When the Slippery Slope Argument Has Merit

When you find yourself debating with someone that fundamentally disagrees with your reasoning, there are often many arguments one can use that will get you a lot of pushback. When it comes to logical fallacies this pushback is very well deserved, they are in fact fallacies and thus should not be used to bolster any claim one has. Barring those, however, one argument that I noticed which gets a disproportionate amount of heat is the "slippery slope" argument, to the point in which it too is often labelled a fallacy.

The slippery slope argument is a very simple one which I am sure we have all heard at some point. If we allow for gay marriage what's next?! Marriage between a child and a man?! Marriage between a horse and a woman?! It is MADNESS! It is a slippery slope which should not be ventured down to begin with! While I have chosen a very pedantic example which might lead you to consider it a fallacy, there is more nuance to the argument than that.

In online discussions I have noticed that there are two very large groups of people: the fans of the slippery slope, who will pull it out at any time if for a note of caution than for a real prediction of the future, and those who hate the slippery slope, who think that by simply labeling something as a slippery slope automatically invalidates the other person's objection to whatever topic is in discussion. While I tend to err on the side of not using the slippery slope argument, I do not think that it is entirely without merit.

In many cases, the argument is completely bogus. How does, for example, allowing two consenting adults of unspecified gender to enter into a contractual agreement in any way open the gate to a contract between an adult and someone, or something, which is unable to consent? It is absolutely ridiculous. There are also other, more insidious uses of the argument as well. For instance, there is the very popular opposition to changing the language of what it means to consent from "not saying no" to "agreeing (verbally or non-verbally) to engage in various acts, which can be withdrawn at any time". Many people (I'm looking at you too, Cenk) love to make sure that everyone knows that they would be totally against it if it somehow devolved into having to sign a legally binding contract, signed and witnessed, every time you want to touch a boob or make out. It is ludicrous, it is hyperbolic, and mentioning that you are against such an inflated and unrealistic potential scenario down the line every time consent and rape comes up in the discussion detracts from the point that rape culture is a serious societal problem. All of these cases lead me to want to reject the slippery slope argument whole-cloth as a logical fallacy, but certain events have made me hesitant to do so.

 

The slippery slope argument does hold merit under some circumstances, and that is when we talk about legal precedent. When a legal ruling is made, which does in fact open the door to taking things further to an absurd end, I feel that criticizing such a ruling on the grounds that it could lead to a slippery slope is fully justified.

Take, for example, the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision in favor of allowing the Hobby Lobby corporation to not cover certain contraceptives in their health insurance plan for their employees, based on the sincerely held religious belief on the part of its owners that these contraceptives are abortifacients. 

Never mind the fact that their religious belief is in conflict with reality, as there is no scientific evidence that, for example, Plan B blocks implantation, but rather prevents ovulation, therefore the fertilization of the egg never occurs.

Never mind the fact that Hobby Lobby's retirement plan holds 73 million dollars in mutual funds with investment companies which produce actual abortifacients, a detail that did not lead the Supreme Court to find that this was not, therefore a "sincerely held" religious belief of theirs.

Nope. This ruling sets a legal precedent allowing for corporations to subvert US law, so long as such a law comes in conflict with its owner's sincerely held religious belief, regardless of whether or not the belief fits in with reality. Regardless of whether or not the sincerity of their claimed belief could be legittimately called into question given an inherent hypocrisy in the corporation's finances. All you have to do is claim it, and the language of this ruling would allow it.

To point out this is a slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a fact.

Could a Christian Scientist who employs thousands of people deny them health coverage other than faith healing, because their sincerely held religious belief is that faith healing is the only thing that works, and that any other form of medicine is sinful?

Could an old school Chinese Buddhist only cover acupuncture and alternative herbal Chinese medicine, on the sincerely held religious belief that modern medicine is harmful and wrong?

If there is any language in this ruling that would prevent other such nonsensical religious beliefs from infringing on the rights of the employees the way that Hobby Lobby was allowed to do, please feel free to correct me.

Just because wingnut anti-choicers have been allowed to dominate the airwaves and normalize their opinions on contraception, that doesn't mean that this ruling applies only to them. The law is designed to be blind to popularity, blind to public opinion. The law allows any behaviour that fits within the letter of the law, not based on how many people subscribe to that belief. If someone, a member of an obscure religion from another country, came to the US and started a business, which became a corporation, and then it turned out that this person's sincerely held religious beliefs considered any kind of preventative health care (colonoscopies, breast cancer screenings, pap tests, mole checks, etc) was a sin against their god, this law would permit them to deny that coverage to their employees.

And this, my friends, is a true slippery slope, and it is called legal precedent.

Conflating Morality With Legality

I started thinking about this topic when I was discussing the legality of C-sections in Italy with a colleague of mine. I was unaware of this, but apparently it is technically illegal for a woman to give birth via C-section unless there is a legittimate medical reason for doing so. Given the rather loose language that entails, and the fact that there are far far more C-sections being performed in the South compared to Northern Italian states, leads us to believe that if a woman really wants to have one, she can find a doctor who will be willing to schedule her one. The point of disagreement between us was based on whether or not this law should exist at all.

 

Her perspective on this is that, while she has absolutely no problem with avoiding a vaginal birth for legittimate health concerns (a baby not turning, heart problems etc.), she believes that no woman should be allowed to simply opt for a C-section simply because of fear of a vaginal birth, stating studies that have found a correlation between cesarean births and an increased risk of certain chronic illnesses. It is her opinion that pregnancy comes with certain responsibilities, one of which is giving birth as nature intended, should you have a completely normal and healthy pregnancy. I of course disagreed, hence my writing this post.

