"Exaggerated resistance" (Or how not to report science)

Scientific American gives us several reasons to "resist" the information in its pages this month, the August, 2007 issue. Unfortunately, only the Table of Contents is free, but the problem is in the titles given "news" stories themselves.

Under the title, "Roots of Science Hatred," on page 29 we learn that people learn to trust their own experiences, causing us to have "exaggerated resistance" to scientific reports:

For instance, because objects fall down if not held up, kids may have trouble accepting
the world is round, reasoning that things on the other side should naturally fall off.
Intuitive notions concerning psychology also lead children to see everything as designed for some reason—for example, a cloud’s purpose might be to rain—which can lead to opposition to evolution. In reportingtheir work in the May 18 Science, the researchers also note that when both adults and kids obtain knowledge from others, they judge claims based on how much they trust the source of an assertion. It suggests that science will meet exaggerated resistance in societies where alternative views are championed by trustworthy authorities, such as political or religious figures. —Charles Q. Choi (emphasis is mine)

Yeah, and the exaggeration is all on our part, and due to "hate," "religion," and "politics," right?

Since SA can't be engaging in politics, then only someone inclined to hate science would notice the problem with the following headline on page 32: "SciAm Perspectives: Worse Than Gasoline: Liquid coal would produce roughly twice the global warming emissions of gasoline." Couldn't they have used the more correct and less political term, "green house gasses?"

Yes, I'll admit to being a human-caused-global-climate-change skeptic. I remember the '60's and early '70's, when we humans were told that we were the cause of global cooling. I believe it had something to do with clouds blocking the sun's radiation from warming the earth. I'm watching and waiting, although I've always believed in keeping my little micro-climate as clean as possible..


However, for a review of the current "consensus" on global climate change, those of you with access to SA can read "The Physical Science behind CLIMATE CHANGE" (all caps in the original), beginning on page 64.

Don't bet on cloning to cure

Ian Wilmut says that if he had "to bet money," he'd bet on reprogramming adult - the patient's own stem cells.

Joining the cloning experts in the race are scientists who are looking for new ways to "reprogram" DNA, or make it young again without fusing it into an egg. They think it may be possible, for example, to bathe adult cells in the right chemicals and produce stem cells.

"In my view, it is difficult to predict which will come first but I think we need to try both," Wilmut said Tuesday. "If I had to bet money, I would probably bet on reprogramming" rather than cloning.

The science of reprogramming, he said, is moving quickly, and scientists working in the field don't have to deal with the myriad obstacles facing cloning.

The statement was made in Connecticut, at "StemCONN 07," an appropriate name that has more to do with the unethical cloning and destruction of human embryos than with the name of the State hosting the conference. Press releases, so far, attempt to focus on therapies from embryonic stem cell research - which, of course, can only benefit patients if their own cloned twin is used and destroyed in the process.

In another article in the Harford, Connecticut Courant, cloning is described as a goal, evidently, in spite of it's futility:

Wilmut and other scientists want to obtain personalized embryonic cells by fusing DNA from, say, a skin cell into an egg with its own nucleus removed. The resulting cells could be used to study a host of difficult-to-research diseases and in theory could be used to repair damaged tissue in many ailments.

However, a third article on the convention points out that

Researchers who received Connecticut's first batch of stem cell grants were among the scientists who presented their work at StemConn07.

Some of that work involves reprogramming the DNA of adult cells to produce embryonic stem cells tailored to a particular organism. This would have potentially huge implications for using a patient's own cells to repair damaged tissue without fear of rejection.

Success would quiet ethical objections to research that creates and/or destroys human embryos. Questions surrounding these techniques have resulted in a freeze on federal funding for work on stem cells created after Aug. 9, 2001.

Well, if tax money is to be used on stem cell research, they're betting a limited supply of funds in the hope of achieving cures and treatments for Texans. I agree with Dr. Wilmut in this case - the best bet is not cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). It's research into non-embryonic stem cells, in order to reprogram them to make the cells each of us might need, when and where we need them.

