Research

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      5 Takeaways From New Research About A.D.H.D.

      by

      Scientists who study the condition are wrestling with some fundamental questions about the way we define and treat it.As diagnoses of A.D.H.D. and prescriptions for medications hit new record highs, scientists who study the condition are wrestling with some fundamental questions about the way we define and treat it. More than 15 percent of American adolescents have been diagnosed with A.D.H.D., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including 23 percent of 17-year-old boys. A total of seven million American children have received a diagnosis.Normally, when a diagnosis booms like this, it’s because of some novel scientific breakthrough — a newly discovered treatment or a fresh understanding of what causes the underlying symptoms. I spent the last year interviewing A.D.H.D. scientists around the world for my magazine article, and what I heard from them was, in fact, the opposite: In many ways, we now understand A.D.H.D. less well than we thought we did a couple of decades ago. Recent studies have shaken some of the field’s previous assumptions about A.D.H.D. At the same time, scientists have made important discoveries, including some that are leading to a new understanding of the role of a child’s environment in the progression of his symptoms.At a moment of national concern about our shrinking attention spans, this science suggests that there may be some new and more effective ways to help the millions of young people who are struggling to focus.Below are the key findings from the new research.A.D.H.D. is hard to define — and recent science has made it harder, not easier.A.D.H.D. has always been a tricky condition to diagnose. One patient’s behavior may look quite different from another’s, and certain A.D.H.D. symptoms can also be signs of other problems, from anxiety and depression to childhood trauma and autism spectrum disorder. Twenty years ago, researchers thought they were on the verge of ending that controversy by finding a distinct “biomarker” for A.D.H.D. — a single gene that would reliably predict the disorder, or a physical difference in the brain that you could spot on an M.R.I. But today scientists acknowledge that the search for a biomarker has mostly come up empty, which means the diagnosis remains fluid and somewhat subjective.Adding to the confusion, a study published last October found that only about one in nine children diagnosed with A.D.H.D. experiences consistent symptoms all the way through childhood. More often, the researchers found, symptoms come and go, sometimes disappearing for a few years, sometimes returning. Together with other research, this study has led some in the field to conclude that our traditional conception of A.D.H.D. as an inherent biological fact — something you simply have or don’t have, something wired deep in your brain — is both inaccurate and unhelpful. A new model considers A.D.H.D. differently: not as a disorder you always have in some essential way, but as a condition you experience, sometimes temporarily.Medications like Adderall and Ritalin can have a positive effect on children’s behavior – but the results often don’t last.The biggest long-term study of A.D.H.D. treatments found that after 14 months of treatment, a daily dose of Ritalin did a better job of reducing children’s symptoms than nondrug interventions like therapy or parent coaching. But then the effect started to fade, and by 36 months, the relative benefit of the drug treatment had disappeared altogether. The symptoms of the children in the medication treatment group were no better than those of the ones assigned to behavioral interventions — and no better than a comparison group that was given no intervention at all.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      She Worked in a Harvard Lab to Reverse Aging, Until ICE Jailed Her

      by

      A barracks-style detention center in Louisiana is jammed with around 90 immigrant women, mostly undocumented workers from central and South America, sharing five toilets and following orders shouted by guards.There is also, among them, a Russian scientist.She is 30 years old, shy and prone to nervous laughter. She cannot work, because her laptop was confiscated. She plays chess with other women when the guards allow it. Otherwise, she passes the time reading books about evolution and cell development.For nearly eight weeks, Kseniia Petrova has been captive to the hard-line immigration policies of the Trump administration. A graduate of a renowned Russian physics and technology institute, Ms. Petrova was recruited to work at a laboratory at Harvard Medical School. She was part of a team investigating how cells can rejuvenate themselves, with the goal of fending off the damage of aging.On Feb. 16, customs officials detained her at Logan International Airport in Boston for failing to declare samples of frog embryos she had carried from France at the request of her boss at Harvard. Such an infraction is normally considered minor, punishable with a fine of up to $500. Instead, the customs official canceled Ms. Petrova’s visa on the spot and began deportation proceedings. Then Ms. Petrova told her that she had fled Russia for political reasons and faced arrest if she returned there.This is how she wound up at the Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, La., waiting for the U.S. government to decide what to do with her.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Experts Doubt Kennedy’s Timetable for Finding the Cause of Autism

