Logo

American Institute for Technology  

& Science Education Newsletter



Febuary, 2012 

Like us on FacebookFollow me on Twitter DonatetoAITSEView my profile on LinkedInView our videos on YouTube
Greetings!

Crocker in LA Press Club Surveys, socials campaigns, and more surveys! You may wonder what is going on with AITSE. Well, we were offered the social campaign marketing and surveys as free trials for two months. Seemed like a great opportunity to find out how we can do better and spread the news about what we are doing well--at no cost to you!

Thank you to all of you who have given us invaluable feedback. The newsletter has been improved, as you can see. We are working on the website--check out our new "Articles" pages, the changes under News of the Week, and our new contact page. You may notice that some links do not connect to anything, but remember this is a work in progress! More about your thoughts on the website next month.

Next, you may remember that last month we advertised for an AITSE communications officer. We now have one. Thanks Ted! You can look forward to seeing a lot more input from the AITSE Consortium in the near future. And remember, if there is a topic relevant to integrity in science that you would like to have us research, just let us know.

Finally, if you have not already done so, let me encourage you to "like" us on
Facebook to receive frequent science updates in a shorter (much shorter) format on your Facebook page. Or, if you would rather, you can get the same information in manageable bites by following me on Twitter or Linked in.

AITSE: Your one stop source for information about integrity in science, cheating, nutrition, pharmaceutics, technology, evolution, alternative medicine, and other hot button issues in science.

Breast Implants Breast implant
Safe, Risky, or Just Risque?
 
Mr. Jean-Claude Mas, founder of the breast implant manufacturer Poly Implant Prostheses (PIP), self-admittedly hid the truth about his inferior quality breast implants for 13 years solely because doing so was financially beneficial to his company. Moreover, he claims that he was helped to do so by the fact that regulatory agencies warn a company about when they are coming. Interestingly, this warning the labs of an upcoming inspection appears to also be an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) practice, so the problem is not restricted to Europe. Many is the time we cleaned up our laboratory in preparation for an inspection.

But, back to implants. About 3% of American women have them. In 2010 alone there were over 93,000 post-surgery reconstructions and 296,000 augmentation surgeries, 50% with saline and 50% with silicone gel implants. So, are these implants safe? According to an extensive FDA report, it appears that they are--unless of course you count the "frequent local complications and adverse outcomes." Apparently, these necessitate removal of 5% of implants within the first two years and re-operation in up to 50% of cases within 10 years.

Less than pleasant, but are there any other problems with breast implants? Yes. First, it appears that breast reconstruction or augmentation is not a "permanent" procedure. It will need to be repeated and, of course, any surgery carries a risk.

But, on the positive side, implants do not appear to cause "connective tissue disease, breast cancer, or reproductive problems," as was thought. To date the only disease that appears to be associated with them (both saline and gel silicone) is anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and the incidence is extremely low.

Interestingly, the problem found to be most significantly correlated to breast implants is a threefold higher risk for suicide attempts. Obviously, this is more likely to be attributable to the lack of self-esteem that made a woman consider cosmetic breast augmentation in the first place. It is probably not because the implant caused the suicidal behavior.

Therefore, assuming the psychological factors are in order, breast implants appear to be fairly safe. But, before you go out and get yourself a boob job, remember that the long term effects have not been fully studied. In addition, in attempting to do so, the FDA is relying on data gathered by the implant manufacturers themselves. From what is reported above with PIP, that may not be as impartial as one would wish. The primary manufacturers in the USA are Allergan and Johnson and Johnson's Mentor. Their implant rupture rate appears to be about 6% over a period of ten years. Not great, but not as bad as PIP, where it was 15-30%. But then, how likely is it that the public (or even the FDA) are being  fully informed?

What is the take-home message for those considering implants? Think about it! Read the available information, ask questions, and decide for yourself. But, please, consider very carefully if your daughter might be better with something other than surgery to help her celebrate her 18th birthday.    
Follow us on Twitter
Pills

Ritalin and Adderall      

A Helpful Analysis 

 
In an excellent article on The Best Schools blog, chemist Heather Zeiger writes of how Ritalin and Adderall, medications for treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), are widely prescribed for non-ADHD college students who wish to stay up all night and/or improve their academic performance.

