Emergence of Vergence

In parts 1 and 2 of this series, I undertook a (much longer than anticipated) personal investigation into how scientists discuss the effects of cannabis as a way of trying to better it, both as a drug and as a cultural subject. The articles generated a great
deal of discussion and many intriguing points were raised. Jimmy is a much smarter young man now.

I. PrefaceI recently posted an article (Part I) in which I proposed a hypothetical scenario, in which an individual who is offered marijuana takes time out to research the drug exclusively through recent articles on PubMed to see if its a good idea or bad idea. It was meant more as an intellectual exercise, not a commentary or piece of advocacy for either side of the legalization debate (although the commentary after quickly delved into that debate). I wrote the article for the following reasons:

Disclaimer: I have never smoked pot. Not interested. But, I have been very interested in the decades-old debate about it. On one side you have people who claim it as a benign, useful substance that should be legal. On the other side, you have people who claim it is a dangerous and destructive and should be banned. I was surprised to realize to myself recently that I couldn't articulate a good argument for either side. I didn't know enough. So I wanted to do an experiment. But not that kind of experiment.

The relationship between the work of science and works of fiction has gone on for a long time. It's time to put a ring on that finger.It's no secret that fiction writers have been pilfering ideas from science for generations. Verne did it. Wells, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Matheson, and of course Crichton, had a lot of success by finding out what was hot in science, taking an imaginary leap to the next step (or next hundred steps), and then turning it into a story, and a profit. This trend has continued with movies, which routinely feature scientific factoids that have been Googled, copied and pasted from dubious or legitimate sites. Let's face it. Fiction needs Science in order to thrive.But what does Science get out of it?

In a little less than three weeks, a federal budget

sequestration, which would have severe consequences for agencies that fund scientific

research, will take effect unless a deal can be made between Republicans and

Democrats. That’s a pretty discomforting sentence to write.

Discussions on the effect of sequestration on

science research tend to focus on academia, and rightly so, since it will be the

academics that are most directly impacted. But that is just the beginning—a

very bad beginning—to the ripple effect that sequestration would have. Private

companies that depend on the research industry would also be hit, and those

companies are making sure that their concerns are heard.

A recent study in the Journal of Neuroscience (here) has conveniently coincided with the announcement of the High Profile Affair of the Year awardee. The two have come together to stir up interest in having some sort of fidelity pill that spoken-for men could take to stop their philandering ways. And, based on science, that pill could be oxytocin. You can see this very topic discussed here, featuring this author as the lone defender of man.So let's talk about the study. You will be disappointed.

Scientists take a great deal of pride in the Scientific Method, and not just because it’s a method named after them. The Method is the basis for their authority. It is the universally accepted tool for finding all facts about the universe, the unbiased straight-and-narrow path that we wish all of the world’s irrational people would find more often. Oh, you think that’s condescending? How do you know? What are your controls?

The Society for Neuroscience recently hosted a webinar for all of its members on the topic of the budget sequestration event that will happen next year without some kind of positive action by Congress. The presentation was a call to action backed by a sense of urgency to protect American scientific research funding from a brutal, policy-induced beat-down.

Recent comments on a certain article (hey, what does that green button do?) about the future of neural interface technologies have brought up some valid ethical arguments.  Because I didn't want to go Jurassic Park and revel in the possibilities while ignoring the consequences, I thought it a good idea to break down the issues.

(I recently discovered this series of entries about fixing science journalism, begun in February.  Because I just joined up, I wasn't able to add my two cents.  So I thought I'd add it now, since, hey, who couldn't use two cents?  My apologies if I repeat someone else's sentiment.)

I was working on a paper recently, and my boss included a editing note that got me thinking.  The topic dealt with certain circuits in the limbic network of the brain.  The note included the line: "limbic connections are very complex".   The point of the edit was to emphasize that problems in the limbic network (like seizures) are difficult to treat in part because every part of the network is connected to every other part.  Therefore, it's hard to pin down any one effect that one part has on another. 

At Nature's Innocentive site, (a directory for X-prizes), there is an entry looking for someone who can develop a standard method of placing insects into a latent state and then reanimating them.  If you figure it out, you can win 20,000 bucks.  What's interesting about the offer isn't that someone is willing to pay big money in order to Han Solo a housefly.  (And by the way, you can put a house fly in a freezer for a minute, take it out, tie a string around it and watch it zoom around when it wakes up, but you can't get 20,000 bucks for suggesting that.)  Anaesthesia doesn't count, either.