Stem Cells + Media = ???

This post is for students in the Issues and Values in Biology course at Seattle Pacific University. I'll be visiting you later this week to talk about how the media interacts with science. There are a lot of great examples of how science is well represented or misrepresented in the news, but I've picked one story from a field I'm familiar with and that hopefully is interesting to you.

Even before President Bush signed an executive order restricting Federal support of embryonic stem cells, there was considerable attention paid to the differences between adult and embryonic sources of the cells. If you aren't sure what is the difference, I'd encourage you to check out this website sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Knowing the basics will help you understand why I've chosen the following example. There is still considerable conflict - especially in faith communities - about embryonic or adult stem cells. (See my post about President Obama's recent press conference for more details.) The field of stem cells is very large - there's something in the news every week; I'm focusing on one issue that was in the news about two years ago.

In the January 2007 issue of Nature Biotechnology, a group of scientists from Wake Forest University led by Anthony Atala published an article titled, Isolation of amniotic stem cell lines with potential for therapy. (The link needs a university subscription or an email from Dr. Hunter.) The bottom line in this report is a claim that there are cells in amniotic fluid (the nutrient that fetuses consume/breathe before birth) that have some of the same potential to form tissues as embryonic stem cells.

Nature Publishing Group publishes many of the most respected journals in science, and Nature Biotech is one of their gems. Each issue probably generates 5-6 press releases. The relationship between these top tiered journals and the mass media is important. It is the stock pathway for the dissemination of cutting edge science into public knowledge.

Unfortunately, 'cutting edge' in science rarely equates with 'breaking news.' Breaking news is too dependent on context. In this case, the work presented took about 7 years to complete, AND stem cell funding was near the top of the Dems' political agenda for 2009. And when a news story overlaps with politics, there is invariably hype and hope attached to what the science could someday do. (Some social scientists studied this in relation to stem cells a few years ago. If your'e interested, read this paper - you'll need a school subscription or the email from Dr. Hunter.) Did this get published for the hype?

The lab where I got my PhD held a journal club focusing on this paper about 3 weeks after the news broke. (Journal clubs are opportunities to assess for ourselves the merits of a publication, how our experiments might need to change in light of others' results, etc.) Our lab has a reputation for being one of the most skeptical in the field of cardiovascular stem cell biology. The outcome of this animated discussion was unanimous agreement that these cells were much more like (maybe identical to) a type of adult stem cell (mesenchymal stem cells) that are multipotential, but not pluripotential like embryonic stem cells. I could outline about 8 reasons for this conclusion, but that would distract from the real issue I want to bring up: what happens when 6 pages of dense scientific data is condensed to 500 words?

But fiirst, how did this story hit the press? My first contact with the information was an article in a Seattle newspaper. Later, I read an op/ed by Charles Krauthammer suggesting that Bush's decision to limit progress in embryonic stem cell research might have been vindicated with this publication. Initially, I did not catch (but should have expected) headlines like Vatican official ‘rejoices’ in news of amniotic stem-cell discovery and Bush’s Culture of Life ’Confirmed’ by Stem Cell Announcement. Lost in all of the political fallout from this report was a statement made by Atala that this information should NOT be used to argue against the funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Interestingly, when a paper DOESN'T publish science stories, it raises eyebrows. Science writer Michael Fumento announced a cover-up of this information committed by the New York Times when that paper opted not to publish the report. It turns out that their genetics reporter looked at the Atala paper last week and

deemed it a minor [scientific] development.

Hooray for Times reporter Nicholas Wade and his science editor Laura Chang! Ms. Chang went on to say,

There is so much hope invested in stem cell research that we have grown increasingly concerned about prematurely fanning these hopes.

Fumento lamented on his blog that

it's too bad many editors don't realize they have science writers who don't understand - or worse, misrepresent - science.

Exactly! Isn't it strange when we can agree on a statement but not a sentiment?

I believe there are some key questions left to be answered:

1. Why did Nature Biotechnology permit publication of a paper that presented mundane data in conjunction with amazing claims?
2. Is the manner by which science writers collect their information about scientific reports thorough enough?
3. Since it increases visibility of science in general, could it actually be better for science that the public gets this information? (Misrepresented as it may be.)

I look forward to meeting you in class this week. If you were not able to access the scientific papers linked above, Dr. Hunter will make them available to you as .pdfs. Also, feel free to post questions here if you have any before class.

