Archive for June 2015

For the second day, discussing a controversial topic in science I will be reviewing the efficiency of Alternative medicine.

But to what extent can we trust alternative medicine?

First of all, what is alternative medicine?

Alternative method contains the practice of: acupuncture, chiropractic and homeopathy. All of these techniques had not been proven by scientific methods.

The reason why it’s so popular is due to the power of anecdotal evidence. For example, you can hear from a friend that alternative treatment helped improve their back pain. At first, this may seem as the treatment works and you’ll want to try it. But you have to remember that the experience of a single person doesn’t prove that a treatment works the same for everyone. Sometimes the body gets better on its own or via a placebo effect, giving rise to the “it worked for me” response and encouraging more people to follow in their footsteps.

.................

Contrary to what the popular opinion is about alternative medicine, there is a lot of new research proving that there are some methods used to combat pain using alternative medicine that are efficient and it’s been scientifically proven that they work.

One study, published in the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies, looks at the effects of the so-called acupuncture meridian system (AMS) which is a key concept of Traditional Chinese Medical Science (TCMS). This is a natural network formed by the tissue space that connects human viscera and skin. In this study, a new hypothesis presents that the AMS is an auxiliary respiratory system. The AMS collects the CO₂ that is produced by tissue supersession and that cannot be excreted via blood circulation, and discharges the CO₂through the body's pores, consequently preventing a pressure increase in the internal environment. Therefore, local blood circulation will not be blocked, and the body will remain healthy. As well as neuroregulation and humoral regulation, AMS regulation is an important method of physiological regulation.

Although some of the experimental data provided has evidence supporting their new hypothesis, further studies are needed to prove it. Besides, based on the existing data, AMS is expected to have a bright future.

Through another study, published in the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies, acupuncture has been used to relieve cancer symptoms. Small amount (21%) of patients reported nausea, which was significantly reduced after the first session, but not the last session. Reductions represented clinically meaningful differences in 33–41% of patients after the first session and in 41–53% of patients after the last session for all symptoms, except nausea. A small subset of patients (0–8%) reported worsening symptoms after acupuncture. The majority were satisfied with the treatment.

The Honest Placebo...

This may not be alternative medicine, because it is still under scientific trials, but this piece of new research opens many doors to understanding how the human body treats itself. Scientists (Ted Kaptchuk and Kevin Fontaine) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham have found an amazing discovery with placebo pills.

Here’s what they did:

I.       Find people in pain (in this case people with IBS-Irritable Bowel Syndrome)
  II. Enrol them in the study
  III. Admit to them, that they cannot do anything to help them
  IV.      Give half of the test group a placebo pill and the other half nothing.
  V.        Tell the participants exactly what they’re doing

The weirdest thing is: it works!!!! To everyone's surprise, the treated group (the ones who received the fake pills) reported twice as much improvement as the untreated control group (the ones who didn’t get any pills). We all know that placebo pills are used in chemical trials to see if the tested drug works, and that the participants in the study aren’t meant to know whether they are taking a placebo or not. But in this trial the patients all knew that they were taking fake pills. A surprising discovery.

So how does it actually work?

"We believe there's some element of classical conditioning going on," Fontaine said. "Throughout your life, you take a pill and you see an effect. You take an aspirin, for instance, and it takes away your headache. There's an association there in your mind, and the idea is that the ritual of taking pills may actually produce a beneficial effect."

Since their discovery, the scientists are now planning on trialling their “open-label” placebo technique on cancer survivors, to see if the results are the same with them.

"We want to see if we can make any difference in symptom severity," Hoenemeyer said.

Is it possible, that after years of controversy, between the public, that GMO’s are safe?

There are many people for or against GMOs, but mainly against. Even though the public are showered with incorrect, and sometimes dishonest, information about GMOs a.k.a genetically modified organisms, scientists and science writers are working to correct any misconceptions about GMOs to the public and eliminate misleading data.

What are GMOs?

GMO’s are plants or animals that have gone under genetic modification: where scientists alter their genes with DNA from different species of living organisms, bacteria or viruses to get desired traits such as resistance to disease or tolerance of pesticides. Such as: apples that have been genetically modified to be resistant to browning.

Studies about GMOs...

The results from a meta analysis (conducted by Wilhelm Klümper, Matin Qaim, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Germany), studies the uncertainty about GM crop and reasons for public uncertainty. They found:

“On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.”

This study gives sturdy evidence that GM crops have aided the reduction of the use of pesticides and benefited farmers. The scientists hope that such evidence can “help to gradually increase public trust in this promising technology.”

Because not all GMOs are safe, we need to have methods that help us distinguish between legal genetically modified (GM) foods and and illegal GM foods. A study published in the journal of Food Chemistry has used an integrated “PCR-based DNA walking approach” which has recently been developed to identify unauthorised GMOs including a “pCAMBIA family cassette” that is frequently present in transgenic plants and the rice genome. After researching other methods and comparing them to their new approach, their suggested “DNA walking strategy” has been proven to be essential can easily prove, without significant additional cost and equipment, the presence of unauthorised GMOs in any given food/feed medium.

