|
|
|
American Institute for Technology and Science Education Newsletter
|
June, 2011
| |
Greetings!
Walking through my local healthfood store, I noticed that a lot of their vitamin supplements and foods are marked "natural." The not-so-subliminal message received by the consumer is that natural is good. But, is that true?
After all, Deadly Nightshade is natural, but I would not recommend eating it. Manure is natural, but I would not recommend smearing it on your face.
All the word "natural" means is that the substance has been derived from nature. The FDA defines natural as "extracted directly from plants or animal products as opposed to being produced synthetically." Note: this does not mean that the substance is pure or that the potency has been tested or that it is not toxic. In fact, many herbal supplements are dangerous. Read on for information on defining scientific integrity, natural remedies, autism, mutations, loneliness and the newest member of the consortium.
And again, if you find these newsletters helpful or interesting, or consider integrity in science, medicine and engineering to be vital to the health and prosperity of our nation, please consider helping AITSE by donating or this newsletter to a friend. We depend on people like you to partner with us in educating to increase integrity in science.
|
  |
|
Natural Remedies
Is Natural "Good"?
 
These photographs were taken at an Orange County store that prides itself on bringing "you the finest organic and natural foods." Notice anything? Not a real fruit or vegetable in sight! To be fair, this store does stock produce--but aisle by aisle, the pills dominate.
According to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Guide to Herbal Supplements, nearly 20% of Americans have used a herbal supplement in the last year. The same source says that it is vital to be an "informed user" and that "natural does not always mean safe." In fact, because herbal supplements are not FDA regulated, they do not need to meet any standards of purity or strength. And, because people are under the impression that natural means safe, they often do not realize that herbal supplements may have side effects, and can and do interact with prescription and over-the-counter medications, with possibly life-threatening results.
Let's look at just a few herbs: St. John's Wort, which is touted to be useful in treating depression; Echinacea, which is said to prevent colds and boost immune system function; Hoodia, which is sold to overweight women for its alleged appetite suppressant qualities, and PC-SPES, which was sold by Orange County's BotanicLab as a treatment for prostate cancer. Two questions: do these herbs work and are they dangerous?
The NCCAM's afore-mentioned guide is very helpful as a source of information about the most popular herbs. There it says that St. John's Wort has not been demonstrated to be more efficacious than placebo in treating moderate depression. However, it does cause all kinds of side effects, including headache, sexual dysfunction, and stomach problems. In addition, it has adverse interactions with prescription anti-depressants, birth control pills, heart medications, HIV medicines, seizure medications, blood thinners, and some cancer treatments. This is a significant list of problems for something that has not even been shown effective.
Likewise, Hoodia has not been shown to be help with weight loss or appetite depression. Nonetheless, tens of thousands of desperate women and men are using it. On the possibly positive side, there have been no studies showing that Hoodia has side effects. But, that is because there have not been any studies, not because it doesn't. Interestingly, many of the products that say they include Hoodia actually don't. It would appear that folks do not notice because the only effect Hoodia has is as a placebo (more on this next month).
What about Echinacea? Apparently, the jury is still out on whether it actually works to prevent or treat infection, but there is no doubt that it can cause allergies. In addition, it has been "found that of 11 brands of echinacea purchased for testing, only 4 contained what was stated on their labels. About 10% had no echinacea at all; half were mislabeled as to the species of echinacea in the product; and more than half of the standardized preparations did not contain the labeled amount of active ingredients." But, again, does it matter if it doesn't work anyway?
PC-SPES did work in prostate cancer, but this was because of the estrogen surreptitiously added by the manufacturers. This "herb" was eventually withdrawn from the market because it was not only contaminated with artificial estrogen, but also with a blood thinner. The company was closed.
It is obvious that we have a problem. When "dangerous herbal remedies can be hyped on the Internet, embraced by desperate patients and legitimized by research institutions" (Washington Post 9/5/04), lives are put at risk. Natural does not always mean effective and it certainly does not mean safe. At best, many of the "natural" products shown above are a waste of money; at worst, they can be life-threatening.
|
Where Dr. Crocker Will Be
June and July, 2011
June 18-21--Oakland, CA
- Dr. Crocker will be in this area on other business, but would love to take the opportunity to speak at your gathering. Please email to arrange.
June 30-July 15--Northern Virginia - Meeting with various dignitaries
- Speaking at an informational meeting July 8. If you would like to attend, please email for details.