Obama Flubs on Stem Cells

He did just sign an executive order lifting the August 9, 2001 restrictions on Federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cell (ESC) lines, but President Obama still doesn't seem to understand the science involved in the decision. Of the thirteen questions he fielded in tonight's press conference, the one he did the worst answering was the one from Washington Times journalist John Ward.

Watch the Q&A and then indulge me by reading my take on Obama's response.



Did you catch the sections where Obama displayed a strangely Bush-in-the-headlights look. I'll remind you as we read through it again together.

QUESTION: In your remarks on stem cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem cell research.

I'm just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells, but not a lot with embryonic?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay. No, I -- I think it’s a -- I think it’s a legitimate question.

Actually, no! The question is not entirely legitimate. The questioner added on the to the end of his question the words, "especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not a lot with embryonic." This is horribly misleading. Adult stem cells have been "researched" for half a century. Human embryonic stem cells were first characterized in 1998. The speaker sets up a straw man that the two types of cells are on level ground. So the question isn't legitimate if it isn't true. By calling it legitimate Obama ceded ground because everybody has in their mind that last phrase. To clarify, embryonic stem cells have shown more promise in the past 10 years than adult stem cells did in their first 25.

OBAMA: I -- I wrestle with these issues every day. As I mentioned to -- I think in an interview a couple of days ago, by the time an issue reaches my desk, it’s a hard issue. If it was an easy issue, somebody else would have solved it and it wouldn’t have reached me.

Look, I believe that it is very important for us to have strong moral guidelines, ethical guidelines, when it comes to stem-cell research or anything that touches on,

AWKWARD FUMBLING-FOR-WORDS SILENCE... So this is why you use the teleprompter so much!!! By the way, it's not cool to conflate morals with ethics. Morals can influence ethics, but they are not the same. This confusion is a big reason so many scientists are upset with the religious right. Morals are personal standards. Ethics inform a social standard. By definition, defining ethics is a consensus-dependent activity. Players on both sides of this argument are still not ready to talk with each other.

you know, the issues of possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences.

COME ON! "possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences?" I would have liked to hear a reference to the main issue here: when do we think humanity begins?

I think those issues are all critical, and I’ve said so before. I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion.

Okay, there it is. Finally, there's a politician willing to call a spade a spade. The reason this debate is so lively is that the pro-life contingent already has a high-functioning political machine... Now we just need some effective communication about how stem cell research isn't the same as abortion.

I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test. What we have said is that for embryos that are typically about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson’s or for Alzheimer’s or for, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases, juvenile diabetes, that -- that it is the right thing to do. And that’s not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a number of people who are also against abortion.

Nooooooooooooooo! Not the C-word! What we scientists are after is understanding that leads to treatments. Politicians LOVE cures. The thing is, there aren't many cures in medicine. (And some ill-informed autism advocates want to take those away from us!) When there is no cure, the adoring crowd supporting research could turn to an angry mob. And another thing: When are the politicians' science advisors going to step in to help them understand which diseases stem cell research is likely to yield treatments for??? Stem cell research might have a chance at curing neurological diseases. There's a chance that Parkinson's could be treated because its a pretty well-defined region of the brain that's affected. Even then, I'm not sure we've figured out how to convince the ESCs to become substantia nigra (that's the region of the brain involved) cells, much less how to get them to integrate. But Alzheimer's Disease (AD)? We still know relatively little about how AD occurs. We know it hits different people differently and have really good tests to identify dementia or to diagnose the disease at autopsy, but even the expensive medicines so many people take hardly work at all. Nancy Reagan pleaded with GW Bush to lift his restrictions because of AD. Politicians who support ESC research use Alzheimer's because 1) a lot of people get it and 2) everyone is scared of it. Okay, so I don't like AD or Parkinson's. What are the diseases that could benefit from ESC research? Try spinal cord injury - the first FDA approved human trial for any ESC therapies is underway already. Diabetes is another good one, though my cynical side believes that disease was thrown in because the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation is one of the biggest science lobbying groups. The disease no one talks about is CANCER. What we are learning about reprogramming stem cells will likely inform future treatments for cancer.

Back to OBAMA: Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that’s great. I have -- I have no investment in causing controversy. I’m happy to avoid it if that’s where the science leads us.

