Category Archives: Science

… the harder they fall

By rivqa Posted in Science

Hiding behind evolution’s victory in a Pennsylvania district court room this week is something that has the potential to become an even bigger embarrassment for science.

In August, Woo Suk Hwang was Korea’s “king of cloning” (New Scientist, 3 August 2005. And he wasn’t just the king of animal (or more specifically, Afghan hound) cloning; he was most famous for his success with human embryonic stell cells.

All that began to unravel last month when his American co-author Gerald Schatten announced that some of the eggs Hwang used for his experiments were donated by junior staff in his lab; a serious ethical breach (at least for Westerners; in South Korea the women were hailed as heroes rather than portrayed as victims). Hwang admitted to everything, resigned, and was hospitalised for stress.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, due to media pressure Hwang was forced to admit to Science, who published his last two ground-breaking papers, that some of his data was flawed. At first it seemed that the corrections he was making wouldn’t alter his findings, but last Friday (16 December), Hwang and his co-authors retracted their 2005 paper. Their 2004 article is now being re-examined too.

This whole chain of events erases scientists’ excitement over Hwang’s achievements and for him and his co-authors it is certainly a personal tragedy (albeit self-afflicted to some degree). And it must be a blow for anyone suffering one of the many diseases that may one day be cured by stem cell therapy. Christopher Reeve must be turning over in his grave. But there are deeper concerns for the broader scientific community; deeper than those caused by Luk Van Parijs’s falsifications in physics.

Stem cell research has always been stymied by the far right’s “moral” obligations, and by laypeople’s squeamish imaginations conjuring up pictures of humanoid fetuses being murdered and dissected (the embryos used are really just bundles of cells). But the uphill battle that Western stem cell researchers faced when trying to carry out their work was at least somewhat alleviated by the knowledge that the work was being done, albeit not by them. But Hwang has given his detractors the perfect ammunition: he didn’t follow ethical guidelines when obtaining the eggs crucial to his research, and he falsified his data. The conclusions they’ll draw: Hwang is a bad, bad man, and what’s more, his research didn’t even work. Extrapolate that out to all stem cell researchers and suddenly they’re all unethical and wastefully ineffectual.

Stem cell research, both fact and philosophy, is certainly worse off. If I’m right in assuming that at least some of the anti-stem cell mob are also part of the intelligent design mob, it’s not such a victory in Pennsylvania. It’s a 1-1 draw if we’re lucky.

Fluoride and the thought police

By rivqa Posted in Science Tagged , ,

A naturopath I know recently sent me an article entitled Media Reports on Dangers of Fluoride in Your Water. I’ve had fascinating discussions with this woman in the past, which have included gems such as, “pathology tests are really just scientific experiments”.

Even if I usually expected better of her, a quick glance at the homepage would convince me not to take this article seriously. If you sign up for the site’s newsletter, you also get a “FREE must-read bonus report on “The Dangers of Grains and Sugars!” Funny, but I thought that grains and sugars contained something essential for our survival… oh yeah, energy. Clearly, functionality isn’t homoeopathic.

But back to the fluoride. As a much-needed brain exercise, I decided to go through the article and try and pick out the dubious points… without researching. With the internet, it’s too easy to find information, even reliable information. So, curbing my knee-jerk response to look up every health-related concept on NCBI, I tackled quackery at its best.

* Loaded language: before the end of the introduction, there are three loaded phrases used: “dangers of fluoride”; “terrible effects”; and “harm”.

* “Water fluoridation then spread across the United States despite concerns by respected doctors and scientists that adding it to public water supplies could cause serious health problems that would only become evident years later.” How prophetic of them. I wonder, also, if these doctors have names…

* “According to a 2001 study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it was found that by age 12, kids who live in fluoridated communities averaged only 1.4 fewer cavities that those in non-fluoridated communities.” If this is true, it’s probably because the anti-fluoride lobby has succeeded in getting people to filter their water.

* Under the heading “Dental Fluorosis Running Rampant”, Mesquita makes use of the dodgiest statistics I’ve ever seen: he decides that of the 32% of US children that have some form of fluorosis, all of these must come from cities where the water is artificially fluoridated. He uses this assumption to increase the percentage from 32% to 53%, conveniently forgetting all other factors that could cause fluorosis in other cities (too much toothpaste? Fluoride happy dentists? Naturally occurring fluoride?).

