|
|
|
American Institute for Technology and Science Education Newsletter
|
March, 2011
| |
Greetings!
I recently submitted an article on cheating in science for possible publication--the culmination of several months of research, interviews, and more. Since then, additional examples of the problems caused by lack of integrity in science and academia are flooding my desk. Information about some of the more important stories can be found on the left-hand side of this newsletter, one with commentary by AITSE Consortium member Dr. Bernard Brandstater. On the right, you will find a fascinating article on computer science and cells by AITSE consortium member Walter Myers III, a description of a magnificent piece of nanotechnology that can be found in you, information regarding recent research about the food pyramid, and some tongue-in-cheek speculation on how deer may evolve.
In case you missed last month's newsletter, I also want to draw your attention to our updated website, which features the AITSE Consortium. These scientists, engineers, and physicians will be contributing articles for the monthly newsletter, addressing current scientific questions and debates, developing materials for the AITSE website, and overseeing AITSE projects. We are grateful for their dedication to integrity in science.
|
|
Cheating
From the Top Down According to Jed Wallace of the California Charter Schools Association, "Cheating is unacceptable and inexcusable in any school." As a result, this organization has been forced to withdraw their support from six California charter schools that were cheating on state standardized tests. Apparently, John Allen, the former executive director of the Crescendo charter schools, instructed school principals to tell teachers to break the seal on the tests and prepare the students with actual test questions. Many did, but some teachers reported what was happening. Mr. Allen was fired and the schools are being closed. But what about the principals and teachers who obeyed the order? The message their behavior gives students is clear: "Grades are more important than learning and keeping your job is more important than being ethical". The fact that there is currently a veritable epidemic in student cheating, with about 80% of high school students admitting to the practice, shows that the message has also been received. We need to change this. With your help, AITSE can make a difference by providing education to increase scientific understanding and enhance integrity in academia. |
Pharmaceutical Fraud
A Serious Problem
Joachim Boldt, MD is an anaethesiologist with a multitude of peer-reviewed publications on colloids, a type of drug used during surgery for blood volume replacement. But, up to 90 of his publications are fraudulent. It has recently been reported that Dr. Boldt conducted drug trials without approval from patients or the hospital authorities, fabricated results, and forged co-author signatures--all to make colloid treatment appear more beneficial to patients than it is. The source of his funding? The companies that make the colloids, including Baxter, B. Braun, and Fresenius Kabi.
Before this scandal hit the news, millions of people in England were treated with colloids, even though other research showed they increase the risk of death after surgery by preventing blood clotting and contributing to kidney and heart failure. These pharmaceutical agents are still used in the USA. According to the above-linked article, Thoralf Sundt III, MD, Chief of Cardiac Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital said, "We use colloids all of the time in heart surgery -- routinely... I would say that this is very important ... if true, this has placed real people at risk of death and complications."
 Comment from AITSE Consortium member Bernard Brandstater MD:
Thanks for sharing this with me. I think that the report is not only correct, it is also balanced and fair.
The colloid solutions that are discussed in Boldt's writings belong to a class that has been marketed for many years in the US; I have administered them myself with no observed untoward effects. I must say, however, that I have not seen it [this class of drugs] pushed strongly in the marketplace, which may suggest that the supplying company was not confident about it. Some of the same questions have been raised concerning another category of colloid, the dextrans. These affect capillary perfusion and blood coagulation, but lost popularity because of occasional allergic reactions.
I am reminded of the case of Scott Reuben, whose name has become notorious in anesthesiology circles in the last two or three years. He published a series of articles in reputable journals, touting the benefits of multimodal analgesia, a way of controlling post-surgical pain by using a combination of drugs given intravenously, others given by mouth, and reinforced by peripheral nerve blocks using local anesthetics. Dr. Reuben reported impressive benefits in pain relief and his data seemed to reflect carefully designed studies, including rigorous statistical control. (His studies also benefited Pfizer and Merck to the tune of billions of dollars.) But somebody blew the whistle on Dr. Reuben, and 21 articles, published over a 12 year period, have been withdrawn.
I had one sad experience myself many years ago, consisting of fabricated data produced by a well credentialed research scientist whom I had recruited to do work in the department over which I was then the chair. When I discovered the truth, I fired him the next day in an interview that was one of the most distasteful encounters in my life.
It's clear: dishonesty can crop up in the least expected places, and there is no sure-fire protection. It is a regrettable by-product of a scientific community in which a life career can depend on a person's publications. I suspect that the publish-or-perish mindset is bringing into print a tsunami of irrelevant or trivial articles. And this dilution of quality is troubling me in anesthesiology. I can see the trend at work amongst the ambitious young trainees that I work with even now. The science community has accomplished great things in the modern world, but it is populated by human beings who can make errors of judgment, and whose opinions must always be open to question.
That is the purpose of AITSE: to encourage good science, based on impartial evaluation of data, not the personal or financial benefit of the scientist, physician, or corporate entity. This is an important goal, worthy of support--partner with us now and make a difference!
|
Can we Trust Pharmaceutical Sciences and Medicine?
