Jake’s HIV videos:
[Via Discovering Biology in a Digital World]
If you haven’t seen these, check out Jake Young’s collection of videos showing T cells getting infected by HIV. The best one is at the bottom of the post.
[More]
These are the most amazing videos I have seen in a while. Actual movies of HIV infecting a cell. Very nice technology.
NOBODY SHOULD BE PUT IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for over 90…:
[Via Amygdala]
NOBODY SHOULD BE PUT IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for over 90 days.
I’ve, incidentally, come too close to doing this to myself much of the time over many years, particularly during the last year.
[More]
This New Yorker article has some nice descriptions of just what happens to primates who are placed in isolation. From the tales of people who should know (i.e. Vietnam POWs who were tortured and also kept in solitary, such as John McCain), solitary is worse than any physical abuse they endured.
Even a few weeks can cause profound changes in the brain that are similar to severe physical trauma. Yet, I would bet that most people would think that solitary is just a form of coddling the prisoners.
Technorati Tags: General
by Marina Cast.
Solar cells get energy from where? GCSE science put to the test:
[Via BBC News | Science/Nature | World Edition]
The new qualifications watchdog has demanded immediate action from the government on GCSE science standards.
[More]
It is nice to hear about the poor level of education in another country for once. It makes one almost feel good. I mean 48% did not realize that solar cells get their energy from the Sun.
And this question so odd that I was stunned:
GCSE Science (Edexcel, 2006)Our moon seems to disappear during an eclipse. Some people say this is because an old lady covers the moon with her cloak. She does this so that thieves cannot steal the shiny coins on the surface. Which of these would help scientists to prove or disprove this idea?
A) Collect evidence from people who believe the lady sees the thieves
B) Shout to the lady that the thieves are coming
C) Send a probe to the moon to search for coins
D) Look for fingerprints
I think demonstrating that people who believe this are delusional would be a pretty good step towards disproving the theory. Besides, if the probe did not find the coins, that would only prove that the thieves had already struck.
And everyone knows that the thieves wear gloves (Hey, I watch CSI). Shouting would not work because sound does not travel in space.
The GCSE is supposed to be better than this. But there are 5 granting bodies now with different mixes of short answer and multiple choice answers.
Another things that made me smile, from the hardest tests:
Finally, once again, it has to be reported that the amazing percentage of 59% of higher level candidates think the current in a wire is the movement of positive electrons.Of course, the examiner continues, there are such things as positive electrons, but they are not on the specification for science or additional science and, being antimatter, most certainly do not flow in a wire.
Technorati Tags: Education
by foxypar4
Promising Antibiotic Could Spawn the Next Superbug:
[Via Discover Magazine | RSS]
Bacteria-killing viruses called bacteriophages can rapidly accelerate the evolution of pathogens by transferring genes from one bacterial species to another. The recipient “could literally bypass a billion years of evolution in a single event”—and could spread genes for toxic shock syndrome toxin.
[More]
The really interesting aspect of the paper is that bacteriophages may be able to interact with a wider variety of bacteria than first believed. Many bacteriophages only infect a specific type of virus.
These researchers demonstrated that in some cases the bacterial viruses could not only infect different species of bacteria, but could also drag along bits of bacterial chromosomes with them.
Thus the possibility that bacteriophage could move genes between bacterial species. An unexpected result but the words ’spawn the next superbug’ may be a little hyperbolic.
Bacteria exchange genetic material all the time. It is one of the ways that antibiotic resistance genes move between bacteria anyway. It is often how specific strains become superbugs (i.e. by picking up a multitude of genetic elements providing antibiotic resistance).
The bacteriophage described exist in nature, as do the two bacterial strains. So this same sort of genetic exchange is able to occur by itself in the wild.
That is what I would be worried about. Normal use of antibiotics puts selective pressure on Listeria to gain the resistance genes. In the wild, these genes could be transferred by regular bacteriophages from Staphlyococcus.
