Gun Research

Welcome back. Growing up in Upstate New York in the 1940s and 1950s, I became accustom to rifles racked across pickup trucks’ rear windows and hunters taking off from work the opening day of deer season. No one in my family hunted, though for a time, my father’s auto supply store carried hunting rifles with the sporting goods (Gone Hunting).

National Rifle
Association logo.

In those years, the National Rifle Association was known for gun safety education, marksmanship training and shooting for recreation. It wasn’t until the 1970s, notably 1977, that the NRA evolved into the gun-rights lobbying organization it is today.

These thoughts came to mind when I read about the new Congress’s efforts to roll back an Obama-era rule. The rule would have required the Social Security Administration to send the names of those who receive mental disability benefits and use a payee for managing finances to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Stopping those with mental health problems from buying guns made sense to me. I was sure the NRA was overachieving. Then I learned that disability and civil rights advocates, certainly beyond the sway of NRA, were also against the rule. They questioned the connection to public safety and were concerned the rule might restrict the rights of people with mental disabilities in other areas.

It’s regrettable that the NRA’s lobbying has interfered with research that could have given us a clearer picture of all aspects of gun control and gun violence.

Congress and Gun Research
In 1996, Congress removed funding for gun violence research by the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and included a measure (Dickey amendment) in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, that prohibited the CDC from spending funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” Though not a ban per se, it made it inadvisable for the CDC to fund gun research.

Going further, in 2011, Congress added a similar measure to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, applying the same constraint on the National Institutes of Health research funding.

Gun research has continued without federal support; however, the effects have been severe. One study appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine found research publications on gun violence fell 64% between 1998 and 2012. Another in JAMA calculated that, between 2004 and 2015, gun violence research funding and publications were less than 2% and 5%, respectively, of what would be predicted based on statistics for other leading causes of death.

U.S. firearm production by type 1995-2014. (From Shooting Industry Magazine www.shootingindustry.com/u-s-firearms-industry-today-2016/)

Recent Gun Violence Research
A sample of recently published studies provides an indication of what could be learned.

Boston University researchers estimated the probability that every American will know a gun violence victim to be a hair shy of 100%. They reached that unhappy conclusion by linking gun injury rates from 2013 with generally accepted estimates about the size of an American's social network.

Northeastern and Harvard University researchers found, via an online survey in 2015, that one in five US gun owners obtained their most recent firearm without a background check. That’s about half of what was found in 1994.

Boston Children’s Hospital researchers led an evaluation of US gun laws and gun homicides based on peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2016. While laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease homicides, laws directed at gun trafficking, improving child safety and banning military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in homicide rates. Evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed. Overall, the results showed the need for further study.

Wrap Up

Two of the guns on the farm:
Remington model 581-S .22
with Busnell Banner scope (R)
and New England Firearms
Pardner .410 shotgun (L).

If it’s not clear that I’m advocating and promoting gun research not gun control, I refer you to another survey of private gun ownership in the US by Harvard and Northeastern researchers, this one as yet unpublished.

They found that half of the guns are owned by 14% of gun owners or only about 3% of the adult US population. These “super-owners” have collections ranging from 8 to 140 guns. Living on my father-in-law’s farm, I’ve discovered that he is a charter member of that group. Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
I am grateful for the review and helpful comments of Jay P. in preparing this post.
 
Example review of NRA history: www.encyclopedia.com/sports-and-everyday-life/social-organizations/private-organizations/national-rifle-association
Articles on rollback of mental disability rule:
www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/02/house-votes-strike-rule-banning-guns-some-deemed-mentally-impaired/97299756/
www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama
Article and federal laws on advocating or promoting gun control:
www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/content-detail.html
www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ74/PLAW-112publ74.pdf
JAMA published studies of reduction in gun research following Congressional actions:
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582987
jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2595514
Boston University study of likelihood of knowing a gun violence victim:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743516302821
Northeastern and Harvard survey of gun background checks:
annals.org/aim/article/2595892/firearm-acquisition-without-background-checks-results-national-survey
Boston Children’s Hospital-led study of gun laws and homicides:
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989
Harvard and Northeastern survey of US gun ownership:
Article: www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0921/Who-are-America-s-gun-super-owners
Link to paper: gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/link-to-research-paper-by-authors-of-new-harvardnortheastern-study-of-gun-ownership/

Distractions Revisited

Welcome back. Here’s one to ponder. You know how I’ve been going on about aging and distractions? That getting old reduces the ability to ignore distractions (Brain Focusing with Sound). That the learning decline may be due to a reduced ability to ignore irrelevant information (i.e., we take in too much), not to a reduced ability to learn (Age Learning Decline).

Well, a recently published paper from investigators at the University of Toronto and Harvard kind of turned that around. They reviewed behavioral and neuroimaging studies on the subject and concluded that the reduction in cognitive abilities that accompany aging can sometimes be advantageous. I’ll explain.

Cognitive Control
Let’s start with the idea of cognitive control, how well one can focus attention and suppress distractions.

