Science Fictions

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. thinks that seed oils—like sunflower or soybean oil—are causing terrible damage to people’s health. And now he’s the US Health Secretary (wait, what?!) we should probably take him seriously.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart trace the origins of the idea that seed oils are uniquely unhealthy, and look at all the best evidence from randomised trials on whether it’s remotely true.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, where you can find detailed, beautifully-written essays on technology and progress. If you need something to read that’s full of unexpected and inspiring ideas about how science and technology can make the world better, you can be confident that you’ll find it at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Joe Rogan’s interview with the aptly-named dietary influencer Paul Saladino* A typical anonymous tweet about the supposed effects of seed oils* Article about Ray Peat’s advice on how often to measure your temperature for optimum health* Guardian article on RFK Jr. and his views on seed oils* Dynomight on seed oils* 2013 systematic review on linoleic acid and inflammation* 2017 systematic review on randomised trials of linoleic acid* 2015 meta-analysis of cohort studies looking at linoleic acid and coronary heart disease* 2020 meta-analysis of saturated fat and health outcomes* The safflower oil study beloved of seed oil worriers* And the Minnesota Coronary SurveyCreditsWe’re very grateful to Stevie Miller for helping us with the research for this episode. The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Whether it’s the 1903 New York Times article that claimed a flying machine was ten million years away, or the record executive who (allegedly) told the Beatles in the early 1960s that guitar bands were on the way out, predictions are hard.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss the psychologist Philip Tetlock’s research on superforecasters, the people who make the most accurate predictions of all. Even if you can’t become a superforecaster yourself, it turns out there’s a lot we can learn from them about how to form beliefs—and how to be right more often.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, where this week Tom has written a review of the new book, Doctored, about fraud in Alzheimer’s research. Read that and many other short pieces on the Works in Progress Substack at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* A book chapter on the “Expert Political Judgement” study from Philip Tetlock* Research on how people interpret terms like “a serious possibility” and “likely”* Research that argues against the idea that teaming up makes superforecasters better* Study on the correlates of being a good superforecaster (i.e. having a low Brier score)* A paper on “small steps to accuracy”: how people who update their beliefs more often are better forecasters* Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner’s book Superforecasting* Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset* Tom’s book, Everything is Predictable* Tom’s review of Mervyn King’s book, Radical UncertaintyCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Beginning in 2016, diplomats at the US Embassy in Havana started reporting strange concussion-like symptoms, even though they hadn’t taken a blow to the head. Some claimed they’d been the victim of a mysterious “sonic weapon”, aimed at them from somewhere outside and accompanied by a loud, high-pitched noise. Several scientific papers followed that appeared to confirm they’d been attacked. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart tell the whole story of Havana Syndrome, and dare to touch on the highly controversial theory that the symptoms might’ve been the result of mass hysteria (or as it’s now known, “mass psychogenic illness”).The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Their Substack is full of shorter articles that highlight apects of science and technology you might never have considered. This week: the surprising story of “The Prophet of Parking”. You can find that any all of their shorter items at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* The most recent (January 2025) development in the story of Havana Syndrome* Stuart’s New Statesman article on Havana Syndrome from 2021* Long and detailed ProPublica article from 2018* Wikipedia articles on the LRAD and the Active Denial System* NY Times article from around the time, about the Trump administration’s reaction to the “attacks”* US Senate hearings on the “attacks” led by Marco Rubio* Initial 2018 JAMA article with cognitive and other tests* Response letters 1, 2, and 3 (“cognitive impairments everybody has”)* 2019 JAMA article on brain imaging results* Stuart’s 2015 study on brain imaging in ageing* Entomologists report on the similarity of the recorded sound to that of a cricket* Declassified US report that agrees* A history of mass psychogenic illness* BBC article on “The Bristol Hum”* Guardian article on the bizarre phenomenon of Morgellon’s Syndrome* Article arguing that critics of the “mass psychogenic illness” theory have misunderstood the condition* 2020 National Academy of Sciences report* Putin bragging about high-tech Russian weaponsCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comIt’s been five years since the start of the COVID pandemic (yes, you read that correctly—five years). And the debate still rages online—did the virus come from a wet market, maybe via a pangolin, or from a gain-of-function experiment in a biolab?In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart cover the lab leak hypothesis, and talk about what it means for how people should make their minds up about scientific controversies.To hear the full episode, read the show notes, and leave a comment, you’ll need to be a paid subscriber on Substack. You can become one at www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe.

Every so often there’s a controversy related to IQ. The latest was caused by [checks notes] the new Vice President of the US attacking the IQ of a political podcaster on Twitter.You could argue that the VP should have better things to be doing. But Tom and Stuart certainly don’t, because they’ve recorded a whole episode of The Studies Show on the science of IQ. Hasn’t IQ been debunked as a measure? Does anyone take it seriously in 2025? Doesn’t an IQ test only tell you how good you are at doing IQ tests? In this episode, find out the answers to all these questions and more.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. It’s an online magazine associated with the broad “progress studies” movement, where you can find excellent, data-driven essays on what works to drive scientific and technological advances. You can find every issue of the magazine, for free, at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* JD Vance’s tweet about Rory Stewart’s IQ; Rory Stewart’s response* Study on how standardised testing helps get more poor/minority kids into “gifted and talented” programmes* 2023 meta-analysis on intelligence and lifespan* 2018 study (n >2m) from the Israeli military on intelligence and early mortality* Brief Nature article discussing why intelligence might relate to lifespan* 2018 article on the psychological problems of high-IQ people* Huge Swedish study on psychiatric hospitalisation and intelligence* Can you ever be too smart for your own good?* Meta-analysis on self-knowledge of IQ* 2020 study showing that the Dunning-Kruger effect is a “statistical artefact”* 2023 follow-up analysisCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

It had to happen eventually: this week The Studies Show is all about philosophy. As we look at science in general, how do we decide what those studies are actually showing? Tom and Stuart take a look at the Big Two of philosophy of science: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, with their respective theories of falsificationism and paradigm shifts. Both are theories that almost everyone interested in science has heard of—but both make far more extreme claims than you might think.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to go online for fact-rich, data-dense articles on science and technology, and how they’ve made the world a better place—or how they might do so in the future. To find all their essays, all for free, go to worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Tom’s new book, Everything is Predictable: How Bayes’ Remarkable Theorem Explains the World* Wagenmakers’s 2020 study asking scientists how they think about scientific claims* David Hume’s 1748 Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the problem of induction * Bertrand Russell’s 1946 book History of Western Philosophy* Popper’s 1959 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Popper* Kuhn’s 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Kuhn* 2019 Scott Alexander review of the book* Michael Strevens’s 2020 book The Knowledge Machine* Daniel Lakens’s Coursera course on “improving your statistical inferences”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Before the panic over social media—but after the panic over “video nasties”—was the panic over violent videogames. Was Pac-Man causing little Johnny so much frustration that he’d take it out on his siblings with his fists? Was Doom secretly training little Timmy to be a school shooter?You don’t hear so much about videogames and violence any more, but if you look at the studies (and the critiques of those studies) there’s a lot to learn about where science can go wrong. In this episode of The Studies Show—in addition to, if we’re honest, just spending quite a lot of time talking about videogames—Tom and Stuart ask whether there’s any decent evidence that gaming can make people more aggressive.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine—a journal of underrated ideas to make the world a better place. In the episode we discussed a recent essay on cruise ships, and the surprising (and continual) improvements over the years. You can find all their essays, all of which are free to read, at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Horribly violent games of yore: Death Race, Postal, Postal 2, Carmageddon, Doom II, Quake* Newer games mentioned in the episode: Slay the Spire, Hades, Doom Eternal, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Elden Ring* Hilarious attempt by an MP to ban Space Invaders in 1981* Chris Ferguson’s 2013 review of videogames and violence* 2003 review of “The Influence of Media Violence on Youth”* Pete Etchells’s 2019 book Lost in a Good Game* List of publications based on the Singapore dataset* Influential 2008 study by Chris Anderson showing a correlation between videogame violence exposure and violence* Small Ferguson study from 2012 controlling for several variables and finding no correlation* Study in the ALSPAC/Children of the 90s dataset* Are modern, more realistic games worse for us than older ones? Study from 2021* Use the CRTT to get whichever result you want* Psychological measures aren’t toothbrushes* Violent crime rates over time in the US, UK, various European countries, JapanCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comIs recycling worthwhile? Is sending your rubbish to landfill actually so bad? Grab your cotton tote bag and join Tom and Stuart as they look at the evidence—and the intense political debate and even conspiracy theories—over the surprisingly controversial topic of recycling.This is a paid-only episode, and to hear the whole thing (and read the show notes), you’ll need to become a subscriber to The Studies Show. Find out how at www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe.

