Dr. Jim Enstrom has been working as a researcher and professor for the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Department of Environmental Sciences at UCLA since 1974. But more recently he has also been waging a battle with his employers. They say that his work and results are not consistent with the mission of the department: "furthering interdisciplinary research at the interface between human health and the environment" and have been trying to push him out of his job.

But, his work has been demonstrated to be eminently consistent with their mission. It is just that Dr. Enstrom's results are in conflict with those on which the California Air Resources Board (CARB) based their $5.5 billion dollar legislation controlling diesel emissions--and he has not been quiet about it. According to CARB, diesel exhaust is toxic and kills 671 Californians per year. Dr. Enstrom disagrees, pointing out that the studies on which they based their conclusions did not take into account the fact that many truck drivers smoke and were based on data gathered from 1950-80. Amazingly, Dr. Enstrom found that one of the main reports was authored by a CARB staffer who had faked his alleged UC Davis PhD, having bought it on line for $1000. Since several recent studies (his included) show that the fine particulates in diesel soot do not contribute to premature death, Dr. Enstrom is rightly concerned that this highly expensive legislation may be unnecessary, being based on what he perceives as inaccurate and incomplete science.

AITSE is concerned about Dr. Enstrom's situation because we are committed to academic freedom and integrity science. Professors should not be afraid to publish controversial results because doing so may cause job loss. According to Dr. Enstrom, "Science isn't based on how many people vote on something. It's based on the truth, and the truth can be determined by just one scientist." AITSE agrees: science should be based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus.

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.

Do you know anyone over the age of ten who has never had the flu? Influenza is an amazingly successful virus that initiates infection by adhering to the surface of a specific type of cell (respiratory epithelium). This action convinces the cell to take the virus in and remove its coat. The virus then hijacks the cellular machinery to make more viruses, destroying the host cell in the process.

It is all out war, as those who have had flu recently can attest. In this conflict between the virus and our body, our immune system does not idly stand by. Some of our immune cells produce antibodies, which are specifically engineered to attach to the virus. The attached antibodies make the virus "tasty" to immune system cells called phagocytes, kind of like putting salt on your food. The virus is "eaten," "digested," and done!

But, what if the antibody-bound virus manages to enter its target cell before the phagocyte finds it? Mallery et al. just published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science showing that the immune system has an answer for that, too. Apparently, antibody-tagged viruses that enter target cells are shuttled to the proteasome (protein-degrading machine) in the cell and destroyed. So, whether inside the host cell or outside the host cell, they don't have a chance. How cool is that?

Orange County's Chapman University has opened an Evolution Education Research Center. Great! Open-minded science research is a good thing. But, is it? Open-minded that is. Listen to the mission: "to improve the teaching and learning of evolution through research." According to an official from the university, the further purpose of the center is to "combat misconceptions about evolutionary science," as shown by inviting Humanist and President of the National Center for Science Education, Eugenie Scott, to the opening ceremony.

Brian Alters, a science professor at Chapman, is extremely concerned that only 50% of the American public "believe" in evolution. He states that this could only be for one of three reasons. 1) Scientific illiteracy, 2) Religious illiteracy, or 3) The activity of the "large...powerful...very effective" anti-evoution industry.

For about 2500 years new physicians have been swearing to uphold a number of ethical standards in the form of the Hippocratic Oath. Among other things, they promise not to do harm, give lethal drugs, perform an abortion, or divulge their patient's confidences to others. Obviously, a politically incorrect oath!

Therefore, in 1964 the Hippocratic Oath was altered by Louis Lasagna of Tufts University. It now says, "Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God." (emphasis added) In other words, euthanasia and abortion are no longer out of bounds.

But, what about those physicians whose personal convictions and beliefs do not permit them to engage in this type of activity? Are they free to obey their conscience? Are they free to think differently? Or does the patient's "right to care" outweigh the healthcare provider's "right to refuse to provide service"?

Practically speaking, yes. Physicians and nurses whose conscience prohibits them from participating in certain acts lose their jobs. Conscience protection clauses are absent in recent healthcare regulations and President Obama is planning on rescinding current protective legislation possibly even this month! Read more below and consider, should physicians, scientists, and engineers only be free to think, or should they also be free to act (or not act) in accord with their thoughts?

Peer review is considered to be the gold standard for assessing the scientific merit of an idea or a certain interpretation of results. When a scientist or group of scientists write a paper, they submit it to a journal. The editor then sends the paper to other scientists working in the area (the "peers"). These theoretically independent reviewers read the paper, assess its worth, and respond "reject," "accept with modification," or "accept." The last option is rarely taken!

Once the paper is published, the scientific community is still not off the hook. They then should then continue the interaction by trying to repeat the experiments and publishing support or rebuttal of the new idea. The problem is that this process takes time. In addition, frequently, repeat experiments are not funded (and therefore do not happen).

In come the bloggers. Although many blogs do not contribute much to scientific debate, a few do. Some blogs are written by "peers" and some by others who are very capable of thoughtful criticism. Of course, published peer review via scientific journals is an important place where scientific debate occurs. But, it is not the only option. And since, in some subjects, results that differ from the scientific consensus are censored, this is not a bad thing.

Mothers and drill sergeants have a lot in common, not the least of which is their frequent insistence on correct posture. Standing up straight is better for our health, our social position, and now, according to researchers at Northwestern University, Illinois, our attitude towards ourselves.

The scientists recruited 77 students to a study where they were randomly assigned to be managers or subordinates. But while waiting they were also asked to test new ergonomic chairs--either by sitting up straight or by slouching. In word association tests afterwards, those who sat in a constricted position had a noticeably diminished sense of personal power in comparison to those who sat up straight. Whether they had been assigned to be managers or subordinates did not seem to have much effect on self-esteem.

Of course, psychology is a very complex science, affected by so many factors that it is extremely difficult to assess the merit of an individual study. But, while others try and replicate the results, I will just say, "Thanks Mom! I owe you."

Over the past month or so, AITSE has been growing in one of our main goals--the forming of a consortium of scientists, physicians, and engineers. So far, 18 highly-qualified people have accepted the invitation to join this work.

Members of the AITSE consortium will be contributing articles for the monthly newsletter, addressing current scientific questions and debates, developing materials for the AITSE website, and overseeing AITSE projects.

Information about these individuals will be posted on the AITSE website in the next month or two, so watch this space!