Fully Myelinated

Main | Next page »

Tuesday November 17, 2009

Mammograms-- who needs them?

So, a couple of weeks ago I meant to blog about Mammograms in response to this recent study:

Last month, Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, told The New York Times that the medical profession had exaggerated the benefits of cancer screening, and that if a woman refused mammography, “I would not think badly of her, but I would like her to get it.”...
But the statement also said mammography can “miss cancers that need treatment, and in some cases finds disease that does not need treatment.” In other words, the test may lead to some women being treated, and being exposed to serious side effects, for cancers that would not have killed them. Some researchers estimate that as many as one-third of cancers picked up by screening would not be fatal even if left untreated. But right now, nobody knows which ones.

Interesting, but the articles is from a few weeks ago and I never did anything. However, now we have news that a federal panel is actual recommending that most women in their 40's no longer have routine mammograms:

Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.
"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives," said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."

Obviously, for an announcement like this, there's been evidence for years that mammograms are not quite the magic bullet they are often portrayed to be. Clearly, they are important and play a major role in preventing breast cancer, but it seems that this role should be more targeted than current use. Alas, my mom was well aware of these studies questioning the efficacy of mammograms. Unfortunately, she drew the conclusion that all such regular testing, e.g., pap smears, was unnecessary. When she told me she might have uterine cancer and I asked about regular gynecological testing (which she did not have) she specifically mentioned the evidence for the limits of mammograms. Okay, then, I'm not sure what my broad conclusion should be here. I think it is good that doctors realize the limits of their screening tests and apply them more appropriately, but I hope too many people don't take these recommendations too far and ignore needed and effective medical tests.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 17 2009, 07:41:50 AM EST ) Permalink Comments [1]

Thursday November 12, 2009

Autism and pupil response

I found this story quite fascinating:

Despite its widespread effect, autism is not well understood and there are no objective medical tests to diagnose it. Recently, University of Missouri researchers have developed a pupil response test that is 92.5 percent accurate in separating children with autism from those with typical development. In the study, MU scientists found that children with autism have slower pupil responses to light change...
In the study, scientists used a computerized binocular infrared device, which eye doctors normally use for vision tests, to measure how pupils react to a 100-millisecond flash light. A pupil reaction test reveals potential neurological disorders in areas of the brain that autism might affect. The results showed that pupils of children diagnosed with autism were significantly slower to respond than those of a control group.

Certainly raises many questions the press release did not address. Hopefully, I'll find time to read the article. I'm especially curious about the 7% it does not capture. Are those people more on the borderline of autism? Also, what about autism in the cases of a known genetic disorder, like my son Alex (Tuberous Sclerosis) or Fragile X. And, of course, what else could we diagnose, or at least screen for with pupil response? I am going to have to read this.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 12 2009, 10:56:22 AM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]

Sunday November 01, 2009

The latest on good bacteria

Those of you who know me know that I'm a huge fan of bacteriological trivia (i.e., the cells in your body are outnumbered 10-1 by bacterial cells) and that I'm a big fan of "good" bacteria. In fact, ever since I read Good Germs, Bad Germs (great book, by the way) I've been taking Lactobacillus Rhamnosus GG every day and am pretty sure I'm the healthier for it. (There's double-blind placebo controlled studies about is efficacy-- I don't go for snake oil). Kim, who is prone to stomach upset, has definitely noticed an improvement. Anyway, interesting article in today's Post about scientists working on a new "good bacteria" that kills salmonella on the surface of fruits. Apparently, in the lab, it even works against the nasty E. Coli.

"This is highly efficient weaponry, right here," said Brown, pointing to pipettes filled with the "good" bacteria suspended in a saline solution that will be dripped onto the contaminated tomatoes. He presented the initial findings of his research at an international salmonella conference this month in France. "The beauty is that we take something alive and organic and put it back into the field, and by itself, it will kill other bacteria. We're right on the edge of this."

It's a variation on the "enemy of my enemy" philosophy, with scientists like Brown cultivating hostile relatives of harmful bacteria to perform a sort of microscopic fratricide before the bugs can harm humans.
While Brown's findings haven't been applied outside the laboratory yet, in his experiments the microorganisms obliterate not only salmonella on tomatoes but also several other pathogens blamed for food-borne illnesses, including listeria and E. coli O15:H7. So far, only vibrio, the bacterium found in warm seawater that can contaminate oysters and other seafood, has stood its ground against Brown's bacteria

Obviously, if this works well at a commercial level, this would be a huge advance for public health. For now, just more "good" bacteria trivia to bore my friends with.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 01 2009, 07:06:18 AM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]

Thursday October 08, 2009

What's your ASQ?