We want scientists to be paragons of objectivity. At the very least, we want them to tell us who’s paying their bills. But it turns out that in some fields of research, the norms about reporting financial conflicts of interest are all over the place. Scientists making big money from after-dinner speeches about their research often don’t think it’s at all relevant to disclose.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the evidence on how funding affects the outcomes of scientific research—and discuss whether scientists need to be a lot more transparent about where their money comes from.Show notes* 2017 meta-analysis of the impact of funding source (for-profit vs. non-profit) on medical randomised trials* Tom’s Nature article on undisclosed financial conflicts in psychology research* New Angela Duckworth paper with no COI statement* Unconvincing ethics article on COI disclosures and public trust* Scientist declares his membership of the Scottish Socialist Party in an article about Margaret Thatcher* Ioannidis article on conflicts of interest in nutrition researchCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This week, as a gift for New Year’s Eve, we’re opening up a previously-paywalled episode so that everyone can listen. It’s our episode from April 2024 on “Youth gender medicine & the Cass Review”. Since the show notes were previously behind the paywall, they’re copied below.If you’d like to listen to all our paywalled episodes—which are of course ad-free, like this one—you can subscribe by visiting thestudiesshowpod.com.Normal service will be resumed next week. Happy New Year!Show notes* The Cass Review’s final report* List of systematic reviews from University of York researchers that were commissioned by the Cass Review* Hannah Barnes on why the Tavistock gender identity clinic was forced to close* VICE interview with a Tavistock doctor, including information on patient numbers* Original Dutch single-case study on puberty blockers* Somewhat larger Dutch study of puberty blockers from 2011* The “Early Intervention” study from England (not published until 2021)* Article that’s critical of the “cis-supremacy” in the Cass Review* BMJ editorial on the Cass Review* Billy Bragg claims that the Cass Review only included 2 studies out of 102* Owen Jones’s video where he claims studies were “arbitrarily” excluded from the report* Fact-checking post from Benjamin Ryan, covering some of the criticisms of the Cass Report* Hilary Cass interviewed by The Times* Episode of BBC More or Less that addresses some of the criticisms* 2020 study on the small proportion of medical treatments where there’s strong evidence* More recent (2022) study by the same authors finding an even more depressing picture: “More than 9 in 10 healthcare interventions studied within recent Cochrane Reviews are not supported by high-quality evidence, and harms are under-reported”* The book Medical Nihilism* The BMJ review of the book, quoted in the episodeCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

In this final episode of 2024, Tom and Stuart talk about the most exciting scientific breakthroughs of the year… but temper it with some of the worst episodes of scientific fraud and misconduct, too. Then, just as a bonus, they address some of the biggest errors made in episodes of The Studies Show in 2024, too.Thank you so much for listening in 2024. If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support the podcast and get access to all the episodes. In any case, we’ll see you for more The Studies Show in the New Year!The Studies Show is sponsored by GiveWell, the non-profit aimed at making charitable donations as effective as possible. If you’re the kind of person who wants solid evidence that the money you donate is having an important effect on people’s lives, GiveWell is where you should be looking.You can get your donation matched up to $100 if you’re a first-time donor on GiveWell. Just go to the website (GiveWell.org), then click “Donate”. When you make your donation, say you heard about GiveWell on a podcast, and enter “The Studies Show” to let them know we sent you. Then you’ll see the donation matched. Show notes* Saloni Dattani’s “Five Medical Breakthroughs in 2024” post* Gavin Leech’s “Breakthroughs of 2024” thread on Twitter* Stuart’s monthly bad science newsletterCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

In this “fun”, festive episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss two ways—one man-made, one natural—that our species might be wiped off the planet.The first is “mirror life”, a science-fiction-sounding threat that hardly anyone had heard of until last week, when a group of concerned scientists wrote an open letter arguing that this is a technology that should never be developed. The second is the eruption of a supervolcano, which has a scarily high likelihood of happening in the next century… and for which scientists say we’re “woefully underprepared”. Have a cheery Christmas!Here’s your chance to do some clear, measurable good this Christmas. We’re pleased to say that we’re being sponsored by GiveWell, the non-profit organisation who use evidence to work out which charities are the most impactful and effective. The really good news is that they’ll match any donation up to $100 for first-time donors who tell them at the checkout that they heard about GiveWell on a podcast, and then choose THE STUDIES SHOW. Go to GiveWell.org and click “donate” to get started.Show notes* Mirror life:* The 300-page full Stanford report* Science perspective piece on the risks of mirror life* Asimov Press explainer article* Supervolcanoes:* I HATE ICELAND!* Nature piece from 2022 about our “woeful” level of preparation for a massive volcanic eruption* 1816, the “year without a summer”* Evidence against the idea that Mt. Tambora nearly drove humans to extinction* 2024 paper that’s sceptical of global cooling beyond 1.5 degrees C* 2023 paper with a much more pessimistic scenario* Two useful discussions (first, second) of the effects of supervolcanoes on the Effective Altruism forum* 2018 article on what interventions might prevent or mitigate supervolcanic eruptionsCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comRather unexpectedly, the idea of separate sports for males and females has become massively controversial—a major flashpoint in the culture wars, and even in the recent US election.So what does the evidence say? Is it fair if trans women (who are biologically male) compete with females in sports like swimming, or even boxing? How much sporting performance does a lifetime of testosterone grant you? In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and (confirmed sport-hater) Stuart look at the evidence on male vs. female sport performance—and discuss whether the argument is really more about ethics and politics than scientific evidence.

