The four-alarm fire

I present to you three recent articles with a linked theme.

The first is about a study at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute for Medical Research in Australia, and describes an mRNA vaccine that appears to be capable of stopping malaria in its tracks.  The impact of malaria is astonishing, a fact that often escapes the notice of those of us who live in temperate parts of the world where it doesn't occur.  I still remember my shock, when one of my biology professors asked what species of animal has caused more human deaths than any other -- in fact, more than all the other animals combined.

Turns out, of course, it's the mosquito.  Between malaria, yellow fever, and dengue, and a host of other less-common diseases like chikungunya, eastern equine encephalitis, and West Nile virus, mosquitoes (actually several species, but lumping them together for the sake of simplicity) have by far outstripped all other animals in their negative impact on humans.  And of the diseases they carry, malaria is the worst, infecting an estimated three hundred million people per year, and causing six hundred thousand annual fatalities.

The new vaccine is, like the COVID-19 vaccine, an activated piece of messenger RNA.  In this case, it targets a gene in the malaria microorganism that is essential to the pathogen's reproduction within the mosquito.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Supyyyy, Double-stranded RNA, CC BY-SA 4.0]

In preclinical trials, the vaccine caused a 99.7% drop in transmission rates.  The potential impact of a therapy with this efficacy is astronomical, especially given that post-infection medical treatment for malaria is of limited benefit -- and has to be administered for the remainder of the patient's life.  A vaccine that could stop malaria transmission almost completely would have as great a positive effect on life in equatorial regions of the world as the smallpox and polio vaccines did globally in the twentieth century.

The second is a series of studies having to do with the use of mRNA vaccines to target cancer.  The difficulty with conventional chemotherapy is that it's hard to find chemicals that kill tumor cells without damaging your own tissues; as I'm sure many of you know all too well, chemotherapy drugs often come along with miserable and long-lasting side effects.  The effectiveness of mRNA cancer treatments is that the strand of mRNA can be designed to target tumor-specific antigens, turning them into what amount to "smart bombs" that destroy cancerous tissues without harming the rest of the body.  The therapy has been demonstrated to be useful against a variety of types of cancer, including the deadly and extremely hard to treat pancreatic cancer.  There has even been dramatic work done that has raised the possibility of a universal cancer vaccine -- something about which University of Florida researcher Duane Mitchell said, "What we found is by using a vaccine designed not to target cancer specifically but rather to stimulate a strong immunologic response, we could elicit a very strong anticancer reaction.  And so this has significant potential to be broadly used across cancer patients — even possibly leading us to an off-the-shelf cancer vaccine."

The third is that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just announced that he's canceling five hundred million dollars in funding for the development of mRNA vaccines.

Let me be blunt, here.

This action will kill people.

Not that RFK cares.  His dangerous lies were directly responsible for the vaccine avoidance that caused a devastating outbreak of measles in Samoa that killed eighty people, mostly children -- an action for which he has yet to take responsibility.  (This, of course, is hardly surprising; "It's someone else's fault" should be the new motto of the GOP.)

RFK has built his entire stance on lies.  He called the COVID-19 vaccine "the deadliest vaccine ever made," despite the CDC finding that vaccination saved more than two hundred thousand lives during the peak of the pandemic.  He has claimed without any scientific basis that all mRNA vaccines are dangerous, and in fact has talked about it in such a way as to lead people to believe that mRNA itself is a dangerous chemical, despite the fact that anyone who passed high school biology should recognize how ridiculous this is.  (I actually saw someone post, apparently seriously, that they would "never allow mRNA in their body," to which I responded, "good luck with that.")

I know there's some stiff competition, but I think RFK would top the list of the Most Dangerous Trump Appointees.  His fear-based, anti-science policies are going to directly result in deaths -- if we're lucky, it'll only be in the thousands, but if we have another pandemic, it could well be in the millions.  The scariest part is that I have no idea what we can do about it.  Besides not taking responsibility, the other thing the Republicans seem to be awfully good at is not bowing to pressure from knowledgeable experts.  In fact, being countered makes them double down and hang on even harder.

And can I point out here that almost half of the research funding RFK cut could be offset by canceling the plans for Trump's fucking Versailles-wannabe golden ballroom?

