The Pursuit of Sapience

On the Art of Compassion

2012-01-24T23:38:00.000-05:00

After spending the weekend in Michigan with my family, I found myself heading westbound on I-94 with NPR as my co-pilot. Although NPR provides the soundtrack to my morning and evening commutes (short as they may be), I rarely listen for several hours on end. This time, it was a pleasure to do so.

As I approached the Chicago skyline, a program I'd not heard of called "To The Best Of Our Knowledge," produced by PRI (Public Radio International) came on. This episode was on "Medicine and Compassion," and I was instantly engaged. Regrettably, there is no transcript of the hour-long program, though you are offered both streaming and download options to listen to the mp3 files of each of the five segments separately should you be pressed for time. I thought each voice of the program brought a new dimension to the theme of compassionate medicine. I especially encourage my medically-minded friends to check it out. I know your schedules are full and free time is lacking, but listen to a segment while you get ready in the morning or while you brush your teeth before bed. While the stories from one of the Dali Lama's physicians on the health benefits of meditation, and the Madison, Wisconsin doctor's story of learning compassion -- a skill which cannot be taught in an undergraduate or medical school classroom, though I'm confident that a majority of medical school applications contain the word at least once -- are poignant and thought-provoking, there was a particularly important perspective told by one contributor who brought up the toll that constant compassion for others can have on a physician's emotional well-being. I do not think this phenomenon is necessarily limited to physicians -- but all those working in the health care field, caring for others, need also to care for themselves.

Check it out; if you're at all interested by what I have to write in this little corner of the Internet, I think you'll enjoy it. (And, as my mom would remind me, it's probably more stimulating than spending an hour watching television.)

A Different Kind of Civil Rights

2012-01-10T12:59:00.000-05:00

There are times when I feel that my public school education failed me, like reading the NPR obituary for Gordon Hirabayashi. I'd never heard of him, let alone learned of his place in the history of American Civil Rights. In fact, writes Mark Memmot, Hirabayashi was one of "just a handful of Japanese-Americans who defied the government's move to put more than 100,000 of them in detention camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor. For his refusal, he was imprisoned more than a year." The obituary describes Mr. Hirabayashi as honorable and interestingly patriotic.

""This order for the mass evacuation of all persons of Japanese descent denies them the right to live," Seattle native Gordon Hirabayashi wrote in 1942. "I consider it my duty to maintain the democratic standards for which this nation lives. Therefore, I must refuse this order of evacuation.""

Perhaps with the exception of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the civil rights failures towards African-Americans, I think my elementary and high school education largely glossed over other kinds of civil rights failures and victories which have marked U.S. history. I felt similarly when reading the history of class struggles outline by Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." (If you feel that your understanding of Americna History lacks voices outside the white, protestant, male narrative, it probably is, and I highly recommend Zinn's work.) Stories like Mr. Hirabayashi's we not included in my grade-school discourse on American History. Next Monday marks Martin Luther King Jr. Day; I can't help but to see the parallels between these who men who defended so honorably the freedom they believed in -- and I think there is a place in American History for both of these stories (and others).

Censoring Science

2011-12-24T12:06:00.001-05:00

More than a month ago, I wrote about the implications of a case involving biosecurity on the scientific process, publishing, and the relationship between academic research and government -- a story which has resurfaced across national and international headlines this week as:

"For the first time ever, a government advisory board is asking scientific journals not to publish details of certain biomedical experiments, for fear that the information could be used by terrorists to create deadly viruses and touch off epidemics." (Source: New York Times.)

The story is receiving particular attention in Wisconsin, where research similar in nature to the Dutch study was performed by a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The national security/bioterrorism issues posed by the work is described in an article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel which ran last week:

"Kawaoka has created a contagion virus in his lab, a UW official confirmed. But the official said he couldn't discuss the nature of the virus because it would compromise the publication of Kawaoka's research.

A Science magazine report detailing the work done by Dutch scientist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands reported that Fouchier had developed a man-made H5N1 avian influenza strain that had been genetically altered and is now easily transmissible between ferrets. Fouchier reported that studies show that any influenza strain passed among ferrets has also been transmissible among humans and vice versa.

The Science report, which focused on Fouchier's studies, said Kawaoka's research came up with comparable results.

"The research by the Kawaoka and Fouchier teams set out to answer a question that has long puzzled scientists. Does H5N1, which rarely causes human disease, have the potential to trigger a pandemic?" the magazine reported."

The New York Times piece provides additional detail into the nature of the scientific problem -- Avian flu in its present form is rarely contagious, but the introduction of relatively few mutations to the viral genome can change that reality dramatically:

"The virus, A(H5N1), causes bird flu, which rarely infects people but has an extraordinarily high death rate when it does. Since the virus was first detected in 1997, about 600 people have contracted it, and more than half have died. Nearly all have caught it from birds, and most cases have been in Asia. Scientists have watched the virus, worrying that if it developed the ability to spread easily from person to person, it could create one of the deadliest pandemics ever.

A government advisory panel, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, overseen by the National Institutes of Health, has asked two journals, Science and Nature, to keep certain details out of reports that they intend to publish on the research. The panel said conclusions should be published, but not “experimental details and mutation data that would enable replication of the experiments.”

Certainly, the implications of this research for national security and global health are obvious. However, I was pleased to learn that steps are being taken to address the problematic nature of censoring biomedical research -- many of the issues I raised when I first wrote about this story. Reports another Journal-Sentinel article:

"Paul Biedrzycki, director of disease control and environmental health for the Milwaukee Health Department, said rapid advancements in biotechnology and gene sequencing in recent years have raised important new questions about national health security and biohazards.

"Making bugs is becoming less expensive and more accessible," he said. "Research and science have really taken off, and it's available on the Internet. What used to require a PhD in microbiology can now be done with a bachelor's and some science knowledge."

The NIH said the federal government was working to establish a way to allow secure access to the information "to those with a legitimate need in order to achieve important public health goals." In addition, the government also is developing a policy that would augment current approaches to evaluating research that can potentially be misused."

It will be interesting to see what form such security measures take, and how methodologically vague the Science/Nature papers on the work end up being when they are finally released.

Just be nice!

2011-12-18T09:57:00.000-05:00

After feeling like the last couple of PostSecret weeks were duds -- at least for me -- my weekly visit to the site was gratifying this week. (Because it's gratifying to know that deep down, we all have the same secrets/thoughts.) My favorite, because it reflect some common sense that so many seem to be lacking:

Nones

2011-12-12T17:39:00.001-05:00

There is no other time of year when I am more acutely aware of my religious status, or lack thereof, than the stretch between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I usually (one, two and three posts from two out of the past three Christmases) find myself contemplating my place in a secular celebration of a religious holiday. Although there's certainly no harm in assessing my faith every so often, usually it leaves me feeling relatively uneasy.

