Tag Archives: media

Cell Biology

MicroRNA Exhibit Unexpected Function in Driving Cancer – Newswise

MEDIA CONTACT

Available for logged-in reporters only

Nature Communications

Newswise PHILADELPHIA -- Researchers long thought that only one strand of a double-stranded microRNA can silence genes. Though recent evidence has challenged that dogma, its unclear what the other strand does, and how the two may be involved in cancer. New research from Thomas Jefferson University has revealed that both strands of some microRNA coordinate to act on the same cancer pathways, across multiple cancers, to drive aggressiveness and growth two hallmarks of poor prognosis for cancer patients.

This coordination of activity is really surprising, says senior author Christine M. Eischen, PhD, professor and Vice Chair of the department of Cancer Biology at Jefferson and co-leader of the Molecular Biology and Genetics program at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center (SKCC) Jefferson Health. We know that the strands dont hit the same target sequences. But despite that fact, we see that they are working together.

Researchers have not paid much attention to the both sides of microRNA, in part because reagents created to probe microRNAs were aimed at only one strand, so as a field, we werent looking at the whole picture, says Dr. Eischen.

The work was published in Nature Communications, February 20th, 2020.

First author Ramkrishna Mitra, PhD, a Research Instructor in Dr. Eischens lab, started by using a computational approach that allowed him to search for both strands of the microRNA. Our data showed that one strand of many of the pairs were not degraded as previously thought. We saw large numbers of both pairs in many cancers, says Dr. Mitra.

Looking at data from 5200 cancer patient samples from 14 cancer types, the researchers found 26 microRNA pairs that both appeared either more active and abundant or less active and abundant across multiple cancers.

We then narrowed our search for the biggest effects, says Eischen. Dr. Mitra developed a new computational biology approach, in part, through the analysis of the genes essential for cancer cell survival and growth across 290 cancer cell lines to identify the pathways both microRNA pairs impacted across multiple cancer types. The researchers also determined which microRNA pairs had a bigger impact on driving or suppressing cancer growth together than either strand alone.

They found two pairs, named miR-30a and miR-145 that fit the bill. Each pair has different target genes, but the targets hit the same cancer pathways, says Dr. Eischen. These microRNAs help keep cancers in check as seen both in patient data and in tumor cell lines. As a result, many cancers, such as kidney, lung, breast, become more aggressive when they lose these microRNAs and this impacts patient survival.

To validate the findings of their computational work, the researchers replicated what they found using an experimental approach. They forced expression of miR-145 and miR-30a in lung cancer cell lines, which reduced the cancers aggressive traits, specifically its growth and migration.

The SKCC has a longstanding history of discovery related to small RNA function in cancer, and Dr. Eischens breakthroughs have significant potential for understanding both tumor development and tumor progression, says Karen Knudsen, PhD, Executive Vice President of Oncology Services at Jefferson Health, and the Enterprise Director of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center Jefferson Health, one of only 71 NCI-designated cancer centers in the US.

Support for this study was provided by NCI R01CA177786, the Pellini Foundation, the Herbert A. Rosenthal endowed chair, NCI Cancer Center core grant P30CA056036 that supports the MetaOmics core facility and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center.

Article Reference: Ramkrishna Mitra, Clare M. Adams, Wei Jiang, Evan Greenawalt, and Christine M. Eischen, Pan-cancer analysis reveals cooperativity of both strands of microRNA that regulate tumorigenesis and patient survival, Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-14713-2, 2020.

Media Contact: Edyta Zielinska, 215-955-7359, edyta.zielinska@jefferson.edu.

See the article here:
MicroRNA Exhibit Unexpected Function in Driving Cancer - Newswise

Cell Biology

Researchers from Houston and Newark awarded $1 million each to tackle major challenges in heart disease treatment and stroke prevention – Associated…

( NewMediaWire ) - February 14, 2020 - DALLAS - A Newark, N.J., researcher studying a new way to prevent heart injury and eventual heart failure and a Houston physician-scientist working to better understand and prevent stroke risk transmission from mother to child are the most recent American Heart Association Merit Award recipients. Each researcher will receive $1 million in funding from the Association, the worlds leading voluntary organization focused on heart and brain health and research.

Junichi Sadoshima, M.D., Ph.D., professor and chair of cell biology and molecular medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, and Louise D. McCullough, M.D., Ph.D., professor and chair of neurology at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston will receive $200,000 a year for five years.

The American Heart Associations annual Merit Award aims to fuel highly promising, novel research that has the potential to move cardiovascular science forward.

With the Merit Award, we are searching for researchers with fresh ideas and the potential to make a huge impact, which is in line with the American Heart Associations mission to be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives, said American Heart Association President Robert Harrington, M.D., FAHA, an interventional cardiologist and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford University in California. These exceptional scientists are asking the questions that havent been asked and are looking for answers in what we may consider to be nontraditional places. In the end, their work could transform cardiovascular and stroke science.

Sadoshimas research addresses the major public health problem that many people who have a heart attack or stroke die from heart failure or other complications within a few years after their first event. He and his colleagues are studying how inhibiting a previously uncharacterized type of cell death in the heart might prevent weakening of the heart and brain after a heart attack or stroke.

Just like we replace broken or worn-out parts in our cars to make them run better, our cells discard old or broken materials every day through a process called autophagy. While autophagy is a fundamentally important mechanism to maintain the function in the heart, the process can sometimes go awry and actually promote cellular suicide. This cell death triggered by excessive autophagy is termed autosis, Sadoshima said. Our goal with this award is to develop treatment to make the heart stronger when patients have a heart attack or stroke by understanding how autosis is stimulated and how it kills heart and brain cells.

Sadoshima said focusing on this previously uncharacterized form of cell death in the heart may have a significant impact on the future treatment of patients with reduced blood supply to the heart and brain.

McCulloughs research also looks at a big public health issue, stroke, in a new way.

It has been known for some time that health problems that occur during pregnancy, such a mothers high blood pressure, obesity or diabetes, can cause changes leading to obesity and hypertension in the child shes carrying. Initially, it was thought that a lot of this was genetic but there also are epigenetic factors outside factors that can change the genes to increase risk, McCullough said.

