Stages of ... what is this I'm feeling?

This tracks some of the emotional and intellectual roller coaster I've been riding the last couple of weeks.


via GIPHY

The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Denial was a long process for me. I think that stage started the second time Bush was elected. I disengaged in a fundamental way after a conversation with my Dad in which he gently suggested that Bush might win. And it was as if I was reliving that moment while watching the returns come in, in favor of DJT. I had to go to bed and bury my head in the pillows. (depression maybe?) But I've been doing that since Bush.

It was like when I came to the startling realization that people don't care about evidence. THAT was dumb-founding to me. How intellectually elitist of me to think that there was another way to operate in life that didn't call upon reasoning, weighing the evidence, asking "is that reasonable"? I'm serious about the intellectual elitist part. I do think less of people who don't use the scientific method, or who can be tricked into thinking something is real when it isn't. I really do think I'm better than them.

People actually thought - I mean ACTUALLY gave credence to the truthiness of the idea that the world was going to go straight to hell (figuratively, not literally) once Obama was elected. And despite all the evidence to the contrary assert that he was an ineffective president and that they were right all along. Contrast that with my pride and joy and gratitude and love for who I got to be as an American because Obama was my president. What did I care what those imbecilic, poorly raised, intentionally dim-witted, racist, grotesque anomalies thought? (ok, that might be anger) The world was moving forward and leaving them behind.

A lot of good that way of being does me in the current surreal reality tv reality. The links in the previous paragraph are URLs to google searches. On November 23, 2016 the "facts of obama presidency" search looked like this:

Who knows what this search will look like 6 months into a DJT presidency. The fake news wave surrounding this election, not to mention the "trusted" news networks that gave DJT so much free advertising through out the campaign have left all of us, intellectual elites and luddites both, suspicious of... well suspicious of everyone. And worse, gave legitimacy to the anti-intellectual.

Which leaves us in the beginning stages of a fascist regime in which it is quite possible historians will look back and say "why did they let this happen?". As an intellectual, I look at history, at what has gone before to inform me of when a tyrant appears - to be able to recognize it when it shows up. And we have, we did, we pointed it out, we called it by name. And it fell on deaf ears.

I find it odd that the anti-establishment vote is counting on the establishment to work well enough to withstand a take-over by an autocratic despot. I'm not so sure.

But...

What if I'm as deluded as those people who thought that the world was going to end with Obama's presidency? Hear me out for a second... I think I'm smart, I've got some evidence for it, but I didn't see this coming. We are all talking about our bubbles. After Bush, I said I would never be blind-sided like that again. Lotta good that did. Even the actions I took to ensure I had a broader view did nothing. I didn't know people thought it was the end of the world when Obama was elected. They weren't in my experience.

So what if? I have great respect for the fact that our brain gives us the world we interact in. And our context gives us how the world looks. If you alter your context, everything looks different. Altering your context is hard because it's invisible, you can't see the thing you see with. It's true for your eyes and it's true for your context. And if you look for evidence for that there is another context, you can find it. Again I say it's hard because no one wants to look for another context, another perspective so to speak.

There are people out in the US that are not terrified of a DJT presidency. It's weird, but they aren't. They are excited, thrilled even. That is a perspective that doesn't come easy to me, but I can easily see it in others. And if I don't just attribute it to their stupidity and ism-ness, what might I learn?

Here is what I know I don't know - I don't know anything about DJT - apparently he's written a book, The Art of the Deal, where he describes how he goes about winning. I've never read it. I've never watched his shows - which some people love. I'm not a business person - I'm a scientist, I leave business up to others who (to be honest I used to think couldn't cut it in science - I mean...why get a business degree??). There's an art and maybe even a science to business. I guess. I've never applied myself to it.

So given this is what we've got, I've got some schooling to do. I've started to read things that seem to indicate that DJT is just doing his thing - it's a way of getting what he wants and he's pretty good at that. There is evidence that people get trampled on his way to getting what he wants, and I must never lose vigilance about that. And stand for what I know is right. But I'm gonna go eat some crow - find another perspective and see if I can see what so many others are seeing.

'Cause what I have been doing hasn't made the difference I'm committed to making in this world.

Antidisestablishmentarianism

I woke up this morning with that word on my mind.

