All posts by medical

Human Behavior

US suffers bleak January as Covid rages and vaccination campaign falters – The Guardian

More Americans are dying of Covid-19 than at any time during the pandemic, the most complex mass vaccination campaign in history is off to a rocky start, and more transmissible strains of the coronavirus are emergent. January is going to be a bleak month.

The most pessimistic outlook published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) predicts up to 438,000 people may be killed by Covid-19 by the end of the month in a staggering upward trend.

However, even in this bleak outlook, epidemiologists said there are still reasons for optimism, buoyed by the power of changing human behavior.

My hope is this month will be the peak and things will start to look better in February, said Caitlin Rivers, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University whose work focuses on pandemic response. I dont think it will be vaccination that will bend the curve. It will be washing your hands and staying home.

Predictions of a horrific death toll come from the CDCs ensemble forecast, which takes in predictions from three dozen academic centers, all considering different criteria. Ensemble forecasts are known to be more accurate than single forecasts.

It is this ensemble model which shows between 405,000 and 438,000 Americans may be killed by Covid-19 by the end of January. Predictions are made in four-week increments.

Forecasting further into the future is considered unreliable, because the pandemic can change course so quickly. For example, majorities of Americans across the political spectrum are changing their behaviors to wear masks every time they leave the house, according to a recent tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

But growing discontent could undermine these improvements. In a counter example, some restaurants are breaking indoor dining bans in defiance of government regulations, arguing they cannot survive another lockdown. The CDC considers indoor dining particularly high risk.

Further, a mass vaccination campaign now underway holds the promise of altering the pandemic, though it has stumbled. The vaccination campaign is not likely reflected in existing forecasts, because only about 3% of the population has been vaccinated.

US officials had planned to vaccinate 20 million people before the end of 2020, a goal they have since walked back. To date, only about 9 million people have been vaccinated, representing about one-third of all vaccine doses distributed.

Experts attribute this failure to a disengaged White House which pushed vaccine planning to states, a lack of timely federal funds, and failure to conduct public education campaigns to combat vaccine hesitancy. These failures have led to wide discrepancies between states.

The differences are, not a red versus blue state thing, Dr Ashish K Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said on Twitter. Its a lack of federal leadership thing.

Herd immunity, likely requiring near-universal vaccine uptake among US adults, is seen as the ultimate goal of the vaccination campaign. But a tipping point, when the vaccine has observable positive effect, is likely to come earlier. If the Biden-Harris administration can successfully speed up vaccinations, it is possible a reduction in deaths could be the first positive outcome of the vaccination campaign.

We will likely see the positive effects of the vaccination campaign in deaths before new cases, said Rivers. That is because, we are specifically targeting people who are at highest risk of severe illness for vaccination.

The Biden-Harris administration is also likely to have more vaccines at their disposal. Janssen Pharmaceuticals is expected to report clinical trial data at the end of January. That data could lead to emergency authorization.

Further, a vaccine candidate developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University which is already in use in the UK is expected to report trial data in February. If it is favorable, that could bring two more vaccines online in the US.

The emergence of new, highly transmissible Covid-19 variants is likely to strain these optimistic developments. The B117 variant discovered in the UK is thought to be up to 70% more transmissible, and has been in the US perhaps as early as October. That will require even greater adherence to social distancing measures.

Its very early days in the US, but we should expect this to be the dominant variant in certain areas of the US (eg, CA) within the next 6-8 weeks (late February/early March), said Professor Kristian G Andersen, a professor of immunology at Scripps Research Institute on Twitter.

While there are 72 lab-confirmed cases of B117 in the US according to the CDC, the true prevalence is unknown. To find that out, the US would need to have a systematic genomic sequencing surveillance program. That is not happening. And B117 is not the only variant of concern.

Im also quite worried about B1351, said Rivers. There is early evidence it is more transmissible [than dominant strains] and were looking for that one even less than B117, she said.

The future of Covid-19 outbreaks in the long-term is difficult to predict. The majority of scientists believe Covid-19 will not be eliminated right now it is too widespread and transmissible. However, several factors could influence the severity of future outbreaks.

That includes unknowns, such as whether infection by other coronaviruses confers immunity or partial immunity to Covid-19, the length of time vaccines protect people against the coronavirus, and seasonal variations of the virus.

Those unknowns may require, prolonged or intermittent social distancing into 2022.

Read more:
US suffers bleak January as Covid rages and vaccination campaign falters - The Guardian

Human Behavior

Self-Driving Cars Safety And The Curious Thought Of Steering Wheels With Tullock Spikes – Forbes

A gripping thought experiment -- suppose steering wheels had a steel spike.

One of the most fascinating thought experiments about the safety of how we all drive our cars is the legendary Tullock spike idea.

Heres how it goes.

Imagine that on the steering wheel of every car there was a steel spike protruding toward the driver. Upon sitting down in the drivers seat, you would be within a fraction of an inch of the endpoint of the spike. While driving such an equipped car, you would be continually under the threat of piercing your own chest by any driving action that caused you to lurch forward in the drivers seat.

This is a crafty and yet quite simple device that would seemingly get your attention.

And presumably would be a sizable and constant reminder to drive safely.

That is the underlying crux of the thought experiment ostensibly dreamed-up by Professor Gordon Tullock of George Mason University sometime in the early 1960s (this can be found mentioned in the 1962 book entitled The Calculus of Consent that was co-authored by Tullock and James Buchanan, which, by the way, some also believe that the idea was potentially also conceived by Armen Alchian of UCLA). In any case, the popularity of the steel spike notion has garnered Tullocks name and is typically referred to as Tullocks spike.

Would you be a safer driver if you had such a steel dagger that was always threatening your existence?

It seems patently obvious that you would be.

All of us would drive as though our lives depended upon it. Indeed, the beauty, or perhaps the ugliness of the spike concept is that you would be more conscious of the dangers involved in driving a car. The act of driving a car carries grave risks all of the time, yet we enormously downplay those risks.

Driving recklessly is easy to do.

