Also no one likes fiery fur-balls running all over the place, now do they?

Study finds flame retardants at high levels in pet dogs

With that said, when I first heard about the new wireless drug chip that was recently successfully tested, I had mixed feelings.  It was an incredible device that could revolutionize healthcare, but would this revolution necessarily be a good thing.  Can it take away our control to make our own healthcare choices?  Who will be controlling the chip, and will there be a way that a patient be able to turn it off, or will it only be up to the doctor?

These are simple, what ifs, but they are important what if’s when talking about the potential physical and philosophical impact of this or any similar device.

For a longer discussion on this topic, and a link to the original press release, please peruse my Patexia article, Wireless drug delivery computer chips: Will telemedicine take away patient choice?

Technology is not a saving grace nor is it the root of all evil.  It simply is a tool.  It’s how we use it that matters.

Does this mean that non-conformists conform to having a certain amount of gray matter?

X-rays illuminate the interior of the Moon

Oooh-La La, we can see the moon’s private parts! Take that superman!

‘Beam me up, Scotty:’ ASU professor uses Star Trek themes to communicate science

As a self-professed geek, I always love when science gets extra geekified.

 Georgia Tech develops braille-like texting app

This is pretty awesome, I just pray anyone who uses this app doesn’t get  arrested for texting while driving.

The mathematics of a heart beat could save lives

Crap!  My fourth grade arithmetic teacher was right.  Math is important!

Created by: ClinicalPsychology.net

The graphic builds an interesting against fraud and/or incompetence in the science community.  It is true there are many cases of fraud in the sciences, but scientists are only human.  It is doubtful there are any more incidences of fraud in the sciences as there are anywhere else in the world. This doesn’t mean it’s right, just a comment to put things in context.  Why should scientists be held to a higher standard, when the rest of the world, as a whole, is not much better?  People living in glass houses and all that…

But with that said, mistakes happen.  People accidentally might use the wrong statistics, someone might inadvertently forget to reference something properly, or people might not exactly understand what is considered ethical and what is not.  I mean the idea of self-plagiarism confuses a lot of people, so it is not surprising that mistakes like these can be rampant in the sciences.  It is here that mistakes, rather than being vilified, should be used as teaching points.  By teaching how to properly perform an experiment, or what is considered plagiarism and what is not, then less mistakes like these will be made.

Fraud, however, is a whole another thing, although not entirely unexpected  especially given the present environment of “publish or die,” which isn’t anything new, except that science funding is constantly being cut and people are under constant pressure to succeed.  I really don’t understand a country that wants to succeed internationally, but keeps on cutting funding that will eventually lead to incredible scientific discoveries and innovative technology.  Bass-ackwards thinking, is what that is.  Fraud is bad.  Fraud needs to be caught and punished at the full extent of the law.  Fraud can lead to undue harm to people, animals and cost countless money.

Tony’s graphic mentions a few ideas on how to improve “Bad science.”  1.  Make all raw data available to scientists.  This is a good idea that has been debated for some time, in which I discuss in my Patexia.com article Hope and innovation, not fear, should drive scientific transparency. 2. Hold Journalists accountable.  I personally believe that media coverage on the sciences are shoddy at best, and that we definitely need to keep journalists accountable, but I also need to respectfully disagree with Tony Shin on this point.  Fixing shoddy journalism, while important, is an entirely different issue from “bad science.”  If a reporter for example claims a science paper found the cure for cancer, when all the paper did was actually find that one particular medication killed one particular cancer cell line, that isn’t an indication that the science was bad, it was just an indication of a lazy reporter. 3. Introduce Anonymous Publication—now this is an interesting idea.  I’m not sure if it will work, but I like the way it is going.  If we can remove ego from the sciences will incidences of fraud be diminished?  The problem lies in the fact that putting your name on a publication is important for several reasons beyond simple recognition.  It actually helps keep a person accountable and allows for easier peer-review.  Without names, it would also make it more difficult for a scientist to get grant money and continue their work, because if someone was underhanded enough, they could convince others that the work performed was actually their own.  Being focused on scientific findings rather than ego is a nice idea, but when it risks hard-working people’s salary, a salary that helps feed their family, then it’s a tad more difficult.

