Editor’s Selections: Moral Disgust, Experimental Controls, Smoking Addiction, and another DSM-5 Proposal
Here are my Research Blogging Editor’s Selections for this week. Snacking on fertilized duck eggs features prominently in the first editor’s selection for this week.
By Jason G. Goldman
This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Here are my Research Blogging Editor's Selections for this week.
Snacking on fertilized duck eggs features prominently in the first editor's selection for this week. Food-related disgust and moral disgust: are they related? Find out at this Genealogy of Religion post, Foreign Ideas & Moral Indigestion
Jon Brocks outlines a proposed change for the upcoming DSM-5, which would recategorize kids who were previously given a "Pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified" as having "social communication disorder." Well worth the read, at Cracking the Enigma.
"Many studies in clinical psychology and psychiatry are making the mistake of using healthy controls who are too healthy," writes Christian Jarrett at BPS Research Digest. Find out just what he means: beware the super-well.
"No one has voted to make cigarette smoking illegal. But the public space in which this legal activity can be pursued is disappearing." Another fantastic post by Dirk Hanson of Addiction Inbox: For Smokers, Nowhere to Run and Nowhere to Hide.
That's it for this week... Check back next week for more great psychology and neuroscience blogging!
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