A study conducted in Ghent University states that: genetically modified crops with an increased vitamin and/or mineral content have a large potential to improve public health, but their availability for customers is still held back, as a result of negative public opinion. The research has recently published in the journal of Nature Biotechnology and it has demonstrated that these crops have a promising market potential.

Popular science have listed 10 myths and misunderstandings about GMO’s. They aimed to clear up any misconceptions; including the claim that “All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.” They prove that this isn’t true since there have been a lot of independent studies and also studies conducted by the WHO and they have all stated that the GMOs currently approved for market are safe. They also disprove the myth that GMOs have caused an overuse of pesticides, when in actual fact GM crops have reduced the dependence on chemical insecticides.

We also have to remember that even without laboratory-based genetic modification to produce GMOs, genetic modifications can occur naturally in organisms, albeit with a little bit of human interruption. Humans have been selectively breeding species of organisms with they’re desired traits (particularly in plants) such as better taste, yield or disease resistance.

Fraudulent and bias discoveries...

A French microbiologist, named Gilles-Eric Séralini and several colleagues released the results of a long-term study in which rats were fed genetically modified corn that contains improved resistance to insects and/or the herbicide: glyphosate. They took the extraordinary step of pre-releasing the paper to selected media outlets under a restriction on the condition that they sign a non-disclosure agreement; this prevented the journalists from seeking alternative scientific experts’ response to the journal and article. Then at a strategically planned media event they announced that their long-term studies found that the rats in experimental groups had developed tumours at an extremely fast rate. After the media event, the news of their “discovery”, the news travelled around the world and the story “went viral.”

It turns out that the researcher’s utilised a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumours as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose along with many other essential details such as the rats’ food intake). Considerably, mortality rates and tumour incidence in all experimental groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. Therefore, the claim that the genetically engineered corn component of the diet or the herbicide caused the tumours is insupportable. They also failed to release all of the scientific data from all their experiments, which is not only scientific misconduct but also makes their research invalid and hard to trust.

Why are people against GMOs?

The majority of popular opinion about GMOs is negative. Even though there has been a lot of scientific research to prove that some GMOs are safe there’s still public unrest. So a team of Belgian philosophers and plant biotechnologists have turned to cognitive science/psychology to explain why there is strong opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and why it has become so prevalent, despite positive contributions GM crops have made to sustainable agriculture. Their paper, published 10^th April 2015 in Trends in Plant Science, argues that the human mind is very vulnerable to all the negative and often emotional representations put out by certain environmental groups and other opponents of GMOs. The scientists commented:

"For a very long time people have only been hearing one side," Blancke says. "Scientists aren't generally involved with the public understanding of GMOs, not to mention the science of GMOs is highly counterintuitive and therefore difficult to convey to a lay audience--so they have been at a disadvantage form the start."

"We want to bring the two sides more together," Blancke says. "You cannot say every GMO is bad. You have to look at each case separately to make a judgement."

The Laboratory vs The Office. The comparison.

Woking in the office a.k.a Science Communication / Publishing:

There comes a point in which every scientist has had enough of the lab and they no longer want to work in the laboratory, no matter what field they're in. So they go out and look into other careers that they can go into that doesn't involve lab work (see this post by Nature).

Some scientists turn to science writing. Science communication is a great way to stick to your field and communicate science to the people with / without science background/education.

A comment / quote in a post in Nature: Soapbox Science, perfectly describes why we need science communication:

“It deals with an issue that is important not only, or even mainly, for the scientific community but also for the nation as a whole and for each individual within it. More than ever, people need some understanding of science, whether they are involved in decision-making at a national or local level, in managing industrial companies, in skilled or semi-skilled employment, in voting as private citizens or in making a wide range of personal decisions. In publishing this report the Council hopes that it will highlight this need for an overall awareness of the nature of science and, more particularly, of the way that science and technology pervade modern life, and that it will generate both debate and decisions on how best they can be fostered.“

Working in the laboratory:

The lab is the heart of science. It's where great discoveries have been made (such as the discovery of penicillin- even if it was an accident) and health breakthroughs have been made.

A poll on "I'm a scientist get me out of here!" asks people working in the lab of their opinions, here's one I particularly liked:

"I enjoy working in a lab. I find the things I’m researching interesting, so reading about it and thinking about it is fun – particularly as I get paid to think about things I find interesting. A lot of lab work is trying to work out what went wrong; it’s a lot of problem-solving. Experiments don’t work quite often and I have to try to find out why they haven’t worked, so I try to change what I’m doing slightly and try again. I find that kind of problem-solving quite satisfying, like a sudoku or something!.........."

____________

Do you prefer to work in a lab or behind the desk? Comment below.

