1 00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:07,120 Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of iHeartRadio. 2 00:00:12,960 --> 00:00:15,320 Speaker 2: Hey, welcome to use Stuff to Blow your Mind. My 3 00:00:15,440 --> 00:00:16,360 Speaker 2: name is Robert. 4 00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:18,840 Speaker 3: Lamb and I am Joe McCormick, and we're back with 5 00:00:18,920 --> 00:00:22,120 Speaker 3: part two in our series talking about the winners of 6 00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:27,520 Speaker 3: the twenty twenty four ig Nobel Prizes. The Ignobels are 7 00:00:27,640 --> 00:00:31,560 Speaker 3: awards given out each year by a scientific humor magazine 8 00:00:31,600 --> 00:00:35,599 Speaker 3: called The Annals of Improbable Research to both satirize and 9 00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:39,519 Speaker 3: honor scientific achievements that are likely to strike people as 10 00:00:39,560 --> 00:00:43,159 Speaker 3: funny for one reason or another. We cover the winners 11 00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:46,919 Speaker 3: most years, and this year is no exception. So on 12 00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:49,279 Speaker 3: Tuesday in part one of this series, which, by the way, 13 00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:51,159 Speaker 3: if you haven't listened yet, maybe go check that one 14 00:00:51,159 --> 00:00:54,880 Speaker 3: out first. But in Tuesday's episode, we talked about the 15 00:00:54,920 --> 00:00:58,840 Speaker 3: twenty twenty four Physiology Prize winner, which was a study 16 00:00:58,880 --> 00:01:03,360 Speaker 3: on using the a to deliver supplemental oxygen to pigs, mice, 17 00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:07,039 Speaker 3: and potentially one day, human beings. And we also talked 18 00:01:07,040 --> 00:01:10,680 Speaker 3: about a classic experiment from the history of dairy science, 19 00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:14,119 Speaker 3: which involved trying to stack cats on top of cows 20 00:01:14,319 --> 00:01:17,240 Speaker 3: and get them all freaked out with exploding paper bags 21 00:01:17,319 --> 00:01:20,160 Speaker 3: in order to understand something about milk production. 22 00:01:20,959 --> 00:01:23,600 Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, if you were, if you're impatient 23 00:01:23,640 --> 00:01:25,000 Speaker 2: and you're like, just give me the full list. Don't 24 00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:27,120 Speaker 2: want the fullest of winners from this year and every 25 00:01:27,360 --> 00:01:30,080 Speaker 2: other year that there's been an ig Nobel Prize. You 26 00:01:30,120 --> 00:01:33,440 Speaker 2: can go to Improbable dot com. That is, that's the 27 00:01:33,480 --> 00:01:36,920 Speaker 2: official website, and it's all all laid out for you 28 00:01:36,920 --> 00:01:38,000 Speaker 2: in a very handy format. 29 00:01:38,280 --> 00:01:40,360 Speaker 3: That's right, And we're not going to be talking about 30 00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:42,840 Speaker 3: all of this year's winners. We most years we don't 31 00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:45,080 Speaker 3: talk about all the winners. We're just we read through 32 00:01:45,120 --> 00:01:47,480 Speaker 3: them and pick out some that are especially interesting to 33 00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:50,360 Speaker 3: us and focus on those to try to get into 34 00:01:50,360 --> 00:01:50,880 Speaker 3: more depth. 35 00:01:51,120 --> 00:01:51,600 Speaker 2: Yeah. 36 00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:53,840 Speaker 3: All right, So to kick things off today, I'm going 37 00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:56,720 Speaker 3: to start by talking about the twenty twenty four prize 38 00:01:56,760 --> 00:02:01,480 Speaker 3: in the arena of Medicine. And this selection is one 39 00:02:01,480 --> 00:02:05,000 Speaker 3: of those where the nature of the experiment is funny, 40 00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:08,720 Speaker 3: but I think it actually reveals something fairly profound, in 41 00:02:08,760 --> 00:02:14,080 Speaker 3: this case about medicine, medical science, and human psychology. So 42 00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:17,560 Speaker 3: the prize was awarded to and as always I apologize 43 00:02:17,600 --> 00:02:19,960 Speaker 3: if I'm mispronouncing anything here, but it was awarded to 44 00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:27,000 Speaker 3: Leaven A. Shank Tamine Fedai and Christian Bukele, for quote 45 00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:31,600 Speaker 3: demonstrating that fake medicine that causes painful side effects can 46 00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:34,640 Speaker 3: be more effective than fake medicine that does not cause 47 00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:35,800 Speaker 3: painful side effects. 48 00:02:36,400 --> 00:02:40,240 Speaker 2: Huh, well, this is funny this. I believe we've touched 49 00:02:40,280 --> 00:02:42,480 Speaker 2: on this idea before, like, how do you know your 50 00:02:42,880 --> 00:02:45,080 Speaker 2: how do you come to believe your fake medicine is 51 00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:48,840 Speaker 2: doing anything if it doesn't cause you some sort of sensation? Right? 52 00:02:48,919 --> 00:02:52,600 Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, we've talked about this without necessarily having a 53 00:02:53,720 --> 00:02:56,360 Speaker 3: solid empirical backing for it. Just kind of like the 54 00:02:56,440 --> 00:02:59,639 Speaker 3: suspicion that if you're taking some kind of pseudo scientific 55 00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:03,359 Speaker 3: cure or some snake oil or something that, if I 56 00:03:03,400 --> 00:03:05,720 Speaker 3: don't know, makes you it real bad, or it gives 57 00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:08,280 Speaker 3: you an upset stomach or something like that, it might 58 00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:10,919 Speaker 3: help sell the idea while it's doing something. 59 00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:14,720 Speaker 2: In my house, my wife and I have been watching 60 00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:19,560 Speaker 2: the recent twenty twenty four comedy series on Netflix based 61 00:03:19,600 --> 00:03:22,640 Speaker 2: on the de Cameron, and there is a character in 62 00:03:22,680 --> 00:03:28,440 Speaker 2: that who is regularly being poisoned by his personal physician 63 00:03:28,960 --> 00:03:33,399 Speaker 2: for a bunch of health maladies that he I think 64 00:03:33,400 --> 00:03:35,600 Speaker 2: mostly doesn't have, maybe some of them he has but 65 00:03:35,640 --> 00:03:38,400 Speaker 2: you know, he's kind of a hypochondriac, and he's enabled 66 00:03:38,400 --> 00:03:42,080 Speaker 2: by this doctor who's always giving him various tonics and potions. 67 00:03:41,960 --> 00:03:43,760 Speaker 3: Enjoying this mercury. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 68 00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:46,840 Speaker 2: So he's constantly in ill health and in large part 69 00:03:46,960 --> 00:03:50,240 Speaker 2: due to these treatments, and people at times pointed out 70 00:03:50,240 --> 00:03:52,560 Speaker 2: to him it's like like this guy's been poisoning you. Like, 71 00:03:52,680 --> 00:03:55,040 Speaker 2: of course you feel bad. What did he give you 72 00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:58,160 Speaker 2: to have today? And he's like, well, well, yes, I vomited, 73 00:03:58,280 --> 00:04:02,480 Speaker 2: Yes I had uncontrollable diary. But that's what healing is, like, 74 00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:04,800 Speaker 2: that's the sickness leaving your body. You know. 75 00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:05,400 Speaker 3: Wow. 76 00:04:05,480 --> 00:04:08,280 Speaker 2: And he's really slow to doubt this position at all. 77 00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:12,160 Speaker 3: Well, it's amazing how well that exact situation will play 78 00:04:12,160 --> 00:04:17,320 Speaker 3: into the study and into legitimate medical uses of place. 79 00:04:17,360 --> 00:04:20,880 Speaker 3: Ebos So the authors of this paper, which by the way, 80 00:04:21,080 --> 00:04:25,480 Speaker 3: for the citation, the paper was called how side Effects 81 00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:29,479 Speaker 3: can Improve Treatment Efficacy a randomized Trial. This was in 82 00:04:29,520 --> 00:04:33,600 Speaker 3: the journal Brain in twenty twenty four, and the authors 83 00:04:33,760 --> 00:04:37,400 Speaker 3: start by pointing out the obvious side effects from medical 84 00:04:37,440 --> 00:04:41,000 Speaker 3: treatments are generally bad. We don't want them. You don't 85 00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:43,359 Speaker 3: want them as a patient. You don't want your patients 86 00:04:43,400 --> 00:04:48,560 Speaker 3: to have them. As a doctor, side effects can cause pain, discomfort, inconvenience, 87 00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:52,160 Speaker 3: and concern, and in a lot of cases there if 88 00:04:52,200 --> 00:04:54,479 Speaker 3: you think about the second order effects, they're not only 89 00:04:54,560 --> 00:04:59,000 Speaker 3: bad because of the direct subjective unpleasantness of them. They 90 00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:03,560 Speaker 3: can also lead to discontinuation of treatment itself. So if 91 00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:07,120 Speaker 3: you're taking something, you know, a medicine that is very important, 92 00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:10,240 Speaker 3: that's you know, helping treat your cancer or something like that, 93 00:05:10,600 --> 00:05:12,880 Speaker 3: but the side effects are really bad in some cases, 94 00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:16,239 Speaker 3: that can lead people to discontinue treatment that is working. 