* “A 1991 study by the U.S. Public Health Service found a strong link between fluoride exposure and bone cancer in boys. They found there was a 79 percent increase in osteosarcoma in fluoridated communities and a 4 percent decrease in non-fluoridated communities.” I wonder what made the non-fluoridated communities have a decrease in bone cancer? There must be some other factors here, even if these statistics were true (see below).

* Apparently 50% of ingested fluoride is deposited in your bones. I’d like to know how they determine this kind of thing. I don’t think I’d like to be part of the study… sounds painful. Also, fluoride not only causes bone cells to grow, it also causes them to mutate. Multi-talented little ion really.

* Apparently the FDA requires warning labels on toothpaste stating that if more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, one should seek medical advice. Of course, nowhere in the article do they mention how much fluoride is found in toothpaste and whether this is more or less (I’m suspecting A LOT more) than is found in water.

* At the end of the article there’s an advertisement (well, that’s what it looks like to me) from the owner of the website, for a water testing company — he helped them develop their product. Can anyone spell conflict of interest?

* This article has no references, and even the studies and “facts” referred to within the text would be difficult to find without an extensive search, because no author’s name is given. There’s no accountability, which is obviously the way this kind of writer likes it. You’re not meant to think about it, you’re just meant to be scared and above all, buy their product. So if the facts are faked and the statistics are dubious, hopefully you won’t notice until it’s too late (if at all).

Well, that’s as much as I could think of off the top of my head. Now for some research.

According to Quackwatch, fluoride use was much better investigated and researched than Mesquita would have you believe. It was first studied by comparing the dental hygiene in different cities; eventually naturally occurring fluoride was found to improve dental hygiene (Peterson J. J Hist Dent. 1997 45:57-61). The ideal amount of fluoride in water was found to be one part per million (ppm).

Addition of fluoride to water supplies was tested much more broadly than the Mesquita article mentions; 21 cities in four US states, not just two states, were studied before the concept was rolled out to other states and countries (Dean HT. Nutrition. 1990 6:435-445).

The article claims that in 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that fluoridation of water only marginally decreased the amount of cavities in 12-year-old children; but in the same year the CDC continued to recommend use of fluoride toothpaste and water fluoridation (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001 50(RR-14):1-42). Mesquitea also claims that fluoridation of water increases fluorosis (MeSH definition); but a 2002 study showed that children in areas where fluoride occurs naturally in water were more likely to suffer fluorosis, due to the higher amounts that can occur in the water (Beltran-Aguilar ED et al. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002 133:157-165). According to Mequita, 84% of the population in places with over 3.7 ppm fluoride have fluorosis; he doesn’t mention that no city would ever add that much, since 1 ppm was found to be optimal; higher amounts are due to naturally occurring fluoride.

I couldn’t find a study from 1991 that showed a link between fluoride and bone cancer; however I found a couple from 1991 that said there was no link (McGuire SM et al. J Am Dent Assoc. 1991 122:38-45; Mahoney MC et al. Am J Public Health. 1991 81:475-479). A more recent review concurred (Cook-Mozaffari P. Community Dent Health. 1996 13 Suppl 2:56-62.)

My conclusions: I’ll keep drinking fluoridated water, and be glad I’ve got it (and a brain to suss out what’s what).

Interview with David Bowtell

By rivqa Posted in Interviews, Science Tagged , , ,

This article was originally published in issue 3 of the MMIM newsletter.

Professor David Bowtell is the Director for Research at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Although Prof Bowtell studied veterinary science, he has never worked as a vet. Instead, he found himself in biomedical research, initially working as a cell biologist. Here he talks about his work and how the MMIM database can help.

The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, or ‘Peter Mac’, as it is affectionately called, is unique in Australia, with an all-inclusive approach to cancer treatment. It is a specialist cancer hospital, where research, support and care are fully integrated. As well as boasting one of the largest cancer research facilities, Peter Mac runs clinical trials and offers state-of-the-art services and care, including medical imaging. Peter Mac is the only centre of its kind in Australia, with very few similar institutions existing outside of the United States.

Prof Bowtell likens his position as Director to the ‘captain of a footy team’ – he has a leadership role but also needs to kick a few goals himself. As well as working in his own lab, he coordinates other aspects of the Centre, including writing grants for the research division as well as the genomics program specifically.

In addition to his role as Director, Prof Bowtell runs a large medical genomics laboratory, which has a focus on ovarian and gastric cancers as well as carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). CUPs are cancers that do not have a known point of origin, but their sources can be detected by taking biospecimens and testing samples. One test that is extremely useful for CUPs is microarray testing, and it is this data that is present on the MMIM database.

