APA Concerned About Far-Reaching Consequences From SCOTUS Decision Regarding Therapy as "Free Speech"

American Psychological Association

Press Release

March 31, 2026

WASHINGTON — APA is deeply concerned by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy on minors may violate mental health professionals’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

 

In directing the Tenth Circuit to reconsider the case under a stricter constitutional standard, the Court’s decision leaves open the question of whether states can still enact laws that protect patients from harmful therapeutic practices delivered through talk therapy. This is likely to have far-reaching implications for consumer safety and professional regulation.  

“We are disappointed that the Court has left a core legal question of the case unresolved: whether states can regulate what licensed mental health professionals say to their patients in a clinical session,” said APA CEO Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD. “The answer will determine not only the fate of conversion therapy bans, but the broader authority of state licensing boards to enforce best practices – often enacted for the safety and protection of consumers – in any profession that uses speech to deliver therapeutic interventions.” 

APA filed an amicus brief in the case, Chiles v. Salazar, et al., presenting the Court with the scientific evidence that sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts are ineffective and associated with long-lasting psychological damages. The brief argues that conversion therapy is unethical and ineffective, and therefore not a legitimate therapeutic practice. 

APA’s brief was joined by the American Psychiatric Association and 12 other major associations representing mental health professionals and advocates for the health and human rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. 

In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent from the court’s decision, she cited several references from the brief to the ways conversion therapy has harmed patients, especially minors, who are even more sensitive to shame and stigma than adults. Jackson shares APA’s concern that the Court’s decision “opens a dangerous can of worms… [threatening] to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect” and “risks grave harm to Americans’ health and well-being.” 

While APA is encouraged that traditional malpractice claims for patients who have been harmed by talk therapy remain unaffected by the Court’s ruling, this risks leaving patients without meaningful preventive legal protection, shifting recourse to after the harm has already occurred. 

“APA is unsettled that the Court would treat restrictions against ineffective and harmful treatments as a violation of a counselor’s speech rather than regulation of professional conduct,” Evans added. “Our ethical standards are unchanged. Psychologists should continue to provide evidence-based care and avoid practices known to cause harm.” 

When are health professionals ethically obligated to engage in public advocacy?

Wynia, M. K., Peek, M. E., & Heisler, M. (2025).

The Lancet.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01378-9

Here is how it opens:

In 2025 the US Federal Government has attacked scientific research and evidence, medical expertise, public health, health equity, and human rights. At this challenging time, many health professionals are uncertain about what is in their power to change, and whether or how they may be ethically obligated to engage in public advocacy.

While clinical advocacy on behalf of individual patients is a long-standing core value across health professions, clinicians also have public advocacy obligations. For health professionals, one definition of public advocacy is taking actions to promote “social, economic, educational, and political changes that ameliorate suffering and contribute to human well-being” that are identified through “professional work and expertise”. Public advocacy obligations are in the Physician Charter, endorsed by 109 organisations internationally, and the American Medical Association’s Declaration of Professional Responsibility, endorsed by almost 100 US medical associations. Nearly two-thirds of US medical schools’ curricula include teaching on public advocacy skills.

Here are some thoughts:

Psychologists have an ethical duty to advocate against policies harming mental health and human rights, grounded in principles of justice and beneficence. When witnessing harm directly, possessing relevant expertise, or being positioned to create change—such as documenting trauma in marginalized groups or analyzing mental health impacts of funding cuts—advocacy becomes imperative. While fears of backlash exist, collective action through professional organizations can reduce risks. Psychologists must leverage their unique skills in behavioral science and public trust to combat misinformation and promote evidence-based policies. Advocacy isn't optional—it's core to psychology's mission of reducing suffering and upholding equity, especially amid growing threats to vulnerable populations. 

Biology is not ethics: A response to Jerry Coyne's anti-trans essay

Aaron Rabinowitz

Friendly Atheist

Originally posted 2 JAN 25

The Freedom From Religion Foundation recently faced criticism for posting and then removing an editorial by Jerry Coyne entitled “Biology is Not Bigotry,” which he wrote in response to an FFRF article by Kat Grant entitled “What is a Woman?” In his piece, Coyne used specious reasoning and flawed research to argue that transgender individuals are more likely to be sexual predators than cisgender individuals and that they should therefore be barred from some jobs and female-only spaces.

As an ethicist I’m not here to argue biology. I don’t know what the right approach is to balancing phenotypic and genotypic accounts of sex. Luckily, despite Coyne’s framing of the controversy, Coyne is also not here to argue biology. He’s here to argue ethics, and his ethics regarding trans issues consist of bigoted claims leading to discriminatory conclusions.

By making ethics claims like “transgender women… should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters,” while pretending to only be arguing about biological definitions, Coyne effectively conflates biology with ethics. By conflating biology and ethics, Coyne seeks to transfer perceptions of his expertise from one to the other, so that his claims in both domains are treated with deference, rather than challenged as ill-formed and harmful. Biology is not bigotry, but conflating biology with ethics is one of the most common ways to end up doing a bigotry. Historically, that’s how you slide from genetics to genocide.

The article is here.

Here are some thoughts:

In this essay, Rabinowitz critiques Coyne's conflation of biological arguments with ethical judgments concerning transgender individuals. Rabinowitz contends that Coyne's assertions—such as barring transgender women from roles like rape counselors or access to female-only spaces—are ethically unsound and stem from misinterpreted data. He emphasizes that ethical decisions should not be solely based on biological considerations and warns against using flawed research to justify discriminatory practices.

Rabinowitz highlights that Coyne's approach exemplifies how misapplying biological concepts to ethical discussions can lead to bigotry and discrimination. He argues that such reasoning has historically been used to marginalize groups by labeling them as morally deficient based on misinterpreted or selective data. Rabinowitz calls for a clear distinction between biological facts and ethical values, advocating for inclusive and non-discriminatory practices that respect human rights.

