treating

“Treating scientific opinion as pro or con is oversimplifying”

by

Does it exist extraterrestrial life? Yes or no?. We often think that science evolves based on strong and solid statements. We have the perception that there is absolute agreement among all scientists in the world. “Science says so.” Thus, as if all scientists had a hive mind. However, those who rely on categorical statements, without asking questions, are characters like Marcos Llorentewith his yellow glasses and his fear of water vapor. Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, evolves through uncertainty and consensus that can change as research continues. This is what a team of scientists from Durham University is studying with their project C-SCOPE (Center for the Survey and Evaluation of Opinion of the Scientific Community). Its objective is precisely to understand how much consensus there is in some of the most important disciplines of science. Astrophysics is usually one that generates the most doubts among its own researchers, as well was seen in a recently published study. For this reason, they wanted to go further and analyze the opinion of hundreds of astrobiologists regarding the idea that extraterrestrial life exists. Two milestones about extraterrestrial life. These surveys were made in 2025, after two important studies were published pointing to a possible discovery of extraterrestrial life. The first of these studies was carried out with data from exoplanet K2-18bin which traces of dimethylsulfides and dimethyldisulfides were found, both substances that on Earth are related to biological activity. The second, however, took place much closeron Mars. In a rock on the red planet called Cheyava Falls, structures known as leopard spots were identified, which on our planet are related to microbial activity. When asking hundreds of astrobiologists about each of these studies, opinion was very divided. Of course, it seemed that there were a little less doubts with the second. The data. Regarding extraterrestrial life on K2-18b, 6.6% of those surveyed agreed to make this hypothesis, while 65.4% disagreed and 28% pointed to neutrality. Regarding the Martian rock, 15.1% of astrobiologists showed agreement, 44.6% disagreement and 40.3% neutrality. Among those who showed disagreement, they were also asked if it was a categorical disagreement or with some reluctance. In the first case there was 35.1% complete disagreement, but in the second only 11.1%. Possible reasons. As explained in The Conversation one of the authors of this study, Peter Vickers, possibly this greater agreement in the case of Mars has an explanation. And, although the planet’s biosignatures were calculated with indirect methods at interstellar distances, the rock from Mars could be analyzed directly by the Perseverance rover. in situ. Errors can also occur, but not as easily as with K2-18b. It is impossible to know. If there is something that all scientists agree on, it is that many of the characteristics that on Earth are usually considered biological They can also be the result of geological processes. Therefore, it is impossible to know for sure if there is extraterrestrial life only by analyzing these biosignatures. The data should always be read with caution. Only the discovery of a living organism would be conclusive in this regard. Let’s not get confused. Science is based on evidence, not opinions. When there is evidence of something, such as that vaccines save lives, there is no room for opinions. However, on more complex topics to study, such as those related to space, there may be opinions, which in turn are supported by evidence. That is precisely what C-SCOPE scientists have seen with this new study. We should not simplify. “Treating scientific opinion as pro or con runs the risk of oversimplification.” This is what we saw at the beginning of this text. The answer to whether there is extraterrestrial life cannot simply be a yes or no. There are many nuances that must be investigated and evidence that will surely evolve over time. Unfortunately, as Vickers also points out, “public debates often invoke scientific consensus.” Scientific consensus exists and is necessary, but individual opinions, as long as they are well founded, are just as useful. This is how science grows and is enriched. Based on data, questions and reviews. We should not trust a scientist who answers the question about life beyond Earth with a simple yes or no, because science is not that polarized. That, although it can sometimes frustrate us a little, is part of what makes it so fascinating. Image | Katrin Hauf (Unsplash) In Xataka | China is getting closer to surpassing NASA in its Martian mission. And just invited other countries to join

the most disruptive technology for treating patients in the ICU turns out to be an MP3 file