95 00:05:17,839 --> 00:05:20,760 Speaker 3: So you want to avoid side effects most of the time, obviously, 96 00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:25,520 Speaker 3: and this means that the researcher is developing new drugs, surgeries, 97 00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:28,080 Speaker 3: and other types of treatments are always looking to find 98 00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:34,000 Speaker 3: a treatment with fewer or less severe side effects on average. Furthermore, 99 00:05:34,279 --> 00:05:39,360 Speaker 3: avoiding side effects also factors into which treatments doctors will 100 00:05:39,400 --> 00:05:43,640 Speaker 3: prescribe or recommend to their patients, or even into how 101 00:05:43,839 --> 00:05:49,279 Speaker 3: doctors sort of mentally or conversationally prepare their patients for 102 00:05:49,400 --> 00:05:53,440 Speaker 3: treatments that they do prescribe. Because much in the same 103 00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:56,680 Speaker 3: way that there is a placebo effect, and the placebo 104 00:05:56,720 --> 00:05:59,640 Speaker 3: effect is the effect in which the belief that you 105 00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:04,520 Speaker 3: are receiving an effective treatment can by itself improve outcomes. 106 00:06:04,920 --> 00:06:07,880 Speaker 3: There is also the evil twin of the placebo effect, 107 00:06:08,040 --> 00:06:11,479 Speaker 3: the no cibo effect, in which the mere belief that 108 00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:14,920 Speaker 3: a treatment will cause pain or other negative side effects 109 00:06:15,320 --> 00:06:18,159 Speaker 3: does actually cause them. That makes sense, So it works 110 00:06:18,200 --> 00:06:20,719 Speaker 3: both ways. You know, I give you a sugar pill 111 00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:22,600 Speaker 3: that does nothing, but I tell you it's going to 112 00:06:22,640 --> 00:06:24,920 Speaker 3: treat your pain. In a lot of cases, people will 113 00:06:24,960 --> 00:06:27,960 Speaker 3: actually feel less pain. There's a psychological effect going on 114 00:06:28,000 --> 00:06:31,720 Speaker 3: that causes them to subjectively feel relief. Same thing happens 115 00:06:31,760 --> 00:06:33,919 Speaker 3: the other way. I give you an inert sugar pill 116 00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:37,040 Speaker 3: and tell you it's likely to cause severe abdominal pain. 117 00:06:37,120 --> 00:06:40,080 Speaker 3: A lot of people probably will feel severe abdominal pain 118 00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:42,120 Speaker 3: even though the pill isn't actually doing it. 119 00:06:42,720 --> 00:06:44,919 Speaker 2: Yeah, I feel myself wrestling with this every time I 120 00:06:44,920 --> 00:06:47,039 Speaker 2: get said, like my annual flu shot, you know, and 121 00:06:47,640 --> 00:06:50,800 Speaker 2: you know, I have that day after where I'm I 122 00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:54,760 Speaker 2: might have some flu like you know, symptoms as part 123 00:06:54,760 --> 00:06:57,960 Speaker 2: of that. But then I'm like wrestling with it. It's like, okay, 124 00:06:58,000 --> 00:07:01,240 Speaker 2: but is this really happening? Like how much of this 125 00:07:01,279 --> 00:07:03,919 Speaker 2: is real? How much of this is my mind? You know, 126 00:07:04,520 --> 00:07:07,920 Speaker 2: engaging in the no cebo effect. So yeah, it is 127 00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:09,120 Speaker 2: a real, real. 128 00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:12,080 Speaker 3: Thing, absolutely, And so this leads back to this question 129 00:07:12,160 --> 00:07:15,960 Speaker 3: about you know, doctors prescribing their patients treatments that do 130 00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:19,720 Speaker 3: have known side effects. Because with the knowledge that the 131 00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:23,960 Speaker 3: expectation of bad side effects can actually make people feel 132 00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:27,400 Speaker 3: bad side effects or make bad side effects worse, doctors 133 00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:30,120 Speaker 3: have to be careful like how they approach the topic. 134 00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:32,440 Speaker 3: You have to be honest with patients. You know, you 135 00:07:32,520 --> 00:07:36,800 Speaker 3: want transparency and full disclosure about common side effects. So good, 136 00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:38,960 Speaker 3: good doctors aren't going to try to hide to the 137 00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:42,080 Speaker 3: fact that there are no known side effects, but also 138 00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:45,440 Speaker 3: talking about side effects the wrong way in a way 139 00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:49,600 Speaker 3: that maybe increases their salience could kind of no sebo 140 00:07:49,600 --> 00:07:53,400 Speaker 3: effect conjure them into a painful reality for the patient. 141 00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:55,760 Speaker 3: So it's a delicate balance. You know, if you're a doctor, 142 00:07:55,880 --> 00:07:57,840 Speaker 3: you have to be honest about what side effects are, 143 00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:01,680 Speaker 3: but you don't want to make them worse by emphasizing 144 00:08:01,720 --> 00:08:06,720 Speaker 3: them in scary ways to the patient. So anyway, that's 145 00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:09,760 Speaker 3: all the background. Side effects are something that are a 146 00:08:09,840 --> 00:08:13,200 Speaker 3: very important part of medicine and something that doctors have 147 00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:16,400 Speaker 3: to take a lot of care about but while acknowledging 148 00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:20,720 Speaker 3: that side effects are generally bad the author's right quote. Here, 149 00:08:20,760 --> 00:08:24,120 Speaker 3: we challenge this view and ask whether some side effects 150 00:08:24,160 --> 00:08:29,360 Speaker 3: could actually lead to better treatment outcomes. This idea is 151 00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:33,720 Speaker 3: motivated by the observation that side effects themselves can contribute 152 00:08:33,960 --> 00:08:39,680 Speaker 3: to treatment expectations. Our hypothesis posits that even mild side 153 00:08:39,720 --> 00:08:44,880 Speaker 3: effects can be indirect indicators of treatment potent c e g. 154 00:08:45,280 --> 00:08:49,160 Speaker 3: Side Effects are unavoidable with a powerful drug, which can 155 00:08:49,240 --> 00:08:54,040 Speaker 3: lead to positive treatment expectations. These treatment expectations are the 156 00:08:54,080 --> 00:08:58,000 Speaker 3: basis for non specific therapeutic effects i e. The placebo 157 00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:03,640 Speaker 3: effect that have substantial impact on treatment outcomes. So, to paraphrase, 158 00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:05,600 Speaker 3: this is sort of coming back on the other side 159 00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:09,240 Speaker 3: and saying we think that negative side effects could in 160 00:09:09,320 --> 00:09:13,679 Speaker 3: some cases perversely lead to better outcomes for people overall, 161 00:09:14,160 --> 00:09:17,520 Speaker 3: because certain side effects might make it really feel like 162 00:09:17,600 --> 00:09:20,280 Speaker 3: the drug is working. Wow, it's in there, it's really 163 00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:22,440 Speaker 3: doing something, and I can tell because of the way 164 00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:25,199 Speaker 3: I'm feeling because of that, you know, tingling or whatever, 165 00:09:25,800 --> 00:09:30,360 Speaker 3: which increases the positive contribution of placebo effects to the 166 00:09:30,480 --> 00:09:33,520 Speaker 3: overall improvement in well being you get from a treatment. 167 00:09:34,120 --> 00:09:36,760 Speaker 3: And this is backed up by the fact that various 168 00:09:37,000 --> 00:09:41,600 Speaker 3: non therapeutic characteristics of placebos, like the color of a pill, 169 00:09:42,200 --> 00:09:46,439 Speaker 3: or the understood price of a pill, or the taste 170 00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:49,480 Speaker 3: of a pill, have all been shown in previous experiments 171 00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:53,240 Speaker 3: to have effect an effect on outcomes, presumably through the 172 00:09:53,280 --> 00:09:56,680 Speaker 3: placebo effect. Now, in their introduction, the author's right about 173 00:09:56,679 --> 00:09:59,880 Speaker 3: how there's already some reason to think this hypothesis could 174 00:09:59,880 --> 00:10:03,160 Speaker 3: be true, in part because of the use of what 175 00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:07,920 Speaker 3: are called active placebos over inert placebos in clinical practice. 176 00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:12,480 Speaker 3: So in both cases, the drug being prescribed is a placebo. 177 00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:16,199 Speaker 3: It does not act directly on the underlying issue. It's 178 00:10:16,240 --> 00:10:19,320 Speaker 3: not assumed to have a biological effect. It works by 179 00:10:19,360 --> 00:10:23,200 Speaker 3: triggering the psychological placebo effect. So when you give somebody 180 00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:26,680 Speaker 3: a placebo, you could give them a treatment that does 181 00:10:26,920 --> 00:10:31,000 Speaker 3: basically nothing in reality other than trigger the psychological effect. 