Yesterday, reading an Op-Ed by Eric Weiner ("Americans: Undecided About God?"), I finally felt like I could relate to something:

"For some of us, the season affords an opportunity to reconnect with our religious heritage. For others, myself included, it’s a time to shake our heads over the sad state of our national conversation about God, and wish there were another way.

For a nation of talkers and self-confessors, we are terrible when it comes to talking about God. The discourse has been co-opted by the True Believers, on one hand, and Angry Atheists on the other. What about the rest of us?

The rest of us, it turns out, constitute the nation’s fastest-growing religious demographic. We are the Nones, the roughly 12 percent of people who say they have no religious affiliation at all. The percentage is even higher among young people; at least a quarter are Nones."

One can be a None? It was like some part of my internal dialogue said, "Ah ha!" Why have I spent years trying to decide my place on the spiritual spectrum, between Hesitant Humanist, or Spiritual-but-not-Religious, or Worshiper-of-Science, or Ambivalent Agnostic, or Angry Atheist, or Daughter-and-Granddaughter-of-Christians-so-Christian-by-birth?! I can opt out of the whole discussion, if I so choose. To be honest, I'm a little embarrassed that this is some sort of revelation for me.

Perhaps if you are not a "None," then it is difficult to see the importance of a null categorization. For me, though, it comes up more often than one might think, and generally at fairly inopportune moments. For example, during my second interaction with Mr. A's mother during which she asked if I was Lutheran (I am not), Methodist (no), or Catholic (not that either) before, after squinting her eyes in a look of confusion, either she or I was thankfully distracted by something else and the conversation was not revisited. Generally, these lines of questioning continue until I uncomfortably confess that, since I was neither baptized nor confirmed as any faith, I respectfully abstain from religious practice -- and generally the person asking the questions is unsatisfied by this reality. Weiner's conclusion was a refreshing reminder that, although every aspect of life has been thrown into the public spotlight (think about what we share with each other via Facebook, or blogs like this one), it needn't be that way:

"Religion and politics, though often spoken about in the same breath, are, of course, fundamentally different. Politics is, by definition, a public activity. Though religion contains large public components, it is at core a personal affair. It is the relationship we have with ourselves or, as the British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said, “What the individual does with his solitariness.” There lies the problem: how to talk about the private nature of religion publicly."

He then makes some odd, simile -- that religion in America requires an endeavoring spirit like Steve Jobs to revamp our religious space -- which I found detracted from his overall message, that what is missing is "a religious space that celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment. A religious operating system for the Nones among us. And for all of us."

A celebration of doubt -- how wonderful! (But not at all a part of the traditional holiday experience -- though my past blog posts may suggest otherwise.)

Dirty Little Secrets

2011-12-11T22:21:00.001-05:00

I was unspeakably saddened by the Guardian article out of the UK: "Rape in the US Military: America's Dirty Little Secret." The subtitle reads that "a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire," although I think the article brings up more startling systematic failures in military culture, military justice, and the V.A. health care system -- for both women and men.

It is, regrettably, not difficult to find troubling statistics on sexual assault. RAINN (the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) reports that someone in the United States is the victim of sexual assault every two minutes, and fifteen of sixteen rapists will never see a jail cell. In the aftermath/midst (depending on how you look at it) of the Penn State scandal, the website 1in6.org offers support to the estimated one in six men who is sexually abused before the age of eighteen, as well as their friends and families.

I used to spend quite a bit of time thinking about these sorts of things, during my involvement with a sexual assault crisis hot line as an undergraduate. Commitments, involvements, and the simple passage of time have shifted my focus away from sexual assault -- but my convictions remain the same. I think the article from the Guardian suggest some key opportunities for change in the military which addresses the problematic truths set forth in the stories to too many abused soldiers.

In support of libraries, books, words, ideas...and things that make the world a more beautiful place.

2011-12-07T17:08:00.001-05:00

Robert Krulwich writes a self-proclaimed "sciencey blog" on the NPR website, and I thought his story of book-sculptures, left in various locales around Edinburgh, Scotland, was pretty amazing. Actually, I think the story in its entirety is better told by the Scots themselves (with additional photos).

I'm deeply envious that anyone has the time, talent, and inclination to produce such exquisite art, made from paper no less, then cleverly revealed. I can't decide which is my favorite, perhaps the dragon, or the poet-tree, or the t-rex.

Perhaps tangentially, I am reminded of the children's book, "Miss Rumphius," by Barbara Cooney which was a favorite of mine growing up -- (quoted from the Amazon page for the book) "As a child Great-aunt Alice Rumphius resolved that when she grew up she would go to faraway places, live by the sea in her old age, and do something to make the world more beautiful--and she does all those things, the last being the most difficult of all." I don't yet know how I will make the world a more beautiful place, but I am grateful to those who find creative ways to do so everyday.

Big Data

2011-12-02T23:25:00.001-05:00

Several weeks ago, JD phoned to ask how my research is coming along and if I had any large amounts of data arriving soon. His timing was impeccable; genetic work generates exponentially more data than more "traditional" physiological experimentation. JD, sounding excited, asked how many data points that would involve. So I explained that each array plate houses information on 84 genes for 4 treatment groups, I have 4 biological replicates, and 3 different arrays. That is 4032 data points and, in my opinion, quite a bit of it. JD was disappointed and explained that this could be handled by a single computer in a series of milliseconds. He was after data which would require a hundred computers hours to handle (or some outrageous amount of computing power like that) for a school project. All of my school projects, perhaps with the exception of my Lyman Briggs senior thesis, pale by comparison.

I was reminded how minuscule my data-crunching problems may be by a story on Morning Edition earlier this week: "The Search for Analysts to Make Sense of 'Big Data'."

The story focuses on the venture capital/business side of the problem, but it's also an increasing problem in the world of biomedical research, as investigations shift towards high-throughput, 'omic' scale studies. Issues with data have been well-documented in the realm of genomics: earlier this week this was discussed by the New York Times, and by the computing news site HPCWire. But there are also developing fields of proteomics, metabolomics, and interactomics. Essentially, these fields seek to study their particular focus in a more comprehensive way than ever before. Proteomics seeks to take a sample and analyze all the protein parts of that sample simultaneously, more or less. Metabolomics seeks to analyze all changes across space and time in small molecule metabolites (although a strict definition of what small molecules qualify is debated) -- which some argue is the truest method of assessing functional biological changes, since changes to DNA, proteins, and protein processing ultimately result in changes in cellular function which can be observed. Assembling an interactome seeks to address how everything within a cell, which scientists have gotten quite skilled at deconstructing, can be brought back together into spatially and temporally relevant understandings of organismal function.

Phew...it's intense! And as one might imagine, such quests for knowledge generate massive amounts of data, and these require storage, analysis and interpretation. These are the kinds of things, generating megabytes and terabytes of information, which can be handled by the "supercomputers" JD is working with. And the result is as many publications on the computational/bioinformatic side of these fields as there are publications on the biology itself.

