SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the people-who-know-what-they-are-talking-about dept.
On March 27, 2015, astronaut Scott Kelly rode a rocket to the International Space Station. Waving up at him from Earth was Mark Kelly, his mustachioed twin brother. While they were 400 vertical kilometres apart, NASA scientists studied how the human body reacts to the stresses of long-term space travel. Scott was the test subject; Mark served as the control. Over the course of the one-year mission, NASA extensively examined the twins' physiology, gut bacteria and even their genetic code – sure enough, NASA saw the toll of space stress on Scott.
However, NASA's sloppy wording of their findings, followed by reporting from a non-critical media, beamed the research into the realm of science fiction. "Space travel changes our genes" said one news report in March. "NASA astronaut's DNA no longer matches his twin" reported another.
These articles quoted NASA's January 2018 report which stated Scott's genetic code differed from Mark's by 7 per cent. That's not just an improbably claim – it's an impossible one, with identical twins. In anyone, twin or sibling or unrelated human, a 7-per-cent change in genetic code would mutate that person into something not human-like. "What NASA meant by genetic code was, in fact, gene expression," Smith said. "If only the journalists had quoted scientists, this incident of fake science could have been averted."
So what is the difference between genetic code and gene expression? Your genetic code is a blueprint for your body's functioning. The cells in your liver and heart contain the same code. Yet, these cells differ in their functioning because of differences in the deployment – the active expression – of the cell's genetic code. "If every gene in your cells were being actively expressed, your kidneys would be growing eyes," Smith joked.
[...] With manned missions costing taxpayers millions of dollars, the public trusts NASA. That two-way channel of trust is mediated by journalists. Scientists who convey the information in the first place need to make sure their data is sound – and their communication about it, clear.
[Source]: University of Western Ontario
This is an interesting take on "fake news". Do you think that scientists don't do enough to convey news accurately? Or, is the media to blame for bad/sensational reporting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by suburbanitemediocrity on Saturday May 26 2018, @06:14PM (4 children)
Question everything. Something that is discouraged in the educational world today. What happens when you get presidential senior policy advisors saying things like
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @06:34PM (3 children)
Wow, now that I see what is coming from DNC advisers, their ridiculous amount of failing makes a lot more sense:
http://www.newgeography.com/users/morley-winograd-and-michael-d-hais [newgeography.com]
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/930173/12774430/1308371971103/Millennials++Critical+Thinking.pdf?token=PlwvVGveRCyVjBxPGqbTq7nMqgM%3D [sqspcdn.com]
Why did you leave out the source though?
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Saturday May 26 2018, @06:46PM (1 child)
Because it usually gets downvoted or buried when I do, at least on other sites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 27 2018, @04:43AM
it seems rather sinister
they've proposed a method that is supposed to be better than thinking critically and listening to experts, but their proposed method is wide open to manipulation by propagandists
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Saturday May 26 2018, @06:48PM
It's nice to see that someone else checks