The Science News Cycle

Just saw a tweet from a Mental Health advocate I follow. It had a link to an article that talks about biological basis for depression. the title of the article is

Study Shows Why Stress Triggers Depression In Some, Resilience In Others

In huge letters like that. It made me chuckle and I braced myself for what I was going to read. My, oh my, aren’t we ambitious?!!! Also, it made me think of this:

PHD - The Scien News Cycle

Anyway, here is the article: Study SHOWS WHYIf you keep reading, almost all the way down you’ll find this sentence (emphasis is mine):

The researchers are excited by the findings, since they seem to confirm this biological basis for depression.

The findings seem to confirm the hypothesis. Now, how do you go from “seem to confirm” to “study shows why”? Yeah, chuckling here still.

Unfortunately I don’t have access to the actual paper but I did get to read an editor’s comment, the equivalent to step 2 in THE SCIENCE NEWS CYCLE cartoon by Jorge Cham of PhD Comics. While the first line is as follows, “Researchers identify neurons that determine whether an individual will be depressed or resilient” the editorial still talks in terms of “help explain” and “may lead”. Which is of course a lot more sensible, as any scientist would let you know.

And mind you, the study used a mouse model for depression (yeah, torturing defenseless cute little mice). That doesn’t remotely mean the human brain works in the same way. SIGH

Hurry, let’s all grab our tin foil hats!