This is a four-alarm fire, and it seems like barely anyone is paying attention.  Certainly no one who can do anything about it.  This goes way beyond whether any of us will be able to get flu and COVID boosters this fall; this is about basic medical research that can save countless lives.  But ignorance and anti-science dogmatism are winning at the moment.

I just hope that we won't have to wait until a deadly global pandemic for people to wake up and start objecting -- and getting this ignorant, dramatically unqualified ideologue out of a position he never should have been appointed to in the first place.

****************************************

The return of the senses

The news has been pretty uniformly dismal lately.

I don't even have to list all the ways.  We've all been inundated by the headlines, not to mention how these developments have changed our lives, and it's becoming increasingly clear those changes aren't going away soon.  It's easy to get discouraged, to decide that everything is bleak and hopeless.

So today, I want to look at a new development that should make you feel at least a little better about what humanity can accomplish -- in this case, for people who have been through the devastating experience of losing a limb.

A high school friend of mine was involved in a terrible accident on his family farm and ended up losing both of his arms from the elbow down.  He was fitted with prosthetic arms, and after recovering managed amazingly well -- his courage and fortitude through this ordeal was something that inspired our entire school, and still inspires me to this day.  But his prostheses were no real replacements for lower arms and hands, and there was (and is) a lot he could not do.

Those limitations might soon be a thing of the past.

A collaboration between Chalmers University of Technology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, the University of Gothenburg, and Integrum AB (a Swedish medical technology firm), the Medical University of Vienna, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has produced prosthetic arms for three amputees in Sweden that interface directly with the user's nerves, muscles, and skeletons.  Not only does this mean that the patient has much improved fine motor control over the prosthetic hand, but the nerve connection runs both ways, not only delivering output to control what the hand does, but relaying input received by the hand back to the brain.

Put simply: this prosthesis has a sense of touch.

"Our study shows that a prosthetic hand, attached to the bone and controlled by electrodes implanted in nerves and muscles, can operate much more precisely than conventional prosthetic hands," said Max Ortiz Catalan, who headed the research and was lead author on the paper describing it that appeared last week in the New England Journal of Medicine, in an interview with Science Daily.  "We further improved the use of the prosthesis by integrating tactile sensory feedback that the patients use to mediate how hard to grab or squeeze an object.  Over time, the ability of the patients to discern smaller changes in the intensity of sensations has improved."

The new prostheses, as amazing as they are, are just the first step.  "Currently, the sensors are not the obstacle for restoring sensation," said Ortiz Catalan.  "The challenge is creating neural interfaces that can seamlessly transmit large amounts of artificially collected information to the nervous system, in a way that the user can experience sensations naturally and effortlessly."

It's kind of amazing how fluid the human brain can be.  Neuroscientist David Eagleman, in his brilliant talk "Can We Create New Senses for Humans?", describes our sensory organs as being like the peripherals in a computer system -- and explains how quickly the brain can learn to obtain the same information from a different peripheral.  Some of his examples:

• blind people using echolocation -- clicks -- to create a "soundscape" and navigate their surroundings
• in a separate experiment, the blind using a head-mounted camera connected by an electrical lead to a flat, horseshoe-shaped piece of metal resting on the tongue -- the camera translates what it "sees" into a pattern of tiny voltage changes in the piece of metal, which the brain converts to rudimentary visual images
• the hearing impaired using a vibrating vest hooked up to a microphone to learn to "hear" through the vibrations on their skin

For me, the most stunning thing about these examples is that the brain learns to reinterpret the signals coming from the "peripheral" -- in the first example, sounds activate the visual cortex; in the second, touch stimuli activate the visual cortex; in the third, touch stimuli activate the auditory cortex.  All neural signals are the same; the brain simply decides how to interpret them.  You literally are seeing with your ears, seeing with your tongue, or hearing with your skin.

Here, though, the peripheral really is a peripheral, i.e., a machine.  You're not co-opting one of your pre-existing senses for a different purpose; you're hooking in an external apparatus to your brain, receiving input from an array of computerized sensors.  You may have been reminded, as I was, of Luke Skywalker:

It's a phenomenal improvement over previous prostheses, that were moved by muscle contractions in the arm it was attached to; here, the prosthesis is not only mind-controlled, it sends information back to the brain about what it's touching, giving the wearer back at least the beginnings of a sense of touch.