There is a huge mental gap between thinking about how to safely drive and the potential result of driving poorly. Those drivers that zip along on the freeway, weaving in and out of lanes, do not make a mental connection between their speed and their chaotic driving actions. While inside the bubble of a car, the outside world at times appears to be a simulation as though you are playing at driving while inside a video game or maybe inside The Matrix.

The spike would reset that way of thinking.

Acting as a front-and-center reminder of the dangers of driving, the abstract elements of driving safely would become exceedingly tangible. Tapping the brakes with any sudden movement would likely cause your chest to take a sharp nick from the tip of the dagger. Fortunately, not enough of a bleeder to do full harm. Nonetheless, those occasional cuts and pokes would add to the reminder of what happens when you arent driving safely.

On the surface, this steel spike seems quite telling.

Though if you try to carry this thought experiment to further mental reaches, the whole thing begins to somewhat unravel. Suppose you are a really safe driver and another car careens out of nowhere and rams into your car. There was nothing you could do to avoid the collision. No matter how attentive you were, the other vehicle mercilessly swung out of traffic and managed to steer into your car. The sad result is that you are fatally gored on the spike, albeit due to no particular cause of your own doing.

One supposes that it could be argued that you shouldnt have used a car at all. The safest way to avoid a car accident is to entirely avoid using cars.

That doesnt seem like a satisfactory way to look at things.

Perhaps you are supposed to only drive on side streets and drive slowly. Even in that context, there are still opportunities for you to get caught on the spike. A dog runs out from a wooded area onto the street, doing so without notice, and startlingly occurs in a few split seconds. Even though you were going only 15 miles per hour, and upon hitting the brakes, your body is tossed forward and once again the dagger claims a driver.

Setting aside those gruesome thoughts, there is still something useful about the steel spike concept.

Heres the deeper meaning.

This thought experiment arose during the time that seat belts were still coming into being. For those of you that perchance were around during those times, you might recall the heated debates about wearing a seat belt. Some insisted they would never wear one. One argument was that it constrained your ability to drive and thus would make you get into car accidents, rather than aiding in avoiding them. Another argument was that they were unsightly and marred the joyful experience of driving.

People came up with some real doozy of reasons to keep from putting on a seat belt. Today, we all seem to readily agree that wearing seat belts makes sense. The advent of seat belt usage control indicators served ably as a means to readily convert people into becoming seat belt wearers. Still, there were people then and likely still some people today that insist on trying to subvert the requirement by buckling the seat belt and then sitting atop it, or trying other outlandish ways to subvert a seat belt.

As they say, where theres a will, theres always a way to mess things up.

The topic of seat belts is not solely rosy.

Researchers pointed out that there was an oddball or ironic adverse consequence that undercut the safety-gaining basis of seat belts. The rub was that people would believe themselves to be safer, and therefore they would drive less safely.

Work by Sam Peltzmann had derived an economic theory of risk compensation and it was seemingly evident in the case of seat belts. He contended that attempts to increase safety measures will inexorably lead to heightened behaviors of risk-taking. This led to numerous studies that tried to figure out whether the use of seat belts by drivers was producing more car crashes and more fatalities, or whether it was reducing those numbers. The results of those studies have been mixed, sometimes making one claim and then a different study undermining that stated result.

We can seem to agree that a seat belt is an innocent device and poses no outsized threat. In theory, its primary purpose is to keep you at the wheel and in control of the car. Also, if you did get struck by another vehicle, it keeps you from flying around inside the vehicle or being ejected out onto the street.

The qualm about this added safety is that it might inspire you to drive recklessly. In your mind, you know that the seat belt allows you to stretch things to the dire edge. Without a seat belt, you would be unable to take such chances.

In short, something intended to make us safer can inadvertently spark us to be riskier in our behavior.

A one-for-one correspondence would imply that we are equally safer and equally riskier, and perhaps the net result is a balance that means the added safety measure made no difference. That would be a darned shame given the cost to implement the safety measure. Worse still, the riskiness might go off the charts, far exceeding the added safety, and ergo we become more deadly in our driving.

Thats quite a dose of irony when including a new safety contraption.

If a safety measure leads to worse results, presumably the right step involves removing the added safety apparatus. Things would then go back to normal. Well, not necessarily. It could be that the genie was let out of the bottle. People got used to driving like maniacs and they do not according readjust their behavior when the safety measure is removed. You could argue that the behavior would gradually readjust, though that has some debatable contentions too.

Economist Sanford Ikeda noted in a presumed tongue-in-cheek retort that you could replace some of the steel spikes with identical-looking rubber ones. This would be randomly undertaken. When you got into a car, you (in theory) would not have any means to ascertain whether the vehicle had the relatively harmless rubber spike, or whether it had the life usurping steel spike. People would potentially be spared when they had the rubber spike, though all would presumably drive more safely since they had to assume that the steel spike was in their car.

Another twist that has been floated involves removing the brakes on cars. Yes, if brakes are a form of safety, and if safety leads to riskier driving, might as well remove any and all mechanisms of safety including the brakes. In that case, the driving behavior would no longer be as risky, or so the absurdity extremism would imply.

Shifting gears, as it were, we can ponder what the future of cars and car driving will likely consist of.

The emergence of self-driving cars would appear to eliminate the need for a steel spike at the steering wheel, for the obvious reason that there will no longer be steering wheels at all. The eventual path of self-driving cars entails removing all the driving controls from the interior and thus preventing any human attempts to drive the vehicle.

Does this imply that we put to rest the Tullock steel spike and call it a day?

Turns out that there are still some handy insights that arise by considering the vaunted steel spike, even for the revered arrival of AI-based true self-driving cars.

Lets unpack the matter and see.

Understanding The Levels Of Self-Driving Cars

As a clarification, true self-driving cars are ones that the AI drives the car entirely on its own and there isnt any human assistance during the driving task.