The Courant reporter doesn't quite "get it," though. He seems to believe that the goal of "reprogramming" is to use "generic embryonic stem cells" to produce the necessary cells. The research that has been published so far indicates that the most significant factor in regeneration of stem cells from more differentiated or specialized cells is the "factors," environmental cues and conditions that stimulate and recruit the patient's own latent or limited stem cells.

$17.9 Million plus for Texas: ethical stem cells

The UT Austin Daily Texan has the only report that I can find in the news about Wednesday's announcement that the University of Texas Health Center in Houston is the recipient of $17.9 million for stem cell research on treatments for heart disease.

The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute granted $17.9 million for the research of stem-cell treatments for cardiovascular disease to the UT School of Public Health Coordinated Center for Clinical Trials.

The school was established in 1967 as part of the UT Health Science Center in Houston.

The new funding will bring the institution to the forefront of stem-cell, cardiovascular research. Charged with coordinating the network's participating centers, the school will serve as the hub for the Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network.

"This research will examine the promise of approved stem-cell research of cardiovascular disease," Dr. Lemuel A. Moye said.

The network's centers include the University of Florida, the Cleveland Clinic, the University of Minnesota, the Texas Heart Institute and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Lemuel A. Moye, biostatistics professor and principal investigator of the program at the UT School of Public Health, was excited that the institution was selected to coordinate the other centers.

"It was a pleasant surprise," he said.

I wonder whether this grant will help one of the Houston Health Center Hospitals begin collecting cord blood?

Or will the docs at the UT School of Public Health work with Dr. Willerson and Dr. Perin at the Texas Heart Institute, who are testing a system to select progenitor cells to repair heart tissue, using a commercial product, Aldagen?

Hopefully there's a coordinating board somewhere that's watching over the efficiency of these different research groups.

How do you say "Duh!" in French?

Il n'est pas facile!

Nanodot reports on a citizen conference consensus paper which concludes that understanding nanotechnology and evaluating the ethics of research on constructs and machines built on the molecular leve requires effort and may be too hard.

They didn't know that nanotechnology existed until someone told them and then found that they had to work at understanding.

Last week, Science Daily told us about a similar study from a Pennsylvania professor who participated in a survey of people Vermont and New Zealand.

I'll admit to a bit of worry that we're all paying for the emperor's clothes - we can't see or measure it without the tools the researchers give us or until we - someday - see the effects.

How do we know what those little machines (like these little "ratchets") are really doing down there?

Immune Privileged Cord Blood Stem Cells

Pluristem is one of the companies focusing on the commercial development of stem cells. There are two or three names which have been regularly sending out press releases concerning their research and development (besides ACT, of course).

In this case, it's a company that's marketing selected umbilical cord blood cells or placental cells. If the product turns out to be what they say it is - a population of adult or fetal cells that can be harvested from the placenta after a child is safely born, isolated by the company's secret method, and transplanted to replace or supplement diseased bone marrow - then the complication of rejection may soon be a thing of the past:

Pluristem Announces Evidence That PLX-I Cells Are Immune Privileged

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan 29, 2007 - Pluristem Life Systems, Inc. (OTCBB:PLRS), a cell therapy company dedicated to the commercialization of stem cell products, today announced evidence that its PLX-I cells have proven to be immune privileged. PLX-I cells are Pluristem's first potential product dedicated to resolving the global shortfall of matched tissue for bone marrow transplantation by improving the engraftment of umbilical cord blood. PLX-I cells are mesenchymal stems cells obtained from the placenta and expanded by using Pluristem's proprietary 3D PluriX(TM) technology.

"Immune privileged" is defined as the absence or diminution of rejection when implanted into unmatched recipients. Being immune privileged, the PLX-1 cells carry significant positive implications in the development of Company products for a variety of degenerative, malignant and immune diseases. Additionally, this immune modulating property could prove important in treating or preventing immune reactions associated with transplantation.

