Social media addiction, and the famous honeybee dance

0:11Hello,

0:17welcome to the Naked Scientist podcast, the programme that brings you the biggest breakthroughs and talks to the major movers and shakers in the worlds of science technology and medicine with me chris smith and coming up this week instagram and youtube were designed to be addictive to young users without concern for their mental health a landmark trial finds but can an algorithm really be addictive also scientists returned to the soviet era nuclear arm sub that sank off norway decades ago to assess the radiation risk and why honeybees perform a 10 out of 10 waggle dance, but only in front of the right audience.

1:03Up first this week, a US jury has found that social media giants Meta and YouTube were partly responsible for harm to a young user caused by addictive features in their platforms, including infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations. The verdict has been heralded as a landmark, potentially changing how big tech can be held accountable for mental health impacts in future. Lucas Guncherer is from the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge and he studies whether social media use is addictive. I began by asking him what that might actually look like. I certainly think that platforms putting products out there have some responsibility in what those products do, what sort of behaviors they facilitate.

1:49There is an important distinction, which is how the term addiction is used in popular discourse and what we mean by addiction from a sort of neuroscientific perspective. So in popular discourse, when we use the term addiction, there's very much centers on things such as overuse. Individuals who say that they are addicted to social media, often based on the observation that they spend a lot of time on their phone, on specific social media platforms. From a neuroscientific perspective, that in itself is not sufficient to say that you are indeed addicted. And there's currently a large evidence gap.

2:28The research that has been conducted on social media addiction or trying to tease apart can social media really be addictive in the sense that substances are or the only established behavioral addiction gambling disorder? And the evidence there is very thin still. However, that doesn't go to invalidate the experiences that individuals report. So there is certainly research indicating that individuals who have more problematic relationships with social media, that this experience can indeed be predictive of worse outcomes later on. So there was recent research which reported that individuals who were classified as high problematic social media users were two to three times at elevated risk of suicidal behaviours or ideation.

3:19What is it about the way that those platforms are crafted, the way they work, that makes them capable of seducing some people in this way? Algorithms learn from user behavior. We know from internal documentation from social media platforms that they use the time individuals spend on specific content, how they react to it and whether they share it with other people determines whether similar content is going to be shown to them again in the future. The platforms are seeking increased engagement from their users and can do so by learning from past user behavior. Is there something about particular ages and young people specifically that makes them more susceptible to this?

4:06Or are we all susceptible and given enough of an opportunity, we'd all fall into this trap? It is an interesting question. And I think in the literature so far, there has very much been an emphasis on younger users. But what we can do is also extrapolate from the more established developmental neuroscience literature. So things such as increased sensitivity to social information, increased social comparison during adolescence. That is something that we do know and that is something that we can also extrapolate to social media. So there's evidence indicating that adolescents' brains show elevated responses to social reward and also more sensitive to social reward.

4:46And this has actually now also been demonstrated in the context of social media. Do you think then that the creators and operators of these platforms have a sort of duty of care? Should there therefore be checks and balances that they're required to assess population level performance of these and therefore impacts of these things and take responsibility for them? Because otherwise there's a real danger here, isn't there? if anyone creates anything in the future, someone will come along and say, well, I've now become addicted and suffered harm from using your very successful product, and now it's your fault and you've got to pay for it.

5:23I mean, you could say, well, McDonald's make hamburgers, they're very tasty, people eat them, and some people eat too many of them, and that has health consequences. Does this mean McDonald's are now going to get sued? This is a difficult line, right? Where do you draw that line? And while this is certainly an opinion rather than based on scientific evidence, I am of the opinion that platforms should be held accountable and are responsible for the products that they put out there. Of course, this question of where do you draw the line, like when our platform is responsible and when is it just a quote unquote good product that is put out there.

5:57I think this is something not for researchers to decide, but actually for policymakers. But one thing that would certainly make it easier for us to also provide the robust scientific evidence that would help evaluate, let's say, specific features or when that line might be crossed would be access to the data that we currently don't have. So there's a huge inequality between the platforms who are collecting very rich, large data sets on user behavior, which they use to optimize their platforms. But research access to that sort of data has been highly limited or only been really provided through exclusive collaborations with individual research teams.

6:40however if you want to conduct reliable independent research that really meets the quality standards that we're looking for there needs to be done more on mandated research data access such that we can actually look at what's going on under the hood basically but for instance banning teens from social media till they're 16 is that a useful intervention do you think that's going to bear fruit australia is doing it a number of other countries are following suit the uk is discussing it wants to introduce this does that work or is that just creating more forbidden fruit they'll find a way around it and the people who are most susceptible are also the ones who are likely to carry on and be harmed yes very good question and i think still one that's very much developing right we're only now seeing the first data coming out of the australia ban i think my understanding of it so far is that actually large proportions of children still have access to the platforms.