"Right now, patients in Sweden are participating in the clinical validation of this new prosthetic technology for arm amputation," said Ortiz Catalan.  "We expect this system to become available outside Sweden within a couple of years, and we are also making considerable progress with a similar technology for leg prostheses, which we plan to implant in a first patient later this year."

So the news these days isn't all bad, even if you have to dig a bit to find the heartening parts.  Regardless of what's happening now, I remain an optimist about human compassion and human potential.  I'm reminded of the final lines of the beautiful poem "Desiderata" by Max Ehrmann: "With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.  Be cheerful.  Strive to be happy."

**********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is about a phenomenal achievement; the breathtaking mission New Horizons that gave us our first close-up views of the distant, frozen world of Pluto.

In Alan Stern and David Grinspoon's Chasing New Horizons: Inside the Epic First Mission to Pluto, you follow the lives of the men and women who made this achievement possible, flying nearly five billion kilometers to something that can only be called pinpoint accuracy, then zinging by its target at fifty thousand kilometers per hour while sending back 6.25 gigabytes of data and images to NASA.

The spacecraft still isn't done -- it's currently soaring outward into the Oort Cloud, the vast, diffuse cloud of comets and asteroids that surrounds our Solar System.  What it will see out there and send back to us here on Earth can only be imagined.

The story of how this was accomplished makes for fascinating reading.   If you are interested in astronomy, it's a must-read.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Viral assassins

In yesterday's post, we looked at viral remnants in our own DNA and their possible role in long-term memory formation.  Today, we'll consider the possibility of using viruses in a different way -- to fight bacterial infections.

As I mentioned yesterday, labeling a virus as "alive" is highly debatable.  They certainly don't seem to respond, at least not in the way a living thing ordinarily does -- moving toward or away from a stimulus.  They're so un-life-like that they can actually be crystallized in a test tube, which makes them more like strange, self-replicating chemicals than they are like organisms.

Which is what makes the research that was published in Cell this week even more astonishing.  In "A Host-Produced Quorum-Sensing Autoinducer Controls a Phage Lysis-Lysogeny Decision," by Justin E. Silpe and Bonnie L. Bassler, we learn about a type of bacteriophage (bacteria-killing virus) that seems to be able to sense its prey, and launch an attack when the colony is at its most vulnerable.

Model of a typical bacteriophage [Image is licensed under the Creative Commons Adenosine, PhageExterior, CC BY-SA 3.0]

The prey bacteria is Vibrio cholerae, and it's certainly a deserving target.  It causes cholera, which makes water reabsorption in the intestine run backwards -- the host begins to dump water and blood solutes into the intestine, resulting in diarrhea so severe that an adult can dehydrate and die within twelve hours.  With quick treatment, the survival rate is quite good; without it, over half of infected people die, usually within two days of the onset of symptoms.

The virus that Silpe and Bassler were studying, VP882, can wipe out entire colonies of Vibrio cholerae by detecting a set of molecules responsible for quorum sensing, which is how colonial bacteria are able to respond to their environment differently depending of how many are nearby.  When the number of quorum-sensing molecules is low, the virus and the bacteria coexist peacefully.  When it reaches a certain threshold -- meaning there are lots of bacteria there -- the virus suddenly becomes virulent, attacks the bacteria, and wipes out the entire colony.

Other microbiologists have been quick to see the implications.  If VP882 is capable of killing a colony of cholera bacteria swiftly and efficiently, it could potentially be useful as a therapy.  And if it works for killing Vibrio cholerae, why couldn't it work for attacking other kinds of bacteria?  "If you have a lung infection, you might not be able to diagnose what bacteria [are] responsible in time and choose the right phage," said Mark Mimee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  "To get around that, people use cocktails of different phages.  But manufacturing cocktails and adhering to drug regulations is too expensive...  [But] a single recombinant phage—yeah, that would be really interesting."