I was recently having a rather heated discussion on the nature of autism with a friend as we debated the merits of the Autism Spectrum Quotient (good summary here). I posted the link to take the test on my facebook page and had quite the interesting debate on it, so I thought I'd post it here, too. (For the record, I scored a very non-Autistic 13, assuming I buy the validity of the test). I think if you score fairly high on this test, you are likely to have High-Functioning Autism or Aspergers, but there's too many questions that are simply an indication of introversion. And a few that are just dumb, i.e., I've got plenty good social communication skills and I'm an extrovert, but I still prefer museums to the theater. Anyway, have at it and feel free to let me know what you think about the approach.

Posted by shgreene ( Oct 08 2009, 12:44:10 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

Monday September 14, 2009

Asthma problems-- get yourself a hookworm

I cannot recall if I've plugged Radiolab here before, but it is a terrific hour-long NPR science program/podcast that takes an in-depth, science-based look at a particular issue each show, e.g., sleep, stress, ethics, music, etc. The latest show was on parasites and particularly fascinating. Listen. There was a fascinating segment about a guy who cured his asthma and severe allergies by intentionally heading to Cameroon to infect himself with hookworm.

Apparently, if you've got a hookworm, you don't get these auto-immune disorders. To infect himself with hookworm, he spent a couple weeks walking barefoot in open-air latrines. It's all worked out for the best as he is much happier and healthier now. He's even got a pretty extensive webpage where he describes it all-- including the need to periodically re-infect himself! Check it out.

Posted by shgreene ( Sep 14 2009, 09:23:10 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

Wednesday February 18, 2009

Sexist men?

Salon's Rebecca Traister has a great takedown of some new research that shows, astoundingly, that men objectify women in bikinis!. The horror. Traister:

Researchers performed brain scans on 21 heterosexual men and found that such sexy images light up the part of their brains associated with tools or other things that "you manipulate with your hands" (like, boobs!). Lead researcher Susan Fiske of Princeton University said "it's as if they immediately thought to act on theses bodies" and observed, "They're reacting to these women as if they're not fully human."...
The study doesn't suggest that men philosophically determine all scantily clad women to be "things," treat bikini-wearing women like objects or are incapable of seeing women as both sexual and animate. It simply found that a barely there get-up meant to display the female body tends to trigger in men a simplistic sexual response...
Another of the study's the-sky-is-blue findings is that of the array of images shown to the men -- including shots of fully clothed men and women -- they most remembered the photos of the half-naked women. Also unsurprising, although interesting nonetheless, is that men who were deemed to be "hostile sexists" based on their answers to a questionnaire showed no activity in the region of the brain associated with "social cognition" when viewing snapshots of the beach-ready women. In other words: Men with loads of anger toward the opposite sex "are not thinking about [the women's] minds," said Fiske. Sadly, much of the media coverage I've seen has generalized that finding to suggest that it was generally true for the male subjects.

There's been lots of really interesting research on the brain and sex and differences in response between men and women (see Bonk by Mary Roach), but this particular research, seems to tell us little other than the authors' political agenda.

Posted by shgreene ( Feb 18 2009, 10:43:43 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]

Sunday September 21, 2008

Don't get over yet While I'm at it with clearing out the blog backlog of stuff I meant to write a while ago that's still worth reading... last month I heard a great story on Fresh Air with the author of a new book on the science of traffic. As someone who is almost daily frustrated by the many inefficiencies of typical traffic (especially poorly-timed lights), I found it quite fascinating.

Among the more notable findings: when you lose a lane and you need to get over, do not do it immediately. You are not actually be antiscocial by waiting to get over, but using the traffic lanes more efficiently thus reducing the total amount of waiting time to merge. Of course, all those who got over immediately don't know this, and their refusal to let you in only adds to the inefficiency. Ideally, you get a nice turn-taking procedure just before you finally lose the lane. The Times actually ran a nice little story on how this is supposed to work:

FIRST, EVERYBODY REMAINS UNRUFFLED, without abrupt changes of lane or speed, as the lane-drop comes into view. Everybody takes three deep, cleansing breaths ? all right, the experts didn?t say that, but they meant to ? and considers both the imminent needs of everybody else and the system as a smoothly functioning whole.

