Priming psychic and conjuring abilities of a magic demonstration influences event interpretation and random number generation biases

Magical ideation and belief in the paranormal is considered to represent a trait-like character; people either believe in it or not. Yet, anecdotes indicate that exposure to an anomalous event can turn skeptics into believers. This transformation is likely to be accompanied by altered cognitive functioning such as impaired judgments of event likelihood. Here, we investigated whether the exposure to an anomalous event changes individuals' explicit traditional (religious) and non-traditional (e.g., paranormal) beliefs as well as cognitive biases that have previously been associated with non-traditional beliefs, e.g., repetition avoidance when producing random numbers in a mental dice task. In a classroom, 91 students saw a magic demonstration after their psychology lecture. Before the demonstration, half of the students were told that the performance was done respectively by a conjuror (magician group) or a psychic (psychic group). The instruction influenced participants' explanations of the anomalous event. Participants in the magician, as compared to the psychic group, were more likely to explain the event through conjuring abilities while the reverse was true for psychic abilities. Moreover, these explanations correlated positively with their prior traditional and non-traditional beliefs. Finally, we observed that the psychic group showed more repetition avoidance than the magician group, and this effect remained the same regardless of whether assessed before or after the magic demonstration. We conclude that pre-existing beliefs and contextual suggestions both influence people's interpretations of anomalous events and associated cognitive biases. Beliefs and associated cognitive biases are likely flexible well into adulthood and change with actual life events.

Social freezing in Switzerland and worldwide--a blessing for women today?

This is a critical review of the medical, ethical, judicial and financial aspects of the so called "social freezing", the cryopreservation of a woman's oocytes for non-medical purposes. The possibility of storing the eggs of fertile women in order to prevent age-related fertility decline is being widely promoted by fertility centres and the lay press throughout the world. Research data has shown that social freezing should ideally be performed on women around 25 years of age in order to increase their chances of a future pregnancy. In reality, it is mostly performed after the age of 35. Unfortunately, social freezing is in general not a solution for the underlying societal problems to fit in with professionally active women and having children. It only delays the existing problems. Furthermore, it creates a lot of potential new problems. A great deal more should be undertaken to offer real solutions to the underlying societal problems which are in part: pre-school education, care in the event of childhood illness, and the many weeks of school holidays, acceptance of professionally active women having children, and more job offers with a workload <100%.). Furthermore, society should be informed about the decreasing chances of pregnancy with increasing maternal (and paternal) age as well as the increasing risks of miscarriage and obstetric/neonatal complications. Detailed information for woman considering social freezing is crucial. Every doctor, proposing social freezing to his patients, should be up to date with all these details. Follow-up studies on the outcome of these children are needed.

Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations.

In 2008, a Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences working group chaired by Professor Emilio Bossi issued a "Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context", together with a paper setting out principles and procedures concerning integrity in scientific research. In the Memorandum, unjustified claims of authorship in scientific publications are referred to as a form of scientific misconduct - a view widely shared in other countries. In the Principles and Procedures, the main criteria for legitimate authorship are specified, as well as the associated responsibilities. It is in fact not uncommon for disputes about authorship to arise with regard to publications in fields where research is generally conducted by teams rather than individuals. Such disputes may concern not only the question who is or is not to be listed as an author but also, frequently, the precise sequence of names, if the list is to reflect the various authors' roles and contributions. Subjective assessments of the contributions made by the individual members of a research group may differ substantially. As scientific collaboration - often across national boundaries - is now increasingly common, ensuring appropriate recognition of all parties is a complex matter and, where disagreements arise, it may not be easy to reach a consensus. In addition, customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting "honorary" authorship to an eminent researcher - formerly not unusual - is no longer considered acceptable. It should be borne in mind that the publications list has become by far the most important indicator of a researcher's scientific performance; for this reason, appropriate authorship credit has become a decisive factor in the careers of young researchers, and it needs to be managed and protected accordingly. At the international and national level, certain practices have therefore developed concerning the listing of authors and the obligations of authorship. The Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences has collated the relevant principles and regulations and formulated recommendations for authorship in scientific publications. These should help to prevent authorship disputes and offer guidance in the event of conflicts.