On BioScience and Life and Such

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

,

The need for restraint III

In Uncategorized on February 21, 2009 at 5:38 pm

post to news.thinkgene.com

Missionary style sex position.

Just too much fun! via Wikipeda

I once thought overselling science was the biggest threat to scientific credibility. Credibility scientists need to achieve general acceptance in the public, and subsequently continued funding (progress).

Recent developments have made me think that rushing into commercializing new biomedical technology,  like embryo sorting and genetic testing may pose a larger threat. Examples are genetic tests for athletic ability and embryo sorting based on more or less uncertain predictions of phenotypes without medical significance.

Granted, athletic testing and embryo sorting will  not become a reality for most of us for a long long time. Athletic ability one can usually assess wit the naked eye, and having sex to create offspring is far too much fun for it to go away.

– Then all the more reason to pause and think twice before unleashing commercial products to the unsuspecting and unschooled (in genetics) lay man. Even more reason to pause, when those products have disputable accuracy and are of questionable value

These are the early days of the genomic era, there are many, many things we still do not know, especially when it comes to the nature vs. nurture relationships. Since the future keeps evading finite predictability,  absolute disease risks (or any other risks or absolute probabilities for that matter) within the full time span of a human life, remains utopic.

We are moving in the right direction, all-encompassing disease prevention and/or treatment is on the horizon together with increased longevity.

Let’s not screw it up for ourselves. Our credibility is all we have, – please people show some restraint…..

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

, ,

Quote of the month February 09

In Uncategorized on February 11, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Frank Wilczek at Nobel press conference in Sto...
Image via Wikipedia

Nobel prize winner Frank Wilczek (quote from here):

The most exciting thing that can happen is when theoretical dreams that started as fantasies, as desires, become projects that people work hard to build. There is nothing like it; it is the ultimate tribute. At one moment you have just a glimmer of a thought and at another moment squiggles on paper. Then one day you walk into a laboratory and there are all these pipes, and liquid helium is flowing, and currents are coming in and out with complicated wiring, and somehow all this activity is supposedly corresponds to those little thoughts that you had. When this happens, it’s magic.

Enhanced by Zemanta

, ,

Find me a new term for “race”, please

In Uncategorized on February 5, 2009 at 9:02 am

post to news.thinkgene.com

A single amino acid change causes hemoglobin t...
Image via Wikipedia

Races doesn’t exist – well fine, but how do you want to label our genetic differences then. Stop using the “term” race because it leads to racism would be like treating a symptom while disregarding the disease.

Reading this post on Greg Laden’s blog we learn that using the term “race” in derogatory ways lead to racism. Well, duh, thank you captain obvious.

The discussion following the post adds some nuance to the subject, but still fails to adress the real problem: if you do not want to use “race”, which term would you want to use to describe groups who share a set of genetic traits ? Ethnicity maybe, a label of geographical location maybe, – what about “of Caucasian ancestry albeit with significant genetic differences to other Caucasians”.

Genetic traits can be grouped. In my work I need to do this when I do pharmacogenetics. Some of the genetic markers I need to test for are very common in Caucasians, some are very common in people of Asian ancestry and yet others are very common in people of African ancestry. Testing for all of them would be overwhelmingly many (and too expensive) so we need to make a selection of the ones that are most likely to be present in our patient population. And, we have to make this selection based on ethnicity, geographical loation of ancestry, or “race” if you will. I do this selection without any thought of other aspects of the word “race” . I do this to provide the best care I can to our patients.

One of the arguments in the above mentioned debate (and in the respective friendfeed entry) is that we do not need a label for these groups, – but I do ! To do my work in a proper manner I really do !