Do you remember when "antidisestablishmentarianism" was the longest word in the English language? I say 'remember when' because in reality there are words that are much longer - but if you don't count technical words (the chemical name of tin has almost 190 000 letters) or coined words, it still is the longest word. I remember teaching myself that word because it felt so good rolling off my tongue.

But it also taught me about English, about  how it is perfectly legitimate to add prefixes or suffixes to words to make a new word or meaning. So I laugh when people tell me things aren't really words - like ongoingly, 'cause - sure it is. Just because it gets a squiggly red line under it, doesn't mean it's not a real word - you can make out its meaning. That's English for you.

Historically, antidisestablishmentarianism (go ahead, say it out loud) referred to a political position that opposed proposals to remove the Anglican church as the established church throughout most of England. Just for shits and giggles, lets dissect this word instead of looking at it historically.

Let's look at this word from the base "establishment".

establishment - a public institution
dis establishment -  having a negative, or reversing force - against the establishment
anti disestablishment - opposition to disestablishment (ugh, double negatives)
antidisestablishment ary - pertaining to opposition to disestablishment
antidisestablishmentar ian - someone who is opposed to disestablishment
antidisestablishmentarian ism - the movement  associated with being opposed to disestablishment

I guess the elections of 2016 will go down in history as a sort of antiestablishmentarianism. I have this election on my mind. In fact I'm writing this - right now - just so I don't brood. Hell, let's brood a little bit - haven't you thought about the end of the world as we know it? Not the song. But the event - it's all the rave in young adult fiction (which is awesome, btw). You've probably enjoyed the story line at the theaters - The Hunger Games, Maze Runner, Divergent. I'm currently reading the Emberverse series by S.M. Sterling about an event referred to only as "the Change". I love this shit. I've had thoughts all my life about making the world a better place... which typically (and weirdly) concludes with thoughts like - well lets erase this one first.

There are so many things not to like about how our government - the establishment - works. And I've often thought, "Gah, we need to do something, but it's so big - so established..." and then the train of thought usually ends with something like "shit! that was my stop, now I'm gonna be late for work...".

Watch the pilot episode of Designated Survivor. I'm not recommending that plan - but hell, I'm clearly not the only one who's thought it.

I've never been more proud to be American than when we elected Obama as president. It felt like such a huge thing, like we were making great strides, then the supreme court ruling on marriage equality, it almost made the ineffectuality of our republican congress palatable because we were growing as a nation - species even. I am quite aware now that my views on the last 8 years aren't shared by all. I'm trying to wrap my head around what happened and I'm usually pretty good at seeing the others point of view, but really? You were that threatened by a black family in our sacred white house!?

I know that my point of view is likely skewed - I was one of those who took him literally and didn't take him seriously, while his supporters took him seriously and not literally. I don't believe that politicians will do what they say (even the best ones), so why was I so sure he'd honor his words that I found so nauseating?

And I know he's not the first rapist to live at the white house, and legally he just played the system so he didn't have to pay taxes, and all his justifications about how you do business are a valid (if deplorable) strategy. And I really think/fear/hope that the establishment is going to be so ravaged by his attempt...

no... what I really fear is... The establishment is going to get rid of him and running rampant will destroy so much of what we have accomplished, and this ground swelling of change (even tho it's not how I would have brought it about) will come to an abrupt halt, shattered before it had time to transform into something new (and potentially beautiful).

Yes. I want him to succeed. I want him to prove me wrong. I want the role he has accepted to transform him, to have him value the spirit as well as the word of the bill of rights. To have this movement to up-end the establishment be an unprecedented peaceful resolution to what isn't working with our great country.

The Establishment lost last night

This is what the 21st century peasant revolt looks like. It's not just the United States. It's a global phenomenon. People are tired of the establishment. They are revolting against the establishment. The people want a say. It makes me laugh with tears a little to see the poster child of the people uprising against the elite, but there it is.

Hillary was the establishment. She is an amazing woman who I am proud to have voted for and she was the epitome of the establishment. Hell, we democrats also had the opportunity to turn the whole thing on it's head with our "people's candidate", but... as a party we are a little too much ok with the establishment. Remember when we said only that ultra-progressive could beat the likes of their front runner in their primary? Remember how we mocked them for how their base, those peasants, couldn't tow the line and work it from the inside - like we were going to do? If the system worked the way it was supposed to, we would have had a progressives voice in this uprising. Kind of points to why the establishment lost, doesn't it?

