Nov 8, 6:00-8:00 pm. Accuracy in Academia Legislative Aide's Literary Cafe Pizza Night

Nov 11, 12:00 noon. George Mason University Christian Faculty Lunch, Fairfax, VA

Nov 11, 7:00 pm. Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

Nov 14, Time TBD. McLean Bible Church, McLean, VA

Nov 20, 7:00 pm, Calvary Chapel Logos Building, Costa Mesa, CA

The makers of Crestor funded the JUPITOR study--which found that Crestor is useful preventing heart attacks in people who do not have elevated cholesterol levels. The company that produces Trojan condoms found that sexual health and condom use are positively correlated. Jenny Craig funded a study that showed women lose more weight with--surprise surprise--Jenny Craig.

According to Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, "You have to be wary when there is a direct interest between the funder and the topic being studied" (quoted in CNN article referenced below). Unfortunately, when money is driving the research, positive results are at a premium, putting the funding-dependent researchers and their institutions under tremendous pressure. All the more reason for not believing everything you read--even if it is in a peer-reviewed journal.

Dr. Gavriel Avital's career as Chief Scientist for the Israeli Education Ministry is over. Why? He committed a scientific sin by questioning anthropogenic climate change and evolution--both untouchable subjects. What is more, he suggested that students should be allowed to learn about the scientific facts on both sides of these issues. Note that Dr. Avital was not accused of poor performance; Education MInister Sa'ar says the only reason for his dismissal was his unfortunate choice to differ from the scientific consensus opinion.

In China scientists encounter persecution of a different nature. A urologist, Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, arranged for a blogger, Dr. Fang Shimin, who accused him of scientific fraud, to be assaulted by a street gang. Dr. Xiao confessed on television, but the problem continues. Since China has no official policy on scientific misconduct, Dr. Fang feels that he is performing an essential service by reporting on 100 cases of scientific misconduct per year. The problem is that his work is neither confidential nor it would seem impartial (Economist Oct 9, p 115).

Fortunately, here in the United States we are above all that--or are we? Scientists may not hire thugs, but there is no doubt that science is slanted and censored for political, financial and other reasons. This is the purpose of AITSE. By education of the public and promotion of scientific integrity, we are working to free science from an unhealthy alliance with politics, financial considerations, ideology and the illusion of consensus. With your help, we can make a difference!

Have you heard that we share 95-98% of our DNA with chimps? This "fact" is trotted out as standard dogma in biology classes, being used to show that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. But, how much of this is data and interpretation of data and how much is extrapolation and speculation?

According to a recent paper published in Nature and a literature review piece written by Dr. David DeWitt in 2003, the above conclusions are premature to say the least. After all, in a 2002 study by Fujiyama et al. (Science 295:131), a mere 1% of the nucleotide bases in the two genomes were even compared. The chimp Y chromosome was only sequenced this year and shows less than 70% homology with the human Y. It appears that the human chromosome has a lot more genes than the chimp chromosome--the lead scientist said they are "horrendously different from each other." In addition, there are extensive differences between human and chimp chromosomes 4, 9, 12, and 21; the genes are in a different order and contain insertions that are unique to humans. Nonetheless, some scientists maintain that all these changes happened through evolutionary processes.

So, do humans and chimps have a common ancestor? Since we are in the early stages of understanding how the genome works, which parts are more important and which are less, perhaps it is too soon to say, but we could definitely do with more data and interpretation and less speculation based on preconceived ideas.

"Why should I care about integrity in science? I'm a businessperson, a gardener, a lawyer, a homemaker, a student. Science is just not relevant to my life." Have you ever said or thought this?

In this enlightening lecture, Dr. Crocker shows how lack of scientific integrity jeopardizes our health, prosperity and even faith as a nation. Cheating is endemic in schools so that students neither learn the facts nor are able to apply what they learn. Censorship is rife in academia so that educators are not allowed to teach both sides of controversial subjects. The financial interests of the funders control research and publication so that healthcare providers are limited in their search for accurate information and patients can end up taking harmful or unnecessary drugs.

A return to scientific integrity is not just necessary; it is vital.

"How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs."

Most of us have seen advertisements for Nexium, Protonix, Prevacid and Prilosec--medications that are used to treat GERD or heartburn. These drugs work by preventing the acid producing cells from pumping acid into the stomach and are thus called Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI). Of course, stomach acid is there for a reason: it helps in digestion and subsequent absorption of nutrients; one could therefore expect that the PPIs may have serious side effects. And they do. Besides the usual headache, diarrhea, constipation, and stomach pain, in May 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a warning: PPIs increase the risk of wrist, hip and spinal fracture by 25%, the risk of contracting a serious gastrointestinal infection by 74%, and the risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia by 30%.

