Researchers from Pritzker Molecular Engineering, under the guidance of Prof. Jeffrey Hubbell, demonstrated that their compound can eliminate the autoimmune response linked to multiple sclerosis. Researchers at the University of Chicago's Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) have developed
Every science article is just a comment section disapproving the article. That’s why I stay away from these science communities, it’s all clickbait and lies
At the same time, commenters don’t necessarily know what the fuck they’re talking about either.
Yeah Reddit always had that problem, I think it’s here too - top rated comment is someone saying it won’t work and the article is wrong, everyone just accepts it without question.
I still see people using battery breakthrough stories as an example of stuff that never comes too market despite most of them being in the very phone the person is using.
I genuinely think a lot of them are just people who hate science and engineering so don’t want people to be interested in it
So strange for those people to hang out in science communities in that case, to me.
a cat group I started the same time as this has 5k more subs and no whining. it is just cat pics. there are a lot of fake science sites to avoid but they all have bills to pay. they expect it to be like reddit junk and all. been to reddit through search results and sometimes found useful threads. mostly not.
Yeah, I think they come from the front page, I don’t think you see it as much on more obscure articles.
Looks at that… The one thing good about reddit was the /r/science sub, it was always full of moderator deleted comments that were off topic, factually incorrect, etc. posted articles actually were scientific reports and not clickbait crap lik this
Wait. I read above that this article is good. No?
I don’t read as many science articles from lemmy as I did at one point on reddit, but in my experience many of the debunkers were clearly not scientists and were not appropriately assessing the studies based on their scientific context.
For example studies build on each other as a database of knowledge, and every leg that database is built on needs constant re-evaluation in light of new information. But so many people expected a single study with a modest budget to do the work of 20 studies, all in one paper. When they should be reading the other 19 for context, and then determining how the 20th adds to their understanding of the field.
And then, yes, there has always been an amount of clickbait being shared, too. But I’ve seen a lot of fingers pointed at what I would call false positives, personally.
What’s bad is that it’s a good article. It covers things very well
okay then