After the crying at 4 am this morning, and the crushing despair, I had to deal with reality. Hello reality, good to meet you. We voted in a black man 8 years ago to change it all, and that didn't work. I've never been prouder to be an American with a black man at the helm of my country, but even that extraordinary leader couldn't make a dent in what doesn't work about this vast machinery.

So this is what a peasants revolt looks like. It is a boil that must be lanced - painful, messy and smelly. But its what is there to be dealt with.

Here is your charge: Be light. In every meaning of the word.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth101472.html

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth101472.html

Rekindling

Hi. I'm back.

It has been a while. Seven years in fact. Much has shifted in the intervening years, and I've grown in immeasurable ways. I worked for an organization that is making a profound and real difference in the world. I learned a lot about running a business and making promises and being empowered even when I broke my promises. The thing I liked best about that job was how trained I got in messing with my mind. One thing that has not diminished is my urge to write. I like this medium. In the past 5 years, I've learned the business side of running things. I've taken on more than I thought I could handle, succeeded and failed. But, I cannot escape my love for the scientific method. My context is always "is that reasonable?" and not in a transformed way either. Maybe a better way to say it is "How real is that?" I still have no urge to return to the bench. I occasionally have a thought about running a gel again, but mostly that is accompanied with a snort.

Now, I talk about brain science. I have the extraordinary privilege of working for a company that isn't federally funded and is doing cutting edge neuroscience. And I get to talk about brain science. I get to travel the world and interact with neuroscientists and talk about brain science. And did I mention I get to talk about brain science?

In the next 10 years the field of neuroscience is going to dramatically change, and being in the thick of things is unbelievably fulfilling. And I'm gonna talk about this, and things I love like, my job, consciousness, twitter, being a catholic scientist (yep, I'm on that recording) and probably my kids.

I'm rusty. But it's good to be back.

What about me?

I don't normally talk about me personally, but this time, I'm gonna.

I have always been fascinated by the mind. It's a terrible thing, you know. I mean it's a terrible thing to waste (hee hee). In particular I've been captivated by the study of consciousness. Scientists do a pretty good job of pretending to be objective, but when it comes to studying consciousness, objectivity starts getting muddy (read 'impossible'). And when you get into it, you start to realize that "objectivity" is just a farce. No one is objective. Everyone has an opinion about everything. It's the soft science version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The part about the observer influencing what is observed.

When you start to get into consciousness, you invariably start to ask questions like "Why do I think the way I do?" and "Who am 'I' anyway?" - Classic philosophy. About 13 years ago, I did the Landmark Forum, and to paraphrase Douglas Adams - it illustrated that everything I had held to be true, ain't necessarily so. For the first time in my life, I was able to effectively mold that "me" that I was so sure was already established. And I could create that "me" in any way I saw fit. I have been leading seminars for Landmark Education for several years to that very end - I figured why keep that kind of thing to myself, everyone should have it.

In the not too distant past, I was dead set on the academic track - I was going to use my Ph.D. to study the kind of brain plasticity involved in altering really set pattens, like who you know yourself to be. It then occurred to me, who cares?. Knowing how that happens will make absolutely no difference, even in the small scheme of things. What would make a difference, however, is actually altering those patterns of thinking for large numbers of people.

So I've altered the course of my life. I am now working full-time on altering - fundamentally altering - the experience of being for human beings. I love science. I will continue to talk about things from the viewpoint of a scientist, and I will continue to have people critically think about the world around them, but my day job is ensuring that people who register into the Landmark Forum in the Seattle area - powerfully complete the course.

Just say no to (prescription) drugs.

You know you are seriously messing with brain chemistry when they say that the drug you are taking takes several weeks...several weeks... to take effect. That should make us take a step back to really reconsider what this drug is doing to our brains. There are some drugs that have immediate effects - like opiates or painkillers - that inhibit pain reception; you take the drug, it binds to specific receptor that interrupts the painful signal. The biology is pretty straightforward here.

However, there are some drugs that we don't know how they work... I've taken a statement directly from the package insert of an antidepressant...

Although the exact mechanisms of the antidepressant and central pain inhibitory action of xxxxxxxx in humans are unknown, the antidepressant and pain inhibitory actions are believed to be related to its potentiation of serotonergic and noradrenergic activity in the CNS.

