Surveys are always tricky because how you ask a question can have a dramatic impact on how people answer. But it is useful to ask the exact same question over a long period of time, because that can indicate how public attitudes are changing. This is one of the benefits of Gallup, which was founded in 1935 and is dedicated to high quality and representative polls. They have been asking the following question since 1982:

“Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings — 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?”

It’s an imperfect way to ask these questions – the “less advanced life forms” is not really accurate, and the questions all assume or imply the existence of God. But by asking “which one comes closest” it does capture the essence of this issue. Option 3 is basically young-Earth creationism, option 2 is pure scientific evolution, and option 1 is everything else. From my view as a skeptic and science communicator, the results of this survey are dismal but also encouraging. At the start of the survey in 1982 the numbers were stark: 1 – 38%, 2 – 9%, and 3 – 44% (the rest undecided). Therefore 82% of Americans endorsed some form of creationism, and only 9% were willing to say that life resulted from evolution acting all by itself.

The most recent poll from this perspective is encouraging: 1 – 34%, 2 – 24%, and 3 – 37%. There is still a plurality endorsing young-Earth creationism, but those endorsing scientific evolution is up to 24%. These numbers also track with surveys on religion in the US. The young-Earth creationism figure is about the same as the number of Americans who identify as some kind of evangelical (something between 30 and 39%). Admittedly, this number can be squirrely depending on how you define “evangelical” and ask the question, but broadly defined, the numbers track. The scientific evolution numbers also track with those who answer on surveys that they are religiously unaffiliated, also now in the 20’s.

Continue Reading »

Often times the answer to a binary question is “yes”. Is artificial intelligence (AI) a powerful and quickly advancing tool or is it overhyped? Yes. Are opiates useful medicines or dangerous drugs? Yes. Is Elon Musk a technological visionary or an eccentric opportunist? This is because the world is usually more complex and nuanced than our false dichotomy or false choice simplistic thinking. People and things can contain disparate and seemingly contradictory traits – they can be two things at the same time.

This was therefore my immediate reaction to the question – are AI companions a potentially healthy and useful phenomenon, or are they weird and harmful? First let me address a core neuropsychological question underlying this issue – how effective are chatbot companions, for just companionship, or for counseling, or even as romantic partners? The bottom line is that the research consistently shows that they are very effective.

This is likely a consequence of how human brains are typically wired to function. Neurologically speaking, we do not distinguish between something that acts alive and something that is alive. Our brains have a category for things out there in the world that psychologists term “agents”, things that are acting on their own volition. There is a separate category for everything else, inanimate objects. There are literally different pathways in the brain for dealing with these two categories, agents and non-agents. Our brains also tend to overall the agent category, and really only require that things move in a way that suggest agency (moving in a non-inertial frame, for example). Perhaps this makes evolutionary sense. We need to know, adaptively, what things out there might be acting on their own agenda. Does that thing over there want to eat me, or is it just a branch blowing in the wind.

Humans are also intensely social animals, and a large part of our brains are dedicated to social functions. Again, we tend to overcall what is a social agent in our world. We easily attribute emotion to cartoons, or inanimate objects that seem to be expressing emotions. Now that we have technology that can essentially fake human agency and emotion, this can hack into our evolved algorithms which never had to make a distinction between real and fake agents.

Continue Reading »

This kind of abuse of deepfake endorsements was entirely predictable, so it’s not surprising that a recent BMJ study documents the scale of this fraud. The study focused on the UK, detailing instances of deepfakes of celebrity doctors endorsing dubious products. For example, there is this video of Dr. Hilary Jones used to endorse a snake oil product claiming to reduce blood pressure. The video is entirely fake. It’s also interesting that in the video the fake Jones refers only to “this product” – as if the deepfakers made a generic endorsement (ala Krusty the Clown) that could be then attached to any product.

This trend is obviously disturbing, although again entirely expected. This use of deepfakes is deliberate fraud, and should be treated as such. Public figures have a right to their own identity, including their name and likeness. Laws vary by country and by state, but most have some limited protections for the use of someone’s name or likeness. In the US, for example, there is a limited “right of publicity” which limits the use of someone’s name or likely for commercial purposes without their permission. This can also extend beyond death, with the estate holding the rights. Even imitating a recognizable voice has been successfully sued.

This means that using a deepfake clearly violates the right of publicity – in fact it is the ultimate violation of that right. There are generally three legal remedies for violations – monetary damages, injunctive relief, and punitive damages.

How good are the deepfakes? Good enough, especially if you are viewing a relatively low-res video on social media. And of course they are only getting better. We cannot wait until deepfakes are good enough to fool most people, right now they are high enough quality to constitute fraud. So what do we do about it?

Continue Reading »

Astronomers have discovered multiple “pits” on the surface of the moon – these look superficially like craters, but on closer inspection are actually vertical pits. There has been considerable speculation that these pits might be cave openings. Now, an analysis of data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from 2010 reveals that at least one of these pits is in fact a cave opening.