This critique underscores the importance of separating scientific observations from ethical prescriptions, cautioning against the misuse of biology to justify exclusionary or harmful policies toward marginalized communities.

Human embryo models are getting more realistic — raising ethical questions

Smriti Mallapaty

nature.com

Originally posted 11 Sept 24

Here is an excerpt:

Science accelerates

Meanwhile, the science keeps moving at such a pace that regulators have a lot to keep up with. In June 2024, the ISSCR announced that it had set up a working group to assess the state of the science and review earlier guidelines, in light of the models published since 2021.

In 2023, around half a dozen teams described models that recapitulate the development of embryos just after implantation. Two models in particular were widely covered by the media — one by Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, a developmental biologist at the California Institute for Technology in Pasadena, and one by Jacob Hanna, a stem-cell biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel. They were described as complete post-implantation models, but that title has been hotly debated.

“These are not complete models,” says Rivron. The one by Zernicka-Goetz’s group7 doesn’t have cells that behave like trophoblasts, which provide nutrition for the embryo — and although Hanna’s8 does contain a trophoblast-like layer, it isn’t as organized as the real thing, say researchers.

“It’s almost like a beauty contest — whose ‘model’ looked better,” says Jianping Fu, a bioengineer at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “There’s a lot of excitement, but at the same time, there’s some hype in the field right now.”

Some researchers question the value of chasing a complete model. It’s a “pretty exquisite balancing act”, says Hyun. Researchers want models to resemble an embryo closely enough that they provide real insight into human development but not so closely that they can’t tell the difference between the two, and so risk restrictions to their work. “You want to skate as close to the edge as possible, without falling over,” he says.

Some researchers try to avoid this ethical dilemma by intentionally introducing changes to their embryo models that would make it impossible for the model to result in an organism. For example, Hanna has started working on models in which genes involved in brain and heart development have been inactivated. He has inferred from discussions with Christian and Jewish leaders in his community that an embryo model lacking brain or heart tissue would not be considered a form of person.

The info is here.

Here are some thoughts:

Scientists have made significant strides in developing sophisticated "embryo models" using stem cells that closely mimic aspects of early human development. These models present exciting opportunities to explore critical areas such as embryo development, infertility, and disease prevention, while also raising important ethical questions. Key advancements include the creation of "blastoids," which resemble early embryos at the blastocyst stage, as well as models that capture post-implantation development and gastrulation. Additionally, researchers have developed organ-specific models, such as those representing the neural tube and somites, which are crucial for understanding organogenesis.

The potential applications of these models are vast, including studying the causes of early pregnancy loss, improving the success rates of in vitro fertilization (IVF), testing drug safety, and producing blood stem cells for transplants. However, the rapid advancement of this field has led to ongoing challenges related to ethical and regulatory considerations, such as defining the distinction between embryos and embryo models, establishing limits on culturing duration, and imposing restrictions on implantation into animals or humans. As the field continues to progress, there is a pressing need for ongoing ethical guidance and oversight, as well as public engagement and transparency to address societal concerns.

Can astrologers use astrological charts to understand people's character and lives?

Ferretti, A. (2024, July 29).

Clearer Thinking.

The link is here.

Astrology is very popular — both Gallup and YouGov report that about 25% of Americans believe that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, with an additional 20% of people reporting being uncertain about astrology’s legitimacy.

Previously, we tested whether facts about a person's life can be predicted using their astrological sun signs (such as Pisces, Aries, etc.). A number of astrologers criticized this work, saying that of course we found that sun signs don't predict facts about a person's life, because that's baby or tabloid astrology. Real astrologers use people's entire astrological charts to glean insights about them and their lives. 

And they had a good point! Despite sun sign astrology being popular, most astrologers use entire astrological charts, not merely people's sun signs. Here are some examples of the feedback we received:

Inspired by these critiques, we enlisted the help of six astrologers, and with their feedback and guidance, we designed a new test to see whether astrologers can truly gain insights about people from entire astrological charts!

Here are some thoughts:

A recent study put the claims of astrology to the test, examining the ability of 152 astrologers to accurately match individuals with their corresponding natal charts. Despite their confidence in their abilities, the astrologers performed no better than chance, with none correctly matching more than 5 out of 12 charts. The study found no correlation between experience and accuracy, and even the most experienced astrologers failed to perform better than the rest.

The study highlights the importance of scientifically testing claims, particularly those that are ambiguous or unsubstantiated. To test a claim, one must first make it precise, choose a measurable outcome, design a study, and then analyze the results. In this case, the study's findings provide strong evidence against the claim that astrology can accurately match individuals with their natal charts.

The results also reveal a striking disconnect between the astrologers' confidence in their abilities and their actual performance. This raises questions about the validity of astrology and the need for more rigorous scientific testing of its claims. By applying the scientific method to such claims, we can separate fact from fiction and gain a deeper understanding of the world around us.

The consciousness wars: can scientists ever agree on how the mind works?

Mariana Lenharo

Nature 625, 438-440 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00107-7

Neuroscientist Lucia Melloni didn’t expect to be reminded of her parents’ divorce when she attended a meeting about consciousness research in 2018. But, much like her parents, the assembled academics couldn’t agree on anything.

The group of neuroscientists and philosophers had convened at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington, to devise a way to empirically test competing theories of consciousness against each other: a process called adversarial collaboration.

Devising a killer experiment was fraught. “Of course, each of them was proposing experiments for which they already knew the expected results,” says Melloni, who led the collaboration and is based at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany. Melloni, falling back on her childhood role, became the go-between.

