![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaYesterday, I pottered along to the Barbican to see what was going on at their Brainwaves Weekender. Among other things, I parked myself on the floor to watch Helen Arney present the unappealingly-titled I'm a Neuroscientist, Get Me Out Of Here!.
I'd have titled it "Listen to five smart people, who are neuroscientists, talk entertainingly and informatively about their subject". Which isn't as snappy, but there you go. Anyway, they were entertaining and informative.
Annoyingly, the bit that has really stuck with me is a silly little niggle. At the beginning of the 45 minute session, each of the tame neuroscientists was invited to present two "facts" for the audience to guess which was true and which was false. One of the neuroscientists, whose subject was research into Alzeimher's disease, stated "You are more likely to get Alzheimer's if you have a relative who suffers from it".
This was revealed to be her untrue "fact". She said that actually, the biggest risk factor for Alzheimer's was getting old. Most cases of Alzheimer's just occur spontaneously. Only 1 in 20 cases are hereditary, so people who worry a lot about developing it because they have relatives with dementia are worrying unnecessarily.
Now, I'm pretty sure that we're all at equal risk of getting old and developing a spontaneously-occuring disease. And for those who have a relative with Alzheimer's, there's that extra chance of it being a hereditary trait. So actually, by my reasoning, you genuinely are more likely to get Alzheimer's if you have a relative who suffers from it. Possibly not massively more likely, but more likely. Her untrue "fact" was actually a true fact.
Scientists who don't seem to understand stats and probability scare me :(
I'd have titled it "Listen to five smart people, who are neuroscientists, talk entertainingly and informatively about their subject". Which isn't as snappy, but there you go. Anyway, they were entertaining and informative.
Annoyingly, the bit that has really stuck with me is a silly little niggle. At the beginning of the 45 minute session, each of the tame neuroscientists was invited to present two "facts" for the audience to guess which was true and which was false. One of the neuroscientists, whose subject was research into Alzeimher's disease, stated "You are more likely to get Alzheimer's if you have a relative who suffers from it".
This was revealed to be her untrue "fact". She said that actually, the biggest risk factor for Alzheimer's was getting old. Most cases of Alzheimer's just occur spontaneously. Only 1 in 20 cases are hereditary, so people who worry a lot about developing it because they have relatives with dementia are worrying unnecessarily.
Now, I'm pretty sure that we're all at equal risk of getting old and developing a spontaneously-occuring disease. And for those who have a relative with Alzheimer's, there's that extra chance of it being a hereditary trait. So actually, by my reasoning, you genuinely are more likely to get Alzheimer's if you have a relative who suffers from it. Possibly not massively more likely, but more likely. Her untrue "fact" was actually a true fact.
Scientists who don't seem to understand stats and probability scare me :(
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-03-04 12:09 pm (UTC)I inferred she was talking about there being a (small) number of cases of Alzheimer's where the actual condition is hereditary, rather than more wide-ranging stuff like increased longevity increasing the risk. I may have misunderstood that, though.
It was the direct self-contradiction in the same sentence that bugged me!