In other words, create a single viral assassin that could take out any sort of bacteria you wanted.  Silpe and Bassler were able to get VP882 to respond to signals from other bacterial species, including E. coli and Salmonella, but it remains to be seen if you could engineer one kind of phage that could take on any species of bacteria.

It remains to be seen if this would be a good idea.  In a normal, healthy human body, there are right around the same number of human cells and bacterial cells -- on the order of thirty trillion.  Having a normal intestinal and skin "flora" is critical for good health.  It's been shown that in order to treat intractable cases of ulcerative colitis and infection with Clostridium difficile (another bad guy of the bacterial world), there is a good chance that a fecal transplant will help.

Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like.  I'll leave the details of the procedure to your imagination out of respect for my more delicate readers, but suffice it to say that it results in replacing the sick person's intestinal flora with that of a healthy person -- and has a remarkably high cure rate.

So my question is -- apropos of the viral research by Silpe and Bassler -- if you are given a dose of phage intended to treat (for example) strep throat, what's to stop the phage from wiping out all the other bacteria they come into contact with?  I know the chemical signals differ -- that's how they modulated the kill switch for the virus with the three species of bacteria they worked with -- but it seems like there's a huge possibility for this to go very, very badly.  Yes, the therapy would have to be tested exhaustively and approved by the FDA, but the whole thing is a little worrisome, whatever its promise.

In any case, this highlights how little we understand the unseen microscopic world we're immersed in.  Viruses may not be the unresponsive little blobs we thought they were.  And as for VP882 -- it will be fascinating to see where this goes, and if we might have another weapon in our medical arsenal -- a virus that attacks bacteria.

*************************

One of the best books I've read recently is Alan Weisman's The World Without Us.  I wouldn't say it's cheerful, however.  But what Weisman does is to look at what would happen if the human race was to disappear -- how long it would take for our creations to break down, for nature to reassert itself, for the damage we've done to be healed.

The book is full of eye-openers.  First, his prediction is that within 24 hours of the power going out, the New York Subways would fill with water -- once the pumps go out, they'd become underwater caves.  Not long thereafter, the water would eat away at the underpinnings of the roads, and roads would start caving in, before long returning Manhattan to what it was before the Europeans arrived, a swampy island crisscrossed by rivers.  Farms, including the huge industrial farms of the Midwest, would be equally quick; cultivated varieties of wheat and corn would, Weisman says, last only three or four years before being replaced by hardier species, and the land would gradually return to nature (albeit changed by the introduction of highly competitive exotic species that were introduced by us, accidentally or deliberately).

Other places, however, would not rebound quickly.  Or ever.  Nuclear reactor sites would become uninhabitable for enough time that they might as well be considered a permanent loss.  Sites contaminated by heavy metals and non-biodegradable poisons (like dioxins) also would be, although with these there's the possibility of organisms evolving to tolerate, or even break down, the toxins.  (No such hope with radioactivity, unfortunately.)

But despite the dark parts it's a good read, and puts into perspective the effect we've had on the Earth -- and makes even more urgent the case that we need to put the brakes on environmental damage before something really does take our species out for good.

Statistical fudging

The last thing we need right now is for people to have another reason to lose their trust in scientists.

It's a crucial moment.  On the one hand, we have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which just a week and a half ago released a study that we have only twenty or so years left in which we can take action to limit the warming to an average of 1.5-2.0 C by 2050 -- and even that will almost certainly increase the number of major storms, shift patterns of rainfall, cause a drastic rise in sea level, and increase the number of deadly heat waves.  And it bears mention that a lot of climate scientists think that even this is underselling the point, giving politicians the sense that we can wait to take any action at all.  "It’s always five minutes to midnight, and that is highly problematic," said Oliver Geden, social scientist and visiting fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany.  "Policymakers get used to it, and they think there’s always a way out."

Then on the other hand we have our resident Stable Genius, Donald Trump, who claimed two days ago that he understands everything he needs to know about climate because he has "a natural instinct for science."  To bolster this claim, he made a statement that apparently sums up the grand total of his expertise in climatology, which is that "climate goes back and forth, back and forth."  He then added, "You have scientists on both sides of it.  My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years, Dr. John Trump.  And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but... I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture."

