|
|
|
American Institute for Technology
& Science Education Newsletter
|
April, 2012
| |
Greetings!
 Well, we've made it through another winter. Spring is here: new leaves on the trees, new flowers blooming, and new contributors to the AITSE newsletters. Thanks to the tireless efforts of our communications officer Ted, contributions from you on the ground, and information from our consortium of experts, we have a newsletter full of accurate and interesting information. Read on to find out more about superweeds, depression, medical screening, genetic meltdown, and a dietary supplement that takes the cake for bunk science. Don't forget to click on the links to get the full story!
Finally, have you done it yet? If not, 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. |
|
 Dr. Savage and Agricultural Science Good Source of Information Dr. Steven Savage is a plant pathologist with many years of agricultural technology research experience. He has worked for DuPont, Mycogen, and Colorado State University. So, he knows what he is talking about with regard to agricultural science. But, what is equally important is that he knows how to communicate his knowledge to the public and that he does so in as balanced a manner as possible.
Take, for example Dr. Savage's article on inadvertently creating a superweed. Not a good thing one would think. But, the purpose of this analysis is not to assess the merits of biotechnology, but to show that Dr. Savage's writing has all the marks of good science and none of the marks of bunk science. 1. Dr. Savage does not claim to prove anything. He gives the facts and lets the reader decide for themselves. In conversation with AITSE's president Dr. Crocker, he did the same, stressing that scientists are comfortable with uncertainty. In fact, he said that, "its what you know for certain that keeps you from learning." 2. Dr. Savage is careful to be scientifically accurate in what is claimed and does not make grandiose claims. In fact, just the opposite. "...we knew that if we solved this problem we weren't saving the world..." 3. Dr. Savage does not put anyone down nor does he build himself up. He just explains what a superweed is and how one was made.
4. And of course, he does not ask you to buy his product! AITSE readers may not always agree with Dr. Savage's conclusions, but he does provide a good example of balanced reporting of scientific information. And that is what AITSE is all about. AITSE applauds Dr. Savage's efforts in education of the public on controversial topics in science and recommends his blog for your reading pleasure. |
Does a Population Adapt During Genetic Meltdown? 
by AITSE webmaster and ID Expert Mario Lopez
As our readers know, AITSE is committed to help improve science education and encourage scientific integrity. And for those familiar with our Bunk Detecting Principles, it comes as no surprise that some scientists employ smoke and mirrors in an effort to validate certain claims. Here is a nice example of one such case.
In a recent paper entitled Evidence for elevated mutation rates in low-quality genotypes[2], authors Nathanial P. Sharp and Aneil F. Agrawal sneak in a gratuitous statement about the possible effects mutational load could have on the acceleration of adaptation into new environments. Interestingly, the paper is only intended to provide evidence for increased mutation rates in weak genotypes (using fruit flies), but the authors also propose that a mutational meltdown can result in adaptation:
The pattern we observe could also have positive effects on populations by increasing the rate of beneficial mutation in new environments. If novel environmental conditions increase the mutation rate by reducing individual quality through mismatch between genotype and environment, the resulting increase in genetic variance could accelerate adaptation.
Not only is this statement completely unsupported experimentally, the authors cited to support such a bold statement acknowledge that their own "experiments provide no evidence for or against a hypothesis of 'adaptive mutation'[1]." Ignoring the more likely scenario that a genetic meltdown will result in a downward spiral towards extinction[2] due to the preponderance of mortality rates over birth rates[3], the authors propose that beneficial mutations will somehow overcome the accumulation of irreversible deleterious mutations, leading to adaptation.
Indeed, the experimenter's own mutation accumulation line maintenance, prior to conducting the fitness assay (i.e., the sampling of the population's fitness), required the use of backups due to a "complete absence of offspring, suggesting male death or sterility." This was required despite the fact that they employed a controlled experiment using serial backcrossing to manipulate genetic quality!
Can a population adapt during genetic meltdown? Well, if it can, Sharp and Agrawal certainly do not prove it; they don't attempt to. Similarly I do not aim to refute the intended purpose of the authors' work, but simply to point out that scientists can and often do make claims that are completely unsupported by their science. And AITSE is here to help you sort out the science from the bunk.
[1]S. Goho & G. Bell, (d) Adaptive and Non-Adaptive Interpretations, 127-128
[2]Freeman, Scott; Herron, Jon C (2007). Evolutionary Analysis, 4th edition. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings. pp. 308-309.
