Archive for the ‘Science’ Category
 Tom "Standing Next To Books Makes Me Look Smart" Horne Arizona School Superintendent Tom Horne has lost his ever-loving mind.
In yet another example of state politicians abusing their power to harass the state’s minority population, Horne has filed a subpoena against researchers at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. The subpoena seeks the release of confidential, personal information that can identify participants in a study looking at the effect of the state’s English Language Learning (ELL) policy.
Here’s the deal: Arizona’s ELL programs require that all ELL students be segregated from general classes for four hours every day, and taught English language skills, until the student is capable of passing a standardized English test. Critics of the program, however, assert that ELL classes provide sub-standard teaching of course material, causing ELL students to lag behind their English-speaking peers.
Researchers at The University of Arizona and Arizona State University addressed this question by looking at the quality of education in ELL classrooms. One investigator assessed ELL implementation in 18 classrooms in five school districts and found the instruction to be inferior than that received by other students. In January 2000, Arizona was cited by the U.S. District Court for Arizona for failing to provide equal funding for ELL classes compared to non-ELL classes, thereby violating the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.
Currently, the January 2000 decision is being reconsidered in a federal court case, Horne v. Flores, which contends that changes in Arizona’s ELL policy and funding once more make the program compliant with federal regulations. However, the studies cited above are being used as part of the case against Arizona’s ELL classes.
Which is why Horne’s lawyers have filed for a subpoena, demanding that the researchers involved turn over their raw data, which includes the names and addresses of study participants.
The problem is that it would be unethical for investigators to turn over their data. All researchers who work with human subjects — every single one — must have their studies reviewed and approved by their institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). This is a lengthy and detailed process that includes a requirement that the identities of subjects be protected under all circumstances. There are even instances in some studies where the identities of study participants (or other sensitive information) are even protected from certain investigators.
Horne’s lawyers argue that they require the raw data from the studies in order to determine if they were appropriately collected and analyzed. Magaret Dugan, Arizona’s Deputy School Superintendent, suggested that study authors may have deliberately picked school districts critical of ELL, and thereby biased their study.
However, Dugan and Horne fail to acknowledge that the study methodologies of these studies have been peer-reviewed by the IRB committees of their respective institutions. Any issues of bias or sample size have already been addressed by these scrupulous reviewers. Furthermore, if the study is to be published (I’m not sure if it has been), than the methodology will undergo a second round of peer-review. It’s naive for Arizona’s Superintendents to insinuate that the investigators in this study deliberately biased their sample, and that none of the study’s peer-reviewers caught on; they are, in essence, accusing an entire community of researchers of conducting bad science.
In fact, the accusation would be insulting, if it weren’t hilariously ironic. Explaining the state of Arizona’s reasoning for requesting release of the study participant’s information, Dugan characterized the classroom selection as“slanted”. She further said, “At least I would like for them to have surveyed districts and teachers who are positive about the model.”
In other words, Dugan takes issue not with the possibility that the studies were biased… but that they were biased in the wrong direction! And how should we correct it? Choose to sample classrooms in such a way as to fix the outcome.
I don’t think Horne and his colleagues can even spell “scientific method”, let alone recognize the flaws in Ms. Dugan’s proposed solution.
(And Ms. Dugan is running to replace Tom Horne as Arizona School Superintendent, folks. This state is so fucked.)
Posted in Arizona, Elections, Local, Politics, Science | 5 Comments »
I must have missed the memo that said we are still living in the 1980’s.
I am a proud blood donor. I donate a pint every 8 weeks — which is as often as a person is able to donate — because I firmly believe that this small act can help to save lives. Blood donation is quick, relatively painless, and critical to preserving the health of victims of accident and illness. If I or someone I love were in the hospital, I wouldn’t want the lack of available blood to stymy the medical treatment available to us; I want to be able to thank an anonymous blood donor for their selfless gift of blood that hopefully will save my, or my family’s, lives. The American Red Cross makes blood donation absurdly convenient, and they even reward you with cookies and sandwiches with every visit!
