politics, I demanded a hefty bribe to do this post... Wait, did you just read that? I'll give you £50 if you keep quiet about it. Ok, £100. I've got a reputation to uphold.
Anyway, in no particular order - certainly not in the order of the sum they paid me - here are your links for this edition:
Anyway, in no particular order - certainly not in the order of the sum they paid me - here are your links for this edition:
- New! Channel N features a talk by MacArthur Genius and neuro-robotics pioneer Yoky Matsuoka. If you ever want a bionic limb, she's the person to call.
- In honour of old St Paddy, PodBlack Cat deals with the psychology of "luck", superstition, and Irish movies. Apparantly, there are now breeds of clovers which always have four leaves - where's the fun in that?
- Neurophilosophy's Mo writes about a pair of fascinating neuroimaging studies about limb amputation and the brain's construction of the body image.
- Ward Plunet of BrainHealthHacks has three recent posts looking at possible links between obesity and cognitive ability - could be controversial.
- Ouroboros discusses an interesting discovery which reveals another piece of the puzzle about the genetics of familial Alzheimer's disease.
- Hesitant Iconoclast of the NeuroWhoa! blog presents a well thought out two-part post about the search for the brain's "God Spot", and what it might mean if there isn't one.
- The Neurocritic is, as ever, critical, about lie detection and about the latest potential weight loss pills.
- SharpBrains, the homeland of Encephalon, has a useful set of links to the best brain health articles from the past month, and also discusses the deeply unhealthy goings-on at JAMA regarding conflicts of interests, an antidepressant trial, and some impressive academic fisticuffs.
- Neuronarrative discusses two fMRI studies which are rather topical in the current economic climate. One is about what happens when we take expert's advice when making decisions and the other about the "money illusion". Finally, there's a post featuring four expert responses to the Susan Greenfield Facebook-destroys-the-brain controversy (which I wrote about previously) which are rather enlightening.
- BrainBlogger provides a typically accessible write-up of a small but exciting study about the possible utility of lithium in Lou Gherig's disease, and a large study of the possible cognitive consequences of the metabolic syndrome.
- Finally, The Mouse Trap's Sandeep has an extensive and very thought provoking two part series of thoughts on the psychology of pleasure, pain and bipolar disorder, and to round out this issue, discusses an imaging study about how we know the difference between reality and fiction. Did I really accept bribes to produce this issue?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Cosmic Ordering, CAM and the NHS
A while back, I argued that it might not be a good idea to encourage the use of therapies, such as homeopathy, which work via the "placebo effect". (I've also previously said that what people call "the placebo effect" very often isn't one).
But there's more to say on this. Let us assume that homeopathy, say, is nothing more than a placebo (which it is). Let's further assume that homeopathy is actually quite a good placebo, meaning that when people go to see a homeopath they generally leave feeling better and end up experiencing better health outcomes - for whatever reason. This second assumption is exactly that, an assumption, because to my knowledge no-one has done a study of whether people who use homeopathy actually feel any healthier than they would if they had never heard of homeopathy and just got on with their lives. But let's assume it works.
Now, does this mean that homeopathy is a good thing? Well, sure, if it makes people feel better, it's a good thing. However - it doesn't follow that homeopathy, or any other form of complementary and alternative medicine which works as a placebo, should be available on the NHS. Many have argued that if CAM works, even if only by the placebo effect, it's still a useful thing which the NHS should support if patient's request it. I disagree.
A while back, South Bank University in London was widely mocked for getting a psychic to give a training session on "cosmic ordering". Cosmic ordering is the belief that you can get what you want in life by placing an order with the universe in the form of wishing really hard and then some quantum stuff happens and - I can't write any more of this. It's all crap. Anyway, the head of South Bank defended the session on the grounds that the staff requested it, liked it and found it useful.
Now if I applied for funding from my University to pay for a night down the pub for the whole of my Department I'd get the beaurocratic equivalent of a slap in the face. This despite the fact that people would enjoy it, it would help with team-building, and reduce stress levels. The point is that despite a Departmental night down the pub being, probably, a good thing in many ways, it's just not the kind of thing a University is responsible for. It would be incredibly unprofessional for University money to be spent on that kind of thing.
Likewise, it was unprofessional of South Bank to pay for a psychic to give a training course, even though the attendees liked it. Sorry to sound anal but Universities don't exist to give their staff what they want. They exist to pay their staff in exchange for their professional services & to help them carry out those services.
Likewise, the NHS, I think, doesn't exist to make people feel good, it exists to treat and prevent medical illnesses. So people like homeopathy and find it's helpful for relieving stress-related symptoms. Does that mean the NHS should be paying for it? Only if you believe that the NHS should also be paying for me to take a holiday to Thailand. I don't believe in homeopathy, but I do believe that a week on a Thai beach would do wonders for my stress levels. Or maybe I'd prefer a sweet guitar - I find playing guitar is great for relaxation, but it would be even better if I had a £700 model to play on. My well-being levels would just soar, if only until the novelty wore off. You get the point.