We are at the point where how we handle data is as important as the data itself. How should these data be stored? How can they be stored securely if and when they include privileged patient information? How should data be analyzed? How can such data sets be stored/distributed for future or further investigation?

For me, that's one really spectacular thing about science: the more we learn, the more ways we find to learn more, and the more we adapt and develop technology to permit this learning in the first place. And although I think my dissertation will take long enough, sometimes it is incredible to think that just a few years ago my project would have been impossible to complete within the 7-year graduation limit. Five-to-ten years from now, what I will complete in three and a half years may only require a few months.

Publish or Perish

2011-11-19T14:11:00.001-05:00

There exists a popular saying in academia: publish or perish, which may seem ironic given the following.

I've written about the peer-review publication process before, because in its present form it is problematically vital to academic careers and forward progress and riddled with procedural and ethical problems. As a result of some of these considerations, one story in particular this week on NPR's health/science blog caught my attention -- and it wasn't because of the headline, "Bird Flu Research Rattles Bioterrorism Field."

Nell Greenfieldboyce reports that research out of the Netherlands has discovered a series of just five mutations to the bird flu (H5N1) virus which renders it dramatically more contagious, and thus much more dangerous than the virus which exists naturally today. It's fairly obvious that methodological knowledge resulting in a more virulent and deadly virus is dangerous -- particularly when bioterrorism is considered. The work was presented at a virology conference in Malta, after which major ethical and safety concerns over publication of this research were raised. Bioterrorism experts in Pittsburgh argue that the work should not be published, for fear of inappropriate application of such findings. Dr. Thomas Inglesby says, "It's just a bad idea for scientists to turn a lethal virus into a lethal and highly contagious virus. And it's a second bad idea for them to publish how they did it so others can copy it."

One result of a global biomedical research field is that there exists no single regulatory body to dictate publication ethics in cases like these. Instead, there is an amalgam of various institutional, professional, local, state, national and international governmental and regulatory bodies which come together to dictate first ethical laboratory practices, allocation of research monies, and finally what happens with research-driven revelations. Writes Greenfieldboyce:

"Scientists say they do think hard about these issues. Princeton's Lynn Enquist, editor in chief of the Journal of Virology, says he and his colleagues carefully considered whether to publish a flu study submitted to the journal that appears in the December issue.

"You have to say, 'Is there more benefit than there is risk?' and that was our judgment on this one, that that was indeed the case," says Enquist.

In that experiment, researchers had taken a bird flu gene and put it in the swine flu virus that started spreading between people a couple of years ago. Mice infected with this lab-created virus got very, very sick."

What I find most interesting about all of this is the arbitrary line which separates "more benefit" and "more risk." The article continues:

"But Enquist says, this altered virus didn't spread easily. And he points out that this kind of virus combination could happen as bird flu circulates out in nature.

"Scientists in the United States and all around the world are very curious as to how this thing is going to evolve because we have to be prepared for it," says Enquist. "The public would expect us to be prepared."

As part of that effort to get ready, scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been doing work to see how bird flu could adapt to humans. This month, in a different journal called Virology, they described how they created two new versions of the bird flu virus that could spread between ferrets in a limited way."

Preparation for future spontaneous viral genome mutations is critical to mounting any sort of inoculation or public health response -- two research areas which rely heavily on information collected and published globally by various laboratories and field projects. I'm also incredulous that such research isn't already performed on a regular basis by the Department of Defense (the largest provider of R & D dollars in the U.S.) and its international counterparts. After all, weaponized disease (think anthrax, small pox) already exist.

Ultimately, I think these are questions that, as the microbiology field advances further and sophisticated laboratory methodology becomes more and more accessible, the world of Science will have to grapple with more. If it's decided that studies such as these are inappropriate for publication, there is then a need to create secure infrastructure to distribute such knowledge to laboratories elsewhere, and a need for researchers to be credited outside of the publication arena.

Adventure 10: Pho Hai Tuyet

2011-11-17T22:29:00.001-05:00

Although I've had plenty of adventures in the past year, it would seem that I've not written about them since last September. Interestingly, it's been two years (shy a few days) since the "adventure" premise arose. Looking back, I am amazed and humbled that my lowest point became my strongest. Of all the things I have done for myself, earning how to be on my own makes me the most proud. Learning how to fly solo, and how to do it happily, is allowing me to better share my life with the people I care about. So it's time for my adventure posts to take on a new context: Adventures can happen anywhere, anytime, and with anyone -- because life should always be an adventure.

Tuesday nights have become "date night" for Mr. A and me, which has presented a great opportunity to explore more of Milwaukee. Sharing a fondness for ethnic food, this week we decided to start the hunt for the best pho in Milwaukee. There are a surprising number of Vietnamese options here -- something I didn't anticipate before I began looking. I selected a little place on the South Side on its authenticity, called Pho Hai Tayet. Following my original food review format:

Food: Excellent: **** The spring roll appetizer was served with a delicious peanut sauce, thick with carrot slices. The bowls of pho were served promptly and the perfect temperature, with the ordinary fixings to "personalize" the flavors: bean sprouts, basil, chili sauce, jalapeno slices. They are large, with a good broth-to-noodle ratio. It was a completely warm and satisfying meal to complement the new crispness of mid-November.
Service: *** The assumption that this place is authentic was a great one. The first language on the menu is what I can only presume is Vietnamese, then sparse descriptions of the dishes in English -- so you'll need to be vaguely familiar with Vietnamese cuisine prior to your dining experience. Exchanges with the waitstaff were limited, perhaps due to the language barriers. A table next to us seemed to be having a particularly difficult time with this. Our food was delivered very, very promptly, although with little-to-no-separation between the appetizer and main course. I don't think this bothered us too much.
Atmosphere: ** Like I said, authentic. The restaurant occupies a spot in a strip mall which could be easily overlooked. There's not really any atmosphere to speak of -- Formica tables with numbers prominently displayed -- but perhaps that's the charm. Televisions turned to a 24-hour news channel allowed us to follow the developments in the Penn State scandal while we ate. Quite a few clients came in for take-out orders, as well, so if atmosphere is important to you, creating your own vibe at home (or elsewhere) may be a better option.
Price: Quite reasonable. The result was date night dinner for around $25, including tip. I looked into making pho on my own and realized that dining out is a.) cheaper and b.) much less trouble than a from-scratch endeavor. More importantly, the food was delicious and I think Mr. A would agree when I conclude that we had a great time.

I'm not sure if we'll continue trying the other Milwaukee Vietnamese joints in our quest for the perfect pho, but it wouldn't be a disappointment if Pho Hai Tuyet became our pho-place-of-choice.

It's my hope that "adventure" posts will become more regular -- but blogging is always more time-consuming than I anticipate, so no promises. Happy exploring to you and yours!