It bears mention that Dr. John Trump was an electrical engineer, not a climatologist.  And Donald Trump didn't even ask him for an opinion.

So we have scientists trying like hell to get the public to see that scientific results are reliable, and people like Trump and his cronies trying to portray them as engaging in no better than guesswork and speculation (and of having an agenda).  That's why I did a serious facepalm when I read the article sent to me a few days ago by a friend and frequent contributor to Skeptophilia, Andrew Butters, author and blogger over at Potato Chip Math (which you should all check out because it's awesome).

This article, which appeared over at CBC, comes from a different realm of science -- medical research.  It references a paper authored by Min Qi Wang, Alice F. Yan, and Ralph V. Katz that appeared in Annals of Internal Medicine, titled, "Researcher Requests for Inappropriate Analysis and Reporting: A U.S. Survey of Consulting Biostatisticians."

If the title isn't alarming enough by itself, take a look at what Wang et al. found:

Inappropriate analysis and reporting of biomedical research remain a problem despite advances in statistical methods and efforts to educate researchers...  [Among] 522 consulting biostatisticians... (t)he 4 most frequently reported inappropriate requests rated as “most severe” by at least 20% of the respondents were, in order of frequency, removing or altering some data records to better support the research hypothesis; interpreting the statistical findings on the basis of expectation, not actual results; not reporting the presence of key missing data that might bias the results; and ignoring violations of assumptions that would change results from positive to negative.  These requests were reported most often by younger biostatisticians.

The good news is that a lot of the biostatisticians reported refusing the requests to alter the data.  (Of course, given that this is self-reporting, you have to wonder how many would voluntarily say, "Yeah, I do that all the time.")

"I feel like I've been asked to do quite a few of these at least once," said Andrew Althouse, biostatistician at the University of Pittsburgh.  "I do my best to stand my ground and I've never falsified data....  I was once pressured by a surgeon to provide data on 10-year survival rates after a particular surgical intervention.  The problem — the 10-year data didn't exist because the hospital hadn't been using the procedure long enough...  The surgeon argued with me that it was really important and pleaded with me to find some way to do this.  He eventually relented, but it was one of the most jarring examples I've experienced."

[Image is in the Public Domain]

McGill University bioethicist Jonathan Kimmelman is among those who are appalled by this finding.  "If statisticians are saying no, that's great," he said.  "But to me this is still a major concern...  Everyone has had papers that are turned down by journals because your results were not statistically significant.  Getting tenure, getting pay raises, all sorts of things depend on getting into those journals so there is really strong incentives for people to fudge or shape their findings in a way that it makes it more palatable for those journals.  And what that shows is that there are lots of instances where there is threat of adulteration of the evidence that we use."

It's not surprising that, being human, scientists are prone to the same foibles and pitfalls as the rest of us.  However, you'd think that if you go into science, it's because you have a powerful commitment to the truth.  As Kimmelman says, the stakes are high -- not only prestige, but grant money.  Still, one would hope ethics would win over expediency.

And this is a particularly pivotal moment, when we have an administration that is deeply in the pockets of the corporations, and has shown a complete disregard for scientific findings and the opinions of experts.  The last thing we need is to give them more ammunition for claiming that science is unreliable.

But it's still a good thing, really, that Wang et al. have done this study.  You can't fix a problem when you don't know anything about it.  (Which is a truism Trump could learn from.  "Climate goes back and forth, back and forth," my ass.)  It's to be hoped that this will lead to better oversight of statistical analysis and a more stringent criterion during peer review.  Re-establishing the public trust in scientists is absolutely critical.  Our lives, and the long-term habitability of the Earth, could depend on it.

 ***********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is something everyone should read.  Jonathan Haidt is an ethicist who has been studying the connections between morality and politics for twenty-five years, and whose contribution to our understanding of our own motives is second to none.  In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics, he looks at what motivates liberals and conservatives -- and how good, moral people can look at the same issues and come to opposite conclusions.

