The Influence of Safety, Efficacy, and Medical Condition Severity on Natural v. Synthetic Drug Preference

Research indicates that there is a preference for natural v. synthetic products, but the influence of this preference on drug choice in the medical domain is largely unknown. We present 5 studies in which participants were asked to consider a hypothetical situation in which they had a medical issue requiring pharmacological therapy. Participants ( N = 1223) were asked to select a natural, plant-derived, or synthetic drug. In studies 1a and 1b, approximately 79% of participants selected the natural v. synthetic drug, even though the safety and efficacy of the drugs were identical. Furthermore, participants rated the natural drug as safer than the synthetic drug, and as that difference increased, the odds of choosing the natural over synthetic drug increased. In studies 2 and 3, approximately 20% of participants selected the natural drug even when they were informed that it was less safe (study 2) or less effective (study 3) than the synthetic drug. Finally, in study 4, approximately 65% of participants chose a natural over synthetic drug regardless of the severity of a specific medical condition (mild v. severe hypertension), and this choice was predicted by perceived safety and efficacy differences. Overall, these data indicate that there is a bias for natural over synthetic drugs. This bias could have implications for drug choice and usage

A Behavioral Confirmation and Reduction of the Natural versus Synthetic Drug Bias

Research reveals a biased preference for natural versus synthetic drugs; however, this research is based upon self-report and has not examined ways to reduce the bias. We examined these issues in five studies involving 1,125 participants. In a Pilot Study (N = 110), participants rated the term natural to be more positive than the term synthetic, which reveals a default natural-is-better belief. In Studies 1 (N = 109) and 2 (N = 100), after a supposed personality study, participants were offered a thank you “gift” of a natural or synthetic pain reliever. Approximately 86% (Study 1) and 93% (Study 2) of participants chose the natural versus synthetic pain reliever, which provide a behavioral choice confirmation of the natural drug bias. In Studies 3 (N = 350) and 4 (N = 356), participants were randomly assigned to a control or experimental condition and were asked to consider a scenario in which they had a medical issue requiring a natural versus synthetic drug. The experimental condition included a stronger (Study 3) or weaker (Study 4) rational appeal about the natural drug bias and a statement suggesting that natural and synthetic drugs can be good or bad depending upon the context. In both studies, the natural bias was reduced in the experimental condition, and perceived safety and effectiveness mediated this effect. Overall, these data indicate a bias for natural over synthetic drugs in preferences and behavioral choices, which might be reduced with a rational appeal

Adenosine A2A receptor activation reduces hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury by inhibiting CD1d-dependent NKT cell activation

Ischemia reperfusion injury results from tissue damage during ischemia and ongoing inflammation and injury during reperfusion. Liver reperfusion injury is reduced by lymphocyte depletion or activation of adenosine A2A receptors (A2ARs) with the selective agonist 4- {3-[6-amino-9-(5-ethylcarbamoyl-3,4-dihydroxy-tetrahydro-furan-2-yl)-9H-purin-2-yl]- prop-2-ynyl}-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid methyl ester (ATL146e). We show that NKT cells are stimulated to produce interferon (IFN)-γ by 2 h after the initiation of reperfusion, and the use of antibodies to deplete NK1.1-positive cells (NK and NKT) or to block CD1d-mediated glycolipid presentation to NKT cells replicates, but is not additive to, the protection afforded by ATL146e, as assessed by serum alanine aminotransferase elevation, histological necrosis, neutrophil accumulation, and serum IFN-γ elevation. Reduced reperfusion injury observed in RAG-1 knockout (KO) mice is restored to the wild-type (WT) level by adoptive transfer of NKT cells purified from WT or A2AR KO mice but not IFN-γ KO mice. Additionally, animals with transferred A2AR−/− NKT cells are not protected from hepatic reperfusion injury by ATL146e. In vitro, ATL146e potently inhibits both anti-CD3 and α-galactosylceramide–triggered production of IFN-γ by NKT cells. These findings suggest that hepatic reperfusion injury is initiated by the CD1d-dependent activation of NKT cells, and the activation of these cells is inhibited by A2AR activation

The Myth of the Angry Atheist

Atheists are often portrayed in the media and elsewhere as angry individuals. Although atheists disagree with the pillar of many religions, namely the existence of a God, it may not necessarily be the case that they are angry individuals. The prevalence and accuracy of angry-atheist perceptions were examined in 7 studies with 1,677 participants from multiple institutions and locations in the United States. Studies 1–3 revealed that people believe atheists are angrier than believers, people in general, and other minority groups, both explicitly and implicitly. Studies 4–7 then examined the accuracy of these beliefs. Belief in God, state anger, and trait anger were assessed in multiple ways and contexts. None of these studies supported the idea that atheists are particularly angry individuals. Rather, these results support the idea that people believe atheists are angry individuals, but they do not appear to be angrier than other individuals in reality

Predictors of the Intention to Receive a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Background It is imperative to understand the predictors of vaccine hesitancy for current and future pandemics. Methods A representative sample (age, race & gender) of 1054 US adults was collected in October 2020 to examine the predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Participants were asked several questions including their intention to receive a vaccine for the novel coronavirus. Results Predictors significantly associated with a greater intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine included greater perceived feelings of vulnerability to COVID-19, having received a flu vaccination at the time the question was asked, more liberal political orientation, non-Black race, male gender, and a lower naturalness bias. Conclusions Vaccines are essential for mitigating current and future pandemics. Multiple strategies are important in encouraging people to be vaccinated and the predictors highlighted here and elsewhere are likely to be useful targets

Eosinophils from Lineage-Ablated Delta dblGATA Bone Marrow Progenitors: The dblGATA Ehancer in the Promoter of GATA-1 Is Not Essential for Differentiation Ex Vivo

A critical role for eosinophils in remodeling of allergic airways was observed in vivo upon disruption of the dblGATA enhancer that regulates expression of GATA-1, which resulted in an eosinophil-deficient phenotype in the ΔdblGATA mouse. We demonstrat