Scientists - we agree to disagree

If you can't say it better yourself then refer to the original source. I encourage you to read this...

Homeopathy dismissed

In the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's report on Homeopathy, Dr Ben Goldacre reports ‘There have now been around 200 trials of homeopathy against placebo sugar pills and, taken collectively, they show that there is no evidence that homeopathy pills are any better than a placebo.’

The UK is finally doing the right thing, recommending the termination of licenses to over-the-counter homeopathic medications which have not demonstrated effectiveness in randomized controlled trials. To date no homeopathic medications have passed such standard criteria; criteria which must be rigorously proven for all pharmaceuticals.

There is however strong evidence that the British Homeopathic Association has been using suspect, and in some cases seemingly malicious, manipulation of data to support their claims of efficacy.

Although there do not seem to be outwardly adverse reactions to the homeopathic treatments, they do serve as a distraction for patients who could be pursuing more beneficial avenues and use up valuable resources. If, after 200 years of use, there is no unambiguous evidence for positive outcomes above the placebo effect I believe it is time to put the nail in the coffin for homeopathic interventions.

Alternative sources:
House of Commons Science and Technology committee report

This little piggy hasn’t gone to market

As of February 2010 the global population is estimated at 6.8 billion. Nine billion people are expected to inhabit the Earth by 2050. As the population grows, the amount of available cropland, fresh water and other key resources is quickly shrinking. The number of undernourished people already exceeds one billion—how do we feed the world without exacerbating environmental problems and simultaneously cope with climate change?

We need new and innovative solutions, and we need them fast.
Researchers at the University of Guelph have developed transgenic pigs which digest a form of phosphorus they would normally excrete, resulting in manure 30-65% lower in phosphorus pollution, and therefore less harmful to groundwater.

The pigs have had a mouse gene inserted into their DNA resulting in a chemical being released in their saliva which allows them to digest cereal grain phosphorus and eliminating the need to supplement with mineral phosphate.

It has been reported that Environment Canada has determined that the transgenic Yorkshire pigs are not toxic to the environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The official announcement is expected on Saturday. This is the first regulatory hurdle in the process to get these little piggies to market.

We need to be careful, but we also need to act swift. The decisions we make need to be made on the data, and not slowed down by irrational fears.

Alternative sources:

University of Guelph

Calgary Harold

Media monsters

Is media hindering federal incentives to promote science education?

A strong deficit in science education and scientific literacy has been identified. President Obama’s proposed budget aims to aggressively increase funding for science education.

The number of news publications with science sections is rapidly shrinking; very few Americans can name a living scientist. Is it possible that media portrayal of science (or lack there of) might explain the decreased interest in science among students? This is a question I have asked before.


“A Previous Death at the Hand of Alabama Suspect” published in the New York Times on Feb. 13th, reported on the tragic shootings at the University of Alabama. It included the statement “... others who knew Dr. Bishop described her as a normal person, perhaps a little quirky but no more so than most scientists.” Should the media promote the stereotype that all scientists are quirky? Would such sweeping statements based on race or gender be tolerated? Is it necessary to attack all members of the scientific community?

Could such statements partially explain why extra funding is required to interest our children in science education?

Perhaps we should be careful about the monsters we create.

Frustration drives competition

Frustration drives competition – at least in America. Canada and the US are notoriously underdeveloped in terms of broadband capacity. A study released at the end of 2009 by Harvard University demonstrated that out of 30 countries Canada ranked 22nd for broadband access, the States 13th, while Japan, Sweden and South Korea were ranked highest.

Google is responding and potentially revealing a radical shift in their business strategy. They are launching experimental fibre broadband network in select U.S. cities. Google has been acquiring an unknown amount of fibre for years and will be offering connection speeds of up to one gigabit per second (more than 100 times faster than what most Americans currently have access to).
The company is interested in operating 'open access' networks, allowing the choice of multiple service providers.

