Monday, November 17, 2014

Hormones in meats and milk cause early puberty? hold on a sec.....









Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/05/hidden-hormones-can-bring-about-early-puberty-in-kids/

In the U.S., the number of girls that reach puberty early is growing last 30 years. We have heard a lot of people or the media talked about this phenomenon and worried about it. Of course, I think early puberty is an issue and we should care about it. However, when the media tell stories about some girls develop pubic hair or breast at 8 years old; and ask you to be careful with the food you eat. The audiences will be very sensitive to what they have for dinner everyday. Some people (some are my friends) and the media linked early puberty to many factors including hormone in the foods like milk and meats. There is no a definite answer to the question what on earth causes early puberty. I think that is the reason why people come up with so many hypotheses, which were reported by the media and spread all over. Therefore, back to the question “what causes early puberty?”
The best explanation is fatness: when the body reach a threshold level of fatness, it will tell the brain to transit more energy to reproductive development, thus the puberty starts. It is not about the age so 12 years old does not define the term “puberty”. Although there are many criteria to define puberty, the requirement of GnRH (Gonadotropin-releasing hormone) amount is key to initiate puberty. Therefore, the problem may shift to obesity, which is the main reason causes early puberty. Other factors like environment cues may play a role but definitely not hormones in the meats.

Then some people may ask “so what happen to the hormone from our milk and food? There is no effects of using synthetic hormone in animal feeds and eventually left in the foods?” It is true that a lot of dairy farms (30% of the nation) use synthetic version of hormone to increase milk production, to improve growth rate and to keep animal healthy. However, FDA has concluded that milk produced by treated cows is as same as untreated cows. Protein hormones in both plant and animal foods are digested and broken down into amino acids and peptides in the stomach and then absorbed by the intestine. You may argue that steroid hormones, like estradiol, which are not completely digested by the body, can accelerate initiate puberty or breast development. Yes, meat and milk have this type of hormone but at very low level compared with the amount of our body produces everyday. A glass of whole milk contains 3ng of estradiol and a serving of beef from a treated steer has 1.2ng of estradiol, but a prepubertal girl produces 54,000ng of estradiol everyday, and an adult woman produce 630,000ng per day (Ann Macrina 2012). Imagine how much of milk and meat a girl should take to elevate her estradiol level to an adult woman level.
Even though I still find some news claiming hormones in the food can bring early puberty in kids, in fact, I am glad I can find a lot of information and resources online defending some miscommunication by the media about early puberty. We are trying to correct that misunderstanding but it will be difficult; because if you can not prove that 3ng of estradiol in the milk would not impact the body, people will keep cautious and suspicious. I think this is the destructive power of miscommunication in science. 


-Harry Zhao Yuanfeng

Friday, November 14, 2014

Whose fault is scientific miscommunication? A brief rant on a simple question and it’s complicated answer.

      As Americans, it seems the trend is to encourage everyone to validate themselves professionally with personal details.  Politicians are sold to us or criticized based on their personal lives: they are fathers, family men, a strong woman, successful minority, religious, non-religious, get involved with secretaries etc.  However, this seems to also be a trend in science, and I think this may be hurting our ability to relate to the public at large.  There are sociological reasons people trust other people with similar backgrounds to them.  By looking down on people for being not well educated, religious, or not believing our science, we do no good but cause them to feel alienated.  People who are not atheist or liberals may feel unwelcome, afraid to voice their opinions, or worse, judged and looked down on.  I know some people were shaken by the media’s and publics perception of us, but we need to take some responsibility for that.  We are at fault for those perceptions, and our relationship with the public.  It is not just the public’s stupidity that causes these problems, it is our fault too, and it is also our problem.
     In schools, children are not always taught the research process, leading to a lack of understanding of the process of research is adulthood.  If they don’t understand the process, why on earth do we expect them to blindly believe the outcome and data?  Will full ignorance is one thing (see any political conversation on climate change – I am not talking about sticking your head in the sand) but people are allowed to think differently about topics than we do.  When people aren’t scientifically trained, they don’t understand that what we know constantly changing.   We are made painfully aware of how much we don’t know, and how much what we do know can change with new studies. As scientists we are used to that, and repeatably exposed to this in our education and research.