Fair enough. In an ideal world, we will be able to learn from ESCs in order to reprogram other stem cells to do the same thing. And that is exactly what a couple of scientists did recently with induced pluripotent cells (IPCs). Read about them at Wikipedia. A future Nobel Prize may be awarded for this work... But this work would not have been possible without ESC research.

OBAMA: But what I don’t want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach. And that’s what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed.

Way to finish strong. Let science ask the questions, but have a more-or-less consensus ethical framework within to let them work.

QUESTION: I meant to ask as a follow-up, though, do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. I think there’s always an ethical and a moral element that has to be -- be a part of this. And so, as I said, I don’t take decisions like this lightly. They’re ones that I take seriously. And -- and I respect people who have different opinions on this issue.

But I think that this was the right thing to do and the ethical thing to do. And as I said before, my hope is, is that we can find a mechanism ultimately to cure these diseases in a way that gains a hundred percent consensus. And we certainty haven’t achieved that yet. But I think on balance this was the right step to take.

The president wisely ended on the ethics part of the question, so finished strong, but I hope that Mr. Obama's science advisers help him understand this topic so that it's not the science question at his next news conference that he flubs.

And I'll be honest with you: in terms of the potential for the cells to become any tissue in the body, I didn't think that the IPCs would stand a chance against ESCs back when they were first derived. But the great thing about science is that opinions only matter until the data comes back. And if you don't accept the data that everyone else does, you can do the experiment yourself. Unlike politics, the central element of all science is honesty and integrity; when proven wrong, the best scientists dust themselves off and start asking new questions. The investigator who does not will soon be out of a job.

Back at Clashing Culture

It's been a little while since I've posted anything at the science and religion blog Clashing Culture. But my co-bloggers over there have kept the place free of cobwebs. I spent a little bit reacquainting myself for the ever-present creation vs. evolution issue this weekend. There's a Texas School Board meeting this Friday to decide science standards for the next 10 years. And of course, some last minute insertions by the board's chair have the scientific community worried that creationism will find its way into science text books... It turns out that the chair of the board Don McLeroy has written an anti-evolution book Sowing Atheism and calls clergy who accept evolution morons. Sounds like the typical anti-intellectual name calling that makes this issue so frustrating to folks like me who just want to get along. In not very related news, one of creationism's champions, Ken Ham, has taken to leveling hypocritical complaints about radio interview ambushes. Read more at Clashing Culture.

Read more about the Texas School Board issue here and the Clergy Letter Project here.

What's Wrong?

If you couldn't tell from my post yesterday, I approve of the president's impending action to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cells. While, I've not had the time to post much about this issue, I have been reading others' takes. The Washington Post has a nice blog/column about religion and gives good time to science and religion bits. A piece likening stem cell ethics to organ transplantation caught my eye, because I've thought about this connection before and wanted to read what an 'expert' would say about it. I'd recommend you check out the article by Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, and the counterpoint by Thomas J. Reese, but what I did a doubletake on was this image:
This type of tube is commonly used to store frozen cells, including stem cells. The tube is thawed, because the red media is clearly not a chunk of ice. I'm thinking the photographer wanted an illusion of pipetting into the vial. But in the picture, the scientist is actually pipetting into the cap. There is a good chance that the diagonal tube is a forceps (tweezers), but with the cinematic techniques used so often on CSI and other science-enriched TV shows, I'm still putting my money on the theory that we're supposed to think there's pipet action going on.

Which is all to say, LOL.

Two Big FOSEP Events

I haven't posted much about seminars held by Seattle's Forum on Science Ethics and Policy. They have two fantastic events coming up that you should know about. If I weren't posted out here in the Alaskan bush, I'd line up to sit in the front row!

On June 2, PZ Myers of the Pharyngula blog is coming to the Pacific Science Center for a talk titled, "On Science, Blogs, and Intelligent Debates." It's at 7:00 PM and is co-hosted by the Northwest Science Writers' Association.


The very next day, Melanie Roberts, FOSEP founder and two-time AAAS Policy Fellow will speak about "How can YOU influence the federal policy process." She worked in Senator Jeff Bingaman's office and at the NSF. That talk is on the UW campus at 4:00 in the Health Sciences Building's room 747.

If you are in Seattle and are reading this blog, I think you'll find both of them interesting!

SMFPNIS For Two Days In A Row!