Patrick Bateman. Hannibal Lecter. Ted Bundy. The guy who used to live downstairs from me. Psychopaths, every one. Except defining psychopathy, let alone measuring it, turns out to be surprisingly controversial among psychologists and forensic scientists.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the latest attempts to define and model psychopathy, the evidence on the questionnaires used to measure it, and whether The Sopranos was right in saying that therapy only makes psychopaths worse.Our sponsor for the next month is GiveWell. They’re the org that helps you work out the most effective, life-saving ways to donate to charity. The great news is that, if you haven’t donated with GiveWell before, they’ve offered to match your charitable donations up to $100. That is, if you donate $100 to an effective charity, it’ll instantly be doubled. What are you waiting for? All you have to do is go to GiveWell.org, click “Donate”, and when you’re at the checkout choose PODCAST and enter THE STUDIES SHOW.Show notes* The Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy strongly criticise Jon Ronson’s book The Psychopath Test* 2021 Nature Reviews Disease Primers article on psychopathy* Critical discussion of whether the psychopath label should be applied to children* Christopher Patrick’s review of psychopathy research and discussion of his “triarchic” model of psychopathy* 2020 review-of-reviews on whether psychopathy checklist scores predict violence, therapy outcomes, or remorse* The 2020 letter from “concerned experts” about PCL-R scores and institutional violence* Review on psychopathy scores and “dangerousness” from 2022* The controversial 1992 study on iatrogenic effects on psychopaths in therapy* “Are psychopathy assessments ethical?” CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Among patients hospitalized for COVID, smokers had better outcomes. Among people with cardiovascular disease, those with obesity live longer. Among NBA basketballers, taller players don’t do any better. These are all facts. But the interpretation you might immediately draw is completely wrong.It turns out that these findings (and many more) might be due to the weird and under-discussed phenomenon of “collider bias”. Everyone who’s interested in scientific methods knows what a confounder is—but do they know what a collider is? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart attempt to explain.We’re delighted to announce our sponsor for the next month: GiveWell. They’re the organisation who use rigorous evidence to point you towards the highest-impact charities. Want to make sure your donation goes as far as possible, maximising the lives that you’ll save and improve? GiveWell.org is the place to go. And here’s a fantastic opportunity: if you’re a new donor, GiveWell will match up to $100 of your charitable donation if you go to GiveWell.org, then choose “PODCAST” and enter “The Studies Show” at checkout.Show notes* French study on COVID and smoking rates* French doctors handing out nicotine patches during the pandemic* Review of 13 studies in China showing lower smoking rates in those hospitalised for COVID* Among heart attack sufferers, smokers have better subsequent health* Obesity linked to improved survival among patients with a wide range of diseases* Within the NBA, tall basketball players do no better than short ones* Standardized testing doesn’t predict how well graduate physics students do* The same but for biology* The same but for STEM in general* Do neurotic people actually live longer, once you correct for self-rated health?* Julia Rohrer’s blog article on collider bias, using the conscientiousness/IQ relation* The “collider scope” paper - one of the best explanations of the phenomenon* Article on “the obsesity paradox”* Follow-up arguing that it might not be a paradox at allCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just a big crank? Well, yes. But is he nevertheless correct in his specific claims about the harms of water fluoridation? It’s long been argued that it’s no longer necessary, and that it might have the scary adverse effect of lowering children’s IQs. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the evidence.While they’re at it, Tom and Stuart ask whether there’s evidence for several other dentistry-related claims. Regular check-ups; flossing; fillings; fluoride toothpaste—is your dentist just b**********g you about any or all of these?[This podcast was recorded just before Donald Trump selected RFK Jr. as his candidate for US Health Secretary, but that makes the episode even more relevant].The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. If you’re an optimist who enjoys reading about how things have gotten better in the past, and how we might make them better in the future—then it’s the magazine for you. Find it at worksinprogress.co. Show notes* RFK Jr.’s tweet about how the new Trump administration will remove fluoride from the US water supply* US National Research Council’s 2006 report on fluoridation* 2023 meta-analysis on water fluoridation and IQ* Letter co-authored by Stuart, criticising a bad study on fluoride and IQ in pregnant women and their babies* The original study* Review of fluoridation and cancer risk* 2000 UK NHS review of fluoridation and cancer risk* 2022 UK Government report on the link of water fluoridation to various different medical conditions* 2024 Cochrane Review on fluoridation and preventing tooth decay* Review of guidelines from the Journal of the American Dental Association* 2020 randomised controlled trial on fillings in children’s teeth* The Cochrane Library on the evidence for specific intervals between dental appointments (e.g. 6 months)* The American Dental Association guidelines on flossing, and the NHS ones* 2019 Cochrane review of RCTs of flossing* The ADA and NHS guidelines on brushing with fluoride toothpaste* 2019 Cochrane review on brushing and fluoride* Claims about cardiac health being related to dental health* Study of 1m people in Korea on cardiac health and tooth loss* 2020 meta-analysis of cardiac and dental health* The study included in the meta-analysis by Chen, Chen, Lin, and Chen* Claims about dental health and cancer* 2020 review of the literature* 2024 Ars Technica story on dentists over-selling their services* 2019 Atlantic piece: “Is Dentistry a Science?”* 2013 piece in the Washington State Dental News magazine on “creative diagnosis”* Articles in the British Dental Journal and JAMA Internal Medicine both arguing that evidence-based medicine has left dentistry behindCredits The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comYou might’ve noticed it: a lot of celebrities have recently been talking or writing about their diagnosis of adult ADHD. The way they discuss it, as soon as they discovered they had ADHD everything made sense: their distractibility, their difficulties following instructions, their restlessness, and so on.But is adult ADHD a real psychiatric condition? How does it differ from childhood ADHD? And (whisper it) might some people actually be faking having ADHD? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart cast a sceptical eye over this very “trendy” diagnosis.By the way, if you’re a paying subscriber, you can add the RSS feed of this podcast to your favourite podcast app so you don’t just have to access the paid-only episodes via the Substack page. You can find out how to do so at this link.

In a desperate attempt to be relevant given the US Election, Tom and Stuart dedicate this episode of The Studies Show to talking about government investment in science. How bad is it if politicians cut the science budget? Exactly how much do you get back for every pound or dollar spent on science—and how is that even calculated in the first place?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine—a journal of science, history, and technology that discusses the secrets behind human progress. You can read their published essays at worksinprogress.co, or their shorter pieces on their Substack at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* Nature’s editorial: “The world needs a President who respects evidence”* Trump’s science budget cuts: NIH/EPA, CDC* Nature’s editorial on the “surge in far-right parties” in Europe cutting the science budget* Tom’s 2015 BuzzFeed News article on science budget cuts in the UK* Article on Argentinian science budget cuts under Javier Milei* Andre Geim and Nancy Rothwell’s 2024 Guardian article on how £1 of science funding gets you £12 back* Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake’s book, Capitalism Without Capital* Haskel’s 2014 paper finding a £4 return on investment for every £1 spent on science* 2024 UK National Centre for Universities and Business report finding that £1 of science investment leads to £3-4 of private investmentCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re grateful to Jonathan Haskel for talking to us for this episode; as always, any mistakes are our own. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