These driverless vehicles are considered a Level 4 and Level 5 (see my explanation at this link here), while a car that requires a human driver to co-share the driving effort is usually considered at a Level 2 or Level 3. The cars that co-share the driving task are described as being semi-autonomous, and typically contain a variety of automated add-ons that are referred to as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems).

There is not yet a true self-driving car at Level 5, which we dont yet even know if this will be possible to achieve, and nor how long it will take to get there.

Meanwhile, the Level 4 efforts are gradually trying to get some traction by undergoing very narrow and selective public roadway trials, though there is controversy over whether this testing should be allowed per se (we are all life-or-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking place on our highways and byways, some contend, see my coverage at this link here).

Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of those types of cars wont be markedly different than driving conventional vehicles, so theres not much new per se to cover about them on this topic (though, as youll see in a moment, the points next made are generally applicable).

For semi-autonomous cars, it is important that the public needs to be forewarned about a disturbing aspect thats been arising lately, namely that despite those human drivers that keep posting videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a Level 2 or Level 3 car, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away their attention from the driving task while driving a semi-autonomous car.

You are the responsible party for the driving actions of the vehicle, regardless of how much automation might be tossed into a Level 2 or Level 3.

Self-Driving Cars And Safety

For Level 4 and Level 5 true self-driving vehicles, there wont be a human driver involved in the driving task.

All occupants will be passengers.

The AI is doing the driving.

As mentioned earlier, the belief is that all the human accessible driving controls will ultimately be removed from true self-driving cars. Today, there are many efforts underway that have supplemented a conventional car with the self-driving suite of capabilities. In those instances, the steering wheel and pedals remain, though they are generally AI-controlled to avert a double-driver occurrence (some believe we will always keep the driving controls, while others insist that they have to be removed, see my analysis at this link here).

Assume for the moment that the preponderance of true self-driving cars will not have any steering wheels in them. This means there is also no steel spike either.

The underlying crux of the spike concept was that it got us to think about safety and human behavior. This was prompted too by the supposition that as a safety measure is added, there is a potential consequent reaction that drivers would become riskier in their driving.

Lets put that same overall notion into reuse.

Imagine that you are a passenger inside a self-driving car. You know that the AI is a highly safe driver, especially in comparison to a human driver (this has yet to be shown, and we might end-up with AI driving systems that are only as good as human drivers in terms of safety, perhaps worse, see my explanation at this link here).

Would your actions as a passenger inside a true self-driving car be less risky, equally risky, or riskier than if you were riding in a human-driven car?

Well, per the theory about safety and risk, the odds are that you would behave in a riskier manner.

Your first comment might be that it doesnt matter since you are not driving the car. That is indeed the case, namely, you arent driving the vehicle, but you are nonetheless inside an automobile and for which you can still get injured or killed. Suppose the self-driving car is zipping along on the freeway and all of a sudden has to jam on the brakes. If you are not wearing a seat belt, due to the belief that there was no need to do so, you might go flying and end-up getting badly hurt.

Take another example.

You opt to reach outside of the self-driving car and wave at pedestrians on the sidewalk. That might be the full extent of your attempts at outreach, but since you are comfortably nestled inside a true self-driving car, you extend further out the window. About half of your body is now clinging to the outside of the car. I trust you can see where this is going. Another car comes along and perhaps sideswipes the self-driving car, crushing you, or maybe you entirely fall out of the self-driving car, doing so while the vehicle is underway.

The point is that there is a potential danger that passengers inside self-driving cars will believe themselves to be in a safer posture than when inside a conventional human-driven car, thusly leading to untoward behaviors with sad and severe consequences.

Some assert that a conceptualized steel spike-like reminder might need to be included into self-driving cars, possibly sensors that keep tabs on what passengers are doing and sternly caution them accordingly.

There is another angle to the human behavior conundrum.

We have to expect that there will be both human-driven cars and self-driving cars on our roadways, both mixing together, and doing so for likely many decades to come. Keep in mind that today there are about 250 million conventional cars in the United States alone, and they will not simply disappear overnight due to the advent of self-driving cars.

Ive written extensively that we are already beginning to witness human drivers that opt to play dirty tricks on self-driving cars. These roadway bullies like to force self-driving cars to make a sudden braking action, sometimes just for fun and sometimes because they (the human bully) are driving erratically. In more subtle ways, you can get ahead in traffic by rapidly switching lanes and cutting in front of a self-driving car. The AI is usually programmed to let you in, plus the AI will slow down the self-driving car to try and regain the proper driving distance between vehicles.

Why do people believe they can get away with this kind of risky driving behavior?

Because they assume that the AI self-driving car is a safe driver. Were the AI to be a rogue or rude driver, which is akin to what humans do, those human daredevils would be less likely to pull those kinds of stunts (so one would assume).

Again, the safety and risk equation rears its head. We can anticipate that as more and more self-driving cars enter into the roadway mix, and assuming they are sufficiently safe at driving, the human drivers might increase their riskiness of driving practice under the belief that it okay to do so, similar to the logic used about wearing seat belts.

Conclusion

We can add one additional example to this plateful of safety and risk heightened behavioral stew.

AI self-driving cars are ostensibly being programmed to be safe drivers. Part of this safety element involves being able to contend with human drivers. Some assert that perhaps self-driving cars should not be so gentle and therefore by being less safe (or appearing to be so), would curtail the risk increase by human drivers (see my explanation at this link here).

Assume that eventually there are hardly any human-driven cars and the mainstay of traffic is entirely self-driving cars.

Could the self-driving cars be amped up to take more extreme driving measures?

Sure, it seems logical, given that the other surrounding cars are all safer than before (we are so assuming), and thus the risk of driving at the edge is presumably lessened. An example would be that we could lift the existing speed limits and let the self-driving cars go as fast they so deem. Part of the basis for speed limits was to reduce the severity of car crashes, but if there are going to be very few such car accidents, maybe we can do away with the speed limits.

This doesnt fully pencil out, so dont get overly excited. Pedestrians can still step into the street and ruin everyones day. In any case, on freeways and open highways, there is some logic to letting those self-driving cars run with the wind.