His extraordinarily deft touch for asking us to reconsider our own ethical foundations, without either being overtly partisan or accepting truly immoral stances and behaviors, is a needed breath of fresh air in these fractious times.  He is somehow able to walk that line of evaluating our own behavior clearly and dispassionately, and holding a mirror up to some of our most deep-seated drives.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]

Scientific clickbait

I know I've said it before, but I hate the way media represents science (and hooks readers with inaccurate, misleading clickbait titles).

I ran into a good example of this, and saw numerous examples of people coming to the wrong conclusion because of it, in Business Insider a couple of days ago.  The article was called "A Chemical Used to Make McDonald's Fries Could Help Cure Baldness, Japanese Scientists Say," by Rosie Fitzmaurice.  And you'd think people would realize that saying that a chemical in McDonald's fries can help with baldness is not the same as saying eating McDonald's fries cures baldness.

You'd be wrong.  As of this time, I've seen four people crowing about how their diet of Big Macs and large fries is going to make them keep their hair (or grow it back), and one that, no lie, proposed rubbing McDonald's fries on your head.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

What's worst about all of this is that if you read the actual research, you find out that the chemical in question -- dimethylpolysiloxane -- isn't even what's stimulating the hair growth in the lab mice, it was merely used as an inert matrix in which to grow the stem cells that produced hair follicles.  (If you're curious about how it's ending up in french fries, it's because it's used as an anti-foaming agent in the cooking oil.)

So the article's bad enough, but along with the ridiculous title, it amounts to "How to completely misunderstand some scientific research in under five minutes."  It reminds me of the moronic article that appeared a couple of years ago over at (surprise!) Fox News Online called, "Study Says Smelling Farts Can Be Good for You."

I hope I don't need to tell you that no, that's not what the study found.  If (once again) you go to the actual research, you find out that one of the chemicals in farts (hydrogen sulfide) is also used in vanishingly small amounts as an intercellular chemical signal.  A new drug candidate called AP39 is showing potential therapeutic use because it causes the targeted release of hydrogen sulfide into your mitochondria, showing promise for treating a lot of age-related disorders that are associated with mitochondrial slowdown or malfunction.

In short: you do not experience the same effect if you take a deep breath when your coworker rips a big one.

Last, we have an article that appeared over at CNN this week (although I've read a bit about this research before) with the title, "Hot Tea Linked to Esophageal Cancer in Smokers, Drinkers," which isn't wrong so much as it is misleading.  This makes it sound -- and the article itself does little to correct that impression -- that a guy like me, who often has a beer or glass of wine with dinner, and likes a nice cuppa in the morning -- is boosting my risk of cancer of the esophagus, one of the deadliest of all forms of cancer.

If you're in the same boat, allow me to put your mind at ease.  What the research actually found was that people who drink "burning hot" beverages of any kind, not just tea, run the risk of esophageal cancer, especially when coupled with the esophageal damage caused by two other bad habits, smoking and heavy drinking.  It's been known for years that smoking and heavy alcohol use are the prime risk factors in what's called "Barrett's esophagus," where the esophagus becomes scarred and partially replaced by tissue similar to the stomach lining -- a condition that often presages cancer.  (Other risk factors are severe untreated or intractable reflux disorder, and being overweight.)  So it's unsurprising that if you already have predisposed yourself to esophageal damage by other habits, you're only going to make it worse by gulping down boiling hot liquids.

But that's not what the article implies.  What the article implies is that it's the tea that's the problem.  Which, of course, is much more likely to make people click on the link and give the website ad revenue than if they'd portrayed the findings correctly.

Anyhow.  I know I'm accomplishing nothing by bitching about this (what my dad used to call, appropriately enough, "a fart in a windstorm").  But it's really maddening.  If I can reach a few people, and encourage you to find the original research before you buy what the clickbait headline is telling you, that'll be enough for me.

Now, if y'all will excuse me, I'm gonna have a cup of tea.

Science news briefs

Okay, after some recent posts that fall into the "I don't want to live on this planet any more" category, time to go to my happy place, namely: some cool recent science news.

First, we have a study of "starquakes" -- turbulence in the outer layers of stars -- giving us information about the conditions in the gas clouds from which those stars formed millions of years ago.