This in itself isn't bad, (although using the word "believe" in scientific speak always sets my teeth on edge) I just find this kind of scary. Mind you, we didn't know how aspirin worked for decades and we still used it to GREAT benefit. Now that we know how it works, we have tweaked it so that it doesn't cause other adverse effects (like ulcers).

Here is my BIG disclaimer, for conditions that are really debilitating, like depression you really should do whatever you need to, to take care of your well-being. I still think that you should carefully consider what is going on with your brain while you are on the drugs.

I think where I take the most offense however, is at the ads on TV that suggest that if you have this or that (sometimes unheard of) condition, you should talk to your doctor about {outrageously expensive but very effective} drug for {your unusual condition}.

Now I don't personally have restless legs, so I don't know how debilitating this syndrome is but apparently if you take a new class of drugs designed to treat this condition, you could turn into a pathologic gambler. This drug apparently interacts with the dopaminergic system (read: reward pathways, Parkinson’s disease). Big brain areas.

I'm just saying...

It's not a cure to Mad Cow Disease... yet.

We've all heard of Mad Cow Disease... no not the one that has cows retaliating for the whole cow tipping phenomenon, the one that has everyone scared that if they eat a cow, they are going to go crazy. In case you haven't heard or if you don't know much behind the biology of it, I'll give you a little primer.

Prions are proteins that in their natural state are responsible for... well, we don't know really. A recent Nature article says that we are narrowing down their role...

There is now increasing, albeit patchy, evidence that the process of prion infection might have a vital role in a large number of biological processes—not only in single-celled organisms but also in higher eukaryotes—ranging from adaptation to new environments to the establishment of long-term memory.

...Ok, so it's not narrowed down much.

But anyway the interesting point about these proteins is that when they are folded in the "prion" conformation, they are almost impossible to degrade. Which means they don't go away. Ever. Which is bad in the brain. Even heating to very high temperatures doesn't harm these proteins.

Here is the next really cool thing about prions, well morbidly cool anyway... when a prion protein comes into contact with a native form of the prion protein, the native protein changes conformation and becomes highly stable as well. So not only do prions stick around, but they make others just like them.

And the scary thing about this kind of protein is that a lot of animals have them. Sheep have them, the disease they cause is scrapies. Cows have them, that disease is actually called bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE). And humans get it, one form of it is called Crutzfeld-Jacob disease. The worst part about it is if we were to eat a cow that had BSE, those prion proteins could start interacting with our normal proteins and give us the human form of the disease.

Recently, a group has produced genetically engineered cows - over a dozen of them - that don't have the message for this protein (December's Nature Biotechnology). Which means they can't get the disease. These cows are almost 2 years old now and... At over 20 months of age, the cattle are clinically, physiologically, histopathologically, immunologically and reproductively normal.

So, I'm left with a nagging question... What the heck is this protein for?

Everything in Moderation

Hormesis is a biological response to a substance at very low doses that is opposite the response of the same substance at high doses. In other words, substances that have been shown to be dangerous at high levels might actually be good for you at very low doses. Studies have shown that irradiating a mouse with a very low dose of gamma radiation before subjecting it to a high dose, actually protects it from developing cancer.

The link above is the wikipedia entry and goes into why this is not a popular theory at all. It's not like hormesis is hogwash, even you have heard of it. It is why very small concentrations of botulinum toxin (yes the stuff that causes botulism) injected into our faces makes us look years younger, instead of causing horrible pain and death. Scientists have also described the hormesis effect with opiates. Very small doses of opiate antagonists (pain killer blockers) actually enhance high doses of pain killers. And very small doses of opiates have been shown to induce pain.

There are a lot of government agencies that were designed specifically to protect us (no, not the FBI) that have presumed that the dose-response curves of many substances are linear. As a scientist, I can attest to the pain of measuring a dose-response curve at concentrations below the linear ranges. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. A recent survey based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs indicates that hormesis may actually be a valid phenomenon and dangerous to ignore. Anti-cancer drugs that normally inhibit cell growth actually enhance it at very low concentrations.

Acknowledging the validity of hormesis comes with a whole mess of consequences, however. Environmental groups have advocated completely eliminating toxic substances when that may not be necessary.

But even harder for the government agency types to swallow may be granting credence to the entire field of homeopathy. Homeopathy is a medical practice entirely predicated on treating illnesses with very small doses of substances that at large doses mimic the disease being treated. Maybe there is something behind that whole "crack-pot" theory.

