| |
The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe - Podcast 331 - 11/19/2011
|
|
|
|
|
<<< Back to Podcast Archive
|
|
The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, LLC - dedicated to promoting critical thinking, reason, and the public understanding of science through online and other media. The first episode of the SGU podcast went online on May 4th, 2005. It soon became a popular science/skeptical podcast, and remains one of the most popular science podcasts on iTunes.
SGU Podcasting Awards: SGU on XM: You can listen to the SGU on America's Talk XM 166 every Saturday night from 8-9pm Eastern.
|
Podcast
331
-
November 19, 2011
|
Interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson
This Day in Skepticism
News Items: Moon's Magnetic Field, Europa's Ice Surface, False Confessions
Who's That Noisy
Your Questions and E-mails: BMJ Poe, Catholic Pox Parties
Science or Fiction
|
|
|
|
Segment: This Day in Skepticism
|
|
Nov 19, 1969
|
– Apollo program: Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean land at Oceanus Procellarum (the "Ocean of Storms") and become the third and fourth humans to walk on the Moon.
|
|
Segment: News Items
|
|
|
Segment: Who's That Noisy
|
|
Who's That Noisy
|
Answer to last wee: Harry S. Truman
|
|
Segment: Questions and Emails
|
|
Question #1: BMJ Poe
|
Guys,
Felt the need to send a quick mail after hearing you trash one of my employers on the latest podcast! I'm still waiting for forum approval, and will probably post a message there when you let me in (as a FYI for your listeners).
I'm one of the stats editors for BMJ group (although not for the main BMJ -- I do "Thorax", one of their specialist journals).
The BMJ has a long tradition of running seriously-conducted research articles on absurd topics in the Christmas edition each year. The paper on intercessory prayer is one of them (note the publication date of 22nd Dec 2001). It's not meant to be taken seriously.
In the same issue:
"Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: longitudinal study" BMJ 2001;323:1491.
Other gems from more recent years:
"The case of the disappearing teaspoons: longitudinal cohort study of the displacement of teaspoons in an Australian research institute" BMJ 2005;331:1498
"How long did their hearts go on? A Titanic study" BMJ 2003;327:1457.
"Ice cream evoked headaches (ICE-H) study: randomised trial of accelerated versus cautious ice cream eating regimen" BMJ 2002;325:1445.
You were a bit harsh about the statement. "A larger study might have shown a significant reduction in mortality.". Assuming the subject matter wasn't deliberately absurd, this wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to say. When a nonsignificant but (potentially) clinically important difference is found in a study, I'd argue it's actually good practice to say whether the study has sufficient power to exclude the possibility that it's real (which is what they're getting at, here).
There's probably a useful discussion to be had about whether these Christmas studies should go up on PubMed. Getting one published is something of a badge of honour for researchers, so it's nice for them to be able to prove it, although perhaps they should be marked out in some way to avoid confusion?
Hope this clears things up.
Jack Gibson.
Nottingham
|
|
Question #2: Catholic Pox Parties
|
Hi guys,
I listened with interest to pox party bit because our neighbors do this. They intentionally expose their youngest children to chicken pox if someone in the community has it.
I was surprised that you didn't mention their particular rational for doing this with this particular disease.
They are Catholic and will not use the chicken pox vaccine because it was developed using aborted human embryo tissue.
My BS alarm started flashing when they told me this, but surprisingly as far as I can google this seems to be real.
It puts a much more interesting spin on the bioethics of their situation because rather than being demonstrably factually wrong like the typical anti-vaxers, they are ethically opposed to using a medicine. I would love to hear your take on this. My thought is that by not vaccinating, they are putting many more babies, embryos, elderly and otherwise immunodeficient people in danger.
My other question would be is there an ethical and safer way of doing this? What quarenteen procedures would they need to employ? Can other family members leave the house while there is a child sick with chicken pox without exposing the community?
There is a large population of Catholics in my area doing this and the issue comes around almost every year. Fighting back against it requires knowing where the other side is coming from.
This link contains a bioethics statement from the vatican:
http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm
Thanks
Cindy Lebsack
United States
|
|
Segment: Interview
|
|
|
Segment: Science or Fiction [ Click Here to Show the Answers ]
|
|
|
Segment: Skeptical Quote of the Week
|
|
Skeptical Quote of the Week
|
"Perfect as the wing of a bird may be, it will never enable the bird to fly if unsupported by the air. Facts are the air of science. Without them a man of science can never rise."
- Ivan Pavlov
|
|
|
|
|
|