So, is hits a worry if we use bacteriophage as an engineered antibiotic? Maybe but the references I could find do not indicate that it is a very sucessful treatment. Here is the relevant part from a paper published in 2006 in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy entitled Efficacy and Pharmacokinetics of Bacteriophage Therapy in Treatment of Subclinical Staphylococcus aureus Mastitis in Lactating Dairy Cattle:
In conclusion, the efficacy of bacteriophage in the treatment of bovine mastitis caused by S. aureus appears to be limited under the treatment conditions studied.
The phage were fairly rapidly degraded in the mammary glands of the cattle and had little ability to get rid of bacteria. So, this may require a lot of work to become useful, with many really big hurdles to overcome (i.e. the cattle generate an immune response to the phage which may render them useless).
Right now, I am more worried about Listeria picking up the genes from Staph via a natural route rather than an engineered one. Just another reason for us to rethink our pretty poorly conceptualized approach to antibiotics in livestock.
Redoubt Eruption – As Seen From Space:
[Via The Questionable Authority]
As many of you probably know by now, Alaska’s Redoubt volcano has been erupting for several days now. If you’re interested in the details, head over to new SciBling Erik Klemetti’s Eruptions blog. If you’re interested in the latest in really cool pictures, here’s one for you:
(Source. Click for full size version)
The picture comes from the Alaska Volcano Observatory (aka place where “something called volcano monitoring” gets done). The ash plume from the eruption is the clearly visible dark smudge near the center of the picture. The image was taken by a weather satellite in geostationary orbit over equatorial Asia.
[More]
Seeing the volcanic plume from space is a pretty neat trick. It really puts it into perspective.
Technorati Tags: Science
While there has been some real questions raised about the real usefulness of Obama’s economic team, his energy team is really shaping up to be filled with stars. I discuss one of them over at Path to Sustainable.
Not, it very well may be that the solutions to both of these areas are intertwined but I think we will really only see that after some time has passed. Right now, we are only beginning to alter the paths that brought us close to financial ruin and ecological crisis.
With everyone concentrating on the economy, perhaps these people in Energy can accomplish some important first steps.
Technorati Tags: Environment
by AMagill
Antivaxxers and their trouble with truth:
[Via Bad Astronomy]
Remember the highlarity when it was found that the modern antivax movement’s founder, Andrew Wakefield, apparently faked his data and lied in his original paper claiming vaccines were linked to autism?
That article was researched and written by investigative journalist Brian Deer, who looked pretty carefully into what Wakefield did. …
[More]
I really enjoyed the comments here, especially the attempts of the reality-based people to respond to some of the really way-out comments from anti-vaxxers.
I especially liked the one that claimed polio was a made up disease from the medicine cabal that is actually caused by “the physiological changes that occur from total body burden caused by overtoxicity.” Blood sludging is the cause, supposedly.
One of the things many scientists work to prevent is bias in their results. It is not perfect but the vast majority of research, followed by peer review and replication of results, removes confirmation, selection and other bias.
So many of the anti-science people do not make any effort to remove their bias or subject it to any independent thought. Their anecdotes prove the rule, even if that rule is wrong.
To them, their bias is a badge of honor, making their often unsupported remarks something to be proud of. It would be a little sad and easy to ignore except these people often place themselves in a position to make their anti-science views harmful to the rest of us.
Texas wrapup: Yup. Doomed.:
[Via Bad Astronomy]
So the vote was made, the standards were set, and now the dust is settling. And what do we see?
I see Texas being the laughing stock on a world stage, finally replacing the Kansas fiasco from the 1990s.
First, a brief intro: this last week, after months of discussion, the Texas …
[More]
A very nice discussion examining how the anti-science members of the BOE of Texas dealt with the new science standards. Evolution was not the only topic from the writings of the reality-based staff. that they worked against, They also disagreed on the age of the Universe and on climate change.
See, instead of having experts who know what they are talking about decide on what to teach their children, Texas has people with little or no real understanding of the facts. In fact, it has people who are not afraid to demonstrate their ignorance again and again. It is like having people who judge horses in charge of federal emergency management organizations. It is a sure-fire ticket to failure.
If people put incompetent ideologues in charge of something important, do not be surprised if the results are less than useful. All you can do is laugh.
CQ Politics | Lifelines Sought for Flagging Newspaper Industry:
[Via CQ Politics]
Alarmed by the daily drumbeat of stories about the demise of newspapers in their hometowns, some members of Congress are proposing ways to help, from allowing media organizations to form as nonprofits to easing antitrust laws.
