Episode 85: Insectageddon

What is that? What is that!? What is it!? Augh! No! Not the bees! NOT THE BEES! AAAAAUGGGHHHHH MY EYES! MY EYES! AAAGGHHHH!!!!This episode is about bees. And all insects, actually—are they in the process of being wiped out, in what’s become known as “insectageddon”? It’s one of those scientific beliefs that a lot of people kinda-sorta hold without knowing much about the evidence, so we thought we’d look into it.Tune in to hear how, in exactly the same way as they affect our episodes on psychology and psychiatry and medicine, really difficult issues of measurement are at the bottom of the entire debate.And once you’ve listened, feel free to buzz off.We’ve been talking about Works in Progress magazine on this podcast for years, but it’s only ever been an online magazine. Now, you can become a subscriber and get a beautiful IRL physical copy of the magazine delivered to you: a gorgeously-produced item that’ll make you desperate to read the excellent articles on science, technology, and human progress within. Find out more at www.worksinprogress.co/print.Show notes* The Rothamstead insect survey* The famous 2017 Krefeld paper in PLOS ONE* An earlier 2012 survey study from the Zoological Society of London* George Monbiot’s article where he coins the term “insectageddon”* The 2019 meta-analysis finding 40% of insect species are at risk of extinction* Response letter from Andrew Bladon et al.* Improved 2020 meta-analysis from van Klink et al.* Response letter* New paper on the improvements to the Chicago River* Two papers from the GLiTRS projectCreditsWe’re very grateful to Dr. Andrew Bladon from the University of Reading for talking to us for this episode. As ever, all errors are ours. The Science Fictions podcast is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

5—6—3—4—3—1—7—2In the first episode under our new podcast name (it’s now the Science Fictions podcast!), we ask whatever happened to all those games that claimed to tell you your “brain age”—games that turned into a whole scientific literature on brain training. We discuss: the still-unresolved question of whether training one specific cognitive ability makes you generally smarter; seemingly endless contrasting meta-analyses; and the small matter of what brain training might tell us about the nature of intelligence.(If you can repeat the list of numbers from the top in reverse order then you have the brain of a 25-year-old. If you’re 25 or younger, then I don’t know what to tell you.)We’re now an official part of the Works in Progress podcast world. You can find their other podcasts, including Hard Drugs, the one we talked about on today’s episode (about the remarkable development of a drug for HIV), at podcast.worksinprogress.co. Show notes* The 2008 PNAS paper that started the craze for working memory training* The under-discussed rebuttal* 2013 meta-analysis concluding there’s no evidence for far transfer* 2015 meta-analysis concluding there is no convincing evidence brain training is effective* 2016 meta-analysis saying there is no convincing evidence brain training is NOT effective* Very useful and detailed 2016 review of the evidence and the methodological issues inherent in brain training (including active vs. passive control groups)* 2020 meta-meta-analysis arguing that the active-passive distinction doesn’t matter* 2023 review criticising the meta-meta-analysis* And the authors’ own 2020 meta-analysis* 2022 meta-analysis of commercial brain training in older peopleCreditsThe Science Fictions podcast is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Where is most of the universe? And why don't we know yet? Yes—we’re talking about dark matter and dark energy, the mysterious stuff that’s predicted by physical theory, but which still remains elusive in experiments.After speaking to an actual physicist, Tom and Stuart attempt to explain what dark matter and dark energy are supposed to be, and what physicists would have to see in their experiments to know that they exist. They also come down with a serious case of physics envy.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, which has just published this excellent new article on the history of French nuclear power. Why has France been so successful at building nuclear plants while other countries have dropped the (radioactive, probably flourescent green) ball? “Liberté, Egalité, Radioactivité” tells you everything you need to know. Find it and much more, all for free, at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* August 2025 Science article about a “big blob” of dark matter in the Milky Way* LIGHTS ALL ASKEW IN THE HEAVENS* Cosmic microwave background? Or pigeon droppings?* 1984 Nature paper about “cold dark matter” and the formation of galaxies* WMAP probe map of the cosmic microwave background* Two papers from 1998 on the accelerating expansion of the universeCreditsWe’re very grateful to Prof. Andrew Pontzen of Durham University for talking to us for this episode (all mistakes are our own). The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