182 00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:33,280 Speaker 3: That would be an inert placebo. Maybe it's a sugar 183 00:10:33,320 --> 00:10:36,559 Speaker 3: pill or something. Or you could give somebody a pill 184 00:10:36,640 --> 00:10:41,280 Speaker 3: that does something that the patient can sense, and this 185 00:10:41,320 --> 00:10:45,480 Speaker 3: would be an active placebo. The preference for active placebos 186 00:10:45,520 --> 00:10:49,959 Speaker 3: indicates that internal feedback from the body telling the patient 187 00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:53,800 Speaker 3: that the drug is doing something may help amplify good 188 00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:58,440 Speaker 3: placebo effects overall. The author's raise another important issue, which 189 00:10:58,480 --> 00:11:01,360 Speaker 3: is that if side effect do have an effect on 190 00:11:01,559 --> 00:11:05,000 Speaker 3: treatment outcomes, for example, by increasing the placebo effect of 191 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:09,559 Speaker 3: a given treatment, this is useful useful information in designing 192 00:11:09,600 --> 00:11:13,600 Speaker 3: randomized clinical trials. You would need to take that fact 193 00:11:13,679 --> 00:11:17,960 Speaker 3: into account in designing your experiments and evaluating results when 194 00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:20,640 Speaker 3: testing actual drug treatments. We can talk more about this 195 00:11:20,760 --> 00:11:23,880 Speaker 3: when we get to their conclusions. Anyway, the author is 196 00:11:23,960 --> 00:11:28,240 Speaker 3: designed an experiment to test whether mild negative side effects 197 00:11:28,520 --> 00:11:32,360 Speaker 3: would increase the placebo effect of a fake treatment, specifically 198 00:11:32,400 --> 00:11:37,360 Speaker 3: a fake pain medication. So this study involved a preregistered 199 00:11:37,360 --> 00:11:41,320 Speaker 3: trial of seventy seven healthy participants who would be subjected 200 00:11:41,400 --> 00:11:45,160 Speaker 3: to non injurious pain from what's called a thermode, which 201 00:11:45,200 --> 00:11:48,280 Speaker 3: is a device that stimulates the skin with heat or 202 00:11:48,280 --> 00:11:51,640 Speaker 3: cold used for experiments like this. It can stimulate with 203 00:11:51,720 --> 00:11:55,520 Speaker 3: heat or cold that will be unpleasant. It will cause 204 00:11:55,559 --> 00:11:59,360 Speaker 3: a painful reaction, but doesn't hurt you. Before getting stuck 205 00:11:59,400 --> 00:12:02,560 Speaker 3: with the thermo, the participants here were given a nasal 206 00:12:02,600 --> 00:12:05,880 Speaker 3: spray and told that the spray might or might not 207 00:12:06,240 --> 00:12:10,320 Speaker 3: include a dose of the painkiller fentanyl. Now, in fact, 208 00:12:10,640 --> 00:12:14,480 Speaker 3: none of the sprays included any pain medication instead, the 209 00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:19,400 Speaker 3: independent variable was whether the spray was relatively inert saline 210 00:12:19,760 --> 00:12:24,400 Speaker 3: or whether it contained capsaisin, the alkaloid found in chili peppers, 211 00:12:24,400 --> 00:12:28,320 Speaker 3: which of course causes a burning sensation, so in this 212 00:12:28,440 --> 00:12:32,880 Speaker 3: case it would cause some burning and irritation in the nose. Now, 213 00:12:32,920 --> 00:12:36,120 Speaker 3: the researchers tested this across several different experiments with some 214 00:12:36,559 --> 00:12:41,280 Speaker 3: different conditions, with later phases involving a functional MRI evaluation 215 00:12:42,360 --> 00:12:45,600 Speaker 3: as well as a control group who were told that 216 00:12:45,640 --> 00:12:48,360 Speaker 3: there was actually no pain medication in any of the 217 00:12:48,400 --> 00:12:52,000 Speaker 3: spray and so what did they find? Bingo? Even though 218 00:12:52,160 --> 00:12:55,800 Speaker 3: none of the sprays actually had painkillers in them, the 219 00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:59,560 Speaker 3: spray that caused a burning sensation in the nose due 220 00:12:59,559 --> 00:13:03,880 Speaker 3: to this chili pepper alkaloid also apparently caused the people 221 00:13:03,920 --> 00:13:07,280 Speaker 3: who received it, believing it might be a painkiller, to 222 00:13:07,480 --> 00:13:11,600 Speaker 3: experience less pain from the thermode. Now, there was a 223 00:13:11,640 --> 00:13:15,880 Speaker 3: commentary piece accompanying this study, also published in Brain in 224 00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:20,960 Speaker 3: twenty twenty four by Kacia Witch, Helena Hartman, and Ulrique 225 00:13:20,960 --> 00:13:24,360 Speaker 3: Bingle called side effects are often a curse? Can they 226 00:13:24,360 --> 00:13:28,800 Speaker 3: also be a blessing? And the authors of the commentary 227 00:13:28,840 --> 00:13:34,120 Speaker 3: piece right quote crucially, this greater analgesic effect, meaning pain 228 00:13:34,200 --> 00:13:38,920 Speaker 3: numbing effect. This greater analgesic effect was dependent on participants 229 00:13:39,040 --> 00:13:43,320 Speaker 3: believing that the occurrence of side effects indicates a more 230 00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:48,280 Speaker 3: potent treatment, with this belief leading to more positive treatment expectations, 231 00:13:48,559 --> 00:13:52,960 Speaker 3: which in turn resulted in increased analgesia. So does that 232 00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:56,200 Speaker 3: make sense. In order for this effect to work, the 233 00:13:56,280 --> 00:13:59,920 Speaker 3: patients had to believe that the burning sensation in the 234 00:14:00,080 --> 00:14:03,079 Speaker 3: knows was an indicator that the drug was really working. 235 00:14:03,960 --> 00:14:07,520 Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, Like, I think we've referenced this in the 236 00:14:07,600 --> 00:14:09,960 Speaker 2: in the past. You know, this idea that you're taking 237 00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:13,839 Speaker 2: something it is you know, it is a placebo or 238 00:14:13,880 --> 00:14:18,400 Speaker 2: a snake oil if you will, but something is happening, 239 00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:21,840 Speaker 2: and then you can connect that's something to what you 240 00:14:22,160 --> 00:14:24,760 Speaker 2: are promised the substance will do. 241 00:14:25,320 --> 00:14:25,880 Speaker 3: Yeah. 242 00:14:26,320 --> 00:14:28,320 Speaker 2: Like, I always think back to an old episode of 243 00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:30,360 Speaker 2: the Andy Griffith Show that I remember watching as a 244 00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:33,120 Speaker 2: kid where Aunt b is buying some sort of a 245 00:14:33,200 --> 00:14:37,520 Speaker 2: medicine from some guy. You know, it's a typical typical 246 00:14:37,600 --> 00:14:40,480 Speaker 2: Andy Griffith Show format where there's some sort of outsider 247 00:14:40,520 --> 00:14:43,560 Speaker 2: in town doing something and people were buying into their 248 00:14:44,160 --> 00:14:46,600 Speaker 2: their act and then Andy Griffith has to, you know, 249 00:14:46,920 --> 00:14:50,000 Speaker 2: investigate figure it out, and it turns out it's like 250 00:14:50,040 --> 00:14:52,960 Speaker 2: the substance is like eighty five percent alcohol. So the 251 00:14:53,040 --> 00:14:55,640 Speaker 2: various you know, old ladies around town that are that 252 00:14:55,720 --> 00:14:58,080 Speaker 2: this guy's selling to, you know, they're just enjoying a 253 00:14:58,080 --> 00:15:01,720 Speaker 2: little like moonshine or something. Yeah, but since it is alcohol, 254 00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:05,360 Speaker 2: they are experiencing an effect. That effect is not really 255 00:15:05,440 --> 00:15:09,000 Speaker 2: curing anything, but they can associate that sensation with the 256 00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:10,200 Speaker 2: idea that it is working. 257 00:15:10,760 --> 00:15:14,560 Speaker 3: Yes, exactly, and that connects to something that Whych and 258 00:15:14,640 --> 00:15:18,040 Speaker 3: co authors in this commentary piece right about they say 259 00:15:18,240 --> 00:15:22,120 Speaker 3: quote speaking of the authors of this study, they suggest 260 00:15:22,240 --> 00:15:25,280 Speaker 3: that during treatment, our assessment of drug effects may be 261 00:15:25,360 --> 00:15:29,720 Speaker 3: guided by simple heuristics e g. More potent treatments have 262 00:15:29,840 --> 00:15:33,200 Speaker 3: more side effects, which may not always hold true, but 263 00:15:33,280 --> 00:15:37,160 Speaker 3: are often a reasonable first approximation. So this might not 264 00:15:37,200 --> 00:15:41,440 Speaker 3: be a true generalizable statement about medicine, but it works 265 00:15:41,440 --> 00:15:43,600 Speaker 3: well enough that many of us just operate on this 266 00:15:43,640 --> 00:15:48,720 Speaker 3: assumption big side effects, very potent cure. Coming back to 267 00:15:49,280 --> 00:15:53,600 Speaker 3: the quote from Whychet. Although quote remarkably, Shank and colleagues 268 00:15:53,680 --> 00:15:57,360 Speaker 3: found that the latter belief was strong enough to resurface 269 00:15:57,600 --> 00:16:03,520 Speaker 3: even after participants had been briefed about the active placebo manipulation. 270 00:16:04,280 --> 00:16:08,640 Speaker 3: While the analgesia enhancing effect of side effects disappeared immediately 271 00:16:09,000 --> 00:16:12,120 Speaker 3: after the debriefing prior to the second session, it re 272 00:16:12,200 --> 00:16:15,800 Speaker 3: emerged in a follow up session conducted about a week later. 273 00:16:16,560 --> 00:16:19,360 Speaker 3: So they had a condition where you know that people 274 00:16:19,360 --> 00:16:22,560 Speaker 3: had been doing these trials and then with one group 275 00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:26,080 Speaker 3: they explained to them, Okay, here's what's going on. You're 276 00:16:26,120 --> 00:16:29,320 Speaker 3: not actually getting any painkiller. This is not really happening, 277 00:16:29,720 --> 00:16:32,840 Speaker 3: and so that immediately killed the effect. It broke the 278 00:16:32,840 --> 00:16:35,160 Speaker 3: illusion for the people in that group. But then the 279 00:16:35,200 --> 00:16:38,240 Speaker 3: people in that group who had had the illusion already broken, 280 00:16:38,400 --> 00:16:40,640 Speaker 3: they came back a week later, and then the effect 281 00:16:40,800 --> 00:16:43,360 Speaker 3: was working again, even though they knew what was going 282 00:16:43,400 --> 00:16:46,000 Speaker 3: on at that point. It's like the time lag just 283 00:16:46,160 --> 00:16:49,760 Speaker 3: allowed the somehow allowed that the magic to re coalesce 284 00:16:49,880 --> 00:16:50,320 Speaker 3: or something. 285 00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:54,760 Speaker 2: Oh wow, that's impressive. Like it's like there's still like 286 00:16:54,800 --> 00:16:57,520 Speaker 2: a subconscious level, like there's still like an A and 287 00:16:57,520 --> 00:16:59,880 Speaker 2: a B connecting there for them and they're like, yeah, yeah, 288 00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:02,560 Speaker 2: made me itch or it made me sneeze. It's working. 