You can imagine how elated the AI would be, asking you as a passenger whether it is okay to put the pedal to the metal. Might as well let the AI have some fun, and meanwhile, you can get to your destination in record time.

Just hope the AI keeps its steely eyes peeled on the road ahead and there arent any steel spikes laying on the pavement.

Visit link:
Self-Driving Cars Safety And The Curious Thought Of Steering Wheels With Tullock Spikes - Forbes

Human Behavior

Perceptive Automata named one of the best companies to work for second year in a row – PR Web

BOSTON (PRWEB) January 14, 2021

Perceptive Automata, the leading provider of human behavior understanding AI for machines, has been named one of the 100 Best Places To Work and 50 Best Small Companies To Work For in Boston by Built In. The annual awards include companies of all sizes - nationally and in the eight largest tech markets.

We are extremely proud to be recognized as one of the Best Workplaces in Boston, said Bruce Reading, CEO at Perceptive Automata. We take great pride in cultivating an inclusive work environment and culture that allows employees to thrive. Our success is rooted in our ability to inspire talented people to join, engage and grow within our company, by creating a supportive and engaging workplace for all.

Fostering a comfortable work environment with a strong sense of community is a core component of the culture at Perceptive Automata. Perceptive Automata believes that people are at their best doing cognitively demanding and fulfilling work when they are rested and at ease. Allowing flexible working hours, taking group lunch breaks together (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), and blowing off steam after hours with activities including virtual game nights and cocktail making classes help support our relaxed and community focused culture. Investing in each employee is a priority at Perceptive Automata. Team members have the opportunity to take supplementary courses, participate in academic conferences and industry workshops relevant to their role, fully funded by the company. Additionally, Perceptive Automata brings in different trainings on a quarterly basis for the entire team to help develop them throughout their career with the company.

This recognition from Built In follows a year of substantial growth and product innovation for Perceptive Automata, including receiving an AUVSI XCELLENCE Award and a 2020 World Changing Ideas Finalist award from Fast Company.

Built In determines winners for Best Places to Work based on an algorithm, using company data about benefits, cultural programs, and compensation. To reflect the attributes candidates are searching for on Built In today, this years program weighted criteria more heavily, like remote opportunities and programs for diversity, equity and inclusion.

About Perceptive AutomataPerceptive Automata is creating a best-in-class artificial intelligence that gives machines, such as self-driving cars, the ability to understand the human state of mind. The company combines behavioral science techniques with machine learning to give autonomous systems the capability to anticipate and react to human behavior, enabling autonomous vehicles to navigate safely and smoothly around pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. This is essential for autonomous systems to seamlessly roll out in human-dominated road environments and to deliver a smooth ride experience for passengers of autonomous mobility services. For more information about Perceptive Automata, visit http://www.perceptiveautomata.com.

Share article on social media or email:

Original post:
Perceptive Automata named one of the best companies to work for second year in a row - PR Web

Human Behavior

Top Doctor Talks Antibodies And How Long The Virus May Last – kicks1055.com

Dr. Rajeev Fernando is one of New York's top infectious disease specialists, and this week, he answers your COVID-19 questions about antibodies, and how long the virus may last with the vaccine, and with wearing masks.

When you need to know what's happening with the coronavirus, join KICKS 105.5 every Thursday morning. Dr. Rajeev Fernando answers your COVID-19 questions.

We touched on this last week about antibodies, you said that you have seen patients who had the COVID-19 virus have antibodies for up to 6 months, how long do those antibodies last?

"There's some newer studies that say that at 6 months there are still antibodies but their only about 50% by that time. One question is do you have antibodies, and the second question is the durability, in other words do you have enough antibodies to fight the infection. Most people have antibodies present, but they do get significantly lower then they are immediately after the infection".

Al who listens on the KICKS 105.5 mobile app in Franklyn Square on Long Island, and he wants to know that if everyone got on the same page and wore masks, could we knock out the virus without a vaccine?

"That's a great question, the battle contribute to a certain amount of heard ammunity is about 30%. In order to eradicate this virus we really need the vaccine as well, we need at least 70% of people to be vaccinated. Wearing a mask will decrease the number of infections. Now we have new infectious strains which are much, much, more transmissible, but there really is no way around vaccines, it's basically the only way".

Joann in Bethel has a similar question, she wants to know how long this virus will take to run it's course with the vaccine?

"It's not just the vaccine, we need behavior. This is all going to be controlled by our behavior. Human behavior and civic responsibility is what's needed to end this pandemic. We see early numbers that say we should be done with this by the summer, but I think it's going to go on longer. I know a lot of people are doing a great job following the guidance, but there's also a lot of people who aren't, and that's what's continuing the spread. We're going to see the Christmas and New Years spike of cases pretty soon, but it really is everyones civic responsible. Everyone needs to get the vaccine, everyone needs to wear a mask, and everyone needs to social distance. To put it in perspective, I think lockdowns are very important, it's critical. This week there's some new cases of COVID-19 in China and immediately the government put 22 million people in a lock down where people cannot even leave their house, and that's what has stopped the spread in that country because of their very strict measures, where as a lot of the western countries didn't follow that, and that's why we're in this plight right now".

** NEED A FREE MASK? **

Dr. Rajeev is offering free masks if you need some. There's no charge, and he'll even pick up the shipping charge. Just visit maskupearth.org and place your order.

Link:
Top Doctor Talks Antibodies And How Long The Virus May Last - kicks1055.com

Human Behavior

Brain & Behavior Research Foundation Receives $8 Million Bequest from Philanthropist and Mental Health Advocate Stephen Lieber – GlobeNewswire

Stephen Lieber

Dr. Jeffrey Borenstein, Stephen Lieber, Dr. Herbert Pardes, Constance Lieber

New York, Jan. 12, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brain & Behavior Research Foundation today announced that is has received a bequest of $8 million from the noted philanthropist and mental health advocate Stephen Lieber. The Foundation is the worlds largest private funder of mental health research grants, and this gift will be used to expand its support for research that is transforming the lives of people living with mental illness.