The collaboration Melloni is leading is one of five launched by the Templeton World Charity Foundation, a philanthropic organization based in Nassau, the Bahamas. The charity funds research into topics such as spirituality, polarization and religion; in 2019, it committed US$20 million to the five projects.

The aim of each collaboration is to move consciousness research forward by getting scientists to produce evidence that supports one theory and falsifies the predictions of another. Melloni’s group is testing two prominent ideas: integrated information theory (IIT), which claims that consciousness amounts to the degree of ‘integrated information’ generated by a system such as the human brain; and global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT), which claims that mental content, such as perceptions and thoughts, becomes conscious when the information is broadcast across the brain through a specialized network, or workspace. She and her co-leaders had to mediate between the main theorists, and seldom invited them into the same room.

---------------

Here's what the article highlights:

• Divisions abound: Researchers disagree on the very definition of consciousness, making comparisons between theories difficult. Some focus on subjective experience, while others look at the brain's functions.
• Testing head-to-head: New research projects are directly comparing competing theories to see which one explains experimental data better. This could be a step towards finding a unifying explanation.
• Heated debate: The recent critique of one prominent theory, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), shows the depth of the disagreements. Some question its scientific validity, while others defend it as a viable framework.
• Hope for progress: Despite the disagreements, there's optimism. New research methods and a younger generation of researchers focused on collaboration could lead to breakthroughs in understanding this elusive phenomenon.

Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Positive Views of Science Continue to Decline

Brian Kennedy & Alec Tyson

Pew Research

Originally published 14 NOV 23

Impact of science on society

Overall, 57% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society. This share is down 8 percentage points since November 2021 and down 16 points since before the start of the coronavirus outbreak.

About a third (34%) now say the impact of science on society has been equally positive as negative. A small share (8%) think science has had a mostly negative impact on society.

Trust in scientists

When it comes to the standing of scientists, 73% of U.S. adults have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. But trust in scientists is 14 points lower than it was at the early stages of the pandemic.

The share expressing the strongest level of trust in scientists – saying they have a great deal of confidence in them – has fallen from 39% in 2020 to 23% today.

As trust in scientists has fallen, distrust has grown: Roughly a quarter of Americans (27%) now say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, up from 12% in April 2020.

Ratings of medical scientists mirror the trend seen in ratings of scientists generally. Read Chapter 1 of the report for a detailed analysis of this data.

Differences between Republicans and Democrats in ratings of scientists and science

Declining levels of trust in scientists and medical scientists have been particularly pronounced among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents over the past several years. In fact, nearly four-in-ten Republicans (38%) now say they have not too much or no confidence at all in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. This share is up dramatically from the 14% of Republicans who held this view in April 2020. Much of this shift occurred during the first two years of the pandemic and has persisted in more recent surveys.

The info is here.

My take on why this important:

Science is a critical driver of progress. From technological advancements to medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries have dramatically improved our lives. Without public trust in science, these advancements may slow or stall.

Science plays a vital role in addressing complex challenges. Climate change, pandemics, and other pressing issues demand evidence-based solutions. Undermining trust in science weakens our ability to respond effectively to these challenges.

Erosion of trust can have far-reaching consequences. It can fuel misinformation campaigns, hinder scientific collaboration, and ultimately undermine public health and well-being.

Theory of consciousness branded 'pseudoscience' by neuroscientists

Clare Wilson

New Scientist

Originally posted 19 Sept 23

Consciousness is one of science’s deepest mysteries; it is considered so difficult to explain how physical entities like brain cells produce subjective sensory experiences, such as the sensation of seeing the colour red, that this is sometimes called “the hard problem” of science.

While the question has long been investigated by studying the brain, IIT came from considering the mathematical structure of information-processing networks and could also apply to animals or artificial intelligence.

It says that a network or system has a higher level of consciousness if it is more densely interconnected, such that the interactions between its connection points or nodes yield more information than if it is reduced to its component parts.

IIT predicts that it is theoretically possible to calculate a value for the level of consciousness, termed phi, of any network with known structure and functioning. But as the number of nodes within a network grows, the sums involved get exponentially bigger, meaning that it is practically impossible to calculate phi for the human brain – or indeed any information-processing network with more than about 10 nodes.

(cut)

Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who first developed IIT and took part in the recent testing, did not respond to New Scientist’s requests for comment. But Johannes Fahrenfort at VU Amsterdam in the Netherlands, who was not involved in the recent study, says the letter went too far. “There isn’t a lot of empirical support for IIT. But that doesn’t warrant calling it pseudoscience.”

Complicating matters, there is no single definition of pseudoscience. But ITT is not in the same league as astrology or homeopathy, says James Ladyman at the University of Bristol in the UK. “It looks like a serious attempt to understand consciousness. It doesn’t make it a theory pseudoscience just because some people are making exaggerated claims.”

The info is here.

Summary:

A group of 124 neuroscientists, including prominent figures in the field, have criticized the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness in an open letter. They argue that recent experimental evidence said to support IIT didn't actually test its core ideas and is practically impossible to perform. IIT suggests that the level of consciousness, called "phi," can be calculated for any network with known structure and functioning, but this becomes impractical for networks with many nodes, like the human brain. Some critics believe that IIT has been overhyped and may have unintended consequences for policies related to consciousness in fetuses and animals. However, not all experts consider IIT pseudoscience, with some seeing it as a serious attempt to understand consciousness.

The debate surrounding the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness is a complex one. While it's clear that the recent experimental evidence has faced criticism for not directly testing the core ideas of IIT, it's important to recognize that the study of consciousness is a challenging and ongoing endeavor.

Consciousness is indeed one of science's profound mysteries, often referred to as "the hard problem." IIT, in its attempt to address this problem, has sparked valuable discussions and research. It may not be pseudoscience, but the concerns raised about overhyping its findings are valid. It's crucial for scientific theories to be communicated accurately to avoid misinterpretation and potential policy implications.