But, wait! These drugs, which brought in $7.42 billion in 2010 alone, can have serious long-term side effects like stunted growth, anxiety, heart problems and high blood pressure. So, why would someone who does not need the drug use it? And why would a physician prescribe them to students who do not have ADHD? And come to think of it, why do we have a shortage of the generic forms, but not the higher priced forms, of these drugs?

We need integrity (wholeness) in science. Students need to honestly do their work and put in the time and effort to learn instead of memorize. Physicians need to only prescribe what the patient needs, not what they want. And pharmaceutical companies need to focus a little less on their profit margin and a little more on the benefit of their consumers.   
 Visit our blog
Medical studentsCompetition in Medical School  
A Good Thing?

  

According to a third year medical student, "John," medical school is all about competition. The students compete with each other to get the best grades, impress the professors, and be assigned to the rotations of choice. The schools compete with each other in offering the most diverse curriculum, having the best students, hiring the top professors, and more. Some of the schools compete by charging the least, meaning that they hire professors who may not be top quality. Others compete by saying they are worth the most and charging the Earth. All this competition should be good, right?

Actually, John believes that it is not. He has noticed that the most prestigious professors are not necessarily those who are the best teachers. Others just do not know the subject to which they have been assigned. They are PhD's in another field or clinicians who left the basic sciences behind a long time ago and are being stretched beyond their capabilities due to the financial constraints of the institution.

Then, there is boasting about offering a large and diverse curriculum. But, an overload of information gives students little time to actually understand the material. The students then resort to rote memorization of often irrelevant details to pass tests, leaving no time for actual mastery of vital concepts.  Even the competition between students is not always helpful--especially when they do not share study materials or cheat in order to gain the upper hand.

Take a recent experience. John was in a class where the professor asked the students when a clinician should give a pregnant mother antibodies to the Rh factor. The answer given in the PowerPoint slides, that which most students memorized, was when the mother is Rh negative (meaning she would have anti-Rh antibodies). This view was popularized by the makers of Rho Gam and is what 99% of the student body answered. John pointed out that the mother only needs antibodies if the fetus is Rh+. Nonetheless, the professor counted the "book" answer as correct. The students then gave John a hard time for "making them look bad" by studying beyond the curriculum.

But, what did John actually do? He spent time understanding the body systems and, as a result, could come up with the answer by logic, not memorization. In a clinical situation, he would have spared the Rh- mother of an Rh- baby the possible exposure to viral agents found in human plasma and the possible allergic reactions, not to mention saving the cost of the unnecessary RhoGam.

Perhaps medical schools should major on giving the students less memorization-based and more understanding-based curricula. This will mean hiring professors who are both experts in the fields they teach and who also have the patience to help students grapple with and understand the systems. After all, passing tests is not enough when it comes to life and death issues.   
Like us on Facebook 
PomegranatesPom Wonderful  
Really?

According to its website, POM Wonderful is a company that grows, processes, and ships pomegranates and their products. They have spent over $35 million on pomegranate research. One then wonders how much they make!

From the POM Wonderful website one can access a site where the research studies on these wonderful pomegranates are linked. But, as we go there, we are warned, "POM Wonderful products are foods, not drugs. They also do not constitute labeling or advertising for any POM Wonderful product. Instead, they are intended solely for general educational and informational purposes." This disclaimer may be the result of recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action.

Excuse us for being a little skeptical, but it appears that at least four of the AITSE bunk detecting principles have been violated here. The website claims that "
To date, we have provided over $35M in research support to top scientists, including a Nobel Laureate, at leading universities around the world (Principle 6). 70 total studies, including 16 clinical studies, have been published in peer-reviewed journals." Why say this if not to induce the consumer to purchase the product (Principle 7)?

