Poll: Americans Dubious of Scientific Facts

A week ago the Associated Press released its results from a poll it administered to determine where Americans stand on nine scientific theories. These theories come as close to scientific facts as theories can get and include the connection between smoking and cancer, the Big Bang Theory, evolution, and the age of the Earth. Americans’ unwillingness to accept these facts was shocking. The toughest sell was the Big Bang Theory, about which 51% of Americans were either “not too confident” or “not at all confident." Not all the topics fared as poorly, with only 4% doubting that smoking causes cancer (although it is still surprising to me that there are any holdouts).

The article attached to the poll cited a number of possible reasons to explain these results. Americans were most dubious of facts that could not be seen with their own eyes (like the Big Bang Theory and evolution). They do not trust what scientists and the media tell them. Topics that came against their religion or politics also met opposition (the poll also contained questions to ascertain the participants’ religious and political affiliations). The article also cites public leaders’ antagonism to science and the action of special interest groups to oppose truths on vaccines, climate change, and evolution as reasons for a lack of acceptance.

The poll results are pretty remarkable. It’s no surprise that recent research efforts in fields such as stem cell research have been met by such staunch opposition. If the public trusts scientists so little on such heavily researched topics as the ones listed in the poll they must have little to no faith in research in general.

Here are links to the article and the poll results.

Things I Won’t Work With, What Actual Scientists Deem As Dangerous

I am sure that everyone has heard of an instance where a person has said a certain chemical was dangerous only on the basis of it having a “scary” sounding name or that they heard in an email that it can cause cancer. Most scientifically inclined people know that these opinions are usually the result of chemophobia, take for example the anti-vaccine movement that is currently taking place. But if most of the chemicals that cause concern among the public are usually non-harmful, then what do actual scientist deem as dangerous? Well to answer this question all you need to do is take a trip over to the “Things I Won’t Work With” section of the In the Pipeline blog. Here you can find hundreds of first hand experiences that seasoned scientists have had with some of the most dangerous, toxic, and downright foul compounds ever synthesized. From graduate student terrors to post-doc nightmares, the stories do a really good job of outlining all the volatile compounds that you need to be outside of a 1 mile radius at all times. One of the most “interesting” (I like explosions as long as I am not on the other side of the blast shield) compounds that always make for a good story are azides, which involve directly linking nitrogen atoms. Take for example the compound known as C₂N₁₄, when in the process of characterizing this molecule:

 

“The sensitivity of C2N14 is beyond our capabilities of measurement. The smallest possible loadings in shock and friction tests led to explosive decomposition…”

After plastering a few spectrometers against the wall, the group was finally able to get a Raman spectra. But what is the use of studying a compound that literally explodes on sight? Unless you are in the business of selling lab equipment then I don’t really see the use of further research. For more stories like this, visit the hyperlink I posted above.

Tamiflu Deemed Ineffective

          Fever, coughing, weakness, headache--time to go to the doctor, who might prescribe an antiviral to shorten the length of your symptoms. Oseltamivir, marketed under the trade name Tamiflu, is a popular medicine or preventing or treating the flu in adults and children. After the British government spent over $700 million stockpiling Tamiflu, a new analysis published in the British Medical Journal reports that this drug is actually ineffective and that money has been wasted on its development. When the drug was first introduced to the public, not all of the data from the trials was published. When trying for FDA approval, they withheld trials that did not yield the best results. BMJ managed to convinced the drug's manufacturer, Roche, to release full reports.
          While the drug has been shown to reduce the duration of symptoms by roughly a half of a day, there's no evidence that concludes its ability to reduce hospital admissions or complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, from infection. It was also found that Tamiflu may also slightly increase the risk of side effects such as nausea/vomiting and kidney problems in adults. Many say that Tamiflu works as a placebo, at best.
          Tamiflu is not a cheap drug to use; it can cost around $100 for a 5-day treatment! Personally, I do not think it is worth it to spend that much on a medicine that has not been proven to have a significant effect!



http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04April/Pages/questions-over-tamiflu-relenza-effectiveness.aspx

http://rt.com/news/flu-drug-britain-spending-600/

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39686/title/Updated-Review--Tamiflu-Is-a-Bust/

Its Sandy (Not Melissa) : Para-xylene Gets a Bad Rep

As a tree-hugging environmentalist at heart, I try to do my part in saving the earth as we know it. While researching new ideas to reduce my foot print on earth, I came across this Environmental Chemical article about para-xylene producing chemical plant and all the bad publicity it is getting in China. As a result of lack of education, people in China protested violently against the production of para-xylene. Para-xylene is used as a precursor in making polyester, a textile that is very important to China’s economy. There was mass confusion about the safety of para-xylene. Due to a change in the entry of the Chinese version of Wikipedia, citizens thought that para-xylene was harmful and highly toxic. Even after research was done, and the correction was made to low toxicity, violent riots and protests were still common in the streets. Unfortunately, the industry that is most effected from this bad reputation is the textiles.

 Here's the actual article:http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/04/para-xylene-px-plants-face-continued-opposition-china

Nanoparticles fighting Cancer

So one of the few pages I do follow on Facebook is I F***ing Love Science! This page keeps me somewhat up to date on all things science, everything from chemistry to astrophysics. This page is a lot more informative than almost everything else on Facebook. One of the more recent articles posted on the page is Nanoparticles Deliver Three Cancer Drugs at Once which I found particularly interesting.

The idea of using nanoparticles still seems like science fiction thing of the future. However, recently a paper published in The Journal of American Chemical Society, researchers from MIT found a way to deliver multiple cancer drugs for treatment. This new method of cancer drug therapy is much healthier than traditional chemotherapy because the healthy cells in the targeted area are not affected by the nanoparticles. The even more incredible thing with the nanoparticles is that they perform even better when there are three or more cancer drugs as opposed to one or two drugs.
The researchers decided to take a new approach to building the nanoparticles. First attempts at nanoparticle delivery systems had the drug tucked inside the nanoparticle; however, this method only allowed one drug being delivered and was not very selective. The next attempts had the drug attached to the outside of the nanoparticle; this method allowed for multiple drugs but attaching them was much harder. The new method built the nanoparticle from the drugs themselves. Next a polymer chain was built around the drugs to protect them from bodily fluids. The drugs were released when UV light was shown on them and the polymer chain was then broken down.

Just kidding…it's Melissa: Paying Addicts to Get Vaccinated?

The New York Times presents an article in which describes the overall benefits of paying heroin addicts $50 to receive a series of vaccinations against Hepatitis B. Not only were their attempts successful, but 80% of the patients showed up for their appointments on time, claims McNeil. Surprisingly about 25% of Britain's addicts have Hepatitis B which can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer. The vaccination prevents the disease, opposed to the drugs that only help slow it down.
The disease is also highly transmittable, much more so than Hepatitis C, such that even a toothbrush can be a means of transportation for this disease from one to the next.

Now I know if I were to go into any class room and bring this topic up for discussion I would immediately receive mix opinions on this. As expected, tax payers voiced their opinions for why they oppose paying addicts to receive the vaccinations. However, most that participated in the study were currently in some form of therapy receiving opioid substitutions, meaning there was an active effort to better themselves and get on a healthy path.

Most misconstrue the term 'addict.' It's perceived to be character flaw, rather than an actual disease. However, I'm sure if you take the time to speak with a current and recovering addict, you'll find the latter to be quite true. Drugs are something they consciously do to be "bad people;" it's their solution to dealing the pressures and stress of society because they haven't yet learned a sober mechanism. Essentially, the drugs make them numb which often leads to reckless behavior because they feel no guilt, sympathy, empathy, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/health/it-pays-to-pay-addicts-to-get-vaccinations.html?ref=science

Steven Colbert Replacing David Letterman: Bad for Science?

Steven Colbert has been in the news with the announcement that he is replacing David Letterman.  A recent article by David Shiffman in Slate called Stephen is the Best Science Source on TV argues that this could be bad for science.  Colbert, argues Shiffman, provides better science coverage than anyone else on widely watched TV and that could change when he moves to CBS and has to interview mostly movie stars and other celebrities.  The article says:

Stephen Colbert is one of the only news or faux-news anchors to regularly cover scientific discoveries and interview scientists. “The Colbert Report has certainly been one of the best television programs ever for showcasing scientists—and I don't just mean ‘for a comedy talk show,’” says science comedian Brian Malow. He points out that the guest who has made the most appearances is Neil deGrasse Tyson. “More than any movie star! And Tyson isn’t even the only physicist he’s featured!”   

Among the other physicists Colbert has interviewed are Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and Lawrence Krauss. He has hosted oceanographer Robert Ballard, neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland, surgeon Atul Gawande, and evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin as well as experts in science policy such as then–Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins. The online archive of interview guests includes separate categories for “academic,” “medical,” and “scientist.”

Note that while Colbert has featured a number of real scientists whose work involves chemistry, there are no chemists on the list.  