Science is big news in Spokane! This picture of molecular anthropologist Dr. Brian Kemp made a splash above the fold on the front page of today's Spokesman Review. Using molecular techniques he devised as a graduate student at UC Davis, he has established the age of native peoples in the Western Hemisphere to exceed 15,000 years. Check out the Discover Magazine story, or the original report in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The story in Spokane's paper was to feature how prominent Washington State University is becoming on the national research scene. He actually did the work as a post-doc at Vanderbilt. It seems as though he is setting up a new lab at Wazzu.

If Seattle's papers would stop trying to pick apart the University of Washington for animal research policy, human subject trials and medical mistakes and focus on the positives of having a world class university in the backyard, maybe it would be easier to fund higher education in this state.

Wondering about the acronym in this post's title? Go here.

Science Makes Front Page News In Spokane

Someone once pointed out to me that Seattle is the most educated city in the country. This may be true, but when is the last time you saw SCIENCE on the front page of Seattle's major newspaper? You must look to the other side of the state - where cougars live and snow sticks around for weeks... I've already found a way to be proud of my temporary hometown of Spokane.


Not only did SCIENCE make it to the vaulted pages of the Spokesman Review, it came with the hottest accessory for the lab these days: colored safety goggles. Someone should remind Dr. Pink that the pencil she is absent-mindedly about to put in her mouth could be contaminated with liquid C. The photo accompanied an article about the impending showdown about the No Child Left Behind legislation that President Bush wants to carve into stone tablets. All I have to say is, "Hooray SCIENCE!"

I am not kidding: this was 8 inches wide and above the fold on Friday's paper.

Movie Review: I am Legend

I'm no film connoisseur, but I am a scientist and physician. Well, almost a physician. So it is from a biomedical perspective that I present my review of I am Legend, starring Will Smith. This is the first film I have seen on opening weekend in as long as I can remember, and the first I've seen in a theater since Arctic Tale. This article won't be a true spoiler, but I will address several critical plot elements. Stop reading if you don't want to ruin the surprises. First, it was nice to see the movie without knowing any of the story. (Will Smith got me in the theater.) Other reviews point out Smith's excellent acting, the weak CGI monsters and how much the story strays from the original novel by Richard Matheson. And Popular Mechanics assesses the verity of the 'junk science' built into the plot. I take a broader view. In sum, I was pleasantly surprised that not only was science important to this film, but it was the co-star. Enough with the preamble! Here's the review:

How many times have you seen a cocky scientist on TV extolling the unlimited cures science has to offer society? If you lived in California a few years ago, you probably met professor Irv Weissman and others promising that stem cells will cure diseases. (They were actually just hinting at it, but does that really matter now that CA is well on its way to funding $3 billion of stem cell science?) I am Legend opens with a smug blond scientist admitting on local TV that yes, she has cured cancer. Note #1: Scientists, if you want to get visibility for science, you need to get on the local news! Evidently, this scientist has built a virus that prevents either tumorgenesis or malignancy. Fortunately, the film did not get into that detail, because I would have something significant to critique! What is notable is that the plot plays on the public's lingering fear of gene therapy. And of course, the worst nightmare comes true. The virus mutates into a lethal strain that results in symptoms part rabies, part ebola, part bird flu. The virus first requires physical contact for transmission, but soon aerosolizes and crosses species boundaries. I am skeptical that viral evolution could actually occur as quickly as in the film, but perhaps such a trait is what enabled one virus to cure every type of cancer in the first place.

Speaking of curing cancer, our mad scientist (who had a vaguely European accent), indicated that of 10,009 clinical trials, 10,009 people were cancer free. This is likely a consistency flaw instigated by the script writers, since later, Will Smith's character tests his "compound 6" and calls one experiment a clinical trial. Note #2: A clinical trial includes hundreds, if not thousands of patients. This was a little mistake, but could misrepresent the process of evaluating safety and efficacy to the millions of people in the theater this weekend. By the way, this flaw was my infectious disease researcher wife's biggest beef with the film.

Speaking of infectious disease, we need to talk about immunity. If 1% or the world's population was immune to the film's virus, Manhattan should have been left with 15,000 people. It took 70 minutes or so for an explanation of why Will Smith's character was the only human remaining. It turns out that 30% of those who survived turned into zombies. These (poorly animated) zombies ended up killing the rest of the people. How likely is it that a virus could cause a devolution (or evolution) of humans into zombies? Greg Bear offers a pretty believable mechanism in Darwin's Radio. If this little viral beastie was a certain type of retrovirus, aggressive zombies could be the next step in evolution, and this could even occur in one generation. I am guessing that this is the part of the film that the audience is supposed to suspend its belief about...

