One Of Many Costs Of The War

My currently sparse posting schedule is due to the fact that my ‘day job’ is embroiled in re-application for National Institute of Health funding. Without federal money, all of our research grinds to an instant halt. Over the last several years, however, increased military spending has meant that less and less of the pie goes to US science, technology, and health. This table on the NIH website really drives the point home. The success rate for a continuation of a previous grant was 36.8% in 2006. It depends on the type of grant you have, but you’ll need to re-apply every five years or so. If the continuation rate stays the same, over 60% of labs re-applying for funds will need to either find new money or close in 2007. In contrast, the continuation success rate for 1999 (data can be downloaded at the bottom of the page) was approximately 70%.

That singularly depressing thought explains why I was struck by David Leonhard’s article in today’s New York Times, discussing the cost of the war in Iraq and what we could have done with $1.2 trillion dollars. Jonah Lehrer at The Frontal Cortex also has a great discussion of what wars really cost.

Ok, back to work. ‘Cause grants don’t write themselves.

In Which I Attempt To Avoid Really Obvious Jokes

From the FYI file: infection by a common parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, can actually change your behavior. You may be more familiar with this critter as the cause of Toxoplasmosis, and the source of the old wives’ tale about pregnant women avoiding cats. (The parasite lays its eggs in the digestive system of cats, and contamination of food by cat feces can cause infection in humans.)

The ability of parasites to control the behavior of their hosts, although icky and weird, is hardly a new idea in the science biz. For example, the orb spider, Plesiometa argyra, is infected by a parasitic wasp that causes it to weave special, wasp-friendly webs before dying gruesomely. Additionally, the barnacle Sacculina will infect the nervous system of crabs, causing them to care for the barnacle’s eggs. If a male crab in infected, it will become protective and maternal towards the alien eggs. (These things and more can be found at Damn Interesting, which is, not surprisingly, damn interesting.)

…but back to our story. It turns out that while Toxoplasma lowers the IQ of men, making them more likely to take risks, be anti-social, jealous, and just generally more bastardly, the effect in women is completely different. Infection makes women more outgoing, friendly and promiscuous. The human results are similar to those observed in mice, and served to increase the chance that the parasite would be able to infect other mice. When infected mice were treated with medication, the behaviors ceased.

Makes you wonder if you mind is really your own, doesn’t it? Also, you can insert your own stupid Republican joke here. I trust you.

via Slashdot

Sending Wingnuttery Overseas

Hello Bear Republic! I’ve just returned from an extended jaunt in America’s heartland, where “Impeach Bush” bumper stickers are finally starting to replace the ones saying “W in 04!”. Just when I thought I’d escaped the wingnuttery, this article popped into my inbox. Russia is currently experiencing its own version of the Scopes Monkey Trial, as a student sues her school for presenting a “one-sided” version of biological history. You’ll see, though, that this issue is much larger than a single student - in fact, it has very little to do with the student and her desire for.. well… anything. The student in question has not even attended the first two court hearings. Instead, she was spoken for by her father and a family friend who just happens to run a conservative Christian public relations firm.

And it all becomes clear.

I’ll let you read the article yourself, and if you speak Russian, you can also check out the official website of the plaintiff. (Or the Russian equivalent. I watched a lot of “Divorce Court” over the holidays.) However, I would like to bring your attention to this quote by the girl’s laywer, who said:

“Secular education should not be based on offending the feelings of religious believers.”

I like this quote because it’s so obviously a page torn straight out of the Discovery Institute playbook. Apparently, simply by not presenting a religion’s mythology as fact, scientists are offensive to believers. And if that’s the case, boy, are they gonna be upset when we expand biology curricula to include “Holy Object Desecration”.

If the above links haven’t quenched your thirst for complete crap, try taking this dinosaur quiz , brought to you by people who think that science provides inadequate evidence, so we should just believe a bunch of made-up stuff.

-superawesomestuff

Soy Products: It’s a Big Gay Link Party!

Perhaps you’ve heard about the fallout from a WorldNet Daily article claiming that soy products ‘feminize’ men. According to Jim Rutz, merely feeding your baby soy formula is the equivalent of popping five birth control pills a day! I say ‘according to Jim Rutz’ because he didn’t feel the need to back up any of his claims with, oh, I don’t know… CITATIONS? *

Anyway, a woman must know her limitations, and I am absolutely, positively unable to make this story any funnier than it already is. So without further ado, the links to people much more entertaining that I:

Pharyngula starts us off with a dissection of how exactly Rutz found his “scientific evidence”. I realize that Ruiz isn’t a science professional like PZ Meyers (or yours truly), but anybody can use PubMed to search the medical literature. Maybe when Rutz didn’t get any hits for “evil gay agenda” he just gave up.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars asks how the WingNuts will explain people who are vegetarian for religious or cultural reasons. “If Rutz’s theory was correct… Loma Linda should look like the Castro district…” Reading the comments is strongly recommended, if only for the reference to ‘Soylent Queen’.