Then everybody begins to slow, not too much, all in concert. All cars remain in their lanes, using all the real estate. (On the question of frontage roads and exit-only lanes, the experts waffled; those are arguably part of the real estate, they agreed, but they are meant for a different purpose, and this scenario relies upon everybody buying into the same rules. So no frontage-roading or fake-exit-laning, unless there?s a sign specifically instructing otherwise.) People in the narrowing left lanes refrain from shooting ahead, while people in the right through lanes ? this is hard to swallow, for those of us inclined toward vigilantism, but crucial ? leave big spaces in front of their cars for the merging that is about to commence. We resist the freeze-out-the-sidezoomer urge. We prepare to invite them in.

Finally, at clearly marked or somehow mutually agreed upon places, everybody starts conducting beautiful ?zipper merges.? That?s the technical term ? one-two, one-two or one-two-three, one-two-three ? as indicated by the roadway configuration. The process has now worked at its ideal efficiency/equitability ratio: if all have behaved correctly, the tunnel passage has been both benign and, relatively speaking, quick. Personal sacrifice has been called for, to be sure. The former sidezoomers have sacrificed the pleasure of high-speed bypass, also known as I Beat Out the Stupid Sheep Just Now, Ha Ha (less truculent rendition: I Want to Get Home More Than I Care About Strangers Whose Faces I Can?t Even See). The former lineuppers have sacrificed the pleasure of self-congratulatory umbrage, also known as Hmph, Good Thing Society Has People Like Me. Together we have all ascended to the traffic decorum of the army ants, who as Vanderbilt observes are among the earth?s most accomplished commuters, managing to get from one place to another in large groups without cutting each other off, deciding their time is more valuable than everybody else?s, or ? apparently this is the fast-lane domination method for certain traveling land crickets ? eating anybody who gets in the way.

Actually getting the vast majority of drivers to do this would probably not be all that easy (look how hard it is to keep those slowpokes out of the left lane), but still, seems like it would be a great idea to emphasize this in Driver's Ed, just like they do other rules of good driving. Who knows, we could actually end up spending less time waiting in construction zones. Not that I'm holding my breath.

Posted by shgreene ( Sep 21 2008, 11:09:07 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

Wednesday July 23, 2008

Mirror, mirror on the wall A few weeks ago I read a fascinating article in The New Yorker about the neurobiology of itching. Among the more interesting aspects of the article were the medical uses of mirrors to essentially cure persons of unexplainable, chronic itches, as well as phantom limb problems. Yesterday's Science Times likewise had a fascinating article on mirrors and human perception. Some of the more interesting tidbits:

Other researchers have determined that mirrors can subtly affect human behavior, often in surprisingly positive ways. Subjects tested in a room with a mirror have been found to work harder, to be more helpful and to be less inclined to cheat, compared with control groups performing the same exercises in nonmirrored settings. Reporting in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. Neil Macrae, Galen V. Bodenhausen and Alan B. Milne found that people in a room with a mirror were comparatively less likely to judge others based on social stereotypes about, for example, sex, race or religion.

?When people are made to be self-aware, they are likelier to stop and think about what they are doing,? Dr. Bodenhausen said. ?A byproduct of that awareness may be a shift away from acting on autopilot toward more desirable ways of behaving.? Physical self-reflection, in other words, encourages philosophical self-reflection, a crash course in the Socratic notion that you cannot know or appreciate others until you know yourself.

This finding is just really great. You are not as attractive as you think:

For that matter, humans do not necessarily see the face in the mirror either. In a report titled ?Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Enhancement in Self-Recognition,? which appears online in The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Nicholas Epley and Erin Whitchurch described experiments in which people were asked to identify pictures of themselves amid a lineup of distracter faces. Participants identified their personal portraits significantly quicker when their faces were computer enhanced to be 20 percent more attractive. They were also likelier, when presented with images of themselves made prettier, homelier or left untouched, to call the enhanced image their genuine, unairbrushed face. Such internalized photoshoppery is not simply the result of an all-purpose preference for prettiness: when asked to identify images of strangers in subsequent rounds of testing, participants were best at spotting the unenhanced faces.