I think Tony Shin has brought a major problem to light with his graphic and his suggestions are interesting, but fixing fraud in the sciences, is going to be a difficult overhaul.  If we can promise solid good money for hardworking scientists, then it might work.  We can’t expect them to do everything for free can we?

The EurekAlert! Press Release “Can you predict your mate will cheat by their voice,” describes a test with male and female participants.  They were asked to grade several male and female voices as possible cheaters or not.  Researchers found that participants held a strong belief that females with high-pitched voices were likely to stray from a relationship while men with lower voices were likely to cheat.

The reasoning for these assumptions were not entirely clear.  Biological factors such as hormones could play a role.  For example a higher voice is usually a sign of high levels of estrogen in women and lower voices are a sign of higher testosterone.  It can also be likely that these assumptions are socially based as well.  Years and years of television shows that portray really high-pitched women as sex-crazed bimbos could color anyone’s judgement about sex.

The same could be said about a deep voice.  A deep gruff male is always portrayed as a manly man.

So the question should be what came first the chicken or the egg?

It would also be interesting to repeat these experiments in different cultures.  Will the results differ based on different cultural influences?

But is there a difference between perceived power and actual power?  Or is it that like begets like?

Personally, I don’t feel like acting like a jerk is necessarily the way to get power.  Yeah, a few people might glomb onto the personality type, but real power, isn’t about the loudest brute in the room.  There are many powerful CEOs, leaders, etc. that in life are demure and quiet.

I do agree with the whole breaking the rules things, could definitely get you ahead in life.  If everyone followed the rules, I’m not sure if we’d ever gotten out of the stone age.  Or even worse, never evolved enough to have begun the stone age in the first place.

Breaking rules makes you seem powerful

New drugs schedule makes horse racing a sure thing

The science of cheating? Nice

The power of estrogen — male snakes attract other males

These types of studies, provide an interesting view into the biology of a magnificent animal and are actually quite important.  But at the same time I have to ask why?

US workers are ‘giving away the store,’ costing firms billions

Thievery or sticking it to the man?

Research finds ways that young couples experience less relationship stress, higher satisfaction

You mean talking with your significant other is actually a good thing?

Five killer whales ‘sue’ SeaWorld

From ambulance chasing to pod chasing.  Go Lawyers!

People make mistakes.  For example a guy can be a bit thick-skulled when it comes to all that romantic gushy stuff, but it won’t do you any good to get angry about it, especially if he is at least trying to be better.

According to a new study, if you harp on past mistakes rather than seeing the present attempts that your significant other is making to be better, you will never be happy.  Nor will your loved one, as they will have to live up to an impossible standard.

Instead, if you cherish what you have and be grateful for what you are getting, you will be much happier, even if your loved one has a very long way to become an “ideal mate”

It’s simple common sense, positive reinforcement always works better than negative reinforcement.

If your loved one isn’t trying to improve, or is just a big jerk, then that’s a whole another story

Happy Valentine’s Day

Cut your Valentine some slack

Hmmm?

This sort of sounds like a parenting issue, doesn’t it?

I bet unsupervised children may also be at more risk from shoving pennies up their nose, getting shoved by imaginary tigers down the stairs, eating their own hair, or getting abducted by aliens .  Children do not have the cognitive capability to understand the consequences beyond what we as adults tell them, so of course, there is likely to be more damage when compared to supervised child.

However, this article actually deals less with the idea of an unsupervised child, than an unsupervised dog.  Cute family pets are often treated like a member of the family,as they should be, but they are animals and should never be used as a baby sitter.  They can easily turn on a child and the damage can be horrific.This doesn’t mean get rid of the dog, or if you prefer animals, get rid of your kid.  Just use common sense.  The same common sense that should tell you not let your newborn baby play with a 15 foot boa constrictor, while you go watch football.  Watch your kid, watch your dog, and have one big happy family.