Aristotle ethics, RFK, and health care reform

The Wall Street Journal's daily newsletter by James Taranto, The Best of the Web Today, debunks a quote floating around the Internet to support the "right" to health care paid for by government. The blurb has been attributed to a translation from the writings of Aristotle, a translation from the original Greek by Robert F. Kennedy.

Unfortunately, the first reference to the quote is from 10 years after Senator Kennedy died, is credited to someone else, and the original cannot be found in the existing works of Aristotle.

From an article by Edmond Pellegrino, the last chairman of President Bush's President's Bioethics Council, written in 2008:

In attempts to establish the provenance of the text in question we have conducted an extensive search for its source and original wording. We have not been able to locate it. Our initial curiosity was aroused by several things, including that rights language did not seem to have the Aristotelian context, and health care, as such, was not included in Aristotle's works. We searched Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics, and the Magna Moralia without successfully locating the quote. Nor could we find it in other of works of Aristotle: On Length and Shortness of Life, De Anima, Economics or the Fragments. "Rights" language certainly would stick out in Aristotle's virtue-based ethics.

That article by Dr. Pellegrino is available in pdf, here, thanks to the WSJ and Georgetown Bioethics.

Clues to how blood stem cells become activated (adult stem cells)

The National Institute of Health has a news release about research done with NIH funding. The researchers explored how hematopoietic or blood cell producing adult stem cells are activated. The NIH article is very detailed, but easy to read and understand. An adaptation of the press release is at Science Daily.

The research article was published in Nature Cell Biology. (The abstract is free, the article can be purchased by non subscribers, for $18. I think this will be one of the articles that will eventually be published for free, since the research was Federally funded.)

From the NIH Press release:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, March 25, 2009

E-mail this page
Subscribe Contact:
Robert Bock or Marianne Glass Miller
301-496-5133

Researchers Decipher Blood Stem Cell Attachment, Communication
Finding Has Implications for Leukemia Treatment, Artificially Culturing Blood Cells

Researchers at the National Institutes of Health have deciphered a key sequence of events governing whether the stem cells that produce red and white blood cells remain anchored to the bone marrow, or migrate into the circulatory system.

An understanding of the factors that govern migration of blood stem cells might lead to improved treatment of leukemia, a cancer that affects circulating white blood cells. The findings also have implications for culturing infection-fighting immune cells outside the body, where they could be temporarily held in storage during chemotherapy and other treatments which suppress the immune system. Moreover, the findings could contribute to a strategy for growing large quantities of red blood cells in laboratory dishes outside the body, to reduce the need for blood donations.

Previously, researchers thought that the cellular environment in which the stem cells reside produced the chemical signals that determined whether the cells would be stationary or free–floating. The current study provides evidence that the stem cells produce chemical signals of their own that may, in turn, influence the chemical signals they receive from their environment.

"This important discovery will advance our understanding of how blood cells and immune cells are generated," said Duane Alexander, M.D., director of the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

The findings were published on line in Nature Cell Biology. The study was conducted in the laboratory of Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz, Chief of the NICHD Section on Organelle Biology. The study’s first author was Jennifer Gillette, also of the Section on Organelle Biology. Other authors were Andre Larochelle and Cynthia E. Dunbar of the Hematology Branch of NIH's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Dr. Gillette explained that hematopoetic progenitor stem cells — the cells which give rise to red blood cells and immune cells — travel between the bloodstream and the bone marrow. Within the bone marrow, they anchor themselves in place by attaching to bone marrow cells called osteoblasts.

Other studies have shown that osteoblasts secrete a substance that acts as a chemical signal that regulates the attachment of the stem cells. Large amounts of the chemical, which is known as SDF-1 (stromal cell derived factor-1), cause the stem cells to leave the bone marrow and enter the bloodstream. A small, continuous pulse of SDF-1, however, attracts the stem cells and results in their attachment to the osteoblasts.

In laboratory cultures, Dr. Gillette and her coworkers incubated unattached stem cells with osteoblasts. As the stem cells approached the osteoblasts, they developed long, tentacle-like projections, called uropods. The uropods attached to the surface of the osteoblasts. Then, a small portion of a uropod was absorbed inside an osteoblast. The uropod material was eventually sealed inside an endosome — a tiny balloon–like structure within the cell. After the osteoblasts absorbed the uropod material, they began producing SDF-1.

