![]()
Take your time and think it through, guy: But don't worry about the MMR vaccine.
Courtesy paul+photos=moodyLet’s be careful how we put our words together, everybody.
I mean, when I get dressed in the morning, I know that I want to get underwear, socks, pants, and at least one shirt onto my body. However, if I were to forgo all rules of dressing order and arrangement, I might give off the wrong message: i.e., I’m crazy, and possibly dangerous to be around.
Why would I take any less care with my precious, precious words?
Because I’m pretty lazy, I don’t generally read most (any) of the articles on science that I come across every day. Instead, I read only the headlines. Or, better yet, I have them read to me—that way I can rest my head on my desk while I’m taking in the news. It’s very important, then, that all headlines are clearly worded. Otherwise I could dictate a Science Buzz post that is even more factually inaccurate than my posts normally are. That’s dangerous territory.
“Survey confirms parents’ fears, confusion over autism.”
I looked at that headline, saw the word “vaccine” in the body, and thought, “Oh, snap! Vaccines do cause autism?” Because, that’s what parents’ are afraid of, after all.
Nope. The existence of parents’ fear and confusion over autism is what has been confirmed here. The actual connection between vaccinations and autism remains non-existent.
A recent study found that a significant percentage of parents still believe that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine can cause autism, or are at least uncertain and fearful that such a connection does exist. This is despite the fact that scientists can establish no connection between early childhood vaccines and the development of autism.
The fear that early childhood vaccinations lead to an increased risk for autism originated from a 1998 study that linked autism to a particular mercury-based preservative in the MMR vaccine. It was later revealed that the study was based on bad research, and it was retracted by most of its authors and disowned by its publisher. In 2001, manufacturers of the MMR vaccine began removing the preservative from their vaccines anyway—and that’s probably not a bad thing, but it hasn’t lead to any decrease in the occurrence of autism. And people are still worried about the vaccine anyway.
This confusion wouldn’t be such a big deal, except that the better-safe-than-sorry attitude towards not having children vaccinated has lead to a resurgence in diseases that had essentially been eradicated in areas where the vaccine is available.
Science Buzz has had a lot of conversation on this subject already, and, if you’re interested, I’d recommend you check out some of the other posts on autism and vaccinations.
Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux has found a way for rats to overcome their fears by blocking their memories. This may lead to treatments for humans.
![]()
Sometimes it’s best to just let the door close.: Keeping your options open entails some very real costs--sometimes more than the option is worth.
Courtesy George Karamanis
“Keep your options open.” Sounds like good advice, right? Turns out, it has hidden costs.
Professors Dan Ariely and Jiwoong Shin at MIT ran an experiment to test rational behavior. Test subjects played a computer game. On the screen were three doors. If they clicked on a door, it opened. Click on it a second time, and a number would appear, and they would earn that much money. Click on a different door and it opens, but the first door closes. Some doors had higher average payoffs than others. The object of the game is to get as much money as you can in 100 total clicks. (You can play the game—without the money, sorry—here.)
Obviously, the winning strategy is to find the door that pays the best, and then keep clicking on it. But then the evil professors threw a curve. They presented a second version of the game, where the doors shrank and eventually disappeared if you didn’t click on them. Subjects would waste clicks keeping the lower-paying doors from disappearing. On average, they earned 15% less for the privilege of keeping their options open.
Ariely and Shin hypothesize that players kept the less-valuable doors open, even though it cost them money, to avoid the pain of losing the door forever. We all hate to lose things. But sometimes the cost of keeping them around is more than they are worth. The game is a good lesson in the value of just letting things go.
![]()
The stuff of nightmares: Just try and forget this, Cdk5 or no. (image by Mute on Flickr.com)If I were to mouth off to a champion kickboxer at a party, and then get kickboxed into stupefaction, a unique process would very likely be taking place in my brain. The horror that accompanies being repeatedly kicked in the face would become associated with the memory of the party as it formed in the hippocampus of my brain. It’s possible, then, that the next time I went to a party, even if it were kickboxer-free, I would be unable to separate the fear of that previous attack from the context of a party, and I’d just have to spend the evening in the car.
It can be extremely difficult to forget associated fears, to relearn that a certain situation is not threatening or harmful, so people who have been through very traumatic experiences can suffer severe psychological stress long after the event.
Researchers at MIT have recently discovered that an enzyme in the brain called Cdk5 seems to control the formation of memory-associated fears, and that the inhibition of Cdk5 can allow for these fears to be eliminated.
In order to study this association between Cdk5 and fear formation, a group of laboratory mice were brought to a party, and then each was beaten up by a kick boxer. Some of the mice-partiers then had their Cdk5 levels increased, and some had their Cdk5 activity inhibited. The former group had great difficulty forgetting the beating, and could not enjoy the next party they were brought to. The latter group, however, was able to quickly relearn that parties can be fun, just so long as all the kickboxers in attendance are being friendly.
Although brain chemistry is obviously not quite so simple as all that, scientists are hopeful that this research could eventually lead to the development of drugs to treat serious conditions, such as post traumatic stress disorder, or chronic panic attacks.
Here at the Science Museum of Minnesota we just finished working on a exhibit about the science of fear called Goosebumps. On the exhibit website there is an interesting poll where you can vote for the scariest movie ever. I picked the Shining from their list what would you pick?
![]()
Non-problem: With only four fatal shark attacks recorded around the world last year, experts describe shark attacks as a "non-problem." What do you think? (photo by davecompton987)Now that Memorial Day is behind us, it’s on to summer and that can mean just one thing: lots of media attention about shark attacks.
But the most recent compilation of shark attack data shows that only four people worldwide died in 2006 from unprovoked shark attacks. A total of 58 people around the globe sustained injuries from sharks.
George Burgess, director of the International Shark Attack File at the University of Florida, not that the numbers may be lower than average, but still point out that sharks get a lot of bad press.
Shark attack fatalities actually were increasing in numbers in the late 20th Century, due largely in part to an increased number of people finding recreation in deep sea diving.
But recent numbers have dipped back down to what Burgess calls a “non-problem, a minor, minor thing.”
None of the fatalities happened off of U.S. waters. A total of 38 injuries happened in the U.S. last year.
So why do shark attack stories generate so much publicity? Personally, I think it’s another sign of our sensationalizing media. They know it’s an automatic story that’s going to generate attention and ratings. What do you think about the hype surrounding shark attacks?

Add a new comment