Ultimately, the study of consciousness requires a multidisciplinary approach and the consideration of various theories, and it's important to maintain a healthy skepticism while promoting rigorous scientific inquiry in this complex field.

When Scholars Sue Their Accusers. Francesca Gino is the Latest. Such Litigation Rarely Succeeds.

Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky

The Chronicle of Higher Education

Originally posted 18 AUG 23

Francesca Gino has made headlines twice since June: once when serious allegations of misconduct involving her work became public, and again when she filed a $25-million lawsuit against her accusers, including Harvard University, where she is a professor at the business school.

The suit itself met with a barrage of criticism from those who worried that, as one scientist put it, it would have a “chilling effect on fraud detection.” A smaller number of people supported the move, saying that Harvard and her accusers had abandoned due process and that they believed in Gino’s integrity.How the case will play out, of course, remains to be seen. But Gino is hardly the first researcher to sue her critics and her employer when faced with misconduct findings. As the founders of Retraction Watch, a website devoted to covering problems in the scientific literature, we’ve reported many of these kinds of cases since we launched our blog in 2010. Platintiffs tend to claim defamation, but sometimes sue over wrongful termination or employment discrimination, and these kinds of cases typically end up in federal courts. A look at how some other suits fared might yield recommendations for how to limit the pain they can cause.The first thing to know about defamation and employment suits is that most plaintiffs, but not all, lose. Mario Saad, a diabetes researcher at Brazil’s Unicamp, found that out when he sued the American Diabetes Association in the very same federal district court in Massachusetts where Gino filed her case.Saad was trying to prevent Diabetes, the flagship research journal of the American Diabetes Association, from publishing expressions of concern about four of his papers following allegations of image manipulation. He lost that effort in 2015, and has now had 18 papers retracted.

(cut)

Such cases can be extremely expensive — not only for the defense, whether the costs are borne by institutions or insurance companies, but also for the plaintiffs. Ask Carlo Croce and Mark Jacobson.

Croce, a cancer researcher at Ohio State University, has at various points sued The New York Times, a Purdue University biologist named David Sanders, and Ohio State. He has lost all of those cases, including on appeal. The suits against the Times and Sanders claimed that a front-page story in 2017 that quoted Sanders had defamed Croce. His suit against Ohio State alleged that he had been improperly removed as department chair.

Croce racked up some $2 million in legal bills — and was sued for nonpayment. A judge has now ordered Croce’s collection of old masters paintings to be seized and sold for the benefit of his lawyers, and has also garnished Croce’s bank accounts. Another judgment means that his lawyers may now foreclose on his house to recoup their costs. Ohio State has been garnishing his wages since March by about $15,600 each month, or about a quarter of his paycheck. He continues to earn more than $800,000 per year from the university, even after a professorship and the chair were taken away from him.

When two researchers published a critique of the work of Mark Jacobson, an energy researcher at Stanford University, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Jacobson sued them along with the journal’s publisher for $10 million. He dropped the case just months after filing it.

But thanks to a so-called anti-SLAPP statute, “designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” a judge has ordered Jacobson to pay $500,000 in legal fees to the defendants. Jacobson wants Stanford to pay those costs, and California’s labor commissioner said the university had to pay at least some of them because protecting his reputation was part of Jacobson’s job. The fate of those fees, and who will pay them, is up in the air, with Jacobson once again appealing the judgment against him.

The article is paywalled here.

What Thomas Kuhn Really Thought about Scientific "Truth"

John Horgan

Scientific American

Originally posted 23 May 12

Here are two excerpts:

Denying the view of science as a continual building process, Kuhn held that a revolution is a destructive as well as a creative act. The proposer of a new paradigm stands on the shoulders of giants (to borrow Newton's phrase) and then bashes them over the head. He or she is often young or new to the field, that is, not fully indoctrinated. Most scientists yield to a new paradigm reluctantly. They often do not understand it, and they have no objective rules by which to judge it. Different paradigms have no common standard for comparison; they are "incommensurable," to use Kuhn's term. Proponents of different paradigms can argue forever without resolving their basic differences because they invest basic terms—motion, particle, space, time—with different meanings. The conversion of scientists is thus both a subjective and political process. It may involve sudden, intuitive understanding—like that finally achieved by Kuhn as he pondered Aristotle. Yet scientists often adopt a paradigm simply because it is backed by others with strong reputations or by a majority of the community.

Kuhn's view diverged in several important respects from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who held that theories can never be proved but only disproved, or "falsified." Like other critics of Popper, Kuhn argued that falsification is no more possible than verification; each process wrongly implies the existence of absolute standards of evidence, which transcend any individual paradigm. A new paradigm may solve puzzles better than the old one does, and it may yield more practical applications. "But you cannot simply describe the other science as false," Kuhn said. Just because modern physics has spawned computers, nuclear power and CD players, he suggested, does not mean it is truer, in an absolute sense, than Aristotle's physics. Similarly, Kuhn denied that science is constantly approaching the truth. At the end of Structure he asserted that science, like life on earth, does not evolve toward anything but only away from something.

(cut)

Kuhn declared that, although his book was not intended to be pro-science, he is pro-science. It is the rigidity and discipline of science, Kuhn said, that makes it so effective at problem-solving. Moreover, science produces "the greatest and most original bursts of creativity" of any human enterprise. Kuhn conceded that he was partly to blame for some of the anti-science interpretations of his model. After all, in Structure he did call scientists committed to a paradigm "addicts"; he also compared them to the brainwashed characters in Orwell's 1984. Kuhn insisted that he did not mean to be condescending by using terms such as "mopping up" or "puzzle-solving" to describe what most scientists do. "It was meant to be descriptive." He ruminated a bit. "Maybe I should have said more about the glories that result from puzzle solving, but I thought I was doing that."