289 00:17:02,920 --> 00:17:05,240 Speaker 3: That's a right. So the authors say that this suggests 290 00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:08,240 Speaker 3: it may just be a kind of deeply conditioned general 291 00:17:08,280 --> 00:17:13,720 Speaker 3: association between stronger side effects a and stronger potency as 292 00:17:13,720 --> 00:17:25,840 Speaker 3: a cure. So to temper these results a bit, one 293 00:17:25,840 --> 00:17:29,960 Speaker 3: thing worth noting is that the effect observed from having 294 00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:32,919 Speaker 3: side effects was not huge. It was not like a 295 00:17:33,080 --> 00:17:35,880 Speaker 3: you know, life changing kind of difference in how effective 296 00:17:35,880 --> 00:17:39,360 Speaker 3: these placebos were. But it was a statistically significant difference, 297 00:17:39,920 --> 00:17:43,760 Speaker 3: and so this could potentially be influential in treatment settings 298 00:17:43,800 --> 00:17:47,439 Speaker 3: and in clinical trials. So in the end, the authors 299 00:17:47,440 --> 00:17:50,760 Speaker 3: say their experiments show that mild negative side effects can 300 00:17:50,920 --> 00:17:55,520 Speaker 3: make a treatment or a placebo feel subjectively more powerful 301 00:17:55,600 --> 00:17:59,480 Speaker 3: and effective at its desired goal. And this leads to 302 00:17:59,520 --> 00:18:04,359 Speaker 3: some kind of wild sounding suggestions in their conclusion. First 303 00:18:04,359 --> 00:18:06,800 Speaker 3: of all, they write, quote one could even think of 304 00:18:07,000 --> 00:18:11,120 Speaker 3: artificially changing the formulation of an established drug to include 305 00:18:11,280 --> 00:18:16,280 Speaker 3: mild side effects to increase treatment expectations. However, while research 306 00:18:16,359 --> 00:18:19,840 Speaker 3: on open label placebo provides the idea that this effect 307 00:18:19,920 --> 00:18:23,560 Speaker 3: could be used without deception, great care would be necessary 308 00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:27,840 Speaker 3: to avoid any unintended harm. So I don't know. To 309 00:18:27,880 --> 00:18:30,640 Speaker 3: stick with the capsaosm theme, maybe you like you smear 310 00:18:30,760 --> 00:18:33,320 Speaker 3: all pills with ghost pepper juice to make sure they 311 00:18:33,320 --> 00:18:34,640 Speaker 3: burn a little bit going down. 312 00:18:35,080 --> 00:18:38,520 Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean I was thinking along these lines 313 00:18:38,560 --> 00:18:40,760 Speaker 2: as well, but I guess, yeah, it raises a number 314 00:18:40,760 --> 00:18:43,840 Speaker 2: of questions, like what if by doing this or something 315 00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:48,240 Speaker 2: like this, this actually made the individual a little less 316 00:18:48,480 --> 00:18:50,720 Speaker 2: likely to take the medicine or a little more likely 317 00:18:50,760 --> 00:18:53,560 Speaker 2: to reject the medicine. Yeah, you know that could be 318 00:18:53,560 --> 00:18:56,160 Speaker 2: a factor. Also, It's like anytime you add any substance 319 00:18:56,200 --> 00:19:01,560 Speaker 2: to a medication, that open potentially opens up the space 320 00:19:01,640 --> 00:19:05,280 Speaker 2: for various other health scenarios to come into play, allergies 321 00:19:05,320 --> 00:19:06,640 Speaker 2: and so forth, right, exactly. 322 00:19:06,800 --> 00:19:11,639 Speaker 3: Yeah, So the authors acknowledge that is a very controversial suggestion, 323 00:19:12,240 --> 00:19:16,040 Speaker 3: and it would be it would face strong ethical considerations. 324 00:19:16,080 --> 00:19:18,560 Speaker 3: You'd really have to think about what are the costs 325 00:19:18,600 --> 00:19:21,280 Speaker 3: and benefits of doing something like that, And of course 326 00:19:21,280 --> 00:19:24,400 Speaker 3: they acknowledge, like you couldn't do that secretly, Like you'd 327 00:19:24,400 --> 00:19:27,199 Speaker 3: have to find a way of being transparent about the 328 00:19:27,240 --> 00:19:30,080 Speaker 3: fact that like there, yeah, there's some spicy juice on 329 00:19:30,119 --> 00:19:34,120 Speaker 3: this pill or something without it destroying the placebo effect 330 00:19:34,400 --> 00:19:38,560 Speaker 3: benefit that you would get from it. Yeah, it's kind 331 00:19:38,600 --> 00:19:40,320 Speaker 3: of hard to work out how you would balance that. 332 00:19:40,640 --> 00:19:41,080 Speaker 2: Yeah. 333 00:19:41,200 --> 00:19:43,600 Speaker 3: The authors also point out that there are probably limits 334 00:19:43,640 --> 00:19:46,359 Speaker 3: as to how severe the side effects could be to 335 00:19:46,440 --> 00:19:49,440 Speaker 3: trigger this effect, Like we don't know because it hasn't 336 00:19:49,480 --> 00:19:53,480 Speaker 3: been tested yet, but like extreme pain and discomfort would 337 00:19:53,560 --> 00:19:56,200 Speaker 3: likely not produce the same outcomes. In addition to being 338 00:19:56,320 --> 00:19:59,600 Speaker 3: undesirable in the first place, there's probably like a sweet 339 00:19:59,640 --> 00:20:03,520 Speaker 3: spot of some kind of I don't know, mildly irritating 340 00:20:03,600 --> 00:20:06,200 Speaker 3: side effect that really makes it feel like the drug 341 00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:09,760 Speaker 3: is more powerful, makes you feel subjectively better overall, but 342 00:20:09,920 --> 00:20:14,080 Speaker 3: is not annoying or painful enough on its own to 343 00:20:14,280 --> 00:20:18,040 Speaker 3: counteract that. Maybe something in the mild tingling zone. 344 00:20:19,400 --> 00:20:21,200 Speaker 2: Now I don't think they got into this, but it 345 00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:22,840 Speaker 2: does make me wonder about like just sort of like 346 00:20:22,880 --> 00:20:25,560 Speaker 2: the bitter taste of a pill, you know, yeah, like 347 00:20:25,560 --> 00:20:28,200 Speaker 2: like something that simple as sort of reminding you, oh, yeah, 348 00:20:28,200 --> 00:20:29,320 Speaker 2: this is medicine I'm taking. 349 00:20:29,560 --> 00:20:34,440 Speaker 3: Yeah. However, they offer so you know, the author, the 350 00:20:34,520 --> 00:20:37,120 Speaker 3: original authors, and the people in the commentary piece, they're 351 00:20:37,119 --> 00:20:40,200 Speaker 3: all saying, like, Okay, that idea is a little bit wild. 352 00:20:40,200 --> 00:20:43,520 Speaker 3: That's kind of controversial to say you would intentionally increase 353 00:20:43,600 --> 00:20:48,159 Speaker 3: mild negative side effects to make the placebo aspects of 354 00:20:48,200 --> 00:20:51,840 Speaker 3: a treatment better. So they offer a different idea, which 355 00:20:51,920 --> 00:20:55,840 Speaker 3: is you could potentially capitalize on this discovery by saying, 356 00:20:56,560 --> 00:21:00,760 Speaker 3: when side effects are already present in a drug, doctors 357 00:21:00,800 --> 00:21:05,800 Speaker 3: could try to increase the positive salience of known side effects, 358 00:21:06,200 --> 00:21:10,240 Speaker 3: unavoidable known side effects instead of trying to decrease the 359 00:21:10,280 --> 00:21:12,520 Speaker 3: salience of those side effects. So, you know, we talked 360 00:21:12,560 --> 00:21:15,760 Speaker 3: at the beginning about how a lot of doctors know 361 00:21:15,880 --> 00:21:19,400 Speaker 3: about no cebo effects, and so they will often try 362 00:21:19,440 --> 00:21:23,080 Speaker 3: to frame the possibility of negative side effects in a 363 00:21:23,160 --> 00:21:26,159 Speaker 3: delicate way to try to prevent them from you know, 364 00:21:26,240 --> 00:21:29,720 Speaker 3: prevent them from over manifesting due to no sebo expectations. 365 00:21:30,160 --> 00:21:32,080 Speaker 3: The authors here are saying, well, what if you kind 366 00:21:32,080 --> 00:21:35,640 Speaker 3: of do the opposite, maybe kind of elevate the salience 367 00:21:35,800 --> 00:21:40,000 Speaker 3: of mild, known unavoidable side effects of drugs, but you 368 00:21:40,119 --> 00:21:42,720 Speaker 3: frame them in a positive way instead of a negative way. 369 00:21:43,000 --> 00:21:46,680 Speaker 3: So you frame unavoidable pre existing side effects of drugs 370 00:21:46,720 --> 00:21:48,600 Speaker 3: as a sign that it's working. 371 00:21:50,000 --> 00:21:51,960 Speaker 2: All right, all right, I can I can see. This 372 00:21:52,160 --> 00:21:55,640 Speaker 2: is just more about the messaging and turning the potential 373 00:21:55,680 --> 00:21:56,359 Speaker 2: negative into. 374 00:21:56,240 --> 00:21:59,119 Speaker 3: A positive exactly. Yeah, So being honest about what the 375 00:21:59,119 --> 00:22:02,080 Speaker 3: side effects are, but framing it in a way that 376 00:22:02,280 --> 00:22:06,280 Speaker 3: emphasizes these positive placebo effects, you would get from those 377 00:22:06,320 --> 00:22:10,760 Speaker 3: side effects. Yeah, However, all the authors involved here clearly 378 00:22:10,760 --> 00:22:15,520 Speaker 3: acknowledge that this is a delicate, tricky subject area because, 379 00:22:15,800 --> 00:22:18,600 Speaker 3: as the authors of the commentary piece right quote, the 380 00:22:18,640 --> 00:22:22,280 Speaker 3: framing of side effects must respect ethical standards and should 381 00:22:22,280 --> 00:22:27,440 Speaker 3: not jeopardize patient autonomy and the patient practitioner relationship. It's 382 00:22:27,480 --> 00:22:31,119 Speaker 3: therefore crucial for patients and practitioners to engage in joint 383 00:22:31,160 --> 00:22:35,160 Speaker 3: decision making about the use of positive framing as part 384 00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:38,800 Speaker 3: of the treatment. So, you know, they're saying there, like, 385 00:22:38,840 --> 00:22:42,679 Speaker 3: you want to be as transparent as possible while doing 386 00:22:42,720 --> 00:22:46,560 Speaker 3: this because if the patient, I mean, for one thing, 387 00:22:46,800 --> 00:22:50,080 Speaker 3: that's just like baseline what a doctor should do. But 388 00:22:50,200 --> 00:22:53,639 Speaker 3: also if the patient gets the feeling that they're being 389 00:22:53,680 --> 00:22:56,560 Speaker 3: manipulated or the doctor is not being honest with them, 390 00:22:57,040 --> 00:22:59,960 Speaker 3: then also this could lead to more negative treatment outcomes 391 00:23:00,080 --> 00:23:03,040 Speaker 3: and everything. So, like, I don't know, it's a difficult 392 00:23:03,040 --> 00:23:05,879 Speaker 3: thing to work out here because there the placebo effect, 393 00:23:06,000 --> 00:23:09,879 Speaker 3: no cebo effect. It all necessarily relies on some amount 394 00:23:10,000 --> 00:23:15,159 Speaker 3: of illusion. But you can't let that manifest as dishonesty 395 00:23:15,240 --> 00:23:17,600 Speaker 3: in the clinical setting or any kind of lack of 396 00:23:17,640 --> 00:23:19,440 Speaker 3: trust between the doctor and the patient. 