[3]W. Gabriel, M. Lynch, and R. Burger (1993). Muller's Ratchet and mutational meltdowns. Evolution 47:1744-1757.
 |
 Blood Test for Depression
A Good Thing?
According to the headline of an article at Scientific American, researchers are making progress in diagnosis of depression by a simple blood test. They celebrate that this may make it possible to treat young adults who are not even aware of their depression. But, as is often the case, the story is not so simple.
First, although between 17-25% of teenagers experience depression, it is unknown whether the cause is genetic, environmental or a combination of the two. In fact, very little is known about depression--and even less is known about how it can be effectively treated. Certainly the evidence in favor of treating depression with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, etc. is limited at best; these drugs have been banned for use in teenagers in some countries because they increase suicide risk. In view of this, the suggestion that it would be helpful to treat teenagers "before symptoms appear," may be considered more of a threat than a promise (Dr. Sheldon Preskorn, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Witchita).
But, let's look on the positive side. Since this blood test detects RNA transcripts, it could conceivably detect depression caused by a number of different factors. And, in the best case scenario, it may allow clinicians to distinguish what the cause of the depression is. Of course, this is only if the results reported in the study are reliable, which is by no means certain. After all, the study was preliminary; it was conducted with blood from a very limited number of people and according to Dr. Preskorn, "Anytime you test a number of potential biomarkers on a small group of people you are going to find some biomarkers that look clinically important" (emphasis added). That, of course, does not mean that they are.
So assuming that these positive results are confirmed (and that negative results are published, which is by no means a certainty), would a blood test for depression be helpful? Yes, in that more information is always better. No, in that it might tempt clinicians to take shortcuts and trust the lab results in favor of what the patient reports. Yes, in that it might allow development of more effective treatments for depression. No, in that it might result in teens being given unnecessary medications or drugs that do more harm than good. As always in science and medicine the answers are not that simple. But, acknowledging and considering that fact is what makes good science.
 |
 Nature: Evolved or Intelligently Designed? By Dr. Mark Beidebach
As an engineer with a PhD in biophysics and a researching neurophysiologist, I could never escape the impression that there are a large number of living organisms that appear to exhibit engineering design. Therefore, I was happy to contribute an article expanding on the recent imitation of sunflower design (a Fermat spiral) by MIT researchers seeking a better arrangement for mirrors in solar power stations. In this case, the researchers looked for help in their intelligent design from nature--so could it be that nature itself was intelligently designed? Or is, as Richard Dawkins claims, the design really only "apparent?"
Let's consider a few examples. To begin with, virtually all of the vast quantities of genetic material within our cells contains information that is highly specific and meaningful. Tanyan Barak and Murat Gunel (Yale University) studied a Turkish mental patient whose brain lacked some of the normal convolutions in his cerebral cortex. Genetic analysis of the part of his genome that determines brain structure revealed that out of 3 billion (total) "base-pair letters", only two of the "letters" had been omitted. This mistake was the cause of his malformed brain and mental illness. One could then wonder whether consciousness is the result of unguided neo-Darwinistic evolutionary processes or whether the brain and the information coding for its formation exhibits intelligent design.
Another example of apparent design can be found in loggerhead turtles. These animals not only have a compass-like sensitivity to the earth's magnetic field, but in order to successfully migrate, must also be sensitive to the angle of declination of the magnetic field lines. Did this amazing ability evolve by unguided processes or is it an example of engineering design? Biology cannot answer this question, but it is possible that information science can.
Finally, consider Trilobites. These organisms have been extinct for 250 million years, but studies of their fossilized eyes reveal a lens made of two transparent materials: calcite and chitin, each having a different index of refraction. After passing through the calcite portion, the image must be corrected by the chitin portion in order to be sharply focused on the eye's photoreceptor cells. To design such a lens today, an optical engineer would have to apply Fermat's principle, Abbe's sine law, Snell's laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals. Is this an example of an unguided evolutionary process or an example of engineering design? Think about it and decide for yourself.
Consortium member Dr. Mark Biedebach taught and did research in neurophysiology for more than 34 years, has two degrees in engineering and a Ph.D. in biophysics (UCLA, 1964). He is currently Professor Emeritus at California State University, Long Beach.
Soon after AITSE received this article a friend drew our attention to the following quote. Fits in nicely.