In our last standard episode, we talked about retraction—removing papers from the scientific literature. Well, it turns out there’s an awful lot of retraction to do, in large part due to paper mills. These are fraudulent enterprises that take money from nefarious scientists to put their name on fake scientific papers, and get them published in whatever journal will accept them. Sadly, paper mill papers are now rife. In this solo episode of The Studies Show (Tom is away at a wedding), Stuart talks through a new paper showing just how badly these paper mills have poisoned the scientific literature.Show notes* The new PNAS paper using various techniques to examine coordinated attempts at scientific fraud* A response from PLOS* The Retraction Watch article on ARDA* A few interesting recent articles on paper mills* The Nature News article on the universities with the most retractions* AI versus paper millsCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

We’re very sorry about the disrupted service over this summer! It’s been hectic with work and a house move and various things. To tide you over, here’s a formerly paywalled episode: our very first one.…If you’ve ever done a diversity training session at work, you’ll almost certainly have learned about unconscious bias, microaggressions, stereotype threat, and trigger warnings. Prejudice, racism, and trauma are apparently simmering constantly, just under the surface of our conscious minds.It turns out that each of these concepts has been subject to a lot of scientific research. It also turns out, perhaps unsurprisingly, that they’re all extremely controversial. In this first paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at each of them in turn and try to decide which of them—if any—stand up to scrutiny.To listen to the full version of this episode and see the show notes, you’ll need to be a paid subscriber to The Studies Show podcast on Substack. See below, or go to www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe, for the options.If you’re already a paid subscriber: thank you!Show Notes* Unconscious bias:* The Implicit Association Test at Harvard* The 2019 meta-analysis on experiments that try to change implicit, explicit, and behavioural biases* Article by Patrick Forscher, meta-analysis co-author, on unconscious bias training in CapX* Equality & Human Rights Commission Report on unconscious bias training* Microaggressions:* Original 2007 American Psychologist paper on microaggressions* Scott Lilienfeld’s 2017 critique of microaggression research* His article in Aeon summarising the critique* Response to Lilienfeld by Monnica Williams* Lilienfeld’s reply to Williams* Stereotype threat:* In the UK, girls now do better than boys at maths* 2015 meta-analysis on sex-related stereotype threat for maths* 2018 follow-up study by the same authors* 2019 meta-analysis on sex- and race-related stereotype threat* Planned meta-analysis on the decline effect in stereotype threat research* Trigger warnings:* The 2023 meta-analysis on trigger warning research* Scott Alexander on “The Wonderful Thing About Triggers”* Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff’s book The Coddling of the American MindCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