OK, I've worked out this whole Intelligent Design thing...

I've been trying to ferret out this whole ID thing and it turns out, I've been going about it all wrong... it's not about ferrets, it's about squirrels.

Specifically, God designed squirrels intelligent enough to outsmart trees.

Bet you didn't know trees were smart, did you? Well, they are. To ensure the survival of their species against their major predators (which are squirrels, just in case you didn't know), they do not produce the same annual amount of seeds (the part of them that squirrels eat). They employ a "swamp and starve" strategy, which means that some years they hold back seeds - starving out the squirrel populations - and then swamp the land with seeds once they have starved out the hungry rodents. Pretty bloodthirsty if you ask me.

Turns out the red squirrel has foiled this carefully planned coniferous plot. In a manner that is - as yet - undetermined, the squirrels have worked out this seemingly random schedule and birth not one but two litters in these lean years. So they, and only they, amongst all their squirrel brethren decimate the unborn trees.

It's all starting to make sense to me now...

It is a toomah

This last month has been quite the experience. My grandmother died at the end of last month, she had senile dementia and didn't remember her kids before she died. She'd also been married to my grandfather for 69 years. When my father visited them about 8 months ago, my grandfather told him that the warranty on his heart was up. When my dad asked him what he was sticking around for, he said that Mother needed him. Less than three weeks later, my grandfather joined her. It was a really beautiful end to an amazing love story.

And it was a testament to mind over matter. Once grandpa had Thanksgiving dinner with all 7 of his kids (something that hadn't happened in decades) he was ready to go. I think he stayed alive out of sheer will-power. He was strong that way. It is unfortunate the way it came about, but it was great to see my relatives (my dad, his 6 siblings, and a myriad of offspring of the afore mentioned) two times in a month.

Which made this particular study stand out for me. Apparently the more siblings that you have, the greater chance you have of getting a brain tumor. Here's the cool thing, it only depends upon the number of younger siblings you have. Which seems like a very weird association. Unless, as these authors suggest, that many brain tumors might have an infectious disease origin. My dad is one of the oldest of the bunch so it seems kind of relevant, except he's just past 60 so unless it is a very dormant thing, it probably doesn't apply to him.

This observation makes identifying the vectors thay may cause tumors an important and unexpected line of research to follow.

Show of hands... how many knew it wasn't really junk?

In my last post I mentioned "junk DNA". If you don't know what that is... briefly, a lot (and by "a lot" I mean most) of our DNA seems to be non-coding or, it doesn't directly result in proteins. With the sequencing of the genome came a revelation on the order of Copernicus... (remember he said that the sun didn't revolve around the earth - which apparently downgraded our view of ourselves in the universe.) Our genome isn't much different from other beings on our planet, well, except for all the junk DNA. Apparently we have a lot more of it. Given that little piece of knowledge we've actually started looking at what junk DNA might be.

An article in news@nature.com (you can't see the link unless you have a subscription but here it is anyway) talks about what all this junk might actually be for:

'They found that these stretches of non-coding DNA tend to lie near genes involved in brain-cell function — specifically, in building connections between brain cells. This suggests that the non-coding DNA pieces might orchestrate the wiring of our brains'

How interesting is that, the junk DNA is likely to be responsible for how our brains are hooked up. Go figure.

Science on Tap October 2006

Last night Marja Brandon, the Head of School of the Seattle Girls School spoke to us about Women in Science. A lot of people know or have heard that girls love science up to about 5th grade and unless they are encouraged many do not make it past middle school with that love of science (math included) intact. Marja has taken a really exciting approach to attacking that problem, and the cool thing is what she has come up with doesn't effect only girls.

The fact that I have two girls entering this time of life concerns me, but I also have kids in the Seattle Public Schools and if you have seen the news at all over the last couple years, you know that there are reasons to be concerned with our children's education here in Seattle. School closures are not the solution to a criminal act that caused a fiscal shortfall. Teaching to the WASL doesn't work. Buying down the class size in the public school system borders on illegal. But mostly we have an antiquated system that isn't forwarding a society that is ready to take on the challenges of the future.

Marja feels that we should be taught in a manner that works for our brains. Novel idea. That means incorporating all those important topics (i.e. reading, writing, math, critical thinking, art, public speaking etc.) at the same time. You don't go to work and think... I'll start with my english, do math a little later on and leave the critical thinking part until after I've had my coffee...