WoooOOOOOoooOOOOOoooo, it’s that time of year again! It’s Halloween, so it’s time for The Studies Show hosts to face their fears, and read the research from one of the weirdest areas of science, parapsychology.This time it’s all about psychic mediums. What does it mean to test whether someone can talk to the dead? Are we any better at doing it now than we were 100 years ago at the height of “spiritualism”? And what do the most recent results tell us about the existence of the afterlife?Happy Halloween! 🎃This week, The Studies Show is brought to you by Semafor, the online newletter service that gives you everything you need to know about politics, business, economics, and much more in the form of email newsletters. This week we talked about Ben Smith’s newsletter on a topic that’s just as scary as Halloween: the US Presidential Election. You can find it and more excellent newsletters at www.semafor.com/newsletters.Show notes* Alfred Russel Wallace’s “Defence of Modern Spiritualism”* Article on Darwin’s views on spiritualism* Peter Lamont’s book on Daniel Dunglas Home* Sarcastic sceptical article on William Crookes’s botched investigation of Home* Video of James Randi debunking the medium Peter Popoff* Ray Hyman’s classic paper on cold reading* 2021 meta-analysis on mediumship* New Italian mediumship paper from 2022* 2023 review on “Is Biological Death Final?” with discussion of the Drake Equation for parapsychologyCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Philip Zimbardo, the psychologist who’s best known for running the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971, died last week. That’s a good excuse to discuss his legacy: what did his famous experiment tell us about the power of the situation to make normal people commit evil and sadistic acts?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart go back to the original report of one of the most famous psychology studies of all time, and then see how the experiment is looking after more than 50 years of discussion and debate (spoiler: not good).The Studies Show is brought to you by Semafor. You can sign up for their variety of online newsletters that give you in-depth information in digestible chunks. This week, we discussed the Semafor Business newsletter with Liz Hoffman, which included an interview with an electric vehicle company CEO who’s making a bet, after something of a downturn, that EVs really are the future.Show notes* The first academic paper to describe the Stanford Prison Experiment, from 1973* More details on the study, including the prisoners’ “rebellion”, on Zimbardo’s website* The first critique from 2019, from social psychologists* The second critique from 2019, from Thibault le Texier* Zimbardo’s response to the critiques* Zimbardo on the Abu Ghraib prison torture during the Iraq War* Zimbardo’s cringeworthy BBC interview on the effects of videogames* Guardian critique of Zimbardo’s videogame claims by Pete EtchellsCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comIt’s a constant source of online controversy: surrogacy. A “medical ethics” issue like this wouldn’t usually be a case for The Studies Show, except that science is often brought into the argument.Is it really true, as anti-surrogacy campaigners claim, that both the surrogate mother and the baby suffer serious physical and psychological problems, in large part caused by the traumatic separation after birth? In this paid-only episode, Tom and Stuart find out. To listen to the full episode and read the show notes, become a subscriber at thestudiesshowpod.com.

What’s the secret of living to 100? Well, it might be living in a “Blue Zone”: one of the handful of places around the world where there are apparently loads of centenarians. Except, as has been argued recently, Blue Zones might be a load of nonsense.In this epside of The Studies Show, relative spring chickens Tom and Stuart look at some of the recent controversies in demography. Is there a limit to the human lifespan? Did someone really live 122 years? And how could researchers not have noticed the glaring problems with the whole idea of Blue Zones?The Studies Show is brought to you by our new sponsor: Semafor. They’re a purveyor of high-quality newsletters offering in-depth information in digestible chunks (and they happen to be Tom’s employer). This week, we looked at Semafor Technology, in which Reed Albergotti interviewed will.i.am on AI and the future of music.Show notes* “Millions Now Living Will Never Die”* Nature paper on “Evidence for limits to the human lifespan”* Stuart’s response letter* Saul Newman’s critique* Guardian article and Retraction Watch article on the resulting controversy* 2020 New Yorker article on Jeanne Calment, the 122-year-old woman* 2004 paper on “Blue Zones”; 2013 paper* Blue Zones website and “Live to 100” cookbook* Blue Zones food guidelines* Saul Newman’s paper (2024 version) critiquing Blue Zones and supercentenarian research* Saul Newman wins the Ig Nobel PrizeCredits* The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

There are an awful lot of things to worry about in the world. Are “superbugs” among them? That is, how worried should we be that bacteria will develop resistance to our best antibiotics, meaning infections will run rampant and even basic surgery is out of the question?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart wash their hands and then dig in to the evidence on the coming antimicrobial crisis. Exactly how many deaths can we expect from untreatable resistant infections? Turns out the question is, ahem, resistant to easy answers. (Sorry).The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Every issue, every article, gives you a new perspective on a topic you thought you knew about, or a totally new topic to think about. In their most recent issue, you can read about inflation, ancient scrolls and AI, genetic engineering, and the evolution of coffee. We’re grateful that they support the podcast; you can read their whole site for free at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Andreas Bäumler on “the coming microbial crisis”* Possible source for how many people used to die in surgery * BMJ article on the evidence (or lack of) showing that completing an antibiotic course is necessary* Satirical post on how the length of a course is calculated* Our World In Data on how many people die from cancer each year* UK Government review of antimicrobial resistance (from 2014), giving the 10m figure. * More mentions of 10m here (NHS), and here (Guardian)* 2016 paper in PLOS Medicine criticising the modelling that led to the 10m figure* September 2024 paper in the Lancet with a more up-to-date calculation* EU report on how MRSA rates dropped* Article on the wildly successful UK attempt to cut MRSA infections* Study on how many antibiotics are in the clinical “pipeline”* Thread on studies showing that using antibiotics prophylactically cut child mortality in sub-Sarahan Africa by 14%Credits* The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Been feeling a little strange lately? A bit impulsive, maybe? Feeling a sudden urge to get a pet cat? Sorry to say it, but maybe you’re infected with a scary mind control parasite: specifically, the paraside Toxoplasma gondii.Or… maybe not. It turns out that, despite popular belief, the supposed behavioural effects of T. gondii are supported by very weak scientific evidence. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart explain.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. It’s the no.1 destination online if you’re interested in “Progress Studies”: research on how things got better in the past and might get better in future. Whether it’s medical technology, construction materials, or policy innovation, you can read detailed essays on it at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Alex Tabbarok’s review of Parasite, arguing people took the wrong lessons from the film* Zombie ant fungus description* Theory for how the horsehair worm affects its host* Scepticism about whether it involves “mind control”* Description of acute toxoplasmosis* Tiny study on rats and cat urine* Well-cited (but also tiny) PNAS study on rats, mice, and cat urine* Review of toxoplasma and behavioural effects* Very useful sceptical article about toxoplasma’s effects on rodent and human behaviour (source of the quotes on Alzheimer’s)* Another (somewhat older) sceptical article* Study on getting humans to smell cat (and other) urine* Preprint on (self-reported!) toxoplasma infection and psychological traits* Initial, smaller entrepreneurship study* Later, larger entrepreneurship study (from Denmark)* Meta-analysis on whether childhood cat exposure is related to schizophrenia* Dunedin Cohort Study paper on toxoplasma and life outcomes* “The Toxoplasma of Rage” on Slate Star CodexCredits* The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

A while back, The Studies Show covered the question of whether smartphones and social media cause mental health problems. Amazingly, that podcast didn’t settle the issue, and the debate has continued—and continued rather acrimoniously.Psychologists—most notably Jonathan Haidt—are currently laying into each other, analysing, re-analysing, and meta-analysing datasets to try and work out whether “it’s the phones”. In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart explain the story so far, and in the process get very disappointed by their heroes.If you want to hear the whole episode and read the show notes, it’s easy to become a paid subscriber at thestudiesshowpod.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

