Between 7-10% of children and 3-5% of adults suffer from asthma; this serious and disabling condition causes inflammation in the airways so that they contract and fill with mucus. Asthma is now the number one cause of children missing school and things are only getting worse. The asthma-related death rate in children has increased 80% since 1980. Allergists agree that asthma control is best accomplished through lack of contact with the trigger, if it is known and possible to avoid. If not, treatment is vital. Acute attacks are routinely treated with inhaled short-acting beta-agonists (SABA), such as Albuterol, which work by stimulating a receptor on the surface of the cells. This is kind of like pressing a doorbell on a house. The response is a relaxation of the muscles lining the airways and results in opening of the airways so the patient can breathe. Because of the cell's quick response to the SABAs, these drugs are known as rescue inhalers.

There are, however, a couple of problems with SABAs. First, they are what the name implies: short-acting. Just like soon after a doorbell rings the household goes back to its original tasks and forgets the interruption, the cell returns to normal function shortly after being stimulated by a SABA. For this reason, use of a rescue inhaler needs to be repeated every four hours or even more often. Another issue is that the cell reacts in very much the same way as a person in a house would if someone kept ringing the doorbell: if receptors are over-stimulated they are either internalized or switched off.

In comparison, the long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), such as Serevent and Foradil, irreversibly attach to beta-2 receptors, forcing the airways to stay open for longer than possible with the SABA. But, soon after release onto the market, it was found that this advantage came with a price: an increase (now known to be trifold) in asthma exacerbations and deaths. Basically, patients quickly became tolerant of the effects of the LABAs because the receptors were inactivated due to the continuous stimulation. Since the LABAs use the same receptors as the rescue inhalers, the airways became impervious to "rescue" and patients died. I remember discussing this problem while I was working at Creighton University Allergic Disease Center during the 1990's, but prescription of the LABAs continued...

For more information, click on the link below and read the whole story in the AITSE updates!

Jan 20, 12:00 pm, Pacific Club, Newport Beach, CA Integrity in Science and Medicine: Why Does it Matter?

Jan 30, 5:30 pm, Radio interview KKHT, Houston, TX

So far, that is it! I am hoping to be able to go to DC and speak to some members of Congress about the issue of scientific integrity, but the meeting is still in the planning stages.

What does this mean for you? It means that my schedule is open for me to come and speak at your university, church, or other group. So, do some checking and fill my schedule! I'd love to see you.

Dr. Curtis Suttle of the University of British Columbia has analyzed the DNA of a giant virus, CroV, that preys on single-celled sea creatures. He and his team found that CroV shares about 12% of its DNA with another giant virus: mimivirus. It also has genes similar to bacteria, but the majority of genes are unique to itself. On this basis, he makes the remarkable assertion that "all viruses have a common ancestor" (emphasis added). Anyone else see the problem(s) here?

There is no need to add to or interpret this elegantly-written piece posted by the Anglican Curmudgeon on November 29. But, to whet your appetites, here are some salient quotes:

"What the controversy obscures, however, is that science itself has precious little to do with partisan politics, while partisan politics has a great deal to do with what kinds of science are funded through government largesse. As a consequence, those in academia who need government funding to maintain their laboratories and research programs are very much inclined to stay on whatever current bandwagon is receiving the government's bounty -- regardless of the merits of the opposing scientific views at stake. The result is a self-perpetuating kind of scientific "orthodoxy", which dictates not only the prevailing winds of governmental benevolence, but also the kinds of open debate that will be tolerated."

"And here we have the nub of the problem: the drafting of science into the lists of politics. For the two are wholly incompatible. Politics, "the art of the possible", proceeds (in a democracy or a republic, at least) largely by consensus -- the majority on a given point prevails. Science, however, is the antithesis of politics in that regard. "Consensus" is not science. A theory is either disproved, or not yet disproved -- it matters not how many scientists would vote to say that a theory is correct, or incorrect. A theory which has successfully stood all experimental tests to date is still not "proved", in the eyes of science, because there remains an infinity of opportunities to disprove it in the future -- far more opportunities, accordingly, than have existed to do so in the past. Thus the consensus of a group of scientists -- no matter how large, no matter how many thousands might sign on to the current belief -- does not, by itself, establish what is known by science."

Hmmm, maybe I need to draft this guy to write for the AITSE newsletter!

The Astronomy Department Chair at the University of Kentucky hailed Dr. C. Martin Gaskell as "clearly the most experienced" applicant in a search for the new director of the MacAdam Student Observatory. The head of the search committee said that Gaskell already had experience in everything such a position would require. Nonetheless, he was not hired. Why not?

According to emails circulated by search committee members, in 1997 Dr. Gaskell gave a lecture where he made comments about the theory of evolution. Moreover, his personal website contains an article on "Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation." On this basis, biologists at the university threatened that they would not work with the physics and astronomy department if Gaskell was hired. After university officials expressed concern about Dr. Gaskell's religious views and a committee member said that he was concerned about what Gaskell might do when "let out in public," it was decided to hire someone else.

