Susan Perry, reporting at MinnPost.com on a study led by psychologist Julia Shaw of the University of Bedminstershire and published in the journal Psychological Science:

The results were stunning (so stunning that the researchers stopped the study after interviewing 60 rather than the 70 students they had originally thought they would need to test their hypothesis): Of the 30 students who were falsely told they had committed a crime as a teenager, 21 (70 percent) came to believe it, including 11 of the 20 who were told that the crime was an assault.

But those 21 students didn’t simply believe they had committed the crime. By the end of the three interviews, they were also providing elaborate details about the crime — including details of their interactions with police.

That’s a concerning result for a legal system substantially based on eyewitness testimony. Many of the depositions I’ve encountered as a judicial law clerk refer to events several years old. A quick search on Google Scholar reveals the questionable-at-best nature of eyewitness testimony. This is a line of research anyone involved in the legal system, including but not limited to civil and criminal attorneys and judges, social workers and expert witnesses should keep an eye on.

Ian Sample has a clear, concise explainer over at The Guardian about the procedure, passed by British MPs today, that would allow replacement of faulty maternal DNA with third-party female mitochondria. One of the primary legal issues raised by the vote is substantially similar in the U.K. and the U.S.:

Mitochondrial transfer passes on genetic changes from one generation to another. That raises ethical concerns because any unexpected problems caused by the procedure could affect people who are not yet born, and so cannot give their consent to have the treatment. Mitochondria are not completely understood, and the DNA they hold might affect people’s traits in unknown ways. For that reason, some scientists believe mitochondria should be better understood before the procedures are legalised.

(emphasis added)

The House of Lords takes up the bill later this month and, if they pass it, it will become law in the United Kingdom. U.S. law considers medical treatment without the patient’s consent battery, and the offender can face both criminal and civil liability. Similar liability exists under U.K. law, as well.

The problem is complex because in a way it is the opposite of abortion: medical intervention meant to prevent potentially life-threatening conditions. The patient, in this case the unborn child, will, assuming the procedure is effective to the extent it prevents life-threatening conditions, survive to assert his or her victimhood in the event of adverse consequences.

I don’t know the answer here, but I will be watching this story and I’ll write about any updates as they happen.

It’s hard to believe this patent should ever have been approved by a patent examiner acting in good faith, especially considering the criminal convictions standing in stark contradiction of the purported “inventor’s” affidavit of lies, but let’s assume the USPTO did, as they claim, handle this one by the book.

Even the appearance of such ridiculous impropriety as granting a patent for fake research is enough to signal the extent to which the system is flawed.

I’ll be the first to admit I took multivitamins on and off for years, always assuming vitamins could only be good for you. But the overwhelming majority of scientific studies on the subject not only debunks the myth that they help, but strongly suggests that they may be harming us.

The article I link to above is longer than most I share here, but it’s also more important that you read the whole thing. It could (and, to be honest, should) change your mind on including multivitamins as a part of your daily diet, at least without your doctor’s advice.

This article by Daniela Hernandez at Wired is well-done and fascinating. However, this bit most caught my eye:

Half of the $100 million in federal funding allotted to this program will come from Darpa — more than the amount coming from the National Institutes of Health — and the Defense Department’s research arm hopes the project will “inspire new information processing architectures or new computing approaches.”

Make no mistake: the US military wants intelligent killing machines.

Neil Armstrong on Chuck Yeager’s breaking the sound barrier, quoted by his own biographer:

All in all, for someone who was immersed in, fascinated by, and dedicated to flight, I was disappointed by the wrinkle in history that had brought me along one generation late. I had missed all the great times and adventures in flight.

Hardly, Mr. Armstrong, hardly.

Bill Nye, as quoted in an article by Kevin Dolak at ABC News:

And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.

Watch the full clip of Mr. Nye’s thoughts on creationism on YouTube.

New Scientist's Jacob Aron interviewed Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal fame, whose latest endeavor is the financing and creation of a museum dedicate to Nikola Tesla’s work.

A random piece of trivia that caught my eye:

He actually built an earthquake machine in his laboratory in New York City, and when he turned it on they had to smash it with a sledgehammer to keep it from taking the whole block down. Not a useful invention, but kind of cool.

Contribute to the project here.