397 00:23:19,760 --> 00:23:22,159 Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a great point because you're you're you're in 398 00:23:22,160 --> 00:23:24,320 Speaker 2: this realm where on one hand, you have you know, 399 00:23:24,440 --> 00:23:29,400 Speaker 2: pretty hard lines concerning you know, ethical medicine and doing 400 00:23:29,440 --> 00:23:33,040 Speaker 2: no harm and being transparent. But then also you were 401 00:23:33,080 --> 00:23:36,160 Speaker 2: you were in that space of bedside manner, which can 402 00:23:36,200 --> 00:23:39,240 Speaker 2: be kind of subjective, and it's going to may vary 403 00:23:39,280 --> 00:23:41,399 Speaker 2: from patient to patient. You know, one patient may be like, 404 00:23:41,440 --> 00:23:43,879 Speaker 2: you know, tell it to me straight, doc, don't sugarcoat it. 405 00:23:44,240 --> 00:23:48,240 Speaker 2: Other you know, I like a little sugarcoating. Sugarcoat it 406 00:23:48,280 --> 00:23:49,720 Speaker 2: for me a little bit, doc. You know, I want 407 00:23:49,720 --> 00:23:52,320 Speaker 2: to feel okay when I leave. You know, in. 408 00:23:52,320 --> 00:23:54,880 Speaker 3: Research shows sometimes sugarcoating can literally help. 409 00:23:55,240 --> 00:23:58,520 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, So I mean it's you can you can 410 00:23:58,520 --> 00:24:01,679 Speaker 2: imagine it's going to differ from persons. And then on 411 00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:03,760 Speaker 2: top of all this, as you've been pointing out, like 412 00:24:04,040 --> 00:24:07,480 Speaker 2: there's an illusion that is taking place, But to what extent, 413 00:24:08,800 --> 00:24:13,120 Speaker 2: sorry for this, can doctors use that illusion to their benefit? 414 00:24:13,480 --> 00:24:15,480 Speaker 3: Yeah? I don't know exactly what the answer is there. 415 00:24:15,520 --> 00:24:17,600 Speaker 3: I mean it kind of makes me think of like 416 00:24:19,000 --> 00:24:22,239 Speaker 3: the contract you enter into with some stage magicians. You know, 417 00:24:22,400 --> 00:24:25,760 Speaker 3: like a stage magician is going to show you a 418 00:24:25,800 --> 00:24:28,600 Speaker 3: bunch of tricks that appear to be magic, but you know, 419 00:24:28,640 --> 00:24:30,639 Speaker 3: a lot of I don't know. Some might insist that 420 00:24:30,680 --> 00:24:34,720 Speaker 3: it's really magic, but mostly stage magicians are going to overall, 421 00:24:34,760 --> 00:24:37,000 Speaker 3: they will be transparent and say, no, I don't actually 422 00:24:37,080 --> 00:24:40,080 Speaker 3: have magic powers. These are all illusions, These are all tricks, 423 00:24:40,600 --> 00:24:43,280 Speaker 3: and yet you get the audience to buy into them 424 00:24:43,359 --> 00:24:45,679 Speaker 3: for the purpose of the entertainment, for the purpose of 425 00:24:45,720 --> 00:24:48,000 Speaker 3: the show. And I guess there's a similar thing that 426 00:24:48,040 --> 00:24:50,439 Speaker 3: has to go on in this doctor patient relationship. It's like, 427 00:24:50,520 --> 00:24:54,400 Speaker 3: there must be transparency and honesty overall, but you have 428 00:24:54,480 --> 00:24:58,440 Speaker 3: to get the patient into the mind space of being 429 00:24:58,560 --> 00:25:01,639 Speaker 3: accepting of the illusion and the benefits it provides. 430 00:25:02,359 --> 00:25:03,200 Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. 431 00:25:03,720 --> 00:25:06,240 Speaker 3: Now there's another consideration the authors bring up, which is 432 00:25:06,280 --> 00:25:10,200 Speaker 3: clinical trials. They make the point that placebo controls are 433 00:25:10,359 --> 00:25:14,560 Speaker 3: a very important part of the scientific process of testing medicine. 434 00:25:14,920 --> 00:25:17,920 Speaker 3: If you want to test whether a drug is actually working, 435 00:25:17,960 --> 00:25:21,399 Speaker 3: whether it's actually having a biological effect, you need to 436 00:25:21,440 --> 00:25:24,600 Speaker 3: compare it not just to doing nothing, but they need 437 00:25:24,640 --> 00:25:27,200 Speaker 3: to compare it to a placebo so that you can 438 00:25:27,400 --> 00:25:30,280 Speaker 3: ignore the extent to which the effect you're seeing in 439 00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:34,520 Speaker 3: the trials is due to placebo effects alone. So, for example, 440 00:25:34,600 --> 00:25:38,080 Speaker 3: if this may be numerically crude analogy, but just to 441 00:25:38,200 --> 00:25:42,399 Speaker 3: roughly illustrate the idea. If people getting the actual drug 442 00:25:42,720 --> 00:25:46,439 Speaker 3: being tested see a thirty percent improvement in symptoms, but 443 00:25:46,520 --> 00:25:50,520 Speaker 3: people getting a placebo see a twenty percent improvement, then 444 00:25:50,560 --> 00:25:53,960 Speaker 3: you can guess that the biological effect of the drug 445 00:25:54,080 --> 00:25:57,880 Speaker 3: only contributes the difference. Maybe it's only contributing about ten 446 00:25:57,920 --> 00:26:02,360 Speaker 3: percent of an improvement, because if it's a well designed 447 00:26:02,440 --> 00:26:05,520 Speaker 3: trial with randomized groups, you should expect the amount of 448 00:26:05,520 --> 00:26:08,399 Speaker 3: placebo effect in the test group and the control group 449 00:26:08,720 --> 00:26:11,240 Speaker 3: to be about the same. Does that make sense? Both 450 00:26:11,280 --> 00:26:14,440 Speaker 3: groups should be benefiting from about the same amount of 451 00:26:14,480 --> 00:26:18,719 Speaker 3: placebo effect, but the test group should be additionally seeing 452 00:26:18,760 --> 00:26:22,760 Speaker 3: any benefit that's actually provided by the therapeutic effects of 453 00:26:22,800 --> 00:26:25,320 Speaker 3: the treatment the actual biological mechanism. 454 00:26:25,560 --> 00:26:27,240 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, that would be measurable. 455 00:26:27,359 --> 00:26:30,359 Speaker 3: Yeah yeah. So the authors here are emphasizing the point 456 00:26:30,440 --> 00:26:34,120 Speaker 3: that if side effects such as like a burning sensation, 457 00:26:34,280 --> 00:26:37,719 Speaker 3: you know, these small negative side effects increase the power 458 00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:41,360 Speaker 3: of the placebo effect, as this study shows, they probably do. 459 00:26:41,440 --> 00:26:42,880 Speaker 3: You know, of course, we'd want to see this backed 460 00:26:42,920 --> 00:26:45,600 Speaker 3: up by other studies, but this is an indication that 461 00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:48,879 Speaker 3: may be going on. This could be throwing off the 462 00:26:48,880 --> 00:26:51,399 Speaker 3: results of clinical trials a little bit, because if the 463 00:26:51,520 --> 00:26:56,200 Speaker 3: actual treatment under testing causes side effects and the placebo 464 00:26:56,240 --> 00:26:59,920 Speaker 3: control does not cause side effects, the test group will 465 00:26:59,920 --> 00:27:04,199 Speaker 3: benefit from more placebo effect than the control group and 466 00:27:04,280 --> 00:27:09,320 Speaker 3: thus overestimate slightly the biological effect of the treatment. Now, 467 00:27:09,359 --> 00:27:11,640 Speaker 3: to be clear, the authors here are not and are 468 00:27:11,680 --> 00:27:14,119 Speaker 3: not claiming to be the first people ever to notice 469 00:27:14,160 --> 00:27:19,240 Speaker 3: this kind of confound to RCTs. The format in which 470 00:27:19,359 --> 00:27:22,399 Speaker 3: I've seen it discussed more often in the past is 471 00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:26,320 Speaker 3: the idea of de blinding the placebo group in double 472 00:27:26,359 --> 00:27:31,600 Speaker 3: blind RCTs. So, in order to eliminate expectation effects, test 473 00:27:31,640 --> 00:27:36,280 Speaker 3: subjects in clinical trials are not supposed to know if 474 00:27:36,320 --> 00:27:38,800 Speaker 3: they're in the test group or the control group. Right, 475 00:27:38,800 --> 00:27:40,639 Speaker 3: You're not supposed to know if you're getting the real 476 00:27:40,680 --> 00:27:44,600 Speaker 3: medicine being tested or the placebo. But if the treatment 477 00:27:44,760 --> 00:27:49,080 Speaker 3: being tested takes some form that is obvious or comes 478 00:27:49,119 --> 00:27:53,080 Speaker 3: with known side effects which you are obviously not experiencing 479 00:27:53,160 --> 00:27:57,159 Speaker 3: in the control group, then you are effectively de blinded. 480 00:27:57,280 --> 00:27:59,919 Speaker 3: You know which group you're in, and thus the result 481 00:28:00,200 --> 00:28:04,520 Speaker 3: are corrupted and less reliable. And so this is a 482 00:28:04,840 --> 00:28:08,560 Speaker 3: slightly different but related issue similar to that if you 483 00:28:08,680 --> 00:28:12,520 Speaker 3: don't get the side effects, your placebo effect could be 484 00:28:12,560 --> 00:28:16,399 Speaker 3: comparatively lower on average than the placebo effect in the 485 00:28:16,440 --> 00:28:19,400 Speaker 3: test group that is getting the side effects. So are 486 00:28:19,440 --> 00:28:21,639 Speaker 3: there ways around this? Well, yeah, this comes back to 487 00:28:21,680 --> 00:28:26,159 Speaker 3: something that has already been implemented in clinical trials before, 488 00:28:26,760 --> 00:28:29,720 Speaker 3: such as the use of active placebos. So the placebo 489 00:28:29,760 --> 00:28:33,880 Speaker 3: group should be getting something that tries as closely as 490 00:28:33,920 --> 00:28:38,160 Speaker 3: possible to mimic the mimic the effects of the actual 491 00:28:38,200 --> 00:28:42,280 Speaker 3: treatment to heighten the illusion make it feel as similar 492 00:28:42,320 --> 00:28:46,080 Speaker 3: as possible. They say, you could also, maybe I don't know, specially, 493 00:28:46,120 --> 00:28:50,720 Speaker 3: design some kind of methods to avoid these complications and 494 00:28:50,760 --> 00:28:54,320 Speaker 3: get the cleanest state of possible. But anyway, I thought 495 00:28:54,360 --> 00:28:57,560 Speaker 3: the study was really interesting because of of course, it 496 00:28:57,680 --> 00:29:01,040 Speaker 3: is pretty funny, like the idea that you're like intentionally 497 00:29:01,040 --> 00:29:04,239 Speaker 3: shooting chili pepper juice up somebody's nose to make it 498 00:29:04,320 --> 00:29:07,560 Speaker 3: burn in order to help them feel better overall, and 499 00:29:07,640 --> 00:29:10,840 Speaker 3: the fact that this does seem to be a real 500 00:29:10,960 --> 00:29:14,360 Speaker 3: significant effect that happens in our brains. I just think 501 00:29:14,400 --> 00:29:16,880 Speaker 3: it's so interesting that our minds work that way, and 502 00:29:17,240 --> 00:29:22,480 Speaker 3: it raises all of these difficult, really meaningful questions about 503 00:29:22,520 --> 00:29:26,400 Speaker 3: treatment and about medicine, about how we do medical science 504 00:29:26,440 --> 00:29:29,160 Speaker 3: and how we test new treatments and raises all these 505 00:29:29,240 --> 00:29:33,520 Speaker 3: questions about how to handle the relationship between a doctor 506 00:29:33,600 --> 00:29:35,000 Speaker 3: or a caregiver and their patient. 507 00:29:35,320 --> 00:29:38,920 Speaker 2: Absolutely, and I think it also reminds me that there 508 00:29:38,960 --> 00:29:42,040 Speaker 2: is often a mad magazine kind of sensibility I think 509 00:29:42,080 --> 00:29:46,560 Speaker 2: to the Ignobel Prize selection process, in which they do 510 00:29:46,880 --> 00:29:49,560 Speaker 2: like a study that, no matter how serious it is, 511 00:29:49,640 --> 00:29:53,560 Speaker 2: on some level the experimentation feels like a prank. Yeah, 512 00:29:53,800 --> 00:29:57,200 Speaker 2: you know, it's like, here, take these pills and then snicker. 