September update about The Myth of Junk DNA, Fosamax, a movie about butterflies, a potential cure for viral illnesses, clever lizards, a lawyer's take on science, and the newest members of the consortium.

American Institute for Technology and Science Education Newsletter	September, 2011

Greetings!

I spent a lot of time this summer at airports: waiting to check my suitcases, going through security, waiting for a delayed plane, and waiting to get on and off planes, not to mention waiting for lost luggage. Surely there must be a better way!

Interestingly, one of my summer trips included a tour of Fermilab, which is where fellow frustrated traveler Dr. Jason Steffen spends his time studying "Extrasolar Planets, Dark Matter/Energy, Gravitation, Cosmology, Data Analysis Techniques" and...how to get on and off airplanes faster. To do this he used the scientific method. After forming a hypothesis about what the hold-ups are (most of us could do that!) and how they might be overcome, he used his scientific skills to write computer simulations. Next, Dr. Steffen conducted experiments where a group of passengers tried boarding a mock airplane in several different ways. He found that the standard block boarding method took the most time and his method of boarding window seat passengers first by alternate rows took the least. Then, in true scientist fashion, he submitted his results for publication. Dr. Steffen estimates that if an airline adopts his recommended practices, they will save approximately $100 million dollars/year. Will they listen when an astrophysicist tells them how to do their jobs? Time will tell--literally!

Meanwhile, read on for information on a new book, The Myth of Junk DNA, Fosamax, a movie about butterflies, a potential cure for viral illnesses, clever lizards, a lawyer's take on science, and the newest members of the consortium.

Marketing and Medicine

A Matter of Safety?

On September 9, 2011 a federal advisory panel from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a statement advising that, after an investigation of claims that drugs for osteoporosis, such as Fosamax, Actonel, Boniva, and Reclast (Bisphosphonates) may increase a person's risk of jaw decay and fractures of the femur, there is still insufficient evidence for them to make recommendations about whether their use should be restricted. This is of course, not even taking into account the reports of increased irregular heart beat, muscle pain, kidney impairment, and severe esophageal problems with use of these drugs.

Why all the side effects? An analysis of bone physiology and the mechanism of action of bisphosphonates will be enlightening. Bones are part of an elegant system designed to accomplish two goals. First, the bones themselves provide a strong and pliable framework for support of muscles and protection of organs, not to mention housing for the synthesis of blood cells. Bones are kind of like flexible steel-reinforced concrete: they are made of collagen (stringy protein=steel) and hydroxyapatite (concrete), a mineral made of calcium and phosphate.

But bones are also a "bank." That is, calcium is not just part of bones and is not just stored in them. Calcium, a chemical that is important for mediating reactions within cells, vital for normal muscle function, and essential for regulation of heart rhythm, is also deposited and withdrawn from bones. Blood levels of calcium are carefully fine-tuned by a delicate interplay of hormones and cells known as osteoclasts (which break down bone to release calcium into the blood when more is needed) and osteoblasts (which sequester calcium into the bone when there is too much in the blood). This regulatory system enables the body to remodel bones depending on the stress put on them, keeping them at optimum shape and rigidity, but is also extremely important for proper heart and muscle function.

According to Merck, Fosamax works by inhibiting "osteoclast-mediated bone reabsorption." That is, it prevents calcium from being withdrawn from the bone bank. The result is that calcium builds up in the bones, increasing their density by packing in more and more hydroxyapatite (cement) between the collagen fibers. Osteoporosis does decrease, but the bones inevitably become brittle. And, as the channels that provide vital nutrients to the osteocytes become blocked with mineral deposits, the cells die; the bones may even become necrotic. Thus, fractures in a weight-bearing bone such as the femur and osteonecrosis of the jaw bone should not come as a surprise.

But remember, calcium is vital for function of muscle, the heart, and more. It has been shown that taking bisphosphonates may result in hypocalcemia, that is reduced levels of blood calcium, which is bound to mean the these drugs will have serious side effects--and they do. Calcium is vital for normal skeletal muscle function; low levels cause twitching and cramps, both of which have been reported as side effects of bisphosphonates.

In the heart, calcium is important for regulating the heart beat, which is why calcium channel blockers are prescribed for arrhythmia and high blood pressure. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that bisphosphonates have been implicated in doubling the risk of atrial fibrillation.

The effect of hypocalcemia on the kidneys is more complex. Low blood calcium levels stimulate the hypothyroid to release parathyroid hormone, which in turn stimulates the kidneys to retain calcium and the bones to release it. But perhaps when this is not possible due to the actions of a drug such as Reclast, a bisphosphonate, then the kidneys become over-stressed and may even fail. Novartis recently released a warning about the relationship between Reclast and kidney failure.