I have found that, no matter what the context, I will click on nearly any article with a type of experience in the title. I enjoy reading peoples different views in what they work in, if its working on their PhD or working in a company or their undergrad studies.

Maybe you’re an ordinary person, not a scientist, and you've just clicked here for some light lunchtime reading. But if you’re a scientist, perhaps you can relate to my experiences in the laboratory.

If you personally know me you'll know that another hobby I have is cooking. I feel like the kitchen is like a laboratory except you make edible items. I think this is the basis for loving the laboratory, even if things go wrong its still a great place to work in. So here's a list of prominent things from my experience from working in a laboratory...

1. You don't know where time goes or what time it is...

You can easily forget that time goes by in the lab. When I was working on my project I would be shocked to look at the clock seeing that I had entered the lab at 9 am and what felt like 2 minutes later it's already 12pm! (That's also when I realise I've been standing there for ages and I'm really hungry)

2. You have a favourite laboratory...

Inorganic chemistry wasn't my favourite subject at university but it was my favourite subject to work in the lab for. The products you could make were physically appealing; one product we made almost resembled red glitter.

3. You break some things by accident...

I like to think I'm an organized person and very cautions of my surroundings, especially when it comes to the lab. but sometimes you can't help but break something, if its the glass stirrer your using (I'm guilty of this one) or a conical flask or the tip of a titration burette.

4. Sometimes you have to work with dangerous things.

I think this section can also be connected with number (2). As much as I could enjoy working in a lab I hate working with dangerous things, such as radioactive chemicals and things like caustic chemicals, infectious agents, highly electrified instruments, and other similar dangerous and stress-inducing things.

5. Sometimes it get a little bit too much...

Working in the lab is great but it can be tough because most of the time your experiments might not work and it makes you stress out and loose focus but there's always possibility that it will work and that what kept me going.

_____________________

What's your experience in the laboratory? Join the 30 day blogging challenge, I'd love to read your experiences and responses to the challenge - M :)

Hand sanitizer is everywhere, you find it in almost every store you go to and it’s widely available in hospitals. Hand sanitizing is beneficial to protect ourselves from harmful bacteria and viruses that can make us ill. Most people carry a bottle of hand sanitizer in their bag, especially when travelling (and especially on the London underground).

I was surprised to see that there is a video, scaring people from using hand sanitizer; featured in IF******LoveScience and DNews.

Recently new research has been published which tries to oppose the use of hand sanitizer by blaming its use on increased absorption of BPA levels in the body. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical that is used in a variety of consumer products, such as water bottles, dental composites and resins used to line metal food and beverage containers, and also is used in thermal paper cash register receipts. First data has emerged that BPA from thermal paper used in cash register receipts accounts for high levels of BPA in humans. Subjects studied showed a rapid increase of BPA in their blood after using the skin care product and then touching a store receipt with BPA.

Scientists at the University of Missouri tested human subjects who cleaned their hands with hand sanitizer and then held thermal paper receipts. As an added step, subjects who had handled the thermal paper, they then made them eat French fries with their hands; as a result, BPA was absorbed very quickly.

"Our research found that large amounts of BPA can be transferred to your hands and then to the food you hold and eat as well as be absorbed through your skin," vom Saal said. "BPA exhibits hormone-like properties and has been proven to cause reproductive defects in foetuses, infants, children and adults as well as cancer, metabolic and immune problems in rodents. BPA from thermal papers will be absorbed into your blood rapidly; at those levels, many diseases such as diabetes and disorders such as obesity increase as well. Use of BPA or other similar chemicals that are being used to replace BPA in thermal paper pose a threat to human health."

Furthermore, the BPA from thermal receipts is only activated if your hands are WET WITH hand sanitizer (which is highly unlikely).

What they fail to reiterate in the video is that the hand sanitizer was used contains triclosan (an antibiotic and anti-fungal agent), the culprit that makes BPA absorb into the body faster and that triclosan is based in non-alcohol hand sanitizers. They also fail to mention that the most popular hand sanitizers are the alcohol based ones. They have no triclosan in it at all. The active ingredient in alcohol based hand sanitizers is: Ethanol (57.6%).

Why is hand sanitizer utilized in hospitals then?

A study published in 2010 (by researchers from the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville and Dial Corporation, Scottsdale, in the journal of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy), suggests that hand sanitizers containing ethanol are much more effective at removing rhinovirus from hands than washing with soap and water. Sanitizers containing both ethanol and organic acids significantly reduced recovery of the virus from hands and rhinovirus infection up to 4 hours following application. Results showed that the ethanol hand sanitizer removed approximately 80% of detectable rhinovirus from hands and was much more effective than no treatment, water alone, or soap and water. Soap and water removed rhinovirus from 31% of hands. Proving that alcohol-based hand sanitizer can is beneficial in preventing illnesses due to viruses such as the rhinovirus.

So what can we take out of this post? That not giving the full information behind any story can lead to misinformation and scaremongering of people.