513 00:29:58,600 --> 00:29:59,640 Speaker 2: Those are spicy pills. 514 00:30:01,720 --> 00:30:04,320 Speaker 3: Yeah, there is an alfredy Newman quality to this that 515 00:30:04,400 --> 00:30:08,160 Speaker 3: the the capsay is in nasal spray. However, I did 516 00:30:08,200 --> 00:30:11,280 Speaker 3: not in the text of the paper itself, I did 517 00:30:11,360 --> 00:30:15,440 Speaker 3: not detect a lot of I don't know, perverse or 518 00:30:15,480 --> 00:30:18,240 Speaker 3: sadistic snickering from the from the author is. It just 519 00:30:18,240 --> 00:30:20,120 Speaker 3: seemed like, yeah, we got an idea, I got to 520 00:30:20,120 --> 00:30:21,040 Speaker 3: find a way to test it. 521 00:30:31,440 --> 00:30:34,480 Speaker 2: Well. I see similar elements in the next prize you're 522 00:30:34,480 --> 00:30:37,040 Speaker 2: going to discuss here, that's the Botany Prize. Though in 523 00:30:37,080 --> 00:30:41,600 Speaker 2: this case, if there is, if there is any interpretation 524 00:30:41,680 --> 00:30:44,520 Speaker 2: of a prank here and likewise, it's not This is 525 00:30:44,560 --> 00:30:47,160 Speaker 2: not something that is acknowledged in the paper itself, but 526 00:30:47,200 --> 00:30:49,160 Speaker 2: if you were to interpret it as such, the prank 527 00:30:49,240 --> 00:30:52,760 Speaker 2: is being pulled off on a plant by you. Jokes 528 00:30:52,840 --> 00:30:56,840 Speaker 2: on you, Yeah, jokes on you plant. So the Botany 529 00:30:56,840 --> 00:30:59,280 Speaker 2: Prize this year went to a twenty twenty two paper 530 00:30:59,280 --> 00:31:02,320 Speaker 2: published in the Gym Plant Signaling and Behavior with the 531 00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:08,240 Speaker 2: title Boquilla Trifoliolata Mimics Leaves of an Artificial plastic host 532 00:31:08,240 --> 00:31:13,480 Speaker 2: plant by Jacob White and Felipe Yamashita. The humor here, 533 00:31:13,880 --> 00:31:16,480 Speaker 2: it would seem, is found in the idea that a 534 00:31:16,520 --> 00:31:20,600 Speaker 2: living plant is mimicking a fake plant, which of course 535 00:31:20,760 --> 00:31:23,400 Speaker 2: is itself a feat of mimicry carried out by humans 536 00:31:23,400 --> 00:31:28,360 Speaker 2: through their plastic technology. Wow, but this is one where okay, yeah, 537 00:31:28,400 --> 00:31:30,720 Speaker 2: it makes you laugh, but then definitely makes you think, 538 00:31:30,760 --> 00:31:33,920 Speaker 2: because I really have to stress that the underlying science 539 00:31:33,960 --> 00:31:38,360 Speaker 2: here is really phenomenal, even just the overview of everything 540 00:31:38,720 --> 00:31:41,600 Speaker 2: prior to this twenty twenty two paper, like the more 541 00:31:42,000 --> 00:31:48,080 Speaker 2: generally widely accepted material, really raises so many questions about 542 00:31:48,160 --> 00:31:52,560 Speaker 2: not only be trifoliolata but also plants in general. You know, 543 00:31:52,600 --> 00:31:54,920 Speaker 2: it forces you and there are a lot of subjects 544 00:31:54,960 --> 00:31:57,880 Speaker 2: like this in the realm of botany that really makes 545 00:31:57,920 --> 00:32:00,880 Speaker 2: you view them with new eyes because because the thing 546 00:32:00,920 --> 00:32:05,280 Speaker 2: about plants is, if you're lucky, plants are all around you. 547 00:32:05,280 --> 00:32:09,520 Speaker 2: You know, if you live in an environment that has 548 00:32:09,800 --> 00:32:12,640 Speaker 2: a lot of flora, it's there. It's enriching your life. 549 00:32:12,960 --> 00:32:15,720 Speaker 2: But it's easy to take for granted. It's easy to 550 00:32:15,800 --> 00:32:19,080 Speaker 2: not notice unless it's actually getting in your way or 551 00:32:19,160 --> 00:32:22,600 Speaker 2: you know, hitting you in a weak moment where you're 552 00:32:22,680 --> 00:32:25,160 Speaker 2: open to its beauty. But for the most part, yeah, 553 00:32:25,200 --> 00:32:28,640 Speaker 2: it's like trees are there. We know they're alive, but 554 00:32:28,680 --> 00:32:31,400 Speaker 2: we don't think of them as really active parts of 555 00:32:31,440 --> 00:32:35,240 Speaker 2: the environment. We think of them as these passive things. 556 00:32:35,800 --> 00:32:40,200 Speaker 3: We underappreciate them, I think because the time scale of 557 00:32:40,320 --> 00:32:43,680 Speaker 3: their activities and the physical changes triggered by their activities 558 00:32:43,800 --> 00:32:46,760 Speaker 3: is longer than we're you used to with animals. So 559 00:32:46,840 --> 00:32:50,120 Speaker 3: we're like really much more impressed by things that move 560 00:32:50,200 --> 00:32:54,440 Speaker 3: and react quickly, and because plants don't tend to move 561 00:32:54,480 --> 00:32:57,440 Speaker 3: and react quickly, like on the timescale of seconds, though 562 00:32:57,440 --> 00:32:59,200 Speaker 3: in a few cases they do, you know, venus fly 563 00:32:59,320 --> 00:33:02,600 Speaker 3: traps and shrinking flowers and all that, but in most cases, 564 00:33:02,640 --> 00:33:06,120 Speaker 3: they don't react on the timescale of seconds. We just 565 00:33:06,240 --> 00:33:09,000 Speaker 3: tend to think of them as inanimate objects therefore, but 566 00:33:09,200 --> 00:33:12,480 Speaker 3: like when you actually see how they react to things 567 00:33:12,480 --> 00:33:15,120 Speaker 3: and what they do over time, they can start to 568 00:33:15,120 --> 00:33:18,680 Speaker 3: feel a lot more alive. And even this could be 569 00:33:18,720 --> 00:33:20,960 Speaker 3: misleading in some ways, but even in some ways intelligent. 570 00:33:21,440 --> 00:33:25,719 Speaker 2: Yeah, and that definitely plays into interpretations of this particular 571 00:33:25,800 --> 00:33:30,080 Speaker 2: plant species. Now, to be clear, the plant in question 572 00:33:30,200 --> 00:33:34,520 Speaker 2: here be trifoliolata, has been around for a very long time, 573 00:33:34,920 --> 00:33:37,880 Speaker 2: known locally in its native regions of South America is 574 00:33:37,960 --> 00:33:43,040 Speaker 2: vokey blanco or pill pill. Indigenous medicine has made use 575 00:33:43,080 --> 00:33:46,320 Speaker 2: of its leaf juice, and the vines have long been 576 00:33:46,400 --> 00:33:49,280 Speaker 2: used in basketry, so this is not something that is 577 00:33:49,440 --> 00:33:54,360 Speaker 2: just entirely new now. In essence, this species is a 578 00:33:54,480 --> 00:33:58,360 Speaker 2: non parasitic vine that coils around other plants for structure 579 00:33:58,440 --> 00:34:02,720 Speaker 2: and protection. It bears little white flowers, edible little fruits, 580 00:34:03,400 --> 00:34:06,840 Speaker 2: and overall nothing is really astounding about that, right. I mean, 581 00:34:06,840 --> 00:34:10,080 Speaker 2: you can look up pictures of this plant and it 582 00:34:10,120 --> 00:34:12,600 Speaker 2: does not look exciting if you do not know what 583 00:34:13,360 --> 00:34:15,480 Speaker 2: to look for, or you don't have things about what 584 00:34:15,520 --> 00:34:17,879 Speaker 2: it's doing pointed out to you. I included a picture 585 00:34:17,880 --> 00:34:20,839 Speaker 2: of it here for you, Joe. I mean, what can 586 00:34:20,880 --> 00:34:22,160 Speaker 2: you say green plants? Right? 587 00:34:22,480 --> 00:34:25,240 Speaker 3: I mean I see a nice elegant, deep green, waxy 588 00:34:25,320 --> 00:34:29,319 Speaker 3: leaf arranged in a three leaf shape coming off of 589 00:34:29,360 --> 00:34:32,000 Speaker 3: the stalk. Yeah, it's a pretty little plant. But it's 590 00:34:32,960 --> 00:34:34,680 Speaker 3: I don't know if it would really catch my attention. 591 00:34:34,800 --> 00:34:37,360 Speaker 3: It's just a little little vine with green leaves. 592 00:34:37,760 --> 00:34:39,680 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, Like would you stop and look at it 593 00:34:39,680 --> 00:34:43,920 Speaker 2: in a walk? Maybe not unless you really were paying 594 00:34:43,920 --> 00:34:48,160 Speaker 2: close attention and you figured out what was going on here. 595 00:34:48,600 --> 00:34:51,000 Speaker 2: So European descriptions of this plant date back to the 596 00:34:51,080 --> 00:34:54,480 Speaker 2: late eighteenth century, but some of the most astounding discoveries 597 00:34:54,560 --> 00:34:58,040 Speaker 2: are rather recent, centered around the work of plants scientists 598 00:34:58,400 --> 00:35:05,319 Speaker 2: or Nesto Again and Fernando carrasco Ura and the discovery 599 00:35:05,840 --> 00:35:09,040 Speaker 2: and key to all this their discovery that the plants 600 00:35:09,560 --> 00:35:14,520 Speaker 2: leaves actually mimic the leaves of nearby plants. You know, 601 00:35:14,680 --> 00:35:18,759 Speaker 2: especially in this context that the plant that it is 602 00:35:18,840 --> 00:35:22,080 Speaker 2: coiled around, but also just nearby plants in general. And 603 00:35:22,120 --> 00:35:24,600 Speaker 2: to be clear, this is not a case in which 604 00:35:24,640 --> 00:35:28,360 Speaker 2: a plant has evolved to feature leaves that mimic the 605 00:35:28,440 --> 00:35:32,319 Speaker 2: leaves of a common host plant. Though this is you know, 606 00:35:32,360 --> 00:35:34,680 Speaker 2: in and of itself, this would be a pretty amazing 607 00:35:34,680 --> 00:35:36,920 Speaker 2: feat as well. I mean, plant mimicry of this sort 608 00:35:38,239 --> 00:35:41,160 Speaker 2: of which there are some remarkable examples, is amazing. 609 00:35:41,120 --> 00:35:43,440 Speaker 3: Right, But you're not saying it's just like a static 610 00:35:43,480 --> 00:35:46,440 Speaker 3: form that has evolved over time to resemble plants that 611 00:35:46,520 --> 00:35:49,279 Speaker 3: it is usually around in its environment. 612 00:35:49,320 --> 00:35:52,480 Speaker 2: Right right. What the researchers quickly figured out here is 613 00:35:52,520 --> 00:35:56,440 Speaker 2: that this is an example of botanical mimicry that occurs 614 00:35:56,560 --> 00:36:00,720 Speaker 2: as the plant grows, and it can mimic most different 615 00:36:00,760 --> 00:36:05,200 Speaker 2: plants in its immediate vicinity, and nothing else like this 616 00:36:05,360 --> 00:36:07,080 Speaker 2: is known to exist in the plant world. 617 00:36:07,280 --> 00:36:09,680 Speaker 3: Now, that is really interesting, and I would immediately be 618 00:36:09,840 --> 00:36:12,359 Speaker 3: curious to know how does it do that? How does 619 00:36:12,360 --> 00:36:16,440 Speaker 3: it how does it determine the shape of the leaves 620 00:36:16,520 --> 00:36:17,879 Speaker 3: of plants around it? 621 00:36:18,280 --> 00:36:20,880 Speaker 2: Yeah, because, I mean, another thing the research has discovered 622 00:36:20,920 --> 00:36:24,120 Speaker 2: is that it can mimic the leaf shape, the leafs, 623 00:36:24,200 --> 00:36:27,440 Speaker 2: the leaf size, even the color. And it can do 624 00:36:27,520 --> 00:36:30,759 Speaker 2: this for more than a dozen different plants. In fact, 625 00:36:30,920 --> 00:36:34,240 Speaker 2: different parts of the same plant can mimic different plants. 