If anyone labels me a racist over having to do this, they are creating the problem rather than helping to solve it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

BIOpinionated monthly quote-fest 0209

In Uncategorized on February 4, 2009 at 12:23 pm

1. A tweet from Mr. Gunn:

@MaverickNY For someone who toils daily to uncover the real truth of something, to be told that belief = truth is insulting to my efforts

2. From this post at Best Before Yesterday:

…….did I think desire and motivation was all about chemistry. I said there was no question about it. She talked about a “part of us that doesn’t want it to be like that”. I wonder. What is lost when we think of the mind as a machine? Magic? The ghost or soul? For some, a sense of wonder and mystery. Control. Because, remember, most people are not neuroscientists.

3. From this post at Ouroboros:

The structural similarities between the opposition to these two classes of “meddling” are pronounced enough that I think those of us in the pro-lifespan extension camp would do well to carefully observe how the debate proceeds on the question of cognitive enhancement — and take notes — because, someday, we’re going to be having the same debate about lifespan.

4. From this post at Genetic Future:

….call me idealistic, but I suspect that parents will love their IVF-conceived children just as much regardless of whether they were randomly plucked from a Petri dish or selected on the basis of genetic information.

5. From this post at business|bytes|genes|molecules:

With all due apologies, science != academic science. Join a startup, or start one.

,

A train (wreck) of (religious) thoughts

In Uncategorized on February 1, 2009 at 11:50 am

post to news.thinkgene.com

Early science, particularly geometry and astro...
Image via Wikipedia

I made this argument in the last post that being “natural” (or biologically unaltered, which is more accurate in this setting) means keeping our self-reliance. And, loosing that self-reliance may be one of the main reasons people fear biomedical technology.

Then it occurred to me, what about religion ? After all mankind at all times have used religion in one form or another to justify/explain our existence, – and usually there is one or more almighty deities that are in control. Pledging allegiance to a god must certainly be to give away self-reliance ?

I’d like to argue the opposite. Religion is our way of pretending we control things that are clearly outside of our control. Thus, with a deity on our side we are self reliant even though it’s quite obvious in our daily lives that we are not. The central underlying assumption is that this God is on our side, – on our team.

Technology on the other hand does not take sides. Statistics, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology are (in theory) completely objective – sometimes cruelly so.

The real delusion then is not the one that Dawkins points out – that God is a delusion (and I have commented on this before,  his arguments really doesn’t make a difference because beliefs or faith can easily be called delusional, but still serve the same purpose). Rather the real delusion is that God is on our side, – that god makes our team self reliant.

And consequently that science does not. But the naked truth is that the concept of self reliance is what is delusional – making scientific development go in the direction we want is  the least delusional and by far the safest way to make sure our reliance will be upon something benign.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

, ,

On Addiction

In Uncategorized on January 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm

post to news.thinkgene.com

A smoking symbol, usually signifying that smok...
Image via Wikipedia

I used to be a heavy smoker. I smoked 20 cigarettes a day. Smoking a cigarette was the first thing on my mind in the morning (I always started the day with one), smoking was the last thing I did before going to bed and my day would be organized around cigarette-breaks.

Psychological  dependency (note: different from physical dependency) stems from dopamine release in certain parts of the brain (see here,  here and here for more). This dependency is based on the need for an organism to reward beneficial behavior. But, the system is easily fooled by drugs of addiction (nicotine in the case of cigarettes), which are, arguably, not beneficial.

I got rid of my smoking addiction by realizing that being a non-smoker is something I can identify with as easily as being a smoker. My identity as a smoker could be removed and I would still have a likable self. Also, I was sick and tired of cigarettes dictating how I organized my days – they stole my time.

I am certain that I have kicked the habit. It’s been almost five years without a cigarette, and I do not feel any desire to have one, – ….usually

The other day I was listening to an interview of surgeon Dr. Mads Gilbert who had just come back from operating on wounded Palestinians in Gaza – which is admirable ! But, and this is my point in this post – when I heard him say the following:

I usually do not smoke, but when I am in Gaza I smoke – a lot.

My first thought, – a thought that took all focus away from his plea for peace in the Gaza-region, was…..:  – hey, I could go to Gaza to smoke !!