Dr. Gillette noted it appeared to be the stem cell material that stimulated the osteoblast to produce SDF-1, the substance that causes the stem cell to remain attached to the osteoblast or migrate into the blood.

"Our study indicates that stem cells may actually be able to manipulate the signals that they receive from their environment," Dr. Gillette said. "Stem cells seem to have a little more control than we thought."

Non-embryonic stem cells to cure Parkinson's?

The journal, Cell, has published an article (free abstract, full article and supplements for purchase) on patient-derived induced Pleuripotent Stem Cells (iPSC's) that appear to be brain neurons that produce dopamine, which is lacking in Parkinson's patients.

Besides being derived from the patient's own skin cells (they won't be rejected and are cheaper and more accessible to more of us than embryonic), and being non-destructive (no embryos destroyed - and, did I say, cheaper and more accessible?), these iPSC's were derived using viruses that can be purposefully, and apparently, fully removed from the culture.

The plans apparently are to use the cells to study the disease. However, with the history of the debate over this disease, I wouldn't be surprised to see them used to treat the donors' Parkinson's disease very soon. Parkinson's is so devastating to patients and their families that several attempts to use brain transplants of aborted embryonic and fetal tissues have been used on real patients, with disastrous results. These iPSC's should be safer than fetal tissues.

US behind on regulation of reproductive technology

After hearing/reading for the last 8 years that there is too much regulation of research, there's now a call from the Jonathan Moreno and the "Progressives"(at the website that grew out the Center for American Progress, originally founded by John Podesta, Obama's advisor) for regulation of reproductive technology. See this post at the "Science Progress" blog.

Scroll down to the middle of the blog post on regulation to see a fantastic interactive map of regulation across the world.

Unfortunately, the regulation may not be easy to come by, or what those of us who are pro-life might wish for. The progressives mock those of us who believe that even embryonic humans have the right not to be intentionally killed or enslaved. See the comments in this review of Yuval Levine's book, Imagining the Future.

Coffee, again

In June, LifeEthics reported that coffee drinkers are likely to live longer - or are at least less likely to die of heart disease.

Today, a new study on Swedes and Finns reports that 3 to 5 cups of coffee (I drink nearly a quart a day) when middle aged (I am) decreased the chances of Alzheimer's dementia by 60 to 65%.

Not only will I live forever, I'll know it!

"Tea-bag" Adult Stem Cell Treatment for Stroke

British researchers report an amazing recovery for a 49 year old man who suffered a hemorrhagic stroke on October 15, 2008. The researchers at the company, "Biocompatibles," used adult stem cells from a healthy donor. The cells had been engineered to cause them to produce a protein that helps prevent "programmed" cell death (even after the bleeding stops and the pressure is removed) and embedded in tiny beads that had been sewn up in a cloth "tea-bag."

From the press release, published on the Medical News Today Neurology and Neuroscience website:

Stroke is one of the leading causes of death in the elderly population in the developed world. The incidence rate has been reported as 145 per 100,000. Hemorrhagic stroke is responsible for ~15 to 20% of all stroke and it is the least treatable form of stroke. It is associated with the highest morbidity and mortality rate of all stroke with only 44% of affected patients surviving the first 30 days. Only 20% of these survivors regain functional independence. The cascade of events starts with the sudden rupture of a blood vessel in the brain, causing haemorrhage and pressure inside the skull. Surgery may be used to relieve the pressure; but the haemorrhage causes a longer-term process of programmed cell death, or apoptosis, and it is this that causes the lasting neurological damage.

The CellBeads™ are delivered directly to the injury site during the surgery. They are programmed to deliver CM1, a proprietary version of a naturally occurring protein, GLP-1, which has been shown to have powerful anti-apoptotic effects. The delivery mechanism is a cluster of human adult mesenchymal stem cells obtained from a healthy donor and encapsulated in alginate beads. The cells are genetically engineered to produce the protein, which is delivered continuously, directly to the injury site. The alginate beads protect the stem cells from the body's immune system, which would otherwise destroy the foreign cells. CellBeads™ are transplanted within a retrievable mesh device and are removed completely after a treatment period of 14 days. Retrieval of the implant prevents possible long-term side effects from the transplanted cells.