by

When we think about the advances in hospitals to improve survival or recovery of patientswe can come to think of better respirators, monitors that offer thousands of data or new drugs that are almost miraculous. However, science has given us a blow of reality by demonstrating that accompanying families during hospital stays offers great results. This is something that has been seen directly in a hospital’s ICU itself, where patients are between life and death. That is why a study decided to use something as ‘low-tech’ as It is a voice recording of a family member to see the real impact it could have on his recovery. And the truth is that we have been underestimating the usefulness of this clinical tool. The problem. One of the big problems faced by patients entering the ICU is the ‘delirium’. A state of great confusion resulting from an acute failure of the nervous system that affects up to 80% of patients that have mechanical ventilation. And this is something terrible within these units. Not because it is annoying for the patient to be in a great state of confusion, but because it has been seen that mortality, hospital stay and all this increase. leads to higher costs for the healthcare system. Something that has been calculated and that points to an expense of between 6,000 and 20,000 million dollars annually. And the worst thing: current drugs (sedatives, antipsychotics) are often part of the problem or are not entirely effective in preventing it. The solution. Once we had the problem, Cindy Munro proposed a simple but powerful hypothesis to solve it: if the brain “disconnects” from reality due to isolation and sedation, can we use a familiar voice to bring it back? The test. In order to see if this was possible or not, a study was carried out that included 178 patients from two large hospitals in Florida and which had the collaboration of five large universities. The goal was clear: treat sound almost as if it were medicine. To do this, a protocol was created to play the audio so that it was not simply connecting the radio or mobile phone and allowing the patient to listen. The standard was to use common audio players, with two-minute clips recording the families and a playback that would be done twice a day: at 9 in the morning and at 4 in the afternoon. The time was not chosen at random, but was designed to ‘hack’ the circadian rhythm. Listening to familiar voices during the day helps the brain orient itself temporally, reinforcing the difference between day and night, something that is completely lost under the artificial lights of an ICU. The result. In addition to offering a positive result to the patients’ condition, it was also seen to have a dose-dependent effect like medications. That is, the more messages patients received, the greater the reduction in delirium in the ICU. Why this matters. Today the industry does not cease its attempts to search for complex molecules to protect the brain, regenerate cells and countless other techniques. But the reality is that the solution seems to lie in our evolutionary biology (or at least a little help): reacting to the voices of our ‘tribe’. Images | Stephen Andrews In Xataka | Science wants to put ‘microrobots’ into our bodies to medicate us. They have already given good results

We have been detecting a relationship between Herpes and Alzheimer’s years. Now we are discovering that treating one helps with the other

by

A few years ago the scientists detected A strange coincidencea relationship between herpes virus and a neurodegenerative and noncommissible disease: Alzheimer’s. What at the time seemed a spurious and casual relationship, it seems more and more proven and proven. Adding tests. Now a new study He has obtained evidence of this relationship. However, perhaps the most important fact that we can extract from the new analysis has to do with vaccines against infection. According to the study, antiviral treatments against herpes are related to a 17% lower risk of suffering from Alzheimer’s, suggesting that treatment against this virus can protect us against the appearance of this form of dementia. HSV-1. In study he linked again the infection by the Herpes simplex virus Type 1 (HSV-1) with the appearance of Alzheimer’s disease, a form of dementia that is characterized by accumulation in the brain of beta-amyloid plates. Today we do not have a clear idea of ​​how this relationship occurs “(Some) studies have indicated that inflammatory alterations in the brain caused by HSV infection are central to the development of (the disease),” Explain the team Resposable study. “It is pointed out that peptides (beta-amyloids (Aβ)) are deposited in response to HSV infection and protect host cells (…). Consistently, they threw antimicrobial properties against several pathogens, including HSV-1,” they detail. 344,628 matches. In his study, the team He turned to 344,628 participants with Alzheimer who were paired with two participants without diagnosis but with similar characteristics. They observed that among people with Alzheimer’s 0.44% had been previously diagnosed with HSV-1, while only 0.25% of the control group had the same previous diagnosis. The analysis indicates that, taking into account other relevant factors, the probability of finding a previous HSV-1 diagnosis was 80% higher among people with Alzheimer’s than in people without the disease. The details of the study were published In an article In the magazine BMJ Open. Not only HSV-1. The study focused on a variant of the herpes virus but also paid attention to other pathogens of the “family”, such as the HSV-2, Varicela Zoster, or Citomegalovirus. They found a relationship between two of them (HSV-2 and Vicela Zoster) and a greater risk of Alzheimer’s. Understanding the causes. New studies will still be necessary that Explain biochemical mechanisms that explain this type of relationship between infectious processes and noncommunicable diseases. Only in this way can we establish the underlying causal relationships and, hopefully, to find more effective treatments in the fight against disorders as serious as cancer and Alzheimer’s. “Although there is a lot of research ahead to find out the reasons and mechanisms that lead from infection to a process of dementia that manifests many years later, the accumulation of the evidence suggests that the management of these infections, with treatments that are effective for all herpes, or with vaccines such as herpes zoster, is an interesting tool to reduce the risk or delay dementia” explained to SMC María Jesús Bullido Gómez-Heres, head of the Research Group Pathogenic mechanisms of Alzheimer’s disease, who was not involved in the study. Not so non -transmissible diseases. This is not the only example of a noncommissible disease to which we have found a surprising relationship with past infections. A recent example We find it in colorectal cancer and its possible link with infections caused by bacteria Escherichia coli. In Xataka | We are getting closer to ahead of the arrival of Alzheimer’s. Knowing it can reassure us, but maybe too much Image | Matteo Vistocco / CDC/DR. Erskine Palmer

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.