Prior research led McCullough and her colleagues to believe the mothers microbiome, the collection of microorganisms that reside in the gastrointestinal tract and are passed during childbirth to the child, might modify genes and increase later stroke risk in offspring. The health of the microbiome tends to change with age, becoming more likely to cause inflammation.

Were studying whether a mothers unhealthy microbiome can be manipulated and improved with diet or supplements, perhaps, to reduce stroke risk in her offspring, she said. If successful, these findings could have huge health ramifications for many generations to come.

Funding research such as the annual merit awards is a cornerstone of the American Heart Associations lifesaving mission. The Association has funded more than $4.6 billion in cardiovascular research since 1949, making it the single largest non-government supporter of heart and brain health research in the U.S.

Additional Resources:

Follow AHA/ASA news on Twitter @HeartNews

###

The American Heart Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific association programs and events. The Association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and device corporations and health insurance providers are available at https://www.heart.org/en/about-us/aha-financial-information.

About the American Heart Association

The American Heart Association is a leading force for a world of longer, healthier lives. With nearly a century of lifesaving work, the Dallas-based association is dedicated to ensuring equitable health for all. We are a trustworthy source empowering people to improve their heart health, brain health and well-being. We collaborate with numerous organizations and millions of volunteers to fund innovative research, advocate for stronger public health policies, and share lifesaving resources and information. Connect with us on heart.org, Facebook, Twitter or by calling 1-800-AHA-USA1.

For Media Inquiries and AHA/ASA Expert Perspective: 214-706-1173

Cathy Lewis: 214-706-1324; cathy.lewis@heart.org

For Public Inquiries: 1-800-AHA-USA1 (242-8721)

heart.org and strokeassociation.org

Excerpt from:
Researchers from Houston and Newark awarded $1 million each to tackle major challenges in heart disease treatment and stroke prevention - Associated...

Neuroscience

Physician-scientist bridges the neurobiology lab to the NICU – Newswise

MEDIA CONTACT

Available for logged-in reporters only

Newswise As a neonatologist at UChicago Medicine Comer Childrens Hospital,Timothy Sanders, MD, PhD, provides care for some of the most vulnerable infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. But as a scientist with a lab in theGrossman Institute for Neuroscience, Quantitative Biology and Human Behavior, he studies some of the most basic elements of life, including how cells organize and communicate with each other during embryogenesis to develop tissues, organs, limbs and the nervous system.

Sanders earned his PhD in neurobiology at the University of Chicago in the lab ofCliff Ragsdale, PhD, who is best known for decoding the octopus genome. After medical school and additional training in neonatal medicine elsewhere, these two stages of Sanders career would seem like polar opposites, yet his background is characteristic of a physician-scientist at the University of Chicago Medicine.

I came back to the University of Chicago, in part because of the rich intellectual community that is engaging, welcoming and open to collaboration, he said. The developmental biology community and the neuroscience community are exceptional, both in talent and also in their willingness to embrace new ideas and to explore projects. I find that very appealing.

Sanders studies the mechanisms that early embryos and maturing tissues use as the blueprint for development at a cellular level. These mechanisms are essential for understanding how organs develop and how tissues prepare themselves to regenerate. While some developmental biologists focus on how genetic instructions embedded in DNA determine the shape and form of cells and tissues, Sanders believes that their ultimate fate is also determined by their environment, which instructs the behavior of cells and in turn activates their developmental programs.

Using powerful new imaging tools and data processing technology, partnering with the likes of UChicagosAdvanced Electron Microscopy FacilityandIntegrated Light Microscopy Core Facility, this line of inquiry can help Sanders and his colleagues understand not just how tissues form, but what happens when things go wrong. These early cellular mishaps can lead to the kinds of congenital anomalies Sanders sees in patients from the NICU, things like cleft lip and palate, missing digits or malformed limbs, or spinal conditions like spina bifida. By learning more about the root causes of these conditions, he hopes to uncover clues to predicting or even preventing them.

Yes, we can understand how congenital malformations occur, but how can we convince cells to regenerate and repair themselves? How can we more effectively use stem cells during this process? he said. Now with advanced imaging, we can actually look and see at extremely high resolution how cells are communicating and reacting to their environment during development.

Here is the original post:
Physician-scientist bridges the neurobiology lab to the NICU - Newswise

Genetics

ACSM Tackles Myth on Genetics and Heart Disease as Part of American Heart Month – Newswise

MEDIA CONTACT

Available for logged-in reporters only

Feature

MEDICINE

Newswise (Indianapolis, IN) Nearly half of all U.S. adults have some type of cardiovascular disease. Its a heartbreaking statistic literally and figuratively. People often believe their risk for heart disease cannot be reduced if they have a genetic predisposition. In honor of American Heart Month, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and ACSM Fellow Beth A. Taylor, Ph.D., have teamed up to shatter this heart myth.

The truth about the heritability (or genetic component) of heart disease is a glass far more full than empty, as long as we look at it accurately, says Dr. Taylor, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Connecticut and the director of exercise physiology research at Hartford Hospital.

Genetics do play a significant role in increasing heart disease risk. Research shows that individuals at high genetic risk have a 91% higher chance of experiencing a cardiac event, yet that risk can be cut nearly in half by adopting healthy lifestyles.

We may have genes that predispose us to cardiovascular disease, but when, how and to what extent those genes express themselves is highly influenced by lifestyle, says Dr. Taylor. Being more physically active, aiming for a healthy weight, eating a heart healthy diet and avoiding smoking can improve heart health and reduce the risk of coronary events by 46% for high genetic risk individuals.

The outlook looks even better when considering being healthy across the lifespan rather than at a single age. The Framingham Heart Study, a project of Boston University and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), has sought to identify common factors contributing to cardiovascular disease (CVD) by following CVD development in three generations of participants.

Dr. Taylor adds, When those three generations of the Framingham Heart Study were reviewed, investigators concluded that the heritability of ideal cardiovascular health was only 13-18%, with health behaviors and lifestyle factors being much more influential.