The research is a "Phase I/II" trial, which means that the doctors and scientists are actually testing the safety of the treatment, and not the actual effectiveness of the treatment, itself. In other words, "does the treatment do more harm than good."

The CEO of Biocompatibles, Crispin Simon (that name is as British as tea bags), spoke to a Reuters reporter for a story published at Forbes online, stressing that the patient is young and other wise healthy, and had the standard of care for hemorrhagic strokes, surgery to relieve the pressure from the blood on the cells around the stroke. 10% to 20% of patients have similar recovery, without the Biocompatible beads.

Still, the report is a welcome source of hope for anyone who has watched and waited helplessly after a patient or a loved one had a hemorrhagic stroke.

Causal link between abortion mental illness claimed

Fergusson of Australia has published more data on his birth cohort from ChristChurch, New Zealand. This time, he's claiming causal relationship between abortion and later mental illness. A 3 invited comments in the same journal seem to accept that his conclusion is true: Abortion responsible for depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, at least do some degree.

The articles are in the British Journal of Psychiatry.for pay, but here's the discussion:

(a) For both models there was consistent evidence that even after extensive covariate adjustment, exposure to abortion was associated with a modest but detectable increase in rates of mental disorder. The concurrent data suggested that after adjustment for confounding those exposed to abortion had
rates of mental health problems that were 1.37 (95% CI 1.16–1.62) times higher than for those who had not become pregnant (P50.001). The lagged model produced a slightly lower estimate of 1.32 (95% CI 1.05–1.67, P50.05).
(b) Pregnancy loss was associated with a modest increase in the rate of problems using the concurrent measures of pregnancy outcome, with those who experienced a pregnancy loss having a rate of mental health problems that was 1.25 (95% CI 1.01–1.53) times the rate for those who were never pregnant (P50.05). However, under the lagged model, pregnancy loss was not associated with later outcomes, with an adjusted RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.79–1.43, P40.70).
(c) For both models, having a live birth, whether with or without
an unwanted/adverse reaction, was not associated with significant
increases in the overall rate of mental health problems when due allowance was made for confounding variables

Human-pig embryo approved in UK

The "cybrid" or hybrid human-animal embryos are created in the laboratory by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transplantation, using emptied eggs from animals and the nuclear and cellular DNA from humans.. We know that there are currently experiments on-going with the human embryos made using emptied cow eggs (more on the "ease" of making these embryos, here), and now the British have authorized the development of pig-human embryos.

The experimenters admit that the problem will be achieving embryos and embryonic stem cells that do not contain DNA left from the egg. Proving the purity and "human-ness" of the stem cells will be a complication that I do not believe they will be able to overcome, at least for transplantation into humans, except possibly in the case of severe, last-hope disease and trauma.

The ethical debates about xeno-transplants and treatments using living organs, cells and tissues from animals carry the risks of transmitting animal diseases that humans have no immunity for and the development of new strains of disease that cross species lines. Ethicists have predicted that at least the early patients will have to live their lives in isolation at the worst, and have life-long surveillance at the best. (more on the debate, here and here.)

However, the researchers will probably be able to develop other uses, such as the early warning chemical weapon detection systems that are being developed by our own military, using human embryonic stem cells.

Rather than humanitarian and medical hope, I believe that time will show us that the research is the result of pure greed, with each lab hoping to come up with a product that can be patented and sold. I'm disappointed that the courts and "ethics" bodies in the US and UK have allowed these patents of human organisms. The drive to "create" new human cells and artifacts using human DNA is the logical outcome.

Coffee drinkers live longer

If true, I may live forever.

According to the Washington Post,

The researchers found that women who drank two or three cups of caffeinated coffee daily had a 25 percent lower risk of death from heart disease during the follow-up (from 1980 to 2004) than non-drinkers. Women also had an 18 percent lower death risk from a cause other than cancer or heart disease compared with non-coffee drinkers.

For men, drinking two to three cups of caffeinated coffee daily was a "wash" -- not associated with either an increased or a decreased risk of death during the follow up, from 1986 to 2004.