Of course, anyone who incorporates brain science into teaching styles is my hero... but she does this in a section of Seattle known for it's lower income constituents, and the school isn't filled with smart white girls. Her intention is that anyone who wants a stellar education gets it. She shared with us that a girl called up the school and asked "I can only afford $90 a month, can I come?" Yes, this is a private school, but only because the public school system isn't up to taking on this teaching style.

Some of the novel approaches:
Teachers teach all subjects.
Invention Convention: students design, mock up, develop and present novel inventions to "mock" investors.
Grand Rounds: students learn a medical field and community physicians have them present to large groups what ailment the mock patient is suffering from.

I've probably butchered what actually goes on, but I would have loved learning this way as a kid. We've got to drop a big chunk of cash on this woman so that the rest of our kids (girls and boys alike) can benefit from an education that will make a difference and literally leave no child behind.

I knew nature vs. nurture was too simplistic

I learned something new today!

I love it when that happens! Too often I think I know it all and even when I know I don't know it all, I might know a little something of it, which - of course - makes me think I know it all.

I found out there is a field of study that I have never even heard about. I read about it in Discover, one of my favorite magazines (I am all about making science accessible and this magazine does that). Anyway, the field is Epigenetics, which has nothing to do with Eugenics (a black mark in the history of science that you should at least be aware of).

You've all heard of "Genetics" (the study of genes and heredity) and the Human Genome Project, which sequenced the entire human genome. That project was expected in some quarters to be the panacea - we could now develop designer drugs, or designer babies - and instead left us (as new discoveries are often wont to do) with a whole new set of questions. Like "How is it that humans only have about 50% more genes than a roundworm?" and "Wow, do you suppose 'junk DNA' might actually do something?... 'cause there's an awful lot of it".

Anyone who has ever thought seriously about DNA, has at one point wondered "If every cell has all the information in it to create every protein imaginable, how does a liver cell know not to make a brain protein?" Well it turns out that the protein environment that the DNA is in (chromosomes are only 50% DNA) makes some protein's information accessible and others not so much or not at all. What has mostly been assumed up until this point, is that only the DNA is passed down from parent to child; that the protein environment is a slate wiped clean once an egg or sperm is created.

Here is a shocking bit of news from the field of Epigenetics (epi - 'upon, near to, in addition' Greek Origin), the protein environment that the DNA is in, is also inherited from our parents (which is logical once you think about it, we inherit chromosomes from our parents, not just DNA). Even more shocking, the epigenetics may last several generations. Daphnia water fleas when exposed to predators, grow defensive spines that are heritable for several generations.

The Discover story starts off describing that a well-studied genetic defect in mice (causes mice to be obese and susceptible to life threatening diseases) can be completely erased with nothing more than a change in the mother's diet. When you consider that the epigenetic environment can be altered by diet or by social circumstances (war, famine, stress, love, joy), you start to get that how you see yourself really matters. In case I lost you with that last train of thought... how you see yourself determines what you do, and if you think that what you do only affects you, you may be way off.

The article in November's issue is really great, I highly recommend shelling out the twenty bucks it costs to subscribe to Discover (see link in sidebar).

The hygiene hypothesis

No, this doesn't have anything to do with washing any part of you, not directly anyway.

Have you ever wondered about asthma? Or hay fever? I mean, what is up with those afflictions? It seems in these cases our immune systems has run amok. There is a hypothesis that our bodies have a specific immune response to parasitic infection, and in environments that lack parasites, that immune response can get activated in the presence of otherwise innocuous substances (i.e. pollen, dust, etc.).

One of the observations that led to this hypothesis was that populations that have a high incidence of parasites, have a very low incidence of asthma and vice versa. This evidence is only correlational, however. In other words, just because asthma and parasites don't show up together, doesn't mean that the root cause is the same. Other factors may be at play, especially given that the major difference between the two populations is how developed the country is. Given that major difference - hygiene, vaccination and the use of antibiotics in more developed countries may also be factors. But let's say there is a correlation.

One interesting biological note, you can have a chronic parasitic infection... meaning that your immune system doesn't go haywire on you, and you and your bugs can live quite a while together (maybe not happily, but you get the picture). Prolonged asthma attacks; however, can send you to the emergency room. If this is the same biological response what is different that you can survive a parasitic infection and not asthma? Let's delve into the immunology behind this a little...