It’s in a peer-reviewed paper, so it must be true. Right? Alas, you can only really hold this belief if you don’t know about the peer-review system, and scientific publishing more generally.That’s why, in this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart break down the traditional scientific publishing process, discuss how it leads science astray, and talk about the ways in which, if we really cared, we could make it better.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Their new September 2024 issue is out now, and is brimming with fascinating articles including one on lab-grown diamonds, one on genetically-engineered mosquitoes, and one on the evolution of drip coffee. Check it out at worksinprogress.co.Show Notes* A history of Philosophical Transactions, the oldest scientific journal* Hooke (1665) on “A Spot in One of the Belts of Jupiter”* The original paper proposing the h-index* Useful 2017 paper on perverse incentives and hypercompetition in science* Goodhart’s Law* Bad behaviour by scientists:* What is a “predatory journal”?* Science investigates paper mills and their bribery tactics* The best example yet seen of salami slicing* Brief discussion of citation manipulation* Elisabeth Bik on citation rings* The recent discovery of sneaked citations, hidden in the metadata of a paper* The Spanish scientist who claims to publish a scientific paper every two days* Science report on the fake anemone paper that the journal didn’t want to retract* Transcript of Ronald Fisher’s 1938 lecture in which he said his famous line about statisticians only being able to offer a post-mortem* 2017 Guardian article about the strange and highly profitable world of scientific publishing* Brian Nosek’s 2012 “scientific utopia” paper* Stuart’s 2022 Guardian article on how we could do away with scientific papers altogether* The new Octopus platform for publishing scientific resaerch* Roger Giner-Sorolla’s article on “aesthetic standards” in scientific publishing and how they damage science* The Transparency and Openness Practices guidelines that journals can be rated on* Registered Reports - a description, and a further discussion from Chris Chambers* 2021 paper showing fewer positive results in Registered Reports compared with standard scientific publicationCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Okay, it’s time to finally answer the question: is drinking booze good or bad? Is there really a “J-curve”, such that it’s bad to drink zero alcohol, good to drink a little, and then bad to drink any more than that? What exactly is the “safe level” of alcohol consumption, and why do the meta-analyses on this topic all seem to tell us entirely different things?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart get very badly intoxicated—with statistics.We’re sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. There’s no better place online to find essays on the topic of “Progress Studies”—the new field that digs deep into the data on how scientific and technological advances were made in the past, and tries to learn the lessons for the future. Check them out at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Media reports say alcohol is good! Oh no wait, it’s bad. Oh, sorry, it’s actually good! No, wait, actually bad. And so on, ad infinitum* The three conflicting meta-analyses:* 2018 in The Lancet (“no safe level”)* 2022 in The Lancet (the J-curve returns)* 2023 in JAMA Network Open (using “occasional drinkers” as the comparison)* Some of the press coverage about the J-curve age differences* David Spiegelhalter’s piece comparing the two Lancet meta-analyses* Tom’s piece on the idea of “safe drinking”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re very grateful to Sir David Spiegelhalter for talking to us about this episode (as ever, any errors are ours alone). This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Everyone knows your brain hasn’t finished maturing until you’re 25. That’s so well-known, in fact, that some countries (like Scotland) have built it into their criminal justice system, giving lower sentences to under-25s—even very violent ones—on account of their immature brains.But in this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss what the evidence really says about when the brain matures—and the trickiness of linking important policy decisions to the science.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, who don’t just have their magazine (at worksinprogress.co), but also have a Substack with a range of extra articles. It’s all thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff—and its all free. Find it at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* The three Scottish criminal cases:* “Golf club thug spared jail over age”* Community service not jail for rape (and the conviction later quashed)* 3 year-jail sentence for rape* The Scottish Sentencing Council guidelines from 2022* The commissioned review by University of Edinburgh on brain maturation* Useful 2022 Nature paper on structural “brain charts for the human lifespan”* 2024 preprint on the lifespan trajectory of functional brain activation for cognitive control* 2023 paper with 10,000 people aged 8-35 measured on executive function tests* BBC Science Focus article by Dean Burnett on the “brain matures at age 25” idea* “The myth of the 25-year-old brain” in Slate* Stuart’s i article from last year on the Scottish Sentencing CouncilCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comDid your schoolteacher also do the thing with the banana and the condom? It might’ve been cringe and awkward, but just ask the experts: the evidence is “clear and compelling” that sex education classes reduce the likelihood of teenage pregnancy, the transmission of STIs, and even the prevalence of sexual abuse.In this paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask the inevitable question: how “clear and compelling” are we talking, here? Those experts wouldn’t exaggerate the strength of the evidence for something like this… would they?

It’s one of the best-known findings of psychology research: kids who can delay gratification by not eating a marshmallow will grow up healther, wiser, and more successful. But guess what? Later studies had trouble finding the same results. What do we actually know about delaying gratification?Get ready to control yourselves, because in this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart tell the story of yet another famous psychological study that turned out not to live up to the hype.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. If you’re looking for thoughtful essays on areas of policy, science, and technology that you might not have considered previously, there’s no better place. Check it out at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* The famous 1988 paper by Walter Mischel and colleagues on predicting teenage outcomes from childhood marshmallow test performance, and the famous 1990 one (including the SAT predictions)* And the much older research that this follows up* Walter Mischel’s 2014 book The Marshmallow Test* Publicity piece on the book in Vox* First proper replication study from 2018* Debate about how the study used covariates* Really good Vox article describing the replication* 2021 paper (co-authored by Mischel) following up on the original participants* New 2024 paper following up on the replication study* Heavily-cited 2011 paper from the Dunedin study on the predictive power of self-control measures* Inzlicht and Roberts (2024) on trait vs. state self-control, and why we might have been thinking about this the wrong wayCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

We’ve now been making this podcast for a year(!). We thought we’d mark the occasion with a grossly self-indulgent look back through our favourite episodes - and our least favourites, too. We’ve still got a massive list of potential episode topics, but we always want more. Which topics would you like us to look into? Comments below are open to all.Thanks for listening. And remember: if you like The Studies Show, please tell a friend about it!Show notes* Study showing consistent results from multiple cognitive test batteries* Lucy Foulkes’s paper on the “prevalence inflation hypothesis”* Semaglutide and quitting smokingCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Remember when they were coming to take your gas stove away? Every so often a study about the effects of air pollution on health goes viral, and we’re reminded again that seemingly innocuous objects—like your kitchen cooker—could be bad for us in unexpected ways. How bad is air pollution? And is it getting any better?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the science of air pollution, trying to separate correlation from causality, and working out what scientists mean when they say that deaths are “attributable” to something (it’s more complicated than you think!).The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. We usually mention their long-form pieces at worksinprogress.co, but they also have a Substack newsletter at worksinprogress.news with shorter articles on the same topics. We commend it to you, and thank Works in Progress for sponsoring the podcast.Show notes* Recent news about “Ella’s Law” in the UK* Tom’s 2019 Unherd article on air pollution* “Death risk from London's toxic air sees ‘utterly horrifying’ rise for second year running”* The Our World In Data “Deaths by Risk Factor” graph* 2024 BMJ Open article about the health risks of coal power stations* Dynomight’s long article on air quality* The 1952 “Great Smog of London”* More useful Our World In Data articles:* An explainer on “attributable fractions” and summing up multiple risk factors* On indoor air pollution* Deaths from outdoor pollution* Death rate from outdoor pollution* Deaths from outdoor pollution vs. GDP per capita* The WHO calls indoor air pollution “the world’s single largest environmental health risk”* More on attributable fractions, with some examples* Example of an experimental study on the effects of air pollution* The article that sparked the Great Cooker Controversy of 2023* Example of the media coverage at the time* Biden forced to rule out a ban on gas cookers* Recent story on how there’s “no safe level” of PM2.5* Based on this 2024 paper in the BMJ* How policy interventions can reduce (and have reduced) air pollution* London report on the effect of ULEZCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comWe all agree that misinformation is bad. So why do we cringe when we hear prominent scientists and commentators talking about “misinformation” these days?It’s because the public discussion on misinformation bears very little relation to what we actually know about it and its effects. Ironically, some scientists—misinformation researchers who should know better—are at the root of this confusion.In this epic-length, paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart take “misinformation” researchers to task for spreading, er, misinformation. Warning: contains strong and intemperate—but very justified—language.

