But, would they still have the ammo if the story had been told a different way? What if the researchers hadn’t used the words “neural stem cells” in the title of their paper? Maybe a tale of reckless research methods would be better for everyone.

Here are the facts as we know them:
1)    The boy received injections of fetal neural cells.
2)    The boy has tumors.
3)    The tumors are derived from the injected cells.

It looks like an open and shut case against this therapy treatment, but it’s not. Instead, it a very complex situation that is also a harbinger of the trouble to come without proper regulation.

First, the boy was being treated for a genetic disorder called ataxia telangiectasia in which the area of the brain responsible for movement deteriorates over time until the individual is no longer able to move and eventually dies. Exactly why the boy’s parents enrolled their child in the therapy trial is unclear; aside from the hope that this treatment, any treatment would help their ailing son.

Considering that the disorder is genetic, there is no reason to expect that injecting stem cells would be beneficial. There is no evidence that injected stem cells would migrate to the deteriorating locations, and once there, whether they would or even could act to replace the problematic tissue. According to Wired Science, the boy’s condition did not improve, so it can be inferred that the cells did not fix the implicated brain tissue.

The second issue here is the legitimacy of using fetal stem cells in the treatment of brain disorders and injuries. The cells used in this study were from the neural tissue of 8-12 week old aborted fetuses. At this stage of development, it is assumed that the cells within different tissues have already begun the differentiation process. Once differentiation has occurred it is unlikely that stem cells from the brain will turn into liver cells. By working with differentiated cells, researchers hope to have tighter control of the activity of the cells.

However, stem cells have a propensity to divide. In this manner they are very similar to cancer cells. In fact, there is evidence that points to stem cells as the culprits in certain kinds of cancer. The injected fetal cells were expected to divide (hopefully to create helpful neural tissue), but the scientists had no way of knowing for certain where the division would lead.

The final, and possibly the most crucial, question regarding this case is whether or not the cells were actually neural stem cells. Dr. Evan Y. Snyder, Professor at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, and Director of the Program in Stem Cell & Regenerative Biology and the Stem Cell Research Center, whose lab was the first to isolate human neural stem cells way back in 1998, is familiar with the Russian scientists who ran the stem cell study. His analysis is that their therapeutic protocol lacked methodological rigor.

“Although the Russians claim to be using “neural stem cells”, they are not. They essentially take whole fetal brain, put in a Cuisinart, and inject it uncharacterized as a graft slurry,” wrote Dr. Snyder on The-Scientist.com.

When I asked him how he knew so much about their method, he said that he visited the Russian research site when they were initiating their investigations. He spoke with the surgeons about their methods and how the cells were provided to them.

“We told them they were doing it wrong. They found our procedures too tedious.”

Dr. Snyder and his colleagues have a paper in revision at the New England Journal of Medicine in which they analyzed the cells used in a similar case from the same group, and concluded that they were not likely to be neural stem cells.

“I am actually disappointed that the Israeli scientists who analyzed this material did not do a more careful characterization of the actual donor-derived tissue and cells. Had they done so, they would have known, as well, that what they saw could not have come from a rigorously defined neural stem cell,” says Dr. Snyder.

It is therefore possible that Israeli report is in fact inaccurate in its attribution of the tumor to “neural stem cells.” They found the abnormal growth to be made up of several different cell types, which is unusual for cancerous tumors. The variety of cell types, making up a neoplasm, is more in line with the development of undifferentiated stem cells than what would be expected from the injection of truly differentiated neural stem cells.

“This case has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimate biology and uses of stem cells, particularly neural stem cells,” wrote Dr. Snyder.

He further elaborated by saying, “The Israeli authors were not sufficiently skeptical or inquisitive enough… True normal neural stem cells likely do not have the capacity, without a series of mutations, to give rise to neoplasms. I do not believe it is part of their biology.”

Taken as a whole, this is a tragic story, which can hopefully be taken as a lesson. Proper regulation, not cessation, of stem cell therapy research will reduce the number of casualties from improper research methods. It will legitimize the research and reduce the number of rogue laboratories in foreign countries where people are almost certain to lose their lives in the search for a cure. And, it will speed the process of finding therapies that actually work.

A couple of weeks ago I recevied a PR email from Summit/Zoom Werks, the production company responsible for the movie Push (which was quite thoroughly reviewed by Mark last week).

“I wanted to touch base with you to see if you might have any interest in the subject of “Remote Viewing”? We are working on a motion picture about this subject and we have a professional Remote Viewer, Jack Rourke, who is consulting with us. Mr. Rourke has had extensive experience in this arena and has conducted work for government and law enforcement agencies.