And here's something that Kim refuses to believe (and, she's not alone):

When we look in the mirror, our relative beauty is not the only thing we misjudge. In a series of studies, Dr. Bertamini and his colleagues have interviewed scores of people about what they think the mirror shows them. They have asked questions like, Imagine you are standing in front of a bathroom mirror; how big do you think the image of your face is on the surface? And what would happen to the size of that image if you were to step steadily backward, away from the glass?

People overwhelmingly give the same answers. To the first question they say, well, the outline of my face on the mirror would be pretty much the size of my face. As for the second question, that?s obvious: if I move away from the mirror, the size of my image will shrink with each step.

Both answers, it turns out, are wrong. Outline your face on a mirror, and you will find it to be exactly half the size of your real face. Step back as much as you please, and the size of that outlined oval will not change: it will remain half the size of your face (or half the size of whatever part of your body you are looking at), even as the background scene reflected in the mirror steadily changes. Importantly, this half-size rule does not apply to the image of someone else moving about the room. If you sit still by the mirror, and a friend approaches or moves away, the size of the person?s image in the mirror will grow or shrink as our innate sense says it should.

There's a few more interesting tidbits in the full article.

Posted by shgreene ( Jul 23 2008, 04:07:45 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

Tuesday June 03, 2008

Mmmmm, bugs! William Saletan has quite the interesting entry today on how we can solve the global food crisis-- eat more bugs! Apparently, there's quite a bit to recommend this approach:

Consider the nutritional value of the humble cricket: Each 100 grams of dehydrated tissue has 1,550 milligrams of iron, 340 milligrams of calcium, and 25 milligrams of zinc -- three minerals often lacking in the diets of third-world countries. If you're ever lost in the woods, three crickets a day will meet your iron needs. Compared to beef or pork, bugs deliver more minerals and healthier fats.

Bugs are also more energy-efficient. Crickets deliver twice as much edible tissue as pigs and almost six times as much as steers based on the same food input. And that's not counting their superior rate of reproduction. One scholar calculates that overall, they're 20 times more efficient than steers.

That global food crisis you've been reading about? No problem. An Asian expert reports that in Thailand, each family can raise crickets independently on a tiny parcel of land. In a pair of villages, 400 families are cranking out 10 metric tons of crickets during the peak season....

You say bugs are gross? Why? Is it the exoskeleton? The appendages? The weird eyes? Guess what: You already eat animals with these characteristics. They're called crustaceans. Shrimp, crabs, lobsters -- they're arthropods, just like crickets. They're also scavengers, which means their diets are as filthy as any bug's.

Given that I studiously avoid shellfish (I like to claim that I'm kosher) this argument did not really work on me. I'm just going to have to stick with burgers, pizza, and global food shortages.

Posted by shgreene ( Jun 03 2008, 04:35:57 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

Thursday May 01, 2008

Primates, toys, and gender socialization Its pretty popular to think these days that all those differences between little boys and girls, e.g., crashing toy cars vs. dressing up as a princess are largely a process of gender role socialization. An interesting new study of monkeys (rhesus macaques) suggests that, rather there is something inherent in our primate DNA that helps explain the toy preferences of children. From quirks and quarks:

We all know the stereotypes -- little girls prefer dolls while little boys prefer toy trucks. Just exactly how much this has to do with cultural influence or inherent biology has been the subject of some pretty intense debate. Dr. Kim Wallen, a psychologist with the Yerkes Primate Research Center and Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, has been studying sex-specific toy preferences in rhesus monkeys. Dr. Wallen says that male monkeys prefer stereotypical male toys over soft and cuddly dolls. He says the results support the notion that these preferences are likely inherent in humans as well. [you can listen to it here]

What is especially interesting is that the male monkeys had a really strong bias for the stereotypically male toys, while the female monkeys were quite happy playing with either. It would seem to suggest, then, that socialization might actually play a larger role in little girls' toy preferences than for boys.

Posted by shgreene ( May 01 2008, 12:23:46 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

Thursday April 17, 2008

The future of renewable energy I was listening to a depressing interview the other day on NPR about how the increasing demands for limited fossil fuels will have increasingly important geopolitical consequences-- and probably not so good for the United States. The simple fact is that most of the oil and natural gas reserves are in nations with governments one would not exactly call benevolent and enlightened. It is absolutely shameful how much energy our nation of SUV's, and 90 minute commutes, and McMansions wastes, but I came across two interesting articles this past week which really suggest a promising future for good old solar energy as a potentially important future energy resource.