The Art of Science

2011-11-16T06:30:00.000-05:00

Having always found science a rather beautiful endeavor, I thought the NYTimes slideshow of pieces from Princeton University's "Art of Science" Competition to be both visually and mentally stimulating. The winning piece (on the last slide of the show -- called "Chaos and Geomagnetic Reversals" by Christophe Gissinger) is something I can imagine buying a print of. Although it's over my head in a very serious way, I think some of the theory/models behind that image are explained in Dr. Gissinger's latest manuscript.

In my time at Michigan State, I did quite a bit of imaging work -- less now that my graduate work is more molecular-biology focused. Scientists often pride themselves on quantitative results, work which fits into graphs and numerically describes the work at hand. After all, the Holy Grail of science is statistical significance, and pictures have a difficult time fitting to truly quantitative statistical tests (this problem is sometimes averted through the use of normalization factors and pixel quantification). However, I think on some level as human beings we find the pictures are more compelling. I have to remember this as I seek to make evidence for my hypothesis visually meaningful for my audience.

Below is my own science-art. It shows a pair of cultured rat aortic smooth muscle cell mignified at 60X, and stained with fluorescent-labeled antibodies to show the nucleus, in blue, alpha-actin (unique to smooth muscle cells), in red, and biotinylated serotonin, in green. Yellow indicates an overlay between green and red staining -- a colocalization. The image is published in a manuscript I co-authored as part of Figure 6a in which we were investigating the possibility that serotonin can act as a covalent modifier on intracellular proteins, particularly those important to vascular function.

Taking the Plunge

2011-10-25T16:51:00.000-04:00

To begin I should note that I am privileged to have befriended some incredible people in my relatively short time on this earth -- people who are brilliant and talented in every way possible. It is this group of people that keeps me grounded and confident that I am on the right path, because no matter what my decisions may be, I never seem to be alone.

Last month I received an e-mail from a friend in medical school who had encountered a scientist (MD) who claimed that a life which straddles both science and clinical medicine in some sort of balance is impossible. In closing, she asked:

"This got me pretty depressed because I had thought that maybe I could pursue an MPH or Masters in Epi at some time later in the future and be a clinician-scientist doing epi research.

I was wondering what your thoughts were on the possibility of research AND clinical medicine. It seems like you had a lot of thought on this and chose a different path [than] I."

It was an impeccably timed letter -- one which echoed some of my own struggles with deciding on a career path. I was able to reply with some thoughts that had recently come to light:

"The age-old question: is it truly possible to be a physician scientist? You're right, I have struggled with this myself, as I realize more and more that my true passions, although still diverse, still share a single commonality: activities which make advances in biomedical research relevant to the world, rather than at the laboratory bench itself. So this reply will be biased: I want a career which translates scientific achievements into health care improvements and involves some patient interaction. This means I will most likely end up going to medical school once I finish this degree (yikes). I'm not sure if the career I envision will involve bench-top research, but it will certainly include clinical research at very least in a collaborative effort. I must confess, I cannot provide an authoritarian answer, but I can tell you what I do know (which includes a little bit of hope, too).

Obviously, I can really only speak for myself and my own preferences. Ultimately, perhaps the most difficult decision we face is answering the question, "What do you want?" If an answer to this, for you, involves a career which emphasizes both patient-care and epidemiological (or any other) research, I think it is more than possible to make that happen for yourself. That said, I also have heard from people who have both encouraged and discourages a dual degree (MD/PhD) that a perfect 50/50 balance is impossible -- at some point you will need to decide to research and have a practice on the side or practice and do research on the side. "On the side" tends to mean different things for different people. I've met people who break their work-weeks up four days in the clinic, one day in the lab (or visa versa) and others who set aside a couple of hours every day for research. The type of research you choose to do may be more or less amenable to a career as a successful physician. Clinical research (I think epidemiology could easily fall into this category), especially that which relies on a particular patient cohort which you cater to in your practice, makes research a bit easier, while true "basic" research (i.e. biochemistry, cell biology, and even physiology to a certain extent) which takes place in a laboratory (often not within the hospital itself) can be more difficult. Outcomes research can be more easily fit into downtime, while managing an NIH-[funded] laboratory is much more involved.

As the NIH shifts its funding priorities towards more clinically-valuable projects, I think that people with dual skill sets will become (and are already becoming) valuable assets to research teams, especially those at institutions which rely on outside funding to support things like medical education. The result of this is the development of more and more options in medical education which allow physicians time to do the thinking necessary to be successful in research. Personally, I've looked into medical schools which include options for research experience during training (a research rotation, for example). I would be shocked if this weren't an option at Michigan State. I know that there exist dual "post-doc/residency" programs which allow physician-scientists to further develop their research and clinical skill sets, somewhat simultaneously. Some of those [programs and opportunities] are listed here, http://www.physicianscientists.org/careers/training/residency, and that site also provides some good information on a career as a physician-scientist in general. Year-out programs are also an option (those are described on that site as well) which might compliment an MPH/Epi Masters nicely. These opportunities may have not been available to physician-scientists of previous generations, so perhaps we could more successfully balance such a career? This remains to be seen. "

So sometime in the last few months, I have decided to make these dreams a reality -- and the first step in this was accomplished two weeks ago when I registered for the March 27th administration of the MCAT.

In all honesty, I am terrified.

It's an odd regression, going back to studying subjects (organic chemistry, physics) which I am confident I need not remember much of for medical school success because I've already taken graduate level bio-medical coursework. It is a humbling experience to try to relearn what surely comes easily to my fellow test-takers, most of whom are high-achieving undergraduates with plenty of time on their hands to devote to studying. Electron fields? Angular acceleration?

I think about finishing school at thirty, and what my life will be like. How does one finally "settle down" (i.e. buy a house, hell, buy a car, get married and have babies, or maybe just more cats) when faced with $200K in student loans and a demanding residency/fellowship/work schedule? How will it feel to watch my friends blossom in their chosen careers as I start mine at the bottom of the medical totem pole? How will I find time and energy to nurture my other priorities?

But then I take a look around me (from) at the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center:

At the faculty and physicians doing tremendous work in the clinics, in the classrooms, and at the bench. At an impressive and state-of-the-art medical infrastructure. I am reminded that this is my journey, that it is incredible and exciting, and that I am surrounded by the kinds of people and opportunities which can help make my dreams possible. This is my future...

...So, I'm taking the plunge.

Decriminalizing Domestic Violence

2011-10-12T21:00:00.000-04:00

I am embarrassed for the entire state of Kansas, where in Topeka, a stand-off over budgeting between city, county, and state law agencies resulting in a 7 - 3 vote by City Council to decriminalize domestic violence. The article from the New York Times reports that since September, eighteen people have gone un-charged due to the unwillingness to prosecute.

I don't know enough about the legal procedures/proceedings surrounding such cases to be able to take sides with anyone in the discussion except the victims and future-victims. Are domestic violence cases more expensive than other types of cases? What about non-violent cases? Would the impasse be any different if domestic violence were percieved as affecting men and women equally, rather than being publically portrayed as a crime against women?