Google will be prevented from moving this model into Canada despite owning fiber resources here; current legal restrictions require infrastructure-owning telecom service providers to be majority Canadian owned and controlled.

Cable companies have a vested interest in slowing down the progress of high-speed internet, as it will change their business model allowing instantaneous high-definition streaming, but the stakes are much higher than this. It would also allow such things as streaming of 3-D medical imaging over the web for consults with international experts, and global collaborations in education. A country such as Canada which has its population spread out over a vast geography has an intense need for such technology. Graham Bell, who spent so much time here, would be sorely disappointed in us.

So, as Google works to move American service further in-line with global standards, it appears Canada will remain near the bottom of list for access to information.

Alternative sources :
CBC
CBC
Google

Making Contact

Please forgive the lack of science content in the next post:

Today, as I was riding in the elevator performing the mental gymnastics required to plan out my day, I took a minute to pause. I decided to make small talk with the woman with whom I was sharing the elevator. After some insignificant comment I made, which to be honest I don’t even remember, she replied, “I am on my way to the cancer center, I need courage today”.

We talked more as the floors passed on our descent to the parking deck, and I then we separated; a little less strangers than we were two minutes before. I am not going to delude myself with the thought that anything that I actually said could have made her feel more at ease, but I do feel that the fact that we shared a very human, very real conversation, regardless of what was said, was somewhat of a distraction. Just for a moment.

In a world where we are all so busy, our lives are all so complicated, sometimes just making contact with a stranger can have an impact. She had an impact on me, my crazy busy day with all my important things to do somehow seemed a little less crazy, a little less busy, and a lot less important. Perhaps if we all took a few seconds out of our day to give a stranger a little gesture of support, even a passing smile, our worlds would seem just that much more manageable.

Out of Africa

Studies have suggested that Southern African populations contain an amazing degree of genetic diversity. A recent study, published Feb. 18th in Nature, compares the genomes of male Namibian hunter-gatherers, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

The study did find a stunning array of diversity between the subjects, reporting 1.3 million novel DNA differences genome-wide. Prior to this study, about nine million variants had been discovered, thus these 5 individuals have produced an increase of more than 10% of all the existing data prior to the study.

While it is true that this genetic information could be used to tailor drugs and diagnostic tools to the southern African population, a group which has been shown to have atypical responses to drugs for HIV and other disorders, I can’t help but wonder about the reality of this. The market which can afford to pay for newly developed drugs is predominately American and European. A study like this may only prove that developing the next blockbuster drug should not be focused on trials on African populations - as the results may not translate well onto other global populations.

None of the companies or researchers who participated in the study plan to take out patents based on the data.

Alternate sources on this story:
sciencenews.org
Time

Get to know a scientist

Is it possible that how the media portrays (or does not portray) science might be part of the reason for decreased interest in science and math among students?

How many grade 7-12 children have talked to working scientists about their research?

Check out our web site for more information about a project we are proposing to introduce Canadian high school children to international scientists. Click here.

Stem Cell Mis-information

In a recent article published in the Telegraph, it was reported that "Embryonic stem cells have the power to develop into any of the 220 cell types that make up the different tissues of the human body, but they are mired in controversy because they must be extracted from aborted foetuses."


Embryonic stem cells are in fact derived from pre-implantation blastocysts, about 3 days after fertilization. At this point they consist of about 150 cells and are smaller than the period at the end of a sentence. Foetal-derived stem cells, which often come from aborted feotuses, are typically derived 8 weeks post-fertilization.


Embryonic stem cells can be sucessfully created from blastocysts selected at invitro fertilization clinics after they have been deemed non-viable for life, meaning that they would never develop into a human foetus if implanted.


Embryonic stem cells are far less controversial than tissue derived from aborted foetuses, yet we continously seem to equate them to the same thing.

Note: Due to the UK origin of the quote that inspired this post the English spelling, foetus, was used. The American spelling is fetus.