If we got a message that contained the Fibonacci series, the most important
thing [it] would say is, "This really is from Intelligence." Douglas
Vakoch (Psychologist, SETI Institute)
 |
|
 Protandim
by Dr. Crocker with contributions from an anonymous AITSE consortium member and tips from an AITSE member
According to its makers, this little yellow pill can change your life by reducing your "cellular aging by 40%." AITSE wrote about this supplement recently, but new information about the Protandim escapades has come to light that makes it worth revisiting the subject. In fact, AITSE may even need to revise its bunk detecting principles!
First, we need to add, "Check that the main sources of satisfied customers and study subjects are not company insiders." The celebrity spokesperson featured on the Protandim website is Donny Osmund, who claims that Protandim "has made a difference in my life." Osmund also appeared on the Dr. Phil Show where he said that his youthful appearance is due to Protandim, which at the time he had only been taking for two years. In direct violation of Federal Trade Commission guidelines, Osmund did not disclose that he is a paid Protandim spokesperson.
But then, why would he? After all, in the recent publication of a peer-reviewed article that includes Protandim Chief Scientific Officer Joe McCord as a co-author, there was no disclosure of a financial conflict of interest--the affiliation between McCord and Protandim was not revealed. Rather, the paper states that the work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health--your money at work investigating a supplement (does not even qualify for FDA consideration). All they admit is that LifeVantage (the makers of Protandim) supplied the study "medication" --interesting use of the term since, according to the FDA, Protandim is a supplement, not a drug or a medication.
This new "clinical study" is not featured on the Protandim website. Perhaps the webmaster is just behind in his work or perhaps it is not featured because the study shows that Protandim does nothing to change TBars or any other oxidative stress indices in the lungs. This is not what the authors reported in a 2006 paper measuring the effect of Protandim on red blood cells that is featured. That work, although positive for LifeVantage suffered from both internal and external validity issues, including the very questionable practices of doctoring the data, using LifeVantage insiders as trial participants, and of course neglecting to mention the financial interests of two of the authors. Amusingly, the conclusion for the abstract from the latest paper (2012) states that the work demonstrates that it is safe to do repeated bronchoscopies--not the point of the work and definitely not proven by this manuscript!
Next, how about, "Check that those experts who are quoted as vouching for the product exist," as an additional bunk detecting principle? That might seem too obvious, but courtesy of one of our members, AITSE obtained a copy of a blog by Protandim inventor Paul Myhill who wrote, "Dr. Helmit Herring is director of diabetes research at the U of MN. In his words, he feels Protandim is a 'killer application' for diabetes. Killer, as in a good way!" The member, a real crusader on the side of integrity in science, looked for a Helmit Herring at UMN, but both he and the quote are only a figments of Myhill's imagination. She did find a Dr. Bernhard Hering who just happens to be the director of diabetes research at UMN. When asked if that could be a quote from him, he said, "Those are definitely not my words". The blog has since been taken down, but AITSE has a copy.
Finally, in perusing the Protandim website, AITSE found yet another violation of a bunk detecting principle (6). Apparently, LifeVantage believes that Dr. Joe McCord is a "world-renowned scientist." Just in case AITSE missed this somewhere, we looked him up in Pubmed, a database listing of peer-reviewed articles. Dr. McCord has played minor roles in several papers (McCord usually occupies the placing in the author list signifying least input) and has been leading author on five papers in the last ten years. Hardly a world-renowned scientist. (An average scientist will produce about 3 first or supervising author papers per year.) But, given the whole messy Protandim story, maybe in the near future Dr. McCord and his colleagues at LifeVantage will be renowned--for other reasons--not good ones!  |
Quote of the Month
Robert Bazell
"Scientists often ignore negative findings that might raise a warning, cherry picking the results and putting the best face on their research. The practice involves many parties -- not just the scientists -- in the research process who turn blind eyes to questionable actions."
According to NBC News Chief Science and Medical Correspondent Robert Bazell, we need to "reorder our priorities" in cancer research. But, with the shocking stories that only 11-25% of conclusions in published pre-clinical cancer research papers are reproducible and that about 50% of "cancer deaths could be prevented," AITSE would suggest that more than this is necessary. We need a increase in integrity in science, more emphasis on impartial evaluation of data and less on profit, getting grants or even publications. |
Medical Screening
Helpful or Harmful?
by Caroline Crocker with input from an anonymous medical professional.