What about the basement laboratory? Smith's character used a fancy eyeglass-mounted video camera to record his experiments on various compounds to reverse the virus's symptoms in sewer rats. The writers got some things right here. Only "compound #6" worked; this was one of twenty he tried in this series, in what we assume was a long string of trials. This brings us to Note #3: Only a small fraction of science experiments 'work.' Of note is that only one rat was tested with #6 before moving to human trials! I guess this paucity of pre-clinical data can be excused when civilization is at stake. While we are on the topic of animal experiments, the presentation of animal research in this film was well done. The rabid rats were clearly animated, so no beef could be made about living conditions for real rats (and the fact that they were injuring themselves on the cages). The cages, by the way, were appropriate for animal size and were not overcrowded. Smith's character didn't need to get IACUC approval for his work, but he was mostly in compliance for many rules about animal care. Some notable lapses: no dedicated facility, interventions that were terminal, minimal personal protective equipment.

The treatment of the bench science was appropriate. There were no unneeded CSI-styled eye-candy closeups of pipetting or tube shaking. (You know the shot: when one of the attractive lab techs flicks an Eppendorf tube up in front of his/her face instead of using the vortexer.) This workshop looked like a well stocked lab crossed with an intensive care unit. There were QPCR machines, vital signs monitors (just like those at the UW hospital!), and med supply carts along with an appropriate amount of clutter. Conveniently for the plot, there were also bullet-proof glass doors. Except for the dim lighting, this looked like a great place to do science.

In my opinion, the ethical land mine in this film was not the fact that some crazy scientist unleashed a deadly virus - that occurred off screen. I worried about the ethical use of human subjects. Smith's character has a wall packed with photos of zombies that he unsuccessfully cured of their zombieism. The viewer is asked to overlook the fact that these zombies have the potential to be fully human. At one point in the film, Smith's character reports that these creatures have lost all semblance of human nature. This is a fine trick to make it okay for experimenting on them. (That is how some scientists justify animal research.) However, the observant audience member will note that the zombies have clear emotional responses to stimuli, exhibit abstract planning and operate in a social manner. One (the chief zombie) even seems to show an attachment to the zombie subject Smith's character is trying to cure. Note #4: If a cure occurs only after sacrificing hundreds of zombie-humans, is the research ethical? Is exterminating the zombie way of life genocide?

Finally, over the course of the film, the protagonist shifts from a Christian to an atheist to an agnostic. First, he prays with his family before all Hell breaks loose. Later, he reasons that God would never permit such a catastrophe, therefore does not exist. The final resolution depends on a near-death and perhaps spiritual experience in which Smith's character adopts a perspective that things 'happen for a reason.' I did not appreciate (nor would my atheist readers) how his suicidal ideation occurred in the post-religion period, while the noble savior surfaced after reconsidering a religious perspective. Apart from that flaw, I was pleased that this portrayal of a scientist encompassed religious, agnostic and atheist perspectives, therefore illuminating Note #5: Science can be done by individuals from diverse belief spectra.

In the end, my wife and I agreed that this was an entertaining movie and worth the $8 after a day of studying. The plot was creative enough to get me thinking about some interesting research ethics and science in society issues. Hopefully it got some others thinking as well.

Not So Extinct

I was one of many who lamented last month's echo of a proclamation in January 2007 that the Baiji, or Yangtze River Dolphin, was 'most-likely extinct.' Well, it seems like I should have respected the principle of scientific uncertainty a little more than I did. ScienceBlogger Zooilogix has posted a report that a Chinese factory owner filmed the dolphin on August 19, and a science daily article provides more details. One question I have is whether a private citizen's siting counts against the 50 year clock needed to announce 'definitive extinction.' I think the consensus is that this will merely delay the inevitable. I'll still stand by my opinion that the great leap forward set the environment several steps behind.

But this situation is a good case study of how scientists tend to choose their words carefully whenever certainty is concerned, but that this care is forsaken by mass media reports of the studies. The international commission charged with monitoring the status of the river dolphin used the phrase, "functionally extinct" to describe the baiji's plight. This followed a 6 week expedition at the end of 2006 to search for the dolphin. Another expedition in July made the same conclusion, and that two 'exhaustive' searched yielded no sightings was evidence to reinforce the original claim. "Functionally extinct" is a term that Wikipedia defines as

The population is no longer viable. There are no individuals able to reproduce, or the small population of breeding individuals will not be able to sustain itself due to inbreeding depression and genetic drift, leading to a loss of fitness.