The pit is located in the Mare Tranquillitatis, near the site of the Apollo 11 landing (the Sea of Tranquility) and is therefore called the Mare Tranquillitatis Pit (MTP). It is 100 meters across and 130-170 meters deep. The study used radar data at a downward angle which was able to image the sides of the bottom of the pit, showing that there is a possible conduit there for an underground cave system. This conduit is at least tens of meters long, but could be much larger.

While this is exciting, it’s not surprising. One hypothesis is that these lunar pits are “skylights” of underground cave systems, carved out by lava tubes when the Moon was more geologically active. If true, then it’s possible that they are extensive, and can also be quite large. Why is this so exciting?

There are two main reasons NASA and others are interested in lunar caves. One is geological – such cave systems might be billions of years old, and therefore can preserve lunar rocks by protecting them from the radiation and micro meteors that pummel the lunar surface. When we send astronauts back to the Moon (or even just highly capable robots) they could explore these caves and are likely to make some interesting discoveries about the Moon.

But the second application is the most intriguing. I have deliberately buried the lede here, partly because I suspect most readers know where this story is going. Such lunar caves could be ideal locations for future lunar bases. This is for the same reason they are good locations to do some geological investigations on the Moon – the caves are protected. This is something that science fiction shows give very short shrift to, and for this reason perhaps is greatly underappreciated by the public. Space is a very dangerous place, and not just because it’s largely a cold vacuum. Space is full of radiation, and stellar systems are full of fast-moving debris.

Continue Reading »

By now most people have heard that on Saturday there was a failed assassination attempt on candidate Trump at a rally. While it has only been a few days, preliminary investigation has found that 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, using a AR style rifle purchased legally by his father, acted alone in attempting to kill the former president. Again preliminarily, Crooks fits the typical profile of someone who would do this (young white male, loner, fond of guns) although his ideology is not clear at this time, and may be complicated. He is a registered Republican but has donated to liberal groups.

This is a huge event, which may alter the course of the campaign (although I am not convinced, given how galvanized public opinion is at this point). It was also an extremely close call, and we can’t help considering how world history can turn over a fraction of an inch. It’s unsettling. How people react in the moment says a lot about their psychology and the broader culture. Unsurprisingly, many people immediately reached for a conspiracy theory to help make sense of these events. Even among people I know personally, who are generally savvy and not conspiracy theorists, the possibility was immediately raised.

The conspiracy theories come into basic flavors – on the left the possibility was raised that this was a false flag operation in order to help Trump’s campaign. On the right, there were accusations that Biden was somehow responsible for the shooting, or even directly ordered it. Some comments are just political opportunism and spin, but the reaction goes way beyond that to blatant conspiracy theories, which exploded on the internet within minutes of the event.

It is a great example of motivated reasoning and the pitfalls of conspiracy thinking, so at least can serve as a teachable moment. First, at least anecdotally it is pretty blatant that these casual conspiracy theories align with the politics of the one proposing the conspiracy. In this sense, they essentially amount to wishful thinking. With blood still on his face, Trump was immediately seizing the event for its obvious political opportunity. The wishful thinking comes in when one imagines that it can all be taken away, and even reversed, if it is discovered that Trump staged the whole thing. On the other side, a desire for the event to have maximal impact, even be a death blow to Biden, leads to thinking that the assassination attempt can be tied to him. In either case, people then search for reasons to support their emotionally generated conspiracy theory.

Continue Reading »

What was the greatest invention of human civilization? Arguably it was agriculture, which allowed for civilization itself. Prior to agriculture humans were some combination of hunters, gatherers, scavengers, and fishers. We lived off the land, which was a full-time job. Many communities had to be nomadic, to follow prey and follow the seasons. There were some permanently occupied sites, if they were in proximity to an adequate food source. Food was the ultimate limiting factor on human populations and ingenuity.

Agriculture was therefore a transformative invention, allowing people to stay in one place and develop infrastructure. It also freed up some members of the group to do things other than focus on acquiring food. It made civilization possible. How far back does agriculture go?

The consensus is that agriculture began in earnest about 12,000 years ago, in the fertile crescent that is now Iran, Iraq, Turkey and surrounding regions. Evidence for this includes the remnants of domesticated plants, and also evidence of farming and food processing. In addition there is evidence of domesticated animals, which would have been a source of labor and also an additional food source. There were also some downsides to this shift in lifestyle – relying on a narrow range of plants reduced food diversity and therefore overall nutritional quality. Living with domesticated animals, and in larger populations, also saw the rise of communicable diseases. The latter still plagues humanity. However, successful societies all figured out eventually how to farm a combination of plants that would provide adequate nutrition. You may have noticed that most cultures’ staple foods include some combination of a grain plus a legume – corn and beans, rice and lentils, for example.