She says other studies have found that adhering to just four out of five of healthy lifestyle factors (e.g., avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol intake, performing 30 or more minutes a day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, eating a heart healthy diet) increased the likelihood of living free of cardiovascular disease, as well as cancer and Type 2 diabetes, by more than 10 years in women and seven years in men.

For Dr. Taylor, the take-home message is simple. You cant completely cure a broken heart; however, you can make it better or worse based on your lifestyle. The choice is yours!

Find more heart health resources from ACSM at https://www.acsm.org/read-research/trending-topics-resource-pages/heart-health-resources.

# # #

About the American College of Sports Medicine

The American College of Sports Medicine is the largest sports medicine and exercise science organization in the world. More than 50,000 international, national and regional members and certified professionals are dedicated to advancing and integrating scientific research to provide educational and practical applications of exercise science and sports medicine. More details at acsm.org.

Continued here:
ACSM Tackles Myth on Genetics and Heart Disease as Part of American Heart Month - Newswise

Genetics

Consumer DNA testing is a bust: Here’s how companies like Ancestry and 23andMe can survive – CNBC

A reporter examines a 23andMe DNA genetic testing kit in Oakland, California.

Cayce Clifford | Bloomberg | Getty Images

It has not been a good year for consumer DNA testing companies.

In January, Silicon Valley-based 23andMe laid off 100 employees, about 14% of its workforce. A month later, Ancestry, which has offices in Utah and San Francisco, also cut 100 jobs, representing about 6% of its staff.

The major reason for the downsizing? Simply put, consumers aren't buying as many at-home DNA tests as they used to.

The first sign came in the summer, when Illumina, maker of the DNA sequencing machines that are used by Ancestry and 23andMe, acknowledged in an earnings call to investors that the category had hit a lull. CEO Francis DeSouza didn't share an explanation for that, but noted that Illumina was taking a "cautious view" of the opportunity in the near term. Orasure, maker of the spit tubes used by consumer DNA testing companies, has also seen its stock take a hit.

At that time, some smaller companies were already feeling the impact. Helix, a start-up that spun out of Illumina to build an "app store" model for DNA tests, cut staff in May. The company revealed to Bloomberg that it was shifting its focus away from consumers to population health, meaning it would work with health industry partners. A few months later, Veritas Genetics another company focused on consumers that sold more expensive but more detailed whole genome sequencing tests shuttered its U.S. operations.

So what happened? There hasn't yet been a detailed study to understand the shift in consumer thinking around these tests. But CNBC spoke with some of the leading genetics experts and doctors, who shared a few theories.

Dawn Barry, a former Illumina executive with a start-up in the space called LunaDNA, blames a few factors, especially privacy concerns.

Consumers have seen a slew of reports in the past few years about how companies are using their personal data for targeted advertising, without their knowledge, and might be feeling particularly sensitive about their health information.

Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, has previously referred to these concerns as the "Facebook effect." In her view, consumers are increasingly freaked out about stories they're reading in the media about privacy, mostly about Facebook and other technology companies, and are reacting by feeling anxious about getting DNA tests.

Companies like 23andMe do make money off this information. Her company does ask for consent from users and it has publicly explained its revenue model, but a big part of its business involves its relationships with pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline. 23andMe also has a therapeutics arm, where it is hoping to leverage its database of millions of people's DNA to develop new drugs.

Making matters worse for these companies, suggests Barry, is the Golden State Killer case. Law enforcement honed in on a suspect after running DNA from a decades-old crime scene through a free online database, where anyone can upload their genetic information.

A suspect was found through a distant relative who might have paid for a test via Ancestry or 23andMe, and then uploaded it into the database.

The case raised all sorts of complicated questions about whether genetic information is fundamentally different than other types of data because it implicates family members and not just individuals.

Other experts suspect that consumer DNA testing companies might have run out of early adopters. The theory goes that there's about 20 million or 30 million consumers who are naturally interested in learning more about their family background, and it's not that challenging or expensive to sell tests to them. At this point, many of these people have already been sold to, and there's no reason for them to buy a second test. Ancestry has sold about 14 million tests, and 23andMe has sold some 9 million.

But many people are wary about learning information they might not want to know like the father who raised them isn't their biological father or that they have a risk for a genetic disease that they can't take a pill to prevent.

There's likely a larger consumer segment that's interested, but still wary about these tests. They might not believe that the information is valuable enough to warrant the price tag. The cheapest tests sell for $99, and they'll cover ancestry and some health risks but lack truly actionable health information, like whether an individual might respond poorly to a drug based on their genetic makeup.

"The ancestry market is a finite market," said David Mittelman, CEO of Othram, a genomics start-up and a molecular physicist. A decade or so in, "these companies are beginning to tap out the market."

Mittelman notes that customer acquisition costs, including ad dollars these companies need to spend on sites like Facebook, will increase over time.

"I think the companies know this," he said. "The investment in health shows that they are working to appeal to a broader market."

What's noteworthy about the recent round of layoffs is that Ancestry kept all of its employees at its Ancestry Health business. And 23andMe is still highly focused on its drug development business. That suggests that both companies are indeed hinging their future on developing powerful health applications.

In light of that, some geneticists are optimistic about their future.

"First of all, a slowdown isn't a stoppage," said Dr. Robert Green, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. "Our research is finding that genetics is about to take its rightful place in medical care for the world."

As Green explains, it's been a challenge for doctors to understand how genetics can inform their patient care. Many haven't had the education about genetics to understand how to talk about it with their patients or recommend tests that might be beneficial. But that's starting to change.

For instance, 23andMe is starting to roll out new tests that can identify people's risk for chronic diseases like diabetes, called polygenic risk scores. These results could be used by doctors to help steer their patients toward making healthier lifestyle choices to help them avoid getting the disease.

And for these companies, which already have genetic databases of millions of people, they might not need to keep spending ample marketing dollars to acquire new customers. Instead, they could focus on developing new insights from their existing databases. if they succeed at that, they can forge partnerships to the medical industry.

As Mittelman puts it, there's no need to "force people down an ancestry funnel."