This is addiction. And it is a reminder that I was an addict and still have addict thoughts. The reward circuits are hardwired now, and have become almost instinctive.

However, me being comfortable with my identity as a non-smoker is what is going to keep me away from cigarettes also in the future. And this leads me to the second point I wanted to make in this post: when anonymous alcoholics and similar organizations always confirm to themselves that they are alcoholics/addicts – don’t they then reaffirm their identity as an addict ? And, is that a good thing ? Isn’t not being an addict their identity now  ?

What works for me is to know my biology, but at the same time to know that I can choose to follow up un neurological signals or not, – and while that makes me a previous smoker with hard-wired memories of the past – it most certainly does not make me an addict – not anymore.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

,

BIOpinionated quote-fest 0109

In Uncategorized on January 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm

post to news.thinkgene.com

The costume of the science fiction character D...
Image via Wikipedia

1. From “Darth Vader’s “Management” Secrets“:

Darth Vader is a Dark Lord of the Sith and second-in-command in the Galactic Empire, where he is the pupil of Emperor Palpatine. He studied the Jedi arts under Obi-Wan Kenobi and serves a Sith apprenticeship with Darth Sidious. Darth’s brother, Chad, is the Day-Shift Manager at Empire Market.

2. From ERV in response to George Johnson critizing science blogging:

Do you realize what this means to people, George? How much a preventative HIV vaccine or cheaper/better/easier medications for HIV/AIDS means to people? How fucking scary HIV is to people? What these kinds of messages (WE CURE AIDZ NAU! LOL NOT REALLY!) do to the general public? What it does to their trust of scientific research in this country?

3. From an Effect Measure post on research into effects of the the virginity pledge:

82% of pledgers denied ever having taken the pledge

4. A comment on this YouTube video:

not so far in the future, humans are taken over by the elite using this so called helpful science.

5. From this friendfeed discussion:

In order to die someday, you have to be alive. Everything is dangerous, I suggest not leaving your home, not using any type of equipment, electricity, gas, etc inside, and not eating any food from unknown sources. Also filter the inbound air, water and any other fluid. And don’t read the interwebs, there are crazy people out there. – Paulo Nuin

6. From another friendfeed discussion:

There are many scary things about today’s world. But one that is truly thrilling is that the means of spreading both knowledge and inspiration have never been greater. Five years ago, an amazing teacher or professor with the ability to truly catalyze the lives of his or her students could realistically hope to impact maybe 100 people each year. Today that same teacher can have their words spread on video to millions of eager students. There are already numerous examples of powerful talks that have spread virally to massive Internet audiences. – Will Richardson

7. From this post on Eye On DNA:

But sometimes, what’s in your genes isn’t in your heart. I’d rather my children followed their heart.

8. A tweet from Neil Saunders:

“not sure how a ceasefire is “unworkable”; surely you just stop firing?”

9. A comment on this post on A Blog Around The Clock:

This plays right into the hand of the sick-fuck right-wing, as all they have to do is trot out some phony propaganda shill, and the dumbfuck “journalists” go all “while it has been asserted that X, some critics say that not X”, without doing even the slightest bit of investigation that would reveal to them that the OVERFUCKINGWHELMING CONSENSUS among people who know what the fuck they are talking about, and are not either deranged wackaloon fuckwits or intentional propagandists, is “not X”. – Comrade PhysioProf

10. A tweet from Walter Jessen:

“@Berci What would be the alternative to evidence-based medicine? Hearsay medicine? Best-guess medicine?”

Enhanced by Zemanta

,

Anyone seen a nanobot lately

In Uncategorized on January 11, 2009 at 4:19 pm

post to news.thinkgene.com

After finishing Ray Kurzweils book “The singularity is near” I had some thoughts on why his predictions on timing was probably a bit off.  One thing I didn’t mention, because I wanted to do some research on the concept first, was nanorobotics or “nanobots“. His singularity- at least for the biological part of it, is highly dependent on these. Kurzweils vision is that these nanobots will crawl around inside our blood vessels and neurons fixing everything from infections to physical damage.