Yet, our national blood reserves are dwindling. The American Red Cross estimates that roughly 1 in 30 — that’s 3% — of Americans capable of donating blood actually do so. Even fewer donate more than once or regularly. Hence, I urge everyone I know to take the time to donate — even if you have an “undesirable” blood type. I’m A-positive, which is one of the least desirable types out there.
Yet, my one exception to the whole blood donation process is that nagging question asked of during the screening process: are you a male — or have you had sex with a male — who has had sexual contact with another male since 1997? Translation: are you or your partner gay?
Answering yes to this question immediately disqualifies you from donating blood — and it is based on an archaic fear that AIDS remains a “gay disease”. Because AIDS began (in America) in the gay community, there’s still a public perception out there that AIDS is only contracted by gay men through homosexual sex. This is despite the fact that thirty years of scientific research has quickly established that the HIV virus does not discriminate based on sexual orientation – gay and straight men and women can all contract AIDS through unprotected sex.
The Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety — a committee that makes recommendations on blood donation guidelines to the Food and Drug Administration (which in turn tells the American Red Cross who can and cannot donate blood) — has banned donation from gay men based on statistics: they believe that because gay men are more likely to be HIV-positive, it’s easier to protect the nation’s blood supply from the virus by simply banning this “high risk” group of donors. And, it’s true that AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community. But, HIV is also more prevalent in African-American communities. In fact, the AIDS epidemic has reached such heights amongst sexually active Black adults that, in the D.C. area, it is estimated that 7% of Black men are HIV-positive. Blacks, only 13% of the national population, represent nearly half of new AIDS diagnoses each year. In other words, based on the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety’s rationale for their ban on gay blood donation, Black men and women should also be prohibited from donating blood. Yet, we know instinctively that such a ban would be racist and discriminatory.
The point is that banning African-Americans from donating blood because of higher-than-average rates of HIV/AIDS contraction within that community is as ludicrous as banning gay Americans from donating blood. HIV and AIDS does not transmit via race, or via sexual orientation. It is scientific fact that the HIV virus transmits by unprotected sexual contact, by transfusion of contaminated blood, and by sharing of needles.
If the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety wants to protect the national supply from HIV/AIDS, they should ban behaviours scientifically proven to increase the risk of contracting the virus. Just as they ban potential donors who have visited countries that have suffered bloodborne epidemics (such as Mad Cow’s Disease in the United Kingdom), they should ban all donors (regardless of race or sexual orientation) who engage in unprotected, risky sex or who are intravenous drug users.
Not surprisingly, current screening tests prior to blood donation ask if a donor has had unprotected sex (or sex with an HIV-positive partner) or uses drugs, and theoretically already weeds out those who are actually at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS without having to ask after the donor’s sexual orientation. Yet, the American Red Cross is bizarrely obliged to filter out in their screening process gay men who are monogamous, practice safe sex, or who are even abstinent — based purely on the misguided belief that their sexual orientation still puts these potential donors at risk for AIDS.
Now, I have always believed that this ban on gay blood donation is an archaic holdover from the 1980’s, and that it would be immediately overturned when examined by modern politicians. Yet, this morning, the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety voted to uphold the national ban on gay blood donation even while they called the ban “suboptimal”. The American Red Cross currently estimates that roughly 219,000 pints of blood are being turned away by this ban on gay donors. I simply cannot understand the thinking of the Federal Advisory Committee on this matter — it appears to based purely on unscientific and discriminatory misperceptions of what HIV is and how it is transmitted. Call me naive, but I simply cannot believe that such irrational and specious thinking remains at the highest level of our government in the 21st century.
I also wonder: if members of the Advisory Committee (or the Family Research Council, which released a statement in abject praise of the Committee’s decision) were in need of blood, would they still shy away from blood donated by a gay male based on hysterical, illogical fears of contracting AIDS? Somehow, I doubt it very much. So, why are these people working to prevent that much-needed blood from saving the lives of others?
