These are the topics suggested for the final lecture of Science: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, a freshman seminar offered in Fall 2005
Mariana Perez Martinez
“Arsenic-Life” Study by Felisa Wolfe‑Simon.
Adrian Chen
The Potato tree from UCLA
Aditya Naveen
Nuclear fusion breakthrough described at: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/climate/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough-replicate-climate
Nalin Storer
Piltdown Man Hoax: https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/the-problem-of-piltdown-man/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Mackenzie Reilly
– What kind of protections need to be implemented to protect the integrity
of scientific publications against a flood of AI-generated misinformation
and/or disinformation?
– What responsibility does the general public have to limit use of AI due
to its massive environmental impact, the denigration of critical thinking
skills, and ethical concerns around misinformation/disinformation and
plagiarism?
– Assuming those concerns can be addressed, what would a future with
responsible and creative integration of LLMs look like for the scientific
community?
– To what extent are the scientific community and the world at large
entering into a future in which a larger portion of claims made by
scientists and accredited experts in various fields must be viewed with a
greater level of skepticism and mistrust than ever before?
Dakota Becerra
After looking at a lot of bad experiments in my area of interest (psychology), I don’t think many come to be as bad as the Stanford Prison Experiment.
I’d love to discuss it and go over it in more depth. I’d heard of it before, but never knew how unethical and unprofessional it actually was. I’ve shared a link below to a website discussing it.
Yushang Fang
This article, published in Science-Based Medicine, provides an in-depth analysis and critique of the core theory of Chiropractic, the “spinal subluxation” theory. Proposed by D.D. Palmer in 1895, the theory’s central hypothesis is that minor dislocations of the spinal vertebrae (” subluxation “) can strain the nerves of the spinal cord and interfere with an imaginary flow of vital energy called “innate intelligence,” which is thought to be the underlying cause of a wide range of diseases, from back pain to asthma to cancer.
The article points out that although more than a century has passed, as a scientific concept, “spinal subluxation” has not been verified by modern scientific methods. The fundamental problem is:
The definition of “subluxation” is vague and there is a lack of empirical evidence – there is no unified and operational definition of what is “subluxation”, and there is also a lack of objective imaging (such as X-ray, MRI). Diagnosis is often highly dependent on the subjective palpation of the practitioner, and the assessment of the same patient by different chiropractors may vary widely.
It goes against known scientific principles. The mechanism of nerve compression described by this theory, which can cause systemic diseases, is seriously inconsistent with the modern knowledge of anatomy, physiology and pathology. Rather than such a diverse visceral disorder, nerve compression typically results in well-defined symptoms of severe pain, numbness, or loss of function.
At the same time, the theory cannot be falsified and circularized. Proponents of the theory often cite “subluxation is too subtle” or “adjustment is not complete” when it is unable to prove the therapeutic effect, which makes the theory to a large extent unfalsified and violates the basic principles of scientific theory.
The persistence of this pseudoscientific theory has led to a deep schism within the chiropractic industry:
One group is the “evidence-based chiropractic”, who reject the subluxation theory and restrict their practice to the use of manual therapy to relieve musculoskeletal pain, especially lower back pain, which is supported by some scientific research.
The other group, the “chiropractors based on subluxation”, still adhere to this theory and claim that their adjustment techniques can treat a variety of organic diseases, often beyond the scope of scientific support.
I chose this story because it is an example of a powerful, modern, and widespread pseudoscientific belief system masquerising as science. It perfectly embodies the theme of our course and reading.
For example, in “voodoo science”, the theory of subluxation is not derived from systematic research, but from the “revelation” of the founders. Its insistence on legitimacy in the face of a complete lack of evidence moves from folly to a form of institutionalized fraud.
It is not harmless to promote such unproven theories. It can lead to unnecessary long-term treatment planning, financial waste, and tragic consequences if patients forgo evidence-based medicine because of serious illness.
