high in the crackmonkey's tree

I don't know how many of you have been following the stem cell controversy coming out of Woo Suk Hwang lab at the Seoul National University. If you'd like an overview of the publications involved, the timeline of the investigation, the eventual retractions, and some editorial information, Science Magazine Online has a special section dedicated to covering the events.

Briefly put, in a 2004 publication Hwang's group made the claim of having successfully performed derived a pluripotent stem cell line by somatic cell nuclear transfer. In English, the team replaced the nuclei of donated egg cells with nuclei from a different tissue. (Somatic literally means "body" and somatic cells refer to a cell from any developed tissue or organ in the body.) The paper further claimed that the eggs with transplanted nuclei were able to be triggered into faux-embryonic development, and that from these specially-engineered cells they were able to derive Embryonic Stem cell lines -- cells that can be maintained indefinitely in culture -- that corresponded genetically to the donated somatic cells.

In 2005 the team published a paper claiming that they'd used this technique to contstruct ES cell lines by transplanting nuclei from the skin cells of actual patients into donated eggs. The paper claimed that they'd successfully created 11 cell lines that corresponded perfectly to the individual patients' DNA. What this meant for the patients was that there was a source of cellular material capable of maturing into any tissue type in the body, that was completely genetically identical to them, and would never be identified as "foreign" by their immune systems. A patient with a spinal cord injury might have been told that it was very likely that this personalized cell line would be able to regrow neural tissue in their injured bodies. This was huge life-altering news on a personal level, and not merely headline-making scientific progress.

And now it turns out that every single claim in both papers was false. Data was fabricated and altered in a systematic fashion, down to the source and number of the donor eggs. Instead of relying on outside donors, female research technicians were pressured to donate their own eggs for the experiments.

I'm still at the point where I can't fully formulate my response to the news. The extent of the fabrication points to a widespread culture of deceit within the research group; in my opinion, that centers attention on the character of the Principle Investigator himself. If one or two pieces of data had been falsified, blame might have been shifted onto a junior researcher. Submitting a paper that had been constructed whole cloth out of fabricated data requires the complicity if not coercion of the senior researcher.

What would prompt an individual to publish such completely bogus work? This is a high-profile field of study with tangible repercussions in the field of medicine. Clearly there would be many labs trying to reproduce the Hwang lab's results, many physicians anxious to put the technique to use in clinical trials of their own. Eventually, the falsification would be uncovered and Hwang should have assumed that his position, funding, and reputation would all be seriously damaged. Yet he did it anyway. He published science fiction, raised the hopes of 11 patients -- all for what? A few months of glory? What did he get out of this fiasco?

I try to make sense of it all and I can't. I can only assume Hwang is a tragically imbalanced person who has not only destroyed his own life but the lives of many others.

Some really cool snippets from the decision against teaching ID in Dover, PA. Lifted from Carl Zimmer's blog.

p 24: we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

p29 ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.

p31 The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

p64 We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

p71 ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.

[Conclusion] p137 Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Scientists say cold noses reduce ability to fight virus attacks.

Joel Shurkin has a science blog that I read regularly. This particular article made me laugh out loud, more than once.

Documented evidence of wild gorillas using tools.

For my pregnant friends: An interesting article about changes in men's hormone levels during their wives' pregnancy. It can be found at Psychology Today online.

For the last few days I've been busy answering ads on craigslist (the furniture hunt continues) and haven't had time to exercise regularly. My body is not happy about this. I think it might be time to get a new membership to the Y so I can exercise at night.

On a completely different note, I want to hook up lizardsmae's xbox and play Morrowind. She was kind enough to loan it to me, the least I can do is get some enjoyment out of it. Oh well, maybe when the furniture situation is sorted.

On the soapbox

Okay, brief discussion of SDS (so called by researchers because it's an abbreviation of its proper IUPAC name, Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate rather than the antiquated Sodium Lauryl Sulfate).

First, remember that saying about oil and water not mixing? Well, it's very true and related to very specific chemical properties. That's why it's so difficult to get greasy stains out of your wash; the oils don't want to come out into the water and would rather hang on to the fibers of your clothes. This is where detergents come in, 'cause they're little split personality chemicals that have a greasy part on one end that mixes well with oils, and a salty part on the other end that mixes well with water. If you bring it into the picture, the greasy end will bundle up any oil that's on your clothing and let it be dissolved in the wash water.

This is handy for a lot of reasons, namely the fact that our bodies produce a lot of greasy fatty acids (perspiration, hair oil) that most of us would like to wash off in the shower, the laundry, and so on. And just so you know, the difference between the greasy oily stuff made by our bodies and something like engine oil is minimal: engine oils are made from the breakdown of plant substances while the stuff on our bodies is (obviously) from animal sources. Chemically speaking, they're more alike than not. This is why detergents like SDS can be found in a number of cleaning products; it does a wide spectrum of degreasing jobs.

The other nifty thing about detergents is the effect they have on cell membranes, the little capsule keeping a cell's contents together. Membranes are made of fatty stuff too, so a detergent will dissolve the membranes just like it would any other grease or oil. The end result: the cell pops open and dies. This is the reason "antibacterial soap" is completely unnecessary: all soap is by its chemical nature antibacterial! When you wash your hands well with soap and water, you're popping open the cell membranes of any bacteria that are on your skin. Therefore, soap and water = an "anti" (against) bacterial agent.

Now, the caveat: detergents can pull the greasy stuff out of cell membranes in your skin, too. This is why some soaps dry your skin out: these are the harsh soaps that do little bits of damage to it every time you wash. This is something to be aware of if you have sensitive or dry skin, or if you're using a product on a baby.

Regarding the variations of SDS you see, such as "sodium laureth sulfate" and "ammonium laureth sulfate:" these are all variations of the chemical that make it less strong a detergent. If you make the greasy part slightly less greasy (lauryl --> laureth) or the salty part less salty (sodium --> ammonium) it will make the soap slightly less stringent and hopefully more gentle on skin, hair, etc. It might do its degreasing job slightly less well but for cosmetic products it's a reasonable compromise.

/ end science lesson

"I have examined all of the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all founded on fables and mythology. Christianity has made one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
-Isaac Asimov

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider godfearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
-Aristotle, "Politics"

"I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies."
-Albert Einstein

"the fearsome invaders who, like most warlike races were only on the rampage because they couldn't cope with things at home" - Douglas Adams