• 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle


  • Well, we don’t yet have evidence that it’s bad for our bodies, per se. That’s step one to getting things to change, IMO. So far we just have theories. Personally, I subscribe to the theory that microplastics are linked to changes in immune cell function/inflammation, which in turn leads to changes in the brain amd leads to some types of neurodegeneratove disorders like Alzheimer’s. Again, a theory, not any conclusive proof. It could be the case that microplastics aren’t causing damage.

    But, with the technology we have now, I can imagine some solutions. Most promising, in my opinion, would be something akin to an mRNA vaccine. Introduce the mRNA to your body to produce a protein that targets plastic and leads to its removal from the body, almost like an antibody.

    But with the NIH in the United States now targeting mRNA vaccine research for “critical review” as part of Trump’s agenda, the technology may not be long for this part of the world… even though it has revolutionized our ability to quickly, safely, and inexpensively produce vaccines against disease.





  • The article describes the review process - you’re right, these words just flag a paper for further review. I wonder if it’s an automatic flagging system like you suggested.

    However, it took me almost a decade of rigorous training to understand my research. I sure as hell don’t trust an elected or appointed official with a political vendetta to critically read my grants. Leave politics out of peer review.

    This is still an emergency situation, IMHO. Like you said, people’s grants are being canceled. I see this as a direct attack against higher education.

    ETA: It’s also a waste of taxpayer money. These grants are already competing for meager funds. Why should we siphon away any resources to “investigate” them?



  • Here’s a quick off-the-cuff list of neuroscience domains, not part of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, that will be impacted by this censorship. This is not an exhaustive list, it’s just what I thought of after thinking critically for 10 minutes.

    It goes without saying this practice is evil and reprehensible. No academic domain should be politically targeted. But it reaches more than their targets. It is dangerous. It is unscientific. It is book-burning. Contact your representatives. Take action. Donate to good causes.

    Patient advocacy for people who have had a stroke, or have dementia, or have any number of disabilities, hereditary or acquired.

    Any research about the blood brain barrier, including development of drugs that can cross it more efficiently.

    Any research about the placental barrier, including development of safe medications for birthing people.

    Research into cognitive bias.

    Development of statistics (including Bayesian, the hot frontier), machine learning (that’s AI for anyone who prefers that term), where the term bias is used to talk about parameters and model performance.

    Basic visual and auditory science, where we talk about visual and auditory discrimination.

    Sex differences research- this isn’t just a social issue, we don’t understand how differences in metabolism impact drug metabolism. Can’t have female mice anymore, apparently.

    Basic research in the function of neurons, which polarize, depolarize, hyperpolarize, etc.

    Concussion research and, again, stroke research. The field is broadly known as traumatic brain injury.