(Hurricane storms) What Not to Teach in School
No commentsBy Maxine Clarke
As rumours persist that the Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin believes in the teaching of Creationism in American schools, it is pertinent to offer an opinion focusing on why religious opinions should not be imposed on children.
The sheer magnificence of scientific achievements should be held in reverance; a celebration of the ability for humanity to understand and influence the world for the greater good. Without some of the world’s greatest scientists we would not have vaccinations for diseases. That is not to say that followers of religion do not acknowledge the fundamental need for scientific endeavour, but when it comes to the greatest question of all, the reason of the religious is cast from the mind.
The major point of contention that separates atheists with the deeply religious is, of course, the origins of the universe. The very likelihood that a super-being (aka God) completed such a task just six days is preposterous for such an occurance can be countered with the simplest of questions: if God created heaven and earth, then who created God? A childlike question for which religious beliefs provide no answer.
Creationists, however, often refute such an issue with what is often called the ‘argument from design’: an argument stating that if something is complex it must be designed by a super-intelligent being, God being the very being in question. Ergo, God exists. However, should that be the case, God itself is an extremely complex entity that would have required an even greater being to be its designer, and so on and so on for infinity.
For this very reason alone, Creationism has no place in schools, particularly as a substitute for the widely-evidenced theory of evolution. Yes, Darwin’s theory is just that - a theory. Yet some of mankind’s greatest minds have studied his work to find the evidence irrefutable. Many of these same minds have also turned their attention to the views of the Creationists, only to fall at the first hurdle: there is no evidence to examine. Creationism is not a science, it is a faith. Forcing impressionable children to believe that one being was the architect of the universe, which itself is only 10,000 years old, is a nonsense.
What’s more, Creationists often appeal to the scientific to open their minds to the realms of faith and the possibility that God was the almighty creator. However, such a request is highly hypocritical since the majority of Creationists will dismiss any notion that science is correct. Accordingly, for those in-between, the presence of evidence should be the defining factor.
Perhaps it is a deeply-set part of the human psyche that makes many so insecure in their own existence and so scared that their time in life is all that there is that the need to believe in something more is all that keeps them going. If that is the case, then having a personal belief in a greater being is fine. It is the enforcing of this belief in others - namely children - that shouldn’t be allowed. After all, living life in fear is barely living at all. Let children make their own decisions on whether to follow reason or seek comfort in faith.
Max Clarke is a copywriter for holiday services company, Holiday Extras, currently writing about Gatwick airport parking, Manchester airport hotels, Heathrow airport parking and UK music.
Find Out The Latest Details On Weather Forecasts Around The World
Will Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Get FDA Approval?
By Robert Webb
Neuronetics had tried last year (Jan 2007) to get FDA approval for its transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) device, but failed spectacularly. Transcanial magnetic stimulation is a way of non-invasively stimulating the brain with electromagnetism. So what the heck happened with the trial? Neuronetics showed the results of a clinical trial of TMS for major depression to a board of FDA advisors.
The primary efficacy outcome in the clinical trial was the reduction in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) symptom score after 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in the 17- and 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) (pdf). In the trial, the mean decrease in the MADRS scores was about 5.6 points in the active TMS and around 3.2 points in the sham TMS. Unfortunately for neuronetics, the p-value at the six week mark was .058. A p-value less than .05 is usually that difference between sham and active TMS that is considered statistically significant.
Anything higher than a value of .05 means that the trial technically failed to reach statistical significance. Since the MADRS was the primary outcome measure and it had a p value over .05, this was the statistic that caused the FDA to recommend against approval for the TMS device. The FDA could not get over the fact that the mean score on the MADRS was technically not statistically significant over placebo in the mean change in depression scores for patients. Statisticians argued to the FDA that a p-value of .058 is clinically indistinguishable from a p-value of .05, but that wasn’t good enough for the board evaluating the TMS device.
Looking at the other statistics this specifc trial, the active TMS did reach statistical significance over sham when measured by the secondary outcome symptom scales (HAMD-17 and HAMD-24). So why is it that the TMS device did reach statistical significance on some measures but not others? Well, the MADRS, HAMD-17 and HAMD-24 (pdf) are 3 different scales with completely different rating items.
The TMS is activating a specific area of the brain (the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDPFC)). Left dorsolateral prefrontal dysfunction (LDPFC) is associated with pseudodepressive symptoms. These type of symptoms include apathy, indifference, anergia, poor concentration and psychomotor retardation. So what likely happened on the neuronetics trial is that specific ratings scales may load more or less heavily on LDPFC dysfunction. The MADRS may not have reached statistical significance because not enough items measured the pseudodepressed type of symptoms associated with LDPFC dysfunction.
This past november (2007), neuronetics had gotten results from a new trial. Surprisingly neuronetics again used the reduction in mean MADRS scores as the primary outcome measure but after 4 weeks instead of 6 weeks. For this new trial, active TMS does show statistically significant improvement over sham TMS with a p-value of .038. Unfortunately there is only a trend for more improvement evident at six weeks with a p-value of .052. The difference between active and sham just missed statistical significance at the six week mark. Both HAMD-17 and HAMD-24 had a reduction in mean scores that was statistically significant for the active treatment over sham (P=0.006 and P=0.012) at four weeks and at six weeks (P=0.005 and P=0.015).
So in this second trial, they at least got clinical efficacy on their primary measure. However that fact that the MADRS mean score didn’t distinguish itself from sham after six weeks is not so good. Will the FDA see past this fact and approve the device? It seems that it will be a close call, but I don’t have confidence that it will be approved. Neuronetics really messed up on both of these trials. If they had looked at the specific rating scale items, they probably could have predicted which rating scale to use as a primary outcome measure.
My guess is that there was a greater reduction in symptoms as measured by the HAMD rating scale because the items load more on LDPFC dysfunction than the MADRS scale. Not to mention that neuronetics used treatment resistant depressed patients in the trial. They are much less likely to respond to treatment than normal patients and make the end results of the trial look, well, depressing.
See my blog colorado brain injury lawyer and
brain injury lawyer colorado and finally
colorado brain injury attorney for more information.
Monday, September 29th, 2008 at 4:35 am and is filed under science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