Last week’s episode covered a man-made existential risk to humanity—nuclear war. But what about natural risks? Could there, right now, be a vast asteroid sailing through space that’ll collide with Earth, sending us go the way of the dinosaurs?In this rocky episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the data on how often we should expect civilisation-destroying asteroids to hit Earth - and what if anything we can do about it if one is approaching.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, the best place on the internet to find mind-changing essays on science, technology, and human progress. We’ve both written for WiP—one of Tom’s articles there is the basis for this episode. You can find all their issues for free at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Tom’s Works in Progress article on the threat from asteroids, on which this episode is based* Toby Ord’s book The Precipice, on existential risk (including discussion of asteroids)* Article from Finn Moorhouse on risks from asteroids* Analysis of moon craters to work out how often asteroids hit* And an equation to calculate the impact power of an asteroid hit, from the characteristics of the asteroid* Report from the 2013 US Congressional hearing on threats from outer space* NASA’s explanation of how it scans space for asteroids* Carl Sagan’s 1994 article on the “dual-use” propensity of asteroid-deflection technology* 2015 article on mining asteroids, and how nudging them closer could help* Just one example of a recent article (2024) on asteroid deflection techniques* 2023 Nature article about the successful DART mission to nudge an asteroid with kinetic force* NASA’s DART page with extra news and infoCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

The UK has a new Prime Minister, and one of his first acts will have been to write letters to the captains of our nuclear missile submarines, telling them what to do in the event that the UK gets obliterated by a nuclear strike. But what else might happen after a full-scale nuclear war? Many scientists—most notably Carl Sagan—have theorised that nuclear war would block out the sun, destroy crops, and maybe lead to human extinction. But it turns out this is a very controversial theory. In this rather grim episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart try and work out who’s right, and if nuclear winter really would be the end of the world.Another thing the new Prime Minister should be doing is reading Works in Progress magazine, the sponsor of The Studies Show. If he does, he’ll find a wealth of ideas that he and his government could use to spark progress and growth in the UK - and in particular, he should be reading the classic essay “The Housing Theory of Everything”. You can find that and much more at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Putin warning the West that Russia is “ready” for nuclear war* Ned Donovan’s article on the UK Prime Minister’s “Letters of Last Resort”* The 2024 test where the UK’s nuclear deterrent went “plop”* Annie Jacobsen’s book Nuclear War: A Scenario* A podcast episode and a Reddit thread criticising the book* Wikipedia on the Moscow-Washington and Beijing-Washington phone lines* The terrifying stories of Stanislav Petrov and Vasily Arkhipov* Eric Schlosser’s book Command and Control, about nuclear near-misses* The 11-ton “Mother Of All Bombs” (MOAB) vs. the 9-megaton B53 thermonuclear warhead* Neil Halloran’s YouTube video on deaths during and after a nuclear explosion* His later video discussing how he overstated nuclear winter effects* The “Nuke Map”, where you can see how much of a given city would be in the blast radius of a variety of different warheads* The two original 1983 nuclear winter papers in Science: the slightly more circumspect one; the one that mentions human extinction* Long Effective Altruism forum post by Michael Hinge on the evidence for and against nuclear winter effects* Even more detailed post on the same subject by Vasco Grilo* Three papers from three different teams on a regional nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan:* The Rutgers team’s original paper in 2014* The follow-up by the Los Alamos team in 2018 (response from Rutgers; response from Los Alamos)* The follow-up by the Lawrence Livermore team in 2020* Carl Sagan’s prediction of severe climate effects from Iraq’s burning of the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1990/1991* Discussion of why that didn’t happen* The extremely sceptical Naval Gazing blog post on nuclear winter* Paper from nuclear winter theorists accusing the US of genocide in Japan* Toby Ord’s book The Precipice, on existential riskCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This week it’s the UK General Election, and lots of other countries either have elections coming soon or have recently voted. Lots of pollsters and political scientists have been attempting to predict the outcomes - but how successful will they be?In this Studies Show election special, Tom and Stuart discuss the various quirks and downsides of opinion polls, and ask how scientific political science really is. The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine - the best place online to find beautifully-written essays about human progress. How can we learn from the past so that we can solve problems quicker in future? How can we apply this kind of mindset to subjects as diverse as science, medicine, technology, architecture, and infrastructure? Get some great ideas at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Ben Ansell’s book Why Politics Fails* The polls that got Brexit wrong (but where online polling did better)* The “Lizardman Constant”* Stuart’s 2023 i article on whether it’s really true that 25% of British people think COVID was a “hoax”* Recent-ish paper by Andrew Gelman on Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP)* Examples of recent MRPs from the UK (and one from the US from 2020)* The surprising utility of just using “uniform swing” * The very embarrassing 2010 “psychoticism” mixup between conservatism and liberalism - which even has its own Wikipedia page* Article on the replication crisis in political science* 2017 article with examples of where political bias might’ve affected political science* The Michael LaCour case, where a political scientist fabricated an entire canvassing study and got it published in Science* Weirdly, even though the study was fake, the principle behind it does seem to be correctCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re grateful to Prof. Ben Ansell for talking to us about polling. Any errors are our own. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comThere’s one thing we know Viagra does very well. But what other uses does it have? Can it, as has now been claimed in three separate studies, prevent Alzheimer’s disease?In this priapic paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask if there might be something to the theory that, through some vascular mechanism, Viagra might slow the effects of dementia. Or is that all just a phallus… er, fallacy?