Forget solar photovoltaics which only work when the sun it out, the key is to store that solar energy for use during cloudy times and at night. Looks like the technology is already pretty much there. The key is Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) From Salon:

after speaking with energy experts and seeing countless presentations on all forms of clean power, I believe the one technology closest to being a silver bullet for global warming is the other solar power: solar thermal electric, which concentrates the sun's rays to heat a fluid that drives an electric generator. It is the best source of clean energy to replace coal and sustain economic development. I bet that it will deliver more power every year this century than coal with carbon capture and storage -- for much less money and with far less environmental damage.

The key innovation-- molten salt:

The key attribute of CSP is that it generates primary energy in the form of heat, which can be stored 20 to 100 times more cheaply than electricity -- and with far greater efficiency. Commercial projects have already demonstrated that CSP systems can store energy by heating oil or molten salt, which can retain the heat for hours. Ausra and other companies are working on storing the heat directly with water in the tubes, which would significantly lower cost and avoid the need for heat exchangers.

Amazingly, it all sounds quite realistic:

CSP makes use of the most abundant and free fuel there is, sunlight, and key countries have a vast resource. Solar thermal plants covering the equivalent of a 92-by-92-mile square grid in the Southwest could generate electricity for the entire United States. Mexico has an equally enormous solar resource. China, India, southern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Australia also have huge resources...

The technology has no obvious bottlenecks and uses mostly commodity materials -- steel, concrete and glass. The central component, a standard power system routinely used by the natural gas industry today, would create steam to turn a standard electric generator. Plants can be built rapidly -- in two to three years -- much faster than nuclear plants. It would be straightforward to build CSP systems at whatever rate industry and governments needed, ultimately 50 to 100 gigawatts a year growth or more.

The New York Times also had a nice story on the topic this week, including a cool graphic of how the storage works.

Consider me sold. As depressing as all of our future energy and climate problems might seem, I am pretty optimistic at what technology can accomplish if we just set out mind to these sorts of things before it is too late. We can make our renewable energy future a smooth, gradual transition or an abrupt painful one. I'm obviously hoping for the former, but fear the latter.

Posted by shgreene ( Apr 17 2008, 11:10:31 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

Tuesday February 19, 2008

Monkey see, monkey do, monkey buy Great article in the New York Times last week about how important subtle mimicry is in human relationships, especially the art of persuasion:

Psychologists have been studying the art of persuasion for nearly a century, analyzing activities like political propaganda, television campaigns and door-to-door sales. Many factors influence people?s susceptibility to an appeal, studies suggest, including their perception of how exclusive an opportunity is and whether their neighbors are buying it...

They have found that immediate social bonding between strangers is highly dependent on mimicry, a synchronized and usually unconscious give and take of words and gestures that creates a current of good will between two people.

By understanding exactly how this process works, researchers say, people can better catch themselves when falling for an artful pitch, and even sharpen their own social skills in ways they may not have tried before...

In a recent experiment, Rick van Baaren, a psychologist at Nijmegen University in the Netherlands, had student participants go to a lab and give their opinions about a series of advertisements. A member of his research team mimicked half the participants while they spoke, roughly mirroring the posture and the position of their arms and legs, taking care not to be too obvious.

Minutes later, the experimenter dropped six pens on the floor, making it look like an accident.

In several versions of this simple sequence, participants who had been mimicked were two to three times as likely to pick up the pens as those who had not...

The key, though, make sure you are actually subtle, as opposed to say a child trying to annoy someone:

The idea is to be a mirror but a slow, imperfect one. Follow too closely, and most people catch it ? and the game is over...

Dr. Bailenson, the Stanford psychologist, has been testing the effects of different forms of mimicry by programming a computer-generated figure, an avatar, to mirror the movements and gestures of people in a study.

He has found that his subjects pick up the mimicry when it is immediate and precise. If the avatar is slightly out of sync, however ? waits four seconds, for instance ? then the mimicking goes unnoticed, and the usual rules apply. The virtual creating comes across as warm and convincing, as if controlled by another human.