Finally, there appears to be a significant relationship between use of bisphosphonates and severe esophageal disease. Again, we come to the natural function of calcium in the body--prevention of hyperacidity and its effects: gastric reflux, esophageal damage, and even cancer. Calcium levels must be carefully regulated; interference with that regulation by preventing calcium reabsorption is like fighting crime by imprisoning everyone between the ages of 15 and 25. Effective, but perhaps a little excessive?

This issue of bisphosphonate side effects has been under investigation for some years. It is a fact that these drugs do reduce the incidence of wrist, hip and vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or Parkinson's disease (Dynamed). However, direct evidence for their benefit is lacking in men with osteoporosis and anyone who does not have osteoporosis. In June 2008 the FDA "requested information from all bisphosphonate drug manufacturers regarding this potential safety signal [fibrillation]. All available case reports and clinical trial data were requested. FDA's review of these data did not show an increase in this risk in women using these medications." Interestingly, their report on the unusual thigh fractures, which admittedly have only been reported in 300 women, reads the same.

But notice, who did the FDA ask for information about the drugs? The manufacturers. Who made $3.2 billion in 2005 alone. So, is taking them to be recommended? It seems that the FDA still thinks it is. Whether you agree is up to you. Think about it, discuss it with your physician, and decide for yourself. As for me, I'm going to eat my 5-10 servings of fruit and vegetables a day and get some exercise.

Of Butterflies and Brains

Metamorphosis, produced by Illustra Media, will have premieres all around the country this month. This "documentary explores the extraordinary life cycle of [butterflies]" and "was filmed in Mexico, Ecuador, and two of the leading research centers in North America..." It "features the first extensive MRI images of a caterpillar's transformation inside a chrysalis" and powerfully argues for the activity of an intelligent designer. Tickets are free, although an RSVP is requested.

At the same time, Test of Faith will be going on tour in the USA. Although the subject matter is not strictly applicable to AITSE's mission of increasing integrity in science, Test of Faith is of interest simply because it assumes that evolutionary science is proven, but that it is not the whole story. Scientists who have a living faith in God are highlighted throughout the series. Details about the tour can be found here.

Confession Cheating

Good for the Soul?

Next, I had to face copying during exams. Since I used Scantrons, it was easy for one student to look at another's answers and copy them. How to prevent this? Here I hit on using three versions of the same exam. Even so, there were some who would copy their neighbor's answers and then write their neighbor's exam version number on their answer sheet as well. So, I began to have the students write their name on their exam sheet and on their answer sheet, checking if they matched before grading. It was a lot of trouble, but very necessary. One young lady, Hiroko, turned in a Scantron sheet identical to that of Elise, the student sitting next to her. She also had Elise's exam version written on her Scantron; it did not match her exam sheet.

"Hiroko, you have the wrong version written on your Scantron, look."

"Oh," she answered airily, "I just got confused about it." She changed the version.

"Now look, Hiroko, your answers are identical to Elise's answers," I challenged her. "You know cheating isn't allowed."

Hiroko looked indignant, "I wasn't cheating! I just happened to choose the same answers."

"But, you had a different version of the exam." I was amazed at her denial.

"So, are you calling me a liar? How can you accuse me of cheating!" Hiroko flounced out of the room.

Because we had been told at faculty orientation that it was mandatory to report cheating, I sent the evidence to the honor committee. Hiroko was found guilty. We then found that she had been cheating in the lab, as well. Hiroko, who seemed a little slow at realizing when she should stop, had notes penciled on the back of her Scantron during the very next exam.

Another student, Maya, informed me, I saw it, and sent the evidence to the honor committee. Their decision was that Hiroko should leave the university. It amazed me that Hiroko still persisted in misbehavior and then followed Maya around, threatening her, until Maya phoned me at my home in tears. It did not take long for me to contact the Dean of Students, a lovely man, who soon made a phone call and put a stop to the nonsense.

This excerpt from Free to Think illustrates one side of the cheating problem at universities in this nation. But, recent work by Kassin and Perillo at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice shows that there is another side, too. Namely, that although the vast majority of students, when accused of cheating, will deny it, over half will confess if told that there is proof that they did it--even if they are innocent and there is no such evidence. Clearly, in our zeal for academic integrity, we need to be careful that we have clear evidence and remember that people, even students, are innocent until proven guilty, as Hiroko was.

Viruses Frankencell

Erradicate!