The criminal justice system and science are both broadly looking for the same thing - the truth. But in many cases the two don’t mix well. Whether it’s court cases that attempt to decide the truth of a scientific dispute, or the use of fingerprints, DNA, or statistics by the prosecution in a murder case, a lot can go wrong - and there’s a lot at stake.Inspired by the recent discussion, or perhaps lack of discussion, around [a criminal case nobody in the UK can talk about for legal reasons], Tom and Stuart spend this episode looking into what happens when science meets the law.Our favourite online magazine is Works in Progress - so it’s particularly pleasing that they’re the sponsors of The Studies Show. Works in Progress publish in-depth essays on underrated ideas to improve the world, covering the history and future of science and technology. Go to worksinprogress.co to read their entire archive for free.Show notes* UK man arrested for airport-related joke (2010); UK man arrested and punished (narrowly avoiding prison) for saying “burn auld fella, buuuuurn” upon the death of “Captain Tom” (2022)* Simon Singh successfully sued by chiropractors (but then successfully appeals; 2010)* Paper on the Italian criminal cases that helped fuel the anti-vaccine movement* Jim Carrey campaigns against vaccines* Tom’s 2018 New Scientist article on glyphosate and cancer* 1995 article on the “phantom risks” of breast implants* Helen Joyce on the Sally Clark case* Tom’s 2024 Unherd article on “the dangers of trial by statistics”* 2022 Royal Statistical Society report on the same topic* How Bayes-savvy statisticians helped overturn Lucia de Berk’s conviction* Gerd Gigerenzer on OJ Simpson* 2022 philosophy paper on the issues with forensic science* 2016 White House report on the gaps in forensic science* Dror & Hampikian (2011) study on bias in DNA interpretation* 2009 “Texas sharpshooter” paper on the rarity (or not) of DNA matches* Useful 2023 review of human factors research in forensic science* Interviews with 150 forensic examiners on potential biases in their workCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

To be addicted to something, you’ve got to… er, actually, what does it mean to be “addicted” to something? We all agree you can be addicted to heroin, but can you also be addicted to videogames, or sex, or listening to podcasts? And actually, it turns out we don’t all agree you can be addicted to heroin - or, at least, people have very different models of what that means. In what is effectively an hour-long clarification of a throwaway comment in a previous episode, Tom and Stuart talk through the various aspects of addiction, and try to pin down the scientific definition of what turns out to be a strangely elusive concept.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, whose recent issue covers its usual mix of science, technology, and policy ideas to help with human flourishing. Read deeply-researched articles about prediction markets, gentrification, concrete, and drink-driving policy at worksinprogress.co. Show notes* Addiction: A Very Short Introduction, by Keith Humphries* And his Atlantic article on how de-stigmatising drugs could be a mistake* Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time (and How to Spend it Better) by Pete Etchells* Scotland’s unbelievably bad drug problem in one graph* Theodore Dalrymple on Samuel Taylor Coleridge* And another historical case: The Rugeley Poisoner* US physician referring to addiction as a “disease” in 1874* And a German physician discusses “morbid craving” for morphine in 1875* Made-up Victorian theories on the cause of addiction* Useful Vaughan Bell article on “the unsexy truth” about dopamine* Evidence that Parkinson’s patients still experience pleasure despite low dopamine levels* Evidence that a majority of (UK) smokers want to quit* The CAGE screening questionnaire for alcohol disorders* On the 1980 letter cited in and discussed in Dopesick* Marc Lewis’s Memoirs of an Addicted Brain* A discussion and critique of the “Rat Park” experiments* Paper on “Addictive Symptoms of Mukbang Watching” (this is real!)* The jokey origins of “Internet Use Disorder”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Should you avoid giving your child peanuts to ensure they don’t develop an allergy? If you’d asked medical authorities this question in the late 90s and early 2000s, you’d get an answer that’s completely opposite to what you’d get now.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss the science behind the medical recommendations on peanut allergy - the remarkable story of a major scientific U-turn.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. Their latest article, about “advance market commitments” for vaccines and antibiotics and other stuff besides, is now available at worksinprogress.co. Show notes* Useful review article on the “diagnosis and management of food allergy”* Analysis of UK NHS data on hospitalisations and mortality from anaphylaxis* Two studies raising doubts about parents’ claims that their child has an allergy* Recommendations on improving tests for food allergy* 1998 UK Department of Health document recommending not to give children peanuts until 3 years of age* 2000 American Academy of Pediatrics statement that broadly agrees* Stuart’s 2023 i article on the controversy* 2008 observational study comparing Jewish children in the UK (no peanuts) to Jewish children in Israel (lots of peanuts)* …after which the advice in the UK is announced to be “suspended”* The 2015 LEAP randomised controlled trial on peanut avoidance vs. peanut consumption in infants* Follow-up of the same data to age 12* BBC article about the follow-up* Observational study from Australia finding no significant change in the prevalence of peanut allergy* Paper arguing that if we want to see effects, we need to give peanuts to babies even earlier* The EAT trial of food allergen exposure in non-high-risk infants* Re-analysis of LEAP and EAT data to work out the best age to administer peanuts* The PreventADALL study from Sweden* 2019 article collecting examples of “medical reversals” from across the scientific literatureCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Many Western countries, most notably the US, had a major decline in their crime rate in the 1990s. About 20 years earlier, the US had banned the use of lead in gasoline. Perhaps you wouldn’t think those two facts are related - but many researchers think this wasn’t a coincidence.After getting distracted and doing a whole episode on lead and IQ a couple of weeks ago, Tom and Stuart get to the subject they intended to cover: the lead-crime hypothesis. How strong is the evidence that the presence of lead in a child’s early environment increases their propensity for crime when they grow up? And how strong is the evidence that lead removal (at least partly) caused the declining crime rate?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress, the magazine full of new and underrated ideas for advancing science, technology, and humanity. They have a new issue out right now, which opens with a fascinating essay on the decline of drink-driving. Check it out at worksinprogress.co. Show notes* Numbers on the US crime rate over time* Evidence from Finland on IQ and crime* The first study (to our knowledge) on the lead-crime hypothesis, from 2007* Rob Verbruggen’s 2021 Manhattan Institute report on lead and crime* Jennifer Doleac’s 2021 Niskanen Center report on lead and crime* Paper focusing on 1920s/30s America and the impact of lead on crime* 2020 Swedish paper on moss lead levels and crime* 2021 PNAS paper on lead and personality change* 2022 meta-analysis on the lead-crime hypothesis* 2023 systematic review on the same topicCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comJohann Hari is a journalist with an interesting past who has now written four very popular books on scientific topics (addiction, depression, attention, and obesity). Are those books any good?In this paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart—who have both written reviews of Hari’s books—discuss Hari’s career, his sudden emergence as a science writer, and exactly how many miles you need to travel around the world to ensure your book becomes a New York Times bestseller.

