On the site NeuroscienceNews.com you can frequently find stories making unfounded boasts about the activities of neuroscientists. An example of the misleading stories we sometimes see on this site is discussed in my post here. The latest example of an untrue headline at the site is the false headline "Epigenetic Switch to Turn Memories On and Off Created" The article makes these untrue claims:
"Researchers have shown for the first time that flipping an epigenetic 'switch' in specific memory-holding neurons can directly alter memory strength. By targeting the gene Arc—which helps neurons adjust their connections—scientists used CRISPR-based tools to either boost or silence its activity in engram cells within the hippocampus. Silencing Arc blocked memory formation, while activating it strengthened recall, even days later, and these effects were reversible."
The claims are untrue because the research being referred is an example of very low-quality science, being guilty of multiple examples of Questionable Research Practices. It's a paper called "Cell-type- and locus-specific epigenetic editing of memory expression" which you can read here.
We have the same defects so typically found in rodent research on memory:
- The study group sizes are way too small, between 3 and 12, and never greater than 12, with the average study group size being only about 7 rodents. No study of this type of this type should be taken seriously unless it used at least 15 or 20 animals per study group.
- Conclusions about how well animals recalled are based on the utterly unreliable technique of trying to judge "freezing behavior" in rodents. All studies using this technique are examples of junk science, for reasons I explain fully in the post here. So reliable evidence has not been presented in the study that the genetic or epigenetic fiddling produced any change in memory in rodents.
- The study made no use of any blinding protocol, an essential for a study like this to be taken seriously.
If the authors of the study had bothered to act like good scientists and do a sample size calculation, they would have found out how ridiculously inadequate were the sample sizes they used. They confess their failure to do such a thing, and offer a ridiculous excuse, when they say this: " For in vivo experiments, no statistical methods were used to predetermine sample sizes, but the number of animals used in each experiment is similar to those reported in previously published engram studies." This is like saying, "I didn't pay my income taxes, but it's okay because none of my friends paid their income taxes." It is well-known that grossly inadequate and insufficient study group sizes are an epidemic within cognitive neuroscience studies involving rodents, and that the use of such way-too-small sample sizes is more the rule than the exception. So you do nothing to excuse yourself for failing to do a sample size calculation by saying that the sample sizes you used were comparable to those done by other published studies like the one you did.
Every use of the phrase "engram cell" in the paper is unjustified. No scientists have ever presented convincing evidence that any such thing as an "engram cell" exists. So-called "engram cells" are cells claimed to be parts of some area in a brain where a memory is stored, an area called an "engram." No reliable evidence has ever been presented for the existence of either "engrams" or "engram cells." The type of studies claiming to have provided evidence for engrams are studies guilty of research practices as shoddy as the research practices in the paper "Cell-type- and locus-specific epigenetic editing of memory expression."
When the paper makes the statement "In recent years, accumulating evidence has shown that memories are in part encoded in sparse populations of defined brain cells, so-called engrams," it is making a statement that is very untrue. No such evidence has accumulated, because all of the studies claiming to have produced evidence for engrams were junk science studies guilty of methodological sins as bad as in the paper "Cell-type- and locus-specific epigenetic editing of memory expression."
Another bogus boast found in the recent neuroscience news is an article discussing the reckless human brain scan study discussed in the paper here, entitled "Mind captioning: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity." Unlike the rodent study above, which only harms or kills a few mice, the study here involves serious needless risks to human subjects, who were subjected to 17.1 hours of medically needless 3.0 T fMRI brain scanning.
The study had six human subjects watch 17 hours of videos for which text captions had been written, while the subjects were having their brains scanned. The authors claimed that by some weird convoluted "witches' brew" method of analyzing brain scans (some maze-like method all-but-impossible to untangle), they were able to "evolve" the captions to make them better. It's an example of very bad junk science, partially because of the very inadequate study group sizes, and the hopelessly convoluted analysis pipeline, involving multiple "black boxes" such as large-language models.