A good example of this is Lonesome George, the Galápagos Abingdon Island Tortoise, who is that species one known surviving individual, but is going strong as a 70 year old who can look forward to a 120 year lifespan.

Functionally extinct in the case of the baiji could mean isolation by dams or population dispersement in murky water or genetic inbreeding leading to loss of fitness. There is, in other words, a chance of slim to none that the species will recover to a sustainable population. If population biologists use the same criterion we use in biomedical science, slim means less than 5%. What concerns me is when public media (and bloggers outside their field) uncritically take 'very sure' to mean 'definitive.' That sets up situations like this one where those same media outlets (or worse, anti-science interest groups) can point to an outlier or other counterexample and say, "See, those scientists don't know what they are talking about!"

I still want an answer to my question above concerning the 50 year rule, but we all should question how it is that the practice and language of science can be better represented by the media.

Open Access

Some of the bloggers over at ScienceBlogs have been chatting recently about open access publishing. It's no surprise that bloggers (we write for free) think that open access is a good idea, if not absolutely required. I think that Tara's and Bora's entries are the most illuminating: both in content and Bora's in sheer volume. Check them out so that you can build your arsenal of talking points.

And by the way, the next time YOU publish, consider using one of the 2814 open access journals available for submission. I put a link to the directory of open access journals down in my sidebar, too.

Hooray Stem Cells!

We've known about it for more than a year. After all, it took that long just to get through peer review. But now that it's in the local papers and on NPR, I bet the Murry lab gets a little taste of sciencelebrity. Carol Ostrom of the Seattle Times wrote an accurate account of the Laflamme et al paper to be published in September's issue of Nature Biotechnology, but livened up the story with some juicy tidbits. Here are some of my favorite lines from the Seattle Times article: referring to attempts to get cells to survive after injection,

Finally, they hit on a "pro-survival cocktail" of chemicals plus applying heat to the cells to make them behave.

By the way, this is the area of the report most connected with my research: I make cells behave. I also appreciated,

"We're pleased to be able to provide an example of something that can be done with embryonic cells that can't be done with adult stem cells," Murry said.

For those of you outside of the cell transplantation for cardiac repair field, that's a little barb at a competing group whose leader's name rhymes with 'prepare to reverse ya.' Finally, there is the obligate:

To make the breakthrough, Chuck Murry and his colleagues used the so-called "presidential lines" of stem cells. Those cells are generated from a group of embryos that had already been destroyed before the Bush administration limited research on embryonic stem cells... Murry hopes someday to work with newer lines that would be more suitable for human transplantation.

So you can be a scientist and an advocate for science at the same time! So Chuck... you'll probably be too busy today with interviews and such to read my dissertation draft, huh?

Special props to Justin Reedy who authored the press release on this story, an adaption of which can be read in full on ScienceDaily.

Update 9AM August 27: It's a good thing I saved this screenshot for posterity... Alberto Gonzales' resignation is hogging all the headlines!!!

Chris Mooney at YearlyKos

UW's Forum on Science Ethics and Policy is bringing ScienceBloggers Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet to give their Speaking Science 2.0 talk in Seattle on October 5. Mooney is on a book tour for Storm World. He also recently participated in the YearlyKos Science Blogging panel in Chicago. The talks were televised on CSPAN and posted to YouTube. Chris has embedded his full talk from that event in three clips up over at his blog. Some of these same topics will probably turn up in the October 5 talk in Seattle, but don't let that keep you from turning out for their free, live and in person presentation at the Pacific Science Center.

UW Stands Up for Science

A few weeks ago, University of Washington researchers issued a press release that they had found evidence that exposing very young children to educational videos actually decreases vocabulary development. From the Seattle PI story (adapted from the press release),

Overuse of baby videos may slow the growth of vocabulary among babies 8 months to 16 months old, but didn't have an effect on children from 17 months to 24 months. There is no reason to panic, researchers said, because babies are resilient, and there isn't evidence that videos cause permanent damage. The study didn't examine the effect of videos on older children.

After checking out the original paper, I concluded this is a very fair representation of the findings. I even made a mental note about the findings should I ever have young children. This news tidbit also came in handy during last weekend's NPR show, "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me!" That's the typical science news release cycle.

Science to Press Release to National Syndication to Local Coverage to Useless Trivia.

Did the cycle end there? Well... I'm still writing.

It turns out that the researchers used that popular DVD series, "Baby Einstein" as their experimental group. Guess who makes "Baby Einstein." Your favorite multimedia conglomerate, Disney. (News Corporation is your other favorite.) What did Disney have to say about this?

Baby Einstein said its products were designed to spur interaction between parents and their children, not as solitary experiences. "The entire Baby Einstein DVD collection is specifically designed to promote discovery and inspire new ways for parents and babies to interact -- such as clapping, pointing to objects and verbally interacting with their baby," the company said in a statement.

Okay, fair enough. But have you seen the packaging for these videos? That message must not have made it through marketing.

Fortunately for us, Seattle PI reporter Paul Nyham has done a great job following this story. Disney was not content to let some scientists hurt their sales, so what happened next? Strong-armed threats of course! Nyham describes Disney's actions here, but for the full effect, read Disney's letter. Unless you are in no mood for whiners. Disney makes a few minor points, but seems to have misinterpreted the right that scientists have to disseminate knowledge. Furthermore, the study was published after careful peer-review. Sure peer-review has its issues, but one of the best things about it is that it is free from corporate meddling. That's more than the US government can say about how drugs are approved and health guidelines are established!

As an advocate for scientific citizenship, there is no question where I stand on the importance of disseminating science. I am still critical of the press release mechanism for announcing science news, but right now, that's what we've got. As long as researchers have integrity in writing releases and reporters do some amount of background work, the system kindof works. So I was pleased to hear that the University of Washington decided to stand up to Disney's thugs. From a new PI report,

The University of Washington refused to withdraw a press summary of research on baby videos on Thursday, rejecting claims by Baby Einstein owner The Walt Disney Co. that the statement misrepresented the underlying research. "The researchers find no inconsistencies between the content of the news release and their paper. They believe the release accurately reflects the paper's conclusions and their commentary," UW president Mark Emmert wrote in a letter sent to Disney CEO Robert Iger.

If only the UW would stand up to the RIAA and refuse to release private information about students to the multi-billion dollar recording industry.

Post Wrong About Stem Cells

There is still a long way to go to educate the public about embryonic stem (ES) cells. In yesterday's Washington Post election blog, John Solomon (a Post staff writer) made a blatantly false statement about ES cells. He wrote,

Many religious conservatives, including President Bush, oppose the scientific use of embryonic stem cells because the cells often come from aborted fetuses.

Right... Does a journalist have to be a science writer to check his facts? Here is the truth of the matter: Embryonic stem cells NEVER come from aborted fetuses. They are derived from 5-day old blastocysts generated in the context of in vitro fertilization clinics. This embryo has never been in the uterus, and is a ball of about 100 cells. A correct replacement sentence could be: Religious and other conservatives object to ES cell use because they cells taken from a structure that occurs 5 days after fertilization.

I wonder how widespread this misconception is.

Open Access Tissue Engineering

Are you curious about the field of tissue engineering? This fall, you have the opportunity to take a course on the subject from your own home. This opportunity is not affiliated with Sally Struthers or the International Correspondence School. The course is offered online by a joint program of Harvard and MIT.

HST 535: The Principles and Practice of Tissue Engineering will be available starting in September, and will be viewable by webcast for half a year. That means you get curriculum and video of the course. The website even says that,

during the lectures, questions can be e-mailed to the Course Coordinator.

MIT has opened its curriculum to the public for the past several years. Using a platform called OpenCourseWare, anyone from around the world can take MIT courses. Well, not exactly. As a resource to "educators, students and self-learners around the world," anyone with an internet connection can dial up the MIT site for course materials from subjects ranging from planetary studies to urban planning and literature to biological engineering.

From the OCW site, MIT OCW:

• Is a publication of MIT course materials
• Does not require any registration
• Is not a degree-granting or certificate-granting activity
• Does not provide access to MIT faculty

I can see motivated undergraduates, interested (and maybe retired) citizens, faculty working on new curriculum, science outreach workers, students at smaller colleges, and anyone needing broad information about a specific topics and even busy graduate students finding this resource useful. Perhaps those with the most to benefit from this program are students in developing countries. In fact, MIT OCW's stated goals are to:

• Provide free, searchable access to MIT's course materials for educators, students, and self-learners around the world.
• Extend the reach and impact of MIT OCW and the "opencourseware" concept.

This second objective is a noble one. Long regarded as the premier science and engineering university in the world, it is an important statement that MIT is making curriculum resources open to all. Because of its reputation, MIT is probably the only entity that could pull off an attempt to change the way information is available to the interested public. At first, there were some complaints about this policy. What are MIT students paying for if all of the course material is free anyway? The answers are in the caveats above: OCW users have no access to faculty and no record of enrollment.

Can secondary (and tertiary) education really be boiled down to networking and credentialing? I'll wager that the majority of OCW users either passively watch the material or look for specific answers or resources before moving on. Without cramming for exams and office hours to make sure sure you 'get it,' this material is by no means a complete course of study - it is merely another resource. Albeit a free resource from a prestigious institution.

This tissue engineering course however seems to contradict one of OCW's central points. That Professor Myron Spector is available for questions could be his own choice. Maybe this is his way of connecting with the public about science. I like the sound of that.

Open access as a route to citizen scientist.

There's an idea. Can open access (courseware, journals, software, etc.) effectively distribute the building blocks of the ivory tower to the masses and in so doing increase the role of science in society? We shall see.

Civic Scientist Role Model?

I want to be like this when I grow up. So excited about science! So talkative about science! As a bonus, Neil deGrasse Tyson blows Jon Stewart's mind.



I particularly like, "You carve through what is known and you come to this precipice between what is known and unknown, and that is where the research scientist lives."

Framing Science in Seattle

It's almost final! Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet will be coming to Seattle October 5 to give their Speaking Science 2.0 presentation. The Forum on Science Ethics and Policy is excited about this opportunity to introduce both scientists and the public to the importance of understanding and controlling the context in which science is discussed.

Mooney is the author of The Republican War on Science and recently Storm World, a Seed Magazine writer and Science Blogger. Nisbet is a communications professor at American University, studies framing theory, and writes the Framing Science blog.

To prepare for the event, check out this Daily Show clip of Mooney talking about his first book.




Stay tuned for more information!

Post-Abortion Syndrome

A continuing debate about "post abortion syndrome" is raging over at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial page. For a quick summary, see my post from a week ago. In a guest column, Sarah Prager plays some denialism cards in an effort to snuff out the possibility that such a syndrome exists, or that there are negative emotional consequences of abortion. Check out the entire deck at the denialism blog. The first card she plays is the "No Problem" card, which happens to be a common chorus in denialism. By citing that 76% of women experience relief after an abortion, she relegates the 17% of women who do feel grief into a category of extraneous side effect.

In citing that 39 million women undergo abortions sometime in their life, Prager plays the "Consumers Want It" in reference to the service of abortion. That a quarter of the female populations receive abortions is a remarkable statistic, and is one that deserves attention. It should not be cited as proof for the status quo.

I am glad that the columnist did not make the most frequent argument made in the abortion debate, the "Our Rights" card. When this one is played, it becomes impossible to keep an open discussion about the topic. And in an environment where opinions about abortion are so divided, I think that closing the door to dialogue is a bad idea.

Don't misunderstand me, I think that abortion is well within a woman's right to choose her own health care options. I also subscribe to the Clinton dictum that abortion should be legal, safe and rare. I am frustrated when folks use statistics as a screen for issues that could lead toward a resolution of the argument. What am I saying? This argument will never be resolved!

MD/PhD Interest?

I've noticed a surge of referrals from an online forum about folks interested in MD/PhD programs. I am a student in the University of Washington's MSTP, and am happy to answer specific questions about our program or about my take on training the physician scientist. You can find one of my email addresses with only a little digging, OR you can comment on this entry. I am scheduled to defend September 13, and am very happy to be getting back on the wards.

You will probably notice that only a portion of my posts deal explicitly with medical research and graduate school. That's because I believe some physicians and scientists should assume more of a citizen's role - able to communicate about science and medicine in the context of public policy, general understanding and pop culture. This blog is meant to improve my communication skills in those areas.

Thanks for visiting!

Savage Science

He may not ever get the readership of his boss, Dan Savage, but Jonathan Golob, a.k.a. King of the Nerds, should. Check out his column about the stem cell issue in this week's Stranger.