And finally, the hilarious Pachacutec at FDL introduces us to PFOTS (Parents and Friends of the Tragically Straight).

-superawesomestuff

*Isn’t it especially delicious how wingnuts love to pull in scientific evidence for the potential cause of effete liberalism, but will argue vociforously against scientific evidence for things like evolution? You gotta laugh, otherwise you’ll cry all the time.

The EPA Gets the Lead Out

Two weeks ago, the EPA potentially moved to reduce lead emissions standards, which, I think we can all agree, would be a Very Bad Thing. I have a little more information on what has transpired in the interim, and what you can do to express your displeasure.

First, read this article by the AP’s John Heilprin. There’s now little doubt that this change is in response to lobbying by lead smelters and refiners, as well as battery manufacturers. Heilprin quotes Marcus Peacock, number two at the EPA, as saying:

“Starting with lead, we’re going to try to dovetail this in,” Peacock said of the new guidance, which he said also would help the agency use the most up-to-date science and keep separate its scientific and policy considerations.

Unfortunately, the EPA has chosen to separate these considerations by completely freeing its policy-makers from having to consider scientific findings. This change in procedure is discussed in this article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which you should also read. Here’s my favorite quote, and by favorite, I mean “makes my bowels clench in fury”:

The official justification, as usual, is that this will improve efficiency, by detaching EPA action from the time-consuming work of scientific analysis.

Well, you can’t fault them there. If given the choice, I always prefer to make quick, totally uninformed decisions.

So what can you, as a not-so-gentle BRAG reader, do? Well, you can send an e-mail to the above-mentioned Mr. Peacock. Tell him that the EPA’s job, first and foremost, is to protect the environment and the American people. EPA policy must be based upon both scientific data and safety, not corporate profits.

-superawesomestuff

Genes, infidelity and the case for poor hygene

In what I’m sure will be bad news for - well, let’s be honest - people everywhere, researchers at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque have found that a cluster of genes known as the major histocompatibility loci, or MHC, may contribute to the probability that women will cheat on their spouses. These genes are primarily related to immune response. In fact, they’re the reason you can’t take just anybody’s liver. The above-linked study shows that may also contribute to sexual response as well. The interesting part is that these aren’t “infidelity genes”, and they don’t directly determine behavior - the study hinges on the difference between the woman’s genotype and that of her spouse. Simply put, women are more likely to cheat on men to whom they are genetically similar, while in men, there is no relationship between genotype and propensity to cheat. If you want a snarky comment, you can put it in yourself. I’m taking the high road on this one.

The ultimate explanation for this result is that more genetically different mates will produce offspring with more variable MHC genes, and therefore, stronger immune systems. Why do I bring this up? Well, one of the studies that contributed to this work just happens to be my favorite scientific study ever. It’s almost universally known in the science biz as the “sweaty tee-shirt study”. In this experiment, men and women were selected to represent a variety of MHC genotypes. The men were given clean t-shirt to wear for two nights, as which point they returned them to the scientists. The female participants then had to smell the grody t-shirts, and rate the odor in terms of - and to quote Dave Barry, I’m not making this up- “intensity, pleasantness, and sexiness”. In spite of the undeniable seductive power of underarm funk, the women in the study actually preferred the scent of t-shirts worn by men with MHC genotypes different from their own. Something to bear in mind when you head out to the bars - or to your local Drinking Liberally chapter this week.

-superawesomestuff

Hmmm… why do things like this always make the news on Friday?

Via the TPM Muckraker, the Environmental Protection Agency has produced a draft reporting that levels of airborne lead have fallen drastically since it was first listed as a pollutant in 1976. Wow, that’s great news, right?

Not so fast, sweetcheeks. The document includes the recommendation that, since restrictions on lead emissions had worked so well, we should eliminate them - leaving us, as Henry Waxman said in his suitably outraged letter to the EPA with “no national standard for lead air pollution.”

Don’t consider this matter closed. As soon as I find out which government offical is the appropriate conduit for BRAG’s righteous wrath, you’ll be the first to know.

-superawesomestuff

I like typing SCOTUS. SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS. Oh yeah, and climate change.

At The Intersection, via Crooks and Liars, a deeply depressing look into the environmental awareness of SCOTUS:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I’m not a scientist.

Oh crap, you’re not? Boy, is my face red! In that case, you’re totally excused from having to interpret any laws that don’t directly intersect with your particular areas of expertise.

In fact, just read the transcript.