As for the word "paradigm," Kuhn conceded that it had become "hopelessly overused" and is "out of control." Like a virus, the word spread beyond the history and philosophy of science and infected the intellectual community at large, where it came to signify virtually any dominant idea. A 1974 New Yorker cartoon captured the phenomena. "Dynamite, Mr. Gerston!" gushed a woman to a smug-looking man. "You're the first person I ever heard use 'paradigm' in real life." The low point came during the Bush administration, when White House officials introduced an economic plan called "the New Paradigm" (which was really just trickle-down economics).

The article is here.

Why are scientists growing human brain cells in the lab?

Hannah Flynn

Medical News Today

Originally posted 24 OCT 22

Here is an excerpt:

Ethical boundaries

One of the limitations of using organoids for research is that it is observed in vitro. The way an organ might act in a system, in connection with different organs, or when exposed to metabolites in the blood, for example, could be different from how it behaves when cells are isolated in a single tissue.

More recently, researchers placed an organoid derived from human cells inside the brain of a rat, in a study outlined in Nature.

Using neural organoids that had been allowed to self-organize, these were implanted into the somatosensory cortex — which is in the middle of the brain — of newborn rats. The scientists then found that these cortical organoids had grown axons throughout the rat brain, and were able to contribute to reward-seeking behavior in the rat.

This breakthrough suggested that the lab-created cells are recognizable to other tissues in the body and can influence systems.

Combining the cells of animals and humans is not without some ethical considerations. In fact, this has been the focus of a recent project.

The Brainstorm Organoid Project published its first paper in the form of a comment piece outlining the benefits of the project in Nature Neuroscience on October 18, 2022, the week after the aforementioned study was published.

The Project brought together prominent bioethicists as part of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative of the US National Institutes of Health, which funded the project.

Co-author of the comment piece Dr. Jeantine E Lunshof, head of collaborative ethics at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, MA, told Medical News Today in an interview that existing biomedical research and animal welfare guidelines already provide a framework for this type of work to be done ethically.

Pointing to the International Society for Stem Cell Research guidelines published last year, she stated that those do cover the creation of chimeras, where cells of two species are combined.

These hybrids with non-primates are permitted, she explained: “This is very, very strong emphasis on animal welfare in this ISSCR guideline document that also aligns with existing animal welfare and animal research protocols.”

The potential benefits of this research needed to be considered, “though at this moment, we are still at the stage that a lot of fundamental research is necessary. And I think that that really must be emphasized,” she said.

The info is here.

Human mini-brains were transplanted into rats. Is this ethical?

Julian Savulescu

channelnewsasia.com

Originally posted 22 OCT 22

Here is an excerpt:

Are 'Humanized Rats' just rats?

In a world-first, scientists have transplanted human brain cells into the brains of baby rats, offering immense possibilities to study and develop treatment for neurological and psychiatric conditions.

The human brain tissue, known as brain organoids or “mini-organs”, are independent nerve structures grown in a lab from a person’s cells, such as their skin cells, using stem cell technology. Although they can’t yet replicate a full brain, they resemble features or parts of an embryonic human brain.

The study, published in the journal Nature on Oct 12, showed that the human organoids integrated into the rat brain and function, and were even capable of affecting the behaviour of the rats.

A few months later, up to one-sixth of the rat cortex was human. In terms of their biology, they were “humanised rats”.

This is an exciting discovery for science. It will allow brain organoids to grow bigger than they have in a lab, and opens up many possibilities of understanding how early human neurons develop and form the brain, and what goes wrong in disease. It also raises the possibility of organoids being used to treat brain injury.

Indeed, the rat models showed the neuronal defects related to one rare severe disease called Timothy Syndrome, a genetic condition that affects brain development and causes severe autism.

This is one step further along the long road to making progress in brain disease, which has proved so intransigent so far.

The research must go ahead. But at the same time, it calls for new standards to be set for future research. At present, the research raises no significant new ethical issues. However, it opens the door to more elaborate or ambitious research that could raise significant ethical issues.

Moral Status of Animals with Human Tissue

The human tissue transplanted into the rats’ brains were in a region that processes sensory information such as touch and pain.

These organoids did not increase the capacities of the rats. But as larger organoids are introduced, or organoids are introduced affecting more key areas of the brain, the rat brain may acquire more advanced consciousness, including higher rational capacities or self-consciousness.

This would raise issues of how such “enhanced” rats ought to be treated. It would be important to not treat them as rats, just because they look like rats, if their brains are significantly enhanced.

This requires discussion and boundaries set around what kinds of organoids can be implanted and what key sites would be targets for enhancement of capacities that matter to moral status.

The info is here.

Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas

Yang, Y., Tian, T. Y., et al. (2022, August 29). 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(36).

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200841119

Abstract

Science’s changing demographics raise new questions about research team diversity and research outcomes. We study mixed-gender research teams, examining 6.6 million papers published across the medical sciences since 2000 and establishing several core findings. First, the fraction of publications by mixed-gender teams has grown rapidly, yet mixed-gender teams continue to be underrepresented compared to the expectations of a null model. Second, despite their underrepresentation, the publications of mixed-gender teams are substantially more novel and impactful than the publications of same-gender teams of equivalent size. Third, the greater the gender balance on a team, the better the team scores on these performance measures. Fourth, these patterns generalize across medical subfields. Finally, the novelty and impact advantages seen with mixed-gender teams persist when considering numerous controls and potential related features, including fixed effects for the individual researchers, team structures, and network positioning, suggesting that a team’s gender balance is an underrecognized yet powerful correlate of novel and impactful scientific discoveries.