 

I realized that all too often we conflate what we believe is immoral with what we believe should be illegal, and this is not, nor should it be always the case. Of course there is significant overlap between the two concepts, but there is also plenty of space for the two things to remain seperate. The problem is that morality is inherently subjective, especially when we begin to dissect these kinds of minor issues, while the law is objectively applied across the board. It is therefore important to not allow one's own opinion about the morality of something to affect a law which would be applied to everyone without good supporting reasons.

 

I disagreed with her reasoning because, essentially, I believe it comes down to bodily autonomy. Either someone has control over their own body, or they don't. It's the same reason why I think it doesn't matter whether or not someone thinks abortion is immoral, it should still be legal. While I concede that there is evidence that C-sections can lead to increased risk of certain kinds of illness, so can maternal obesity, gestational weight gain and, ever so importantly, drinking, but we don't go around criminalizing any of these behaviors simply because they bring an increased risk of harm to the fetus. We rely on educating women on the facts and dangers associated with certain behaviors but, ultimately, we trust them as adults to make their own decisions regarding their body and their life. To me, whether or not I think it is moral for a woman to opt for a C-section out of fear, her legal right to do so should not be in question.

 

Boss of the Day

The Boss of today comes from... of all places... Mississippi! But seriously, how can you not love this guy? I'll let TYT explain

Unfortunately I tend to agree with Cenk and Ben, this guy is probably going to get fired. I hope he makes an ever-loving stink out of it, bringing the legality of this ridiculous Mississippi law into question.

I Love A Little Vindication....

Since I have not been active on this blog in quite some time, I have been scrolling through some of my old posts and comments. While the overall reaction to my posts has been relatively positive, the post which caused the most dissension was, strangely enough, the one in which I bemoaned the fact that I was sick, probably in part due to my having slept in a very cold room that night. 

WHAT?! OMG what bullshit cold temperatures don't contribute to your cold development NO WAY.

Now granted, the explanation that I put forth as to why cold temperatures could contribute to the development of your infection was a hypothesis, unproven, and one of the many that was floating around. But why are there so many hypotheses around to begin with?

Because the correlation between cold temperatures and cold/flu infection has progressed further than confirmation bias. There are studies which show this correlation, and although this does not demonstrate the cause, it is still something that warrants further investigation. If the numerous studies showed no correlation between the two we could dismiss this as a case of confirmation bias, end of story.

So, thanks to this correlation science has gone one step further, and looked for that causation factor. While the "stress reduces immune system efficacy" hypothesis which I spoke about in the previous post was touched on in the 1990s, new studies float a very different yet still excellent explanation of why this correlation exists.

There is now new evidence which suggests that the rhinovirus replicates better in your nasal passages when they are at lower temperatures - which happens when you are breathing in cold air for an extended period of time.

Yes, this study was conducted in mice, and more research is needed on this topic, but the evidence now is mounting that there is at least something that cold temperatures contribute to the progression of the illness. To dismiss the entire idea as bullshit is to ignore evidence.

I love me a little bit of vindication!

Tough Questions: On The Limits of Personal Freedom

Despite my extremely patchy posting, I found that I had to re-address one last aspect of the issues that I brought up surrounding Savita. As usual, thinking about the victims of backwards, brutal religions just gets me thinking about all of the ways that these religions infringe on the rights of human beings to be healthy. I think not only about people who die because of dangerous pregnancies, but about circumcision, acid being thrown in girls faces, AIDS because of a lack of access to condoms and children dying of preventable diseases because their parents were told not to believe in a certain medicine. 

When thinking about the horrors that many religious people impose on their own, especially their children, it is very easy to say things like "You know what asshole? If your adult self wants to be a dumbass and not take a blood transfusion to save your own life go right ahead, one less idiot on this planet, but don't let your child die because of your lunatic beliefs!" I am sorry (am I? I'm not sure yet) to say that I also have said this more than once, and am usually of this opinion, but this recent tragedy has really gotten me thinking. 

First of all, any regular reader of this blog will know that I am one HELL of an advocate for personal freedom. I feel that if you are an adult, are fully capable of making your own decisions and are not hurting anyone else in the process you can pretty much to whatever you like. I have taken this idea to some pretty dark extremes, defending even things that make my stomach turn in the utmost disgust. You can see my post on incest, for instance. When that story came out about that German guy that looked for a guy on the internet who loved the idea of being eaten, then killed and ate him, I said he shouldn't get life in prison because the guy not only volunteered, he really really wanted to be eaten - and shouldn't what happens to his own life be his choice and no one else's? I once even saw a documentary about these rare cases of voluntary amputation (if I find it again, I'll update and link it), where these people cannot live with a limb and try desperately to cut it off in any way possible, finding it of course very hard to find a doctor willing to amputate a perfectly healthy limb, and thinking that if I were a doctor I'd try to help these people out. Coming from this perspective, you'd think that my being OK with an adult doing something unhealthy because of their religious beliefs would be absolutely nothing, right?

And yet, there were two examples that stuck in my mind which made it very difficult for me to continue shrugging my shoulders in the face of weird choices that I will never understand but have no interest in shaking my finger over. One of them is the case of adult women electing to be fully circumsized, which a South African friend of mine tells me is the norm in the small town where he is from. The other is the idea of a woman getting a symphysiotomy despite knowing exactly what it is and what it will do to her (and yes I know that this was not the case in Ireland). Am I just being uber sexist, and only balk at these things because they involve women? 

I hope not, because there is a very fundemental difference between the two categories. The first category that I described is one in the absence of coercion. A person has a very strange fantasy, or has a rare illness that makes them need something desperately, who am I to tell them they can't have it, if they're not infringing on someone else's rights in the process? In the case of the latter, however, I don't think that is the case. If your community basically tells you you're an unmarriable slut if you elect to not be circumcised, that's not really a free adult making a free choice is it? If a woman is led to believe by her country steeped in patriarchal religion that her only worth on this planet is to make as many babies as possible no matter the cost or risk to her health, how can I possibly be in favor of that? 

The question thus becomes, would I be in favor of putting hard laws against these things that I despise? Just because I despise them, even though adults are (relatively) volutarily electing to have them?

I think that history has shown that laws are the wrong way to go about these things, especially when it comes to limiting adults. While I am in favor of laws preventing these things being done to children (as relatively powerless citizens they need extra protection), having only laws leads to one thing: back alley proceedures. I personally would invest my resources and energy into education, education, education, always. Let's talk about how these things are incredibly dangerous. Let's talk about changing our culture to something that is sex positive, not slut-shaming. Let's change people's minds.

I suppose the fundemental conclusion is this. When someone has an innate, psychological problem, such as the people who desperately want to become amputees, there's nothing you can do to remove that need inside them. They have it and they will be miserable for the rest of their lives if they are forced to keep that limb, and misery pushes people to do desperate and dangerous things. This means that we need to pick the better of two not-ideal situations: allow that person to sever that limb in the safest way possible.

On the other hand, if we have a person whose only reason for wanting something so dangerous and brutal is because they were unfortunate enough to be born into a society which tells them that they are worth less if they don't do it, well that's just not. fucking. fair. I don't want anyone to think that, and I will not want to stand idly by while the vicious cycle goes round and round. While legislation will probably do more harm than good - pushing an already unsafe proceedure underground - tackling the root, the source of the problem is the hardest but the best way to handle this unfairness. 

There's more to struggle with this, but this first part I hope is clear enough.

Forcing The Discussion

And here I am to prostrate myself at your virtual feet for by prolonged and undue absence. I was going through a writer's block, a "crap I have nothing to say, and no one cares what I have to say anyway" phase, from which I have been shocked out of in light of recent viral stories that I want to add my two cents to. 

By now, I'm sure you have all heard about Savita Halappanavar, the most recent face put on the victims of the Catholic Church's meddlings in societies to which they do not contribute.

Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

The dead foetus was removed and Savita was taken to the high dependency unit and then the intensive care unit, where she died of septicaemia on the 28th.

There was no chance, none whatsoever that her foetus would survive. Despite this, they chose to put the life of its mother at risk, by choosing the arbitrary standard of a foetal heartbeat as proof it was still alive, thereby directly causing her death.

I wonder, are heart transplants illegal in Ireland as well? The person's heart is still beating when it is removed for transplant, it must be in order to still be viable, but by their own logic isn't that directly killing their patient and therefore illegal?

So why am I deciding to weigh in at this point? Why is this one case so important?

I hope that this is what will finally precipitate a real discussion that we need to have regarding the liberties we give Catholic hospitals. 

Even if it is discovered that this was an isolated case, one in which her doctor was negligent and solely at fault, even if it is discovered that his actions were not in accordance with proceedure at the Catholic hospital in question, even if the administration of said hospital is absolved of any responsibility beyond any doubt, we still need to have this conversation.

This is not the first time that we are faced with the disgusting proceedures in Catholic hospitals. Take ectopic pregnancies, which have 0% chance of survival, since the foetus will burst the fallopian tube and kill the mother once it reaches a certain size. We have heard of Catholic hospitals which refuse to remove the embryo in question because of their "morals", opting instead to remove the woman's entire fallopian tube, greatly reducing her fertility and turning a simple operation into a far more dangerous one. Where was the global outcry then?

What about the sawing of women's pelvises to make them into supreme baby-making machines? 

The problem is the lack of a face, a victim, someone that the whole world rallies around. Now there is one, and with enough people paying attention we need to address the real issue: how much are we going to allow hospitals to get away with?

We need laws, real laws, limiting in explicit words what religious hospitals are allowed to do and still operate as hospitals. If Jehovah's Witnesses decide their going to open up a hospital but refuse to give blood transfusions to any of their patients, even to save their lives? Guess what, you don't get to be a hospital, you don't get a cent of govnerment money and you sure as shit aren't going to be served by ambulences that might bring an unwitting patient to your doors. If a Catholic Church refuses to save a woman's life because she has some foreign DNA inside her? Fuck you, you don't get to be a hospital anymore, end of story. 

Now, when people are really looking and really paying attention, now is the time to act.

Catholic Church, This Time You Made Me LOL

I have mentioned the Catholic Church at its worst in this blog, but sometimes you just have to laugh. OK, so the implications of this video made by Catholic nuns in the US are pretty horrendous, but the Children of Mary Order have made a video that perfectly embodies that classic Italian saying: da ridere per non piangere

For those of you who have not read (or do not remember), that means "to laugh, so as not to cry".

If you don't think you can hadle 14 minutes of pure stupid, have the shorter version with the apt mocking from TYT

Seriously now, this is just ridiculous. You're honestly perpetuating the stereotype that in order to be religious you must be monumentally stupid - not doing yourselves any favors there

Journal Club: Toxoplasma gondii and Schizophrenia

So I touched on something in yesterday's post that reminded me of a fascinating story I heard while still in college in Dublin during my parasitology course. It's time for another one of those sciency posts! Today I'm going to give a brief introduction to Toxoplasma gondii, some various misconceptions regarding it, and it's possible link to schizophrenia - a relatively new hypothesis that many people I have encountered even in the research community have not heard of yet. Let's start with the basics shall we? What is Toxoplasma gondii?

There it is, the little bastard

Toxoplasma gondii is one of, if not the most common parasite known to man, infecting anywhere from 50 to up to 80% of the world's population. Until recently it was believed that this little critter was largely asymptomatic in humans unless a woman is infected during her first trimester, which can lead to devastating consequences to the child once it is born. Ever heard of pregnant women having to stay away from cats? Well this little bugger is why, although it is actually far more common for people to become infected with T. gondii due to infected meat rather than cats, thanks to its ability to infect just about every mammal. Why do cats get the bad rep though? Because cats are the ones that T. gondii really need in order to stick around.

Like many parasites, T. gondii's life is a two-step process, in that it needs two different species to complete it's life cycle. Mice (or other rodents) eat the oocysts, which are basically the "fertilized eggs" that mom and pop T. gondii have made. Once inside the mouse, it busts and out come the babies, ready to grow and multiply inside the mouse. When a cat eats the infected mouse, T. gondii can sexually mature and produce oocysts, which are pooped out by the cat and ready to infect other unsuspecting mice. The problem at this point is that, in order to increase its chances of infecting it's final host, T. gondii has gotten really good at infecting and surviving in a variety of animals, including sheep, pigs, birds and humans. This means that unless a pregnant woman starts getting a mad craving for kitty litter (or is not in the mood to wash her hands after handling cat turds) she's most likely not going to get infected from a cat, but if she eats lamb or pork chops from animals that are infected with T. gondii, she's in trouble.

This is where it gets interesting

I ees controlling your miiiind

Also like many parasties, T. gondii dabbles in a little mind control when it comes to its intermediate host, in order to further increase its chances of infecting its final host (perhaps a review on mind-controlling parasites in the future, if you're interested!). T. gondii can alter mouse behaviour, making it less afraid of open spaces and more likely to come out during the day, greatly increasing its chances of being caught and eaten by a cat.

 

Here's the thing, if T. gondii can affect behaviour in mice, does it stand to reason that it can also affect certain aspects of human behaviour, even if it is otherwise asymptomatic?

In 1996 a study conducted in Prague showed that humans that are infected with Toxoplasma gondii had significantly different personality profiles than controls when questioned with Cattell's questionnaire. Since then, there have been numerous studies indicating a link between Toxoplasma gondii infection and behavioural changes in humans.

But how does this link to schizophrenia?

Here's the evidence so far:

1. Anti-psychotic drugs used to treat schizophrenia have anti-Toxoplasma gondii properties in vitro (meaning in a petri dish, not inside an organism).

2. Drugs used in the treatment of schizophrenia are actually better at reducing the T. gondii-induced behavioural changes in rats than drugs used to treat T. gondii infection.

3. People infected with T. gondii seem to have a higher incidence of schizophrenia

Of course Toxoplasma gondii is not solely responsible for the development of schizophrenia (if it was, we'd be in trouble). However, being a very complex and multi-factorial disease, it seems possible that T. gondii infection can exacerbate the situation, tipping the scale in favor of the development of the disease. 

So, what do you think? Am I the only one who finds this shit fascinating?

Or is it a no-go on the review of mind-controlling parasites?

Book Review: The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks

As you may have noticed I have been reading a lot of books lately, but this one by far has to be my favourite. It was one of my Professors that recommended it to me, so interested I bought it.

Anyone who has studied biology has heard of HeLa cells. They are the most important cell line we have, they have been the subject of countless experiments and have been invaluable to modern biology and medicine. This is the story of the woman from whom these cells came, the only woman that can be said to have reached anything close to immortality. I was expecting the book to be interesting if a little dry and perhaps tedious in some parts. From the first page, however, I realized that I was sorely mistaken.

This book really tells four stories, all expertly wrapped up into one novel. The first is who was Henrietta Lacks? What was she like, what did she like to do? The second story is a history of medical research and HeLa cells, what they did for biology and what medical research was like before the 1950s. The third is the journalist’s own story, how she found Henrietta’s family and her struggle to reach out to them. The fourth is one about bioethics, and it poses a very interesting question: is it ethical to take someone’s cells, and sometimes profit from them, without their knowledge or consent? Do we own the tissue that is surgically removed from us, even if it is usually discarded? Do we have a right to say what happens to those cells or tissues once we voluntarily have them removed from our bodies?

Starting from the beginning, as soon as I read the introductory remarks I knew it was the book for me.

This is a work of nonfiction. No names have been changed, no characters invented, no events fabricated. (…) Anything written in the first person in Deborah Lacks’s voice is a quote of her speaking, edited for length and occasionally for clarity. (…) Whenever possible I conducted multiple interviews with multiple sources to ensure accuracy.”

This is my kind of book, and the kind I hope to write myself some day. No embellishment, no omissions, just straight fact. I liked it already, and the rest did not disappoint.

Other than being a fantastic read, there were a few parts of the book that really opened my eyes, for better or for worse. As a scientist I used to get very annoyed with people like my mother who viewed everything and anything that comes out of a lab with a veil of mistrust, with a subconscious feeling that scientists are amoral robotic entities that never consider the ethical ramifications of their actions. I used to think that this was largely due to the horrific way that scientists have been portrayed both by the media, in movies and by the screams and shouts of people that do not understand the science they are publicly blasting, like creationists or anti-vaxers. After reading this book, however, I realized how stupid I was to think that. I have had the good fortune of coming into an international scientific community where bioethics is an extremely important part in everything we do. There are committees that make sure that every experiment you conduct is by the book. If you are using animals in your research, you have to demonstrate that you are using the minimum possible number of animals to get a statistically significant result, that you are housing the animals in the most optimal way possible and that you are never causing the animals unnecessary harm or suffering. If you are conducting clinical trials you have to demonstrate that you have the patients’ full understanding and consent, that they know they can drop out of the study at any time, that you do not admit patients that are at high risk of dying during the study if they are placed in the control group, that all patients including the ones that received the placebo get treated at the end of the study if the drug has proved effective, that the drug does not present high risk of extreme side effects (as demonstrated by animal tests and previous clinical trials) and that any side effect you suspect the drug might have is communicated to the patients. This is the state of biomedical research as of now, but in my grandmother and mother’s day none of this existed, and the scientific community is still feeling the ramifications of the terrible reputation it earned itself in those days. Whether it be experimenting on poor African Americans causing them to die horribly despite having the means to sure them or injecting patients with cancer cells without their consent, I was horrified at what was deemed acceptable to these researchers that I can only describe as sociopaths. I do not know a single person that would ever defend the experiments that were so casually and callously performed only 60 years ago, and that made me ask myself: Is it that even then they were very rare but they became famous due to their horrific deeds, or is it that the new bioethical systems in place make the scientific community less attractive to a god-complexed fame-hungry sociopath, who thus chooses a different career path?

The aspect of this that really made me think is the issue of the ethical implications of tissue research. The people that argue against “rights” for tissue donors made two important points: 1. That the person from whom the cells or tissues are taken are not actually doing anything, it is the scientists that put in all the hard work to culture them, modify them, experiment on them and find all the optimal ways to do these things. These cells could thus be considered their “intellectual property”, they are the ones that invested the money to work on them and thus they are the ones who should benefit from any reward. 2. Informed consent is one thing, but when you start saying “I want my cells to be used in this research but not in that other research but not if the research might be used for that purpose” it can mean a halt in research, because it all becomes exceedingly complicated.

I get both points, but it is definitely not as simple as that. Admittedly HeLa cells are a special case. They are sold all over the world, and you’d be hard pressed to find a cellular biology lab that does not have vials of HeLa cells in their freezers. There is a lot of money made on selling them, and yet Henrietta Lacks’s family lives in extreme poverty. Her daughter, Deborah Lacks, sums up my feelings on this:

Truth be told, I can’t get mad at science, because it help people live, and I’d be a mess without it. I’m a walking drugstore! I can’t say nuthin bad about science, but I won’t lie, I would like some health insurance so I don’t got to pay all that money for drugs my mother’s cells probably helped make.

I can’t ignore how the injustice this situation makes me feel, that while without the minds that made HeLa cells possible should undoubtedly get the credit for what they accomplished, Henrietta’s family should not be unable to pay for their own medical expenses.

The second point that is brought up is one that I understand, although I do not think it needs to be that complicated. I think that over bureaucratising cell research could cripple biomedical research, it does not have to be an all-or-nothing debate.

I definitely believe in informed consent, and I don’t think that it needs to be complicated. Personally, I think that the bioethical problem can be summed up with two forms, two consent measures. 1. Consent to use your cells or tissues in research, whatever the research might be, without going into the details of what research is acceptable and what research is not. The patient should know what those research possibilities are and decide whether or not they accept them. 2. Consent to profit from said cells, which is only something that crops up in a handful of cases. At this stage, you can stipulate a base percentage that goes to the patient – not one that is negotiable, but one that is stipulated by law, say 15%. The patient gives consent that his or her cells can be used for financial gain with 15% of that gain going to them, yes or no.

Read the book then tell me what you think. Is it too simplistic, still too complicated, or at least far better than the total lack of legislation we have in this regard at the moment?

Bad Science: When There's No Science At All

I have to admit I do enjoy National Geographic. Sure some of the articles can be a little wishy-washy, but the pictures are stunning and it definitely keeps my attention and keeps me company far more than an any “women’s” magazine ever would (no, I could give a shit if those are Angelina Jolie’s real boobs, and if she has an eating disorder it is none of my business). This month, however, when flipping through I came across an article that bothered me called Rhino Wars.

The article talks about the illegal trade in rhino horn from Africa to Asia, where it is rumoured to have medicinal properties ranging from fever reducing properties to a cure for cancer. Despite the lack of scientific peer-reviewed evidence, many people believe in this and even doctors suggest it as a possible treatment for cancer.

Because of this demand, poachers have driven all five species of rhino onto the Endangered Species List, selling the horn for up to twice its weight in gold. This has also led to entrepreneurs trying “rhino farming”, where they keep the animals alive and sever their horns two-three inches above the base, which ensures its re-growth within a few years. While it doesn’t seem like an optimal solution, the argument for rhino farming is that it makes for competition for poachers (who kill the rhino before severing its horn) and is a good way to ensure the species' survival. However, there is one big glaring problem that this NatGeo article completely fails to mention:

What about the millions of people that are duped into paying a fortune for something that most likely doesn’t work?

This is where the lack of science becomes incredibly bad science. A search through the literature on this subject has led me to only two studies, from the 1990s, on the effects of rhino horn on hypothermic rats. OK, so it seems as though they have been published in an actual journal with an actual Impact Factor, which is a good start. Unfortunately I cannot access the full article in order to take a good look at their methods, but here is an excerpt from one of the abstracts:

Intraperitoneal administration of an aqueous extract of rhinoceros horn at 5 2.5 and 1 g/ml, showed a significant antipyretic effect in rats with hyperthermia induced by subcutaneous injection of terpentine oil. Similar assays with extracts of the horns of saiga antelope, water buffalo and cattle at 5 g/ml also caused a significant drop in fever

Let’s say for the sake of argument that this is true, and that this effect translates over to humans. So rhino horn reduces fever, so what? So does paracetamol. We already have drugs that do this. Also notice that cattle horn has the same effect. Well, if you have to use some kind of horn, why not use one from an animal that is already farmed and has the same effect?

Here’s the problem, I cannot find a single peer-reviewed paper on the effects of rhino horn on cancer treatment. So what the hell are we waiting for?!

Although I highly doubt that rhino horn will have anti-cancer properties, I have explained again and again that not thinking something likely is no reason to not investigate it. There are doctors that are suggesting this, there need to be studies done. If one, two, three studies are done that show no health benefits, these results need to be plastered in these doctors’ faces and all over the news, only that way can we have any hope of educating people and getting them to devote their efforts to other, tried and tested treatments, possibly saving lives. You want to save the rhino and decrease poaching? Start by decreasing the demand.

And what if these studies demonstrate that rhino horn actually does have an anti-cancer effect? Well great! We can start looking for the active ingredient in the rhino horn so that it can be purified in the lab.

If it turns out that rhino horn does aid in cancer treatment then maybe I’ll be in favour of expanding and trading from rhino farms, at least until scientists are able to identify and replicate the compound that has these medicinal properties. But, until then, I think that rhino farming is a terribly flimsy band-aid over this festering problem.

By supporting rhino farming you are supporting financial interests in keeping the rhino horn trade alive. You may decrease the poaching and black market trade a little, but you are supporting people that do not want it to get out that rhino horn doesn’t have the medicinal benefits people think, because that would hurt sales. I know that there are going to be people that believe in traditional medicine no matter what, but to think that education could not make a huge dent is ridiculous. You only have to look at the past hundred years to see how this is not the case.

The fact of the matter is that, while NatGeo is right to point out the lives of rhino’s that are being saved, they fail to make the more obvious point. It is not just rhinos that are losing lives in this “war”, it is countless sick, desperate humans that are losing their lives as well.

In Russia, Plants Genetically Modify YOU!

OK, so I made a little outdated joke, bear with me. In fact it's not just in Russia, and it's not just people. Apparently, eating plants will influence an animal's genes.

First, a little background lesson in micro RNAs. miRNAs are very short sequences of RNA that do not translate into proteins. Instead, they have different regulatory roles within the cell, aiding or silencing the transcription of certain genes, and more and more of them are being discovered every year with ever more important roles. This year, a paper was published in Cell Research that found evidence that when animals eat plants, miRNAs from those plants can have a role in regulating the genes of the animals that ate them.

Plant miRNAs and animal miRNAs have some distinct differences that allow us to tell them apart. Plant miRNAs have a modification that makes them resistant to periodate, while mammalian miRNAs are not. Researchers thus extracted miRNAs from humans and tested them for sensitivity to periodate, and concluded that approximately 5% of the miRNAs in humans are originally from plants.

More evidence for this hypothesis comes from the fact that mice fed on rice have elevated levels of periodate-resistant miRNAs than mice fed on chow, which fits with the hypothesis that these periodate-resistant miRNAs originate from plants in the diet. Strangely, cooking the plants did not have an effect on the levels of plant miRNAs assimilated from the diet, indicating that these miRNAs are also heat-resistant.

OK so plant miRNAs can survive in animals without being digested and degraded. So what? What evidence is there that these miRNAs actually do something in animal tissues, rather than just float around passively?

Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor Adapter Protein 1 (LDLRAP1) is a protein that facilitates the removal of Low Density Lipoproteins from the circulatory system. Plant miRNA miR168 seems to be particularly good at binding the mRNA of LDLRAP1, which by doing so would lead to the organism making less LDLRAP1 protein. In fact, it was shown that those rice-fed mice had lower levels of LDLRAP1 than the chow-fed mice.

This indicates a far more direct role for a diverse diet for human health that goes beyond just getting the right level of nutrients. Eating too much of one thing can actually lead to things like the downregulation of certain genes that are needed for good physical health. There is still very much research to be done on this subject of course, but I personally found this fascinating.

The idea that genetic manipulation is so commonplace that it can happen even from the food that we eat is astounding. There is nothing "unnatural" about genetic manipulation or gene transfer from one organism to another, we're just starting to scratch the surface of how often it really happens.


Reference: Vaucheret and Chupeau (2012). Ingested plant miRNAs regulate gene expression in animals. Cell Research 22: 3-5

An Italian Family's Story With Universal Health Care

The debate rages on in the US regarding universal health care, whether or not it is a good idea, potential horror stories that could come of it and whether or not the American people want it. I can only speak from my own experience, and I know that there will be those good old italians ready to lynch me for daring to tell a story involving modern day Italy that doesn't induce eye-rolling and disgust, but I'm not going to repeat any chinese whispers. This is what happened to me and my family.

I recently came back from 5 years in Dublin where my health was seriously neglected, not having the money time contacts or care to have check-ups. This meant that I came back to Italy with a to-do list I intended completing. I moved to a new city, got my new health card and got to choose my family doctor from a very long list. Not knowing any I picked one that practiced near my house and proceeded to show up Saturday morning to get my shit sorted. I was greeted by quite an old lady, which initially was concerning but she was perfectly lovely and I later figured that to graduate from the boy's club that is medicine in her day must have meant she wasn't all bad. I reeled off the list of things that I needed and she proceeded to writing me a prescription for getting my moles checked, having an x-ray of my teeth done and an extraction of my right wisdom tooth which was periodically giving me grief.

I called the skin clinic and asked for an appointment to check my moles. Three days later I parked my bike out front, had my check-up, chatted with the doctor, paid my 25euro "ticket" fee (for people who earn more than 1,000 euro a month but less than 19,000 a year,over which the price is increased to 30) which is a fee that applies to non-emergency visits, fourty minutes later I way biking to work. I showed up at the hospital the next day to make an appointment for my x-rays, which they gave me for the next day. On both occasions they sent me and email the day before my appointment in order to remind me of the time.

A few days later my non-citizen non-resident boyfriend sliced his finger open at work. I went with him to the emergency room where he got an initial check up, an x-ray to make sure the bone in his finger was not damaged, 9 stitches in the pad of his finger in the plastic surgery department, a copy of his x-ray to bring home and a prescription for three more visits  to check on how it was healing and to take out the stitches, all taking a total of 5 1/2 hours. Since he was hurt at work he paid 0 euro for this.

My then 86 year old grandmother was diagnosed with breat cancer. Although she has the money to go private she found a good public hospital in Rome and decided to go there. Despite the fact that cancer spreads very slow in the elderly they removed the tumor and gave her radiation treatments to get rid of every last scrap of it, and have been giving her yearly checkups since then though they don't expect it to come back in a woman her age. She also paid 0 euro for these treatments.