Green agrees, saying companies like 23andMe and Ancestry might double down on more expensive but more detailed sequencing tests that provide a lot more relevant health information. 23andMe has dabbled with those kinds of tests but has been reluctant to roll out higher-priced tests while its main focus has been growth.

"The direct-to-consumer phenomenon will give way to a more of a proper integration of genomics into the day-to-day care of patients," said Green. "What we're seeing is a course correction, and consumers are waking up to the potential limitations of a $99 test."

CNBC Evolve will return, this time to Los Angeles, on June 8. Visit cnbcevents.com/evolve to apply to attend.

See the article here:
Consumer DNA testing is a bust: Here's how companies like Ancestry and 23andMe can survive - CNBC

Human Behavior

The BernieBro myth persists because pundits don’t understand how the internet works – Salon

The nature of punditry makes it hard to tell which myths media personalities earnestly believe in, and which they perpetuate in bad faith. Consider the "welfare queen," a villainous trope popularized by Ronald Reagan in stump speeches in the 1970s, and which never actually existed. Despite being a clear fiction, the idea wastantalizingboth to politicians and pundits, and hence the welfare queen became embedded in culture. Pundits and politicians today still invoke the racist caricature, often through dog-whistles.

Why do some myths persist, or remain uncorrected by the media, while others dissipate? The short answer seems to be that when they serve a media narrative, or play on existing stereotypes, they grow to possessa power that goes beyond fact or truth.To this list of indefatigable myths, one mightadd the pernicious "BernieBro" so ubiquitousa conceptthat it has its own Wikipedia article. The self-explanatory neologism was coined by Robinson Meyer in an Atlantic article in 2015 before being distorted by the Twittersphere and the punditry something that Meyer later came to regret, as he felt the term he reified suffered from "semantic drift."

But that was fiveyears ago, before we had as much data on Sanders' support base which, as it turns out, should be sufficient to debunk the stereotypethat Sanders' support base consists entirely ofa mythic tribe of entitled, pushy young millennial men.To wit:young women make up more of Sanders' base than men. He polls especially high with Hispanic voters, far more so than with white voters;Hispanic voters also donated more money to him than any other Democratic candidate. Polls consistently show that nonwhite voters prefer him over the other candidates. Notably, the demographic group that likes Sanders the least is white men.

Moreover, of all the candidates, Sanders has taken in the most money from women. Many of Sanders' female supporters bemoan how they are ignored by the mainstream press."The 'Bernie Bro' narrative is endlessly galling because it erases the women who make up his base," writer Caitlin PenzeyMoog opined on Twitter. "To paint this picture of sexism is to paint over the millions of women who support Sanders. Do you see how f**ked up that is?"

And yet. Even with all this demographic data on Bernie Sanders' support base, manyintelligent pundits and politicians persist with the myth. How do they justify it? They just know, apparently. But specifically, they feel it on Twitter.

Just one week ago, New York Times op-ed columnist Bret Stephens published a column with the headline "Bernie's Angry Bros." The column did not contain a shred of the aforementioned demographic data about Sanders' support base, but rather was driven by a series of anecdotes supposedly proving his point about the irascible fans of the Vermont senator. Stephens' main evidence, aside fromsocial media anecdotes, was a story aboutSanders supporters getting angry during or after the 2016 Nevada caucuses, believing they hadbeenrigged against their candidate. (The idea that people might grow angry at being disenfranchised is horrifying to Stephens, probably because he is a well-insulatedupper-middle class pundit for whom political decisions have no real material impact on his life unlike the people in Nevada he disparages.)

The Daily Dot has a long featurelistingpundits whohave helped perpetuate the BernieBro narrative long after demographics showed his support base to be a multiracial, working-class coalition. Hillary Clinton apparentlystill believes that Sanders is tailed by a horde of "online Bernie Bros" who issue "relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women," as she said in a Hollywood Reporter interviewjust last month.

What could compel otherwiseintelligent people to perpetuate a false and harmful narrative that essentializes Sanders supporters and erases their real and diverse identities?

Again, the answer to that is Twitter. Specifically, how Twitter is understood by journalists and pundits, and how it is wielded by angry people online.

The skewed demographics of Twitter

Twitter, unfortunately, informs the worldview of many of the country's most elite pundits, and some of its politicians too. Opinion columnists like David Brooks and Bret Stephens (both of the New York Times) are excellent examples of pundits who, at various times, seem to see the world as refracted through the bluebird's drinking glass.

The problem is, Twitter is very much not a representative sample of the world. It is not a zeitgeist; it is not a cross-section of the population.

It is hard to understand this, even for very smart people, because the corporation that runs Twitter tries very hard to make it seem like Twitter is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of every cultural and political conversation.

But it is not true. However, the eponymous corporation behind Twitter profits from this perception of its platform as a zeitgeist. After all, the president is on it! Still, Twitter (the company) promotes this narrative of itself as where the conversation lives. They make money off of the lie that it is a representative cross-section of the world's opinions and thoughts.

But a study of Twitter demographics say otherwise.

Pew Research polls from 2019 found that about 22% of the US population is on Twitter, and 44% of users are in the 18-24 age range. Linger on that for a second: a substantial proportion of the people getting in Bret Stephens' mentions and making him upset may be scarcely older than children. Interestingly, Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine apundit with whom I rarely agree is on the mark here.

"It is hard to exaggerate the degree to which the platform shapes the minds of professional political observers," he wrote in a recent column."Part of Twitter's allure to insiders is that it creates a simulacrum of the real world, complete with candidates, activists, and pundits all responding to events in real time. Because Twitter superficially resembles the outside world's political debate it does, after all, contain the full left-to-right spectrum it is easy to mistake it for the real thing."

Here's another stat from Pew that helps explain why Twitter is non-representative, a fount of professional-managerial class opinions: Thirty-one percentof Twitter users in the U.S. make more than $75,000, though only 23% of the country makes that much money. Likewise, 20% of U.S. Twitter users make less than $30,000, though about 28% of the country makes that much. The social media site is skewed towards wealthier Americans.