Significance

Science teams made up of men and women produce papers that are more novel and highly cited than those of all-men or all-women teams. These performance advantages increase the greater the team’s gender balance and appear nearly universal. On average, they hold for small and large teams, the 45 subfields of medicine, and women- or men-led teams and generalize to published papers in all science fields over the last 20 y. Notwithstanding these benefits, gender-diverse teams remain underrepresented in science when compared to what is expected if the teams in the data had been formed without regard to gender. These findings reveal potentially new gender and teamwork synergies that correlate with scientific discoveries and inform diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Discussion

Conducting an analysis of 6.6 million published papers from more than 15,000 different medical journals worldwide, we find that mixed-gender teams—teams combining women and men scientists—produce more novel and more highly cited papers than all-women or all-men teams. Mixed-gender teams publish papers that are up to 7% more novel and 14.6% more likely to be upper-tail papers than papers published by same-gender teams, results that are robust to numerous institutional, team, and individual controls and further generalize by subfield. Finally, in exploring gender in science through the lens of teamwork, the results point to a potentially transformative approach for thinking about and capturing the value of gender diversity in science.

Another key finding of this work is that mixed-gender teams are significantly underrepresented compared to what would be expected by chance. This underrepresentation is all the more striking given the findings that gender-diverse teams produce more novel and high-impact research and suggests that gender-diverse teams may have substantial untapped potential for medical research. Nevertheless, the underrepresentation of gender-diverse teams may reflect research showing that women receive less credit for their successes than do men teammates, which in turn inhibits the formation of gender-diverse teams and women’s success in receiving grants, prizes, and promotions.

The research is here.

Preventing an AI-related catastrophe

Benjamin Hilton

8000 Hours

Originally Published August 25th, 2022

Summary

We expect that there will be substantial progress in AI in the next few decades, potentially even to the point where machines come to outperform humans in many, if not all, tasks. This could have enormous benefits, helping to solve currently intractable global problems, but could also pose severe risks. These risks could arise accidentally (for example, if we don’t find technical solutions to concerns about the safety of AI systems), or deliberately (for example, if AI systems worsen geopolitical conflict). We think more work needs to be done to reduce these risks.

Some of these risks from advanced AI could be existential — meaning they could cause human extinction, or an equally permanent and severe disempowerment of humanity. There have not yet been any satisfying answers to concerns — discussed below — about how this rapidly approaching, transformative technology can be safely developed and integrated into our society. Finding answers to these concerns is very neglected, and may well be tractable. We estimate that there are around 300 people worldwide working directly on this.3 As a result, the possibility of AI-related catastrophe may be the world’s most pressing problem — and the best thing to work on for those who are well-placed to contribute.

Promising options for working on this problem include technical research on how to create safe AI systems, strategy research into the particular risks AI might pose, and policy research into ways in which companies and governments could mitigate these risks. If worthwhile policies are developed, we’ll need people to put them in place and implement them. There are also many opportunities to have a big impact in a variety of complementary roles, such as operations management, journalism, earning to give, and more — some of which we list below.

(cut)

When can we expect transformative AI?

It’s difficult to predict exactly when we will develop AI that we expect to be hugely transformative for society (for better or for worse) — for example, by automating all human work or drastically changing the structure of society. But here we’ll go through a few approaches.

One option is to survey experts. Data from the 2019 survey of 300 AI experts implies that there is 20% probability of human-level machine intelligence (which would plausibly be transformative in this sense) by 2036, 50% probability by 2060, and 85% by 2100. There are a lot of reasons to be suspicious of these estimates,8 but we take it as one data point.

Ajeya Cotra (a researcher at Open Philanthropy) attempted to forecast transformative AI by comparing modern deep learning to the human brain. Deep learning involves using a huge amount of compute to train a model, before that model is able to perform some task. There’s also a relationship between the amount of compute used to train a model and the amount used by the model when it’s run. And — if the scaling hypothesis is true — we should expect the performance of a model to predictably improve as the computational power used increases. So Cotra used a variety of approaches (including, for example, estimating how much compute the human brain uses on a variety of tasks) to estimate how much compute might be needed to train a model that, when run, could carry out the hardest tasks humans can do. She then estimated when using that much compute would be affordable.

Cotra’s 2022 update on her report’s conclusions estimates that there is a 35% probability of transformative AI by 2036, 50% by 2040, and 60% by 2050 — noting that these guesses are not stable.22

Tom Davidson (also a researcher at Open Philanthropy) wrote a report to complement Cotra’s work. He attempted to figure out when we might expect to see transformative AI based only on looking at various types of research that transformative AI might be like (e.g. developing technology that’s the ultimate goal of a STEM field, or proving difficult mathematical conjectures), and how long it’s taken for each of these kinds of research to be completed in the past, given some quantity of research funding and effort.

Davidson’s report estimates that, solely on this information, you’d think that there was an 8% chance of transformative AI by 2036, 13% by 2060, and 20% by 2100. However, Davidson doesn’t consider the actual ways in which AI has progressed since research started in the 1950s, and notes that it seems likely that the amount of effort we put into AI research will increase as AI becomes increasingly relevant to our economy. As a result, Davidson expects these numbers to be underestimates.

The info is here.

First synthetic embryos: the scientific breakthrough raises serious ethical questions

Savulescu, J., Gyngell, C., & Sawai, T.

The Conversation

Originally posted 11 AUG 22

Here is an excerpt:

Artificial wombs

In the latest study, the scientists started with collections of stem cells. The conditions created by the external uterus triggered the developmental process that makes a fetus. Although the scientists said we are a long way off synthetic human embryos, the experiment brings us closer to a future where some humans gestate their babies artificially.

Each year over 300,000 women worldwide die in childbirth or as a result of pregnancy complications, many because they lack basic care. Even in wealthy countries, pregnancy and childbirth is risky and healthcare providers are criticised for failing mothers.