In terms of media and public perception the media and popular culture often present chiropractic therapy uncritically, with little distinction being made between the evidence-based medicine used to treat back pain and the pseudoscientific claims that it is used to treat disease. This has led to public confusion and unscientific phenomena.
What I wish to discuss is:
1. Subluxation theory has persisted for over a century, due to what social, economic, and psychological factors have allowed this demonstrably false scientific paradigm to persist for so long, even in the face of contrary evidence?
2. Some chiropractors do help people with musculoskeletal pain, but the theory underlying the field is unscientific. How should Regulators, insurers, and the Public Treat a partially valid “voodoo science”?
Havi Yadia
Here are the stories and the questions that I have about them:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC224185/pdf/pnas00142-0098.pdf
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC224230/pdf/pnas00143-0119.pdf
Two links because two part study.
Questions:
1) Was this study replicated multiple times?
2) What implications do the result of this study have on science and
medicine as a whole and what things can we do with this information if it
is replicated multiple times?
3) Ethically, what complications could the results have?
4) What was done good in this study, what was bad, and what was ugly?
5) If this does prove to be replicated multiple times and found medically
feasible, could we transfer memories to clones of ourselves (obviously once
and if that does become possible for humans), therefore extending our
lifespans theoretically infinitely?
Azul Castillo
So after looking around for a few days I came up with a list of three stories that I thought were quite interesting. The first one is the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, I recall watching a few episodes of the show that was based on it and I found it quite interesting. The second story is the Flint water crisis. And lastly, the MK-Ultra story, I dont know much about it but my partner has studied it before for a class and what he has told me sounded really interesting!
Hopefully one of these topics is chosen.
Emily Hines
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/on-the-reception-and-detection-of-pseudoprofound-bullshit/0D3C87BCC238BCA38BC55E395BDC9999
https://psychologycorner.com/the-guru-fallacy/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/07/professor-jerry-coyne-explains-why-deepak-chopra-is-nothing-more-than-a-fraud/
I’d love a discussion on the way that scientific words can be used to just string together what the first paper calls “pseudo profound bullshit” (as an official term lol), especially with a focus on Deepak Chopra.
Bianca Escutia
A story I’d like to discuss would be the Stanford prison experiment. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Stanford-Prison-Experiment)
Matthew Hecomovich
Scientific myth regarding link of egg-cholesterol connection to cardiovascular problems, propagated from American Heart Association in 1980s, commonly debunked today
Wild claims/bad science (appears somewhat ongoing, though claims drawn back some):
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057642
Discrediting studies/sources:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00093.x
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/3/494
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11161868/#sec3
Good articles for context/history of situation (would recommend 1st link for in class discussion!):
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4632449/
https://www.cureus.com/articles/243375-debunking-the-myth-eggs-and-heart-disease#!/
Questions:
– How did corporate interests affect the positive and negative perspectives presented in egg cholesterol scientific studies?
– Are there any significant reasons as to why eggs were blamed over other foods/products?
– Both past and present, in what ways has public perception changed alongside the provided mainstream scientific conclusions/findings on eggs?
Kaitlyn Rist
In a past research class where we were discussing similar topics as this class, “bad science”, I was shown a article of a study showing that if men do equal or more household chores then they were more likely to end up in divorce with their wives. I wasn’t able to find the exact study I was shown but here’s a similar one I found:
https://www.today.com/money/divorce-rate-higher-couples-share-housework-study-finds-6c9677194
I find this incredibly interesting, because this feels so untrue and completely unconnected. Although the article says this doesn’t mean men or women should stop doing chores, they still state statistics of men doing household chores leads to divorce. So what is the message this article and study trying to get across, what is the point? Wouldn’t drawing back from the results show how faulty this information is? Is this unrelated correlate statistics to fit a certain agenda to get men in the clear for household chore contribution? With the drawback of the outcome of the statistic, do you think that if this article were written by a man instead of a woman, there wouldn’t be no drawback and they would play into the statistic as they would benefit from the outcome?