Are you man enough to be my man?

2011-10-10T19:30:00.000-04:00

I have a psychologist friend who periodically sends out little e-mails of encouragement, strength, or humor. I can only imagine she is a fabulous health care professional -- she seems to bring out the "zen" in everyone.

Today, she sent along the following Anaïs Nin quote:

"I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naïve or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman."

I like that.

Labor Day

2011-09-26T22:23:00.000-04:00

(I meant to post this much sooner, but it wasn't quite right until I found my camera cord for the addition of the photo.)

I spent my Labor Day long weekend back home, enjoying the quintessential Midwest sights and smells of summer's conclusion. For my family, this involves a trip into the city to Detroit's Jazz Festival. The festival itself is a fascinating amalgam of spectators from all walks of life, in a rare celebration of Detroit's downtown. It seemed like a fitting way to celebrate the holiday, in a city built by union labor and in a state struggling with union questions in a "post-maufacturing" era.

The Spirit of Detroit is a symbol of the city's past, the city's present, and the city's future. An icon which continues to instill a sense of pride, particularly when donning the threads of various teams and causes. This Labor Day, as President Obama prepared to deliver his Labor Day address not too far away, the Spirit of Detroit doubled as a tribute to the public education system. In a political climate which has ushered in some uncertain times for collective bargaining, this seemed like an interesting and appropriate gesture.

Science and Politics and Drama...Oh my!

2011-09-14T07:31:00.000-04:00

Considering the state of the American economy, the 2012 elections have produced an interesting amount of pseudo-scientific rhetoric. I wrote a bit about this last week, here, but this week has introduced some perhaps more interesting issues at hand.

During Monday night's GOP debate, one topic of discussion was Rick Perry's policies regarding mandatory HPV vaccination. Michelle Bachmann took this as an opportunity to attack Perry on several fronts, but also to attack the HPV vaccines themselves, playing on popular fears which link mental disease (retardation, autism) and vaccination. That was not the end of her opine, adds one NPR story (where there is also a video link of the debate exchange),

"...on the Today show Tuesday morning, Bachmann went further, telling Matt Lauer, that a mother had approached her after the debate to recount the problems her daughter had after being vaccinated against HPV:
She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection. And she suffered from mental retardation thereafter. The mother was crying when she came up to me last night. I didn't know who she was before the debate. This is the very real concern and people have to draw their own conclusions.
When Lauer pressed Bachmann on whether she would keep pushing on the issue, she answered that it has traction "with a lot of people and we'll see what people say.""

Importantly, the American Academy of Pediatricians released a statement refuting Bachmann's misrepresentation of the HPV vaccine, stating:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics would like to correct false statements made in the Republican presidential campaign that HPV vaccine is dangerous and can cause mental retardation. There is absolutely no scientific validity to this statement. Since the vaccine has been introduced, more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend that girls receive HPV vaccine around age 11 or 12. That’s because this is the age at which the vaccine produces the best immune response in the body, and because it’s important to protect girls well before the onset of sexual activity. In the U.S., about 6 million people, including teens, become infected with HPV each year, and 4,000 women die from cervical cancer. This is a life-saving vaccine that can protect girls from cervical cancer."

It's a shame that such a correction may receive less publicity than the debate itself. (As an aside, it's also a shame that such vaccines are only best-practice in female patient cohorts. Men can get HPV as well, and spread the virus more easily, particularly since as there is no test for a male HPV infection men may not know of their infection before sexual contact. Beyond the risk of increased transmission, the virus is also being linked to oral cancers in male patients -- a risk which, although to my knowledge is unstudied at this point, may be good cause for male HPV vaccination too.)

The HPV exchange also brought up some interesting campaign financing questions regarding Merck's donations to Gov. Perry's campaigns and Republican fundraising efforts. Coincidentally, Merck is the manufacturer of guardasil, the leading HPV vaccine on the market -- the vaccine which Gov. Perry wanted to mandate as "required" for all girls of a certain age in the state of Texas.

Meanwhile, here in Wisconsin, there's shaping up to be another debate on science regulation as legislation has been proposed which prohibits the use of fetal tissue in research. Dr. Stephen Duncan, a researcher at the Medical College of Wisconsin and leader in stem cell biology wrote an eloquent opinion piece which detailed the importance of access to fetal tissue in research. Importantly, he concluded,

"If AB 214 is enacted, it will not reverse the original decision to terminate three pregnancies. It will, however, jeopardize future health care advances, decimate biomedical research within the state, lead to substantial job losses and a significant "brain drain" from Wisconsin and cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding and biomedical commerce."

The statement puts at odds the need to create/preserve jobs and revive the economy, and the desire to integrate conservative social values into the workings of science. It remains to be seen which of these two agendas wins out in the long run.

A Healthy Dose of Doubt?

2011-09-07T07:10:00.000-04:00

Doubt is a fundamental part of the scientific process. Ideal science, in the philosophy of Karl Popper, is rare, perhaps unattainable. Nevertheless, we are instructed as students of science that "good science" is falsifiable science, and although Science seeks to identify truths, the term "prove" is a naughty word. Indeed, doubt has been a critical component of some of the most historically significant discoveries and controversies: the earth is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, germs cause disease. And doubt is a crucial part of the scientific community today -- for example, discrediting the work which concluded that vaccines cause autism.

Conversely, some doubt (which interestingly is not generated from those with scientific backgrounds) is counter-productive to scientific policy, and misleading to millions of less-educated Americans. On my drive to school this morning, NPR's Morning Edition ("In GOP Presidential Field, Science Finds Skeptics") covered the growing phenomenon of Republican presidential candidates voicing doubt about the accepted scientific conclusions on evolution, climate change, and even epidemilogical trends:

"At the time, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who started her political career fighting for creationism to be taught in schools alongside evolution, said at a campaign rally that perhaps God was sending signals to politicians in Washington.

"You'd think by now they'd get the message," Bachmann said. "An earthquake, a hurricane ... are you listening?"

When asked about that by reporters, Bachmann said clearly she was joking. But she's made similar comments before. In April 2009, she talked to a conservative news website about the recent outbreak of swine flu.

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then, under another [Democratic] president, Jimmy Carter," she said. "And I'm not blaming this on President Obama; I just think it's an interesting [coincidence].""

Goodness gracious. And although Michele Bachmann seems exceptionally skilled at producing heretical soundbites, she is hardly alone in her beliefs.

I think this editorial sums up my concerns for the rejection of rational scientific conclusions (i.e. global warming, evolution) by presidential contenders. (An editorial in the New York Times makes some of the same points with some poilicy-specific details.) Mr. Timmer's conclusion is most apt: votes will likely be placed by merit of economic viewpoints, not necessarily scientific policy. Nevertheless, once November is over and the ballots are counted, it is the entire elected offical who takes office, not just his or her economic policy. The situation sets up a void for independent voters who value both fiscal conservatism and fact-over-faith-based scientific/technology/education/health care policies. Perhaps, and hopefully, Jon Huntsman will use this to his advantage (but to be honest, I didn't know anything about him until today).

Going Out with a "Bang"

2011-09-06T17:06:00.005-04:00

Although I loathed physics until finally being forced to acquiesce to their biological significance in graduate school, I have always viewed the physical science research some sort of reverence -- perhaps because it is so foreign to me; perhaps because, in exploring the vastness of space and the minutia of particle physics, it deals with the fundamental forces of the universe.

Fermilab was an integral part of American scientific pioneering, for better and for worse. I was saddened to read of the "passing" of the Tevatron -- something which puts Michigan State's work at the National Superconducting Laboratory (and FRIB) that much more on the forefront. Still, I remain hopeful that projects like Project X (discussed in the closing paragraphs of the NPR article) will remain funding priorities in the United States, in times of want and in times of plenty.

Things I Like: Scorpacciata and Other Indulgences

2011-08-12T14:48:00.000-04:00

I've taken to sifting through food columns/series like NPR's "Kitchen Window," CNN's "Eatocracy," and New York Times' "Dining and Wine" section. Rather than searching for a recipe I've in mind on Epicurious or the Food Network, which often don't have exactly what I'm looking for anyway, these sites provide new ideas and flavor combinations I'd not considered. More recent entries also address seasonal cravings, and utilize more locally available produce. This allows me to practice my tomato, zucchini, and pepper scorpacciata. Writes Kat Kinsman, "Scorpacciata is a term that means consuming large amounts of a particular local ingredient while it's in season. It's a good way to eat." Amen, sister! (And I do love a good caprese salad, too.)

Last night, I made the linguini with slow-cooked zucchini, basil and cream from Domenica Marchetti's "The Glorious Pasta of Summer." It was, in a word, spectacular (her other recipes don't look terrible either!)--I'm getting ahead of myself. She begins,

"If I say the words "pasta sauce," I'm pretty sure what sort of image it will conjure in your head: a big plate of spaghetti with dark red tomato sauce ladled thickly over it. Maybe topped with a couple of meatballs.

There is certainly nothing wrong with a nice dish of spaghetti and meatballs; it's just not what I crave in midsummer. I'm guessing you feel the same way."

I'll confess, I'd been thinking for days about how to summer-ize my pasta. Supplied with home-grown zucchini and basil (courtesy of my mom), I had just about all of the ingredients lying around my pantry and refrigerator. I did substitute bacon for pancetta (on the basis of price and availability). Since bacon is significantly fattier than pancetta, I excluded the initial olive oil, and just sauteed the garlic and zucchini in bacon grease as well. Say what you will about calories and cholesterol, the result is a delicious, bacon-tinged sauce. I also added a sprinkle of red pepper flakes at the end, for a subtle extra kick (but not enough to be recognized as "spicy"). All in all, it was a pretty simple and crowd-pleasing dish that I'll definitely have to make again.

I've also found that I enjoy the writing which usually accompanies the recipes, like this one for Peanut Butter Pie, in memory of a certain Mikey. It's actually a touching story and reminds us that food unites us, in life and in death. Remembering someone by consuming his or her favorite dish seems like a wonderful memorium, particularly in friend groups and families (like mine) where so much social interaction occurs accompanied by or resulting from meals.

Rethinking Peer Review

2011-07-28T13:03:00.001-04:00

An article on the BBC site reports on recommendations from the British House of Commons Science & Technology Committee on strengthening the peer-review process, in hopes of making the exercise more transparent. Writes Daniel Boettcher,

"Their recommendations include making scientific data publicly available, and formal training for reviewers.

Their report also recommends the appointment of an oversight body to ensure integrity in science research.

"Peer-reviewed" has become a byword for "scientifically sound and approved", but complaints have arisen in recent years that the process can sometimes work to suppress radical new ideas, and can fail to catch fraudulent research.

The committee said ethical and scientific misconduct damages peer-review and science as a whole, referring to examples like the MMR controversy."

Here across the pond, Congress is neck-deep in the partisan politics of the budget battle--I anticipate that the subject will monopolize Congressional dockets and the media coverage for the time being (and perhaps beyond if fixes are pushed back until the 2012 elections). Nevertheless, rethinking the peer-review process seems like a useful task, particularly as more and more researchers rely on publication records to support pleas for funding with public dollars.

Transparency is a valuable thing for more than just reporting of accurate results. Making the data sets which form the basis of published work available publicly makes for better meta-analysis of pooled data sets--which is especially important when trying to compile data from very large patient populations, clinical trials, and efficacy tracking. Additionally, as high-throughput research yields larger and larger data sets, researchers end up utilizing only a small portion of generated information. By publishing the entire mountain of data, other scientists can query the results of previously performed experiments in order to answer novel questions. This increases research efficiency, and allows smaller institutions access to data sets which they might not have resources to produce on their own.

Such changes in the publication process could yield some big changes of their own--for the better. The ability to effectively query such data, public or otherwise, remains an imposing bioinformatics problem but one which is receiving more and more attention. I am of the opinion that "if you build it, they will come;" if data sets are available to query, people will come up with technologies that can accomplish this. We will also be forced (incentivised?) to create new standards for citing others' work. We no longer operate in a world where the simple book/article citation format is appropriate for how we convey/recycle information. Citations formats are lacking for these public data sets (some of which already do exist). By making citation of data common practice within the scientific community, we help to encourage collaboration while still preserving intellectual property. Citations can also be linked to professional performance, and help to shift hiring/tenure practice away from just a publication record, and more towards involvement in the scientific community as a whole.

Science, I think, likes to think of itself as self-policing. But I see a real value in some more clear-cut regulation of the peer-review process. This seems entirely appropriate to me, since a majority of published research performed in this country is taking place thanks to public monetary support in the first place.

On Coming Out in the Pros and Being a Nerd

2011-07-16T19:47:00.000-04:00

In many ways, it has been an exciting summer in the world of gay rights--with same-sex marriages now being recognized in New York and civil unions now legalized in Illinois. These are victories forward in the quest for freedom and equality for all Americans, all people. I was really struck by a recent ESPN story, bi-lined: "Former Dallas Cowboys great Michael Irvin appears shirtless on the cover of this month's gay men's magazine Out and discusses his passion for equality issues."

To my knowledge, it's fairly unprecedented for a straight, male professional athlete to take such a forward stand, particularly putting himself on the cover in a moderately provocative pose (he's shirtless, coyly tugging down the beltloop of his pants to expose the elastic band on his briefs). The article describes Irvin's relationship with his gay brother, and discusses acceptance of gays in the professional sports world (Irvin believes his teams would have reacted well to a player coming out). I am perhaps more skeptical of how accepting a football team may be of a gay teammate, particularly in the locker room, but I think it is another step forward: to juxtapose the masculine, tough-guy attitude of professional sports with sexual orientation. It also does well to combat commonly accepted gay stereotypes. Perhaps one day children will be able to idolize an openly gay quarterback, short stop, or forward, without parental protest.