The lower death rate was mainly due to a lower risk for heart disease deaths, the researchers found, while no link was discovered for coffee drinking and cancer deaths. The relationship did not seem to be directly related to caffeine, according to the researchers, since those who drank decaf also had a lower death rate than those who didn't drink either kind of coffee.

Translation of Yamanaka, Yu "induced Pluripotent Stem Cells" (Revised)

Scientists who report their findings are expected to discuss the problems as well as the outcome of their research. This is usually found in the "Discussion," "Conclusions" or "Results" section of the paper. This is the best place to figure out what the researches intended, what they did and what the report means. (Then you go back and check to see if they proved what they "discussed." And then, you wait for other labs to confirm it.)

The actual (Takahashi et al., "Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors," Cell (2007).) Cell article on reprogrammed adult fibroblast skin cells, the "induced Pluripotent Stem Cells) or "iPS," is available for free, here. The Science Magazine report about similar work by James Thomson from Wisconsin (the researcher who reported the production of human embryonic stem cells in the first place) is supposed to be published November 22, 2007. (Editorial note 11/30/07 – Science published the Thompson and Yu report the same day that Tamanaka's report was published, two days ahead of schedule. See my “translation,” here.)

To the best of my understanding, here's a translation into layman's terms about what the Takahashi/Yamaka report means:

While it took a lot of cells and more time than the researchers first expected because the human iPS grew much slower than the mouse iPS,

1. The cells that grew looked and functioned like human embryonic stem cells with a few minor differences,
2. They believe they proved that their technique is responsible for all the new pluripotent cells that were found in their cultures(there weren't any cells from another culture introduced accidentally or on purpose and which would make them look more successful than they were),
3. The cells could be directed to develop nerve cells and heart cells,
4. They were able to use several types of adult specialized cells to achieve iPS, and
5. The researchers suggest several possible ways to overcome the drawbacks of the process.

The authors believe that the inefficiency or the need to begin with lots of adult cells and wait a little longer for a substantial amount of human iPS should not be a "practical" problem because the adult cells are easy to obtain and labs all over the world should be able to reproduce their results. Since the technique should be well-funded (it qualifies for US Federal funding and is ethical, since no human beings have to die), the authors believe it will be possible for lots of researchers to work on them.

If I were to predict the future, I would anticipate banks of iPS - or even specialized or intermediate forms of cells that are produced from iPS - being stored for each of us, just in case. In the very long term, we will learn more about stimulating our on bodies' stem cells from research on these cells, so that we can repair or prevent damage without transplants or waiting for cultures to grow in the lab.

The major hurdle is that the cells were produced by the Recombinant DNA technique, using retroviruses in plasmids.

The retroviruses are a class of viruses that actually insert themselves into the DNA strands of animal or plant cells to become a part of that cell’s DNA and are copied when the cell reproduces. They are manufactured in the lab in the form of plasmids in order to carry genes into the experimental cells.

Plasmids are little bits of DNA, a mini-virus in a circle. Think of a chain with pairs of magnets or interlocking puzzle pieces that connect the ends and make a loop. When open, the plasmid becomes a strand of DNA which has ends that are "sticky.” When placed in a culture with mouse or human cells, the plasmids infect the cells and then move into the nuclei of the cells. The retroviral DNA is inserted or inserts itself into the DNA of the host cell because the sticky ends of the plasmid strand match or mate to certain areas of the host DNA.

Plasmids can be manufactured to carry copies of genes that researchers want to insert into the DNA of experimental cells. The technique is common in commercial and experimental labs for at least the last 30 years. In fact, "Recombinant DNA" is used to induce strains of bacteria and yeast cells in cultures to manufacture vaccines like the flu and Hepatitis B vaccine and the insulin used by diabetics these days. The particular retroviruses used by Tamanaka are said to be "strongly silenced in humans." In other words, they don't normally get reproduced as viruses when the cell divides. Once they are taken up in the cell DNA, the viruses used in research don't break out to become infectious viruses, again. However, some of them can induce the cells to form tumors or cancers if injected in an animal or human.


One of the possible problems that the article notes is that the new iPS cells each had several copies of the retrovirus included in their DNA. There is a concern that these bits may be responsible for the tumors that were seen in the mice used in the experiments. Before iPS can be used in humans, it will be necessary to learn to remove all the viral particles or to learn to make the cells without viruses that can cause tumors. Otherwise, there is a risk of causing cancer in patients.