7:38We are now doing research in the team, but I think we have very little robust scientific evidence to actually base our expectations on. So it'll be interesting to see what study's coming out in the next year or so. Indeed, a lot of people are moving towards approaches such as bans. And I think, again, this goes back to this framing of social media as an addiction. It determines how we think about intervening. So whether that's at the higher governmental level in terms of bans or individuals deciding to do a social media detox, for instance, which means deliberately getting rid of certain social media platforms and not using them anymore.

8:23So far, the evidence that we have is quite mixed in terms of effectiveness. Some of the changes that are already happening, though, and that certainly make a lot of sense are things like acting on harmful content, right? We know that certain content such as violent, pornographic or self-harm content are harmful to the individual and acting on them certainly makes sense. It's going to be really interesting to see where this story takes us, isn't it? Lucas Guncherer there, he's from the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge. In April 1989, at the height of the Cold War, a Soviet nuclear powered submarine sank deep beneath the norwegian sea reportedly carrying two nuclear warheads the wreck now rests over a mile below the surface and with tensions between russia and the west rising again researchers are back monitoring it for radioactive leaks to better understand how nuclear materials behave in deep sea environments and what impact they might have on the surrounding marine ecosystem justin gwin from the norwegian radiation and nuclear safety authority has the story?

9:27So this was a Soviet nuclear-powered submarine that was out on one of its operational missions in 1989. And it was out in the Norwegian Sea, sailing about 400 metres underwater, when a fire broke out in the rear compartment of the submarine. So this forced the submarine to the surface. The submarine was on the surface for about five to six hours before it finally sank. And where is it now? So now it's lying at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea, which is about 1 ,700 metres or about one mile deep. And this was a nuclear submarine. Was it also armed then with nuclear warheads? Because you're saying this was height of the Cold War.

10:10Was this one of the Soviet fleet of nuclear-armed vessels? So Consomlitz was an attack submarine, so its role was really to find other submarines. But it was a nuclear-powered submarine, so it had a nuclear reactor on board, but it also was reported to carry two nuclear warheads in its torpedo compartment, which it would have used with torpedoes. So the obvious question then is, what is the nuclear threat from having this sitting on the seafloor for 40 years? After it sank, there were a series of Soviet and then Russian investigations. These quite quickly showed that there were releases coming from the reactor.

10:48This is probably as a result of damage internally to the submarine when the submarine sank. They were also quite concerned about the possible spread of the nuclear material in the nuclear warheads. And they carried out a sort of series of some actions to seal cracks and holes around the torpedo compartment to prevent really or reduce the flow of seawater through the torpedo compartment. And where do you come into the story? We obviously were aware of the sinking of the submarine, and Norway has carried out monitoring around consomments since the 1990s. This has typically been from surface ships, where we have to lower our sampling gear down to the seafloor.

11:28And this limits us really in how close to the submarine we can take samples. But in 2019, we got the opportunity to use a deep sea remotely operated vehicle, an ROV, basically an underwater robot. And this allowed us then the first time to take samples close to the submarine, as well as see the submarine really with our own eyes. What does it look like? Is it intact down there? We had seen some still photos and some video from these previous Soviet and Russian investigations, but it was really the first time we could picture the submarine as a whole. It was quite incredible to see. It looks like a submarine sitting on the seafloor.

12:04We can see quite clearly the damage that has happened to the front section, particularly the torpedo compartment. but otherwise looks as if the submarine had sank the day before we saw it. How are you using the opportunity to go there in order to make measurements to gauge this radiation threat? Okay, so with the ROV, this has manipulator arms at the front of the ROV and this allows us then to take samples of seawater very close to the submarine and also directly from an opening where the previous Soviet and Russian investigations had reported releases. It also allowed us to take sediment samples next to the submarine and even to collect sort of samples of marine life that are growing on the size of the submarine.

12:47And what you recover those to the surface and you can analyse them. Yeah. So all the samples come back up to the surface. Some of that we do some initial analysis on board, but otherwise everything came back to various different laboratories here in Norway and elsewhere, where we did a series of very detailed analysis to look at how much sort of different aspects of radioactivity were in these samples. And what did you find? Interestingly, on the first dive of the ROV, where we collected water samples from this opening where releases had been reported previously, we actually found nothing. However, on the subsequent dives, when we collected water samples from the same place, we found quite elevated levels of rain nuclides within the opening.

13:30However, we found taking water samples distances slightly further away that those levels are rapidly diluted within the water around the submarine. We wanted to really to answer two sort of main questions. One of these was whether we could see any of this nuclear material from the warheads in the environment around the submarine. and the other was to see whether we could still see some science releases. So we could confirm that the releases were ongoing. But when we took samples around the torpedo compartment, we analysed those, we saw no sign of this nuclear material from the warheads. So you can actually discriminate between the radiation coming from the warheads and the radiation coming from the reactor, can you?