Does this remind you of anyone? How about Guillermo Gonzalez, a top-notch astronomer denied tenure by Iowa State University because of his views on Intelligent Design (ID)? Or Richard Sternberg, hounded out of the Smithsonian for allowing a paper by an ID advocate to be published? Or yours truly?

It is time for a change. Scientists and professors should be hired and keep their jobs based on their performance, not their views. According to a US House Subcommittee report from December 2006, "NMNH officials have made clear their intent to prevent any scientist publicly skeptical of Darwinian theory from ever being appointed as a Research Associate, no matter how sterling his or her professional credentials or research." This should not be, and is one of the issues that, with your help, AITSE is addressing.

Sight is essential for the survival of most living creatures. Scientists are only just beginning to understand the complete process of vision, the complexity of eyes, and the diversity of eye designs. Living creatures have eyes that appear to have been specially designed. Some only sense changes in light without seeing specific images; others sense high-resolution wide-angle images at long distances. Eyes provide an important link to the world, enabling us to receive information for work, survival, and learning in a wide variety of situations. The electro-mechanical parts of eyes near and around the lens provide a means of tracking, adjusting light, and focusing. Here the brain controls where, how, and what eyes "see." The adaptable eye-brain visual system processes the information input from the eyes, memorizes selective images, and links our inner being to the world.

Embedded image processing software in the brain and eyes is as amazing as the optical designs. The computing capability of eye visual systems could be likened to a huge number of modular programmed electronic computing devices. For example, in the human brain it is estimated that there are some 1012 neurons, each averaging approximately 1,000 synaptic connections. One synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. In our experience, design, development, integration, and programming require intelligence. Therefore, it appears that the eye and brain and their interactions were intelligently designed.

Consider: there are approximately nine broad themes in optical eye design and image processing: 1) Camera, 2) Pinhole, 3) Concave mirror, 4) Apposition compound, 5) Apposition-Neural superposition compound, 6) Refracting superposition compound, 7) Reflecting superposition compound, 8) Parabolic superposition compound, and 9) Multiple sensor types and combinations of types.

Read the entire article by clicking below.

"I am sure many scientists have found it hard at times to gain support for their work simply because their approach challenged the conformism of their community...as long as scientists are unwilling to stray into unknown territories of knowledge they perpetuate their own conformity and lose the richness that comes from diversity."

Professor Frank Gannon is the Director General of the Science Foundation, Ireland, and has published over 200 scientific articles. Nonetheless, he sees a problem in science. Scientists, like most human beings, are conformists. The pressure of finding funding, getting published, and gaining the respect of their peers has a significant impact on their actions. This may be a contributing factor in our sliding competitiveness in the global marketplace. After all, people who are restricted or inaccurate in their thinking and questioning inevitably lose some of their innovative edge. Consequently, the scientific and technological originality for which the USA is famous is in danger of being stifled. This is precisely what AITSE is working to prevent.

Researchers at Ohio State University have been keeping the light on for mice--and noticing that it makes them fat. In an article published on line in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Oct 2010), Fonken et al. reported that mice exposed to continuous light, even if only dim, gained 50% more weight than those housed with a normal light-dark cycle. Interestingly, their overall food consumption did not increase.

So, why did the extended period of light make the mice fat? In a subsequent experiment, where the mice were not given food during the day, they did not gain excess weight. That is, mice given access to food day and night gained more weight than those that only ate at night. Therefore, the extended periods of light did not make the mice fat; the extended periods of eating did. The light modified their eating patterns.

Next questions. Does this mean that we should get rid of our night lights? Or perhaps we should stop using artificial lighting at all? Answer. Not based on this research. After all, the work was done in mice, which are nocturnal creatures. Humans are diurnal. In addition, the light itself did not have much to do with the obesity. The behavior associated with continuous light did.

The researchers go on to suggest that perhaps "people who use the computer and watch TV a lot at night may be eating at the wrong time and disrupting their metabolism." Maybe. But this is speculation, not results or even interpretation of results. The article says that "the findings show another possible reason for the obesity epidemic in Western countries." Not true. The results show a reason for fat mice, not fat people. In addition, these mice were exposed to extended light, not dark. But, since we are active in the daytime, an equivalent experiment would have humans in continuous darkness. So, is it possible that we are obese because we light our homes? Yes. But this research does not speak to the issue in any significant way.

As for me, I am going to turn on my Christmas lights, curl up on the couch, and read a book. Maybe I'll make some popcorn, too!

The November 6 edition of The Economist contained a fascinating article with mind-boggling geoengineering solutions meant to address anthropogenic global warming. Basically, money is being poured into investigating ways of keeping the earth cool even if we continue to generate carbon dioxide.

Ideas being investigated include seeding the stratosphere with a million tons of sulfuric acid on a yearly basis, dumping quicklime or calcium oxide into the oceans, and injecting the polar ice caps with liquid nitrogen. It is not possible to know the side effect of such measures, but I expect that they would not be good. Perhaps they would be even worse than the current problems said to result from climate change!