Self-administered mindfulness interventions reduce stress in a large, randomized controlled multi-site study.

Mindfulness witnessed a substantial popularity surge in the past decade, especially as digitally self-administered interventions became available at relatively low costs. Yet, it is uncertain whether they effectively help reduce stress. In a preregistered (OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UF4JZ ; retrospective registration at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06308744 ) multi-site study (nsites = 37, nparticipants = 2,239, 70.4% women, Mage = 22.4, s.d.age = 10.1, all fluent English speakers), we experimentally tested whether four single, standalone mindfulness exercises effectively reduced stress, using Bayesian mixed-effects models. All exercises proved to be more efficacious than the active control. We observed a mean difference of 0.27 (d = -0.56; 95% confidence interval, -0.43 to -0.69) between the control condition (M = 1.95, s.d. = 0.50) and the condition with the largest stress reduction (body scan: M = 1.68, s.d. = 0.46). Our findings suggest that mindfulness may be beneficial for reducing self-reported short-term stress for English speakers from higher-income countries.

Construct validity evidence reporting practices for the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test: A systematic scoping review.

The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is one of the most influential measures of social cognitive ability, and it has been used extensively in clinical populations. However, questions have been raised about the validity of RMET scores. We conducted a systematic scoping review of the validity evidence reported in studies that administered the RMET (n = 1461; of which 804 included at least one clinical sample) with a focus on six key dimensions: internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and known group validity. Strikingly, 63% of these studies failed to provide validity evidence from any of these six categories. Moreover, when evidence was reported, it frequently failed to meet widely accepted validity standards. Overall, our results suggest a troubling conclusion: the validity of RMET scores (and the research findings based on them) are largely unsubstantiated and uninterpretable. More broadly, this project demonstrates how unaddressed measurement issues can undermine a voluminous psychological literature.

The "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" Test Shows Poor Psychometric Properties in a Large, Demographically Representative U.S. Sample.

The Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET) is a widely used measure of theory of mind (ToM). Despite its popularity, there are questions regarding the RMET's psychometric properties. In the current study, we examined the RMET in a representative U.S. sample of 1,181 adults. Key analyses included conducting an exploratory factor analysis on the full sample and examining whether there is a different factor structure in individuals with high versus low scores on the 28-item autism spectrum quotient (AQ-28). We identified overlapping, but distinct, three-factor models for the full sample and the two subgroups. In all cases, each of the three models showed inadequate model fit. We also found other limitations of the RMET, including that nearly a quarter of the RMET items did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the RMET that were established in the original validation study. Due to the RMET's weak psychometric properties and the uncertain validity of individual items, as indicated by our study and previous studies, we conclude that significant caution is warranted when using the RMET as a measure of ToM.

Against the use and publication of contemporary unethical research: the case of Chinese transplant research.

Recent calls for retraction of a large body of Chinese transplant research and of Dr Jiankui He's gene editing research has led to renewed interest in the question of publication, retraction and use of unethical biomedical research. In Part 1 of this paper, we briefly review the now well-established consequentialist and deontological arguments for and against the use of unethical research. We argue that, while there are potentially compelling justifications for use under some circumstances, these justifications fail when unethical practices are ongoing-as in the case of research involving transplantations in which organs have been procured unethically from executed prisoners. Use of such research displays a lack of respect and concern for the victims and undermines efforts to deter unethical practices. Such use also creates moral taint and renders those who use the research complicit in continuing harm. In Part 2, we distinguish three dimensions of 'non-use' of unethical research: non-use of published unethical research, non-publication, and retraction and argue that all three types of non-use should be upheld in the case of Chinese transplant research. Publishers have responsibilities to not publish contemporary unethical biomedical research, and where this has occurred, to retract publications. Failure to retract the papers implicitly condones the research, while uptake of the research through citations rewards researchers and ongoing circulation of the data in the literature facilitates subsequent use by researchers, policymakers and clinicians.

Tests on trial. Interview by Charlie Callanan.

A former nurse campaigns against the use of animals in medical research, arguing it is scientifically flawed. A group that defends vivisection argues live animal testing only takes place when no alternatives exist.

Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005.

Animal experimentation continues to generate public and political concern worldwide. Relatively few countries collate and publish animal use statistics, yet this is a first and essential step toward public accountability and an informed debate, as well as being important for effective policy-making and regulation. The implementation of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement of animal experiments) should be expected to result in a decline in animal use, but without regular, accurate statistics, this cannot be monitored. Recent estimates of worldwide annual laboratory animal use are imprecise and unsubstantiated, ranging from 28-100 million. We collated data for 37 countries that publish national statistics, and standardised these against the definitions of 'animals', 'purposes' and 'experiments' used in European Union Directive 86/609/EEC. We developed and applied a statistical model, based on publication rates, for a further 142 countries. This yielded our most conservative estimate of global animal use: 58.3 million animals in 179 countries. However, this figure excludes several uses and forms of animals that are included in the statistics of some countries. With the data available, albeit for only a few countries, we also produced, by extrapolation, a more comprehensive global estimate that includes animals killed for the provision of tissues, animals used to maintain genetically-modified strains, and animals bred for laboratory use but killed as surplus to requirements. For a number of reasons that are explained, this more-comprehensive figure of 115.3 million animals is still likely to be an underestimate.