This post promises to be a complicated one. We will try to balance the pros and cons of social media, a controversial topic at the very least. However, social media plays such a big role in our lives today, that its effects on our mental (and physical) health should not be overlooked. But are there any effects, and if so are they good or bad? Answering these questions is not going to be easy since there's probably no clear effect. We are all different, and the effects social media has on us may vary depending on our personality and the time we spend on it. But, well, there's no shame in trying.
Hi again everyone! Holidays had me completely out of the creative zone, but I’m back to tell you about the science of mental disorders. However, before that, I am going to start with a more broad post about how scientists find out about the brain.
Okay, so I got a bit carried away in my first post, starting with something as specific as the implication of the immune system in depression. Maybe I should have started with something a bit more general, like the systems involved in depression that have been established for years, and then moved onto more current topics. So that’s what I’m sharing with you today! I hope it’s still interesting to all; at least it will give us a more stable grounding on what depression is caused by. Specifically, you’ll find three more traditional hypotheses that try to give some explanation to the root of depression.
Let’s start with an introduction. My name is Laura and I am a current MSc student in neuroscience and future PhD in psychiatry. In these last years, I have come to realize how little communication there is between scientists and the rest of society. Science is always advancing, creating new tools and obtaining new knowledge that can be of use to everyone, or that can pose new ethical questions on which society as a whole should have a say. But how is anyone going to take advantage of the new information or generate a debate with it, if it is not made available to them in an accessible and comprehensible way?
Science communication contains three types of knowledge transmission: communication between scientists of the same field, communication between scientists of different fields and communication to non-scientists. Many scientists consider the first one to be pretty much achieved through specialist papers and conferences, but I would argue that there is still room for improvement. For starters, papers are like reading through a fragmented story where you have to decipher the way the researcher got from the beginning to the end. Did they have to slay a dragon or break a spell to find the treasure? Good luck finding that out. But I digress; this is not the topic of this post. Today we are interested in the other two types of scientific communication.
What are scientists doing in the lab now? What can scientists do in the lab? How many (current) female scientists have you heard about? Do you know what they research(ed)?