It's too badthere aren't as many statistics aboutwho is active on the site. I've often suspected that people with white-collar office jobs and higher incomes (and thus more leisure time or computer time) are more steady tweeters, while those with manual labor jobs are not constantly perusing feeds and inserting themselves into the commentariat.

Angry people and angry brands

But the demographicsof Twitter'suser base only say so much about the site'sdistorted commentariat. There's also the question of how people behave online, and why they behave so differently than they do in real life. There is a psychological reason why even very nice people are more likely to behave like assholes online. It is called the online disinhibition effect, and it is a big source of misery from pundits who do not understand it. The combination of three factors the anonymity and pseudonymity of being online, the lack of accountability, and the indirect nature of online communications make it so that online communication is dehumanizing, and often cruel.

Demographics and "real" users aside, Twitter like most social media sites has a huge number of accounts that aren't even individuals. A great deal of Twitter users are instead are brands, spam accounts or botswho behave likeactual people.

Because of this, getting in arguments with "people" on Twitter or even just seeing Twitter as the so-called public sphere is akin to arguing politics with a clown in a funhouse mirror. It is so heavily distorted by corporate PR and marketing, by the way that people behave differently online, and even by powerful bad actors (whether state or individual) who can wield Twitter armies quickly and easily as to be effectively useless as any sort of gauge of public opinion. It is a terrible place to gauge human behavior, or make broad pronouncements of what humans are like. And it's an even worse place to get a sense of a politician's support base.

I have a modest proposal for my peers in the journalism world: I would like to propose that anyone writing about a Twitter "mob" of any political ilk be required to include the previous paragraph in an asterisk at the bottom of their story. We should all be forced to include a disclaimer to clarify that it is impossible to make any kind of quantitative assessment of human behavior on Twitter because of how deeply skewed it all is by hackers, PR professionals, paid influencers, intentional government or corporate misinformation campaigns, and the way the online disinhibition effect makes people act.

The reactionary mind at work

After reading all this, someonewith a personal story of a (purported) Sanders supporter being cruel to them online might still object. The Bernie Bro is real! This anecdote proves it.

But to say "a single candidate'sfollower was mean, therefore I don't support this candidate's policies regardless of their actual political implications," is a rhetorical fallacy. There are definitely individual assholes out there. Likewise, assholes can believe in good causes, andnice people can support terrible causes. It is a reactionary mistake to oppose a candidate who represents a set of specific political positions poised to help or harm different social classes on the basis of another's individual behavior.

That means that the normalization of the BernieBro also diminishes the experience of those who are bullied by other candidates' supporters. A video went around of an ElizabethWarren supporter accosting two Sanders fans at the Iowa caucus; yet it didn't get a lot of play because it didn't reinforce existing stereotypes that we have about Warren's supporters. Plentyof stories aboutonline bullying by other candidates'supporters are ignoredbecause we lack a comparable stereotype to bundle them.

It would be one thing if Bernie Sanders or any popular politician told their supporters to be angry and menacing and threatening online, and then that behavior was reified on Twitter and in real life. But that has not happened withSanders, nor with anyone else amongthe current crop of Democrats. You cannot draw a line from Sanders' rhetoric to any of the stereotypes of BernieBros, because his rhetoric and voting records speaks to him being an egalitarian, a civil rights advocateand a compassionate progressive voice.

Link:
The BernieBro myth persists because pundits don't understand how the internet works - Salon

Human Behavior

In times of fake news and manufactured outrage, how do we reclaim empathy? – Scroll.in

In August 2019, police in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh decided to open an investigation into a local journalist, Pawan Jaiswal, all because he had exposed a government school for feeding its children salt and a chapati as a mid-day meal. This meal was well below the governments minimum nutrition standards. But the state didnt care about the information that was revealed, it didnt care to respond with alarm to the food that was being fed to these young children. Instead of taking action against the school authorities, the Uttar Pradesh government felt the journalist was at fault for making the government look bad, especially on video that could be circulated so widely now online. And so, it decided to charge him with cheating, using false evidence and conspiracy. The Uttar Pradesh government essentially accused him of reporting their version of fake news.

Barely two weeks after this incident, the same state government booked journalists Ashish Tomar, Shakil Ahmed and three others who tried to report on caste discrimination in the city of Bijnor. Discrediting journalists when the story doesnt suit those in power, by accusing them of peddling fake news has become par for course across the world. Populist leaders would like us to believe that news they dont like, or news they want to deny, is fake, simply because it is critical of them and their policies. These are just two cases in point, but the world is littered with such examples.

YouTube and Twitter took down several videos and posts that part of Chinas state propaganda and information wars against the Hong Kong protests aimed to the discredit news stories emerging from there in September last year. Earlier in 2019, an Indian Parliamentary committee led by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party asked Twitter to explain a liberal bias, accusing it of only targeting right wing voices as they blocked and took down abusive accounts.

So when we see politicians and world leaders call stories like Pawan Jaiswals fake news, the terminology itself stands discredited. Instead, a bigger, deeper danger confronts us what is in essence the real threat of fake news misinformation, propaganda and hate speech propagated by state machineries and co-opted media voices. Falsehoods, rumours, real news disaggregated and put back together with the aim of feeding fear and diverting public attention from accountability this kind of misinformation is all geared to stop journalists from doing their job. It is geared to sow hate division amongst the people.

We can argue that fake news is as old as time and we would be right. It has been around since news became a concept 500 years ago with the invention of the printing press in the 1400s. Rumors in Italy in the 16th century , for example, about Jewish people drinking childrens blood circulated on printed pamphlets in Italy. Printing technology gave the rumor legitimacy. Today, those rumors are considered the precursor to anti-Semitism in the world. Like the printing presss disruptive technology, broadcast technologies have also been misused to spread hate most visibly in Rwanda, where they pitted the Hutus and Tutsis against each other and exhorted violence.

In 1964, Marshall McLuhan burst on to the intellectual scene by defining the media as an extension of ourselves. The phone extends our voice, the TV extends our eyes and ears, the computer extends our brain, and electronic media overall extends our central nervous system. This extension of technology, McLuhan argued can allow us to detach ourselves from the world around us. If we think about it, in an era of social media, of trolls and online abuse, the keyboard has placed distance between the abuser and the victim. That distance has empowered people to speak in the most hateful ways something that face-to-face interaction censures and discourages. Today, just as computing technology gives us access to all sorts of news and information at the click of a button it also spreads opinion, propaganda and unverified information that masquerades as news quicker than anyone could have ever imagined with more damaging consequences that anyone could have imagined.

In 2018, a spate of deaths by lynching that were the result of rumors about child kidnappers in India forced the Indian public to sit up and take a hard look at just how we were becoming part of this rumor factory. These deaths finally forced the platform, WhatsApp, to restrict our ability to forward messages without a second thought and realise, through identifiable markers that what we get isnt always an original, fresh piece of information.

In 2014, the World Economic Forum called misinformation one of the ten greatest perils confronting society. It sows the seeds of hate, waters them and harvests them. Think of these numbers WhatsApp, which is accused of being used to disseminate rumor and whip up hysteria, has 400 million users in India alone. Facebook has 2.5 billion monthly active users around the world. How often does it shock us to read comments from some of these users below the most innocuous posts? Politics, gender rights, festivals, food just about anything can spark off a verbal war about choices and biases.

Digital platforms have brought yellow journalism back to the fore. For one, algorithms that create news feeds and compilations have no regard for accuracy and objectivity. Content moderation tools need to work in tandem with human intervention. At the same time, the digital news trend has decimated the journalistic force measured in both money and manpower of the traditional free press. The advertising-based business model that supported journalism all these years has collapsed, platforms like Google and Facebook have become the most powerful news disseminators in history.

Speed and time have become compressed in our hyperconnected world and it has become next to impossible to reconcile the need for speed with the need to verify information that we either get or pass along. Technology serves not only to amplify disinformation and hate, but also creates the scope for its automated spread through bots that are learning to mimic human behavior and imitate legitimate users. This sort of technology has no use for borders, so people and machines in Ukraine can influence public opinion in America, Russian agencies can interfere with the US electoral process. And as the Cambridge Analytica scandal showed us, specific audiences that could be influenced were targetted. The manufactured information they received disguised as news confirmed their anxieties and biases.

In India, propaganda and disinformation is being used constantly to discredit political leaders, and political legacies inimical to the government. Pictures of Indias first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru being affectionate and social with women friends, or family; or lighting a cigarette, were shared by the head of BJPs IT cell accusing him of being a womaniser with westernised values; and in turn rally political support for the BJPs current leadership, projected as one that upholds/respects traditional values.

This is all profitable the flow of fabricated stories, rearranged half-truths and decontextualised facts has corroded trust in the media. Worse, it co-opted some in the mainstream media via unscrupulous politicians and media managers looking at a profitable bottom lines.

In fact, journalists in Rwanda stood trial at a United Nations court accused of inciting genocide of 800,000 people by Hutu extremists. But the legitimacy we as readers and viewers get from text, sound and images, taken out of context, however incorrectly projected, is hard to undo. Today, newsrooms around the world are prioritising the role of fact checkers precisely to call out this sort of propaganda.

But peddlers of propaganda and disinformaton have no real reputation to maintain, no incentive to stay honest. Their concern is limited to reach. And they thrive on anonymity. Automation allows them to be here today, on to another story tomorrow. Their campaigns seek to destroy what exists, what is built. They are almost messianic mobilising to raze what is, with the promise of what is to be of a phoenix rising from the ashes.

This is why conversations about the health of our democracies converge naturally around the threat from misinformation and the role its manipulators play in blurring the lines between news and opinion, rumor and fact. Misinformation is a key part of hate campaigns.

Hate for political gain.

Troll armies both, human and automated, carry out concerted campaigns especially against religious or caste minorities and refugees creating enemies out of ordinary people trying to live their lives. These campaigns prey on the most basic human emotions of fear and anger. Anger against corruption or unemployment or reservations. Anger against real or perceived economic and social privilege, for example. And fear fear of terrorism and refugees being a threat to security. The goal of disinformation is to divide and polarise society, make us less tolerant, believe that another group is worse than we are.

Hate and polarisation need an enemy, and they need fuel. In India, both are dutifully provided by politicians who harness anger and resentment with populist rhetoric. Politicians who confirm existing biases against minorities and reinforce perceptions about the targets of their hate. These campaigns disrupt beliefs in fundamental basic principles like freedom of speech, the right to life and liberty, to privacy, the right to have different opinions.

They thrive on the chaos they create forcing us, the citizens to conform to binary identities national or anti-national, globalist or patriot, Hindu or Muslim. Political groups selectively mobilise genuine devotion or religious emotion in order to manufacture both, offense and a sense of being offended Hate spin, as media theorist Cherian George calls it. They create an atmosphere of mistrust. And suddenly we dont know who or what to believe, our own convictions of right and wrong are tested.

The wedges they drive are filled by populist politicians quickly who claim they speak on behalf of the disenfranchised, when all they really want is to hold on to power. An authoritarian leader who fashions himself both as kindred underling and as a demagogic messiah to the public uses a fractured polity to his advantage. And social media gives hate and division much need oxygen. Divisive politicians use the media to foment prejudice, create confusion and celebrate ignorance.

Vitiated, ideologically polarised and aggressive politics is fast becoming a cauldron of victimhood and rage. Its objective is met when the support base is widened, a divisive narrative is created, and people are mobilised around a political agenda. The binaries are challenging our definitions of liberal democracy, of identities and nationalism. The success of propaganda and hate speech that fuels populism lies in a careful calculation of the use of state power, the manipulation of public sentiment, the rhetoric of populist politics and the influence of the media.

Liberalism that requires checks and balances and limited governance is trumped by politicians who want us to believe the state is in mortal danger. Misinformation is a common strategy of populist demagogues who try to subvert peoples trust in verifiable facts and cultivate cynicism.

As the crucible of hate speech bubbles over, space for civil debate in the public sphere has yielded to coarse, abusive conversations, fueled by manufactured outrage in TV studios. Electoral contests or policy debates are no longer based on reason but on personal charisma and tribal loyalties.