[Found at http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=374]


          The average Joe isn't educated in this field, and does not understand why this happens.  If people are not experienced in the research process, it is very reasonable for them to be confused when the entire scientific basis of what they should be feeding themselves is completely changes.  This creates some mistrust from the public, where scientists see no issue.  The media may also play a role in this, but the truth is elucidating an idea through research takes years.  How long can it take to do a research project and write it up,  much less the number of papers and research trials it takes to actually figure out what is going on.  The media and the public don’t have the patience or the time to wait ten years if our research effects their lives to get the full story or picture, and that is understandable.  Sometimes, the idea is never completely elucidated, but just gets more complicated.  The public doesn’t understand that side of research, so those that do understand that could get more involved in public outreach about not just their own research, but the process in general.
As scientists, sometimes we are sending the wrong message.  If you look at my previous post, the scientist who is disputing flu vaccinations is very well educated.  He is causing a ruckus in a totally different field, but he is an educated person who is a semi-related field.  Just today, NPR aired a story not about the Rosetta launch, but what one of the scientists was wearing.
View image on Twitter
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/14/364083954/shirtstorm-leads-to-apology-from-european-space-scientist?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news]
  How do we expect to be perceived when the interviewed scientist for the Rosetta success was wearing a completely inappropriate shirt on television?  There is a reason that scientists are perceived the way they are, and as an individual we may feel we haven’t earned that, but we need to be constantly trying to improve.  We need to accept responsibility for our part of scientific miscommunications, not try to put all the blame on the media trying to seek attention, or on the public’s perceived stupidity.  We are all in this together.  
                There is danger for educated scientists to fall into this exact blame game:  The public is stupid and trusts inappropriate sources.  The media just wants to get hits and likes.  It’s not that simple, it is a complex and nuanced problem.  Yes society is changing, and some of it seems depressingly permanent and for the worse.  But as scientists, I think instead of focusing on what everybody else is doing wrong, or how the media spins stories, we need to focus on improving ourselves.  That is the only thing we have control over, how we behave and try to grow, and I think that is what this class is aimed at doing.  Not on how the media behaves, not on what the public perceives to be important or is willing to believe, but on how what we do and how we act can influence that.  I think we lose sight of our role in this, that we are not alone, but that we cannot do it alone and are not supposed to.  
               Everyone in this class will go into different fields, and as much as academia trains you for academia, it's ok that the majority of grad students will not end up in academia.  There are so many roles to play.  As an individual we can’t do the research we think is going to change the world, write papers and grants to continue to pursue that research, teach courses, educate minds and serve as a mentor, educate the public, educate the young, have an impact on policy, tell your story through the media, and change the world.  It is not going to happen!  In my opinion, you find the niche in this process that you feel you do the most good in, and you continue to work with other scientists, researchers, media, and public figures in order to change things for the better.  
             The topics this week in our conversations in scientific communications were somewhat dark and depressing on the outlook for the future of our society.  I think it is easy to get caught up in the negative, and feel like we can’t change anything.  While it is important to continue to grow and better ourselves, we need to remember as bleak as things may look, we are not in this alone.  Science is all about “standing on the shoulders of giants”.  In research, you are basing your experiments on others work, and the knowledge you use is the product of thousands of years and probably millions of people’s effort.  In my mind, it will not be one person who finds the cure to cancer, because that cure will be based off of the knowledge put out by so many minds.  When communicating with the public,               I think we need a reminder: you cannot change the world on your own, you are not alone, and that as powerless as we may feel individually, as a group we can change science and the way people live their lives for the better.  But to do so, we need to stop playing the blame game, and step up to improve ourselves.

I tried to keep this brief, but as per usual I am long winded.  Here are some links to stimulate discussion and may peak your interest in some of these topics!


Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Tiny Human Stomachs

When looking through Yahoo news stories, one really caught my attention: “Tiny Human Stomachs Grown in Lab.”  This title just had to be a complete over exaggeration of the findings.  However, after reading through the article written by Laura Geggel, it became clear that this title is basically what scientists have reported in Nature.  The article is long enough to provide details regarding how scientists completed the research and why it matters.  Additionally, the author uses quotes from scientists both working on the project and those who are experts in the field but unrelated to the work reported.  This provided clear explanations that anyone with a basic understanding of the human digestive system could understand.  While it is clear that this research is very complex, it was well explained for a public audience. 