Why is SCOTUS considering climate change at all? Well, actually, they’re not. They’re really determining whether the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, when it is also a naturally occurring constituent of the atmosphere. In this sense, carbon dioxide is like Mountain Dew: in small amounts it is wonderful, stimulating, and oddly colored - drink 161.32 cans of it and global warming will be the least of your worries.

Last Friday, this case was the subject of an excellent discussion on NPR’s All Things Considered. If you can’t listen to the radio at work, you can read about the case on the SCOTUS blog, which is either a relatively official internet organ of the Supreme Court, or the weirdest obsession ever.

-superawesomestuff

The LA Times Also Hates Puppies, Your Grandma

On November 20th, California state officials took the final steps in approving a $150 million dollar loan to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. You might remember that in 2004, California voters approved Proposition 71, which provides funding to California-based researchers for human embryonic stem cell research, and created this institute. President Bush functionally outlawed federal funding for this type of research in 2001. I’ll understand if you’ve forgotten the particulars in light of the avalance of affronts to civil and human rights that have been foisted upon the American people in the interim. Prop 71 authorized the sale of $3 billion in bonds to pay for the research. Since the passage of the proposition, its constitutionality has been challenged and the bonds cannot be sold - hence, the Institute required a loan to stay in business. Fortunately, the good people of California have the LA Times to crap all over any potential optimism we might feel.

Even with the $150-million state loan approved recently to kick-start work stalled by legal challenges, there are no breakthroughs in sight. Gone are the allusions to healing such afflictions as spinal cord injuries and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases that dominated the 2004 campaign for Proposition 71. In fact, scientists say, there is no guarantee of cures — certainly not any time soon — from the measure that was optimistically titled the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act.

Stupid, lazy scientists! You’ve had nearly two weeks! Haven’t you cured paralysis yet? The LA Times has also chosen to ignore the fact that the Institute’s primary goal since its creation has been to meet legal challenges to its very existence. Funding researchers is great, but I suspect that almost two years of court battles change your budget priorities somewhat. It shouldn’t be a shock, then, that the Institute has had to scale back its goals.

Set for final approval at UC Irvine this week, the draft plan is clear: “It is unlikely that [the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine] will be able to fully develop stem cell therapy for routine clinical use during the 10 years of the plan.”

Instead, the top goal is to establish, in principle, that a therapy developed from human embryonic stem cells can “restore function for at least one disease.”

Sayth the LA Times:

That would be only the first step toward persuading pharmaceutical or biotech companies to fund expanded clinical trials, a process that takes years and millions of dollars. Fewer than 20% of potential therapies that enter trials make it to market.

I think they’re implying that since the probability of a stem-cell based cure making it to market is so low, we should just abandon the whole thing. First, I’m not sure I consider 1-in-5 a long shot. Second, that’s the statistic for all trials, regardless of the type of treatment. Using their logic, why don’t we just abandon medical research all together? I mean, really, what has medical research ever done for you?*

Answers to your questions about stem cells can be found here. If the fact that I linked to the Alliance for Stem Cell Research causes you to question my neutrality on the issue, you’re very astute. You want fair and balanced? This ain’t Fox News. And in case you’re wondering, that stem cell research money? I won’t see a dime of it.

-superawesomestuff

*Besides the discovery of antibiotics, the use of insulin to treat diabetes, vaccination against polio, measles, mumps and rubella, the global eradication of smallpox, X-rays, ultrasound, MRIs and CT scans, the artifical heart, multi-organ transplants, in vitro ferilization, chemotherapy, anti-viral AIDS treatments, vitamin supplements, and antidepressants, to name just a few. Thanks, ASE!

What, me biased?

Like all good liberals, I was receiving my marching orders from National Public Radio the other afternoon when I heard an interview with Michael Shermer. He’s the director of The Skeptics Society and the author of some excellent books on science, pseudoscience, religion, and superstition, just in case you’re building your Amazon Wish List.

The subject of the interview was Michael Richard’s recent racist rant, which you may have heard about, you know, if you aren’t a grizzled survivalist. It led into a discussion of the fact that lots of people say racist things, but few people really think of themselves racist. He then mentioned The Harvard Implicit Association Test. It’s actually a series of tests. The stated purpose of this project is to create a “virtual laboratory at which visitors can examine their own hidden biases”. I say it’s big fun, and a fascinating way to test both your predjudice and your manual dexterity. If you take the demonstration tests, you can choose one of 14 subjects, covering such topics as age, sexuality, skin tone, and even presidential popularity. You then try to complete as series of tasks as quickly as you can; the site will tell you not only your own implicit (possibly unconcious) biases, but also how you rank relative to other Americans. For example, I learned that I slightly associate females with science, which is not a huge surprise, but also that I have no implicit preference for Abraham Lincoln over George W. Bush. I demand a recount!

-superawesomestuff