But through all of that, there was one quote from the article that really stuck out. Irvin is quoted as saying, ""The last thing I want is to go to God and have him ask, 'What did you do?' And I talk about winning Super Bowls and national titles," Irvin said, according to Out. "I didn't do anything to make it a better world before I left? All I got is Super Bowls? That would be scary.""

This reminded me of a well-written column on CNN where LZ Granderson talks about raising his son to be a nerd over a sports star. Granderson aptly points out America's propensity to value sports stars over people who contribute in more valuable ways to the world, and acknowledges that these values are apparent early in a child's life. Writes Granderson:

"We know because of our culture's negative attitude toward nerds, our kids are discouraged from being bookish from an early age. We also know that there is a high drop out rate for college students in nerdy subjects such as science and math, which in turn affects how the country competes globally in fields such as medicine and engineering. So to me, there can be no innovation and job creation talks without talking about education.

At times, my son gets concerned that his bookish qualities may interfere with his social life. I just remind him that in the heart of hard economic times, 33 of 50 states increased the amount spent on prisons while decreasing dollars spent on K-12 and higher education. So while he's worrying about being cool, the job market is getting smaller and more competitive and our government is preparing to send more people to jail.

But again, it starts with me.

I finally figured out that if I wanted my son to really embrace education, I had to take the lead. Not by downplaying his accomplishments on the field but by elevating the importance of his work in the classroom. So I smile in the doorway when I walk into a room to see him reading for fun the same way I smile when I look out into the backyard to see him working on his dribbling."

Exactly.

How to Talk to Little Girls

2011-06-27T17:31:00.000-04:00

Though I may abhor what I believe social media is doing to the quality of our social interactions (like the grumpy old woman that I am), having easily-accessible reading recommendations from a group of socially-conscientious, intelligent individuals is quite nice, and has lead to some stimulating articles.

This article, "How to Talk to Little Girls," by Lisa Bloom of the Huffington Post is no exception (kindly, the link was posted by a college friend on FaceBook). Ms. Bloom advises us to avoid our almost instinctive reaction to pink-clad, pig-tailed little girls ("Oh my goodness, you are so cute!") and instead initiate conversation in such a way that these small human beings are valued for something less superficial. Some fairly startling statistics fuel Ms. Bloom's advice:

"Fifteen to eighteen percent of girls under twelve now wear mascara, eyeliner and lipstick regularly..."
"Eating disorders are up and self-esteem is down..."
"Twenty-five percent of young American women would rather win America's Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize."

Importantly, Ms. Bloom notes the insatiable curiosity which seems to exist in children. Be it through books, or Legos, finger paint, or exploring the backyard, nurturing a quest for knowledge and enthusiasm for life is a great way to raise confident, passionate young people, regardless of gender.

Weird

2011-06-05T10:28:00.000-04:00

My favorite Post Secret this week:

And, more importantly, I hope my kids are as happy as I was growing up.

An Update

2011-05-26T15:20:00.000-04:00

Blogging has fallen by the wayside in recent weeks as the semester drew to a conclusion and studying for comprehensive/qualifying exams commenced. Although plenty has happened in the world, this will serve as a more personal update.

I suffered two academic/professional defeats-of-sorts this month. Our program, uniquely, features a course called "Physiological Genomics," which serves two functions: we receive lecture and discussion based instruction in genomic approaches to questions in physiology (experimental techniques which help to explore how the whole genome--rather than single genes--is integrated into a functional organism), and we receive instruction on the peer-reviewed grant writing process. The latter aim revolves around a mock NIH grant proposal, which we have tailored with faculty help over the course of the semester. This project culminates with a faculty panel to serve as a mock study section--so that students can gain insight into the "behind the scenes" portion of the funding process. On e-mailing my final version to the course director, I was pleased with what had resulted from a semester's worth of literature review, thinking, writing, and editing.

It is a challenging endeavor, remaining respectful and silent in the back of a room while faculty verbalized the shortcomings, limitations, and merit of a proposal I had worked quite hard on. Although I more-or-less knew what was coming, I'm uncertain there is any amount of mental preparation which could have adequately prepared me for the ensuing constructive criticism. I am acutely aware that I take criticism personally, and tend to be defensive of my work--I suppose this is not the most terrible personal shortcoming. Nevertheless, it is an aspect of myself which must be morphed in order to maintain some air of professionalism, for graduate school and (more importantly) in the future.

Last week, I received the official results from the grant application I had submitted to the American Heart Association in January. Disappointingly, my grant was un-scored ("streamlined"). For those of you unfamiliar with the grant process: when a grant is received by the AHA, for example, it is assigned to two or three primary reviewers who each assign it a score between 1 and 9 (whole numbers only, one is a good score). Funding agencies receive far more applications than they can possibly fund, and far more applications than study sections (panels of scientists who donate their time to review grants) have time to discuss as a group. To deal with these limitations, applications which score in the bottom half of all applications received are "streamlined," i.e. tabled without further discussion. Applications in the top half are presented to the study section by the primary reviewers, then scored by the whole group. Grants that are scored (i.e. in the top half) but do not receive funding are invited to submit a revised, stronger version in light of reviewer comments. Without a score I cannot resubmit my grant, rather it requires a substantial overhaul to produce a proposal more worthy of funding. I did, however, still receive reviewer comments--which largely stressed that mine was a well-written application which lacked scientific innovation and provided only incremental forward progress within the field of vascular biology. Ouch.

I have since picked myself up off of the floor. Perspective, and the counsel of my mentor, family, and classmates, have allowed me to more easily embrace the criticism I've received. I plan on submitting another grant application in July which builds upon the strengths of my Physiological Genomics and American Heart Association proposals, while better addressing and overcoming the weaknesses perceived by both or either panel of reviewers.

I could fill a bucket with cliches to describe these learning experiences, but the fact remains that I have done a lot of growing, academically, professionally, and personally over the past month. I have come to accept that I may always take my work personally, and thus the defeats will continue to sting. There are positive aspects to this approach: I work harder on projects I am personally invested in, and on the flip side the successes feel that much better. But I can also take the criticism with my dignity intact, and learn from it. My reviewers pointed out valid weaknesses. I can use this insight to my advantage, and submit a stronger proposal in July. I am a stronger scientist, student, and human being for this.

Studying for qualifying exams is in full swing and my kitchen table has disappeared under a pile of assorted binders, books, and notebooks. I'll see it again in late June, perhaps. Although I feel that my studying puts me on track for success in June, this is not what I would describe as a stress-free experience. When I think about it, this is the single most significant exam of my academic career to-date.

And, with that, I should get back to my studies. Cheers and thanks for bearing with me.