Ora Burger PhD. V.P. of R&D at Pluristem states: "Our PLX-I cells possess immune privileged characteristics that can be used in the future for other applications involving transplantations. PLX-I cells posses[s] these immune privileged characteristics without carrying the associated social stigmata of embryonic stem cells because PLX-I cells come from the placenta."

William R. Prather RPh, MD, Sr. V.P. Corporate Development notes: "Mesenchymal stem cells can differentiate into a range of different tissues types associated with the musculoskeletal system such as bone, cartilage, fat, muscle, tendon and ligament. Consequently, mesenchymal stem cells are considered to be multipotent. Additionally, some reports provide evidence of these cells plasticity or the ability of mesenchymal stem cells to traverse tissue boundaries and give rise to cells of a different non-musculoskeletal tissue, such as brain or liver cells. If this is the case, mesenchymal stem cells may be used to help treat a broad range of tissues affected by damage or disease. Allogeneic transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells between different individuals may also be possible as these cells appear to be immune privileged in that they are not necessarily rejected when implanted into unmatched recipients. The characteristic of these cells being immune privileged may enable Pluristem to be involved with new clinical applications with PLX-I."

Texas leads in nanotech armor

Betterhumans ("forward thinkers discussing, celebrating and creating the future") reports that another Texas researcher is a leader in biotech.

University of Texas' nanotechnologist Ray Baughman has learned to spin a new yarn from carbon nanotubules. It appears that the yarn contracts when stimulated with electricity and is expected to be strong enough to serve as armor. he has a contract with the Pentagon to produce "exoskeletons" for soldiers. More from Spiegal Online International.

Book Review: Michael Crichton's NEXT

"Stroke Damage May Help Smokers Kick the Habit: The insula, an area of the brain largely ignored by researchers, may hold the key to breaking harmful addictions" (Scientific American Science and Technology News, January 25, 2007)

"Fresh light thrown on tragic drug trial: Animal tests may have missed danger because monkeys 'too clean'." (news@nature.com online, January 25, 2007)

"Preparing cloning for market: Ranchers are getting set, but are consumers ready?" (Boston Globe, January 26, 2007)

"Biomed firm commercializes stem-cell sales" (UPI Business Newstrack)

"New WARF Stem Cell Rules To Benefit Biotech Research" (BioWorld Headlines, AHC Media, LLC, January 25, 2007)

"Crunch time for multiple-gene tests: Sophisticated new genetic tests face an uncertain future — unless they can win clear-cut approval from regulators, insurers and, most importantly, doctors. Virginia Gewin reports." (Nature News, premium access only)

"Stem Cell Debate Rages: Effective Treatements "Decades Away" Prof. McKeown Shocks Audience" (Beaumont College Alumni News, as reported in NEXT, 2006)

Only that last headline is fictional, from Michael Crichton's newest book, NEXT.

I'm just a bit more than half-way through the book, but the fact is that I had to "Google" the fake news report to convince myself that it wasn't a very real article from some past news source. After my sureal experience of researching today's news and having to remind myself that the Google stuff was "real," I was spurred to give y'all a heads up.

Dr. Crichton is the author of The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, and The Terminal Man. His science fiction is heavy on science and he has always seemed to be drawing on tomorrow's news stories - probably (I'd like to believe) because of his medical training.

This book is not very flattering to doctors. Or the media, research scientists, regulatory agencies, public policy makers or politicians. I had nearly decided that the author was stretching reality and coincidence in order to build his story, but then I opened my e-mail this morning and there were the Google News search alerts I've cited above - some of which are more fantastic than anything in the book so far.