Prof Bowtell became involved in MMIM through his lab. He feels that MMIM is important for cancer research as it allows scientists to gather clinical information, which can then be related to known genetic information. This facilitates the development of predictive models for oncology as well as for other areas.

His lab started working with spotted microarrays in 1999. They now use microarrays (specifically Affymetrix microarrays) to classify different cancers into patterns of gene expression. For example, the primary source of CUPs can be determined by using microarray technology to compare it to cancers with known primary locations.

Tumours from patients with the same type of cancer, but different outcomes, can also be compared to analyse for risk of reoccurrence of tumour formation after remission. This can help doctors plan long-term treatment, as an increased risk would indicate more aggressive treatment.

When asked about his thoughts on a ‘cure for cancer’, Prof Bowtell said that at Peter Mac, researchers are studying the molecular basis for different types of cancer. They are looking at the individual molecular pathways involved and treating each one separately. It seems that there are multiple cures for cancer, rather than the single one that we were previously searching for.

Molecular genetic information can help at all stages of cancer development: diagnosis; staging (determining how advanced the cancer is); planning treatment; implementing treatment; assessing family risks; and managing these family risks.

Peter Mac is involved in cutting-edge research into chemoprevention, which can be likened to vaccination – chemotherapy can be used to prevent cancer ever forming in high-risk patients. And while early detection of cancer is important, genetic information can indicate how aggressively to treat a tumour that has been found promptly. This type of individualised treatment may be the way of the future, and comprehensive organisation and sharing of the information, in a format such as MMIM, is a vital tool for this type of research.

The moon is actually brie, Skeldon reports

By rivqa Posted in Science Tagged

Ken Skeldon, of the University of Glasgow, has been touring with his lecture about moon hoax theories. He spoke at UTS for Science Week. He picked a few of the popular “facts” used to promote the idea that NASA’s moon landings have been faked and debunked them. It was very entertaining. I really can’t capture how much fun he made it; the presentation included Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin being played backwards and some trippy optical illusions, but here’s the gist of the argument anyway. I didn’t need this lecture to be convinced that people who think the moon landing was hoaxed are fruits, but it was good to have the science of it as well as the politics. (Not that I’m finding NASA all that impressive these days; but its current failures shouldn’t negate its past successes.)

The flag is waving; it shouldn’t because there’s no atmosphere.
Because there’s no atmosphere, the flag had to have a rigid pole to hold it open. There is no footage showing the flag waving on its own; however there is footage of it moving while the astronauts were struggling to get the flag into place. Once they let go, it took a little longer to stop moving than it would on earth, because there were less forces acting against it.

There aren’t any stars in any of the pictures, but there are no clouds on the moon to block them.
Because the moon is reflective, it has an incredibly bright surface. The cameras had to majorly underexpose in order to show the astronauts in the pictures at all; if the exposure had been normal, the surface and the astronauts would have been “washed out”.

There are non-parallel shadows in the pictures, suggesting multiple light sources.
It’s an optical illusion that a single light source only gives parallel shadows; shadows meet at the light source.

The astronauts and lunar module appear to be lit in the shade.
On a clear night, the moon appears crisp because sunlight from behind it reflects in all directions, regardless of what angle it hits the moon at. This is what makes the moon such a bright light source. The astronauts and lunar module had light from the sun behind them to illuminate them.

Dust anomalies: there were no plumes of dust from the moon rover, and no crater was formed when the lunar module landed.
The moon rover didn’t leave plumes of dust as cars do on earth, because of the reduced gravity. The lunar module didn’t form a crater upon landing because it didn’t crash down; it drifted down gently.

The astronauts wouldn’t have been able to survive the radiation they would be exposed to in the Van Allen Belt.
The Van Allen Belt consists of three types of radiation: alpha particles (protons), beta particles (electrons) and gamma radiation (light radiation, which is actually harmful). They only passed through the alpha radiation, which is much easier to block: it is blocked with polyurethane, as opposed to gamma radiation, which can only be blocked with lead.

Some photos with different foregrounds have identical backgrounds.
Without anything in between, relative distance is harder to judge; the photos were taken from different angles and/or distances.

Some of the pictures show “props” that are clearly man-made.
The brain can make anything seem like anything else, given the suggestion.