One of the kinds of antibodies floating around in your system, IgE, can bind to a type of cell that releases loads of sneezy, itchy chemicals... histamine is one of them, I'm sure you've seen the commercials. For that to happen; however, two IgE's to the same substance - let's say juniper pollen - have to be immediately next to each other on the cell. You'd have to flood your system with that particular IgE and sometimes it takes years for that to happen. That is a simple explanation for why allergies take a couple of years to show up. But when they do, you are a itchy red ball of mucous, or your lungs fill up with fluid, or your airways disappear.

Although IgE is also involved in a parasitic infection, you notice that the infection person's immune system doesn't go into overdrive. Hypothesis: It may be that the production of another antibody, IgG4, may inhibit the allergic response. Observation:IgG4 isn't present in asthma or hay fever like afflictions, although it is in parasitic infections. Since hearing about this problem in graduate school, I've thought that if I could develop something that would induce the production of IgG4, I'd be rich. Turns out for really bad allergies, people can undergo a form of immunotherapy where they get allergy shots every few weeks for 3-5 years. This kind of treatment in itself would suck, however, if you manage to stick with it, it does seem to induce the production of IgG4.

Well, there are scientists out there that are looking for ways to treat our over-active immune systems, and not just the symptoms either. A search of Peter Creticos' research over the last two decades culminating in a report that a 6-week inoculation protects the allergy sufferer for 2 hay-fever seasons (so far) demonstrates he is looking down this road for allergy and asthma sufferers. I'm hoping he gets rich from this.

The Power of LSD

Whatever your personal beliefs/preferences regarding the use of drugs might be, it is becoming alarmingly clear that a lot of our attitudes towards drugs aren't based in science, but in good ol' human fear and stupidity. The movie, Reefer Madness is an example of the kind of fear tactics used to rile up a population to fight a cause. Some call that propaganda, well actually the dictionary does too.

I'd like to draw your attention to a Canadian scientist, Erika Dyck, who has been digging into the history of psychedelic drug research and has unearthed a study from the 50's and 60's that indicates a single dose of LSD could effectively treat alcoholism. Now when I say "treat", I mean 65% of the alcoholic participants didn't touch a drop of the stuff for the remainder of the study, or 1.5 years. Given that 25% quit after group therapy and 12% quit after private psychotherapy, 65% is a stunning result.

So, you might actually be wondering "why 40-50 years later am I just now being informed of this?!"

There is this thing called credibility in the scientific world. Which basically means you have to know what you are doing. Apparently having a Ph.D. goes a long way in granting credibility. However, being popular also has it's merits (yes, even in the scientific world), and a more "credible" group tried to replicate the results with less than favorable results, and the study was buried.

Let me give you a bit on the background of this study.

The hypothesis that LSD may be a valid treatment for alcoholism came about because researchers observed that alcoholics described the DT's (hitting bottom) as similar to some LSD experiences. However, the DT's can kill you. They thought that maybe they could induce the DT's (often the turning point in a recovering alcoholics life) without the detrimental physical effects by giving alcoholics a dose of LSD - here is the important part - in a nurturing environment. Why? Good question. Because we are simulating the DT's, a BAD trip, not one of the good trips that keep psychedelic drug users coming back.

So, now we have a "more credible" group trying to replicate this amazing result. They felt that they should determine the effects of LSD on the alcoholics in isolation, so they blind-folded or tied up their participants before giving them the drug. They found in these cases that it had no effect on treating alcoholism.

Oh Come On... How could this possibly be considered a valid control?!

Do you have to know people who have tripped to understand that restraining someone on LSD is NEVER a good idea? If you are the kind of person who would never think of taking such drugs personally, can you even responsibly ask such questions?

If you didn't read the article I linked to, take a few minutes to go back and read it, it is an historical account and remarkably easy to read (for a scientific paper). And you may be interested to know that researchers at Harvard (read: credible) have been given approval to start experimenting with LSD. Maybe this study could make a real-life difference, even if a little late.

I'm still here

The Science on Tap event post Seattle Times article was a huge success, and a huge breakdown. We had over a hundred people crowded into our little pub, standing room only. Apparently as many people couldn't even make it in the door. We are working out getting the video of the talk on-line so people can at least see that portion of the event.

It was an extraordinary evening. If the crowds keep up; however, we may have to find a bigger venue. I love the Ravenna 3rd place bookstore for this event so the thought of leaving makes me sad.