There is an urgent need to make healthcare more accessible across the planet, provide better mental health support for mothers and make pregnancy and childbirth safer. In an ideal world every parent should expect excellent care in all aspects of motherhood. This technology could help treat premature babies and give at least some women a different option: a choice of whether to carry their child or use an external uterus.

Some philosophers say there is a moral imperative to develop artificial wombs to help remedy the unfairness of parenting roles. But other researchers say artificial wombs would threaten a women’s legal right to terminate a pregnancy.

Synthetic embryos and organs

In the last few years, scientists have learned more about how to coax stem cells to develop into increasingly sophisticated structures, including ones that mimic the structure and function of human organs (organoids). Artificial human kidneys, brains, hearts and more have all been created in a lab, though they are still too rudimentary for medical use.

The issue of whether there are moral differences between using stem cells to produce models of human organs for research and using stem cells to create a synthetic embryo are already playing out in law courts.

One of the key differences between organoids and synthetic embryos is their potential. If a synthetic embryo can develop into a living creature, it should have more protection than those which don’t.

Synthetic embryos do not currently have potential to actually create a living mouse. If scientists did make human synthetic embryos, but without the potential to form a living being, they should arguably be treated similarly to organoids.

The info is here.

‘The entire protein universe’: AI predicts shape of nearly every known protein

Ewen Callaway

Nature (608)

Posted with correction 29 July 22

From today, determining the 3D shape of almost any protein known to science will be as simple as typing in a Google search.

Researchers have used AlphaFold — the revolutionary artificial-intelligence (AI) network — to predict the structures of more than 200 million proteins from some 1 million species, covering almost every known protein on the planet.

The data dump is freely available on a database set up by DeepMind, the London-based AI company, owned by Google, that developed AlphaFold, and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL–EBI), an intergovernmental organization near Cambridge, UK.

“Essentially you can think of it covering the entire protein universe,” DeepMind chief executive Demis Hassabis said at a press briefing. “We’re at the beginning of a new era of digital biology.”

The 3D shape, or structure, of a protein is what determines its function in cells. Most drugs are designed using structural information, and the creation of accurate maps of proteins’ amino-acid arrangement is often the first step to making discoveries about how proteins work.

DeepMind developed the AlphaFold network using an AI technique called deep learning, and the AlphaFold database was launched a year ago with more than 350,000 structure predictions covering nearly every protein made by humans, mice and 19 other widely studied organisms. The catalogue has since swelled to around 1 million entries.

“We’re bracing ourselves for the release of this huge trove,” says Christine Orengo, a computational biologist at University College London, who has used the AlphaFold database to identify new families of proteins. “Having all the data predicted for us is just fantastic.”

(cut)

But such entries tend to be skewed toward human, mouse and other mammalian proteins, Porta says. It’s likely that the AlphaFold dump will add significant knowledge, because it includes such a diverse range of organisms. “It’s going to be an awesome resource. And I’m probably going to download it as soon as it comes out,” says Porta.

The info is here.

Dr. Oz Shouldn’t Be a Senator—or a Doctor

Timothy Caulfield

Scientific American

Originally posted 15 DEC 21

While holding a medical license, Mehmet Oz, widely known as Dr. Oz, has long pushed misleading, science-free and unproven alternative therapies such as homeopathy, as well as fad diets, detoxes and cleanses. Some of these things have been potentially harmful, including hydroxychloroquine, which he once touted would be beneficial in the treatment or prevention of COVID. This assertion has been thoroughly debunked.

He’s built a tremendous following around his lucrative but evidence-free advice. So, are we surprised that Oz is running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania? No, we are not. Misinformation-spouting celebrities seem to be a GOP favorite. This move is very on brand for both Oz and the Republican Party.

His candidacy is a reminder that tolerating and/or enabling celebrity pseudoscience (I’m thinking of you, Oprah Winfrey!) can have serious and enduring consequences. Much of Oz’s advice was bunk before the pandemic, it is bunk now, and there is no reason to assume it won’t be bunk after—even if he becomes Senator Oz. Indeed, as Senator Oz, it’s all but guaranteed he would bring pseudoscience to the table when crafting and voting on legislation that affects the health and welfare of Americans.

As viewed by someone who researches the spread of health misinformation, Oz’s candidacy remains deeply grating in that “of course he is” kind of way. But it is also an opportunity to highlight several realities about pseudoscience, celebrity physicians and the current regulatory environment that allows people like him to continue to call themselves doctor.

Before the pandemic I often heard people argue that the wellness woo coming from celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Tom Brady and Oz was mostly harmless noise. If people want to waste their money on ridiculous vagina eggs, bogus diets or unproven alternative remedies, why should we care? Buyer beware, a fool and their money, a sucker is born every minute, etc., etc.

But we know, now more than ever, that pop culture can—for better or worse—have a significant impact on health beliefs and behaviors. Indeed, one need only consider the degree to which Jenny McCarthy gave life to the vile claim that autism is linked to vaccination. Celebrity figures like podcast host Joe Rogan and football player Aaron Rodgers have greatly added to the chaotic information regarding COVID-19 by magnifying unsupported claims.

The info is here.

Blots on a Field? (A modern story of unethical research related to Alzheimer's)

Charles Pillar

Science Magazine

Originally posted 21 JUL 22

Here is an excerpt:

A 6-month investigation by Science provided strong support for Schrag’s suspicions and raised questions about Lesné’s research. A leading independent image analyst and several top Alzheimer’s researchers—including George Perry of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and John Forsayeth of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)—reviewed most of Schrag’s findings at Science’s request. They concurred with his overall conclusions, which cast doubt on hundreds of images, including more than 70 in Lesné’s papers. Some look like “shockingly blatant” examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer’s expert at the University of Kentucky.

The authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments,” says Elisabeth Bik, a molecular biologist and well-known forensic image consultant. “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”

Early this year, Schrag raised his doubts with NIH and journals including Nature; two, including Nature last week, have published expressions of concern about papers by Lesné. Schrag’s work, done independently of Vanderbilt and its medical center, implies millions of federal dollars may have been misspent on the research—and much more on related efforts. Some Alzheimer’s experts now suspect Lesné’s studies have misdirected Alzheimer’s research for 16 years.

“The immediate, obvious damage is wasted NIH funding and wasted thinking in the field because people are using these results as a starting point for their own experiments,” says Stanford University neuroscientist Thomas Südhof, a Nobel laureate and expert on Alzheimer’s and related conditions.

Lesné did not respond to requests for comment. A UMN spokesperson says the university is reviewing complaints about his work.

To Schrag, the two disputed threads of Aβ research raise far-reaching questions about scientific integrity in the struggle to understand and cure Alzheimer’s. Some adherents of the amyloid hypothesis are too uncritical of work that seems to support it, he says. “Even if misconduct is rare, false ideas inserted into key nodes in our body of scientific knowledge can warp our understanding.”

(cut)

The paper provided an “important boost” to the amyloid and toxic oligomer hypotheses when they faced rising doubts, Südhof says. “Proponents loved it, because it seemed to be an independent validation of what they have been proposing for a long time.”

“That was a really big finding that kind of turned the field on its head,” partly because of Ashe’s impeccable imprimatur, Wilcock says. “It drove a lot of other investigators to … go looking for these [heavier] oligomer species.”

As Ashe’s star burned more brightly, Lesné’s rose. He joined UMN with his own NIH-funded lab in 2009. Aβ*56 remained a primary research focus. Megan Larson, who worked as a junior scientist for Lesné and is now a product manager at Bio-Techne, a biosciences supply company, calls him passionate, hardworking, and charismatic. She and others in the lab often ran experiments and produced Western blots, Larson says, but in their papers together, Lesné prepared all the images for publication.

The info is here.

Gene editing gets safer thanks to redesigned Cas9 protein

Science Daily

Originally posted 2 MAR 22

Summary:

Scientists have redesigned a key component of a widely used CRISPR-based gene-editing tool, called Cas9, to be thousands of times less likely to target the wrong stretch of DNA while remaining just as efficient as the original version, making it potentially much safer.

-----------------

Scientists have redesigned a key component of a widely used CRISPR-based gene-editing tool, called Cas9, to be thousands of times less likely to target the wrong stretch of DNA while remaining just as efficient as the original version, making it potentially much safer.

One of the grand challenges with using CRISPR-based gene editing on humans is that the molecular machinery sometimes makes changes to the wrong section of a host's genome, creating the possibility that an attempt to repair a genetic mutation in one spot in the genome could accidentally create a dangerous new mutation in another.

But now, scientists at The University of Texas at Austin have redesigned a key component of a widely used CRISPR-based gene-editing tool, called Cas9, to be thousands of times less likely to target the wrong stretch of DNA while remaining just as efficient as the original version, making it potentially much safer. The work is described in a paper published today in the journal Nature.

"This really could be a game changer in terms of a wider application of the CRISPR Cas systems in gene editing," said Kenneth Johnson, a professor of molecular biosciences and co-senior author of the study with David Taylor, an assistant professor of molecular biosciences. The paper's co-first authors are postdoctoral fellows Jack Bravo and Mu-Sen Liu.

The info is here.

Journal Reference:

Jack P. K. Bravo, Mu-Sen Liu, et al. Structural basis for mismatch surveillance by CRISPR–Cas9. Nature, 2022; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04470-1

Reflective Reasoning & Philosophy

Nick Byrd

Philosophy Compass

First published: 29 September 2021

Abstract

Philosophy is a reflective activity. So perhaps it is unsurprising that many philosophers have claimed that reflection plays an important role in shaping and even improving our philosophical thinking. This hypothesis seems plausible given that training in philosophy has correlated with better performance on tests of reflection and reflective test performance has correlated with demonstrably better judgments in a variety of domains. This article reviews the hypothesized roles of reflection in philosophical thinking as well as the empirical evidence for these roles. This reveals that although there are reliable links between reflection and philosophical judgment among both laypeople and philosophers, the role of reflection in philosophical thinking may nonetheless depend in part on other factors, some of which have yet to be determined. So progress in research on reflection in philosophy may require further innovation in experimental methods and psychometric validation of philosophical measures.

From the Conclusion

Reflective reasoning is central to both philosophy and the cognitive science thereof. The theoretical and empirical research about reflection and its relation to philosophical thinking is voluminous. The existing findings provide preliminary evidence that reflective reasoning may be related to tendencies for certain philosophical judgments and beliefs over others. However, there are some signs that there is more to the story about reflection’s role in philosophical thinking than our current evidence can reveal. Scholars will need to continue developing new hypotheses, methods, and interpretations to reveal these hitherto latent details.

The recommendations in this article are by no means exhaustive. For instance, in addition to better experimental manipulations and measures of reflection (Byrd, 2021b), philosophers and cognitive scientists will also need to validate their measures of philosophical thinking to ensure that subtle differences in wording of thought experiments do not influence people’s judgments in unexpected ways (Cullen, 2010). After all, philosophical judgments can vary significantly depending on slight differences in wording even when reflection is not manipulated (e.g., Nahmias, Coates, & Kvaran, 2007). Scholars may also need to develop ways to empirically dissociate previously conflated philosophical judgments (Conway & Gawronski, 2013) in order to prevent and clarify misleading results (Byrd & Conway, 2019; Conway, GoldsteinGreenwood, Polacek, & Greene, 2018).

A pdf is here.