And some proof that the moon landings did happen…
* All the live video footage was transmitted by a network of satellite dishes during the Apollo missions, including some in Australia (The Dish).
* Over 382 kg of moon rock was brought back.
* Gravity measured from original footage checks at 116/earth’s gravity, as expected.
* Over 130 separate lunar energy studies rely on reflectors left behind by astronauts.

Some reading material…
http://www.moontruth.com
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax
http://www.clavius.org
http://www.badastronomy.com
http://www.nasa.gov
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.html
http://www.google.com/maps

Roo burger, anyone?

By rivqa Posted in Science Tagged ,

I just got home from an interesting panel put on by the ASC. Here’s my write-up…

First up was Mike Archer, palaeontologist and Dean of UNSW’s Faculty of Science.

According to Professor Archer, we need 1.5 million square kilometres of land to be set aside for conservation if we want to ensure the healthy evolution of species. Since it’s hardly practical to kick people off that much land to create national parks, instead we need to convince them that it’s worth their while.

There have been interviews with farmers about the drought; in the background are dead cows… and bouncy kangaroos. Being native, they’re adapted to this habitat. Most farmers see kangaroos as competition for their cattle, so they have no interest in preserving them or their habitat (which houses many other species). Bribing these graziers won’t help the situation, it’s not reliable as it’s too easy to cheat that kind of system. There needs to be something inherent about that habitat itself that makes farmers want to look after it.

There are 200 million years of evolutionary distance between humans and kangaroos, which means that we don’t have many diseases in common. The only disease we can catch from kangaroos is toxoplasmosis, which we’re more likely to catch from cats, and which kills marsupials.

Basically, it’s all about sustainable use; just one way of practically conserving the environment.

The next speaker was John Kelly, spokesman for the Kangaroo Industry Association and an exporter of kangaroo meat.

According to Kelly, kangaroo has been the red meat of choice for 40 000 years; there’s just been a 100-year hiccup in its popularity. There are many advantages to eating roo meat. It’s low in “bad” fats and contains some “good” fats, has a wild, gamey taste, and good environmental credentials.

Sustainable kangaroo harvesting can prevent then from becoming over-populated and therefore over-grazing an area. For the past 30 years, kangaroo harvesting has been carefuly monitored and no negative effects on ecology have been observed. The RSPCA and the Australia Veterinary Association agree that an animal killed instantly in its own habitat is under much less stress than an animal that’s penned, starved, and then taken to place that smells of death to die. Roo harvesting also provides jobs and revenue to remote rural communities.

Next up was Ron Hacker, Chair of the Department of Agriculture.

He said that kangaroo populations have increase significantly since while settlement, especially in sheep farming areas, because of increased water supplies and removal of dingos.

Commercial harvesting doesn’t always help sustainable farming: it ceases to be commercially viable before reaching population levels that are found in drought conditions. This makes it a renewable resource that should be managed to suit everyone.

Then there were questions…

What cuts sell the best?
The same as for beef, it is used for steaks and manufacturing, works well for salamis (but needs fat added). The tails are used in Korea, where it’s believed that one can acquire qualities from eating certain foods. The tail is believed to give the kangaroo its stamina.

What about conservation of the species?
There are seven main species of macropod. Of theses, the Western grey, the Eastern grey, the red and the wallaroo are abundant. It’s all about supply and demand: people don’t have the tradition to eat roo, but there’s also limited supply because of limited quotas of what can be harvested.

What’s to guarantee that kangaroo hunting won’t go the way that fishing and whaling has?
There is much less known about marine ecology compared to kangaroo ecology. We know a lot about them: their numbers are estimated annually, so the sustainable level of hunting them can be determined much more easily.

Many of the opponents of kangaroo harvesting (eg VIVA and PETA) have an agenda about all animals and don’t want any animals to be eaten or kept as pets. They’re moving towards being terrorist groups. They feed the idea that all wildlife is endangered, so we shouldn’t interact with it.

* * *

I’m not sure what I think of all this. I won’t eat roo meat regardless, as it’s not kosher. But I’d like to have a position. I suppose that I support them in theory, at least, but I’d like to know how likely hunters are to shoot a rare macropod species by mistake, and who’s really done this research. Because if it’s someone with a vested interest, it’s definitely fishy. And some of the things they said contradicted other statements: they said that they would be over-supplying if they harvested enough to bring populations down to drought levels, but also that the quotas limit their supply. So, the jury’s still out.