Perusing the references, the first thing one notices is that it is claimed that pomegranates contain anti-oxidants. This is not surprising because many fruits and vegetables do. Then, the studies are organized into the alleged health benefits of pomegranate consumption. These include alteration of cholesterol levels, fighting atherosclerosis and arthritis, healing prostate and other cancers, fighting colds and flu, and even reversing Alzheimer's disease. Sound like snake oil anyone (Principle 4)?

Lest we unfairly accuse POM Wonderful of also infringing on Principle 2, let's take a closer look. The best place to start was with further investigation of the 70 scientific studies (especially the clinical trials) to which they refer. The first thing we noticed was that, except in the case of one small study on cardiac patients and another on prostate patients, every one of these studies was done in cells, mice or rats, or was measuring the effect of people drinking pomegranate juice on the levels of a chemical, not on health. In addition, the prostate study was uncontrolled, meaning it was meaningless. In other words, only ONE of the 70 studies actually showed a health benefit derived from consumption of pomegranates--not terribly impressive odds.

The question is, does the action of the FTC violate POM Wonderful's first amendment rights? Or should food manufacturers be allowed to make health "claims that go beyond scientific studies?"

AITSE's view is that good science must be based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not financial benefit. As for eating pomegranates or drinking pomegranate juice, why not? It might not cure your cancer, prevent Alzheimer's, or fix erectile dysfunction, but it will certainly do you more good than a Coke!  
 DonatetoAITSE 

 

    
Quote of the Month  
Dr. Michael Behe

"One can say, if one wishes, that a congenitally blind man teaming up with a congenitally legless man to safely move around the environment is an increase in 'complexity' over a sighted, ambulatory person. But it certainly is no improvement, nor does it give the slightest clue how vision and locomotion arose."

This amazing word picture was composed by biochemist Dr. Michael Behe in response to
the work of Finnegan et al. (2012), a group led by Dr. Thornton of the University of Oregon. This group of evolutionary biologists analyzed the structure of a molecular machine (shown above) found in current day plants and animals and the structure of the same machine in fungi. They then showed that it is possible that mutations of a hypothesized ancestral machine resulted in the more complex machines found in modern cells. The title of the article claims that their work shows how a complex machine could have evolved through random mutations.

But, Dr. Behe, in his incisive way, points out several problems with suggesting that this is evidence for life coming about through an unguided Darwinian process. First, according to the authors themselves, the new machine was more complex, but not more functional, than the original. The mutations and added complexity did not result in a selective advantage; they were neutral in their effect. Darwinian evolution is said to proceed from simple to complex organisms by random mutations that result in a selective advantage. Clearly not happening here.

Second, the information was already there--that is, the totally functional and highly complex ancestral machine was the starting point. Darwinism suggests that an unguided process is capable of building new information or increasing functional complexity. This thought experiment showed that evolutionary processes result in degradation of, not increasing, information. This is as one would expect from random "typos."

Behe points out that the scenario proposed actually requires two minor (and neutral) mutations to occur in the yeast line over a period of a billion years. And since no other mutations are in evidence in animals and plants, that appears to be the only times that mutations in the code for this machine did.

Finally, the scientific evidence coming out of the laboratories of a leading evolutionist, Dr. Richard Lenski, shows that mutations degrade genetic code. This may sometimes be to the advantage of an organism but does not result in new information. All in all, it seems that Darwinism is not as powerful as it is cracked up to be. 

Scorpion

Airplanes and Scorpions           

Which are Intelligently Designed?

Dr. Han Zhiwu of Chanchun, China is fascinated by scorpions. And rightly so. These little creatures have armor that enables them to withstand sandstorms that would strip the paint away from steel.

Apparently, their chitin covering is formed of tiny "dome-shaped granules" which seem to be designed to disturb surface airflow so that sand particles are deflected and erosion is decreased to half of what would be expected.

When the team of scientists tested steel formed like the surface of a scorpion in a lab "sand storm," the steel's rate of erosion was reduced by 1/5. Not as good as a scorpion, but then the steel was intelligently designed. Perhaps airplane manufacturers would like to take note and copy the "unintelligent" design of a scorpion's armor.   DonatetoAITSE  
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,DonatetoAITSE

 


Caroline Crocker
American Institute for Technology and Science Education