Mr. Lieber, who died in 2020, and his wife Connie, who died in 2016, made a lifetime commitment to advancing scientific research on the brain and mental health with the goal of reducing human suffering caused by severe psychiatric disorders. Their efforts have launched thousands of careers in mental illness research, including support to leading scientists at renowned institutions around the world, that has led to countless discoveries in the field of biological psychiatry and related patient services. In fact, the vast majority of major scientific investigators studying the brain and human behavior have received Lieber philanthropic support.

The Lieber Prize for Outstanding Achievement in Schizophrenia Research is one of the most coveted prizes in the field. To date, two Lieber Prize winners have gone on to win Nobel Prizes.

Steve and Connie were leading public advocates and philanthropic supporters of schizophrenia, depression, and mental health research in the U.S. and around the globe, said Herbert Pardes, M.D., President of the Brain & Behavior Research Foundations Scientific Council and Executive Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. They were an amazing couple and remarkable in every way.

In the mid-1980s, Dr. Pardes introduced the couple to the organization that became the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation (BBRF), which they joined in 1987 and which Connie led as president until 2007, and Steve served as Chairman of the Board from 2008 until his death.

Our meeting more than 30 years ago resulted in a major step forward in the global effort to treat and cure psychiatric disease, Dr. Pardes noted. With Connie and Steves support, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation developed a uniquely warm, understanding and empathic approach to the patients, families and investigators of the broad mental health community. We are incredibly grateful for this latest contribution and the noble leadership and friendship of the Liebers over many decades.

This significant donation is especially welcomed at a time when the stresses of COVID-19 have further highlighted the need for greater attention to mental health, noted Dr. Jeffrey Borenstein, President & CEO of the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation. Steve was a deeply passionate and visionary philanthropist, and along with his late wife Connie, had a tremendous impact on psychiatric research and treatment. For more than a quarter of a century, Steve and Connie served as extraordinary philanthropic supporters and leading public advocates of brain and behavior research. They provided unwavering support to unravel the mysteries of the brain, and to better understand and treat mental illness. Together, they mobilized every resource imaginable to fund cutting-edge research and educate the public, tirelessly working to grow the BBRF grant program. Their generosity in supporting research on mental illness is a great model for all of us.

In 2014, Steve and Connie Lieber were honored by the American Psychiatric Association with a Special Presidential Commendation for their unwavering moral and material support to unravel the mysteries of the brain, and to better understand and treat mental illness. Also, in 2014, the Liebers created the Pardes Humanitarian Prize in Mental Health to honor those scientists and humanitarians who comprehensively care, teach, investigate, work, and passionately advocate for improving the mental health of society and reducing the pain of psychiatric illness.

In addition to their work with BBRF and many other mental health institutions, the Liebers founded two centers of excellence at Columbia University the Lieber Recovery and Rehabilitation Clinic and the Lieber Center for Schizophrenia Research and Treatment, as well as the Lieber Institute for Brain Development at Johns Hopkins University. Steve Lieber, who was an investment executive for 70 years, also endowed the neuroscience department at his alma mater, Williams College.

The Brain & Behavior Research FoundationThe Brain & Behavior Research Foundation awards research grants to develop improved treatments, cures, and methods of prevention for mental illness. These illnesses include addiction, ADHD, anxiety, autism, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, depression, eating disorders, OCD, PTSD, and schizophrenia, as well as research on suicide prevention. Since 1987, the Foundation has awarded more than $418 million to fund more than 6,000 leading scientists around the world, which has led to over $4 billion in additional funding. 100% of every dollar donated for research is invested in research. BBRF operating expenses are covered by separate foundation grants. BBRF is the producer of the Emmy nominated public television series Healthy Minds with Dr. Jeffrey Borenstein, which aims to remove the stigma of mental illness and demonstrate that with help, there is hope.

Originally posted here:
Brain & Behavior Research Foundation Receives $8 Million Bequest from Philanthropist and Mental Health Advocate Stephen Lieber - GlobeNewswire

Human Behavior

The Public Should Regulate Silicon Valley Not the Other Way Around – Jacobin magazine

Donald Trumps Twitter ban is a poetic end to his performance.

In 2016, the outsider-insider outmaneuvered his enemies and seized power with the aid of an aggressive, nimble base stitched together online. Now the failing God-Emperors soliloquy is silenced by the very force who helped him come to power, amid the tragicomic denouement of armed furries and blood on the Capitol floor.

But beneath the aesthetics lie the politics. Twitter birthed Trump, giving him a platform that incentivized his every behavior. A format where 280-character zingers replace serious debate, conflict is rewarded, and attack mobs form and dissipate at light speed was always fertile ground for the hard right. A blank-slate AI became a neo-Nazi within twenty-four hours of Twitter exposure.

Trump and Twitter both offer the promise of popular power and participation whilst strengthening existing social relations and ordering them to extract further profit. Facebook is less theatrical and more intimate, but equally prone to rapid poisoning, as anyone who has witnessed the conversion of a mild-mannered local history forum into an explosion of nativist racism can attest.

The problem for the tech giants is that after Trump, such criticism went mainstream. Until the post-recession unravelling of politics, the Californian Ideologys combination of the free-wheeling spirit of hippies and the entrepreneurial zeal of yuppies had positioned Big Tech benignly. They were in deep with the deep state, undoubtedly knowing more about information warfare than Pentagon generals. And yet they were simultaneously championing libertarian free expression; creating democratized spaces where if enough of you yelled at your leaders from your bedrooms, those leaders may even be compelled to respond.

But after Brexit and Trumps 2016 win, things changed. From democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to centrist Conservative Damian Collins in the UK, politicians hauled in tech bosses for highly public grillings. They were made to account for why their biomes had spawned hives of hatred and misinformation into the body politic. In this space, deeper layers of critique opened up on all sides.