Last year my father went to the emergency room with a bad stomach ache. They found he had a perforated intestine and had to operate on him immediately. Once in they found he had a gigantic tumor in his intestine, so they had to remove it and deviate his colon until a later date when they could fix him up again. He was in the hospital for ten days, and a nurse from the hospital had to visit him once every few days for the first weeks he was at home, checking on the wound and showing him how to take care of himself. He later had the second operation to put his colon back together and stayed in the hospital for another week. He also paid 0 euro for these procedures.

I called up the dental clinic and they gave me my appointment for a month and a half later. Once there they looked at my scans, gave me a check up and told me that my wisdom teeth had come in fully, they were perfectly straight and that the periodic pain I was feeling was coming from an inflamed gum. They gave me a mouthwash to use and told me that if the inflammation goes away but I still have trouble with the tooth to give them a call and skip ahead slightly in the line to get them removed. I paid 20 euro for this visit. If I was to remove my wisdon tooth privately it would cost me 230 euro.

So that's my story. I'm not going to pretend that the Italian system is anywhere close to perfect. There are people, especially those living in more rural areas, that have much longer waiting lists and therefore wind up doing their non-emergency-room things privately. There are areas with administrative corruption problems that have sub-par hospitals. Here there is the option to have private health insurance and there are fine private hospitals. What you should ask yourself during this debate is is my story that bad? Does having the public option sound like something that would make the people living in your country worse off than they are now?

Woo Woo and the Scientific Method

The other day I wrote a blogpost about en example of bad science, in which I explained that a common misconception that people have about scientists is that they dismiss anything that they can't explain. The idea that everything has to have an explanation and until that explanation is found it is completely rejected is fundementally untrue. The problem here lies in confusing the word "explanation" with the word "evidence".


I think that an excellent example of this is this video that I saw a few weeks ago on TheYoungTurks about a study on the effectiveness of prayer in curing AIDS

This kind of study is one that left many non-science minded people scratching their heads. Prayer? But that's bullshit! How can mumbling some words about someone help their sickness in any way? What a waste of time and money! Well yes, it is bullshit, but how do we know it's bullshit? By doing a study.

Our logic tells us this doesn't work, but what if it does? If the study were to demonstrate that people who were prayed for were statistically more likely to get better we would have evidence that prayer might work, even if we wouldn't necessarily have an explanation as to why it works. The topic would be pursued and an explanation would be searched for, but many scientists would stop their scoffing and take a look at what might be going on. To do this, prayer would have to pass the same test that any other drug would: a double-blind random placebo-controlled study. Placebo-controlled meaning that people would not know what group they are in, therefore you control for the placebo effect. The double-blind part ensures that the researchers/doctors that collect the data for the study also do not know which patients are in which group, minimizing their own (conscious or unconsious) bias in collecting the data. Random so as to ensure that any patient has an equal chance of being placed in either group, to avoid (consciously or unconsciously) placing people that are doing slightly better in one or the other. If prayer passes this first hurdle then there is evidence that prayer might help, and the subject is pursued further. Problem: it hasn't.

It is not a useless waste of money. It is a valuable demonstration that prayer does not work. When scientists say that prayer doesn't work it is because there is no scientific evidence that it works, not because they simply can't figure out how it could therefore dismiss it offhand. Although there will always be people that refute evidence and believe whatever they want, studies like these keep logically minded people informed and hopefully further from the hands of scheming faith healers and con artists.

Don't be afraid to demand the same evidence of "spiritual" or "supernatural" phenomena that you would anything that comes out of a lab. At the same time, don't spit on studies like these that thoroughly debunk these phenomena as "too obvious to waste money on". Believe it or not scientists do have a very open mind, they are open to the possibility that these things could work, the only problem is that there hasn't been a single supernatural phenomenon to pass the first basic scientific tests. That is why scientists (most, of course) do not believe in this crap - not because they don't want to, but because they have no good reason to.

Bad Science: Urine Therapy

I get asked a lot of questions about strange alternative therapies quite often, and this is one that has been on my radar for a while now. People who drink their own urine for therapeutic reasons. Gross right? Well, yes, but that's hardly the reason why I'm going to call it out now. My father drank a cup of horse blood every day for two weeks after a terrible car crash left him very dangerously anemic in order to get his iron levels back up, and that's pretty disgusting too, but that doesn't mean it didn't work. I'm going after urine therapy for the two most important, fundamental reasons:

1. It doesn't make any sense
2. There is no scientific evidence for it

Reason number 1 can never stand on its own. Just because something doesn't make any immediate sense it doesn't mean that there isn't another unknown mechanism at play that could be having an effect. This is a common misconception held by many proponents of alternative medicine, that scientists say "I don't get how it works, therefore it doesn't". This would be incredibly arrogant and completely contrary to the scientific method. Tapping away at something with our logic is only half the job, the rest is devising experiments that test to see if the conclusion our heads came up with work. If the tests find our logical conclusion lacking our theory needs revisiting, and that is the whole point. Nevertheless, it is useful to see why exactly this doesn't make any sense, given our current knowledge of human anatomy and physiology.

Unlike faeces, urine is not a dangerous substance from an infectious point of view. It is a sterile solution, which is why so many people have been able to drink it and/or wash themselves with it without risking adverse health effects. However, urine is still a waste product. The whole purpose of peeing is to eliminate nitrogen waste that our cells produce, which our species excretes as urea, as well as to keep a decent balance of salts and water in our bodies. It's a laborious and essential process that all vertebrates undergo to ensure the elimination of toxic nitrogen waste from their bodies, and what are humans doing when they are partaking in urine therapy? Putting it right back in. Now that is just downright disrespectful to those poor cells. In cases of extreme dehydration it can buy you a couple more days before dying of thirst, but other than that there is no point.

As I said earlier, this is what logic leads us to believe. How could an excreted liquid filled with our cells' toxic waste be good for us? Still, evidence can negate these steps in logic if it demonstrates otherwise. The man in the video I previously linked states that there is research and abstracts available attesting to these health benefits, while conveniently forgetting to mention any of them, and also stating in his video description that one thing a "urine therapy community" could accomplish is "a global scientific experiment on the efficacy of urine therapy run by scientists and doctors". Well, a look through the scientific literature does not yield any evidence to support the practice of urine therapy.

The only article I have managed to find is this one on the anti cancer benefits of cow urine. Exceedingly curious I opened it immediately, to find that it was published in the International Journal of Cow Science, which you'll be shocked to discover does not have an Impact Factor. Go figure. Also telling is the wonderful English the article is written in. Here is a brief excerpt from the abstract

It has been recognized as water of life or “Amrita” (beverages of immotality), the nector of the God. In India, drinking of cow urine has been practiced for thousands of years. It is an important ingredient of panchgavya, a term used to describe five major substances (urine, milk, ghee, curd and dung), obtained from cow. All the five products possess medicinal properties, and are used singly or in combination with some other herbs against many diseases, even those not curable by allopathic treatments. This kind of alternative treatment, termed as ‘panchgavya therapy’ or ‘cowpathy’, has been reported to be beneficial even for dreaded diseases like cancer, AIDS and diabetes.

Experimentally it has been proved that among all sorts of urines, the urine of the Indian cows is most effective. Seeing the potential use of indigenous cow urine in several ailments including even the cancer, the use of Gomutra (cow urine) of indigenous breeds of cattle should be promoted extensively. However, scientific validation of cow urine therapy is required for its worldwide acceptance and popularity. This review highlights the anti-cancer activity of cow urine and the strategies for promoting its vital medicinal potential and prospectives for the benefit of mankind with the view that cow urine therapy needs immediate attention, promotion, and wide popularity and proper support of the scientists, researchers and clinicians to strengthen this alternate low cost therapy having no side effects, as generally observed with chemotherapy and radiation therapy being followed for curing cancers, and thus inspire confidence in the public about its good virtues.

So it has been experimentally proved to work, but scientific validation is required for it to become accepted?! This needs proper support from the scientists! Ha OK, I think we can all agree this one is a swing and a miss when it comes to evidence for urine therapy.


If there are any real articles on this subject out there that I am unaware of please let me know. However, as of now, urine therapy fails on both levels, which is why I am giving it the label of bad science.


Don't agree? Prove me wrong

Procession for Superstition in Venice

Today, the 21st of November is a sacred day in Venice, where thousands will be marching in the streets holding candles to celebrate the Festa Della Salute, or the Holiday of Health.

From 1630 to 1631 Venice was hit with a terrible plague that was decimating the town. Such a thing was certainly not uncommon in those times, particularly in an area relatively isolated from the mainland and thus with lower genetic variation. Once a plague hit, it hit good. So the people of Venice prayed to the Virgin Mary to help the city survive this terrible plague. While initially their prayers seemed to fall on deaf ears, the people subsequently voted to erect a huge temple dedicated to Mary. Only after this show of opulence did the Virgin Mary give in (you know the ladies, they can't say no to expensive shiny things) and the plague miraculously stopped. To this day, a candlelit procession occurs every year to commemorate this glorious sparing of the Venetian people.

Now I'm all for a day off school and work, regardless of what the reason that holiday may have sprung up. However, something that I found strange when visiting Venice yesterday was the lack of information regarding the subject. And by that I mean factual information.

Nowhere, on any of the signs, do they explain what actually happened with the plague during that time. What was the bubonic plague? How did it get there? What really caused it and what really stopped it? When you read about these sorts of things happening in Roman times this is the kind of information you expect to be included, even if the information can only be based on an educated guess given the lack of evidence. But that is because the Romans believed in other gods, so no one will be so silly as to suggest that their supposition that "Jupiter did it" would be true.

In this case, however, the information available all seem to indicate that it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that it was a miracle bestowed upon the Venetian people by the Virgin Mary. While I am in no way opposed to having a holiday, I felt it to be extremely lacking. While some people will undoubtedly choose to believe in the miraculous nature of the plague's lifting, I don't see that as a reason to ignore the fact that the plague was not caused by human sin, nor all of the cool and interesting sciency stuff that was discovered since then about it's transmission and nature. A missed educational opportunity, particularly for the children who participate.

What do you think? Am I reading too much in to this, or am I being too soft on them? Indoctrination of the children into believing in miracles at face value, or just a procession that really isn't important at all?

Sickey Sickey Sick Sick...

So yesterday was my birthday (yaaay) but today is the one week-a-versary of me being very very sick (boooo). I figure that I'd take the opportunity to make a brief correction to one of my Bullshit videos:

3:55 - 4:55 is what I feel needs correcting. Don't go outside without a jacket or you'll catch a cold!

Of course being cold will not make you sick in itself, BUT it is true that it can contribute. Let me explain a little further:

In order to be sick you need to have the sickness-causing pathogen in your body. However, you usually are harboring such pathogens for weeks on end without any symptoms. The pathogen lives in your body, where your immune system does a decent job of fighting it, therefore you have no idea that this private little battle is going on. However, if you subject your body to a sudden stress, like staying out all night without a jacket or suddenly stopping eating for a day or two, you will cause your body to divert resources from fighting this pathogen to protecting your body from this sudden stress, which can tip the scales in favor of the pathogen and allow it to take over, resulting in sickness. This is where the "myth" comes from, although it doesn't really feel right to call it a myth because there is some truth to it, it's just a misunderstanding as to what kind of contribution the outdoor temperature can have to a cold, fever or flu.

Now I must get back to my medicine and bed. If only I hadn't slept with the window open that night I could have avoided getting my very first tonsillitis!