Lower cognitive control, older adults
playing a video game, where higher
cognitive control, young adults excel.
(Photo from multiple websites.)

Clearly, individuals with high cognitive control will excel on explicit, goal-driven tasks that require selective attention and a narrow focus on specific, targeted information. They do a better job at storing relevant information in their memory and managing interference from competing memories.

But what if the task to be accomplished isn’t goal-driven? What if you’ve got a stimulus-driven task? One that would benefit from processing and extracting knowledge derived from a variety of sources--information that was previously irrelevant? Accomplishing these tasks will normally benefit from a broader focus. In fact, completion of these tasks might even be hindered by greater cognitive control, because non-targeted, formerly irrelevant information would have been suppressed, ignored.

Get it? Reduced cognitive control might be more effective when dealing with non-goal-driven tasks. Which is to say, older adults, with their lower cognitive control, might do better than younger adults, who normally have higher cognitive control.

Advantages of Reduced Cognitive Control
Breaking it down, the researchers judge that lower cognitive control seems to help on tasks that might use previously acquired environmental information, learning regularities and creative problem solving.

Reduced cognitive control offers older adults the opportunity to learn more about the world around them. They tend to take in more information about how items and events vary together in time and space. This might allow easier inferences regarding cause and effect. Overall, the greater ability to extract structure and patterns over time and changing contexts should contribute to more prudent decision-making.

It’s interesting that older adults are more likely to opt for simple strategies over complex strategies. One study showed that lower cognitive control individuals did better than those with higher cognitive control on math problems solvable with simple, computationally straightforward strategies. They fixated less on applying more complex algorithms.

On open-ended tasks that benefit from spontaneous thought, older adults’ lower cognitive control may increase their creativity and ability to solve insight problems. But don’t carry that too far. Creativity typically relies on both generating and evaluating cool ideas, and evaluating normally benefits from higher cognitive control.

Wrap Up
Although I appreciate there apparently being some advantages to having reached my present lower cognitive control state, I wouldn’t have minded spending more years with higher cognitive control. Perhaps my level of cognitive control was never high enough to reduce my creative thoughts, but I certainly thought my thoughts were more creative in my youth. Of course, I may not be remembering correctly. I suppose those thoughts are all irrelevant now.

Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
Cognitive control study in Trends in Cognitive Sciences journal:
www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(16)30155-3
Article on study on Science Daily website:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161115150726.htm

New Medicine: Placebos

Welcome back. Have you heard about the amazing cure-all? It’s called Placebo.

Oh, come on. You know what a placebo is, right? A fake treatment, such as a sugar pill. Placebos are used in testing to determine if a real treatment has an effect that’s any better than no treatment, the placebo.

The placebo effect, as I described in Placebo Sleep, is where the outcome of a treatment is attributed to the belief in the treatment--mindset, perception or expectation--rather than to the treatment itself.

For the test to have any value, the participants must be unaware if they’re receiving a placebo or the real treatment. The results are most reliable if they’re obtained with a double-blind test, where those giving and receiving the treatments are both unaware.

Open-label placebos. (Photo
 from multiple websites)

Well, that’s how placebos are normally used. But in a study published last fall, the researchers tried something different, an open-label placebo. The researchers told the test participants they were receiving a placebo, explained the placebo effect and compared outcomes of the placebo and the usual treatment for chronic low back pain. Guess what. The placebo worked better.

Open-Label Placebo Experiment
The study was conducted by researchers from Portugal’s Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Universidade Nova de Lisboa and Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, and Harvard Medical School’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Study participants were recruited via referrals and advertisements for “a novel mind–body clinical study of chronic low back pain.” All were at least 18 years old; had experienced persistent lower back pain for over 3 months, which was confirmed by medical specialists; and had not medicated with opioids in the previous 6 months. Over 85% of the participants were taking pain medications, mostly non-steroidal anti-inflammatories.

The participants were placed randomly into either the treatment-as-usual group or the open-label placebo group. For three weeks, they all continued doing exactly what they had been doing for pain, except those in the placebo group added a placebo (two capsules of microcrystalline cellulose twice daily). Treatment outcomes were measured on 83 participants (41-placebo, 42-usual treatment) at 11 days and 21 days.

After the 21 days, a subset of those who had been in the treatment-as-usual group continued for an additional three weeks, but adding the open-label placebo pills to their usual treatment. Treatment outcomes were measured on 31 participants after 21 days.

Pain Measures and Outcomes
Pain measures included the participants’ ratings of maximum, minimum and usual pain from 0 to 10; 24 yes-or-no statements about difficulties in daily activities (Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire); and how bothersome their pain had been, from 0 to 10, during the previous week.

For the first three weeks, the open-label placebo group reported improvements that exceeded those of the treatment-as-usual group by a wide margin. Pain scores were better by about double or more and disability by nearly 30% more. Bothersomeness differences were not significant.

After adding the placebo for three weeks, participants who had been in the treatment-as-usual group reported pain reductions ranging from 29% for maximum pain to 46% for minimum pain, a disability decrease of 40% and a bothersomeness decrease of 34%.