Richard Seymours The Twittering Machine and Wendy Lius Abolish Silicon Valley challenged techs practices from the Left. Shoshana Zuboffs bestseller argued that the Big Four had mutated capitalism itself. Thirty-eight million people watched The Social Dilemma, where experts sounded the alarm on their own creations. On the right, the UKs Daily Telegraph, who had backed the Brexit campaign and its unprecedented use of social technology, begun blaming tech giants for social ills like poor teenage mental health. Suddenly the Zuckerbergs and Dorseys faced a withering triple barrage of conservative anti-modernity, liberal panic about disorder and demagoguery, and socialist opposition to unfettered capitalism.

Silicon Valley are strategists first and foremost. They concentrate technical expertise to leverage huge quantities of raw information into commercial success, through product innovation but also through general political and market interventions. By the end of the decade their lowest-cost strategy was an alliance with liberalism.

Rhetorical commitments to racial justice and gender equality came cost-free (except for igniting the ire of right-wingers who would then use social media networks to berate them, creating profitable rows.) Many like Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg were already ideologically committed to a superficial politics of equality, and in fairness were probably genuinely repulsed by the Trumpian far right. The polls were beginning to swing for Joe Biden. All roads were leading to a rapprochement with liberalism, a long-overdue partial clampdown on fascists, and turning on Trump.

These strategies are not merely about survival but increasing power. Zuboff describes lucidly how tech firms have repeatedly implemented coup tactics; suddenly staking an unprecedented claim on something, defining it as the new normal, and taking advantage of public / political ignorance of both existing technologies and plausible alternatives.

In normal circumstances, denying a world leader access to mass communication would be seen as shocking. In circumstances where said leader has just worked up a mob to smash its way across the shining hill of the foremost world power, there was a unique opportunity to lever much of liberalism and the Left into accepting and even applauding the precedent being established.

The giants have gone from risking being pariahed by all sides of politics, to accepting the mantle of arbiter of truth from grateful politicians and commentators. This dynamic is not just at risk of being used against the Left and anyone else deemed outside a narrow zone of acceptability. It is already being used against the Left.

In the United States, Instagram recently flagged as false a post containing political comment about the 1994 Crime Bill and its links to carceral racism. In the UK, left-wing MP Zarah Sultanas criticism of the Conservative governments (lack of) COVID-19 strategy has spuriously been labeled as fake news.

Trumps register is uniquely developed for Twitter, and the insurgent right benefits from using social media to grow their communities and outfox mainstream operators. But they also have huge cash reserves and control of news networks. The Left depends far more on social media for organizing and mass communication in the context of both fewer financial resources, and legacy media which largely refuses to treat leftists seriously or fairly.

Banning Trump is Twitters strategic masterstroke. Do you have a problem with how digital communication is being used? Any conversation about genuine democratization or accountability of mass communication is off the table; the only possible solution offered is to cede more power to people who are interested in no less than shaping and directing the totality of human behavior.

This does not answer the question was Twitter right to ban Trump? But that is not a particularly interesting question in itself. Perhaps the ban is justified, it is certainly ironically amusing. The context in which it takes place; and the new assumption that this system is how such incidents are to be resolved, is much more concerning.

There is a line given by a senior Bush White House staffer in a candid anonymous interview in the 2000s which achieved cultural infamy when quoted in a 2017 album by The National.

You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. Thats not the way the world really works anymore. Were an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality well act again, creating other new realities. Were historys actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

The message captures the approach taken by Trump, by tech firms and other capitalists, and by many more political actors that is, an attempt to use the current period of chaos to make rapid incursions and impose new realities.

Silicon Valley, as guardian of public discourse, is one such new reality, and those breathing a sigh of relief that the democratic crisis is over with the self-defeat of the QAnon putsch are breathing far too soon. In the wreckage of that putsch is a centrism which has developed ever more authoritarian tendencies, a belligerent Trumpism that has no interest in accepting defeat, and a technical elite who have staked a bold new claim to both defining and enforcing truth. It is an environment in which right-wing anti-democrats of all shades can thrive.

Original post:
The Public Should Regulate Silicon Valley Not the Other Way Around - Jacobin magazine

Human Behavior

Study On Rabbit Brain Reveals Genetic Markers Of Domestication – Texas A&M University Today

Tolerance of humans and tameness are noted traits differentiating domestic and wild rabbits.

Getty Images

An international team of researchers led by Leif Andersson, a professor at the Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences (CVMBS), has found changes in gene expression patterns across the brain between wild and domestic rabbits, which likely contributed to the evolution of tameness during domestication.

By demonstrating that domestic animals acquired tolerance toward humans through regulatory changes of certain genes, researchers are able to better understand the link between genetic changes and the mechanisms of evolution in rabbits and, at a larger scale, of plants and animals in general. The research builds off Anderssons previous work demonstrating a link between rabbit domestication and brain structure.

The European rabbit is one of the most recently domesticated animals, exhibiting distinct morphological, physiological and behavioral differences from their wild counterparts. Tolerance of humans and tameness are noted traits differentiating the domestic and wild rabbits.

Domestication is often associated with the rapid development of such traits in a rather short evolutionary time period. As such, domestication has long been a major topic in evolutionary biology, as it allows researchers to study the mechanisms of evolution on a more manageable time scale.

In the study, published in Genome Biology and Evolution, the researchers compared gene expression patterns in four brain regions between newborns of wild and domestic rabbits. They detected hundreds of genes differentially expressed between the two.

It is important to notice that the drastic changes in behavior between domestic animals and their wild ancestors are associated with changes in how genes are expressed during the development of the brain, Andersson said. The domestication of plants and animals is one of the most important developments during human history. In this study, we shed light on how this process has altered brain function in domestic animals and made them tamer.

One significant finding was that genes involved in dopamine signaling, a chemical involved in fear responses, were expressed at higher rates in the amygdala, or area of the brain associated with memory, decision-making, and emotional responses, of the domestic rabbit. Notably, the amygdala is known as the part of the brain driving the fight or flight response, which would play a part in determining whether a wild animal flees in the company of humans or a tame animal tolerates human presence.