- Your choice. If you would like to schedule Dr. Crocker to speak at your event, please contact us.
July 28-August 1--American Scientific Affiliation annual meeting - AITSE will be having an informational meeting during this time, please email if you would like to attend.
- If you live in the Chicago area and would like to schedule Dr. Crocker to speak at your gathering while she is in the area, let us know. She would love to get together!
Looking ahead--San Francisco
- Dr. Crocker will be back in the San Francisco area from Aug 16-22, where she will be meeting with various professors and taking time to do some writing.
- If you would like to schedule Dr. Crocker to speak at your gathering while she is in the area, let us know.
|
Mutation
Increasing, Decreasing, or Just Changing of Function?  Can random mutations (changes in the genetic material) lead to changes in organisms that render them more "fit" for their environments? How would one determine whether a particular adaptation could be "considered a gain, loss or modification of function" at the cellular level?
According to a review by Michael Behe, PhD, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, where he analyzes changes in microorganisms, most of the changes that occur as a result of mutation cause a loss of, or change in, a molecular function and do not add to the genetic information content. For example, Dr. Behe, who believes that the life evolved from a common ancestor, points out that evolutionary history shows that cavefish have lost their ability to see and snakes have lost their legs--and also that these physical (phenotypic) changes are based in molecular changes (alterations in DNA leading to changes in expression of that information).
Then, Dr. Behe points out that, although the overall effect of a mutation may be adaptive, the mechanism whereby the change in function occurs can only be as a result of three types of mutations:- a mutation "that produces a specific, new, functional coded element,"
- a mutation that results in "loss of function of a specific, pre-existing, coded element,"
- a mutation that does not lead to loss or gain of a functional coded element, but just changes it slightly, for example, changing the strength of a signal.
Makes sense; a typo that changes a story can only make it better, worse or different. Although the microbiological data suggest that the first scenario can and does occur, it is important to realize that the vast majority of mutations fall within the latter two categories--possibly providing a serious challenge to some aspects of the accepted mechanism for evolution. Interestingly, Dr. Tim Cooper of the University of Houston and Christopher Marx of Harvard, recently published results that add to this story. They found that, even when a beneficial mutation occurs, numerous "beneficial" mutations tend to decrease evolutionary fitness. Does this mean microevolution, or even macroevolution, does not happen? No, as for micro, the researchers found that their bacteria increased in "fitness" by 35%. As for macro, it is debatable whether the results apply. But it does suggest that "random mutations followed by natural selection," as a mechanism which is thought to drive evolution, needs to be reevaluated. |
|
Loneliness
A Matter of Genetics?
When I was 21-years-old, it suddenly hit me: I am the only person inside my mind. Some might think I was a late bloomer! But, the experience is universal--loneliness is part of the human condition.
And, according to an article in the Economist, loneliness also increases mortality. Apparently, studies that followed 300,000 people, found that loneliness is just as unhealthy as smoking and drinking. UCLA professor of psychoneuroimmunology Steven Cole hypothesized that this may be because being lonely changes the way our immune cells read their DNA--which genes are expressed.
Dr. Cole analyzed gene expression in 14 people, six people in this group were categorized as severely lonely and one was not lonely at all. He found that lonely people tend to express genes that mediate a nonspecific immune response and less lonely people express genes that mediate an immune response tailored to making antibodies (which recognize and mark foreign invaders in our bodies) and fighting viruses. The conclusion the researchers drew was that being lonely increases one's risk of inflammation-mediated disease by altering gene expression in immune cells--it triggers an unhealthy immune response. They then went on to speculate on how this could have occurred evolutionarily.
Were their conclusions, as reported in the Economist, warranted? I would suggest they are premature at best and huge leap at worst. Let's follow the logic. The gene expression in a specific fraction of the cells in a very small number of lonely people appears different from that in a different fraction of cells in one person who does not appear to be lonely. Therefore, "past evolution has created a mechanism (the details of which remain unclear) which causes white cells to respond appropriately," but since evolution has not caught up to our modern way of life, natural selection has not yet "dealt with" chronically lonely people (who are immunologically less fit).