The researchers note that another group of scientists have already reported that it is possible to insert one of the genes without using retroviruses and that the hope is to either find a way to insert the other three genes or to remove all traces of the virus.

There's also a suggestion that what they are actually inducing to grow is a sub-set of fibroblasts with the tendency to become embryonic-like stem cells.

Translation of "Induced Pluripotent (Human) Stem Cells"

Please see the revised version of this post, published November 30, 2007.

Reprogramming Stem Cells - Links to Articles

I got the authors backwards. Here's the corrected version:


Takahashi et al. (including Yamanaka), Cell Online, free pdf.

There's a "Preview" article in pdf here.
Still waiting for Science to post Thomson's report online.

Drugs, Sleep, Memory and Ethics

New information on the science of memory may one day finally tell me why I have a hard time remembering names and even faces, but I'll store a patient's potassium level without even trying. As with all science research, we'll have to decide whether and why the information we discover matters and how to use it.

Last night's post was on the bioethics questions in a television show dealing with a patient who asked for help forgetting a trauma - actually, the emotional memories, not the facts. A wide range of articles on memory research is the subject of yesterday's post at Bioethics.net. There are posts to articles and blog entries on old and new information on drugs that affect memory, and disorders of memory.

That post contains a link to this New York Times article (free registration required) on the significance of sleep and memories. (I love the title, "An Active, Purposeful Machine That Comes Out at Night to Play.") The same session at the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities conference that dealt with blunting the emotional memory of trauma also touched on the ethics of new medications that enable people to sleep less. The question asked was whether avoiding the need for sleep would allow time for more worthy pursuits - the question and answer period focused on what to consider a "worthy" activity. According to the NYT article, the question should be what is lost.

As is too often the case, science gives us some of the answers to our questions (those "power naps" are probably good for dealing with facts and later sleep appears to be useful for detecting patterns) and technology or means (propranolol, propofol, Provigil, etc.) to manipulate ourselves and our behavior, before we come to a consensus on the ethics - or even the ethical principles that apply - of using our knowledge.

The old saying "let's sleep on it" may have some measurable truth - and a lot of wisdom, after all.

Rao: Adult Stem Cells "soon to be on the market"

The journal Stem Cells has published an Open-Access review by the former NIH director, Mahendra Rao, MD, PhD, covering last month's "Adult Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Regenerative Medicine Conference" at the National Center for Regenerative Medicine in Ohio.

Another review with summaries of some of the individual talks as well as the history of the National Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Dr. Arnold Caplan's part in founding both the NIRM and Osiris, can be found at Medscape.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can be found in bone marrow and other organs. MSCs are proving to be multipotent, meaning that they can be induced to give rise to different types of cells.


Speakers at the conference included virtually every "big" name in stem cell research, including Dr. Rao, Caplan, Anthony Atala, Catherine Verfaille, and Paul Simmons. The program covered the history, basic science and techniques involved in harvesting and culturing mesenchymal stem cells. There were reports covering the multipotent nature of MSC's and some of the treatments and commercial applications that are in use or will soon be available. One company, Osiris, has been in phase III of some clinical trials of stem cells for treatment of heart disease, graft vs. host disease, Crohn's, and cartilage and tendon repair. Veterinarians are already using MSC's to treat horses and other animals.

Take a look at the last page of the review which contains a graphic covering the wide range of topics.

Patients' own adult stem cells in the news

There's hope in the news for future adult stem cell therapies using patients' own stem cells within the next ten years.

The (UK) Times Online reports on the rapid progress in research on tissue regeneration using patients' own adult stem cells to produce heart valves and muscles. The researcher predicts the technology will be available in three to five years for use in humans.

To support this hope, Nature Biotechnology will publish a report on adult stem cells that make muscles in immune deficient mice. The abstract is available here and the UPI report is available here.

Science retracts another

There's good news and bad news.

The good news is that the scientific review process does work. Science is retracting (all of these Science and Nature articles are behind a paywall) an article that has been proven to include forged photographs, due to the questions about these photographs from other researchers. Although the actual research and premise of the research my have some validity, it needs to be replicated and validated in other labs, by other researchers.