626 00:36:35,040 --> 00:36:38,760 Speaker 2: So you know, I instantly, you know, thought about horror 627 00:36:38,760 --> 00:36:41,440 Speaker 2: movies and reminded me of how in John Carpenter Is 628 00:36:41,480 --> 00:36:43,040 Speaker 2: the Thing, we get some of those scenes late in 629 00:36:43,040 --> 00:36:47,560 Speaker 2: the film where we catch the titular alien creature mimicking 630 00:36:47,880 --> 00:36:50,959 Speaker 2: several different victims at once. You know, here's this person, 631 00:36:50,960 --> 00:36:55,200 Speaker 2: here's this person, here's the dog, and so forth, and 632 00:36:55,480 --> 00:36:58,120 Speaker 2: you know, but the reality is that this plant really 633 00:36:58,200 --> 00:37:01,480 Speaker 2: is a shape shifter. It is really doing the shape shifting. 634 00:37:01,520 --> 00:37:04,840 Speaker 2: It is just doing it on the timeframe of a plant, 635 00:37:05,120 --> 00:37:07,880 Speaker 2: and just as the thing shape shifts in order to survive. 636 00:37:08,239 --> 00:37:12,520 Speaker 2: That's inevitably the case here, and the exact reason. You know, 637 00:37:12,600 --> 00:37:16,640 Speaker 2: it's always a little ambiguous figuring out exactly why organisms 638 00:37:16,640 --> 00:37:19,200 Speaker 2: have evolved in the things they do. But it's thought 639 00:37:19,200 --> 00:37:22,040 Speaker 2: that this might be to protect itself against certain snails 640 00:37:22,080 --> 00:37:25,920 Speaker 2: and beetles by resembling less tasty plants in its vicinity. 641 00:37:25,960 --> 00:37:30,800 Speaker 2: So essentially a form of Batitian mimicry. But to your question, 642 00:37:31,920 --> 00:37:34,919 Speaker 2: how does this work? Like, what are the possible mechanisms 643 00:37:34,920 --> 00:37:37,960 Speaker 2: in play here? How do they sense the different leaves 644 00:37:37,960 --> 00:37:39,640 Speaker 2: in their vicinity and then. 645 00:37:39,560 --> 00:37:40,880 Speaker 3: Copy them exactly. 646 00:37:40,960 --> 00:37:43,640 Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is where we get into some interesting 647 00:37:44,000 --> 00:37:49,040 Speaker 2: hypotheses and also a pronounced divide in the world of 648 00:37:49,080 --> 00:37:52,520 Speaker 2: interpreting what's going on when plants engage in this kind 649 00:37:52,560 --> 00:37:53,120 Speaker 2: of behavior. 650 00:37:53,480 --> 00:37:55,719 Speaker 3: Okay, so some of the ideas we're about to get 651 00:37:55,719 --> 00:37:58,920 Speaker 3: into are fairly controversial or not settled. 652 00:37:58,920 --> 00:38:03,040 Speaker 2: Right right. I was reading a great commentary on this study. 653 00:38:03,040 --> 00:38:05,440 Speaker 2: This is from twenty twenty three. It appeared in Vox 654 00:38:05,560 --> 00:38:08,480 Speaker 2: by Benji Jones titled the Mystery of the Mimic Plant, 655 00:38:09,200 --> 00:38:13,560 Speaker 2: and Jones here stresses that you can divide the hypothesizers 656 00:38:13,680 --> 00:38:17,120 Speaker 2: up into two distinct groups. Here, on one hand, you 657 00:38:17,160 --> 00:38:20,120 Speaker 2: have mainstream botanist and then on the other hand, you 658 00:38:20,160 --> 00:38:24,640 Speaker 2: have scientists with ideas in plant cognition and related areas 659 00:38:24,920 --> 00:38:27,640 Speaker 2: that really challenge our understanding of what plants are in 660 00:38:27,960 --> 00:38:32,839 Speaker 2: how plants match up to animals. And these two groups 661 00:38:32,880 --> 00:38:36,640 Speaker 2: don't necessarily see eye to eye on everything. The mainstream 662 00:38:36,680 --> 00:38:39,800 Speaker 2: botanists their views are going to be more widely accepted, 663 00:38:40,239 --> 00:38:43,719 Speaker 2: and people in the plant cognition area, and particularly in 664 00:38:44,239 --> 00:38:49,160 Speaker 2: this area of plant neurobiology, some of their ideas are 665 00:38:49,600 --> 00:38:51,239 Speaker 2: going to be perhaps a little more out there. I 666 00:38:51,280 --> 00:38:53,520 Speaker 2: don't want to dismiss what they're doing or anything, but 667 00:38:53,719 --> 00:38:57,360 Speaker 2: just suffice to say there is a starch divide, and 668 00:38:57,400 --> 00:39:01,160 Speaker 2: there is a you know, an area of disagree between 669 00:39:01,200 --> 00:39:04,759 Speaker 2: these two camps, with the mainstream botanists being really the 670 00:39:04,760 --> 00:39:07,960 Speaker 2: more widely accepted view on things as I understand. 671 00:39:07,600 --> 00:39:10,680 Speaker 3: It, So we could say among among experts there's sort 672 00:39:10,680 --> 00:39:14,320 Speaker 3: of a majority position in a minority position. 673 00:39:14,719 --> 00:39:20,880 Speaker 2: Yes, So on that mainstream botany track, we have the 674 00:39:21,040 --> 00:39:27,799 Speaker 2: likes of Ernesto Gianoli and Fernando carrasco Ura, who definitely 675 00:39:27,880 --> 00:39:30,960 Speaker 2: lean more towards the idea that, Okay, what's going on here? 676 00:39:31,080 --> 00:39:35,440 Speaker 2: We can look to a couple of primary possibilities. One 677 00:39:35,600 --> 00:39:39,560 Speaker 2: is that the plant is picking up on chemical volatile 678 00:39:39,680 --> 00:39:44,759 Speaker 2: signals released from the host plant. They also propose the 679 00:39:44,760 --> 00:39:49,680 Speaker 2: possibility that there is horizontal gene transfer going on via microbes, 680 00:39:50,160 --> 00:39:52,680 Speaker 2: and it's also possible. They state that both of these 681 00:39:52,719 --> 00:39:56,080 Speaker 2: are going on at once, and that the planned here 682 00:39:56,800 --> 00:40:02,560 Speaker 2: be Trifoliolata is essentially speaking multiple plant micro languages to 683 00:40:02,600 --> 00:40:03,800 Speaker 2: pull off this mimicry. 684 00:40:04,040 --> 00:40:06,319 Speaker 3: Okay, So if I'm understanding this right, it would be 685 00:40:06,480 --> 00:40:09,760 Speaker 3: that the plant somehow has a it's got a plan 686 00:40:09,920 --> 00:40:13,600 Speaker 3: within it that if it picks up the chemical signature 687 00:40:13,800 --> 00:40:17,480 Speaker 3: of different types of other plants in its vicinity, that 688 00:40:17,560 --> 00:40:21,719 Speaker 3: can trigger it to grow in different patterns that resemble 689 00:40:21,920 --> 00:40:24,520 Speaker 3: those plants, and that would be some kind of evolved response, 690 00:40:25,200 --> 00:40:28,719 Speaker 3: or it could be through this microbial pathway through bacteria 691 00:40:28,880 --> 00:40:33,319 Speaker 3: or some other microbes, be getting genetic material from other 692 00:40:33,360 --> 00:40:37,280 Speaker 3: plants in its vicinity that are somehow contributing to this 693 00:40:37,440 --> 00:40:38,920 Speaker 3: shaping process. 694 00:40:38,840 --> 00:40:42,040 Speaker 2: Right right, So that's those are some of the key 695 00:40:42,120 --> 00:40:46,000 Speaker 2: hypotheses that are used by these researchers. And again, if 696 00:40:46,000 --> 00:40:49,680 Speaker 2: this is indeed the case, this is already amazing. You 697 00:40:49,719 --> 00:40:52,960 Speaker 2: know this, this this vine is able to do this. 698 00:40:53,640 --> 00:40:56,040 Speaker 2: But then there's this additional hypothesis, and this is the 699 00:40:56,040 --> 00:40:59,759 Speaker 2: one that's explored in the Agnobel winning paper, the hypothesis 700 00:40:59,760 --> 00:41:04,040 Speaker 2: that the plant is truly using some form of sight 701 00:41:04,280 --> 00:41:08,759 Speaker 2: or something as close to site as we can really 702 00:41:08,800 --> 00:41:12,200 Speaker 2: discuss in plants versus animals, and they're able to see 703 00:41:12,320 --> 00:41:15,080 Speaker 2: what's around them. And in this we dip into the 704 00:41:15,120 --> 00:41:20,320 Speaker 2: concept of plant ocelli, something that mainstream botanists tend to 705 00:41:20,360 --> 00:41:23,440 Speaker 2: view with a great deal of skepticism. Some in the 706 00:41:23,480 --> 00:41:27,719 Speaker 2: plant cognition world, particularly the plant neurobiologists, however, or more 707 00:41:27,719 --> 00:41:31,440 Speaker 2: open to this idea and even concepts that plants depend 708 00:41:31,520 --> 00:41:34,640 Speaker 2: on something more or less like a brain not in 709 00:41:34,640 --> 00:41:36,480 Speaker 2: the sense that it looks like a brain, but in 710 00:41:36,520 --> 00:41:39,320 Speaker 2: the sense that, for instance, they often point to neuron 711 00:41:39,520 --> 00:41:42,400 Speaker 2: like cells in parts of a plant's roots as a 712 00:41:42,600 --> 00:41:46,480 Speaker 2: possible sort of cognition aticenter. 713 00:41:47,080 --> 00:41:49,320 Speaker 3: Now correct me if I'm wrong, But from what I understand, 714 00:41:49,360 --> 00:41:54,279 Speaker 3: it would not be controversial to suggest that plants have 715 00:41:55,160 --> 00:41:59,480 Speaker 3: some light sensing abilities. What would be more controversial would 716 00:41:59,480 --> 00:42:02,960 Speaker 3: be the idea that their light sensing abilities are anything 717 00:42:03,239 --> 00:42:08,319 Speaker 3: like sight, anything that could create a detailed picture of 718 00:42:08,360 --> 00:42:12,040 Speaker 3: the surrounding environment from which you could actually copy growth patterns. 719 00:42:12,840 --> 00:42:16,480 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, Because obviously plants have a special relationship with 720 00:42:16,560 --> 00:42:20,400 Speaker 2: the sun. They like most organisms that have a relationship 721 00:42:20,440 --> 00:42:24,359 Speaker 2: with the sun, they know they can't react to some light. 722 00:42:25,160 --> 00:42:29,880 Speaker 2: They can detect the light via photoreceptors. That's not in question. 723 00:42:30,520 --> 00:42:32,759 Speaker 2: But it comes down to this idea that they are 724 00:42:32,800 --> 00:42:36,200 Speaker 2: on some level seeing and the plant o cell. The 725 00:42:36,280 --> 00:42:38,840 Speaker 2: idea actually goes back to nineteen oh five and the 726 00:42:38,880 --> 00:42:44,200 Speaker 2: work of Austrian botanist gautlub Haberlant, who some Ludwig, by 727 00:42:44,239 --> 00:42:49,440 Speaker 2: the way, is considered the father of hormonal contraception. But 728 00:42:49,680 --> 00:42:53,239 Speaker 2: he proposed in nineteen oh five that the upper epidermis 729 00:42:53,280 --> 00:42:56,919 Speaker 2: cells of a plant boast a convex shape that acts 730 00:42:56,960 --> 00:43:01,280 Speaker 2: as a lens which focuses light into light sensitive sub 731 00:43:01,360 --> 00:43:05,319 Speaker 2: epidermal cells, and that this would essentially serve as a 732 00:43:05,400 --> 00:43:09,360 Speaker 2: form of sight. Now, this is not accepted really widely 733 00:43:09,440 --> 00:43:13,120 Speaker 2: accepted by mainstream botanists. But this is where we get 734 00:43:13,120 --> 00:43:16,560 Speaker 2: into the Ignobel Award winning study from twenty twenty two 735 00:43:16,600 --> 00:43:21,280 Speaker 2: with Yamashida and White, again published in Plant Signaling and Behavior. 