One step at a time. Note that Dr. Cole only analyzed immune cell gene expression. But, there are lots of other cells types in the human body and most of them are involved in some disease or other. In addition, the study was only performed in 14 people; the numbers in each "loneliness" category were even smaller. Quite apart assessing the accuracy of this psychological assessment, one also needs to consider if correlation necessarily implies causation. After all, Dr. Cole only notes a difference in gene expression, not a difference in immune system function--and then makes the leap to connect this to a psychological state. Finally, to suggest that this is somehow connected to the overarching evolution story may make it more likely to be published, but certainly does not add scientific information.
There is a difference between reporting of data, accurate and balanced interpretation of the data, and speculation. It is not that speculation should never occur, but that the public needs to understand when it does. As for me, I am going to go and discuss this research with a friend--killing two birds with one stone!
|
|
Hot Off the Press
An Attempt at Censorship Costs Journal an Apology and $10,000
Dr. Granville Sewell is a tenured professor in mathematics at the University of Texas, El Paso who has published three books and over 40 peer-reviewed articles to his credit. But when he wrote a paper questioning aspects of the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, he found that his peer-reviewed and accepted paper was pulled by the Journal of Mathematical Letters. This despite that fact that the journal's own editorial policy is that "acceptance of an article cannot be rescinded once an author has been notified of its acceptance, and accepted articles are supposed to be withdrawn only 'under exceptional circumstances' such as fraud, errors, ethics violations, and the like." I cannot tell it better than John West, of Discovery Institute, so read more here.
Although AITSE takes no official stance on the scientific merits of or problems with evolutionary theory, we do support good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not enforced consensus. We are glad that the offending journal apologized to Dr. Sewell for their actions and that they paid his attorney's fees, but are disappointed that they still chose not to reinstate the article in the print publication. Is this academic freedom?
|
|
Autism
What is the Cause?
Parenthood appears to be all about feeling guilty. And when your child suffers from autism or an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), self-flagellating questions abound. Should we have had him/her vaccinated? Did I feed them the wrong foods? Should I have raised them differently? Did they inherit this from my family/my spouses family? Whose fault is it and is it mine? Combined with the challenges of caring for the affected child and meeting their unique needs, this worry and confusion can be overwhelming.  | | Exponential increase in ASD since 1996 |
For this reason, many AITSE members have requested that we provide an article on the causes of autism. And since ASDs are on the rise, having only been diagnosed in 0.04% of the population just 40 years ago, but now affecting between 0.3 and 0.66 % of people, but a careful analysis of the possible causes is definitely warranted. Doubtless, some of this increase is due to improvements in diagnostic techniques, but that is unlikely to be the the entire explanation for a tenfold hike in incidence of ASDs. A review of the literature soon reveals that the reasons for confusion about the cause of ASDs is simply that the exact cause is unknown. In addition, it is very likely that there is not just one cause, but that ASDs are the result of the unfortunate interaction of a number of factors, just like Type I diabetes, which can also be caused by a combination of heredity and lifestyle. Similarly, the author of a recent review of the latest peer-reviewed literature suggests that ASDs are the result of genetic susceptibilities working together with various environmental factors. (They cover infection, toxins, vitamins, and vaccination.) A recent article in Evolutionary Psychology presents another viewpoint: that ASDs may be a result of the natural selection of "solitary foragers." Heredity/Genetic Factors: Research does indicate that there is a genetic basis for ASDs, but that it is probably multifactorial. Much work is now concentrated on rare mutations that affect the protein mecp2. This protein is highly expressed in neurons (there is a lot of it in nerve cells) and is important in turing off genes (~cellular instructions). It appears that some ASD patients cannot turn off the genes that are controlled by mecp2 class proteins. Interestingly, this protein is encoded on the X-chromosome, possibly explaining why ASDs occur in males four times more frequently than in females and sometimes appear to be inherited through the mother. However, it is important to realize that, although the evidence indicates that there is a genetic basis to ASDs, this cannot be the whole story. After all, evolution (changes in the genome) cannot explain the exponential increase in the number of diagnosed cases over the last 15 years--evolution simply does not happen that fast. Infection: Genetic studies on the families of children with ASDs have revealed a possible correlation between autism and immune system dysfunction. First, some research, as yet inconclusive, suggests that mothers of children with ASDs may be producing antibodies against the fetal brain. Other work appears to show that maternal respiratory, vaginal, urinary, or flu infection during pregnancy, particularly when fever is present, may increase the risk of the child developing ASDs. Both infection and the use of tylenol (a pregnancy category B drug) change maternal and fetal levels of IL-6 (a chemical vital to central nervous system development), but more work is required before any certainty about a causative relationship between infection, treatment of that infection and ASDs is possible. Vaccination: The April AITSE newsletter featured an article on the exposure of fraudulent studies published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield connecting MMR vaccination with autism. Certainly, the timing appeared right for this to be a real causative agent. After all, the symptoms of ASDs appear at the same age as the MMR vaccine is given. In addition, the exponential increase in children with ASDs has occurred over the same time frame as an increase in vaccination with MMR. However, coincidence does not mean causation. In fact, Dr. Wakefield's research has since been discredited, even though he continues to protest his innocence, referring the reader to peer-reviewed articles that he says back his work. Unfortunately, a quick review of these articles reveal that they document a correlation between ASDs and digestive problems, not ASDs and vaccination. (Incidentally, the link between ASDs and gastrointestinal problems is also under debate.)Those AITSE members desiring more information are referred to this balanced and well-referenced article on the risks and benefits of individual vaccines. Mercury/Thimerosal: Where there may be a correlation between ASDs and vaccination is in the use of preparations that contain thimerosal (approximately 50% mercury) as a preservative. It has been shown that autistic children have an intrinsic deficit in mercury excretion. This may be exacerbated by the fact that on average they use more antibiotics, which additionally reduce mercury excretion. As a result, children with ASD have double the amount of mercury in their baby teeth (a way to measure long term exposure). Note that this does not elucidate whether increased levels of mercury are a cause or a consequence of ASDs. However, some research does show that overdoses of mercury lead to neurological deficits and autistic symptoms, so there may be a causative link. And, when all the above is added to the fact that thimerosal is often used as a preservative in vaccine preparations (still is in influenza vaccine), leading to children being exposed many times the EPA recommended dosage of mercury, the idea that vaccination may be a causative agent in the development of autism does not seem so outlandish. Pharmaceutical companies are now working to remove thimerosal from vaccine preparations. Vitamins/Folic Acid: At about the same time as the numbers of diagnosed cases of ASD began to rise, physicians began to prescribe use of folic acid supplements to all pregnant mothers. Since folate reduces the incidence of spina bifida by 70%, this is a good thing. However, it has also been shown that many children with ASDs have a reduced ability to utilize folic acid because of a mutation in gene for the MTHFR enzyme. Since folic acid supplementation stops at birth, it has been hypothesized that these children, who would have been miscarried had their mothers not used folic acid during pregnancy, end up at risk for later development of ASDs because folic acid supplementation often ceases at birth. Interestingly enough, another supplement that has been investigated with regard to its possible role in ASDs is vitamin D. Several research groups have shown that vitamin D plays a role in neural development and assert that deficiencies are harmful in many ways. Since 90% of our vitamin D comes from skin exposed to sunlight, the post-1989 warning to mothers to keep their children out of the sun may have come with an unintentional side-effect of increasing the children's risk for development of ASDs. The fact that autism occurs more frequently in African Americans, where 96% have insufficient vitamin D levels, than in Caucasians, where 37% have enough vitamin D, adds weight to the hypothesis. It is also interesting to realize that females are more efficient in making vitamin D than males (and males have a higher frequency of ASDs), but of course correlation does not mean causation. Natural Selection/Evolution: What about evolution? The hypothesis by University of Southern California doctoral student Jared Reser is that autism may have evolved as human ancestors to searched for food as "solitary foragers" during times of food scarcity. Basically, he is equating ASDs with introversion (the validity of this assumption is questionable) and says this tendency could have been adaptive. He claims that it is not so now because times have changed and modern mothers feed their children. Therefore, they are not forced to use their maladaptive tendencies towards repetitive behavior in a positive way, like finding food. In addition, in modern society we "cage" children with ASDs in a "confining environment" (school), thus resulting in self-injurous behavior. He appears to allege that those with ASDs would be better off roaming the plains in search of food. Jared is writing his first paper as a doctoral candidate and so, should be given credit for a very imaginative hypothesis. But, his professors should be held accountable for their lamentable lack of guidance. The young man then goes on to bury himself even deeper in the evolutionary psychology mumbo jumbo and begins to compare the behavior of those with ASDs with that of orangutans and the behavior of non-autistics with that of chimpanzees. He does give a disclaimer on page 221, saying that "no offense is intended towards autistic individuals in this comparison with orangutans," but by then the reader is finding it hard to focus on his meaning for laughing at this poor student's politically correct squirming. At the beginning of the paper Jared says that "evolutionary perspectives on disease can elucidate pathophysiology and ultimately inform treatment strategy." One hopes that the treatment strategy he is recommending is not to take those with ASDs out of school and make them forage for their own food! Seriously, it is evident from the above that ASDs probably are caused by a combination of at least one, and probably more, genetic and several environmental factors. Evolution does not make significant changes over the space of 20 years, and so the genetic factors have probably been around for a long time. Therefore, to reverse the current exponential increase of ASD cases, we need to concentrate on elucidation of the environmental factors that can contribute to development of ASDs. For those of you contributing to autism research, AITSE suggests you ask some questions about just what it is they are working on. Those of you with loved ones who struggle with ASDs, feel free to read around for yourself (the review linked above is good) when deciding whether to take measures like avoiding giving them a flu vaccine, tuna and mercury containing foods, avoiding unnecessary antibiotics, giving a folic acid supplement, and spending some time in the sun. These measures have some basis in science, but which if any might be helpful has not really been elucidated. The purpose of AITSE is to educate and increase integrity in science. One hopes that a possible "side effect" of this may be to give people some peace, as they are informed about the facts and realize that it is not their fault. Then they can concentrate on the job ahead: helping their precious child/relative to be all they can be, even with ASD. |
Quote of the Month
Where is the Freedom to Question?
"Standing up for what is right is not easy for us who study the world using reason, because we must overcome the additional burden that we are living in a time in which reason, as defined by Herbert Marcuse (1941), is "unquestioned conformity to the dictates of efficiency, convenience and profits." I ask you...what does CU stand for: "Conformity Unquestioned" or "Courageously Undaunted?"
This quote is taken from a letter written by AITSE's newest Consortium member, Cornell University's plant cell biologist Randy Wayne, PhD. Dr. Wayne taught a course on Biological Principles (Biog 1110) which, besides giving a general introduction to biology, also encouraged students "to think skeptically about scientific and medical issues." It was arbitrarily cancelled by the university. According to Dr. Wayne, "It is possible that the soapbox upon which I stood in front of hundreds of students was removed because I teach my students to be thoughtful and have an active skepticism about the popular and lucrative trends in science and medicine, such as genetic testing for athletic performance and bipolar disorder." Dr. Wayne's words sound encouragingly similar to AITSE's mission...to improve science education and encourage scientific integrity. [To] offer clear, reliable and balanced education with the goal of liberating science and technology from ideology, politics and the restrictions of consensus... What is not so encouraging is Cornell University's decision to cancel the course. We look forward to hearing more from Dr. Wayne in the July AITSE newsletter.
 | | A slide from Dr. Wayne's course. |
|
|
Introducing Dr. Robert Marks
A Scientist Who Questions the Evolution Consensus
 According to a popular blog, AITSE Consortium member "Robert Marks has built a career establishing his credibility as a foremost thinker and researcher on the topic of computational intelligence. He has amassed an enviable publication record and huge set of government research grants. No one can question his scientific bona fides. And now, with his Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org), he is going for broke to establish intelligent design as a scientific research program. Just as Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled evolutionist, so Robert Marks is making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled [intelligent] design theorist." And AITSE believes he does so with integrity. Interestingly, according to another scientist,
"The questions they [intelligent design or ID advocates] have raised and the answers they have provided have all been persistently rejected by the vast majority of the technical community...it seems that the only rational standard that can be applied in science education is the scientific consensus within the technical community that is actively publishing in a particular field...when such challenges [such as ID] have been uniformly rejected by the technical community, it is not at all "honesty" to keep bringing them up in a classroom as if they are still open issues."
So, what is scientific integrity? Is it "respect for the hard-fought consensus" and "not expressing all sides in the educational venue" or does scientific integrity happen "when students honestly do their own work, industry and research institutions publish the complete story and scientists are free to consider the whole picture, even evidence that deviates from a consensus point of view...?"
Right now AITSE is conducting a Facebook and email survey. Of course, these issues are not decided by a vote, but AITSE believes that honestly listening to others is an important feature of integrity. Therefore, if you have an opinion, this is your chance to chime in! The best (and most diverse) answers will be featured in our August update, so watch this space.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