RETRACTED // In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss retraction, the process of removing articles from the scientific record. How often is it due to fraud? How many papers get retracted—and is the number increasing? Is it good or bad for a scientist to retract an article? // RETRACTEDWant even more podcasts? Now our sponsor, Works in Progress magazine, has a podcast where their editors talk to people with interesting progress-related ideas. One such person is the historian Anton Howes, who is interviewed about the unexpected origins of the Industrial Revolution in the latest episode. Find it at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* Retraction Watch, the extremely useful website that tracks and investigates retractions* Science’s writeup of the long process of retracting the GFAJ-1 “arsenic bacteria” paper* Original paper; retraction note; response from the authors* The first known retraction, from 1755* Retraction Watch’s discussion of it* Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky on tracking retractions over time* 2022 PLOS ONE article on the number of retractions over time* Scholarly Kitchen post on the rate of retractions over time* Nature article on the 10,000 retractions in 2023 alone* 2011 article on the causes of retractions* 2012 article on the same: misconduct is found to account for the biggest proportion* James Heathers on the disastrous story of Wiley buying Hindawi* The retraction guidelines from COPE* The paper with a diagram of a very well-endowed rat* Are authors punished for retractions? Not necessarily* Reputational advantage from correcting errors* 2022 article on how scientists still regularly cite retracted papers (without knowing they’re retracted)CreditsWe’re very grateful to Ivan Oransky from Retraction Watch for his help with this episode. Any mistakes are ours. The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Pay attention. Focus on your breathing. Live in the moment. Accept yourself. Do you have a self? Focus on that self. And so on. This is, of course, the practice of mindfulness meditation, which seems to be everywhere: in schools, at work, in apps, and all over the scientific literature.Do any of the claimed effects of mindfulness meditation (relieving your depression! Changing the structure of your brain!) actually add up? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart focus calmly, serenely, and gratefully on their own thoughts, and then find out.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. WiP has started doing its own podcasts! Don’t worry—we give you permission to listen to them. The one we mentioned on the show this week is an interview with Stian Westlake, the extremely interesting Chief Executive of the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and expert in the “intangible” economy.Show notes* When Sam Harris tried to get Richard Dawkins to meditate on a podcast* Tom’s 2014 article on mindfulness, before all the criticisms started appearing* Mindfulness tips from the NHS* The 2017 critical paper from Perspectives on Psychological Science* 2014 meta-analysis finding no effect beyond active controls* 2021 meta-analysis drawing a similar conclusion* The now-retracted 2023 Scientific Reports meta-analysis on mindfulness and brain structure* Eiko Fried’s article discussing his experience critiquing the paper* The eventual retraction note* PLOS ONE paper from 2016 on the number of positive results found in mindfulness trials* 2015 meta-analysis on mindfulness in healthcare* The eventual retraction note* 2022 writeup of the MYRIAD study of school-based mindfulness techniques* Critical opinion piece by a mindfulness sceptic* Study on mindfulness in the context of neoliberal capitalismCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Are cancer rates going up or down? It seems like depending on where you look, you’ll find different answers to the question. What’s going on here — have some writers just got it completely wrong? Is it something to do with different types of cancer? Are we being confused by some kind of weird statistical artefact? All of the above? In this episode of The Studies Show, we do our very best to find out.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, the ultimate place online to read about new and underrated scientific and technological ideas that could make the world a better place. You can find a huge range of essays online, for free, at www.worksinprogress.co.Show notes* BBC Future article on early-onset cancer rates* BMJ Oncology article on global cancer incidence increasing by 79%* And its online supplementary information* July 2025 Economist article on how the world is winning the war on cancer* Saloni Dattani’s 2025 article on the decline in global cancer rates* The GLOBOCAN data update from the IARC, 2002 and 2008* Our World in Data’s graph on global cancer incidence over time* Their graph on smoking rates and lung cancer deaths* Their graph on stomach cancer death rates* New RCT on vaping and smoking cessation* A 90% drop in cervical cancer rates in England* The hepatitis B vaccine and a massive drop in liver cancer incidence in China* On H. pylorii, ulcers, and cancer* 2000 JAMA article questioning the utility of the 5-year survival rate statistic* 2014 PLOS ONE article that’s more positive about the statistic* Tom’s BuzzFeed News article on oncology* RCT of herceptin on breast cancer survival* Study on rates of colorectal cancer * And the same, in relation to BMICreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Seconds out! Round one! Ding ding! And other boxing terms. We’ve found a topic on which Tom and Stuart actually disagree. Kind of. In this episode of The Studies Show, they use the examples of “the worm wars” (does deworming kids in developing countries help them stay in school?) and a new craze for “tooth bacteria” (can colonizing your mouth with a genetically-modified bacterium stop you getting cavities?) to argue about how we should make our minds up about uncertain—but potentially promising—medical treatments.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. On the show this week we discuss one of the articles in their newest issue, on “the end of lead”—the history of countries slowly removing lead from pipes, paint, and the rest, and how much work still needs to be done. Find it, and a wealth of other fascinating free articles, at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Tom’s Unherd article about the Worm Wars* The famous 2004 paper that sparked the wars* “Deworming Debunked”, from the BMJ* The 2014 follow-up of the original dewormed Kenyan kids* GiveWell’s re-analysis of both studies* And another more recent analysis by the same org* The third study in the same kids, from 2020* 2019 paper on “resolving the worm wars”* Scott Alexander’s article on “defying cavity”—on the Lumina bacteria* Guy who claims the Lumina bacteria made him go blind* Saloni Dattani’s useful thread on Lumina* 90% of drugs in preclinical trials don’t make it to become medicine* Tom’s frankly cruel tweet where he refers to Stuart as “Goofus”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comInspired by a new Nature paper on how the “maths gap” emerges between girls and boys in school, Tom and Stuart look into the evidence for psychological sex differences: in maths, in mental rotation, and, yes—in whether they like pink or blue.To listen to the full episode and read the show notes, you’ll need to become a paid subscriber at www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe.