Author: MarkH

  • Lifting the stem cell ban – was there any point?

    President Obama has lifted the ban on embryonic stem cell research enacted by Bush, but I’m left feeling that this intervention came many years too late.

    Pledging that his administration will “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” President Obama on Monday lifted the Bush administration’s strict limits on human embryonic stem cell research.

    But Mr. Obama went on to say that the majority of Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided.”

    In making his announcement, Mr. Obama drew a strict line against human cloning, an issue that over the years has become entangled with the debate over human embryonic stem cell research.

    As someone who works with stem cells I find this largely an empty, symbolic act, but one that needed to be done anyway. The reality is the damage was done by Bush already, and we’re fortunate that it was only a temporary delay in some of the most important research humans have developed to date.

    What a lot of people don’t realize is that in 2006 a revolutionary result was discovered by Japanese scientists led by Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University. What they found was the reset button for mammalian cells, the genes that need to be expressed for a cell to revert to a pluripotent state. We wrote extensively about what results in these cells – induced Pluripotent Stem Cells or iPSC – mean for stem cell research and regenerative medicine overall. Basically, the ability to reprogram the cells of any individual to a totipotent state – one in which the cells may make any cell-type or tissue in the human body. Before some fool suggests this was due to Bush remember it was a Japanese group, the research started long before Bush, and it never would have been possible without ES cells from which they culled the critical genes for the transformation.

    So why does it matter that Obama has reversed this policy? Not only are ES cells inferior compared to iPSC for human therapies, but wouldn’t it be easier not to upset the fundamentalists that would equate the value of our lives to that of a ball of undifferentiated cells?

    (more…)

  • Rating your doctor online – is this a good idea?

    I have just finished taking my last major exam of medical school – Step 2 of the boards (including Step 2 Clinical Skills, or CS, which costs 1200 bucks, requires you to travel to one of a few cities in the country hosting it, and is sealed by a EULA that forbids me from talking about what the test was like), and am winding down my medschool career in the next few weeks. It’s about 2 weeks from Match Day (the 19th), when I’ll find out for sure where I will spend the next 5 or so years of my life. I’ll be sure to have a post up a little after noon that day when I find out what the answer is. And then, around May 17th, graduation day, I’ll be a medical doctor, ready to start internship (also known as the hardest year of your life).

    One of the things I’ve found universal to all medical students is that we really want to be good doctors when we are finished with our training. I don’t think I’ve ever met a medical student who was in this career for the money (you’d be crazy), or for other selfish reasons. They tend to be hard working, dedicated, humble people who, if anything, are sickeningly sincere about wanting to help other people. Maybe that’s just my school, but my experience is, these folks want to do good in the world.

    But another universal is that not all doctors will be able to avoid making mistakes. Doctors are human, they all will eventually make errors, and the goal of any profession dedicated to improving the human condition should be constant self-reflection and efforts at self-improvement. This is not a simple thing to do however. Medicine is complex, and quality of medical treatment is very difficult to assess. We’ve discussed before, using metrics in medicine is challenging, and often rather than studying medical quality you end up merely assessing the social demographics of the physicians’ patients.

    So it is with interest that I see reading boingboing that lots of people are upset because some doctors are forcing their patients not to rate them on sites like RateMD.com by having them sign a contract forbidding them from doing so.

    The arguments for and against this practice are fascinating. We tread into the mucky waters of free speech, free enterprise, the practice of medicine, and the practical problem of assessing physician quality…

    More below the fold…
    (more…)

  • WaPo's ombudsman just doesn't get it

    Is he being purposefully obtuse? Once again the ombudsman decides to defend George Will, but only on a single point.

    A key paragraph, aimed at those who believe in man-made global warming, asserted: “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

    Bizarrely, he acknowledges Will was wrong:

    It said that while global sea ice areas are “near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979,” sea ice area in the Northern Hemisphere is “almost one million sq. km below” the levels of late 1979. That’s roughly the size of Texas and California combined. In my mind, it should have triggered a call for clarification to the center.

    But according to Bill Chapman, a climate scientist with the center, there was no call from Will or Post editors before the column appeared. He added that it wasn’t until last Tuesday — nine days after The Post began receiving demands for a correction — that he heard from an editor at the newspaper. It was Brewington who finally e-mailed, offering Chapman the opportunity to write something that might help clear the air.

    Will’s column is grossly dishonest, as we and others pointed out it wasn’t just sea ice, but the repeated misquote of a scientific paper and a whole host of dishonest statements. He’s apparently been misquoting one paper to push this “global cooling” nonsense since 1992 and basically recycling this same BS article for almost two decades!

    Alexander may be correct there is fact checking “on multiple levels”, but that does not change that it was incompetent, missed willful errors, and that there has not been a correction of Will’s mistakes or a repudiation of his incessant repetition of falsehoods like the myth of global cooling.

    For yet another week the Washington Post has failed to demonstrate accountability for its errors.

  • Nerds once again in control of government

    And I breathe a sigh of relief. Working nights my schedule is a tad goofy, but I wake up today to see this guy describing the changes in the new budget:

    i-943c9bbe7d5ded89f6eeb0ebb9c37568-orszag2.jpg

    This is Peter Orszag the new director of the Office of Management and Budget. He is a nerd and I instantly like him. I was not surprised to find he used to be a blogger.

    It was especially refreshing because for too long our government has been run by this guy:
    i-c9cf0f74bdd8a3aad914b991d35bd794-ogre.jpg

    In particular I agree with their emphasis on health care as a necessary element for creating a viable modern economy. America has to compete with other countries that provide this for their workers, and we have a system that regularly ruins the finances of our citizens. I also agree with it as a moral necessity. Within the last week I’ve admitted several people for whom a hospitalization would result in significant financial stress. I talk about it with them, and they’re terrified. On the one hand, they need help. Sometimes their life depends on it. On the other hand, if they lack insurance a hospitalization can bankrupt them, and they’ll honestly admit, they avoided doing anything about their problems until they become life-threateningly severe because they are they can’t afford the help. This isn’t just stupid system, but immoral.

    Additionally the need for reform of redundancy and costs in medicine would be a welcome reform. While the privacy issues with the electronic medical record are significant (I’d love if Chris would comment on this), the obvious need for it is undeniable. I can’t tell you how many times tests, expensive tests, are repeated because of incompatible records systems, delays in record transfer, and, frankly, the fact it’s sometimes just easier to duplicate the test than do the scut to find the answer. The emphasis on evidence based medicine, an attack on redundancy, and improvements in coverage will go a long way towards decreasing the terrible costs to insurers and the government, and terrible financial harm medical care can do to our countrymen. I am excited about seeing how this will be implemented, and relieved that once again we have people in charge who use words like “data” and “evidence” and seem that if there are problems generated by these reforms, they will be receptive to criticism.

  • Tumors in a (quack) human stem cell therapy

    It’s almost like a bad Yakov Smirnoff joke, “In America you test therapies in animals before giving them to humans, in Russia…” All I can do is wonder, what were they thinking? Injecting stem cells into a kid’s spinal fluid to correct a genetic disorder? Are they insane?

    Stem cells, in particular embryonic and fetal stem cells, are useful because they represent cells that are less differentiated than the cells that are working at specific functions throughout your body. Another result of being stem cells is that they are able to divide and proliferate without differentiating or undergoing apoptosis and as cells differentiate towards their final fate they tend to divide less and ultimately commit cellular suicide if they are signaled to begin dividing again – a protection against cancerous growth. The downside of this is that stem cells act, in their normal state, a bit like cancerous cells. In fact one of the assays to demonstrate the pluripotency of a cell (the ability of a stem cell to make many kinds of other tissues) is to inject them into an animal where they will make tumors called teratomas which are (usually) benign growths of cells that represent endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm – the three germ layers than give rise to all tissues in the body during development.

    As a scientist who works with stem cells, both in culture and in vivo I could have told you this therapy was a bad idea. A year ago Jake explained why this was a bad idea. If you had described this therapy to us, we would have told you exactly what would happen based on scientific knowledge of how these cells act in vivo. The therapies offered to stem cell tourists are frank quackery. They are unproven, untested, unstudied, and unmonitored. And to you anti-FDA libertarians out there, this is what you get when you don’t have regulatory oversight of human therapies. You get stupid quackery. The fact that this kid’s cancer was detected is probably just luck – there are likely many more people who have tried these therapies of desperation who suffered side effects, and possibly even death, but we just haven’t heard about it yet.

    Ethical human trials require many things. At the very least, the therapy should have been tested extensively for safety in animals and ideally for efficacy in animal models of the disease. The patients should be selected carefully, should have a reasonable expectation of therapeutic benefit, and after the treatment follow-up should be extensive. Further, in the case of such a novel therapy, the bar should have been set higher before attempts in humans were made. In this case we have a child with a rare genetic neurodegenerative disorder that was experimented on without proper oversight, or a reasonable expectation that this therapy should do anything. Ataxia Telangiectasia is an autosomal recessive disorder in which every cell in the child’s body lacks the appropriate gene which is involved in cell cycle regulation and DNA repair. By what mechanism did they think neural stem cells would have an effect on such a disorder? Would the cells replace the child’s entire central nervous system? Would they miraculously repair the genetic defect? Or manage to insert themselves in just the right places to fix symptoms caused by a universal defect in the the hosts genome? This is magical thinking, not scientific thinking, and further I believe it is grossly unethical and stupid.

    It is of no surprise that the careless injection of fetal stem cells into a child would result in tumors. This was a mind-bogglingly stupid act. What’s worse, as we hear more about the damaging quackery being offered in countries without proper regulation and oversight of human therapy we will likely hear more stories like this one.

    In the rush to find some dramatic cure for a disease using stem cells it is likely efforts like these will damage the success of legitimate and careful studies in regenerative medicine and stem cell therapies. Injury and deaths from careless stupid quacks using these cells will create and association in people’s minds between stem cell therapies and cancer. We know the obstacles to using these cells in humans. The major one – immune compatibility – may have been solved already. The major remaining obstacles towards implementation of some fairly crude stem cell therapies are going to be (1) differentiating the cells into the appropriate tissues, (2) purifying the cells so that undifferentiated cells aren’t accidentally transplanted into humans, (3) preventing tumorous growth in the transplanted cells (possibly including a lethal gene to reverse the therapy if necessary), and (4) proper anatomic delivery of the cells so they perform a useful function and survive in the host. We know what the problems are. Careful study must include addressing each of these issues and ensuring they are resolved before shoving them into someone’s spinal fluid.

    This quackery is not only going to prove harmful to individual human patients, but will likely harm the burgeoning field of regenerative medicine as a whole. For the sake of the patients, and for all future patients that might benefit from well-studied therapies, this quackery must be stopped.

  • George Will – We must not allow his dishonesty to be ignored

    I’m heartened to see a broad disgust with George Will’s lies about climate science. After all it’s pretty extraordinary when a major syndicated columnist repeats a lie about science, not once, not twice but three times despite being corrected.

    PZ wishes he too could just make up his own facts, and Mike too is pleased the disgust is moving beyond the scientific community. Carl Zimmer at the Loom covers the broad mistakes made in the essay, and TPM documents how it was almost all lies. Mark Kleimen has caught on to the fact that in the end, this is just another conspiracy theory on par with HIV/AIDS denialism ( would add anti-vax denialism, 9/11 trooferism, or evolution denialism and every other kind – they’re all ultimately the same).

    It’s reassuring to me to see that people are catching on. When we hear pseudoscience drivel, it’s never unique. It always follows a specific method – the pseudoscientific method. We happen to call that method denialism.

  • Psychiatry

    What to say about psychiatry that isn’t already completely covered by television and movies? It’s unique among the specialties for its coverage in the media. Maybe because we’re such social animals, or maybe because such shows about psychiatry or therapy appeal to a voyeuristic impulse in us to peer into people’s most private thoughts and feelings.

    Our exposure to psychiatry in medical school, however, is primarily with inpatient psychiatry – people who for whatever reason require hospitalization to deal with their mental illnesses. Reasons may range from soul-crushing anxiety attacks, to addiction, to suicidal ideation, to frank psychosis from schizophrenia, depression or bipolar disorder. I’ll also say it’s very upsetting at first to treat the subset of patients who are being held against their will due to court orders. One of the most basic tenets of medicine is that a physician must respect the autonomy of their patients, and psychiatric patients have often had a court take this autonomy away from them because of their actions or behavior. Not surprisingly, many patients are not happy about this. They may not be willing to accept they have a problem, or be very reasonably upset about the financial, social, or legal consequences of a hospital stay, or occasionally they don’t necessarily feel that their delusions regarding their absolute dictatorial control of the US government and their need to evade agents of foreign nations by breaking into a pet store are actually a problem. However, others necessarily are disturbed by such things, often resulting in a temporary detention order, or TDO, to assess their need for psychiatric treatment. I’m not making light of mental illness, but psychotic states result in behaviors that are frankly bizarre, and the self-reinforcing nature of delusions often put patients into a state that makes them feel you are part of a plot designed to persecute them. Worse, there are times when a TDO can be devastating to a patient’s life. An inpatient admission for psychiatric, alcohol or drug treatment is not a benign intervention and often has pretty major accompanying legal and social consequences. Patients are often facing criminal charges for DUIs, violence, or other behavior that has finally come to a head, and cost of treatments is often a huge burden.

    The two major things I learned as a part of this process are that (1) the state of Virginia drastically underfunds the treatment of mental illness relative to other medical illnesses (and this is a very bad thing) and (2) anti-psychotic medications are amazing drugs. Let’s start with a case – details, of necessity, are highly altered due to the sensitivity of psychiatric treatment but the fundamentals are real.

    A 22 year-old-male is admitted to the inpatient psychiatric unit at a private hospital after his family brings him to the ER for bizarre and uncontrollable behavior…
    (more…)

  • Should IQ and Race be studied and what is Lysenkoism anyway?

    Dan MacArthur has started a big discussion on whether or not the relationship between IQ and race should be studied. Inspired by a pair of essays for and against the idea it has created a pretty healthy debate among the sciencebloggers including Razib with whom I will likely never agree on this issue. For the record, I’m on the side of those like Richard Nisbett (for a good review of his analysis of race and the black white divide see here PDF) that genetics are a poor explanation for the divide.

    But this issue aside, why do I believe this is a still a bad idea to expend resources to evaluate the role of race and IQ? After all, that’s just what Nisbett has done in the paper cited above.
    (more…)

  • Scientologists blame psychiatry for 9/11

    We’ll have to add Scientology to Pal’s list of disease-promoting groups. Via Screw Loose Change I learn that as part of their bizarre hatred of psychiatry, they’ve now taken to saying that 9/11 was caused by psychiatrists in addition to the holocaust. Apparently, Osama was just a regular guy until al-Zawahiri, a psychiatrist, got to him. Strange considering al Zawahiri was not a psychiatrist at all.


    Scientologists Try to Explain how Psychiatrists caused 9/11 and the Holocaust from Chris Doyle on Vimeo.

    Anyway, watch the crazy!

    I’ll have a post up on my experience on my psych clerkship soon.

  • The Global Warming Cranks – George Will officially in their ranks

    One would think given recent findings that antarctic warming is robust for instance, that the canard of antarctic cooling would go away. Or, that based on the round dismissal of the myth of 1970s global cooling warnings we’d stop hearing about that in the media too. But instead I’m watching TV last night and there’s all these unbelievable crank ads sponsored by the anti-regulation ideologues the Americans for Prosperity featuring fake expert John Coleman. His senseless rant against the stimulus and the evils of regulation is accompanied by text on the bottom of the screen declaring “global warming it is the hoax” and “it is the greatest scam in history”. It is amazing in this day and age that this shameless conspiracy theory is being broadcast on national television. There is no way that one can on the one hand describe anti-AGW denialism as skepticism, and at the same time be a proponent of such an absurd conspiracy that thousands of scientists around the world, and journals, and editors, and politicians are all in cahoots to falsify data about climate.

    But if there is a truism about crankery that I can come up with to explain the persistence of debunked arguments, it is that good ideas may come and go, but we’re stuck with the bad ones forever. For instance, we saw this weekend that George will still thinks there were predictions of global cooling in the 1970s. Scibling James decries George Will’s inability to read what he cites, but this is nothing new. George’s Willful Ignorance on this topic has persisted for years this isn’t the first time he’s misquoted that exact same article, or the second time either despite being corrected by others. His incompetence at judging sources, and his inability to stop citing false information shows he’s simply unwilling or unable to differentiate between legitimate and false information, or even read for comprehension for that matter.

    What can be our response to this consistent dishonesty from Will? A repeat of a cherry-pick not once, or twice, but three times despite this being clearly false? I think the only thing you can say about someone like this, a man who can’t be turned, is that they’re a crank.
    i-3a38ecb7855955738c9e961220d56e25-1.gifi-02de5af1f14cb0cdd5c20fb4d07e9b84-2.gifi-489dd819efedba2ae35c8ed120ac2485-3.gifi-83ab5b4a35951df7262eefe13cb933f2-crank.gif