By the time I finished graduate school, reddit was dead so I never bothered getting verified on the Science subreddits. It was a bummer!

I’ll be the pedant no one asked for - the sodium and potassium channels in the neuron respond to voltage changes in the membrane, so the author isn’t wrong.

Action potentials are generated when dendritic (input) channels bind with neurotransmitters like glutamate and GABA released by the axon terminal (output) of the pre-synapse cell. When these channels open, the let in ions like Calcium, Sodium, and Chloride.

These ions change the electric potential across the cell membrane, once this passes a key threshold, the sodium channels in the rest of the cell open up and generate an action potential. It’s driven by ions with electric charge (electrochemical).

Not quite, an iron lung replaces a dysfunctional organ. I’m saying we can already grow neurons onto circuits, and it’s difficult (not impossible) to implant neurons into a body. I don’t easily see how these bio-engineered neurons make those processes easier.

Credentials: I published in this field, but I don’t have time to read the entire paper right now.

This is exciting work. Based on the key highlights, it sounds like their work focuses on how plausible it is to construct the bio-artificial neuron, and they have done so with great success.

What I would like to learn about is what advantages this technology has compared to just cultivating neurons on a microelectrode array. Are the artificial cells easier to maintain? Do they interface with electrodes without developing glial scarring like our brains do? Can they bio-engineer special proteins (e.g. optogenetic channels) easier in these cells than in mouse lines?

The discussion section is fairly anemic. The authors say this will “spearhead” additional development but I was disappointed the authors didn’t clarify what will be additionally developed.

Until these advantages are spelled out, it feels like we’re re-invented the biological wheel. We already have cells that can integrate and fire at low voltages. They’re called neurons. Why did we need artificial ones?

This happened with an academic conference (physics iirc). A professor was asked to speak and she submitted a headshot for use in their advertising, but the conference wanted a different aspect ratio. Rather than crop the image, the materials designer asked ChatGPT to expand the photo to the correct size. It gave the professor a low cut shirt, and no one at the conference company noticed until the promotional materials were distributed and the professor contacted them.

Ah, the old effect size vs significance issue, thanks for clarifying. I perused the link you sent, I didn’t do a deep dive. The authors could have used more precise language.

Here’s a second paper from 2017, https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/151483/1/151483.pdf , which looks at duration of breastfeeding and SIDS. Not sure if you’ve come across it, but I was surprised to see the potential protective factors don’t begin until breastfeeding has gone on for at least 2 months.

Unfortunately I think the odds that we get a randomized clinical trial looking at breast vs formula are low - I didn’t find one in my brief Google Scholar search, but I’m also not a pediatrician.

But, ultimately, the first link i provided includes breastfeeding as part of a larger suite of recommendations for co-sleeping that, if all are followed, bring the risk of SIDS down to a comparable rate with modern safe sleep recommendations.

I’ll agree that there’s a lot of conflicting information when it comes to parenting, it’s called the mommy wars for a reason. But, I’ll disagree with you that I provides pseudoscience. I’ll direct you specifically to references 11 through 13 in the link I provided. They are dated, but peer-reviewed.

I’m also confused by your link, it appears to be a meta-analysis which “found ample evidence that both breastfeeding and [pacifier] use reduced the risk of SIDS.”

Overall, I like Cribsheet’s stance again - the best baby is a fed baby, the difference between a breastfed baby and a formula-fed baby are very minor and do not result in any persistent, dramatic differences.

Surprisingly, that’s not the entire story of SIDS - but it is one of the biggest contributing factors to why co-sleeping can be unsafe. It’s also why alcohol consumption dramatically increases the dangers.

I’ll plug some work done by La Leche League, a non-profit that provides resources for breastfeeding mothers. Now, this resource is for babies who are entirely breastfed - no bottles whatsoever - so it’s not for everyone unfortunately.

Their research has shown seven factors that, if addressed, can reduce the risk of SIDS in co-sleeping arrangements to be equal to modern safe sleep arrangements. https://llli.org/news/the-safe-sleep-seven/

I would also encourage people to read Cribsheet, which provides a fantastic deep dive into the specifics of SIDS risk. Understanding more about SIDS, and learning why safe sleep guidance exist, put my mind at ease as a new parent.

Because, I shit you not, it’s cheaper than adoption in the US.

As much as I love that, it’s likely this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology)

I studied parts of the basal ganglia, part of the dopaminergic circuits of motor control. I’m not sure if it’s a poorly written (news) article or the scientist was overstating his position - I don’t know any neuroscientists who think dopamine is “sprayed” across the brain.

Edit: The paper is a breakthrough because it’s reporting the first-ever direct imaging of dopamine signaling. But the news article mischaracterizes it.

It proved there were benefits, read the article.

Very few things are proved definitively in science. You test a hypothesis with statistics, which always carries a margin of error. Usually, it’s 5% - the probability that your data randomly supports your hypothesis, even though there’s no true relationship.

Personally, I prefer when journalists coach their language to avoid overstating the truth.

Great, now I have to start proof-reading any communications I get from the FDA to make sure it didn’t hallucinate a scientific article in the citations. There’s going to be so many Vegetative Microscopy proposals.

If you’re working on a budget like I was when starting out on my own, I recommend your first purchase to be a bed frame. You can use Ceaigslist / FB marketplace to find some really cheap used options. From there, you can start buying (used) furniture that matches the bed frame. Personally, I needed a nightstand immediately after the bed frame because I wanted to put my glasses somewhere.

Good point, I’m assuming all monitors are as good as mine.

Fair point, but a lot of the article talks about how many studies aren’t meeting all four pillars of clinical trial design - that’s where my issue comes in, I think reporting that X% of trials do not meet all pillars is a bad metric.

And, not all medications these days are pills or IV infusions - some medications and treatments, which are governed by the FDA, are more invasive and more complicated.

The consent process for clinical trials has a ton of guidance (ICH GCP), but the onus is on the clinical monitors and hospitals to make sure it’s done correctly. Many trials now generate supporting documentation in which hospital staff are required to describe the circumstances in which consent was acquired. If the documents are generated, then it’s auditable.

Things get a bit hairy when you look at trials in Alzheimer’s and other cognitive disorders, because the patient may not be coherent enough to withdraw from the trial. In those cases, a legal guardian is responsible for the decision.

Unfortunately, this was an issue before Trump and will continue to be one afterwards. Assuming there even is an afterwards…