Did you go to your physician this month? Did you take any medication? How do you know that the medicine is good for you? For that matter, are you sure that your nutritional supplements do what they promise? You trust your physician, but does he/she have access to accurate information in determining the benefit of the various treatment regimes? According to a fascinating article published in the Atlantic, they almost certainly do not. After all, physicians are trained to listen to the patients, order tests, and prescribe drugs, not to evaluate the research papers that made the treatments famous. For this, they are dependent on the integrity of the scientists and the efficacy of the peer review process.
Dr. John Ioannidis, formerly of Harvard University, Johns Hopkins and National Institutes of Health, is currently leading a team investigating whether medical research studies can be trusted and is making waves. He says that 90% of published results cannot. Moreover, he claims that peer-review by the scientific community is ineffective in addressing the problem. His research shows that, of the top 49 articles published in the last 13 years, only 25% of the claims to have found an effective intervention (e.g. daily aspirin or Vitamin E to reduce risk of heart attacks) were retested. This is understandable because 1) there is little funding for repeating someone else's work, and 2) for an article to be accepted for publication it needs to contribute new understanding; repeated experiments do not. Of those claims that were re-tested, 41% were found to have been significantly exaggerated or simply wrong.
Dr. Ioannidis has investigated nutritional claims, miracle drugs, and "breakthrough" gene linkages and found all of the work to be unreliable. Therefore, he suggests that we ignore all nutritional claims, take as few drugs as possible, and---"stop expecting scientists to be right". Perhaps funding on the basis of scientific merit instead of potential for an exciting result and freeing science from being controlled by financial considerations and professional advancement might help, as well. Meanwhile, if you forget to take your vitamins, don't worry. They probably don't make much difference anyway!
|
Cheating and Engineering 
How many of us work in high rise buildings? How many drive over bridges to get there? Chances are that none of our lives are untouched by engineers. We depend upon them knowing how to do their jobs and having the ethics to do them well. But do they? A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which starts with a quote from a mechanical engineering grad student, suggests that a significant number of them do not. According to a survey at Tufts University, 43% of students admit to cheating on their homework and 22% to cheating on exams--and many professors do not take steps to prevent it. In fact, Duke University Professor Donald McCabe says that faculty members told him, "I'm not here to teach honesty; I'm here to teach engineering." Perhaps this explains why, as was estimated in a Duke University study, about 75% of students cheat while at university. This is confirmed by what was reported by Dr. Trevor Harding after surveying 650 students at 12 colleges. 60-90% admitted to cheating while at college. Engineering students were among the worst offenders. Since the data suggest that of those who cheat at college, 63.6% will also cheat in the workplace, this is a very disturbing trend. What is the solution to this problem? Dr. David Pritchard, a physics professor at MIT has developed a detection system to catch those who cheat on their homework. But that just pits the students against the teachers and gives the message that it is the teacher's job to control the students' behavior, not the students' responsibility to act with integrity.
Dr. Harding seems to have a better approach. He is working to understand why students cheat, factors like insufficient time to complete assignments, inferior quality instruction, and a lack of connection to the professor due to large classes. One student told me, "The reason people cheat is that this is their whole future. Their morals may say don't cheat, but their student debt says they cannot afford to fail." That is another perspective.
The predicament of the modern-day student is of course not an excuse, but it may provide a clue on how to begin to reverse the cheating epidemic. We need to educate students and professors on the importance of learning and teaching, respectively, the subject matter. We need to teach them to practice intellectual honesty both in the classroom and beyond. This is one of the goals of AITSE--hopefully making this a safer world for all of us.
|
|
|
Cloud Computing and Biological Systems
by AITSE Consortium member Walter Myers III
If you haven't heard the term "cloud computing" already, then you're missing out on the next big trend in computation. Cloud computing is essentially web-based software and services delivered by a third party on the Internet ("the cloud"). The beauty of cloud computing is the massive scale that can be achieved by literally having thousands of computers in a data center, any number of them at your disposal, running web applications on demand without you having to know anything about the physical location or configuration of those computers. In other words, the cloud is the "machine." But exactly how is this accomplished, and how might this relate to biological systems?
A cloud-based data center provides a shared pool of computers all networked together, very similar to cells in a biological organism. All of these computers are identical, yet can take on any number of different tasks (or applications), just as the cells in biological organisms can take on various applications (such as being an eye cell, a brain cell, or a skin cell, but in this case they become committed to a specific task based on what specific genes have been "configured" to express themselves). Cloud computers can work on applications autonomously, but can also work in conjunction with other computers, similar to organ systems in complex biological organisms. In cloud-based systems, there are controllers at various hierarchical levels directing various computer tasks, which are also responsible for monitoring the health of both software programs and hardware. When a problem is found, a controller can shut down software programs or hardware, and divert the work to other computers. In a similar manner, biological organisms have cellular "monitors" that can detect when a cell is damaged or has died, scavenge the cell, and shift the load to new cells that have just come "online." By analogy, imagine a forklift operator in a data center removing a damaged bank of computers, replacing it with a fresh new bank. So we can see how cloud-computing architects, as intelligent agents, and without any particular intention of doing so, mimic cellular processes in certain ways to produce high-scale computational applications. Yet with all of the intelligence and complexity built into cloud computing, it pales in comparison to the complexity of the miniature machines that make up the workings of the simplest living cell.
|
Nanotechnology
in You!