As you may know, Remote Viewing (RV) refers to the attempt to gather information about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means or extra-sensory perception. Typically a remote viewer is expected to give information about an object that is hidden from physical view and separated at some distance.

It is a fascinating subject and apparently governments around the world employ individuals with this ability. I don’t know what the success ratio is for a Remote Viewer in accomplishing his/her assignments but it triggers a most interesting debate.”

So, off the bat, the email addressed my scientific interests, claiming Push to be a movie based in fact, promoting remote viewing as a credible practice. This approach immediately raised my hackles, since, as far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence supporting the viability of this ESP technique. Just because “governments around the world employ individuals with this ability” doesn’t mean it actually works.

A 1995 review of the literature concludes that although remote viewing experiments resulted in better than chance results (termed “small to medium” effects), there was no way of confirming the result was due to a psi phenomenon. The review also argues against the usefulness of remote viewing for intelligence gathering purposes.

Verdict? The science fails to back-up the claims. Did they really think it was a good idea to try to sell me on the film using this kind of an unsupported pitch? It wouldn’t be worth my radio time because there really is no debate. People who believe in this psychic phenomenon would present anecdotes, and I would have to keep repeating myself… “There is no convincing experimental evidence published in major peer-reviewed journals.” Boooring!

However, don’t get me wrong. I love a good science fiction story. So, I grabbed a girlfriend and went to the movies.

I won’t review the film itself because Mark did a great job of that. I will say that despite the flimsy plot, I did enjoy myself. The film itself is cinematically interesting with unique lighting, color, and pacing. It was difficult to “suspend my disbelief” given my initial bias due to the email, which made the plot even harder to choke down.

I think part of the problem with Push is a problem for many movies these days. They don’t create the make-believe world well enough for the audience to completely let go of the real world. Or, they place unbelievable things into the real world without giving them enough support. Just saying, “well, that’s the way it is,” doesn’t really fly anymore.

That said, there are people in Hollywood really trying to make more believable films. Astrophysicists are consulting on films about outer space. Scientists are talking to film makers. Scientists are even starting to write scripts.

Science is getting more and more visibility as more and more scientists start using the media to their advantage. This makes it a useful vector for the publicists who know little to nothing about science, but need to find an angle to get their people into the TV and radio interviews. This is how Jack Rourke becomes the possible interview subject rather than a scientist. And, after seeing the film, I’m not exactly sure what he possibly could have added to the production of the film as a consultant aside from his name.

I am looking forward to many more such PR efforts, but publicists be warned to use the science angle at their peril.

The results for the large part suggest that people become increasingly set in their ways or resistant to change after their 20′s. The 20′s are a time of exploration and massive change. Then it is all downhill.

“The fact that an age-dependent pattern of decreasing openness appears around the globe and in all cultures suggests, according to biopsychologists, a genetic basis.”

Why? What about shared social and situational patterns? People are people, remember…

“The brain is always trying to automate things and to create habits, which it imbues with feelings of pleasure. Holding to the tried and true gives us a feeling of security, safety, and competence while at the same time reducing our fear of the future and of failure,” writes brain researcher Gerhard Roth of the University of Bremen in Germany in his 2007 book whose title translates as Personality, Decision, and Behavior.

Why don’t we think about this from another angle: the brain isn’t “trying” to do anything. The brain functions in a manner that makes certain behaviors more rewarding than others. The reward pathway leads to certain behaviors gaining prevalence over others, and to certain patterns of behavior. Anxiety and fear inducing behaviors are not necessarily as rewarding, so those behaviors don’t persevere. However, the fact that many people are rewarded by the adrenaline rush of risk-taking demonstrates that even more negative behaviors can win out. This brain researcher has watered down what is going on so much that it loses its significance.

The writer takes three pages to get to the best idea of the article:

“… set more reasonable goals and recognize that achieving even modest change will be difficult.”

Finally.

I received a like to a strange website today after relating a dream I had to the Twitterverse. Apparently,…

“This morning we traversed from harmonic 21 into 43 just before 4AM Mountain time zone. This would have been a time of active dreaming about lizards, snakes and monsters (harmonic 43).”

Which, according to the blog explains why I awoke from my dream about cobras at 4am. And, the fact that two other individuals on Twitter shared T-rex and monster dreams was not a random occurrence, but actually linked through harmonic timewaves. My dream was the result of timewave 5358438447. Or, so it says.

I will not argue that there are common themes shared in dreams. That in itself is quite interesting.

I will not argue that maybe this universe is the result of vibrations (of what I will make no guess). It is one possibility.