Act Now! Contact the FDA today and urge them not to follow the advice of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety’s, and to lift the national ban on gay blood donation. Also, go to the American Red Cross’s blood donation website to schedule a blood donor visit at your local bloodbank, or even to host a blood drive at your office!
Posted in Act Now!, Health and Fitness, Politics, Science | 8 Comments »
 This creature is banned in Arizona. In yet another example of how Arizona Republicans have lost their minds, Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill last week that bans the creation of any “human-animal hybrid” for the purpose of research.
SB 1307 defines a “human-animal hybrid” as:
(a) A human embryo into which a nonhuman cell or cells, or any component part of a nonhuman cell or cells, have been introduced.
(b) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with a nonhuman sperm.
(c) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a nonhuman egg with human sperm.
(d) An embryo produced by introducing a nonhuman nucleus into a human egg.
(e) An embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a nonhuman egg.
(f) An embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human and a nonhuman life form.
(g) A nonhuman life form engineered so that human gametes develop within the body of a nonhuman life form.
(h) A nonhuman life form engineered so that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly or predominantly from human neural tissues.
It’s not entirely clear that researchers in Arizona are attempting to produce any so-called “human-animal hybrids”. In fact, most researchers working on human stem cells work on, well, human stem cells; there are several human stem cell lines that are currently available to researchers.
However, the bill’s author, Representative Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) claims that the bill was initiated by reports of a British group that developed human(-ish) stem cells by inserting human DNA into fertilized bovine eggs. Now, this technique is quite cool; basically, you take a fertilized egg and removet its nucleus (which contains all the DNA, the blueprints needed for functioning). You replace that nucleus with human DNA (obtained from skin cells), and allow the bovine proteins to operate under the instruction of the new DNA, producing cells that are 99.9% human stem cells.
However, because Republican politicians don’t understand science, they think that scientists are hell-bent on making the next ManBearPig, the half-man, half-bear, half-pig monstrousity popularized in South Park.
First of all, human stem cells generated by making “cybrids” (cellular hybrids of two species) will not produce a ManBearPig — if these cells are even viable in the long-term (which they’re not), they would produce a creature that is predominantly human. Secondly, there’s no value in making a ManBearPig; no one is interested in creating a human-animal hybrid creature.
Thirdly, and most importantly, existing laws prohibit the growth of human (or human-ish) embryos past 14 days, so there’s no fear that a human-ish Man-Cow would be made using this technique.
No, the reasoning behind SB 1307 is not fear that a Man-Cow will terrorize the streets of Phoenix; it’s a fear that human embryos should not be made by any method other than by fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm — preferentially in utero. What the British group has done is program a cow stem cell to act like a human stem cell, and it is the act of programming (and not the subsequent creation) that terrorizes Republicans like Representative Barto.
Consider, for example, that the bill forbids the creation of an embryo by any combination of human and non-human parts. Barto isn’t even concerned by the fact that fertilization of a human egg by a non-human sperm (or vice versa) is, generally, impossible (chromosome numbers make all the difference, here, as any high school biology textbook could tell you). No, Barto fears that she will be eaten by a Man-Cow.
SB 1307 also bans the creation of any population of human stem cells by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm, and we cannot destroy the resuling population of cells for research. While the ban on “human-animal hybrids” is the hilarious part of SB 1307, the serious truth is that SB 1307 pretty much bans any human stem cell research in Arizona.
The problem here, though, is that bans like these actually limit the progress of science, and the cure of debilitating human diseases. In adult animals, most cells don’t grow — thus they have problems regenerating and repairing injuries caused by accident or disease. That’s why people with spinal cord injuries rarely regain function: their nerves are no longer able to grow to fix the damage. But, stem cells are cells whose only purpose is to grow. They can be readily encouraged to turn into nerve cells, skin cells, heart cells or liver cells — all just by putting them near the appropriate neighbour cells. Thus, these cells are theoretically capable of repairing any form of injury in the body.