And Kurzweil is not alone in his beliefs. Dr Anirban Bandyopadhyay of the International Center for Young Scientists, Tsukuba, Japan as reported this (really cool) nanobot formed by 17 identical molecules (and capable of performing a lot of computations) and says that it may be able to guide future nanobots through the body and control their functions:

“If [in the future] you want to remotely operate on a tumour you might want to send some molecular machines there,”……..”But you cannot just put them into the blood and [expect them] to go to the right place.” – quotes taken from BBC-news.

Others like Robert Freitas have similarly voiced their hopes for nanobots. But the problem is that so far there hasn’t been a single biological application for nanobots that I know of. I have been looking and looking, but have not seen a single experiment involving a nanorobotic structure doing anything inside a biological entity – much less a human body.

Of course, I may not have looked hard enough and I am by no means saying that nanobots is never to have its place in biomedicine. Who’s to say that nanobots will even look like robots:

“But even if such nano-devices were actually created some day, it would be their function that would matter, not their appearance. They’re not going to look like a robot or an other ultra-miniaturized version of machines that exist on a macroscopic scale in our everyday world”……”If you come into our lab, you’re not going to see a little micron toaster popping up nano pieces of toast.” – Neil Branda, professor of organic materials at Simon Fraser University in B.C quoted from here.

After all, nanomaterials like silver oxide nanoparticles and molecular drug delivery assemblies like liposomes have been known for a while and many, many more have future potential.

But, if the timing of singularity is dependent on robotic nanostructures in biomedical applications, then the singularity is further away than the predicted 2-4 decades.

Let’s hope it isn’t.

Image from: Microscopy-UK

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Quote of the month January 09

In Uncategorized on January 6, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Led Zeppelin “Stairway To Heaven“

And it’s whispered that soon if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forests will echo with laughter.

There’s this piper coming (20/1-09).

……….let’s just hope (!) it’s the right tune,

……….and also that not all can be lead……to the same reason.

Enhanced by Zemanta

, ,

A Christmas Reminder and ……duh !

In Uncategorized on December 23, 2008 at 11:02 am

post to news.thinkgene.com

Father Christmas // Santa Claus // Père Noël
Image by Stéfan via Flickr

To those who read this post – a merry Christmas !

This appeared on several science news sites recently: “Genes may influence popularity“.

I’d like to point out a few things.

Firstly: ……………..duh………….Why is its news that anyone of your skills, your looks or your social behavior (you and your genes) makes you popular (or unpopular).

Secondly: For thousands and thousands of people Christmas is associated with loneliness. Christmas being a family and friends holiday, exacerbate their feeling of being left out, of being unpopular.  To those I’d like to point out that genes do not predestine you to unpopularity or loneliness. To be included in a community, to feel appreciated or even popular, you do not need a rule-breaking gene, a pretty face, athletic skills or extraordinary jolly christmassy outgoingness.

Thirdly: Please pay special attention to the word “may” in the news-headline. This gene may happen to be (mildly ?) associated with a specific behavior, but most certainly there are many other factors, genetic or social, that plays a role in complex behaviour leading to popularity (the actual paper isn’t out so it’s hard to thoroughly review the genetics). One should regard this research as one of many attempts to understand human behavior biology, another tiny step (forwards or backwards !) in a quest that will take many years, perhaps never to be completed.

Nature and nurture teams up and works against some of us sometimes, this becomes especially apparent during Christmas. But, if you want to help others feel popular this holiday ? Forget about genetics  – caring for, and paying attention to, others does the trick:

So what’s the “gene therapy” for those with genetic loneliness? Community service, social interaction, anything to get people out and to give them a sense that they are not alone in the world [says these researchers]. It gives them a sense that they belong. – Summer Johnson, PhD (taken from blog.bioethics.net)
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]