Did you get a cold this summer? Have you been vaccinated against the upcoming flu strain? If so, you are engaged in mankind's war against the smallest of creatures, if indeed they are alive at all, viruses. And war it is.

Because viruses are obligate intracellular parasites (they live inside our cells), hijacking them so that they churn out more virus instead of performing the functions of life, any medication that wipes out viruses must, of necessity, wipe out our cells. Viruses are not susceptible to antibiotics, thus we cannot cure virus infections (our immune systems have to do that). Instead scientists and physicians concentrate on preventing the infection in the first place, often by the use of a vaccine, which as it were, "primes" our immune system.

But, recent advances by MIT Lincoln Laboratory's Chemical, Biological and Nanoscale Technologies Group may change all that. These scientists decided to try to attack viruses at a fundamental level: double stranded RNA (dsRNA), which the scientists thought is mostly found in virus infected cells. Their antiviral, DRACO, works by inducing cells that contain dsRNA to commit suicide, thereby preventing the infected cells from making more virus. The problem is that dsRNA is also an important regulator of gene expression in healthy cells. In other words, it won't only be infected cells that die.

DRACO has been tested and shown to be nontoxic in cells; it was also proven effective against 15 types of virus. In addition, early work shows that it was effective in curing mice of the flu--and did not kill the mice. Perhaps the short term exposure to this drug gives the immune system the edge over the virus infection that it needs, without wiping out healthy cells.

Of course, there is a long way to go before DRACO could be used in humans, but so far it looks as if it may have promise for the future. We may win the war after all. But, watch out for those side effects!

New Member of the Consortium
Dr. Mark Biedebach

Dr. Mark C. Biedebach, Professor emeritus of biological sciences at California State University Long Beach taught neurophysiology, human physiology, and science and modern culture for over 30 years. With a PhD in biophysics and a master's degree in electrical engineering, he should know what the scientific method is and what it can do.

In the book he is currently writing, Dr. Biedebach says, "How does the scientific method actually work? Scientists often ponder a question or problem associated with an incomplete scientific explanation. They plan new experiments or observations relevant to the question...If their empirical results support an existing theory, then more confidence is placed in it. In other words, it is not weakened or falsified. But if the existing theory is weakened by negative results, then it should be changed or replaced...the results of science are always tentative. The scientific method never ends with absolute truth."

But, according to the National Academy of Sciences, "...scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

The apparent conflict between Dr. Biedebach and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) comes from loose terminology. That is, the word "evolution" has a lot of meanings and the NAS is conflating several of them. There is no doubt that the evidence supporting change within a species over time (one definition of the word "evolution") is so strong that there is no point in continuing to test if it happens--although there is definitely reason to test why and how. But, if they are asserting that we should doggedly cling to the idea of universal common descent (another definition of the word "evolution") or the notion that new information can emerge from a random unguided process (part of a further definition), despite the scientific evidence that suggests the contrary, then the NAS has left the realm of science and entered the realm of dogma. We look forward to the publication of Dr. Beidebach's new book on definitions of evolution, "Evolution is a Weasel Word."

P.S. Those of you who are into "bunk detection," note NAS's claim that "scientists no longer question..." What it looks like they mean is that if you do question, you are by definition not a scientist. We wonder what Dr. Beidebach would have to say about that!

Quote of the Month

Where is the Freedom to Question?

"It is as impossible to withhold education from the receptive mind, as it is impossible to force it upon the unreasoning."

--Agnes Repplier,

American essayist

This quote was provided by John Benson, MD, another new member of the AITSE Consortium. Dr. Benson is a forensic psychiatrist and a senior lecturer at Sunovion Pharmaceuticals in the Rancho Cucamonga area of California.

As such, Dr. Benson is aware that it is impossible to keep inquisitive people from thinking and learning. But, it is also very difficult to convince those with closed minds to consider additional evidence. Just ask UCLA's Dr. Enstrom, Cornell's Dr. Wayne, ISU's Dr. Gonzalez, or Dr. Crocker.

For science to advance we must be Free to Think. AITSE working to make sure that we are.

The Myth of Junk DNA
Recommended Reading

Dr. Jonathan Wells is a rebel. Despite the claim of many evolutionists that no real scientist questions the "fact" of evolution, he is a molecular biologist who does. Indeed, Dr. Wells, who has a PhD in molecular and cell biology, has written several books asserting that some statements about evolution are simply inaccurate: Icons of Evolution, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, and The Design of Life are all recommended reading for those who possess intellectual curiosity and don't mind going against the flow.

