You and Your Best Friend Share the Same Brain Waves
Maybe you don’t need a scientific research to confirm that you and your best friend think alike. You share the same interests, you have the same values and you share the same brain waves.
Similarities you share with your best friend go beyond the passion for gardening and organic food. In a recent study published in the Nature Communications, researchers at Dartmouth College found that close friends have similar brain patterns while watching the same video clips.
The authors of the study mapped the relationships between 279 students by having them complete an online survey. In the study, a friend was considered to be someone you spend a lot of time with when you don’t have to because you work/study together. People who mutually named another person to be their best friend had the strongest ties.
From all the participants in the study, 42 agreed to have their brains scanned in a functional MRI while they were watching 14 different videos on subjects such as a gay wedding celebration, a documentary on baby sloths and footage from “American’s Funniest Home Videos.” Researchers found that the scans of friends showed a similar brain response than the scans of non-friend pairs. The results suggest that friends perceive, interpret and react to the world in a similar manner.
According to the research: “it is possible to predict whether or not two individuals are friends…based only on the similarity of temporal patterns in their neural responses during free viewing of complex, real-world scenes.”
A Physicist Writes One Wikipedia Entry a Day to Recognize Women in Science
Jess Wade is working in a physics lab in Imperial College and in her free time, she is making sure women in science get the props and recognition they truly deserve. Jess Wade is writing one Wikipedia Entry a day highlighting women or another underrepresented group in science. So far, she wrote more than 280 Wikipedia pages. In 2018, she challenged herself to write one entry per a day and so far, she is outpacing her rate.
Jess Wade, a postdoctoral researcher in physics said:
“In writing them, you get so inspired and excited because these people that you are researching … are absolutely incredible…It’s such a fun thing to do that you get motivated to keep contributing to science because you want to be one of these phenomenal people one day.”
According to the Wikimedia Foundation, only 17% of Wikipedia’s biographies were about women. When you narrow it down to women in technology, math, science, and engineering, the numbers are getting lower since women are underrepresented in those fields.
Jess Wade wanted to do something that could help close the gap while increasing the representation of women in science. That’s why she started writing Wikipedia bios. The main reason why she chose Wikipedia is because people use Google for anything they are interested in and Wikipedia articles are always at the top of the page.
Most Americans Believe It is Ok to Tweak Baby’s Genes to Prevent a Disease
A recent research proved that Americans are generally in favor of editing genes but only for preventing the development of a disease. The poll released by the Pew Research Center suggests that the approval of gene editing is growing as fast as the advances in the technology. Americans are more comfortable with new technologies as they hear more about it and are willing to accept technology that can serve for the good of mankind.
It’s perceived that religious people are not keen on supporting the editing of genes of a newborn. However, many are on board when it comes to preventing a disease. Approximately 72% of Americans favored changing an unborn baby’s genes to treat a condition that could be present at birth.
However, Americans are still not ready for altering genes for designer babies which would have a high IQ and blue eyes. In 2015, 15% of Americans thought that tweaking genes to make a baby more intelligent is acceptable. Today, only 19% of people agreed with tweaking genes for boosting intelligence. While 80% of people thought that making smarter babies would be taking medical technology too far.