Wrap Up
How could the participants improve knowing that the pain reliever they were receiving wasn’t really a pain reliever? Among possible reasons discussed in the paper as well as in a 2013 U.C. Berkeley Wellness report on placebos was that participation in the study implies a belief or hope that the treatment might be helpful.
 

The placebo effect.
(Photo from multiple
 websites)

Since ancient times, it’s been known that the hope and expectation patients experience when treated--even with a placebo--by a trusted practitioner can play a large role in recovery. Although a placebo is fake, the physical responses to it are real. Sensing pain, the brain can release pain-relieving chemicals.

I still thought it was remarkable that 17 participants requested prescriptions for the placebo at the end of the study. Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
I am indebted to the University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter (Feb. 2017) for reporting this study, which was first published online during my break from blogging.
Placebo study in Pain journal: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5113234/
Article on the study on Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center website: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5113234/
Earlier article (2013) on placebo effect on U.C. Berkeley Wellness website: www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/preventive-care/article/placebo-effect

Climate-Related Extinctions

Welcome back. Actually, you may not want to visit. Today’s blog post is a downer, magnified by what’s going on in Washington. I’m going to review the recently published findings of a University of Arizona researcher, who determined that climate change has already been responsible for the local extinctions of hundreds of animal and plant species. 

Species extinction defined.

Local extinctions impact biodiversity, the variability among living organisms from all sources. A reduction in biodiversity can impact the dynamics and functions of ecosystems and have severe consequences for human well-being.

Climate Change
A different recent study--this one by collaborators from the UK’s University of Cambridge and Yale and George Mason universities--suggests ways to open this discussion. Because of the increasing politicization of climate change and the “disinformation campaigns” organized by vested interest groups, I should at least note that 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.

That 97% consensus came from a 2013 study which examined abstracts of peer-reviewed scientific literature and authors’ self ratings. Updating that report, a 2016 paper summarized six independent studies that found 90% to 100% of publishing climate scientists shared the consensus that humans are causing recent global warming. (I emphasized climate scientists because the tally does not include the opinions of non-climate scientists, such as the Princeton physicist, who met with the new president, or of nonscientists, such as the president.)

Nevertheless, whether the change is driven primarily by humans or not, the Earth is getting warmer. The change is a threat to global biodiversity if the world’s animal and plant species can’t adapt, for example, by moving to cooler environments.

Local Species Extinctions
The University of Arizona researcher’s findings regarding local extinctions were derived from 27 published studies that documented shifts in the geographic ranges of species in response to climate change.

Such shifts typically encompass overall movement of a species toward higher latitudes and elevations, with expansion at the cool edge of the species range (higher latitudes and elevations) or contraction at the warm edge (lower latitudes and elevations), or both expansion and contraction.

A warm-edge contraction indicates that the species is not shifting enough to tolerate the new conditions and is instead going extinct.

The researcher identified the 27 studies by searching the Web of Science, an online subscription-based scientific citation-indexing service, between December 2014 and March 2016. He included all studies that both monitored the warm edge of at least one species’ range and linked their results statistically to climate change.

In all, 976 unique species were surveyed (716 animals, 260 plants), distributed over a variety of climates, regions and habitats (e.g., Asia = 332; Europe = 268; Madagascar = 30; Oceania = 58; North America = 233; South America = 55). Of the 976 species, 460 or 47% had warm-edge contractions indicative of local extinctions.

Wrap Up
The loss of 460 species, even if local, sounds like a lot, but I needed some perspective. I found a 2011 study that estimated the total number of species on Earth to be about 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million), with 6.5 million on land and 2.2 million in oceans.

Losing 460 out of 8.7 million species wouldn’t even be noticed, or would it? Although the 27 studies were not performed or selected randomly to represent the population of all species, they did show a 47% loss. That’s high enough to get my attention. Plus, the 47% loss was not experienced uniformly. Tropical species, for example, showed a 55% loss.

Species extinction vs human population over time. (From presentation by J.M. Scott, 2008; scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=water-resources-and-transformation-of-American-West)

Most important, those local extinctions were in response to a small increase in global mean annual temperature. What will be the response if the predicted increase in global warming over the coming decades occurs, especially if we continue to remove habitats and paths of dispersal, thus interfering with the ability of species to adjust?

Oh well, maybe those climate scientists are wrong. Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
Study on climate-related local extinctions in PLOS Biology journal: journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2001104
Article on study on TIME website: time.com/4595361/climate-change-extinction-animals/?xid=newsletter-brief
Review of biodiversity loss and humanity in Nature journal: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11148.html or pub.epsilon.slu.se/10240/7/wardle_d_etal_130415.pdf
Study on counteracting climate-change misinformation in Global Challenges journal: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.201600008/full
2013 and 2016 studies on climate-scientist consensus in Environmental Research Letters journal:
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
2011 study estimating total number of species in PLOS Biology journal: journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127