Most "complementary and alternative medicine" is medicine in appearance only. Just because homepaths hand out pills doesn't mean that what they do has anything to do with medicine. It's ritual. It's close to being entertainment, in a sense - which is not to belittle it, because entertainment is an important part of life. I'm sure there are many people for whom their sessions with their homeopath are really very useful. I just don't think the medical services should necessarily be paying for everything that people find helpful.
[BPSDB]
But there's more to say on this. Let us assume that homeopathy, say, is nothing more than a placebo (which it is). Let's further assume that homeopathy is actually quite a good placebo, meaning that when people go to see a homeopath they generally leave feeling better and end up experiencing better health outcomes - for whatever reason. This second assumption is exactly that, an assumption, because to my knowledge no-one has done a study of whether people who use homeopathy actually feel any healthier than they would if they had never heard of homeopathy and just got on with their lives. But let's assume it works.
Now, does this mean that homeopathy is a good thing? Well, sure, if it makes people feel better, it's a good thing. However - it doesn't follow that homeopathy, or any other form of complementary and alternative medicine which works as a placebo, should be available on the NHS. Many have argued that if CAM works, even if only by the placebo effect, it's still a useful thing which the NHS should support if patient's request it. I disagree.
A while back, South Bank University in London was widely mocked for getting a psychic to give a training session on "cosmic ordering". Cosmic ordering is the belief that you can get what you want in life by placing an order with the universe in the form of wishing really hard and then some quantum stuff happens and - I can't write any more of this. It's all crap. Anyway, the head of South Bank defended the session on the grounds that the staff requested it, liked it and found it useful.Now if I applied for funding from my University to pay for a night down the pub for the whole of my Department I'd get the beaurocratic equivalent of a slap in the face. This despite the fact that people would enjoy it, it would help with team-building, and reduce stress levels. The point is that despite a Departmental night down the pub being, probably, a good thing in many ways, it's just not the kind of thing a University is responsible for. It would be incredibly unprofessional for University money to be spent on that kind of thing.
Likewise, it was unprofessional of South Bank to pay for a psychic to give a training course, even though the attendees liked it. Sorry to sound anal but Universities don't exist to give their staff what they want. They exist to pay their staff in exchange for their professional services & to help them carry out those services.
Likewise, the NHS, I think, doesn't exist to make people feel good, it exists to treat and prevent medical illnesses. So people like homeopathy and find it's helpful for relieving stress-related symptoms. Does that mean the NHS should be paying for it? Only if you believe that the NHS should also be paying for me to take a holiday to Thailand. I don't believe in homeopathy, but I do believe that a week on a Thai beach would do wonders for my stress levels. Or maybe I'd prefer a sweet guitar - I find playing guitar is great for relaxation, but it would be even better if I had a £700 model to play on. My well-being levels would just soar, if only until the novelty wore off. You get the point.
Most "complementary and alternative medicine" is medicine in appearance only. Just because homepaths hand out pills doesn't mean that what they do has anything to do with medicine. It's ritual. It's close to being entertainment, in a sense - which is not to belittle it, because entertainment is an important part of life. I'm sure there are many people for whom their sessions with their homeopath are really very useful. I just don't think the medical services should necessarily be paying for everything that people find helpful.
[BPSDB]
Cosmic Ordering, CAM and the NHS
A while back, I argued that it might not be a good idea to encourage the use of therapies, such as homeopathy, which work via the "placebo effect". (I've also previously said that what people call "the placebo effect" very often isn't one).
But there's more to say on this. Let us assume that homeopathy, say, is nothing more than a placebo (which it is). Let's further assume that homeopathy is actually quite a good placebo, meaning that when people go to see a homeopath they generally leave feeling better and end up experiencing better health outcomes - for whatever reason. This second assumption is exactly that, an assumption, because to my knowledge no-one has done a study of whether people who use homeopathy actually feel any healthier than they would if they had never heard of homeopathy and just got on with their lives. But let's assume it works.
Now, does this mean that homeopathy is a good thing? Well, sure, if it makes people feel better, it's a good thing. However - it doesn't follow that homeopathy, or any other form of complementary and alternative medicine which works as a placebo, should be available on the NHS. Many have argued that if CAM works, even if only by the placebo effect, it's still a useful thing which the NHS should support if patient's request it. I disagree.
A while back, South Bank University in London was widely mocked for getting a psychic to give a training session on "cosmic ordering". Cosmic ordering is the belief that you can get what you want in life by placing an order with the universe in the form of wishing really hard and then some quantum stuff happens and - I can't write any more of this. It's all crap. Anyway, the head of South Bank defended the session on the grounds that the staff requested it, liked it and found it useful.