When comparing the Yahoo article to the published manuscript “Modelling human development and disease in pluripotent stem-cell-derivedgastric organoids” in Nature (McCracken et al., 2014), it became clear that the Yahoo article really did a great job at taking extremely complex and detailed science, and converted it to a form that the public could understand.  While the manuscript goes into great detail on the genes being expressed in certain cell types at certain times of development, the news article didn’t mention a single gene but rather referenced the overall outcome of the project and the future direction of the work.  This allowed proper communication of the science to the public in a way that was easily understood.  Overall, this is a great example of science being reported accurately and clearly. 

-Laura

Whales talking dolphin?


In order to compare a news article reporting recent scientific findings to a published scientific paper, I started looking though major news outlets for any science story that caught my attention.  On time.com, I came across a story that seemed to be popping up all over the internet, “Captive Orcas Can Learn How to Speak Dolphin, Researchers Say.” From first impression, the title of the article makes it seem that killer whales are communicating with dolphins rather than imitating sounds, so I decided to delve deeper into the story.

After reading the entire article written by Jack Linshi, a few things really stood out, first being how short the article was.  Simply three paragraphs were provided to explain and summarize that data presented.  While the title of the article gave the impression that the whales learned to communicate with dolphins, the article states that the “killer whales living with dolphins are capable of imitating their sounds.” After a short explanation of the science conducted and results, the article concludes by listing the known species that can learn to mimic sounds.  The overall impression from the article was that the science was basic: some killer whales lived with dolphins and they learned to make the sounds the dolphins made. 

However, when looking at the paper “Differences in acoustic features of vocalizationsproduced by killer whales cross-socialized with bottlenose dolphins” by Musser et al., 2014, it became evident that much more intricate science occurred than what the article reported.  The sounds of a control group of killer whales, control group of bottle-nosed dolphins, and the test group killer whales co-habitating with bottle-nosed dolphins were analyzed for a number of quantitative parameters to allow for a thorough comparison between groups.  Also, the paper provides a thorough introduction explaining that killer whales have been known to modify their vocalizations to match relatives, different groups of killer whales, and even sea-lions when orphaned in the wild.  Therefore, it was hypothesized that killer whales co-habitating with dolphins would add dolphin vocalizations to their repertoire. 

Overall, I believe that the science was reported accurately but not thoroughly.  The title gives an over-exaggeration of the findings of the study, most likely to increase the number of people reading the article.  A very simplistic overview of the study is provided, highlighting the overall conclusion of the study.  However, no background is provided which makes it difficult to gage the overall impact of the research reported. 


-Laura

             

Friday, November 7, 2014

Is cloning efficient enough to start pet cloning business?

  




   In my opinion this is a misleading title and it confuses readers and public about the issue of cloning. In reality, scientists have been struggling to increase the percentage of the cloning efficiency to generate living offspring in laboratory and farm animals for decades until now. On the contrary, this news article, which was published 8 years ago, was presenting the topic as if there was no issue with the efficiency of cloning and claiming the main reason to stop the business was the less demand for their product. Interestingly, they are talking about pets cloning in which cloning and embryo transfer were not studied and investigated enough like laboratory and farm animals. Using controversial science and weird topics to create interesting news and generating publicity is not improving public knowledge. In fact, this practice shallows the public awareness about current issues in science. Actually, this type of news creates more confusion for public readers and makes them assume and predict things that are not realistic or practical. Cloning, as an example here, is still in its early stages and need more research and investigation to improve its quality and yet you see some people talking about making a business of cloning. In addition, even if the cloning were successful, the main goal is for biomedical research to study disease or organ transplantation not to clone pets for entertainment.
Here is some reference for some review papers discussing the issue with cloning, practical usage, and how to improve. They are scientific articles and not intended for common readers, but can help to get a general idea about the current cloning efficiency rate and possible applications.   

Thuan NVKishigami SWakayama T., 2010. How to improve the success rate of mouse cloning technology. J Reprod Dev.  Feb;56(1):20-30.

 Niemann H1, Lucas-Hahn A. 2012. Somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning: practical applications and current legislation. Reprod Domest Anim.Aug;47 Suppl 5:2-10.

Samiec M1, Skrzyszowska M. 2011. Transgenic mammalian species, generated by somatic cell cloning, in biomedicine, biopharmaceutical industry and human nutrition/dietetics--recent achievements. Pol J Vet Sci. ;14(2):317-28.

Sameer,

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Giving credibility where credibility is due: Dangers of using university names as "street cred"

Today I was unnerved by the following headline on my social media feed:
"John Hopkins Scientist Reveals Shocking Report on Flu Vaccinations"
As scientists, often we are introduced by the university or institution we are affiliated most closely with.  This signals to the public that we are knowledgeable individuals who are trusted enough by other scientists to work at (hopefully) prestigious institutions, and therefore we know what we are talking about.  As an individual, being affiliated with a large, well known, well trusted institutions that put out high impact, peer reviewed work will transfer some of that trust and positive feelings the public holds for the institution to the individual.  However, it is not always the right signal, and using affiliations to get the public to trust someone who is pushing an agenda can be dangerous.  This is a great example of that.  The article was published in YourNewsWire.com, which I could right away distinguish as not top of the tier journalism or news.  However, when I read the article, it was quoting a paper published by this scientist in The British Medical Journal.  When I followed the link, I was directed to the BMJ website, but was not given access to the article.  This poses another problem to the public, if these scientific journals are all private access, how does someone go about and read the research and evidence in order to draw their own conclusions?  It is a very frustrating position, and leads to people believing whatever snippets they find in the media that gives them free access.  What most people would not have noticed, and even I did not, was that this was published under the BMJ's "Features" section.  This is a subheading of "News and Views", which means that this was a opinion piece, and not a research project.  However, because it was published in a medical journal, any other person can cite it as solid scientific evidence, while in fact it is one scientists opinion.  My next course of action was to dig into who this scientist was and his affiliation with John Hopkins.  John Hopkins is a incredibly well known medical research university that is known as a very credible source to just about any person with a average knowledge of scientific institutions.  I was immediately wary when Snopes was one of the top hits on google.  Many of his arguments have been refuted previously, or are known not to be true.  These include that the flu vaccination doesn't work, because scientists can't always guess the virus correctly, which a 40 year spanning study has demonstrated is not true [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/153/abstract].  It also includes that "Big pharma" profits from vaccinations, which has been demonstrated to be false [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948579].   The final argument was that the side effects are higher than claimed, because of high doses of mercury, which is no longer used in vaccinations, and seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury [CDC-thimerosol facts].  The most frustrating thing is that all of the articles refuting the opinion given were research papers, peer reviewed and published, and that the general public would not know that the article in question was not research based, but an opinion piece.  The author himself, Peter Doshi, received his Bachelors from Brown University, his Masters from Harvard, and his PhD from MIT, and is now doing postdoctoral research at John Hopkins.  This sounds like a impressive resume, and even I would be inclined to trust this persons opinion based on the prestigious universities he attended.  
       But.....here is the kicker.  His bachelors was in anthropology, his masters in East Asian Studies, and his PhD in history, anthropology, and science, technology and society.  In direct conflict with what people have labeled him (Including journals such as Science) he is not a epidemiologist.  He is not involved in clinical research, medical research, he does not even have what most would consider a Life Science background.  However, because of the elite institutions that he has been involved in for east asian studies, suddenly we can trust him as a flu vaccination expert.  While it appears he is involved in some beneficial work on getting clinical trial information public (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/business/breaking-the-seal-on-drug-research.html?pagewanted=all), he doesn't have a background in epidemiology.  So, when he makes arguments that the flu doesn't kill as many people as the CDC says, is it because he doesn't know that influenza deaths are not reported to public health authorities, or is there more to this story?  While I agree that there needs to be public records of clinical trials to create transparency and prevent corporations from cherry picking trial results.  However, just because the author is affiliated with prestigious universities does not make him a expert on flu, and opinion pieces should still be regarded as such even in a medical journal.  
You can find the article here:http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

-Jocelyn Cuthbert