In that "fake" news piece above, the reporter quotes a fictional professor of biology as he describes the hype that's surrounded stem cell research, including a thorough history of the human cloning scandals by Korea's Hwang Wu Suk. The "doc" continues,

". . . First, in a media-saturated world, persisitent hype lends unwarranted credulity to the wildest claims. For years the media have touted stem cell research as the coming miracle. So when somebody announced that the miracle had arrived, he was believed. Does that imply there is a danger in media hype? You bet. Because not only does it raise cruel hopes among the ill, it affects scientiest, too. They start to believe the miracle is around the corner - even thought they shourld know better.
"What can we do about media hype? It would stop in a week, if scientific institutions want that. They don't. They love the hype. They know it brings grants. So that won't change. Yale, Stanfor, and Jons Hopkins promote hype just as much as Exxon or Ford. So whenever you hear a scientist claim that his statements have been exaggerated, or taken out of context, just ask him if he has written a letter of protest to the editor. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, he hasn't."
. . .
"Next lesson: Peer review. All of Hwang's papers in Science were peer-reviewed. If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it. Whang made extraordianry claims. He did not provide extraordinary evidence. many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn't work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, "This paper was peer-reviewed,' or 'This paper was not peer-reviewed,' as if that meant something. It doesn't.
"Next, the journals themselves. Where was the firm hand of the editor of Science? Remember that the journal Science is a big enterprise - 115 people work on that magazine. Yet gross fraud, including photographs altered with Adobe Photoshop, were not detected. And Photoshop is widely known as a major tool of scientific fraud. Yet the magazine had no way to detect it."
. . .
"The ultimate lesson is that science isn't special - at lest not anymore. Maybe back when Einstein talked to Niels Bohr, and there were only a few dozen important workers in every field. But there are now three million researchers in America. It's no longer a calling, it's a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. Its practitioners aren't saints, they're human beings, and they do what human beings do - lie, cheat, steal from one another, sue, hide data, fake data, overstate their own importance and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That's human nature. It isn't going to change."

Crichton also slams the patents on human genes and on cells that have been removed from patients in the course of medical treatment - patents that become property and make people near-property of universities and then private corporations.

(He also tweeks people like me, who love to give references in the form of urls or internet addresses in support of their points. One of the characters invents pages of "Google" references in just a few hours in order to hide her own secret. Lesson: Watch your sources, verify and then verify, again.)

Crichton is one of the writers that I recommend for what I call "ethics lessons we don't have to learn the hard way." Science fiction, which long-time Astounding Science Fiction - now Analog Science Fiction and Fact - editor John Campbell called "future fiction," often explores the "why's" and "why not's" of science, medicine and research, and the feelings that characters experience in what are (usually) novel situations that strain everyday ethics. Just as we study classical and contemporary fiction to learn more about the human condition, we can learn from science fiction authors' and their characters' reaction to what is fantastic today (but may not be tomorrow, in a few minutes, or in an "alternate history"), as well as our reaction to their reactions.

I recommend the NEXT to other SF fans and bioethics nuts. I also recently read and recommend Prey and I'm listening to State of Fear on Audiobooks. My favorites are still The Andromeda Strain and The Terminal Man, but Congo is worth reading, too.

The future of stem cells, Texas and politics

The Friday, January 26, 2007 Austin American Statesman editorial, “Stem cell opposition could steer research away from Texas,” flatly states that Governor Rick Perry’s $3 Billion dollar cancer research initiative won't help at all if it doesn't include funding for embryonic stem cell research. The Statesman editors doubt that there will be any scientists to spend the money on.

The editorial is ridiculous – and, as the editors admit, political - in light of daily strides in ethical stem cell research and Texas’ strong research community.

Texas hospitals were among the first in the nation to offer umbilical cord blood transplants. Cooperation between Texas universities, medical schools, NASA and foreign researchers led to technology which allowed the development of embryonic-like stem cells and liver cells from umbilical cord stem cells.

Texas is already enough of a leader in ethical stem cell research to lure the President of the International Society of Stem Cell Researchers, Paul Simmons, Ph.D., away from Australia to the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston.

We also have Diego Castrillon, MD, PhD., who moved from Massachusetts to the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center. Dr. Castrillon is credited with research into the "Fox O's." These are "transcription factors," or local proteins that cause the expression of certain genes. They promote the health of adult stem cells and suppress cancer cells.