Petrol, pipes, paint: they made a whole generation duller. That’s if you believe the research on the effects of lead on IQ. By interfering with neurological development, the lead that we used to encounter routinely has left hundreds of millions of us with a tiny bit of brain damage.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the toxic effects of lead - from very obvious, high-dose lead poisoning to the more insidious, low-level effects that have apparently held millions of people back. How strong is the evidence for the effects of low-level lead exposure on IQ?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, a journal of ideas to accelerate human progress. If you’re a student aged 18-22 and want to attend the Works in Progress “Invisible College” this August (at which Stuart is speaking), take a look at this link.Show Notes* Centers for Disease Control (CDC) page on lead poisoning* Articles on the history of lead poisoning from the BBC and the Guardian* 2022 PNAS study concluding that “half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood” (the one with the “824,097,690” figure)* Article on blood lead levels and which are considered dangerous* The 2005 meta-analysis on lead and children’s IQs* Cited in the 2021 “Global Lead Exposure Report”* The critique from the CDC in 2007* The critique paper from 2013* The critique paper from 2016* The correction from 2019* The critique paper from 2020* Quasi experiments: from Rhode Island; using manufacturing employment* 2018 paper on low-level lead and all-cause mortalityCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Preventing cancer. Curing depression. Single-handedly ending the COVID-19 pandemic. Oh, and something to do with your bones. Is there anything Vitamin D can’t do?Maybe the answer is: “quite a lot”. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the claims about the wondrous powers of Vitamin D supplements - and whether any of them have any decent evidence behind them. The whole story turns out to be a perfect parable for how to think about health research.📚Buy Tom’s book, Everything is Predictable, at this link! And join us at the book launch in London on 16th May 2024! 📚The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine: the stylish, well-argued, data-packed place to read essays about science, technology and human progress. Find their latest issue at this link.Show notes* Rupa Huq MP’s article from during the COVID pandemic on how the government should be “shouting about Vitamin D”* Huq and David Davis MP convince the government to recommend Vitamin D* Stuart’s New Statesman article on why this was jumping the gun a little* How Vitamin D regulates calcium and phosphorus metabolism in the body* Might it slow tumour growth? Or prevent cardiovascular disease? Evidence from rats* Observational studies on how Vitamin D levels are related to: depression, cognitive impairment, cancer rates, cardiovascular disease, all-cause mortality* Review paper claiming widespread deficiency in Vitamin D* Scientific American article including discussion of the confusion over what it means to be “deficient” in, and/or have an “insufficiency” of Vitamin D* 2019 paper reporting results from the VITAL trial on cancer and cardiovascular risk* D-health trial results on cancer risk and cardiovascular risk* From the D-health trial, papers reporting no effect of Vitamin D supplementation on: cognitive impairment, depression, microbiome diversity, telomere length, hypothyroidism, erectile dysfunction, falls, fractures* Classic xkcd cartoon on false-positive jelly beans* 2022 Nature Reviews Endrocrinology review on the (lack of) evidence for the effects of Vitamin D beyond bone-related problems* Story of UK man who died of a Vitamin D overdose* Vitamin D and COVID: the promising observational study; the null trialCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

We can all agree that being lonely is bad. But apparently, science shows it’s really, really bad. Indeed, being lonely is so dangerous to your health that its equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. And it gets worse: we’re in the middle of a loneliness epidemic, meaning that the health of millions is at risk.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask two questions: is there actually a loneliness epidemic? And does it make sense to compare loneliness to something as bad for you as smoking cigarettes?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Click here to see the latest issue, packed with essays on YIMBYism, clinical research, Russian history, railway tunnels, and more.Show notes* The US Surgeon General’s report into “Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation”* Articles on the loneliness epidemic from the BBC, NPR, the BBC again, the New York Times, the New York Times again, and Science magazine* 2023 article in The Times (London) that makes the 15-cigarettes-a-day comparison* The 2017 Jo Cox report on “Combatting Loneliness”* 2010 meta-analysis of social relationships and mortality risk* American Time Use Survey, 2003-2020* Meta-Gallup poll from 2022 on “The Global State of Social Connections”* Are US older adults getting lonelier (2019 study)? What about “emerging adults” (2021 meta-analysis)?* Comparison between younger-old people and older-old people on their loneliness levels* 2017 review study on the health effects of loneliness* 2023: systematic review no.1, systematic review no.2, both into the effects of loneliness on health* 2005 study on the health effects of smoking tobaccoCredits* The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comThe evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for young people with gender dysphoria is “remarkably weak”. That’s according to the Cass Review, a new in-depth report commissioned by NHS England.As you might imagine, the report’s conclusions have been somewhat controversial. In this paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart read through the Cass Report, consider the arguments of its critics, and try to put the whole thing in context.

Several previous episodes of The Studies Show have covered depression and treatments for it, but none have really considered what depression is. It’s time to do that. It turns out that some scientists have made serious critiques of the standard way of thinking about depression, and argue that we need a revolution in the way we measure it.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart take nothing for granted - they look into the idea of “latent variables”, read the studies critiquing the concept of a single, monolithic “depression”, and talk about what this all means for how we treat people with these often-terrible symptoms.We’re proud to be sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, which is, as they put it, “a magazine of new and underrated ideas to improve the world”. You can find their beautifully-illustrated and detailed essays on all kinds of scientific and technological subjects at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Our World in Data on depression prevalence* And covering some of the problems in estimating depression prevalence* Meta-analysis on antidepressant trials* Study looking at how depression rates have (or haven’t) changed over time* Article criticising the serotonin hypothesis of depression…* …and a rebuttal* Study showing how tricky it is to find replicable brain correlates of things like depression* Eiko Fried’s website, with his blog and links to his papers* Study on “the 52 symptoms of major depression”* Study showing how depression measures might not be measuring the same thing over time* Study showing that the same seems not to be true for intelligence* Article “revisiting” (strongly critiquing) the theoretical and empirical basis for depression research* A new-ish statistical way of thinking about the symptoms of depression: as part of a dynamic networkCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Everything is Predictable: How Bayes' Remarkable Theorem Explains the World. That’s the new book—out on April 25 in the UK and May 7 in the US—by our very own Tom Chivers!In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart cover some of the historical sections of the book, and talk about where some of our basic ideas about probability come from (it turns out to be a weird combination of inveterate gamblers and Presbyterian ministers).The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress Magazine - the best place online to find deep discussions of the ideas that have driven human progress, and that might drive it even further in future. The latest issue of Works in Progress is available right now, at worksinprogress.co. Show notes* The only citation that matters this week: Tom’s new book, Everything is Predictable. It’s available NOW for pre-order in the UK, and in the US. * And for those reading this on Substack, here’s the rather lovely front cover:CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Microplastics are everywhere: there are teeny-tiny plastic particles in your drinking water, your food, your air - and perhaps even in your internal organs. How worried should you be?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the research on microplastics, covering all the reasons that the health effects of microscopic particles are not straightforward to study. They also look in detail at a scary new study that apparently found, according to one headline, that microplastics “could raise [your] risk of stroke and heart attack”.Russian serfs! Railroad tunnels! Silkworms! The Zika virus! What do they all have in common? They’re all the subjects of fascinating, data-rich articles in the latest issue of Works in Progress magazine. We’re proud to say that Works in Progress sponsors The Studies Show.Show notes* The website of The Ocean Cleanup: the org removing vast amounts of macroplastic from the seas, and stopping it getting there in the first place* Zebrafish study showing how dyes can leach out of microplastics and cause confusion for researchers* Study on the effects of the solvent/dispersant, as well as the characteristics of microplastics, on cells* Review study noting the problem of bouyancy for in vitro microplastic studies* Review of health effects of microplastics, with a list of methodological problems for the field (and suggestions for how to solve them)* Another even more recent review* Widely-cited 2017 study of mice and microplastics…* …strongly criticised in a follow-up letter* The new NEJM study on microplastics, carotid artery plaques, and health* Coverage in the Guardian, The Conversation, and Medical XpressCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

As an extra way of thanking our paid subscribers, we’re going to post some shorter episodes in addition to the usual weekly hour-long ones.This first short episode (available to everyone for free; after this they’re paid-only) is about the idea of Emotional Intelligence. Does your “EQ” matter as much as your “IQ”? How can you even test that, anyway?To listen to future short episodes, as well as accessing all our paid-only stuff, you need to become a paid subscriber. Go to www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe to see the options.Show notes* Useful debate paper from 2022 between proponents and sceptics of emotional intelligence researchCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe