Thread

Two parallel neural ectoderm progenitors contribute to the developing brain

664 points · 258 comments · emigre

itvision · 1789800711 · focus · HN ↗
What a way to oversell the discovery.
The reality is:
```
    * Different brain regions have different functions: ancient knowledge.
    * Different regions contain distinct cell types and molecular programs: also well established.
    * Anterior and posterior brain structures may trace back to fundamentally separate progenitor lineages that were independently specified very early in evolution and development: that&#x27;s the interesting new result.
```
The headline should have been: "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" - not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
1. xg15 · 1789808816 · focus · HN ↗
  > "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages"
  I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
  If you think the original headline is not "truthful" enough, at least do something like "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"
  > not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
  Depends what the definition of "organ" actually is. What speaks for different organs here is that the cells both have a different pathway from stem cells and have different evolutionary histories. That is different from other brain regions that may have separate functions but still evolved together.
  1. baxtr · 1789814830 · focus · HN ↗
    Saying the truth and communicating well are orthogonal. You can do both.
    threethirtytwo · 1789819985 · focus · HN ↗
    This is not true. There is a complex relationship between truth and good communication. The relationship is non linear and convoluted and it depends often on the subject of what is being communicated.
    There are many many cases where lies are easier to communicate than the truth.
    Take tobacco for instance. For the longest time we did not know it was bad for you. It took decades of epidemiological research and statistical techniques to ascertain that it was bad.
    The truth was buried in numbers and human knowledge about applied mathematics and statistics. Without centuries of human endeavor to create the concept of science unionized with the rigor of statistics the truth would have remained forever invisible.
    The sheer complexity of the truth in this case makes is extremely hard to communicate. We mostly trust that smoking is bad based off of the reputation of the researchers who established that fact. But the truth was never really directly communicated to most of us as it involves diving deep into the data.
    MarkusQ · 1789825607 · focus · HN ↗
    The truth about tobacco was known for years but ignored because 1) industry lobbying and 2) the Nazis were the ones who figured it out, and pushed anti-smoking hard, so smoking became something "our side" did, 3) tobacco was still a huge US export.
    It was easy to communicate, but we were motivated to not listen.
    threethirtytwo · 1789831312 · focus · HN ↗
    No the deaths were buried deep in the statistical data. It’s not apparent and we did not know either way.
    Yes there were people who said it’s bad but their word was as good as bullshit because until we had the statistics there is literally no way to truly know.
    MarkusQ · 1789833685 · focus · HN ↗
    No, the Germans had good statistical data linking smoking (as well as asbestos and other carcinogens) to cancer by the 1930s; this was known and ignored (or actively derided) by the allies. It's one of the classic and well known examples of ad hominem.
    threethirtytwo · 1789852132 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.