This month’s issue of the journal, Cell, will include a report on further research on FoxO’s. From a press release at "Newswise"

The FoxO1, O3, and O4 transcription factors regulate genes in the complicated cell signaling network known as PI3K-AKT, or simply PI3K. Scientists have discovered that PI3K signaling is intimately involved in fundamental cell processes such as metabolism, aging, and protecting the body against cancer. The PI3K circuit has been found to be disrupted in many forms of cancer, making it a hot topic in cancer research labs and drug company boardrooms.

Based on previous work in his laboratory, DePinho, working with Diego Castrillon, MD, PhD, (who is now at the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center), determined that the three FoxOs had redundant, overlapping functions: To uncover those functions, it would be necessary to engineer mice that lacked all three FoxO transcription factors.

To make the task even more difficult, mice lacking FoxO1 die in the womb. DePinho and Castrillon had to engineer mice whose FoxO genes would function normally during development, but would contain a mechanism allowing them to be switched off in adulthood at the scientists’ will. It took DePinho’s team about two years to get the system to work, which Gilliland hailed as a “true tour-de-force of mouse genetics.”

Mutant FoxOs have been implicated in leukemia, and for Gilliland, who studies blood cancers, the triple-knockout mice were an opportunity to dig deeper into the issue. Unexpectedly, however, deletion of FoxO1, 03, and 04 caused blood cell abnormalities but not outright leukemia. A bigger surprise was that the blood stem cells “were really in trouble without those transcription factors,” he said, dividing too rapidly, losing their ability to renew themselves, and dying out. “This means that FoxOs contribute to the longevity of stem cells, and if you take them away, you dramatically shorten stem cells’ lives.”

Looking further, Gilliland and his colleagues found that the damage was being caused by reactive oxygen species, or ROS, a toxic byproduct of cells’ energy production. When the mice were treated with anti-oxidants, the stem cells regained health and longevity. “So, the FoxOs are acting as natural antioxidants,” said Gilliland. Conceivably, he added, drugs could be developed to manipulate the FoxO pathway and extend the lives of stem cells beyond their natural limits, which could aid their use in repairing diseased body tissues.

Texas' limited research funds should be spent on supporting the State's cord blood bank system and continuing research that will give us real cures for Texas' patients.

Note: First paragraph edited for grammar at 10:25 AM CST.

Calling all scientists

The Aspen Ideas Festival is a meeting that I had never heard of until recently (I actually found it Googling for "Bioethics and Politics" and "Bioethics and Policy" which are names I've come up with for alternative blogs in case I decide to change my focus) There are audio recordings and transcripts online which contain segments that should be fascinating to many of us, whether our primary interest is religion, politics or bioethics.

If you want to see who are considered the elite thinkers in this country - at least by others who consider themselves elite thinkers - take a look at the website and listen or watch some of the sessions from the July, 2006 event.

One segment is audio-only, "Politics and technology." Nigel Cameron links to it on his blog, and he was the sole prolife member of the panel. Other panel members include Neal Lane, a professor of Physics and Astronomy at Rice University at Houston, Texas and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from 1998-2000, Doroth Shore Zinberg, a sociologist and lecturer in Science, Technology and Public Policy at Harvard, and Lawrence Krauss, a professor in Physics and Astronomy who has written The Physics of Star Trek.

The one thing that all of the panelists agreed to in the very enlightening hour and a half, is that all of us should become involved in policy making, whether it's in politics, our professional associations, or in teaching about science and ethics in our local communities and churches. I love it when people so much more brilliant than I agree to even part of the mission and vision that I wrote for LifeEthics:

We encourage all of our members, especially medical and scientific professionals, to become involved in setting the policies of their communities, associations, schools and businesses in order to ensure that those organizations maintain high ethical standards.

We educate the public and professional communities on current events concerning the right to life and liberty of humans. Our members mentor one another in opportunities to serve in professional and academic capacities to fulfill our mission. We monitor and alert our members and the public about unethical scientific research and medical therapy. We are active in our own institutions and associations in order to influence the policy decisions of the organizations that represent us.

We use standard scientific and medical definitions and verifiable scientific data whenever possible in our position statements and deliberations and expert opinions only when the evidence is not available.

(The full panel would not be in agreement with the section that is struck.)