Researchers also found that genes associated with ciliary function were consistently downregulated in the hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with learning and memory, of domestic rabbits. Cilia cells are tiny hair-like structures that aid in the circulation of cerebrospinal fluid.

The flow of this fluid contributes to the transmission of molecular signals across the brain. Since these ciliary genes are important for brain development, the researchers hypothesized that these changes contribute to the evolution of tameness.

We were really surprised by the consistent changes we observed that several genes involved in dopamine signaling were consistently unregulated in the domestic brain, and that many genes with associated with ciliary function was consistently downregulated, Andersson said.

View post:
Study On Rabbit Brain Reveals Genetic Markers Of Domestication - Texas A&M University Today

Embryology

Nearly a Quarter of Americans 21 To 50 Years Old to Consider Having Children if Fertility Treatments Are More Affordable, Says Fertility Access Survey…

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 13, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Nearly a quarter of Americans 21 to 50 years old would consider having children if fertility treatments are more affordable, according to the Fertility Access Survey conducted by Engine Insights on behalf of Lane Fertility Institute.

The survey finds that 23 percent of Americans in this age range, who do not already have children living at home, would consider having kids if access to fertility treatments is more affordable, with more women (24 percent) than men (21 percent) saying so.

From an annual household income perspective, respondents who earn less than $100,000 (41 percent) are more likely than those who earn $100,000 or more (35 percent) to consider having children with more affordable access to fertility treatments.

Drilling down even further, 21 percent of American households that earn less than $50,000 a year would consider having kids with more affordable access to fertility treatments, compared with 20 percent of households earning $50,000 to $100,000 a year.

Looking at race, the survey finds that 22 percent of African Americans, compared with 18 percent of white survey respondents, would consider having children if they received affordable access to fertility treatments.

On another note, 31 percent of married respondents say they would think about having children with more affordable access to fertility treatments, versus only 20% of those who are not married.

"As more people wait until later in life to have children, the need for affordable access to fertility treatments is growing exponentially," says Danielle Lane, M.D., who specializes in fertility medicine at her San Francisco Bay Area-based practice, Lane Fertility Institute. "Fertility treatments shouldn't only be an option for the rich and those who have stellar health benefits. We need to provide solutions for people from all income levels, races and other socioeconomic factors that influence who receives access to fertility treatments.

"The moral imperative is on us, as medical professionals, to provide quality access to affordable fertility treatments for those who choose to maximize their career potential, or perhaps wait longer to meet the right partner, before starting their families. We never want finances to stand in the way of anyone pursuing their dream of having a family."

The Cost of Fertility Treatments

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is among the most common types of fertility treatments, which can range from $10,000 to $15,000 per cycle. Other treatments include receiving a donor egg that can cost $30,000 to $50,000, and egg freezing, which costs as much as $10,000 to provide women with access to their eggs later in life.

Dr. Lane says a couple of decades ago, it made sense that fertility treatments cost a lot more than the average person could afford since the technology and access to fertility doctors were still emerging.

"Today, fertility doctors and treatments are relatively mainstream, and yet the cost of access is prohibitive, particularly among lower-income households and people who do not have health plans that cover these treatments," Dr. Lane says.

Another cost-effective alternative to IVF is INVOcell, which is a medical grade device that develops embryos within a woman's body instead of an embryology lab. The treatment can be a fraction of the cost of traditional IVF.

Dr. Lane says "shared donor cycles" are also a way to minimize costs by allowing two or more separate sets of intended parents to share the costs involved with retrieving and utilizing eggs from an egg donor, providing access to half of the eggs for each set of intended parents.

"Understanding your options should be a priority when considering fertility treatments," Dr. Lane says. "Talking to your doctor about cost-effective solutions is critical to building your family if finances are a concern."

Fertility Access Survey Methodology

The Fertility Access Survey was conducted by ENGINE INSIGHTS among a sample of 692 adults 21 to 50 years of age who do not have any children under 18 living at home. The online omnibus study is conducted three times a week among a demographically representative U.S. sample. This survey was live the week of January 4, 2021.

To view the full survey results, please contact Evan Pondel at [emailprotected].

About Lane Fertility Institute

Lane Fertility Institute is a leading provider of fertility treatments focused on providing care and treatment uniquely tailored to meet the individual needs of patients. Led by Danielle Lane, M.D., and her tenured clinical team, the practice is committed to the success of its patients and providing cost-conscious care. With locations in San Francisco and Novato, California, Lane Fertility Institute provides a wide variety of treatments ranging from basic fertility care to the most advanced in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology. For more information, please visit http://lanefertilityinstitute.com.

Media Contact: Evan Pondel Triunfo Partners (818) 835-0677 [emailprotected]

SOURCE Lane Fertility Institute

Home

View post:
Nearly a Quarter of Americans 21 To 50 Years Old to Consider Having Children if Fertility Treatments Are More Affordable, Says Fertility Access Survey...

Genetics

Discrimination may increase risk of anxiety disorders regardless of genetics, study finds – Tufts Now

MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, Mass (Jan. 14, 2021) Exposure to discrimination plays a significant role in the risk of developing anxiety and related disorders, even in a first after accounting for potential genetic risks, according to a multidisciplinary team of health researchers led by Tufts University and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Researchers determined that even after controlling for genetic risk for anxiety, depression, and neuroticism, greater reports of discrimination experiences remained associated with higher scores of anxiety and related disorders. The findings, recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that discrimination is a risk factor for anxiety and related disorders rather than solely a result of common genetic liability.

The study authors included researchers from Stony Brook University, University of Minnesota, in addition to Harvards School of Public Health and Tufts.

The study results demonstrate that discriminatory experiences can potentially cause stress and mental health problems regardless of the genetic constitution of the individual, said Adolfo G. Cuevas, an assistant professor of community health and director of the Psychosocial Determinants of Health Lab at Tufts School of Arts and Sciences, who is first author of the study. From regular slights in public spaces to more significant incidents, such as being passed over for a promotion or a loan, these experiences can take a toll on your mental health.

Anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder or phobias, are the most common mental illness, affecting over 40 million people in the United States every year, according to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America. While exposure to discrimination has long been established as a risk factor in the development of these disorders, the relationship between discrimination and anxiety, when factoring in the role genetics play, has remained less clear.

To gain insight on the connection, the research team used data from a national probability sample of approximately 1,500 non-institutionalized, all English-speaking adults aged 2574 and living in the mainland United States. Approximately 49 percent of the sample were women.

Three self-report scales were used to measure discrimination and other forms of social exclusion, including:

After accounting for increased genetic liability for anxiety, depression, neuroticism, and other potential genetic and sociodemographic factors, the researchers found a high degree of interdependence between discrimination and anxiety.

The team said the findings demonstrate that alleviating the impact of discrimination has the potential to improve mental health within the overall population. "Anxiety is one of the most significant issues in mental health today, and our study conclusions underscore the importance of reducing discrimination exposure and thereby improving the public's mental health overall," said the senior author of the study, Robert F. Krueger, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota.

These findings allow us to engage in conversations with political leaders, health officials, and community members to develop functional approaches to reduce exposure to discrimination and improve the mental health of all, David R. Williams, a study co-author and theFlorence Sprague Norman and Laura Smart Norman Professor of Public Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Williams is also a professor in the department of African and African American Studies at Harvard.

The impact of anxiety disorders is significant. Symptoms are a common associated feature of depressive disorders and, generally, account for a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality as well as long-term work disability and absenteeism. For instance, anxiety disorders are associated with several chronic health conditions, including heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes.

The researchers identified key limitations of the study, including the use of a cohort of white-identifying respondents who were predominately of European ancestry. They noted while the effects of discrimination seem to be similar across racial/ethnic groups, racial/ethnic minorities experience more discrimination than their white counterparts, placing them at an increased risk for poor mental health. In addition, questions remain about the extent to which self-reported experiences of discrimination by whites are equivalent to those of more socially stigmatized groups.

The study uses data from the MIDUS (the study of Midlife in the United States Biomarker) study, which is supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network, National Institute on Aging and other funders. The development of the manuscript was partially supported by Cancer Disparities Research Network/Geographic Management Program and other supporters. See the paper for detailed information on all funders.

Cuevas, A.G., Mann, F.D., Williams, D.R., and Krueger, R. F. (2020), Discrimination and anxiety: Using multiple polygenic scores to control for genetic liability, PNAS. DOI: 20172244118

###

About Tufts University

Tufts University, located on campuses in Boston, Medford/Somerville and Grafton, Massachusetts, and in Talloires, France, is recognized among the premier research universities in the United States. Tufts enjoys a global reputation for academic excellence and for the preparation of students as leaders in a wide range of professions. A growing number of innovative teaching and research initiatives span all Tufts campuses, and collaboration among the faculty and students in the undergraduate, graduate and professional programs across the university's schools is widely encouraged.

Read this article:
Discrimination may increase risk of anxiety disorders regardless of genetics, study finds - Tufts Now

Genetics

Programmable genetics gets more cash as Tessera Therapeutics gets a $230 million infusion – TechCrunch

Technologists are getting better at coding biology and venture firms are flooding a new generation of startups with cash so they can commercialize their technology bringing in the next wave of genetic innovation.

Tessera Therapeutics, the Boston-based spin-up from Flagship Pioneering, is the latest company to enter the mix with $230 million in new financing to build up its platform for better biological programming.

The round was led by Alaska Permanent Fund Corp., Altitude Life Science Ventures and the second SoftBank Vision Fund, with participation from the Qatari Investment Authority and other undisclosed investors.

Last year, the company took the covers off its gene-writing service, which combined an array of different gene editing, manufacturing and synthesizing technologies to provide more tailored therapeutic instructions to genetic code.

By providing more instructions to genetic material, the company aims to increase the precision of therapies while expanding the number of potential pathogens or mutations they can target, the company said in a statement.

The thesis is similar to the approach taken by companies like Senti Bio, another early-stage biotech company that raised $105 million earlier this month.

The ability to write in the code of life will be a defining technology of this century and drive a fundamental change in medicine. Todays support is a testament to Tesseras outstanding team of scientists and our focus on bringing the extraordinary promise of Gene Writing to patients, said Geoffrey von Maltzahn, CEO and co-founder of Tessera Therapeutics, and a partner at Flagship Pioneering. We look forward to turning this powerful technology into a new category of medicines.

Part of a number of companies focused on gene therapies and gene-editing technologies that have been developed under the Flagship Pioneering umbrella, Tessera Therapeutics focuses on the development of new therapies that will use messenger RNA, targeted fusogenic vectors and epigenetic controllers, according to Flagship Pioneering founder and chief executive Noubar Afeyan, who also serves as the chair and co-founder of Tessera.

While Senti Bio is adding more programming to existing genetic material, Tessera uses mobile genetic elements, the most abundant genetic material in the body to create new vectors for writing and rewriting the human genome.

The company asserts that this represents a breakthrough in genetic engineering, which can build better therapies. Thats because the technology can target very specific sites in the genome to make any substitutions, insertions or deletions in genetic code. Tessera also said that its tech allows for more efficient engineering of somatic cell genomes without double stranded-breaks and with very little reliance on DNA repair pathways.

Gene writing is inspired by and builds upon the shoulders of natures most prevalent class of genes: mobile genetic elements. Tesseras computational and high-throughput laboratory platform has enabled the team to design, build and test thousands of engineered and synthetic mobile genetic elements for writing and rewriting the human genome.

The company said it can also write entirely new sequences into the genome by delivering only RNA.

With the new round of funding, Tessera said it would look to further develop its tech, hire more staff and establish manufacturing and automation capabilities critical for its platform and programs.

Follow this link:
Programmable genetics gets more cash as Tessera Therapeutics gets a $230 million infusion - TechCrunch