14:09We use very sort of sensitive analysis that allows us to look at really sort of a fingerprint for the nuclear material from these different sources. So we have information from other studies that allows us to recognise whether nuclear material comes from nuclear warheads or whether it comes from a civilian reactor or indeed from global fallout, which is another main source of some of these radiunucleides to the marine environment. And what about in the sediments and the marine life nearby that might concentrate some of these materials if they were there for a while? Did you find a similar signature there?

14:43In the sediment, surprisingly, we saw very little sign of any accumulation of radionuclides, despite the fact we did this sampling in 2019. So this was 30 years after the submarine had sank. Really, the levels we see in the sediment next to the submarine would be those that we would expect to see anyway at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea. In the samples of the biota that we collected, we did see some, I would say, somewhat slightly higher levels of certain radionuclides and some radioactivity. And again, if we had taken those same types of marine life somewhere else, we would not expect to see the levels that we saw next to consomalus.

15:23These were still quite low and it wouldn't really cause any health impacts to the marine life. I suppose there are two possibilities. One is that it's been and gone and we're too late to the party to see it. The other is that it's still all intact down there and hasn't spewed its guts out yet. So which of the two scenarios is it? In terms of the nuclear fuel, we know that this is still within the reactor. In terms of the type of radioactivity that is more sort of easy to dissolve in seawater and come out, we're not sure how much has come out so far. We only have our observations from 2019 and a few previous observations from these Soviet and Russian investigations in the past.

16:07So it's a little bit difficult to determine how much has actually come out of the reactor up until this point in time. It's a fascinating story that, isn't it? Justin Gwynne, who's at the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, he just published that work in the journal PNAS.

16:24The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports. Right now, the NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real-time scores, breaking news, and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.

16:57The Naked Scientist podcast is produced in association with Spitfire. Cost-effective voice, internet, and IP engineering services for UK businesses. Find out how Spitfire can empower your company at spitfire.co.uk

17:15Music in the programme is sponsored by Epidemic Sound, perfect music for audio and video productions. This is the Naked Scientist podcast with me, Chris Smith. Still to come, the bee waggle dance and why our favourite insects put in a top performance, but only when they've got the right audience. But first, we're going to explore the discovery of a previously hidden magnetic shadow on the Moon that might make future space travel and space work that bit safer. New data from China's Chang 'e 4 mission has revealed a patch of space around the Earth which the Moon crosses over a couple of days each month where levels of cosmic radiation are much lower than they should be.

17:56It could act as a potential natural shield for astronauts and radiation-sensitive lunar-based equipment and experiments. Megan Argo is an astrophysicist at the University of Lancashire, and for us she's been taking a look at the paper which is in the journal Science, documenting the phenomenon. They found what they're calling a cavity in the distribution of these things called cosmic rays, high-energy particles that fly around the universe. What we thought was that the distribution of these things was fairly uniform, and it turns out it looks like it's not. Where specifically have they been looking?

18:30So this is a result from a spacecraft that's been sitting on the moon for a little while now. This is one of the Chinese missions, the first soft landing on the far side of the moon, which is exciting because we've never been there before. One of the instruments that they had on the spacecraft is looking at the distribution of these high energy cosmic ray particles. And as the moon's been going around the earth, they've been measuring these things over the last few years and they found a part of the moon's orbit around the Earth where there appears to be fewer of these things hitting the detector than in the rest of the moon's orbit.

19:02So it's almost like some kind of shadow, almost like a cosmic particle shadow there. Do they speculate as to why there is this gap or this cavity where it doesn't get irradiated to the same extent periodically? So they were specifically looking at periods of time over the last few years when the sun has been less active. These particles are affected by magnetic fields. And the sun has a powerful magnetic field that spreads out throughout the whole solar system. And it interacts with the Earth's magnetic field as well. And these particles tend to follow these magnetic field lines. And when the sun is active, it's also pumping out particles that are very similar.

19:38So that's going to affect the readings that you get. So they had to wait for periods where the sun was less active. And in all of the periods they found during the observations when the sun was less active, They were looking at and they were expecting a certain rate of these cosmic rays from this background of cosmic rays throughout the universe. And there was a difference between the numbers that the detector received in a particular part of the moon's orbit. And this is a part of the moon's orbit where the moon is between us and the sun. That's when it would be up in the sky in daylight. So between sort of when the moon is a quarter and when it's a new moon and you can't see it.

