Intelligent Design Peer review Science

Why science is losing prestige…

Spread the love

When it behaves like Hollywood, it deserves to

David Coppedge cites various instances of untrustworthiness, including:


What’s not in the news headlines or titles of Alzheimer disease articles? #InMice (PLoS Biology). Mouse models are routinely used to test treatments on humans, but researchers often fail to reveal the fact. These authors feel that humans and mice are too different to transfer findings from mouse models. Look what can happen when the media fails to disclose that fact:

Around 200 rodent models have been developed to study AD [Alzheimer’s Disease], even though AD is an exclusively human condition that does not occur naturally in other species and appears impervious to reproduction in artificial animal models, an information not always disclosed…. We found a significant association (p < 0.01) between articles’ titles and news stories’ headlines, revealing that when authors omit the species in the paper’s title, writers of news stories tend to follow suit. We also found that papers not mentioning mice in their titles are more newsworthy and significantly more tweeted than papers that do. Our study shows that science reporting may affect media reporting and asks for changes in the way we report about findings obtained with animal models used to study human diseases.

David Coppedge, “Science Prestige Crumbles ” at Creation–Evolution Headlines (June 19, 2021)


Question: Do we really know that animals do not get Alzheimer? Maybe, whereas humans get care homes, animals get eaten. So how would we know?

See also: That time they invented scientists as well as research papers…

13 Replies to “Why science is losing prestige…

  1. 1
    aarceng says:

    Do we really know that animals do not get Alzheimer? Alzheimer’s disease is associated with a build-up of certain proteins and chemicals in the brain, which should be detectable if it can be reproduced in animals.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Around 200 rodent models have been developed to study AD [Alzheimer’s Disease], even though AD is an exclusively human condition that does not occur naturally in other species and appears impervious to reproduction in artificial animal models, an information not always disclosed….

    Is this the same David Coppege who was an IT specialist and system administrator at NASA?

    Is Alzheimer’s Disease a Uniquely Human Disorder?

    Humans are not alone in accumulating A? in their brain. Squirrel monkeys, vervets, lemurs, apes, other nonhuman primates, and even dogs develop copious amyloid plaques and cerebral amyloid angiopathy as they age. However, most animals are spared the neurofibrillary tangles, neurodegeneration, and outright dementia that follows the onset of A? pathology. Does only Homo sapiens get Alzheimer’s disease? If so, why? And what can animal amyloidoses teach us about the underlying pathology of AD?

    […]

    Q: What can we learn about Alzheimer’s disease from nonhuman animals that we cannot learn from human samples?

    Walker: Nonhuman species can tell us what isn’t Alzheimer’s disease. For example, we can never be sure that non-demented humans with abundant A? plaques in the brain at death were not on the path to Alzheimer’s disease. Aged nonhuman primates with abundant plaques, however, do not manifest neurofibrillary tangles, nor do they become demented. If we can determine what protects nonhuman species from AD pathology, we might learn why humans are vulnerable, information that could illuminate new therapeutic strategies.

    It is also worth noting that many discoveries regarding the nature of plaques in the brain were made in canines and nonhuman primates, such as the ultrastructure of plaques and the neurochemical composition of the neurites surrounding plaques. In addition, the ability of antibodies to target plaques and vascular amyloid in the brain—a precursor to immunotherapeutic approaches—was first demonstrated in nonhuman primates.

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    This isn’t the fault of scientists. Journalists get EVERYTHING wrong, in science or in plain old crime stories. Journalists are malicious and brainless. There’s no way to write a scientific article or a police report to protect it from destruction by journalists.

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    This isn’t the fault of scientists. Journalists get EVERYTHING wrong

    I largely blame the press officers who write the press releases. But FWIW, sometimes scientists can be complicit too.

  5. 5
    BobRyan says:

    The fault lies with both journalists and scientists. Very few journalists ever bother to check much of anything and don’t care if they write fiction, since they want the headlines. Scientists want their names known as widely as possible, even at the expense of other scientists. Science professors steal from their students every day with no repercussions, just as journalists lie every day with no repercussions.

    In both cases, they will lie without thought, since lying helps to sell whatever they happen to be pushing for. Journalists and scientists are under tremendous pressure to produce without caring about how it comes to be.

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    Popular mass media have been propaganda organs for the powerful for a long time. Anyone who doesn’t realize this is just stupid.

    Andrew

  7. 7
    News says:

    Question remains: Question: Do we really know that animals do not get Alzheimer? Maybe, whereas humans get care homes, animals get eaten. So how would we know?

  8. 8
    KRock says:

    Science has become increasingly politicized. More importantly, though, science has caved to the demands of the radical left, who derive truth via their emotions and not from facts.

    Good luck science, it was nice knowing you!

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    Do we really know that animals do not get Alzheimer?

    We have a business catering to emergency veterinary care. While on hold sometimes they often list the services they provide. It is just about everything provided to humans.

    I can’t say for sure they treat Alzheimer’s but nearly everything you can imagine.

    There is something called Canine Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome. Affects older dogs.

    https://www.petmd.com/dog/conditions/neurological/5-signs-dog-dementia

    https://tractive.com/blog/en/health/dog-dementia

  10. 10

    Science has not caved to demands of the radical left, the scientific community is the radical left, scientific socialists.

    And I am sure that under the radar, there is also still a large part of the scientific community that is radically right wing.

    Socialism is the political application of materialism. Then you have left wing socialism, communism, and right wing socialism, nazism. And generally most all scientists are somewhere on this spectrum of socialism.

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    Question remains: Question: Do we really know that animals do not get Alzheimer? Maybe, whereas humans get care homes, animals get eaten. So how would we know?

    By looking for the plaques in the brain that cause Alzheimer’s. These can be found in primates and some mouse strains.

  12. 12
    KRock says:

    @Mohammadnursyamsu (#10)

    The scientific community may be exceedingly liberal, but they’re not left-wing radicals. That said, those who work within the scientific community are certainly pressured (often forcefully) by those who espouse radical leftist ideologies.

    On a personal note, I would say that the radical left has far more in common with the radical right (Horseshoe theory) than most people think, but I digress.

  13. 13

    KRock the one thing that matters is, the extent to which the scientists are materialists. There is materialist philosophy, which validates only objective fact, and there is creationist philosophy, which validates both subjective opinion (like about beauty) and objective fact, each in their own right.

    My estimation is that creationist philosophy is generally banned in academics. Even the acceptance of it is very weak among intelligent design theorists, and creationists actually. That means the acceptance of subjectivity is very weak, and that means systematic bad personal judgements, which is all what the term leftism really amounts to. So in my estimation the culture in academics in general is rotten. People who have the worst personal judgment of all people.

Leave a Reply