      by

      The nation’s health secretary announced that he planned to invite scientists to provide answers by September, but specialists consider that target date unrealistic.Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s health secretary, pledged on Thursday to seek out experts globally to discover the reasons for the increasing rates of autism in the United States.“We’ve launched a massive testing and research effort that’s going to involve hundreds of scientists from around the world,” Mr. Kennedy announced at a cabinet meeting held by President Trump. “By September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we’ll be able to eliminate those exposures.”“There will be no bigger news conference than that,” Mr. Trump replied.But scientists who have worked for decades to find a cause greeted Mr. Kennedy’s predicted timeline with skepticism.They said that a single answer would be hard to identify in a field of possible contributors including pesticides, air pollution and maternal diabetes.Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and expert on environmental toxins, pointed to the current mass layoffs and cutbacks for research at Mr. Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services as one reason for doubting such quick progress.“Given that a great deal of research on autism and other pediatric diseases in hospitals and medical schools is currently coming to a halt because of federal funding cuts from H.H.S.,” he said, “it is very difficult for me to imagine what profound scientific breakthrough could be achieved between now and September.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Chinese Lunar Rocks Suggest a Thirsty Far Side of the Moon

      by

      Using samples gathered from the Chang’e-6 mission, scientists found that the interior of the moon on the half we never see from Earth might be drier than the near side.The far side of the moon — the part that always faces away from Earth — is mysteriously distinct from the near side. It is pockmarked with more craters and has a thicker crust and less maria, or plains where lava once formed.Now, scientists say that difference could be more than skin deep.Using a lunar sample obtained last year, Chinese researchers believe that the insides of the moon’s far side are potentially drier than its near side. Their discovery, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, could offer a clearer picture of how the pearly orb we admire in our night sky formed and evolved over billions of years.That the water content within the lunar far and near sides differs seems “coincidentally consistent” with the variations in the surface features of the moon’s two hemispheres, said Sen Hu, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and an author of the new result. “It’s quite intriguing,” he said.The moon was believed to be “bone dry” until the 1990s, when scientists began to discover hints of water on its surface. Those hints were confirmed when NASA slammed a rocket stage into the lunar south pole in 2009.Since then, studies have indicated that there is ice across much of the lunar surface. Water has also been found in the mantle, a layer of the moon below the crust and above the core.Last June, China became the first nation to return a sample from the moon’s far side. Chang’e-6, the sixth in a series of Chinese lunar exploration missions, scooped and drilled more than four pounds of regolith from the South Pole-Aitken basin, the deepest crater on the moon.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Permanently Bars N.I.H. From Limiting Medical Research Funding

      by

      A federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration on Friday from limiting funding from the National Institutes of Health that supports research at universities and academic medical centers, restoring billions of dollars in grant money but setting up an almost certain appeal.The ruling by Judge Angel Kelley, of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, made an earlier temporary order by her permanent and was one of the first final decisions in the barrage of lawsuits against the Trump administration. But it came about in an unusual way: The government asked the court to enter that very verdict earlier on Friday so it could move ahead with an appeal.The decision nonetheless was an initial win for a diverse assortment of institutions that conduct medical research. After the Trump administration announced the policy change in February, scores of research hospitals and universities issued dire warnings that the proposal threatened to kneecap American scientific prowess and innovation, estimating that the change could force those institutions to collectively cover a nearly $4 billion shortfall.Under the Trump administration’s plan, the National Institutes of Health could cap the funding it provides to cover the “indirect costs” of research — for things like maintenance of buildings, utilities and support staff — at 15 percent in the grants it hands out. Historically, when the agency awarded grants, it could allocate close to 50 percent in some cases to cover the indirect costs associated with a given study.The Trump administration said it had conceived of the policy as a way of freeing up more federal dollars to pay for research directly — covering scientists’ salaries or buying necessary equipment — as opposed to the many tangential costs that hospitals and laboratories incur in maintaining their facilities and other overhead expenses.But critics described that reasoning as disingenuous, as the changes the administration had proposed would paradoxically force institutions to cover the bill, and most likely shed staff and scale down research projects in the process.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Overlooked No More: Katharine McCormick, Force Behind the Birth Control Pill

