There is nothing terribly religious about a questionnaire on belief in angels during a college psychology experiment. These studies fail the basic scientific test of measuring what they purport to measure.
We tend to think mistakes get in the way of progress or, worse, mean failure. With small tasks, that's likely. But when it comes to thinking big and achieving something over time, error is an important part of the process.
If you followed news coverage on the release of the National Alzheimer's Plan, you'd probably conclude that the solution to maintain lifelong brain health is simple: Simply wait until 2025 for a "magic bullet" to be discovered to cure Alzheimer's disease.
Reading a person's thoughts, implanting machinery into man, and augmenting our neural processing powers with cognitive enhancers are all matters of neuroethics. They bring us face to face with questions about who has access to powerful new technologies and for what purposes.
In school reform, we dramatically overvalue the importance of academic learning, and assume that merely focusing on better curricula and clearer standards will carry the day. Yet the research suggests otherwise.
As science makes a reality of what has been science fiction, we will face questions of how to best apply neurotechnologies. Should they be limited to helping those who have illnesses? Or should they bolster the performance of a wartime soldier, enable a C student to get As, or supercharge CEOs?
Researchers studying pre-service biology teachers at two South Korean universities, all with an adequate understanding of the science behind evolution, discovered that facts had to correspond to one's gut feeling for the theory to be accepted.