His latest book continues in the style we have come to expect from Dr. Wells: clear, to the point, and rebellious! The Myth of Junk DNA is an example of why one should always take the opportunity to read and listen to Jonathan Wells. Herein is a logical, step-by-step analysis of the scientific data, amply backed by peer-reviewed articles from major scientific journals. Dr. Wells carefully considers his opponents' arguments and then shoots them down one-by-one. Those he quotes may not have interpreted their data just as Dr. Wells does, but there can be no denying that his is a valid way to view it. He shows that, far from providing support for the contention that "junk" DNA proves that evolution did not proceed by intelligent design, but made lots of mistakes on the way, in fact, the repetitive sequences in our DNA have function--so much function that we haven't even scratched the surface of their complexities.

According to Dr. Wells, "our genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of functions." In other words, it don't contain no junk!

Lizards

As Smart as Birds?

When David was a boy, he had a pet turtle that he swore recognized him. His parents thought David might be imagining that the animal would hide when his mother came in the room but stand on his hind legs waiting for food when David did. After all, reptiles are not known for their intelligence, thus the term lizard-brained. But, recent evidence coming from Duke University indicates that maybe David was right.

Dr. Manuel Leal and Dr. Brian Powell of Duke University have been studying the intelligence of lizards and have shown that they may have as much learning ability as birds (tits). Of course, being called a bird-brain is also no great complement! Next, the scientists intend to study the forces that led to the evolution of clever lizards. Another question we might ponder is why evolution should produce creatures that want to study lizard brains--where is the evolutionary advantage in that?

Science Through a Lawyer's Eyes

by Edward Sisson, Discovery Institute Fellow

Sisson

Stephen Jay Gould, noted paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, noted that widely-accepted scientific theories are never rejected until someone comes along to offer a more persuasive replacement theory. Unfortunately, we are told that only credentialed scientists are allowed to evaluate or reject scientific theories; laypeople are not permitted to do so.

But an existing theory may be false for reasons evident to any rational layperson. There may be inherent conflicts in its underlying logic or it may rely on falsified assumptions, etc., which a reasoning mind can identify even if the particular person does not have the specialized training necessary to construct an alternative theory. Juries in civil court cases (i.e., laypeople) do this kind of thing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times each year, in product liability cases, design defect cases, medical malpractice cases, patent infringement cases, etc., where an expert for the plaintiff presents a technical theory and the lawyer for the defense, perhaps relying on an expert, identifies holes in the plaintiff's theory, without having to develop an alternative theory.

The sociological problem in the science world is that there is no funding for the role of a defense-only advocate, whose only job is to poke holes in the plaintiff's theory, without having to present an alternative theory. In the science world, the only funded career-path is for theory-creators. But, if we had a scientific system in which there was a regular, funded career path for people to debunk existing theories, without replacing them, what we would see is that issues once thought to have been answered by science would suddenly go blank again, leaving the gap re-opened, with nothing replacing it. We would not see a steady, but false, impression of gaps being steadily filled. We would spend less time and money chasing rabbit trails. And we would work on viable alternatives.

The problem is that individuals, by the time they reach college age, are pretty much "set" in their level of intelligence and analytical ability. Many have a sufficient intellectual ability to analyze theories, identify logical inconsistencies, etc. All of these people have the ability, should they wish to, to go into science and develop the knowledge necessary to be able to present credible new theories -- but only a few do. Those who choose not to still retain the intellectual ability to discredit theories, and later in life, they may find themselves involved in some situation where they apply their minds to some theory to see if it is internally logically consistent, etc. They should not be ruled out-of-bounds in this, in deference to those few who chose to develop the additional expertise necessary to construct new theories.

Indeed, big firm litigating lawyers (as I was) are a class of just such people: they can pick up the expert reports of the other side's witnesses, review them, and tear them to pieces with logical analysis, without ever needing to hire their own expert to do that kind of thinking for them.

It is AITSE's position that this is exactly what lay people should do. This is why our goal is to provide education to enhance scientific understanding and integrity. To promote science based on impartial evaluation of data, not mere consensus. Mr. Sisson was Dr. Crocker's lawyer in her dispute with George Mason University and wrote the introduction to Free to Think. Buy it here!

Nobel Laureate Did Not Renew Membership to American Physical Society

Disagrees with Global Warming Dogmatism

Dr. Ivar Giaevar is yet another scientist to resign/refuse to renew membership at the American Physics Society because of their dogmatic stance on global climate change. The society states that the evidence for global warming is incontrovertible. It appears that Dr. Giaevar does not agree.

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