However, I balk at anyone thinking that they have a numerological method of linking the two. Especially, someone who has no basic understanding of probability:

“What are the chances that three posters would have such similar dreams in a strictly random universe?”

Can he tell me the chances that Ruth Bader Ginsberg would have cancer twice during her long and illustrious career? Unfortunately, the chances were quite high. I wish her luck in her recovery as science and medicine do what they can.

I’m tired of people yelling at each other from opposite sides of the fence. Pick a side! Pick a side! I’m right! You’re wrong!

It doesn’t matter what the issue is these days. Everyone has an opinion whether or not it is well-informed, and that opinion is chained to the concrete slab in the ground that defines an issue. And, like dogs protecting a house, the barks are loud. Intimidating.

The chances of breaking that chain or moving the concrete are slim. So, how do you stop the barking? Drown it out with barking of your own? Adding to the noise just increases the din that drowns out reason.

Do you keep walking past the house until you can’t hear the noise, until the barking stops on its own? Just being there provokes the dog’s angry response.

So, what do you choose? And, why?

This past week, I asked Twitter whether or not people thought the public’s interest in global warming had cooled. I had just read a NYT article reporting on polled data suggesting such a trend. The responses I received were quite interesting.

Now I know that Twitter is by no means a random sample of people. Most of the individuals on Twitter are tech savvy information junkies, which slants the population right off the bat. Secondly, the wording I used was meant to get peoples’ attention. Using ‘global warming’ instead of the new, less evocative term ‘climate change’ immediately catches the eye of the opinionated.

My first, entirely unscientific result was that the population within Twitter who responded to my question paralleled the poll results. People are much more concerned about the economy and job stability these days than whether or not the ice sheets might melt someday. This all seems to jive quite well with the human “hierarchy of needs” developed by a guy named Abraham Mazlow, wherein physiological needs must be met before people can attend to their psychological growth. When we were in times of economic plenty, people had more time to consider global issues like the environment and climate change, and to potentially make changes in their lives according to a certain perspective. Now, with jobs on the line, people are more self-interested, and less likely to be concerned about global issues.

However, the season could also be a factor in the waning climatological interest. Most places are too cold right now for people to be thinking about the more generalized (and less extreme) warming trend that has been measured around the globe. Also, with the economy and the US Presidential transition taking up time/space in the media for the past few months, it may just have fallen off of peoples’ radar.

The second result of my request was an onslaught of anthropogenic global warming deniers. What people believe wasn’t even part of my question. Yet, here they were telling me in no uncertain terms that human-induced climate change is a bunch of hogwash. Maybe in their own way, they were answering my question in the negative. Obviously, the issue has not cooled for some.

Working in science communications, I think it is very important to tell a correct tale, and to help people understand what is going to affect their lives. Somehow, the climate issue has been compounded beyond reporting the facts as they appear into an emotional and politically divided issue. There doesn’t seem to be a way to discuss the science anymore without triggering someone’s hot button.

The scientific debates of the climatologists have expanded into battles that include the meteorologists, the geologists, the pundits, and Joe Blow. The media hasn’t helped. There is a glut of misinformation, and misleading and politically biased content, which makes discerning the accurate reporting more difficult than it should be. Who do you turn to when the path isn’t clear? Who do you trust? It seems that most people turn to their ideological roots. They go home.

Home is comfortable and safe, making it a difficult place from which to move people. People resent the attempt to move them. Do you know many people who react well to being told that they are wrong? It’s hard to even find that quality among scientists.

So, how do we stop the reactionary defense of an ideological stance?

I suggest that we change the topic entirely.

Shall we leave the science of the climate to the scientists, and get to work on more pressing issues? This is not a new idea. It has already seen some success in redirecing peoples’ energies. Suddenly, climate change has been replaced with topics like energy independence and transfer of renewable technologies to developing nations.

By changing the climate change topic, which has an arguably pessimistic, end-of-the-world tone into a more positive, results-based discussion, the din has softened to mere clamour.

Where else can the topic be changed, and how?

“Acupuncture Stops Headaches, But ‘Faked’ Treatments Work Almost As Well”

Really? Interesting headline, I thought to myself, and proceeded to ingest the release. I have a love-hate relationship with acupuncture, you see. I don’t believe that it actually works. The evidence certainly hasn’t piled up in acupuncture’s clinical favor.  Yet, I have a friend or two (who I love dearly) who attend acupuncture school, and plan to make the craft their careers. So, I had to read on… maybe there is proof to my friends’ claims.