Continue Reading »

In an optimally rational person, what should govern their perception of risk? Of course, people are generally not “optimally rational”. It’s therefore an interesting thought experiment – what would be optimal, and how does that differ from how people actually assess risk? Risk is partly a matter of probability, and therefore largely comes down to simple math – what percentage of people who engage in X suffer negative consequence Y? To accurately assess risk, you therefore need information. But that is not how people generally operate.

In a recent study assessment of the risk of autonomous vehicles was evaluated in 323 US adults. This is a small study, and all the usual caveats apply in terms of how questions were asked. But if we take the results at face value, they are interesting but not surprising. First, information itself did not have a significant impact on risk perception. What did have a significant impact was trust, or more specifically, trust had a significant impact on the knowledge and risk perception relationship.

What I think this means is that knowledge alone does not influence risk perception, unless it was also coupled with trust. This actually makes sense, and is rational. You have to trust the information you are getting in order to confidently use it to modify your perception of risk. However – trust is a squirrely thing. People tend not to trust things that are new and unfamiliar. I would consider this semi-rational. It is reasonable to be cautious about something that is unfamiliar, but this can quickly turn into a negative bias that is not rational. This, of course, goes beyond autonomous vehicles to many new technologies, like GMOs and AI.

Continue Reading »

If either of the two presumptive nominees for the major political parties in the US are elected in November they will be the oldest person ever to be inaugerated as president. What implications does this have? As a neurologist who sees patients every workday of various ages, evaluates them, and explicitly investigates the effects of aging on their function, I have some thoughts.

The first thing to realize is that aging affects different people differently. Especially once people get north of 40 you start to see significant and growing divergence in how well people age, in terms of their health and various aspects of functioning. I have seen many patients in their 90s who are completely sharp and fully functional or have just specific issues to deal with, but are overall healthy. I have also seen patients in their 50s who are wrecked and suffering from various aspects of declining health.

This divergence is partly due to the luck of genetics, and partly due to lifestyle. Some people have a chronic illness that dramatically affects their aging. Others may have suffered an injury with long term effects that get more challenging with age. While others have engaged in one or more poor lifestyle choices and have paid a heavy toll. Chronic alcohol use disorder, for example, can be devastating, adding years or decades to one’s apparent age. Smoking also takes its toll.

For these reasons, what we can say about a person based upon just a number is actually quite limited. We can make statistical comments, but that’s all. Even there, we can only describe what is typical, but there are exceptions. There are, for example, so-called “super agers” who do not develop the typical brain changes that most people do with age.

Continue Reading »

How’s that for a provocative title? But it is technically accurate. The title of the paper in question is: “A DNA robotic switch with regulated autonomous display of cytotoxic ligand nanopatterns.” The study is a proof of concept in an animal model, so we are still years away from a human treatment (if all goes well), but the tech is cool.

First we start with what is called “DNA origami”. These are sequences of DNA that fold up into specific shapes. In this case the DNA origami is used to create a nanoscale “robot” which is used as a delivery mechanism for the kill switch. The skill switch is quite literal – a “death receptor” (DR) which is a ligand of 6 amino acids. These exist on all healthy cells, but when sufficiently clustered on the surface of a cell, DRs trigger apoptosis, which is programmed cell death – a death switch.

The DNA origami robot has six such ligands arranged in a hexagonal pattern on the interior of its structure. The DNA, in fact, creates this structure with precise distance and arrangement to effectively trigger apoptosis.  When it opens up it reveals these ligands and can attach them to a cell surface, triggering apoptosis. The researchers have managed to create a DNA robot that remains closed in normal body pH, but also will open up in an acidic environment.

Continue Reading »

Paranormal phenomena tend to wax and wane in the public interest. Typically a generation will become fascinated with a topic, but eventually the novelty will wear thin and interest will fade. But the flame will be kept alive by the hardcore believers. Wait long enough, and interest will come around again. We are seeing this today with UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects, now technically terms UAPs or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena).

Not surprisingly the BBC wants to get in on this UFO action, and they are doing that with their Paranormal series, which they are promoting on their news outlet. They clearly are trying to remain respectable, and not completely abandon their journalistic integrity, but they predictably fall for all the usual fallacies that skeptics have explained many times over decades.

They focus on an incident in Wales in 1977 at the Broad Haven elementary school. This is often referred to as the Roswell of Wales. There were reports that day of something strange going on, including a silver humanoid walking around town, and possible UFO sightings. Some of the students thought they saw something in a field near the school’s playground, and many students then went out to take a look. What UFO believers point to as “compelling” evidence that they saw an actual space craft is that the students, under questioning by the school staff, all drew similar images of what they saw – a pretty typical flying saucer. The BBC captions a picture of some of these drawings: “The children reportedly drew near identical images of the UFO, which captured widespread media attention.”

Continue Reading »