736 00:43:21,600 --> 00:43:24,080 Speaker 2: The researchers here are set out to test all of 737 00:43:24,120 --> 00:43:28,160 Speaker 2: this out via the use of artificial plastic plants with 738 00:43:28,320 --> 00:43:31,600 Speaker 2: characteristic leaf shapes. And the idea here is that any 739 00:43:31,680 --> 00:43:34,960 Speaker 2: mimicry that they could observe in this experiment, which would 740 00:43:35,239 --> 00:43:38,440 Speaker 2: involve putting plants real and fake in a window exposed 741 00:43:38,440 --> 00:43:41,760 Speaker 2: to sunlight and seeing how they responded, the idea is, Okay, 742 00:43:41,760 --> 00:43:46,480 Speaker 2: if any mimicry takes place between our real living plant B. 743 00:43:46,719 --> 00:43:51,160 Speaker 2: Trifoiliolata and a plastic plant, well, it can't possibly be 744 00:43:51,239 --> 00:43:54,560 Speaker 2: horizontal gene transfer because plastic plant has no genes, and 745 00:43:54,600 --> 00:43:59,200 Speaker 2: it can't be chemical volatile signals because again plastic plant 746 00:43:59,239 --> 00:44:02,120 Speaker 2: has none of that. It just has leaf shapes and colors. 747 00:44:02,400 --> 00:44:04,720 Speaker 3: Yeah, the only way in which it resembles a plant 748 00:44:04,760 --> 00:44:05,799 Speaker 3: is by looking like one. 749 00:44:06,400 --> 00:44:09,359 Speaker 2: Yeah, And so they conducted this experiment which they lay 750 00:44:09,360 --> 00:44:12,680 Speaker 2: out on the paper, and they say, yes, like, these 751 00:44:12,719 --> 00:44:16,839 Speaker 2: results show that the plant in question was able to 752 00:44:17,040 --> 00:44:20,319 Speaker 2: mimic the leaf shapes around it, even those of those 753 00:44:20,360 --> 00:44:22,840 Speaker 2: leaf shapes were fake plastic plants. 754 00:44:23,440 --> 00:44:27,400 Speaker 3: Now I'm simultaneously thrilled by and skeptical of that. That's like, 755 00:44:27,520 --> 00:44:30,120 Speaker 3: super interesting if it's true, But I feel like I 756 00:44:30,160 --> 00:44:32,600 Speaker 3: would want to see that replicated a number of times. 757 00:44:33,320 --> 00:44:36,400 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. And the Vox article that I referenced earlier, 758 00:44:36,600 --> 00:44:39,600 Speaker 2: it points out and talks to some critics of this 759 00:44:39,640 --> 00:44:41,680 Speaker 2: that points out that a lot of mainstream botanists have 760 00:44:41,840 --> 00:44:44,719 Speaker 2: issues with this study and or its findings. I want 761 00:44:44,760 --> 00:44:47,799 Speaker 2: to read a quick quote from it. Several scientists told 762 00:44:47,880 --> 00:44:50,520 Speaker 2: Vox that there are significant issues with the study design. 763 00:44:50,719 --> 00:44:54,160 Speaker 2: The authors didn't adequately control variables that can influence leaf shapes, 764 00:44:54,200 --> 00:44:56,800 Speaker 2: such as the age of the leafs, for example. They said. 765 00:44:57,160 --> 00:45:01,440 Speaker 2: Mainstream researchers also challenge the underlying theory plant vision. Certain 766 00:45:01,480 --> 00:45:03,680 Speaker 2: plant cells may be able to act like lenses that 767 00:45:03,719 --> 00:45:06,959 Speaker 2: can focus light, but they likely can't create any sort 768 00:45:07,040 --> 00:45:08,160 Speaker 2: of detailed pictures. 769 00:45:08,840 --> 00:45:11,560 Speaker 3: Well, that certainly sounds like a good reason for tempering 770 00:45:11,680 --> 00:45:16,160 Speaker 3: enthusiasm about this result. But I'm interested in the open question. 771 00:45:16,640 --> 00:45:18,400 Speaker 3: I would want to see the studied more. 772 00:45:18,960 --> 00:45:23,760 Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I would like to see some more research 773 00:45:23,880 --> 00:45:26,560 Speaker 2: in this area to see exactly how far we can 774 00:45:26,600 --> 00:45:30,080 Speaker 2: really go with this. But and I don't think we're 775 00:45:30,120 --> 00:45:33,280 Speaker 2: there yet. But in general, I thought it was interesting 776 00:45:33,280 --> 00:45:36,800 Speaker 2: that this study does highlight this divide between mainstream botany 777 00:45:36,880 --> 00:45:40,319 Speaker 2: and those closer to the realm of plant neurobiologists, you know, 778 00:45:41,160 --> 00:45:42,840 Speaker 2: and it raises a lot of questions, like, you know, 779 00:45:42,840 --> 00:45:45,239 Speaker 2: plants are amazing, but are they more like animals than 780 00:45:45,239 --> 00:45:47,799 Speaker 2: we give them credit for? On some level? Do we 781 00:45:48,080 --> 00:45:51,040 Speaker 2: need them to be more like animals? Is there a 782 00:45:51,040 --> 00:45:55,239 Speaker 2: strong case to be made for something like plant sentience? Again, 783 00:45:55,280 --> 00:45:59,120 Speaker 2: I don't want to dismiss the ideas of plant neurobiologists, 784 00:46:00,280 --> 00:46:02,160 Speaker 2: but there does seem to be this disconnect. And I 785 00:46:02,160 --> 00:46:04,759 Speaker 2: think if you think about like some of like the 786 00:46:04,800 --> 00:46:07,680 Speaker 2: I guess the extreme versions of criticisms from both sides, 787 00:46:08,040 --> 00:46:11,680 Speaker 2: Like one side might be saying you want plants to 788 00:46:11,719 --> 00:46:13,960 Speaker 2: be too much like animals, and the other side might 789 00:46:14,000 --> 00:46:17,120 Speaker 2: be saying like you were in denial that plants are 790 00:46:17,200 --> 00:46:20,080 Speaker 2: as much like animals as they are. And you know, 791 00:46:20,680 --> 00:46:24,280 Speaker 2: I guess both of these ideas could be equally correct 792 00:46:24,320 --> 00:46:28,000 Speaker 2: and incorrect as generalities about the way that we relate 793 00:46:28,080 --> 00:46:28,640 Speaker 2: to plants. 794 00:46:29,000 --> 00:46:30,719 Speaker 3: Well, yeah, because even as I was saying at the 795 00:46:30,719 --> 00:46:33,040 Speaker 3: beginning of this section, I think, without taking on any 796 00:46:33,040 --> 00:46:37,120 Speaker 3: of the assumptions of plant neurobiologists, or believing that plants 797 00:46:37,120 --> 00:46:39,920 Speaker 3: can see in detailed pictures, or believing that plants have 798 00:46:40,400 --> 00:46:43,919 Speaker 3: a brain like you know, intelligence, organ or anything like that, 799 00:46:44,680 --> 00:46:48,319 Speaker 3: plants are still pretty amazing. And it's like I was saying, 800 00:46:48,360 --> 00:46:51,879 Speaker 3: I think it's amazing to see the ways in which 801 00:46:51,920 --> 00:46:55,399 Speaker 3: their growth patterns and stuff looks more like behavior if 802 00:46:55,400 --> 00:47:00,000 Speaker 3: you manipulate the time factor and understanding what that means 803 00:47:00,120 --> 00:47:03,960 Speaker 3: about how we interpret the concept of activity and intelligence 804 00:47:04,000 --> 00:47:05,760 Speaker 3: in the relationship of that to time. 805 00:47:06,520 --> 00:47:08,160 Speaker 2: And I think this is especially you know, true when 806 00:47:08,160 --> 00:47:11,920 Speaker 2: you get into the subjects like interplant communication, you know, 807 00:47:12,480 --> 00:47:14,240 Speaker 2: which I think we've touched on in the show before, 808 00:47:14,400 --> 00:47:18,240 Speaker 2: you know, sometimes via underground networks of fung guy connecting trees. 809 00:47:18,280 --> 00:47:22,359 Speaker 2: I mean, it's it's amazing, it's very it's equally at 810 00:47:22,360 --> 00:47:24,480 Speaker 2: the same time, it's like it makes them more human 811 00:47:24,520 --> 00:47:27,760 Speaker 2: and more inhuman, because you know, we don't use fungal 812 00:47:27,840 --> 00:47:30,960 Speaker 2: networks to communicate with each other. But the fact that 813 00:47:31,000 --> 00:47:33,360 Speaker 2: they do communicate with each other, like it puts it, 814 00:47:33,719 --> 00:47:35,279 Speaker 2: it's a different way of looking at them. It's like 815 00:47:35,360 --> 00:47:38,600 Speaker 2: realizing there's there's something going on here that is in 816 00:47:38,640 --> 00:47:42,560 Speaker 2: many ways more like what we as humans do, though 817 00:47:42,600 --> 00:47:45,400 Speaker 2: it of course is in a totally different branch of 818 00:47:45,480 --> 00:47:46,080 Speaker 2: the whole tree. 819 00:47:46,440 --> 00:47:50,399 Speaker 3: Whether animal intelligence is an appropriate analogy or not, what's 820 00:47:50,440 --> 00:47:52,759 Speaker 3: objectively happening is really interesting. 821 00:47:53,120 --> 00:47:56,480 Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely so. Again like true to form, you know, 822 00:47:56,920 --> 00:47:58,640 Speaker 2: made me laugh and then made me think, you know 823 00:47:58,719 --> 00:48:01,920 Speaker 2: quite a bit here about about what plants are up 824 00:48:01,960 --> 00:48:04,560 Speaker 2: to or not up to when they grow their leaves 825 00:48:04,560 --> 00:48:07,200 Speaker 2: in particular ways. All right, we're going to go and 826 00:48:07,200 --> 00:48:10,920 Speaker 2: close this episode. Let's see. We just want to remind 827 00:48:10,960 --> 00:48:12,920 Speaker 2: everybody that Stuff to Blow Your Mind is a science 828 00:48:12,960 --> 00:48:16,000 Speaker 2: and culture podcast with core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. 829 00:48:16,440 --> 00:48:18,759 Speaker 2: On Wednesdays we are a short form episode, and on 830 00:48:18,800 --> 00:48:21,080 Speaker 2: Fridays we set aside most serious concerns to just talk 831 00:48:21,120 --> 00:48:25,359 Speaker 2: about a weird film on Weird House Cinema. Let's see. 832 00:48:25,400 --> 00:48:28,600 Speaker 2: If you use Instagram, follow us on Instagram, we are 833 00:48:28,719 --> 00:48:33,319 Speaker 2: STBYM podcast on there. That's our handle. Just follow us 834 00:48:33,320 --> 00:48:34,560 Speaker 2: there if you are a user. 835 00:48:34,920 --> 00:48:38,840 Speaker 3: Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway. 836 00:48:39,040 --> 00:48:40,680 Speaker 3: If you would like to get in touch with us 837 00:48:40,680 --> 00:48:43,440 Speaker 3: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest 838 00:48:43,440 --> 00:48:45,600 Speaker 3: a topic for the future, or just to say hello, 839 00:48:45,719 --> 00:48:48,480 Speaker 3: you can email us at contact Stuff to Blow your 840 00:48:48,560 --> 00:48:57,239 Speaker 3: Mind dot com. 841 00:48:57,360 --> 00:49:00,279 Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For 842 00:49:00,360 --> 00:49:04,200 Speaker 1: more podcasts from iHeartRadio, what's the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, 843 00:49:04,280 --> 00:49:18,759 Speaker 1: or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.