Obviously, natural salespeople are intuitive successful at these strategies. As for me, no I was not copying you.

Posted by shgreene ( Feb 19 2008, 11:06:40 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]

Tuesday February 05, 2008

Don't breathe the pig brains! From yesterday's Washington Post:

A new disease has surfaced in 12 people among the 1,300 employees at the factory run by Quality Pork Processors about 100 miles south of Minneapolis.

The ailment is characterized by sensations of burning, numbness and weakness in the arms and legs. For most, this is unpleasant but not disabling. For a few, however, the ailment has made walking difficult and work impossible. The symptoms have slowly lessened in severity, but in none of the sufferers has it disappeared completely.

While the illness is similar to some known conditions, it does not match any exactly. Nor is the leading theory of its cause something medical researchers have studied. That is because the illness appears to be caused by inhaling microscopic flecks of pig brain.

Don't worry, though, chances are your job does not expose you to this risk. The Times has a nicely detailed story, which includes:

A man whom doctors call the ?index case? ? the first patient they knew about ? got sick in December 2006 and was hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic for about two weeks. His job at Quality Pork was to extract the brains from swine heads...

On Nov. 28, Dr. DeVries?s boss, Dr. Ruth Lynfield, the state epidemiologist, toured the plant. She and the owner, Kelly Wadding, paid special attention to the head table. Dr. Lynfield became transfixed by one procedure in particular, called ?blowing brains.?

As each head reached the end of the table, a worker would insert a metal hose into the foramen magnum, the opening that the spinal cord passes through. High-pressure blasts of compressed air then turned the brain into a slurry that squirted out through the same hole in the skull, often spraying brain tissue around and splattering the hose operator in the process.

Just remember that next to you want to complain about your job.

Posted by shgreene ( Feb 05 2008, 02:50:43 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]

Wednesday January 16, 2008

It's all about the bacteria This week's science news that a particularly nasty strain of MRSA (a highly antibiotic resistant staph bacteria) is becoming the scourge of gay men in San Francisco has given me the push for finally posting on the best non-fiction book I read last year: Good Germs Bad Germs by Jessica Snyder Sachs. This book helps explain how we got to the point where we have a previously easily-treated type of staph that is now resistant to 6(!) potent antibiotics. At first, the book was quite distressing, as we learn the story of how the amazing hubris and shortsightedness of modern medicine has led us to a point where, after a golden age of antibiotic success, it seems that we may again be facing many bacterial diseases for which there is no effective treatment. The good news, is that scientists are using a variety of truly amazing (and smarter) techniques to come up with new ways to fight bacteria that should not lead to this current cycle of creating resistance. What I found most interesting about the book, though, is the emphasis on "good germs." In truth, the human body is really a complex ecosystem that has evolved symbiotically with hundreds of bacterial species over tens of thousands of years. I've been telling everyone I know my favorite fact from the book-- for every one of your own cells, you have ten cells of bacteria. The vast majority of these are quite beneficial to you, though. A clear lesson, both in terms of antibiotic resistance and autoimmune disorders, is that we should be very careful in messing with this ecosystem. I've also mentioned to a number of people that I've never been on antibiotics and I've been quite surprised at just how uncommon this appears to be. I'm also bummed that I have my own (very minor) autoimmune disorder (seasonal allergic rhinitis, i.e., hayfever) despite this fact. Last factoid: children are less likely to acquire autoimmune disorders if they: spend time in daycare, have a family dog, and have older siblings-- all of which expose people to a broad range of bacteria.

I could go on, but I'll stop. The book is great-- I actually stayed up and lost sleep several nights while I was reading it. For a short auditory introduction, check out the podcast on it from Quirks and Quarks.
Posted by shgreene ( Jan 16 2008, 11:57:31 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]

With Daily Alcohol Use, Male Fruit Flies Court Other Males The headline says it all. Details here:

A team of researchers at Penn Sate has used an animal model to reveal, for the first time, a physiological basis for the effect of alcohol on male sexual behavior, including increased sexual arousal and decreased sexual inhibition. The research resulted in four novel findings with broad importance for further addiction research. It is the first study to characterize the effects of chronic alcohol exposure in fruit flies...

Among the team's discoveries is that male fruit flies, which typically court females, also actively court males when they are given a daily dose of ethanol.

Posted by shgreene ( Jan 16 2008, 12:26:52 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]