The question we need to ask ourselves is whether we can lay all the blame at technologys door? If we do that, we open up the possibility of authoritarian governments and companies driven by profit to try and regulate our responses.

That is a slippery slope.

What we can and must do instead is identify, report, counter each time we see something abusive or hateful. We must push platforms to act. We must ensure governments dont misuse calls for regulation to silence critics.

This is a fine balancing act, but one that can only work if we the public invest in our right to accurate information. So, it is really up to us to recognise now that we are just pawns on a political chessboard. Should we allow malign actors, divisive politicians or automated technologies to take over our thought process, our societal obligations? Does the keyboard replace all our interactions and determine our behaviour?

Technology is making is numb, the absence of human contact has an overwhelming impact on basic values the respect for rights and freedoms, plurality, intellectual pursuits. And most importantly, it is impacting our ability to empathise with groups targeted by this violent discourse refugees and immigrants fleeing violence or poverty in detention centres across the world, children separated from their parents, families bereft as the main breadwinner is killed by rampaging mobs all justified as retribution for perceived, past injustices.

There are examples of suffering all around us. But can we re-center ourselves and be empathetic to the suffering of those at the receiving end of this violence today? Can we initiate truth and reconciliation amongst people so that we can overcome this polarising hatred?

Instead of weaponising stereotypes or past pain and injustice, instead of retreating into nativist, tribal identities fueled by propaganda and misinformation, can we reclaim empathy as an antidote to hate?

Can we ensure we think before we share? And prevent conspiracies from spreading? Can we educate our young? Can we tell them from the minute they have a smartphone in their hands what responsible behavior online is all about? High levels of education from an early age is proving to be one of the most effective antidotes to misinformation and hate in countries like Finland can we learn from their lessons?

The media is considered democracys fourth pillar. It creates awareness about our environments, bears witness to our triumphs and to our pain, it is meant to hold power accountable. For one co-opted journalist or media manager, there are many more rededicating themselves every day to ethical, factual reporting each morning. These are committed journalists putting their life and liberty on the line to bring us stories that no one wants us to read or see.

Journalists who exposed Cambridge Analyticas influence operations did the public a service and made both governments and platforms more accountable. Journalists like Pawan Jaiswal who exposed government schools for not doing what they were mandated to do open our eyes to the everyday injustices of false political promises around us. It will take a collective of stories from good old-fashioned journalists, and a public that seeks to build bridges rather than expand gulfs between communities to turn the tide on hate and pull us out of the abyss that todays propaganda has led us into.

This article first appeared on Maya Mirchandanis blog.

Go here to read the rest:
In times of fake news and manufactured outrage, how do we reclaim empathy? - Scroll.in

Physiology

Abidemi Baloguns dream to be a nurse comes true in ResU nursing program – Rolling Out

Photo courtesy of Isaiah Heath

Abidemi Balogun followed her dream to become a nurse. Her aspiration was to help reduce health disparities in impoverished communities. In the pursuit of reaching her goals, Balogun began the nursing journey at Resurrection University in Chicago. While attending, Balogun was in the accelerated nursing program as well as in the esteemed Interprofessional Scholar Program. The program prepares students to enter a healthcare industry increasingly focused on interdisciplinary teamwork and communication.

The aspiring caregiver graduated in December 2019, and currently works as a nursing assistant at Rush University Medical Center.

What inspired you to show up to nursing school every day?The lives and the patients that I [would] serve is what inspired me to show up to nursing school. Nursing is one of the hardest undergraduate degrees, and if there is no passion for it, it will be extremely difficult to keep going.

What is the best and worst thing about nursing school?The best thing is the bonds your form with your study group and the free food that is provided during the semester. The worse thing is waking up extremely early to get to clinical no matter if it rains, snows or shines.

How important is it for a nurse to create small talk with patients?It is extremely important to create small talk with patients because this is where rapport is built. Nursing is the most trusted profession and I think its because of the inter-personal relationship that is formed between the nurse and patient during these small talks. When the patients trust the nurse, it makes their healing process smoother and the nurses job easier in my opinion.

Finish these sentences:I am committed to providing excellent care that is equal across gender, race, sexuality, and religion.I work to make a difference by ensuring that I am aware of my personal bias.Annual checkups and visits are the best ways to prevent or delay the progressing of an underlying disease process.

What has attributed to todays nursing shortage?I think there has been a substantial shortage due to the fact a lot of seasoned nurses are retiring and there is a limited supply of new nurses. In addition, nursing is a meticulous and gruesome field and its not for everyone.

What courses should a high school student consider if interested in a nursing career?I would recommend that they take anatomy and physiology very seriously. I had a solid background in anatomy and physiology, and this helped me tremendously in nursing school, especially in pathophysiology.

Name three reasons why its cool to consider nursing?

About Abidemi BalogunWhats the coolest thing about you? I make and dye wigs.Favorite Restaurant: Yummy Thai (Chicago, IL)Favorite Non-Work Hobby: Writing fictional stories

Tigner is Media personality, Inspirational & Motivational writer based in Atlanta, Georgia

Follow this link:
Abidemi Baloguns dream to be a nurse comes true in ResU nursing program - Rolling Out

Human Behavior

Girija Kaimal and art positivity – Drexel University The Triangle Online

While there has long since been a presumed connection between creating art and happiness, Drexel professor Girija Kaimals research proves it.

Drexel Universitys Girija Kaimals extensive research in art therapy was featured in National Public Radios Life Kit newsletter and podcast last month.

Life Kit, which focuses on health, money, parenting and life skills, published two back-to-back articles featuring Kaimals research. Making Art Is Good for Your Health. Heres How To Start A Habit gave readers six ways to make creativity a healthy life-long habit, while Feeling Artsy? Heres How Making Art Helps Your Brain focused on the science behind what happens to your body when you make art and why it is so therapeutic.

Kaimal is an associate professor at Drexel University and is listed as an expert in research in the Creative Arts Therapy Department, but she did not originally go to school for therapy, she said. She was torn between getting an undergraduate degree in design or psychology, unaware that art therapy was even an option. It combined the interests she was struggling to choose between.