No study like this should be taken seriously unless it uses at least 15 or 20 subjects per study group. But only six subjects were used. The authors confessed that they failed to do a sample size calculation to determine whether their study groups were adequate for a decent statistical power, stating, "The sample size was determined on the basis of prior fMRI studies with similar protocols (7, 65)." Since it is is well-known that the use of way-too-small study group sizes is an epidemic in today's neuroscience research (more the rule than the exception) appealing to "prior fMRI studies with similar protocols" is no excuse at all for failing to do a sample size calculation.
In the wikipedia.org article for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, we read the troubling passage below:
"Genotoxic (i.e., potentially carcinogenic) effects of MRI scanning have been demonstrated in vivo and in vitro, leading a recent review to recommend 'a need for further studies and prudent use in order to avoid unnecessary examinations, according to the precautionary principle'."
A 2011 paper different from the 2009 paper quoted above states this:
"We observed a significant increase in the frequency of single-strand DNA breaks following exposure to a 3 T MRI...These results suggest that exposure to 3 T MRI induces genotoxic effects in human lymphocytes."
A more recent year 2024 study ("Evaluation of the Biological Effects of Exposures to Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Single-Strand DNA: An In-vivo Study") found similar results, finding that MRI scanners only half as powerful as 3T scanners can produce genotoxic effects. It reported this:
"The DNA single-strand breaks were significant for all tested parameters in both MRI 1.5 T (p<0.01) and 3.0 T (p<0.001)....The percentage of cells destroyed in the group exposed to 3.0 T MRI was increased to 12.65 ± 1.0 after 10 minutes of exposure."
The younger a person is, the higher the risk of that person eventually getting cancer from long, unnecessary MRI scans. An experiment like this should never have used such absurdly long MRI brain scans of 17 hours, nor should it have used young subjects. All of the subjects were younger than 40, and one was only 22 years old. There is no reliable data showing the safety over decades of MRI scans of more than an hour. No one has studied whether experimental subjects getting long hours of brain scans have higher risks of cancer over a period of 20 or 30 or 40 years; and there is very much reason to fear that they do (the reasons being discussed in the quotes above) Neuroscientists do not track the very long-term health of their human subjects, but instead follow a "scan 'em & forget 'em" policy. Human subjects are being put at risk for the sake of parlor-trick poorly-designed low-quality studies such as the "Mind captioning" study, which don't give good evidence for anything, partially because of their "maze within a maze within a maze" designs, so cluttered up with black boxes, sneaky data injection backdoors, and experimental "sleight of hand."
Dear Mark, i want you to know, as someone who has held darwinian materialism as totally unquestionable pretty much my entire life, that your blogs contain by far the most shocking knowledge i've ever read. Especially the sheer amount of weak evidence, counterevidence and bad experimental design that are at the foundation of areas that i thought to be unquestionable and practically flawless, such as the brain as a memory storage device, DNA as a "body blueprint" and common-descent darwinian theory.
ReplyDeleteWhat especially shocked me is that much of the knowledge you share, many of the holes in these theories are not even exposed by "cranks" or "crackpots" but rather by respectable scientists admitting the weaknesses of their own theories.
However, there is one big problem, that is not your fault but is still worth trying to address - This knowledge you present is either criminally censored or criminally obscure, since your blogs are quite literally the only places in my life where i have ever seen such potent and such solidly established counter-evidence and counterarguments against darwinian materialism.
And it's unfair and greatly insufficient if you have to do the dirty work alone. For such extremely important knowledge to languish in obscurity.
I really recommend you maybe try an extra avenue to see it shared if you're passionate about it, or else i wouldn't be surprised if much of this knowledge might genuinely die with you.
If you can recommend me a way to stay this well informed on so many topics the way you are that'd also be nice, because your multidisciplinary knowledge is actually really impressive.
Maybe an interview with the Essentia Foundation is an option, because i think while their motivation is similar to yours, they do a much worse job in my opinion, because they talk too much about extraordinary claims that are cause for incredulity, rather than using strong counterevidence to debunk the ordinary claims that are the foundation of our current paradigm, like you often do.
Or maybe you can do something else, it's up to you.
Thanks for the kind words.
Delete