A brief hiatus

By -
Apologies for not posting anything recently. I have something in the works at BigThink and a few more in the pipeline but it has been hard finding the time to blog recently. I hope to be back to it in a couple of weeks.

Comments

  1. NeuroskepticSeptember 22, 2011 at 11:53 PM

    Looking forward to seeing your BigThoughts :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 25, 2011 at 6:18 AM

    You don't have to worry about it. I know that it is quite hard to give enough time to blog something. It takes a lot of time that why I am impressed with sites like xlpharmacy facts because they are adding content constantly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownMarch 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM

    Enormous statistics I like your post. It is good to see you express from the heart and accuracy on this important subject can be easily captured here.
    MBA Thesis Writing

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Undetermined - a response to Robert Sapolsky. Part 1 - a tale of two neuroscientists

By -
Image
Free will is in the air. Among neuroscientists at least, the question of whether we are in control of our actions has been attracting renewed attention of late, driven in large part by the successes of the field in laying bare the neural machinery of behaviour. It’s thus not a total coincidence that two books by neuroscientists on this topic – Determined , by Robert Sapolsky, and Free Agents , by yours truly – have been published so close together (both in October, 2023). What may be more surprising to readers is that we reach such divergent conclusions on the topic. With thanks to Bill Sullivan   That we can survey the same evidence and interpret it so differently may suggest to some that the question of free will is not really an empirical one at all. Of course many of the issues are metaphysical, but both Prof. Sapolsky (Sapolsky hereafter) and myself think that the science of decision-making is at least relevant to these philosophical discussions. In short, he thinks that sci...
Read more

Eugenics, statistical hubris, and unknowable unknowns in human genetics

By -
Image
A new paper just out in Nature , by Peter Visscher and colleagues (including bio-ethicist Julian Salvulescu) explores the idea of polygenic genome editing of human embryos to reduce the risk of common diseases. This is, to say the least, a controversial idea, and a decidedly fantastical one. The authors present the results of statistical modelling which suggests that editing a small number of risk variants in each embryo’s genome could dramatically reduce the risk of a number of common disorders. But there are good reasons (lots of them) to doubt the assumptions on which this modelling is based and to have serious concerns about possibly deleterious unintended consequences of such interventions. I co-wrote a commentary on the article with geneticist Shai Carmi and law professor and bio-ethicist Hank Greely, outlining some of the limitations of the modelling and our concerns over the dangers of the proposed approach. I’ll expand on those points here.   First, the development...
Read more

Grandma’s trauma – a critical appraisal of the evidence for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans

By -
Image
Can molecular memories of our ancestors’ experiences affect our own behaviour and physiology? That idea has certainly grabbed hold of the public imagination, under the banner of the seemingly ubiquitous buzzword “epigenetics”. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the idea that a person’s experiences can somehow mark their genomes in ways that are passed on to their children and grandchildren. Those marks on the genome are then thought to influence gene expression and affect the behaviour and physiology of people who inherit them.    The way this notion is referred to – both in popular pieces and in the scientific literature – you’d be forgiven for thinking it is an established fact in humans, based on mountains of consistent, compelling evidence. In fact, the opposite is true – it is based on the flimsiest of evidence from a very small number of studies with very small sample sizes and serious methodological flaws. [Note that there is, b...
Read more