But the proposals have met with skepticism from some newspaper analysts who worry about the media’s ability to maintain its autonomy.
[More]
Newspapers are going to have to adapt. Their big revenue stream, Classified Ads, is gone. Their newsworthiness is diminishing by all the cutbacks.
Perhaps an online only version , such as the Seattle PI, will be one model. I’m a little fascinated by the non-profit route. Some legislation is being proposed that would allow them to be fully non-profit, with the tax-advantages that entails.
“We’re losing our local papers and it’s tragic. We need to look at a different model to save local newspapers,” said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin , D-Md.Cardin introduced a bill Tuesday that would permit newspapers to operate as nonprofits, or 501(c)3 corporations, much as public broadcasting now does.
Under this arrangement, advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage or operations could be tax-deductible.
So, make them like PBS. It would be an intriguing model, although I can only see this working for local news organizations. It is much more expensive to fund a nationwide paper vis a non-profit model.
Unless a modern day Hearst wants to set up a foundation to run major papers.
Technorati Tags: General
by jeffk
Texas: From saved to doomed in just 6 hours!:
[Via Bad Astronomy]
Well, that was fast.
Texas Board of Education creationist Barbara Cargill today proposed an amendment to the science standards saying that teachers have to tell their students there are different estimates for the age of the Universe. This is not even a veiled attempt to attack the Big Bang model of …
[More]
Well, we find out today if Texas education will regress towards the 16th Century or whether reason prevails (You can follow the live blog here.). I bet it will be a toss-up. Maybe they will change some of the amendments along the way.
This one amendment is just great. So, not only is the head of the board here a creationist but we have a young Earth creationist preposing amendments saying that there are different estimates for the age of the Universe. It would appear then that teachers in Teas can now teach all about how the Earth is really less than 10,000 years old and they will be teaching to the standards..
I hope reason prevails but I doubt it. How is it possible that such an important science board has such anti-science people on it? I’d like to think that there are reasonable people in charge but this is truly ridiculous.
JAMA’s editors make sewage out of lemonade:
[Via Effect Measure]
When the Wall Street Journal called attention to a claim that the Journal of the American Medical Association called a whistle-blower a “nobody” and a “nothing,” a claim JAMA denied, I didn’t know what to think. I was inclined to give JAMA the benefit of the doubt. Whatever dealings I’ve had (and they are few) with JAMA’s editor in chief, Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, she’s been pleasant and has a reputation for being a tough and intelligent editor. It sounded as if someone had gotten a little irritated and maybe said things in a way that wasn’t quite appropriate, but these things happen. But now what was just dumbass is being elevated to the level of policy.
First some background.
[More]
This looks pretty ugly. When a journal appears to ban someone for something, it should be for fraud or the like, not because that person discussed a foul-up by the journal. Instead of thanking the person, they let him know that any paper with his name on it will not be published.
The whole thing about a conflict of interest statement is really for appearances sake. The appearance of a conflict can be as damaging as the real thing so report it early.
So the guys who forgot to detail their conflicts of interest seem to get off while the guy who discussed it gets a lifetime ban.
In the journal’s case, the manner in which it reacted is odd and the huge punitive penalty it levied seems out of place. The overreaction of the journal to this really does make one suspect that something else is going on.
Technorati Tags: Health
[Via HealthLawProf Blog]
Yesterday’s Talk of the Nation has a panel discussion concerning reviews of doctor performance appearing on websites and some doctors who are asking patients to sign waivers that they will not post items on websites without approval. The brief write-up…[More]
An interesting response. Of course, what is the penalty if one writes a review? Having to deal with jerks who are patients is probably just as bad as a doctor who is incompetent or has terrible manners. But people talk about their doctors all the time. This just makes it more public. So there should be a way for the doctors to respond to poor reviews.
But what happens if you tell a friend who then writes a bad review? And I would imagine that a patient who serially gives bad reviews would find a hard time getting a doctor. Doctors can use Google just as easily.