But, because of existing hysteria regarding human stem cell research, scientists have limited access to human stem cells. Existing lines are contaminated with non-stem cells, and we cannot use existing embryonic tissue leftover from in vitro fertilization procedures (of which there are entire warehouses of unwanted material). So, the British scientists attempted to generate their own human stem cells using this “cybrid” technique — and it shows promise. If stem cells become a viable treatment alternative, “cybrids” may even be more cost-effective.
We can’t know how much promise stem cell research has for curing disease unless we, scientists, are allowed to figure it out. And legislation like SB 1307 — carried on capricious political winds — only throw roadblocks in front of science. How many people have to suffer, and ultimately die, due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and nerve-related injuries before these politicians will let scientists do our jobs in finding a cure?
Posted in Arizona, Local, Science | 7 Comments »
I recently agreed to blog on Change.org, a large progressive activism site, as one of their regular Race in America contributors. Here’s my first post over there:
This Stereotype Affects You, Too
We all intuitively know that stereotyping based on race is harmful. But surprisingly, there are comparatively few studies that examine how stereotyping occurs — and what is indirect effects might look like.
A new study, though, suggests that stereotyping is a psychological process that actually promotes a broader “stereotyping” attitude that affects all minority communities, not just the ones being actively stereotyped. In other words, my stereotype is your stereotype, too.
read more
Posted in Asian Americans, Blogging at Change.org, Racism, Science | 3 Comments »
 Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the study's primary author I just caught this on CNN: a 1998 study “showing” a link between measles vaccinations and autism has been retracted by The Lancet. The 1998 Wakefield et al. paper reported that in a study of 12 children, GI abnormalities and onset of autism was associated with a measles vaccination were found in 8 of the patients, leading the authors of the paper to conclude that the measles vaccination led to failure of the GI tract, causing waste to enter the blood and producing autism.
As you can see from the Pubmed abstract, the 1998 Wakefield et al. paper attracted heavy criticism and comment, sparking a heated debate in the published literature. Walker-Smith’s lab (out of which the original 1998 paper was published) issued a partial retraction in 2004, clarifying that the original paper was not intended to demonstrate a causal link between measles vaccine and autism. Furthermore, many papers published by other investigators subsequent to Wakefield et al. demonstrated findings contradicting Wakefield’s initial causal conclusion — yet, in the popular media, Wakefield et al’s paper became a fundamental piece of “evidence” in the growing anti-vaccination hysteria that has taken the country by storm over the last decade.
Well, score one for the scientists: this morning, The Lancet issued a historic retraction of the entire Wakefield et al. 1998 paper. The retraction read only three sentences long, yet I think it’s implications are profound:
Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.2 In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.
Basically, here’s what happened — recently, the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel met to discuss and review the investigative and ethical practices of the original 1998 Wakefield et al. paper. The panel found that, contrary to earlier reports, the study used shady and unethical practices for recruiting patients and collecting data, including Wakefield paying children for their blood samples at his son’s birthday party.
For those of you who don’t know, all human studies (like all animal studies) undergo a rigorous review prior to implementation to ensure that patient safety and scientific rigor are maintained. Very rarely does an investigator implement such poor scientific method that they invalidate their own findings, yet it turns out that Wakefield was one of these scientists.
Hopefully, this full retraction will begin to dismantle the rampant anti-vaccination hysteria we’ve seen in association with flu vaccines, chicken pox vaccines, and the latest H1N1 vaccine. I find parents’ fear of vaccination to be anti-intellectual at its core; they fear what they don’t understand.
But let’s get it straight: vaccines don’t hurt you, they help you. Vaccines can save your child’s life, and they sure as heck won’t give your kid autism. Go get your kid vaccinated already; when your kid gets sick, it’s already too late.
Posted in Health and Fitness, Science | 4 Comments »
|
|