– Kaitlyn Rist
Julian Quiroz
One scientific story that would be very interesting to discuss would be
Project MK-Ultra. I remember you briefly mentioning it during one lecture,
and I feel like it deserves a more in-depth view considering all the
violations of moral and ethical principles in medical research and human
rights. Some questions I have are:
What were the goals and historical context that motivated programs like
MK-Ultra? How should we evaluate experiments conducted on prisoners or
psychiatric patients? Which experiments were the most ethically concerning?
Can dual-use research be justified?
Overall, I feel like Project MK-Ultra is a very dark and fascinating
chapter in U.S. history, and it would be great to discuss in class as a
prime example of ugly science. Have a good day.
Luis Colinres
I found this really interesting. I always see online people debating
whether chiropractors were legitimate or not. It feels nice but I highly
doubted it did anything more than that. However there has been some studies
saying there may be a benefit. There have also been a lot of bogus studies.
This little article mentions a report from 2020 made by the international
Chiropractors Association stating adjustments boosted your immune system
and could make you less susceptible to covid-19. I thought this was pretty
wild so I went in to see the report posted myself but I can’t find an
original copy of it. The one up right now on the ICA website is a revised
one. However this thing seems like it was a big deal as I saw a lot of
other reports refuting what the ICA claimed and even a response to all this
made by the president. It seems from what I can pick out is that they found
something about stress and the immune system and chiropractic work reducing
stress and maybe they used that as a work around to initially say it could
help “fight covid” but I don’t have enough information to talk about it
without being sure. However I feel this situation is definitely a
worthwhile one to look at as it’s very similar to what we have been looking
at. And I found it humorous, maybe the cure to all diseases is to give
myself a little ring dinger head adjustment.
Healthline Article
https://www.healthline.com/health/is-chiropractic-pseudoscience
ICA Report(revised)
https://www.chiropractic.org/immune-function-and-chiropractic-what-does-the-evidence-provide-revised
Refuting ICA claims
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7197358/#Abs1
Silvia Pujol
Article Name: First Patient Treated with Personalized CRISPR Therapy, Developed in Just Six Months
Link:https://innovativegenomics.org/news/first-patient-treated-with-on-demand-crispr-therapy/?utm
_
ce=chatgpt.com
From: May 15th, 2025
By: Andy Murdock
sour
Short Summary:
●
A baby that was born with a rare metabolic disease (carbamoyl phosphate synthetase 1
deficiency) was treated with a custom in vivo CRISPR therapy – which was developed and given
to him on only 6 months
Why it fits with the class:
●
The article highlights all the good things, bad things, and things that people might not want to talk
about. For example, while it shows how gene editing could help innovate new treatments for
previously untreatable diseases, it does on the other hand show how the urgency to develop these
treatments could raise safety and oversight concerns. Additionally to all of that the idea of
“personalized” gene therapy largely prompts any and all ethical implications.
Topic Questions:
●
What are potential risks of the therapy developed so quickly – how well are off-target edits
understood?
What limits should be or need to be placed on how far CRISPR editing goes (somatic vs
germline) who actually gets to decide these factors?
Where do we find the balance between the urgency of helping a sick patient with the caution
needed for a new technology – especially one that alters your genetic makeup?
Kelly Zhang
I have a scientific story that I want us to discuss one the last day of class and it’s call RARE (it is a documentary). https://med.stanford.edu/medethicsfilms/films/rare.htmlthis is a preview from Stanford medical about the film. I watched the documentary when I was in high school and I was wondering about if this disease they had called Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome (HPS) finally found a way to heal or if its still a mystery? I was also wondering if we were trying to develop a type of medication to use for any type of disease does it always take at least 10-20 years? Is there any way for us to help the patients while figuring out a way to cure them?
Giselle Cabello
Good morning Professor Prebys,
I found a different story about fraud committed in the science community. This is more applicable to what we are discussing right now.
https://canvas.ucdavis.edu/files/29016881/download?verifier=DEWogFTRHM3PInx7PFaGpx4lmITHU2R3duuM0tft
Best,
Giselle Cabello
Recent Comments