Irreproducibility

I think one reason science, while admired and appreciated, gets such a bad rap from the general public is that anything that doesn't fall under the domain of the Scientific Method is summarily dismissed.

What I mean by the Scientific Method is first, your subject of interest must be observable, then you must be able to describe this subject with enough clarity to hypothesize how it works. From your hypothesis, you would then make predictions about your subject of interest, and you would create and carry out experiments to test your predictions. The experiment part is often repeated many times to determine if the hypothesis is accurate.

There are a lot of things that don't fall under the domain of the Scientific Method, which doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't true. It just means that it is silly to look at them from a scientific viewpoint. Now this little prelude is not leading up to some deep discussion of pseudoscience or religion or the paranormal.

Old Wives Tales.

There are reasons these things stick around.

1) They have been around for a while (hence "old")
2) Wives tell them so they should be believed
3) If you say something enough times it's gotta be true, right?

How about the one: "It's fun until someone loses an eye?"

Should we subject this one to the Scientific Method? Or should we just take it at face value?

Apparently we should subject it to the Scientific Method. Did you know that the seemingly playful activity of egging a person (throwing an egg at someone, i.e. a politician) can actually cause damage if it hits them in the eye? Warning: This link will take you to the actual article published in a british medical journal.

As a science communicator I constantly comb the scientific literature for what is going on and to see what is relevant to me and to you. I have noticed that - in this blog - I tend to pick on studies that seem ridiculous and "why botherish". I guess one of my big beefs is that not everything should be submitted to the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is a good way to test a hypothesis, but some things just need to be taken on faith.

Also this kind of stuff is really easy to talk about.

Science on Tap in the news

...well in the Northwest Life section actually.

I'm so proud of this. I've got a couple accountabilities in my life that I love to do so much, I'd do them for free. This is one of them.

I'd love to see you at one.

Do plants feel pain?

I'm sitting here avoiding doing the work I'm supposed to be doing, but I've got a really good reason... Construction workers outside my window are tearing up the grounds around the building across the street. Watching them tear up the shrubbery this morning made me wonder if they were going to get to the 3 story tall cedar next to the building, and sure enough it just went down.

Watching the big truck with the shovel on the end (yea, I'm a scientist not an engineer) wrestle this thing to the ground was intense. I was actually saddened by the death of this tree and wondered if it felt anything as it was being ripped to shreds. Of course I have the internet at my finger tips and I found this video of a plant being tortured while hooked up to a polygraph.

A polygraph measures the galvanic skin response or the change in electrical resistance between two electrodes hooked to something (i.e. a liar, or in this case, a plant under duress). They measured a response whether the plant was merely being slapped, or was being blasted by a fire extinguisher. Now, a lot of work has been done by various men to show that when a human is distressed by something (even unconsciously) their galvanic skin response registers a change. I'm not sure enough work has been done in the field of plant psychology to say that this is also true of plants. Although, it makes absolute sense that a tree in danger would have some means to communicate to it's neighbors that something dangerous is happening.

This does bring to mind; however, an almost buried Deep Thoughts quote by Jack Handy:

If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.

Remember-Forget 9/11

Five years after that surreal day, I'm surprised at the upwelling of feeling. If you turn on the TV at all today, all you see are tributes and remembrances. We are flying our American flag, which only seems appropriate. And yet I'm curious at my own annoyance at being reminded of that whole day. I do remember thinking that I would never forget, and that it was horrifying and could only bring about a new era for Americans, I mean, look at how we pulled together after that day.

So why, a mere five years later am I scoffing at movies designed just to make sure we don't forget? I haven't seen United 93, have you? And it's not just that things don't look like I wanted them to look 5 years later, because I have the same feelings about the Columbine massacre. I don't want to hear about it.

Freud - no matter what you may think of him - did suggest that we humans have a unique ability to suppress memories that are unpleasant or highly stressful. That theory had been controversial until 2004 when we (not like I had anything to do with it, scientists just like to speak in the third person) found through neuro-imaging that we can suppress remembering the same way we suppress a voluntary muscle movement. So remembering the events of that day five years ago is going to take actively generating remembering.

And I did say I wouldn't forget... I guess I will be seeing United 93 after all.

Editor's note: Slate has an interesting take on a picture from 9/11 that hasn't been shown until now because of it's "disturbing" nature.