Words every man or woman does not like to hear from his or her physician, "It looks like it is time for your prostate screening or mammogram." There is no doubt that screening procedures are unpleasant, but is it possible that they do more harm than good? And is there a viable alternative?
Let's consider mammograms. According to an article by Devra Davis, PhD, the first study on using X-rays to detect breast cancer was conducted in 1963; it was found that mammograms are useful in prevention of breast cancer deaths in women over 50. Soon afterwards (1972), the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society launched a national program aimed at encouraging all women to have screening mammograms. It is troublesome that no studies on the benefit of mammograms in younger women had been conducted. Equally of concern, there were no national mammography standards until 1994; the equipment was often substandard and even receptionists could administer the X-rays.
But, it is well-known that X-rays cause DNA damage, not to mention damage to the cellular repair enzymes--and that this can then lead to mutations during subsequent cell division, which can lead to cancer. This is why the technician leaves the room. The problem in mammograms is exacerbated by the mechanical trauma inflicted during the procedure (many women come away with bruised breasts), which necessitates the body repairing damaged areas by initiating cell division and activating immune system cells. The result is a combination of damaged DNA and cells that are trying to divide--a recipe for cancer.
Therefore, an analysis of the alleged benefit derived from mammograms must take into account the increased risk of cancer that an annual procedure brings. It is generally accepted that mammograms enable a 20% average increase in detected cancer (and a 30% decrease in death rate), but this is debatable in younger women where it is difficult to distinguish cancerous tissue from dense healthy tissue and radiation exposure carries more risk. A recent study suggests that 86/100,000 of women receiving an annual mammogram after the age of 40 will get radiation-induced cancer.
More specific information can be obtained from work coming out of Oxford. Here and elsewhere it was shown that annual mammograms before the age of 40 cause about 5x more cancer deaths than they prevent and mammograms between the ages of 40 and 50 cause as many cancer deaths as they prevent. After the age of 50, the breast tissue decreases in density, the cell division rate slows down, and the number of age-related mutations increase, so that mammograms become an effective means of reducing breast cancer mortality in post-menopausal women. That is, on average, mammography prevents more deaths than it causes in older women.
Of course, more research is required--it appears that even debates about the optimum radiation dosage have not been settled. The assumed mutation rate caused by mammograms is based on high energy X-rays. But, recent data suggests that the low energy X-rays used in mammograms cause 4.4 times as much damage as the high. In other words, the published risks of having an annual mammogram may be more than quadruple what we thought they were. And this is only the mutation risk.
Those of us who have been told that their mammogram was abnormal when there was no cancer, or normal when there is, will be aware than there are other risks, as well: false positives and false negatives. A false positive occurs in about 10% of women. This results in obvious stress, but also in additional procedures like follow-up X-rays (I had ten on each breast), which increase the radiation dosage. If results from these are unclear, the patient undergoes ultrasound, which picks up about 1% of cancers not detected by mammogram, and MRI, which detects only 0.3% more. Both of these procedures also have high false positive rates. So, eventually, the patient may need to undergo a surgical procedure like a biopsy or lumpectomy, even though they will eventually be found not to have cancer.
Then, there are the false negatives. Mammograms only detect just over half of the cancers in high risk women--leaving women thinking they do not have breast cancer when in fact they may. This is a problem because breast cancer is on the rise. Interestingly, according to a series of letters in the Lancet 346(8972):436-9, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328% since the advent of mammograms. 200% of this increase in DCIS is said to be directly caused by them. Now, many ductal carcinomas resolve on their own or are nonmalignant, but who wants to take the risk? The result is that many women who should not be treated are, often aggressively, and some women who should be treated do not find out until the cancer has progressed.
What is the answer? It is not obvious. Certainly, the data suggests that women under 50 should not have mammograms. And, if you have an abnormal mammogram, perhaps follow up should be accomplished by ultrasound and/or MRI, not more radiation. But, what about all the other cancer screening tests: P.S.A blood tests, colonoscopies, etc? The verdict for those that have been evaluated differs according to the test. For many of the screening tests, studies to determine if they do more harm than good have not been accomplished. So, as always, the onus falls on us. Don't just believe what you are told--do some investigation, think about it, and decide for yourself. A good place to start might be the article by two physicians that triggered AITSE's investigation into this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