20:14and in that range there is a period of a few days where they see far fewer of these cosmic rays than they were expecting and the effect seems to be that the earth's magnetic field which we didn't think was reaching as far as the moon in this part of its orbit earth's magnetic field is asymmetric on the sunward side it's affected by the sun's wind so it's pushed backwards and it forms this long sort of tadpole like it's called a magneto tail so it stretches a long way from the earth in the direction away from the sun but in the direction of the sun it's a lot more compressed and the moon goes outside it or at least we thought it did what these results seem to show is that at least for part of that orbit the earth's magnetic field is having much more of an effect on this particle distribution than we thought it had does the reduction in particles actually make a meaningful difference in other words if you look really hard you can see a tiny difference it might make almost no difference it's statistically there but makes no difference or is it actually a really almost like day-night difference in terms of the particle density of these background cosmic rays coming in?

21:17It's certainly a statistical difference. And the thing is, while the effect is certainly there, the sun's activity is a bigger effect, if you like, in the data. So finding this involved looking through an awful lot of data to find the bits where they could actually do this statistical comparison. The reason for asking that, Megan, is obviously it's academically extremely interesting and we've learned new things about the shape of the Earth's magnetic field and its influences. But if there is a window being created at certain points in the lunar orbit where radiation is at a minimum, that might be a sort of window of opportunity.

21:49Because we know it is a concern, isn't it, for humans out there being irradiated, for scientific instruments getting irradiated. So if we know there's a sort of safe point where they could transfer backwards and forwards or do some experiments, that would be really useful. But if the difference is so tiny, it's inconsequential, that's perhaps less useful. So which is it? Do you think this is a useful observation? I think it could potentially be yes. The thing with radiation is it builds up over time. The more exposure that you have, the more risk you have. And it's the same with humans as it is with electronics.

22:18If you send electronics into space, all of the satellites in Earth orbit have to be hardened against these particles because they can damage electronics and that can make your systems fail. And the same thing applies on the Moon, except it's worse because you're that much further away. And this is one of the things they're going to be doing on Artemis. all the astronauts have radiation detectors to track their exposure while they're outside the earth's magnetosphere the interesting thing if this is statistical then it does make a difference because if you're sending astronauts up to the moon for the long term inside their base they're going to have a lot more shielding a lot more protection from from cosmic rays and solar winds and all the rest of it but if you have to have them going outside in spaces which have comparatively little protection then if you can do that when the risk of radiation is reduced you reduce their over a lifetime exposure and you reduce their risk of things like cancer for the long term.

23:06So you get slightly less fried for two days a month. Be grateful for small blessings. Megan Argo at the University of Lancashire there. Honeybees are known for their famous waggle dance, which is a figure of eight routine that tells their hive mates exactly where to find food. But just like on Strictly Come Dancing, not every performance is the same or quite up to scratch. Scientists have noticed that even when the same bee is dancing about the same patch of flowers, the quality of the performance can vary. Why? Well, it seems it all comes down to the audience. When the right group of bees in the hive is paying attention, the bee whips out her 10 out of 10 performance, sharper moves, clearer signals and a standout routine.

23:50But in front of a less influential or smaller audience, she's more prone to wing it with a lacklustre showing. Proof that even on the smallest of dance floors, it's not just about the dancer. It's about who's watching. Here's James Nye at the University of California, San Diego. It's remarkable, but just like you and I might want to go to a grocery store and ask someone for directions and say, how far is it and what direction should I go? Honeybees can do the same thing. In fact, they're the only animal we know of that can actually communicate this kind of information. But sometimes they don't always do it perfectly.

24:27You might say go north to go to the store and go about one kilometer. You might say well maybe it's northeast, northwest, I'm not really sure. And bees do have that kind of ambiguity, that lack of precision in their communication as well. So we wanted to find out why is that? Why are they not always as precise as they could be? Well how do they tell each other where the juicy flowers are? This is the rich source of nectar go in this direction? How do they do it? So almost everything they do is respect to the sun. So imagine this patch of flowers is in the direction of the sun at that moment of the day.

25:05They will do something called a waggle dance. Now what is that? Well the waggle dance has the middle part a waggling phase. So think of a figure eight and imagine a bee waggling her abdomen, her body in the middle. When she's waggling, the farther the distance to that flower, the longer the waggle, and she's actually pointed directly at the food source with respect to the sun. The easiest way to think about it is she's drawing a miniature map inside the colony telling bees where to go. And they're watching this. So this is in front of an audience. So they'll do this in their colony, or in their hive, I suppose you could say, couldn't you, to an audience.

25:44That's right. But they're not quite watching it in the normal sense that we think about it. It's completely dark in the hive, and the bees are on a vertical comb surface. So they are, in fact, sensing it with their antennae. When the dancer is waggling, she's actually whacking, in a very gentle way, the antennae of her followers, her audience, with her abdomen. So she's transferring this information through physical contact. And when you say they don't always do it precisely, is that that they're making a mistake or is it that the audience is picking up on the wrong vibes? The audience might also not get the information correctly but I'm just talking about the dancer now where she's not always pointed in the correct direction or maybe she doesn't do the waggle run for long enough in which case she's not communicating the correct distance.