The bad news, I'm afraid, is that the reason that the article came under scrutiny in the first place (and the reason we will hear about it over and over and over) is that the findings were hailed as further proof from a study of very early mouse embryology that the embryo is a unique organism from fertilization, since the immediate result of the first division showed different fates and different genetic markers.

There is nothing here to discount the fact that the zygote is an organism. In fact, the cdx2 marker is indeed found mostly at one end of the zygote and most of it ends up one of the cells after division. The article, "Your destiny from day one" in Nature.com (behind a paywall) covered the work by R.L. Gardner and Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz:

Nature 418, 14-15 (4 July 2002)
"Developmental biology: Your destiny, from day one"

by Helen Pearson

The mammalian body plan starts being laid down from the moment of conception, it has emerged. Helen Pearson considers the implications of a surprising shift in embryological thinking.

Your world was shaped in the first 24 hours after conception. Where your head and feet would sprout, and which side would form your back and which your belly, were being defined in the minutes and hours after sperm and egg united.

More proof has been produced in other research, there's some, here, and a review in this article by Robert P. George and Patrick Lee in the New Atlantis. From this year there's the report from M.-E. Torres-Padilla et al. [Nature 445, 214–218; (2007)] described this way in Nature (sorry, also subscription only):

Nature 445, 157 (11 January 2007) Published online 10 January 2007
"Developmental biology: Marked from the start"

Helen Dell

Not all cells in the early mammalian embryo are created equal. Even at the four-cell stage, embryonic cells that follow a particular pattern of division already have their developmental fate assigned to them. No cell will contribute exclusively to a specific cell type in the later embryo. But the progeny of some cells make a greater contribution to the 'inner cell mass' — the stem cells destined to become the fetus — and its surrounding 'trophectoderm', which forms extraembryonic structures such as the placenta. The progeny of other cells will make a greater contribution to other extraembryonic structures.

However, I'm afraid we should expect to see this scandal used against those of us who would protect embryonic human life.

Here's more on the Deb scandal from the Columbian Missourian

Doctors, faith and helping the poor

The Chicago Tribune published an article on a study concerning doctors who help the poor. I haven't read the actual article, yet, but I wonder how the "poor" are defined and question the definition of "religiosity" vs. spiritual.

For one thing, I'm not sure how, as a Family Physician, I would separate my patients into poor and not-so-poor. Currently, I work for other doctors, but their patients seem similar to the ones I cared for when I had my own practice, although the trend is away from Medicaid, which pays very little compared to Medicare and private insurance. (Medicaid pays less than the office overhead for the time it takes to see the patient.)

There seems to be a fair mix in the patients that come to our practices through the hospital call lists because they don't have a doctor. Also, I frequently hear that this patient or that has an agreement with the doc to pay what and when she or he can. I'm also reminded by the staff that the patient is "self-pay." These patients are "coded" or charged as little as we legally can without committing the felony offense of insurance or Medicare fraud. (The law says we can't charge less than we would charge a Medicare patient and we can't charge a "discounted" rate without risking charges of fraud. There is a little bit of lee-way, however, in calculating the risk, history necessary, etc.)

The study, based on a mail survey of more than 1,100 American physicians, found that 31 percent of doctors who described themselves as religious reported that they serve primarily poor or uninsured communities, compared with 35 percent of doctors who had no religious affiliation.

Those two figures were statistically equal, but other comparisons showed that doctors were more likely to treat underserved populations if they considered themselves highly spiritual, felt that their religious beliefs influenced their medical practice, or said they were raised in a family that encouraged service to the poor.

How do you determine "religious" if not by those who "considered themselves highly spiritual, felt that their religious beliefs influenced their medical practice?"

BTW, I've been away while studying for and taking my every-7-years American Board of Family Physicians National Boards. I won't know the results until mid-September, but at least there's no dead lines looming ahead of me for a while. Yeay!!!

"Exaggerated resistance" (Or how not to report science)

Scientific American gives us several reasons to "resist" the information in its pages this month, the August, 2007 issue. Unfortunately, only the Table of Contents is free, but the problem is in the titles given "news" stories themselves.