A study of 48 stars in a cluster in the Milky Way, which condensed from the same gas cloud, showed that their rotational axes are all aligned.  According to Dennis Stello, of the University of New South Wales, it had been assumed that chaotic forces in the primordial gas cloud would have scrambled the stars' angular momentum, and made it impossible to determine that they had come from the same origins.  "Just as seismologists use earthquakes to understand the interior of our planet, we use starquakes to understand the interior of stars," Stello said.  "Our new study provides the first evidence that this approach is a powerful way to gain insights into processes that occurred billions of years ago, close to the beginning of the universe."

What has been learned from this study has the potential of extending further back in time what we can infer about the conditions that exist as stars are being formed.  "The benefit of studying ancient star clusters is that the interfering dust and gas has gone, yet the stars still preserve the signature of the initial conditions in the cloud where they were born," Stello said.  "Our finding that the spins of about 70 per cent of the stars in each cluster are strongly aligned, and not randomly orientated as was expected, tells us that the angular momentum of the gas and dust cloud was efficiently transferred to the new stars.  It’s remarkable that the imprint of these initial conditions can still be seen billions of years later, by studying tiny oscillations in stars that are many light years away."

From the world of biology, we have a study from scientists at the University of Basel (Switzerland) and Lund University (Sweden), wherein we find that the most efficient and beneficial predators in the world are... spiders.

Using statistical sampling techniques, a team of zoologists has calculated the mass of the prey consumed by spiders, and found that the 45,000-odd species of spiders worldwide consume between 400 and 800 million tons of prey a year, many of which are insects that have the potential of damaging crops or spreading disease.  

"Our calculations let us quantify for the first time on a global scale that spiders are major natural enemies of insects. In concert with other insectivorous animals such as ants and birds, they help to reduce the population densities of insects significantly," said Martin Nyffeler of the University of Basel, who was lead author of the study.  "Spiders thus make an essential contribution to maintaining the ecological balance of nature."

So think about that next time you see a spider in your house and are torn between squashing it or scooping it up and putting it outside.

Then, from the paleontologists, we have a discovery in India that pushes back the fossil record of the earliest photosynthesizing eukaryotes -- better known as algae -- by 400 million years.

Not only did a team of scientists led by Stefan Bengston of the Swedish Museum of Natural History identify 1.6 billion year old single-celled fossils from dolomite formed in shallow marine environments in what is now the Vindhyan Basin in central India, they were able to use a highly accurate scanning technique -- synchrotron-radiation X-ray tomographic microscopy -- to see the cellular machinery therein.

So yes: they took a look at the organelles in the cells of a 1.6 billion year old fossil.

And inside it were all of the familiar subcellular bits you learned about in high school biology, indicating that these were indeed eukaryotes (organisms with membrane-bound structures such as nuclei) instead of the more primitive prokaryotes (organisms that lack most cellular organelles, and which include bacteria).  The upshot: complex life has been around a lot longer than anyone realized.

Last, from medical research, we have a groundbreaking study of brain/body computer interfaces led by Ujwal Chaudhary of the Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology at the University of Tübingen (Germany) which allowed patients with locked-in syndrome to answer questions yes or no -- just by thinking about it.

Locked-in syndrome, which is top of my list of disorders I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, occurs when because of an injury, stroke, or neurodegenerative disease (like ALS) a person becomes completely unable to move, but without any loss of cognitive function.  In other words, you are aware but trapped inside a totally unresponsive body.  This condition was brought into the public eye by the phenomenal book (later made into a movie) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, by Jean-Dominique Bauby, who developed LIS after a massive stroke, but who eventually was able to communicate through eye movements well enough to write a memoir of his experience.

The authors write:

Despite scientific and technological advances, communication has remained impossible for persons suffering from complete motor paralysis but intact cognitive and emotional processing, a condition that is called completely locked-in state.  Brain–computer interfaces based on neuroelectrical technology (like an electroencephalogram) have failed at providing patients in a completely locked-in state with means to communicate.  Therefore, here we explored if a brain–computer interface based on functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)—which measures brain hemodynamic responses associated with neuronal activity—could overcome this barrier.  Four patients suffering from advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), two of them in permanent completely locked-in state and two entering the completely locked-in state without reliable means of communication, learned to answer personal questions with known answers and open questions requiring a “yes” or “no” by using frontocentral oxygenation changes measured with fNIRS.  These results are, potentially, the first step towards abolition of completely locked-in states, at least for patients with ALS.