Technorati Tags: Health
by Clearly Ambiguous
Cato’s Climate Ad Campaign:
As the White House and Congress intensify efforts to restrict greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming, groups and individuals opposed to government solutions to environmental problems are similarly ramping up counterattacks.
[More]
As if it is hard to create a list of people who will agree to anything. I’m sure we could put together a list of people who think the Earth is flat. Would that really convince anyone that there is a controversy?
This is again out of the denier’s playbook. It has been used so many times by creationists that there is now a counter-argument called Project Steve, where the National Center for Science Education keeps a list of those scientists named Steve (or a variant) who agree with a statement supporting evolution. Since only 1% of the scientists are named Steve, this serves as a stand-in for a really big list.
At the last count, 1078 scientists named Steve have agreed with the statement. This is not only larger than many of the lists creationists use but would correspond to 107,800 scientists agreeing with the statement.
So, creating a list of people who say one thing is really a pretty poor rhetorical device. Saying that there is still controversy using a small list of people is even a worse device.
Maybe 15 years ago this would have worked (actually, the use of doubt was a constant refrain from these same groups), but doubt does not really succeed anymore.
The science has moved on, the data have become more convincing,not less, yet these guys are using the same old worn-out tactics. Won’t they ever learn a different one?
Technorati Tags: Environment, Science
by kevindooley
My mother, who loves mysteries as much as I love science fiction, was re-reading an old Dorothy Sayers novel, The Documents in the Case, published in 1930. She sent me an email quoting this part of it, spoken by a scientist in the book. It is a timeless rant:
Damn all the daily papers. And damn education. All these get-clever-quick articles and sixpenny textbooks. Before one has time to verify an experiment, they’re all at you, shrieking to have it formulated into a theory. And if you do formulate it, they misunderstand it or misapply it. If anybody says there are vitamins in tomatoes, they rush out with a tomato-theory. If somebody says that gamma-rays are found to have an action on cancer-cells in mice, they proclaim gamma-rays as a cure-all for everything from old age to a cold in the head……..
The novel was co-written by Dr. Eustace Robert Barton (writing as Robert Eustace) a phisician who also wrote medical thrillers, some of which are available for free. His expertise provided some of the important science in the novel and one can not help but feel it is his view that is quoted above.
A view that many researchers today would soundly echo. The mainstream media seems to have always had a penchant for getting stuff wrong. Just more evidence that Sturgeon’s Law can be applied to the media for at least the last 80 years or so, if not longer.
At least it is so such easier to find the 10% that get it right than it used to be. If you did not happen to subscribe to the right paper, you were out of luck.
Technorati Tags: Science
by digitalART2
I Told You the Pork Lobbyists Would Comment on Kristof’s Column:
[Via Mike the Mad Biologist]
Always listen to the Mad Biologist. By way of Joe Windish at The Moderate Voice, we find out, just as I predicted, that the pork lobby would claim we don’t know enough about the MRSA ST398 problem:
Livestock scientists call the opinion piece “highly speculative”, and point to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statements on MRSA that say most if not all cases of MRSA come from person to person contact, not person to animal. The column also does not define this strain as one that is found on any swine farm in the vicinity of Camden, Ind.
“They are making a huge leap attributing MRSA in these people to hogs,” says Angela DeMirjyn, science communications manager for the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). The pork organization has been researching MRSA for some time, says DeMirjyn, and supports the CDC’s statement that most community acquired MRSA infections are caused by a different bacteria than is commonly associated with pigs or pig farms.
“We also know that MRSA is not just staph bacteria that can be found in pigs, it also can be found in horses, dogs and even marine animals. It is not a problem that is solely related to pigs,” DeMirjyn says.
I’ve actually had some limited dealing with pork lobbyists. Before I get to that, I want point out one tactic that the ag lobby has always used.
[More]
The first rule of many denialists is to claim that more work must be done before any decision can be made. “These facts are controversial, preliminary, conditional, etc.”
As is made clear in the post, we already know that this bug can spread from pigs to humans. Seeing it in the US and the huge role that livestock antibiotic use plays here is very worrying.
So, do we wait until the pig is out of the poke to do something? Sounds like that is what some would want us to do. Of course, the lobbyists are responding to a column written as an opinion piece. Not the science itself.