Under the title, "Roots of Science Hatred," on page 29 we learn that people learn to trust their own experiences, causing us to have "exaggerated resistance" to scientific reports:

For instance, because objects fall down if not held up, kids may have trouble accepting
the world is round, reasoning that things on the other side should naturally fall off.
Intuitive notions concerning psychology also lead children to see everything as designed for some reason—for example, a cloud’s purpose might be to rain—which can lead to opposition to evolution. In reportingtheir work in the May 18 Science, the researchers also note that when both adults and kids obtain knowledge from others, they judge claims based on how much they trust the source of an assertion. It suggests that science will meet exaggerated resistance in societies where alternative views are championed by trustworthy authorities, such as political or religious figures. —Charles Q. Choi (emphasis is mine)

Yeah, and the exaggeration is all on our part, and due to "hate," "religion," and "politics," right?

Since SA can't be engaging in politics, then only someone inclined to hate science would notice the problem with the following headline on page 32: "SciAm Perspectives: Worse Than Gasoline: Liquid coal would produce roughly twice the global warming emissions of gasoline." Couldn't they have used the more correct and less political term, "green house gasses?"

Yes, I'll admit to being a human-caused-global-climate-change skeptic. I remember the '60's and early '70's, when we humans were told that we were the cause of global cooling. I believe it had something to do with clouds blocking the sun's radiation from warming the earth. I'm watching and waiting, although I've always believed in keeping my little micro-climate as clean as possible..


However, for a review of the current "consensus" on global climate change, those of you with access to SA can read "The Physical Science behind CLIMATE CHANGE" (all caps in the original), beginning on page 64.

Global Warming: No Debate? (Reporting bias)

Just one more example of the effects of reporting bias in the scientific literature - and another warning to be wary, even about "consensus."

The journal, Nature, now reviews its own blogs on a web page titled the "From the blogosphere,"a subheading of the "Author" web page., on the homepage of the journal's website. The "From the blogosphere" heading was on this morning's "headlines" that were chosen by my Google search page. Unfortunately, the blogs are behind a paywall.

One of the blogs, "Peer-to-peer: for peer-reviewers and about peer review" has a discussion about the controversy over a meta-analysis published in Science magazine by the science historian, Naomi Oreskes, based on this opinion piece - that is available for free - at the UK Guardian, by Jonathan Wolfe. I believe that the point of Mr. Wolfe's commentary is that non-experts should "shut" our mouths, because we flat don't know enough.

Neither Mr. Wolfe nor the Nature blogger make any mention that the report by Oreskes was severely flawed and inaccurate. However, as the one comment at "Peer to Peer" reports, "This is very odd. The main critic of Oreskes' work was Benny Peiser, who is not a blogger or a think-tanker, but a member of faculty at John Moores University and a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society."


I hope Mr. Wolfe or the Nature bloggers will follow up on the Oreskes article and the controversy surrounding it, because there appears to be a secondary theme: bias can lead to error, even in peer reviewed, scientific journals.

Oreske's article, originally published in Science in December, 2004. This review of the scientific literature is often quoted to support the position that there is no disagreement among scientists about whether the earth is warming due to the increase of "greenhouse" gases, and that those greenhouse gases are due to the influence we humans have on our environment. However, the problem appears to be a flaw in both the professor's methodology and her reporting. She mis-reported her search terms, and those terms - the use of the three words, "global climate change," rather than "climate change" - make a huge difference.

Here is the "Erratum" published in January, 2005 by Science:

Essays: “The scientific consensus on climate change” by N. Oreskes (3 Dec.2004, p. 1686). The final sentence of the fifth paragraph should read “That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’ (9).” The keywords used were “global climate change,” not “climate change.”

The choice of search terms seems to make a huge difference. From a web page entitled, "The Letter Science Magazine refused to publish," by professor of anthropology, Benny Peiser, we learn,

On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3).

Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.

***

DISCUSSION:
According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

It also shows that many abstracts on "evaluation of impact" and "mitigation" do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the 'consensus view' but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.

Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).

I guess our lesson should be to be skeptical of "consensus," just as we are becoming skeptical of "peer reviewed" journals that rush to print on "hot" stories about cloning and stem cells.

Why most Published Research Findings Are False

Chasing links today, I somehow stumbled upon found this very interesting title:
John Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 2 (2005), pp. 696-701.

Brush up on your statistics and ability to evaluate scientific literature (and those that report on the same).