 I recently overheard someone saying that ATP synthase is his favorite enzyme (cellular machine). No prizes for guessing that this happened at a scientific conference and the speaker dressed a little like Steve Urkel. But why would anyone like an enzyme so much? Let me explain and I am sure that ATP synthase will become your favorite enzyme too!
Most of us think that we obtain energy from food--and so we do. But, just like cars only run on gas, our cells also only run on one type of fuel: ATP. Therefore, the energy from the food that we consume needs to be converted into ATP before it can power the machines in our cells. An amazing and complex machine called ATP synthase accomplishes the last step of this process, working much like a hydroelectric plant (animation). Instead of the energy of running water being harnessed to make electricity, the energy of "running" protons moving from one subcellular space into another is used to make ATP. The machine that does this, ATP synthase, is made of more than 20 parts and consists of rotors with channels, a shaft, and ATP-making machines. When the protons move through the channel, their electrical energy makes the rotors turn. This mechanical energy rotates the shaft, activating the ATP-making machines to put a "P" on ADP, the precursor for ATP, making ATP. And this ATP is what our cells use for "gas". A recent article in Science magazine calls ATP synthase "exquisite", "fascinating", and an example of "beauty in complexity". Now you know why.
|
Quote of the Month 
Dr. James Shapiro
"I'm always running out of metaphors to try and explain what the difficulty is. But suppose you took Scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters containing every language on earth and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, "To be or not to be that is the question," that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the earth." Link
Dr. James Shapiro is a bacterial geneticist at the University of Chicago who is interested in the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. And he is not afraid to make his views known. Dr. Shapiro suggests that since we are only scratching the surface of the complexities of genomic information, open-minded consideration of the implications of new evidence might be in order. This attitude of thoughtful consideration, which is what AITSE is about and is demonstrated above, is essential for the progress of science. AITSE commends him.
|
 To Eat or not to Eat
Carbs or Fat: That is the Question
Dr. Walter Willett, of the Harvard School of Public Health, has composed a new food pyramid--and it does not match the one that we all learned about in school. For over 30 years we have been told to cut fat and increase our intake of carbohydrates. The result is an epidemic in obesity, heart disease and Type II diabetes. Now, increasing evidence shows that effectively reversing the two bottom layers of the traditional pyramid may result in weight loss, reduced cancer risk, and many other health benefits. Basically, we are healthiest when we major on eating fruits, vegetables, and unprocessed grains. Scientific knowledge changed. It seems that the "experts" were wrong, not as a result of dishonesty, but just as a consequence of the fact that science does not have all the answers. Science is said to be self-correcting, which means that it is sometimes wrong. Therefore, I would suggest we remember this simple example the next time we are tempted to abdicate our very important responsibility to think and weigh the evidence to the "experts". |
Evolving Bucks
Just for Fun!
A recent edition of Field and Stream magazine contained a story of three bucks who were found entangled and drowned. Sad, interesting, perhaps even poetic (so the article says). But, does this scene justify this speculation? "It's kind of neat to see evolution right there in front of you," says Tonkovich. "This is Darwin stuff, what we learned in biology 101-those that are strongest and smartest will do the breeding. In today's deer management world, our interest is in population dynamics or growing big bucks and age structures and so forth, but this takes you back to the basics of deer behavior and, even more simply, evolution and Darwin's theory of natural selection." In response to this assertion, a friend, Laszlo Bencze, jokingly told me, "I believe that deer are poised on the edge of an evolutionary precipice. The tripartate antler linking behavior is clearly the result of an evolutionary adaptation towards antler loss. As this behavior spreads throughout the population, antlered dear will steadily diminish in numbers until only non antlered deer remain. Non antlered deer are obviously better adapted to swimming behavior and will spend more time in lakes and pools which will in turn impel the acquisition of further aquatic traits. The net result of this evolutionary process may well be the development of some sort of fresh water seal." Only time will tell if Laszlo's prediction is accurate. |
|
|
|
|
In closing, as always, thank you for your past gifts and support. It is a fact that AITSE cannot function in its efforts to educate to increase scientific understanding and integrity without contributions. Please consider helping us with a special donation or a commitment to give on a monthly basis. Please make checks payable to AITSE and send them to PO Box 15938, Newport Beach, CA 92659. Alternatively, you can donate on line through PayPal or credit card.
Sincerely, 
Caroline Crocker
American Institute for Technology and Science Education |
|
|
|
|