Despite this, Jonathan LaPook MD pointed out that the PPIs are the "third most popular class of prescription drugs in America." They total about $13.5 billion/year in sales. But note, these medications are often prescribed for conditions that could easily be treated in other ways: weight loss, giving up smoking, and changes in diet such as limiting sugar, alcohol and caffeine intake. More trouble for the patient and less lucrative for the pharmaceutical industry, but ultimately much less expensive for the American public who otherwise end up paying inflated medical insurance premiums and possibly suffering with drug-related health issues that are much more serious than heartburn!

In 1981 and 1983 respectively, the Food and Drug Administration approved the artificial sweetener aspartame for use in dry goods and soft drinks. NutraSweet and Equal from drug maker G.D. Searle became an international sensation. Prior to the 1983 approval, Arizona State University food scientist Woodrow Monte went to the FDA to analyze the research files Searle had submitted. The National Soft Drink Association sponsored his visit - seemingly on a route to stop aspartame's approval. When the NSDA backed out of an FDA complaint, Monte filed anyway - based on what he calls "damning evidence.' The complaint had no effect on the outcome.

Monte was not alone -- from early on in the testing and approval process. After the accidental discovery of aspartame in 1965, Searle had biochemist Harold Waisman at the University of Wisconsin conduct safety tests with infant monkeys. Among seven animals, one died and five had grand mal seizures. Dr. John Olney, an expert on excitatory amino acids ("excitotoxins") at Washington University in St. Louis, found in 1971 that one of those amino acids found in the aspartame molecule could produce lesions in the brains of infant mice. Objections like Olney's to the 1974 provisional approval for aspartame's dry use raised more scientific concerns and culminated in the FDA's 1977 Bressler report analyzing some of the Searle-sponsored research. The report concluded, "The cumulative findings of problems within and across the studies we investigated reveal a pattern of conduct which compromises the scientific integrity of the studies."

In the early 90s, psychiatrist Ralph Walton noted in his practice that patients seemed especially susceptible to heightened mental problems from consuming aspartame. So he ran a double-blind human study using 30 mg. per kilogram of weight - well under the FDA's safe limit of 50 mg. per kilogram -- for the test subjects. Walton had to stop the study after serious reactions in the subjects arose. Later Walton did a simple comparison of the roughly 150 aspartame studies then available. He found that the funding source determined the outcome. Independent studies found problems over 95% of the time; industry-funded research found no problems whatsoever.

Of all the researchers, Monte has stayed with the issue of aspartame. His research has focused on the mechanism and effects of the methanol component of the aspartame molecule. Methanol is turned into toxic formaldehyde by an enzyme inside cells, most extensively in the brain and lungs. In addition, studies show humans are much more sensitive to methanol than other mammals. The food scientist is about to release a book on the subject, While Science Sleeps. Aspartame now costs a fraction of the price of sugar for equivalent sweetness; poor countries are finding in aspartame short-term economic benefits -- in exchange for probable long-term health deficits.

Gailon Totheroh is an independent journalist whose stories as Science and Medical Reporter for CBN News regularly covered researchers' scientific disquiet over aspartame. He is currently writing a book on scientific integrity that will include a chapter on aspartame. He can be contacted at gailon.totheroh@gmail.com.

Being skinny--it reduces your chance of developing diabetes, having a heart attack, and getting cancer. It is no surprise that caloric restriction prolongs life. Of course, studying this phenomenon in people is not easy, so Dr. Watabe and his team at the University of Tokyo work on tiny creatures called rotifers.

In controlled experiments, these scientists found that, when fed as much as their hearts could desire (if they had a heart which they don't), rotifers live for an average of 8.8 days. When allowed to go hungry, they survive for 13.5. But what was amazing is that the offspring of hungry rotifers lived for longer than the offspring of their well-fed counterparts (16.8 days if on a calorie-restricted diet). In other words, the health-benefits of being skinny were passed on to the kids.

Now, rotifers are very different from people. They can reproduce by parthenogenesis (no males needed) and do not enjoy the occasional hamburger. But, it is intriguing to consider that watching your weight may even benefit your unborn children. Pass the carrots!