Now if I applied for funding from my University to pay for a night down the pub for the whole of my Department I'd get the beaurocratic equivalent of a slap in the face. This despite the fact that people would enjoy it, it would help with team-building, and reduce stress levels. The point is that despite a Departmental night down the pub being, probably, a good thing in many ways, it's just not the kind of thing a University is responsible for. It would be incredibly unprofessional for University money to be spent on that kind of thing.
Likewise, it was unprofessional of South Bank to pay for a psychic to give a training course, even though the attendees liked it. Sorry to sound anal but Universities don't exist to give their staff what they want. They exist to pay their staff in exchange for their professional services & to help them carry out those services.
Likewise, the NHS, I think, doesn't exist to make people feel good, it exists to treat and prevent medical illnesses. So people like homeopathy and find it's helpful for relieving stress-related symptoms. Does that mean the NHS should be paying for it? Only if you believe that the NHS should also be paying for me to take a holiday to Thailand. I don't believe in homeopathy, but I do believe that a week on a Thai beach would do wonders for my stress levels. Or maybe I'd prefer a sweet guitar - I find playing guitar is great for relaxation, but it would be even better if I had a £700 model to play on. My well-being levels would just soar, if only until the novelty wore off. You get the point.
Most "complementary and alternative medicine" is medicine in appearance only. Just because homepaths hand out pills doesn't mean that what they do has anything to do with medicine. It's ritual. It's close to being entertainment, in a sense - which is not to belittle it, because entertainment is an important part of life. I'm sure there are many people for whom their sessions with their homeopath are really very useful. I just don't think the medical services should necessarily be paying for everything that people find helpful.
[BPSDB]
But there's more to say on this. Let us assume that homeopathy, say, is nothing more than a placebo (which it is). Let's further assume that homeopathy is actually quite a good placebo, meaning that when people go to see a homeopath they generally leave feeling better and end up experiencing better health outcomes - for whatever reason. This second assumption is exactly that, an assumption, because to my knowledge no-one has done a study of whether people who use homeopathy actually feel any healthier than they would if they had never heard of homeopathy and just got on with their lives. But let's assume it works.
Now, does this mean that homeopathy is a good thing? Well, sure, if it makes people feel better, it's a good thing. However - it doesn't follow that homeopathy, or any other form of complementary and alternative medicine which works as a placebo, should be available on the NHS. Many have argued that if CAM works, even if only by the placebo effect, it's still a useful thing which the NHS should support if patient's request it. I disagree.
A while back, South Bank University in London was widely mocked for getting a psychic to give a training session on "cosmic ordering". Cosmic ordering is the belief that you can get what you want in life by placing an order with the universe in the form of wishing really hard and then some quantum stuff happens and - I can't write any more of this. It's all crap. Anyway, the head of South Bank defended the session on the grounds that the staff requested it, liked it and found it useful.Now if I applied for funding from my University to pay for a night down the pub for the whole of my Department I'd get the beaurocratic equivalent of a slap in the face. This despite the fact that people would enjoy it, it would help with team-building, and reduce stress levels. The point is that despite a Departmental night down the pub being, probably, a good thing in many ways, it's just not the kind of thing a University is responsible for. It would be incredibly unprofessional for University money to be spent on that kind of thing.
Likewise, it was unprofessional of South Bank to pay for a psychic to give a training course, even though the attendees liked it. Sorry to sound anal but Universities don't exist to give their staff what they want. They exist to pay their staff in exchange for their professional services & to help them carry out those services.
Likewise, the NHS, I think, doesn't exist to make people feel good, it exists to treat and prevent medical illnesses. So people like homeopathy and find it's helpful for relieving stress-related symptoms. Does that mean the NHS should be paying for it? Only if you believe that the NHS should also be paying for me to take a holiday to Thailand. I don't believe in homeopathy, but I do believe that a week on a Thai beach would do wonders for my stress levels. Or maybe I'd prefer a sweet guitar - I find playing guitar is great for relaxation, but it would be even better if I had a £700 model to play on. My well-being levels would just soar, if only until the novelty wore off. You get the point.
Most "complementary and alternative medicine" is medicine in appearance only. Just because homepaths hand out pills doesn't mean that what they do has anything to do with medicine. It's ritual. It's close to being entertainment, in a sense - which is not to belittle it, because entertainment is an important part of life. I'm sure there are many people for whom their sessions with their homeopath are really very useful. I just don't think the medical services should necessarily be paying for everything that people find helpful.
[BPSDB]
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Encephalon #67 is coming...
ENCEPHALON, the regular psychology and neuroscience blog carnival, will shortly be arriving at Neuroskeptic. The last few editions were awesome, so don't let me down here - get writing, or get submitting things you've already written, about the brain, the mind, and all that kind of thing.As always, please email submissions to encephalon{dot}host{at}gmail{dot}com by the 30th March.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)