The release discussed two clinical reviews: one related to acupuncture and migraines, the other to acupuncture and tension headaches. The criteria for inclusion of trials in the review seemed fair enough. The reviewers looked at all randomized studies with at least two month long observation periods comparing acupuncture treatment to control, sham treatment or another intervening treatment, like massage or relaxation.

The review of studies related to tension headaches found that acupuncture was better than treatment for acute headaches or simple routine care, and that real acupuncture was better (marginally) than sham acupuncture. Interestingly, studies involving other treatments were considered too flawed to allow any conclusions to be drawn. I find this unfortunate because one of the main questions related to acupuncture is whether the relaxation and skin palpation that takes place during the process of acupuncture might have something to do with the perceived results.

The migraine review concluded that acupuncture was helpful to migraine sufferers, but that real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture. It is even questionable whether needle placement is important for positive results. This suggests that there are other processes at work in the migraine mitigation.

Overall, the suggestion of the authors is that acupuncture is a useful addition to any migraine or tension headache treatment regime. Alright, I thought, at least it doesn’t appear to have any negative effects (according to the reviews), and it might be better than dealing with the side-effects of drug-treatments.

Then I checked the authors’ declaration of interest:

“This review includes trials in which some of the reviewers were involved, as follows: Allais 2002 – Gianni Allais; Jena 2008 – Benno Brinkhaus; Linde K 2005 – Benno Brinkhaus and Klaus Linde; Streng 2006 – Klaus Linde; and Vickers 2004 – Andrew Vickers. These trials were reviewed by at least two other members of the review team. Gianni Allais, Benno Brinkhaus and Adrian White use acupuncture in their clinical work. Gianni Allais receives fees for teaching acupuncture in private schools. Klaus Linde has received travel reimbursement and, in two cases, fees from acupuncture societies (British, German and Spanish Medical Acupuncture Societies; Society of Acupuncture Research) for speaking about research at conferences. Eric Manheimer and Andrew Vickers both received an honorarium for preparing and delivering presentations on acupuncture research at the 2007 meeting of the Society for Acupuncture Research. Adrian White is employed by the British Medical Acupuncture Society as journal editor and has received fees and travel reimbursements for lecturing on acupuncture on several occasions. Benno Brinkhaus has received travel reimbursement and fees for presenting research findings at meetings of acupuncture societies (British, German and Spanish Medical Acupuncture Societies).”

Heh. They’ve all got a vested interest in the outcome of these reviews. However, who better to review acupuncture research than acupuncturists? The experts in the field.

In my view, there is a conflict of interest here, which should be better conveyed to the public. What do you think?

However, I do wonder how much of what I choose is actually free-will as opposed to programmed responses. We know that there are intrinsic neural responses within the brain. They are present from even before birth. The brain goes through a period of incredible growth when you are young. During which time new synapses are being formed at the fastest rate of your life.

Information enters the brain through your sensory system, and is checked against internal signals. Neural pathways are strengthened and weakened accordingly. The immense branching system is pruned according to what the brain receives from the outside world.

We know that there are sensitive periods within the development of the brain that if missed result in the loss or impairment of function. Speech and vision are but two of the available examples. We also know that the human brain and the neurons within it function in much the same way as those belonging to the organisms we employ for study; albeit with more neurons and exponentially greater complexity of connectivity.

We know that neurons respond reliably to given inputs. We can predict the behavior of many organisms because of basic neural principles like conditioning and habituation. And, I’m not denigrating the complexity of the human mind here, but we can also predict the behavior of people in certain situations. It’s because of basic neural principles that create behaviors.

So, what I learned, what my brain learned, while I was young and oh so impressionable has a HUGE impact on the choices I make. How do I know how much of my daily repertoire of behaviors are simply programmed reactions to environmental stimuli? Does it even matter? As long as everything works, should I care if it is real free will?

Well, where it bothers me is in the application of measures to take advantage of what we know about the brain and peoples’ behavior, namely in marketing. I’ve been reading George Lakoff’s recent book, The Political Mind, and while I have some issues with the overall tone of the book and some of his assumptions, I do think that he is onto something.

He poses the idea that people repond to what they hear, read, watch in the media with programmed predictability because of the associations we learn while we are young, and that the conservative Republican party has been immensely better at making use of these subconscious linkages than other parties (specifically the pesky progressive Democrats). I think he’s right. The Republican party has done an excellent job of using marketing tactics to their advantage.

Good marketing works, but where will it stop? As we learn more and more about our brains there will be more and more fodder for manipulation. More opportunities to make peoples’ choices for them.

And, on that frightful note, I leave you on this scariest of days prior to one of the most nationally important days (at least until the next election or something major happens) to ponder the choices you are to make and why you are making them.