      by

      She used her wealth strategically to expand opportunities for women, underwriting the development of the pill and supporting the suffrage movement.This article is part of Overlooked, a series of obituaries about remarkable people whose deaths, beginning in 1851, went unreported in The Times.Katharine Dexter McCormick, who was born to a life of wealth, which she compounded through marriage, could have sat back and simply enjoyed the many advantages that flowed her way. Instead, she put her considerable fortune — matched by her considerable willfulness — into making life better for women.An activist, philanthropist and benefactor, McCormick used her wealth strategically, most notably to underwrite the basic research that led to the development of the birth control pill in the late 1950s.Before then, contraception in the United States was extremely limited, with bans on diaphragms and condoms. The advent of the pill made it easier for women to plan when and whether to have children, and it fueled the explosive sexual revolution of the 1960s. Today, the pill, despite some side effects, is the most widely used form of reversible contraception in the United States.McCormick’s interest in birth control began in the 1910s, when she learned of Margaret Sanger, the feminist leader who had been jailed for opening the nation’s first birth control clinic. She shared Sanger’s fervent belief that women should be able to chart their own biological destinies.The two met in 1917 and soon hatched an elaborate scheme to smuggle diaphragms into the United States.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Shingles Vaccine Can Decrease Risk of Dementia, Study Finds

      by

      A growing body of research suggests that preventing the viral infection can help stave off cognitive decline.Getting vaccinated against shingles can reduce the risk of developing dementia, a large new study finds.The results provide some of the strongest evidence yet that some viral infections can have effects on brain function years later and that preventing them can help stave off cognitive decline.The study, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, found that people who received the shingles vaccine were 20 percent less likely to develop dementia in the seven years afterward than those who were not vaccinated.“If you’re reducing the risk of dementia by 20 percent, that’s quite important in a public health context, given that we don’t really have much else at the moment that slows down the onset of dementia,” said Dr. Paul Harrison, a professor of psychiatry at Oxford. Dr. Harrison was not involved in the new study, but has done other research indicating that shingles vaccines lower dementia risk.Whether the protection can last beyond seven years can only be determined with further research. But with few currently effective treatments or preventions, Dr. Harrison said, shingles vaccines appear to have “some of the strongest potential protective effects against dementia that we know of that are potentially usable in practice.”Shingles cases stem from the virus that causes childhood chickenpox, varicella-zoster, which typically remains dormant in nerve cells for decades. As people age and their immune systems weaken, the virus can reactivate and cause shingles, with symptoms like burning, tingling, painful blisters and numbness. The nerve pain can become chronic and disabling.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Has Begun a War on Science, Researchers Say

      by

      Nearly 2,000 scientists urged that Congress restore funding to federal agencies decimated by recent cuts.Some 1,900 leading researchers accused the Trump administration in an open letter on Monday of conducting a “wholesale assault on U.S. science” that could set back research by decades and that threatens the health and safety of Americans.The letter’s signatories, all of them elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, warned of the damage being done by layoffs at health and science agencies and cuts and delays to funding that has historically supported research inside the government and across American universities.“For over 80 years, wise investments by the U.S. government have built up the nation’s research enterprise, making it the envy of the world,” the letter said. “Astoundingly, the Trump administration is destabilizing this enterprise by gutting funding for research, firing thousands of scientists, removing public access to scientific data and pressuring researchers to alter or abandon their work on ideological grounds.”Read the LetterResearchers at academic institutions nationwide say that U.S. science is being dismantled.Read Document 75 pagesThe letter said that many universities and research institutions had so far “kept silent to avoid antagonizing the administration and jeopardizing their funding.” But, it said, “the nation’s scientific enterprise is being decimated.”The signatories called on Americans to appeal to Congress to protect scientific funding.With Elon Musk’s efforts to cut spending and President Trump’s crackdown on institutions he sees as ideological enemies, the administration has sought to dismantle parts of the federal government’s scientific funding apparatus.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More