Still running on MPGs

There has been an article floating around the internet recently entitled "Volkswagen’s New 300 MPG Car Is Not Allowed In America Because It’s Too Efficient." This is absolutely ridiculous. Volkwagen claims to have a vehicle, the XL1, that can be plugged in, but doesn't have to be in order to attain the much anticipated 300mpg marker, as well as a Jetta TDI wagon that gets a much less efficient (and yet still highly efficient) 85mpg. Both cars, so claims this article, are banned from American roads because of the high revenues of gas guzzling vehicles. Basically, the oil companies want to get richer and since it would be bad business to have vehicles that would make their product near obsolete, there is some conspiracy in which oil companies have taken over control of what vehicles get sold in the US. I reiterate, this is absolutely ridiculous. This car will not be for sale in the US because it is a concept car, and has not been proven to work yet. Also, the claim that the vehicle will only cost $60,000 despite its uniqueness and "exotic" materials is bogus. In reality, the XL1 will cost upwards of $120,000, according to Car and Driver. For a replica of GM's EV1 (this is essentially what the XL1 is, just given a newer paint job), this seems a bit excessive. Honestly, I'd still rather forego the "mpg" altogether and get a Tesla. You know what? For that price, I'd rather have two Teslas.

The Magic Pill

If you are like most people you probably hope to lose weight fast by trying a fad diet or supplements, or hope for a magic pill.  The FDA estimated that approximately 60 billion dollars a year are spent diet programs and products. Is this all a shame a way to generate money or is there hope for a cure in the near future?


http://eatinggreat.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bs-diet-pills.jpg

Investigators at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) think that they may have found the answers. “Researchers identify a protein in fat and liver cells that can be altered to increase energy expenditures”. By manipulating a biochemical process that underlies cells’ energy-burning abilities. They have made a novel discovery that could lead to a new therapy to combat obesity and diabetes. (click here for the link for full story.)

There claims that they will help the market by reducing type 2 diabetes leads to a large misconceptions; that only obese people are at risk for type 2 diabetes. Skinny people are rarely mentioned in the media and scientific literature when it comes to type 2 diabetes One in every three type two diabetes and are undiagnosed because of this misconception. (full story here)

While everyone loves a short cut especially when it comes to weight loss there are ways to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes. Stay at a healthy weight, eat well and be active. With these steps, you can stay healthier longer and lower your risk of diabetes. (More tips here).

 

Greetings from The Masters

See you guys Thursday!

Ketamine's Two-Way Street

Edit: I realize I should probably note why I wrote this article.  I was told about ketamine's medical administration while shadowing a pediatric dentist.  It may have just been my naivety, but my first thought has always been about ketamine's recreational abuse, and it intrigued me that such a drug was a common anesthetic for children.  I found this article during my research.  It is written by the Juvenile Bipolar Research Foundation in an attempt to break the bad stigma that is associated with ketamine.
----------
Ketamine is a fascinating drug.  It was first approved by the FDA in 1970 as an anesthetic for soldiers in the Vietnam War, and is now a common analgesic and anesthetic during surgery for both humans and animals.  It can combat short-term depression, and its effectiveness for epileptics has recently become a topic of debate.  It is usually injected in medical settings.

Shortly after FDA approval, ketamine found its way to the recreational world.  Its popularity started as a club drug, but has made its way to private settings as well.  It is used for its dissociative properties, causing hallucinations, sensory deprivation, confusion, and amnesia.  The latter two effects, along with its clear liquid appearance, make ketamine a dangerously effective date rape drug.  It can also come as capsules, powder, crystals, and tablets.

The short-term effects of ketamine (both medical and recreational) reads like the end of a TV drug commercial: “High incidence of adverse effects, including anxiety, chest pain, palpitations, agitation, rhabdomyolysis, flashbacks, delirium, dystonia, psychosis, schizophenic-like symptoms, dizziness, vomiting, seizures, and paranoia.”

Long-term effects of ketamine are usually only seen in frequent (4 days/week, 20 days/month) users.  Frequent use can result in cognitive impairment (reduced vigilance, verbal fluency, short-term memory, and executive function, as well as schizophrenia-like perceptual changes) and depression.  Urinary tract symptoms have also been found in ketamine-dependent users.  Because of recreational use and its destructive long-term effects, the United States placed ketamine in Schedule III of the United States Controlled Substances Act in August 1999.  Because of this, it is not administered chronically in a medical setting.

Today, we know how to safely use ketamine.  Doctors must adhere to strict guidelines when administering the drug, and patients are advised never to receive it without the presence and supervision of an anesthesiologist.  Ketamine has also been used as a pediatric sedation in dentistry and emergency rooms.

Concise articles on ketamine are linked here, here, and here.

Wikipedia gives a great summary of the CSA, along with why ketamine is classified a Schedule III Controlled Substance.