Which is only the first step toward a brain/computer interface that might allow them to do much more -- at least allowing them to communicate despite having a condition that otherwise would shut them off completely from the world around them.

So there you are.  Some interesting news from science.  I don't know about you, but I feel much better now.  It's nice to know that despite the lunacy in the world, there are still people who are working toward improving our understanding of the universe.

And I, for one, find that very heartening.

The lure of young blood

You hear a lot about how we're a youth-obsessed culture, but really, humans have always been.  The ancient Greeks had a real mania for youth and beauty.  Witness the myth of Endymion and Selene, for example.  Selene, the goddess of the moon, saw the shepherd Endymion asleep one night, and thought he was so drop-dead handsome that she asked Zeus to keep him perpetually youthful -- and perpetually asleep.  So he did, proving that sometimes being blessed by the ancient Greek gods was as bad as being cursed.

On a darker note, we have the lovely figure of Countess Elizabeth Báthory of Hungary, who has been called the "most prolific female serial killer in history" -- the number of her victims perhaps being as high as 650.  Besides being a psychopath and (to put not too fine a point on it) crazy as a bedbug, Báthory allegedly liked to bathe in the blood of young women as a way to preserve her own youth and vitality.  It was this practice that she's best remembered for, and why she apparently was (along with Vlad the Impaler) the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Portrait of Countess Elizabeth Báthory [image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

I bring the whole blood thing up deliberately, because some research published just this week seems to indicate that there might be something to the whole youthful-blood thing after all.  Not bathing in it, however, or any other sort of superstitious nonsense, so don't start laying plans for beating the Blood Countess's record, or anything.

Researchers at Harvard have shown that there is a protein in blood that apparently functions to maintain physiological youthfulness.  More interesting, especially to us middle-aged folks, is that introducing that protein into the blood of an older animal seems to reverse the effects of aging.

Amy Wagers and Lee Rubin of Harvard's Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology did a pioneering experiment in aging by first surgically fusing the circulatory systems of a young and an old mouse, and second, injecting an old mouse with a blood protein called "GDF11."  Both procedures had the effect of reversing the symptoms of aging in the heart, skeletomuscular system, and brain.

"I cannot recall a more exciting finding to come from stem cell science and clever experiments," said Doug Melton, co-chair of HSCRB.  "This should give us all hope for a healthier future... We all wonder why we were stronger and mentally more agile when young.  And these two unusually exciting papers actually point to a possible answer: the higher levels of the protein GDF11 we have when young.  There seems to be little question that, at least in animals, GDF11 has an amazing capacity to restore aging muscle and brain function."

Human trials of GDF11 are scheduled to commence in three to five years.

I find the whole thing simultaneously thrilling and terrifying.  I'm no great fan of aging; I'm getting to the "gray hair," "way too many smile lines," and "forgetting what I was about to say" stage myself.  And the one thing I'm truly afraid of is debility.  I can honestly say that I'd rather be dead than bedridden and dependent.  So the idea that I might be able, with a simple injection of a protein, to restore some of my youth and vitality is pretty attractive.

On the other hand, aren't there some ethical issues here?  Not least the idea that we're already, as a species, using up far more than our fair share of Earth's resources, largely because of our explosive population growth in the past two hundred years?  A population surge that was caused by our eradication of childhood diseases and increased life span because of improved medical care?  If we really could reverse the effects of aging -- and likely further extend human life span, at least amongst the privileged individuals who could access this treatment -- would that not exacerbate the problem?  Is doing something that would allow the rich greatly extended life spans truly a ethical thing to do?

I'm not sure I know the answer to this.  Nor, if someone came up to me right now with a nice little syringe filled with GDF11, whether I'd have the moral backbone to say, "No, thank you."  It seems to me to fall into that scary realm of something that looks extremely attractive but is ultimately destructive.

Which brings to mind yet another Greek myth -- the story of the goddess Eris and the Apples of Discord.

So maybe the capricious and smite-happy Greek gods might have something to teach us, after all.