I ended up choosing design, but part of me was very eager to do psychology. I was always curious about human behavior and very curious about why people do what they do. Im still fascinated by it everyday, Kaimal said.

Kaimal completed her Masters in Art Therapy from Drexel in 2001 and her doctorate in Human Development and Psychology from Harvard University. She practiced art therapy and worked with youth, HIV patients and in hospitals before returning to Drexel in 2013, researching and teaching for the program she graduated from.

Kaimal considers herself an artist to this day, working mostly with natural media like tree bark, leaves and clay reimagining and repurposing her materials. After receiving her Bachelor of Arts in design, she finally discovered art therapy.

Although this is not the first time that Kaimals work has been featured in the media, she was particularly excited about the responses the Life Kit focus solicited. People reached out to her to let her know that the articles had helped or in some way empowered them.

When asked about how she felt seeing her work published, Kaimal was ecstatic. That made me very happy, its sort of why we do this, its to empower people to get out there and do their thing. I didnt know art therapy was a thing, but when I discovered it, it made a lot of sense to me so when I discovered art therapy, I felt like it was a perfect combination of my interest in art and connecting it to psychology.

As Kaimal told NPR, art can reduce stress and improve your mood, and it benefits those who are willing to try. Someone who is eager to learn more about themselves and wants to share their experience but doesnt always have the words for it, art therapy is really perfect for that, because sometimes we can express ourselves in ways we dont always have words for, Someone struggling with communication.

As Kaimal mentioned in the NPR article, you dont need to be incredibly skilled to consider yourself an artist. She has worked with clients who possess a broad range of artistic skillsets.

Someone who comes in with a perception that theyre not skilled they are the ones I find surprise themselves. Other times there are people who come in and they might not be so happy with the final product because they set a higher bar for themselves and I try to remind them about what the project means, what they got out of it, not as much about the outcome, Kaimal stated.

In both cases, Kaimal said that she finds that most people leave with a sense of relief in having the ability to express themselves in a nonjudgmental way. While she is not aware of any current art therapy services for Drexel students, she thinks that it would be a great addition to the school.

Read the rest here:
Girija Kaimal and art positivity - Drexel University The Triangle Online

Human Behavior

Scientists document collapse of the white-lipped peccary – WSU News

PULLMAN, Wash. White-lipped peccaries have declined by as much as 87% to 90% from their historical range in Central America, signaling a population collapse of a key species in the region, according to a study published recently in the journal Biological Conservation. The research was conducted by a team of 50 scientists from 30 organizations including Washington State University, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and El Colegio de Frontera Sur.

A pig-like animal that is an important food source for large animal predators and humans alike, the white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari)also plays a critical ecological role by dispersing seeds and creating water holes that benefit other animals. The study found that current IUCN estimates underestimated the population decline. The study results are a 63% drop from the current IUCN range estimates for the region.

White-lipped peccary populations are in more of a critical condition than previously thought, said lead author Dan Thornton of Washington State University. While these results are sobering, they also offer a roadmap on how to conserve this iconic, ecologically important species.

The researchers say that human influence and loss of forest cover are the primary causes of the decline, and that peccaries now remain in increasingly threatened pockets of forest mostly found along transboundary areas. Outside of transboundary landscapes, remaining populations were generally scattered and isolated.

Due to their social behavior and anti-predatory defense of grouping together when threatened, white-lipped peccaries are highly sensitive to hunting. Their large area needs and reliance on widely dispersed fruit and water sources also makes this species highly vulnerable to forest loss and fragmentation.

The study found that the largest contiguous blocks of habitat for white-lipped peccaries occur in several major transboundary reserves. This includes the Maya Forest of Guatemala, Mexico and Belize, the Moskitia Forest complex of Honduras and Nicaragua, the Indio Maiz and Tortuguero National Park complex of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, and the Darien/Los Katios National Park complex between Panama and Colombia.

Although population estimates for white-lipped peccaries are difficult to calculate precisely, experts estimated that these same transboundary areas likely harbor the highest populations of remaining peccaries. For example, the entire Maya Forest, in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala, hosts the largest white-lipped peccary population stronghold in Mesoamerica, with an estimated population of around 5000 individuals. The remote forests in the bi-national Moskitia, spanning Nicaragua and Honduras, may harbor around 3000 white-lipped peccaries.

Of particular concern to the plight of white-lipped peccaries in Mesoamerica is the status of the Maya Forest of Guatemala, Mexico, and Belize, the Moskitia Forest of Honduras and Nicaragua, and the Darien Forest in Panama and Colombia, all of which are under particularly grave threat from human activities. For example, in the past 15years, wildlands (those areas with limited human influence) have been reduced by 30 percent in the Rio Platano/Bosawas complex and by 25 percent in the Maya Forest. Ninety percent of recent deforestation is due to cattle ranching, and these two forests are at imminent risk of losing their contiguity due to expansion of both sugar cane and cattle ranching.

Based on this study, we believe that the white-lipped peccary should be uplisted to a higher category of threat in Mesoamerica from Vulnerable to Endangered in the IUCN Red List. We cannot afford to lose such an interesting species that has a unique social behavior of moving in large cohesive groups in a way that we still do not totally understand said co-author Dr. Rafael Reyna of ECOSUR in Mexico and WCS Associate Researcher.

Mesoamericas 5 Great Forests, spanning from Mexico to Colombia, and covering an area three times the size of Switzerland, are the most critical bastions for peccaries and other wildlife, and also provide services such as carbon sequestration, clean water, and food security to five million people. WCS is part of an alliance of countries, NGOs, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities committed to protect these remaining areas.

Without Mesoamericas five great forests, the white-lipped peccary will almost certainly go extinct in the region, with cascading impacts on forests, other wildlife, and people said study co-author Jeremy Radachowsky, Director of WCSs Mesoamerica and Caribbean Program. We must all work together to protect these incredibly important forests.

CONTACT: Sara Zaske, WSU News and Media Relations, 509-335-4846, sara.zaske@wsu.edu

Top right photo by Apolinar Basora

Continued here:
Scientists document collapse of the white-lipped peccary - WSU News