Happy Mother's Day

2011-05-08T09:27:00.000-04:00

On this day, Mother's Day, Nicholas Kristof's column reminds us to celebrate our mothers, and to celebrate and protect our freedoms to choose motherhood.

Patriotism

2011-04-15T23:07:00.000-04:00

There's no place quite like Washington D.C.

Last Friday, when I boarded a flight to my nation's capital to present my research at an international conference, the government was on the precipice of shutting down. Wisconsin had just endured budget battles which included politically fiery rhetoric over collective bargaining and public sector unions, among other things. Michigan has had some similar discussions in attempts to close budget gaps. And I'll be the first to admit that in the midst of so much partisanship and polarization, skepticism and cynicism become seductive options as I read the news.

Washington D.C., though, is a physical reminder that (for the most part) we as American citizens have been afforded unique freedoms to be skeptical, cynical, and critical in the first place. The monuments and museums are permanent examples of the incredible world in which we live. I visited the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of Natural History where one exhibit chronicled human evolution from ancient apes on the African plains through changing physical developments which allowed for walking upright and brain growth. The progression through various iterations of skull shape and size is incredible. On the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, days away from the anniversary of Lincoln's assassination, and footsteps away from the infamous Ford's Theater, I stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and was overwhelmed by a feeling that I can only describe as patriotism.

Sitting on the flight home on a beautiful sunny day, watching the country pass below me, I recalled the oft-mis-attributed quote: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." The city of Washington D.C. has this spirit in the air, and, in some small corner of the internet, this blog is a testament to this.

Brilliant and Isolated

2011-03-30T20:23:00.000-04:00

For curiosity's sake, I DVRed (then watched, commercial-free) the premier episode of a new show on ABC, "Body of Proof," which is about a neurosurgeon-turned-medical examiner following a traumatic accident. The protagonist, Dr. Megan Hunt, a clearly brilliant medical professional with strained relationships with just about everyone in her life: her ex-husband, her daughter, her colleagues, and her boss, and a non-existent social life. A work-a-holic who has always put her career first. This reminded me a bit of the character Temperance Brennan on the Fox show "Bones"--also brilliant with peculiar mannerisms and who prefers logic over the oft-illogical social customs which most take for granted.

I think it's fabulous that television is portraying more and more intelligent, successful, and driven women as leading characters in prime-time shows--but why, to be a woman with such qualities, are all of these characters also being written as socially lacking and isolated? While I sometimes find it encouraging that more multi-faceted characters are being written for mainstream TV with some of the same social shortcomings and qualities I can see in myself, I also find it curious that these characters tend to be women. I'd like to believe that I can be mentally sharp, successful, AND maintain some sort of normal social life with people skills and, gaps, perhaps one day a boyfriend. At some point in the show when discussing her relationship with her ex-husband, Dr. Hunt remarks that a woman who works eighteen-hour days is an absent mother, while a man who works eighteen-hour days is a good provider. This is an apt observation about the double standard. It will be interesting to see if the show addresses any other discrepancies in expectations regarding gender roles.

Cerebral Arteries and Diversity

2011-03-25T00:11:00.000-04:00

I am learning a new experimental preparation in which I cannulate a middle cerebral artery (MCA) from a rat between two very fine pipettes. Through these pipettes, I run a warmed, oxygenated physiological salt solution, and pressurize the vessel to simulate in vivo conditions. The inner diameter of a rat MCA is about 200 microns, slightly larger than a coarse stand of hair. When done properly, it looks something like this (from this website):

When viewed under a video micrometer, one is able to see changes in vessel diameter in real time, and measure them. By adding endogenous compounds or pharmacological agents, one can learn something about vascular reactivity or regulation of blood flow. Add acetylcholine to the bath surrounding the vessel and see it dilate. Add norepinephrine to the bath and watch the vessel constrict. My preparations do not turn out looking quite so clean. It's a difficult task, and I still feel like I'm all thumbs, trying to manipulate something so small.

As an integral part of this learning process, I must first collect the middle cerebral arteries. They branch off of the circle of Willis, running along the lateral curve of the brain, branching more and more towards the top. (A diagram of cerebral circulation can be seen here.) Against the off-white surface of the brain, vessels contrast a bright red, still containing the blood which flowed through them. This makes it easy to notice differences in vessel anatomy which occur from brain to brain. Some are highly bifurcated, while others remain largely smooth, still others branch and come back together, forming a loop. Some run a straight trajectory up the side of the brain, others vacillate in their path.

I've been wondering about these morphological differences. Functionally, the variations seem to bear little significance (at least that I know of)--since size of MCA remains and end destination both remain fairly constant, I assume that blood flow and delivery is unchanged. While the rats I work with are not an inbred strain, I'm pretty sure that these morphological changes can be observed in inbred strains as well--which theoretically are all genetically identical. It seems to provide some evidence against pure genetic determinism, as do other morphological identifiers--like fingerprints and (I'm told) ear shape. Scientists frequently chalk up unexplained phenomena by lumping them into an ambiguous "environmental factors" category. In some way, this seems plausible: intrauterine conditions could very well contribute to formation of external shapes like ears and finger prints. But was is fascinating, to me, is that a diverse array of MCA shapes arise within the environment of the developing skull and brain. How does this happen? I don't know.

I am humbled by this infinite potential for individuality. Nevermind race and ethnicity, our diversity is hardly skin-deep. Had I been a little more creative, I might have designed my college admissions essays concerning "diversity" (which made me feel like an over-privileged white girl from the 'burbs) to address the fantastic differences which arise inside of us. It's the ultimate level playing field: we all come out looking a little different, especially if you cut us up, yet we all function the same--or at least within a fairly rigid range of conditions which are compatible with life.

Communication Skills and Shifts

2011-03-20T12:19:00.001-04:00

The changing tides of the communication world have been examined a couple of times this week on the NYTimes site. I recall one particularly snarky post of mine which lamented the cell phone/text message etiquette of the current generation, which I find particularly lacking. Undoubtedly though, the shifts in communication technology do shift the way we approach and perform communication from the business to the personal.

One English professor wrote in an Op-Ed piece that perhaps a shift in teaching is also appropriate. Mr. Selsberg writes,

"I've been teaching college freshmen to write the five-paragraph essay and its bully of a cousin, the research paper, for years. But these forms invite font-size manipulation, plagiarism and clichés. We need to set our sights not lower, but shorter.

I don’t expect all my graduates to go on to Twitter-based careers, but learning how to write concisely, to express one key detail succinctly and eloquently, is an incredibly useful skill, and more in tune with most students’ daily chatter, as well as the world’s conversation. The photo caption has never been more vital."

A succinct and precise quality in writing is, obviously, valuable in a variety of settings, but I'll stick to what I'm most familiar with. The three most common forms of scientific writing (at least in academic research, hardly limited to the biomedical sciences) are abstracts, manuscripts, and grant applications. Although to varying degrees, each of these has a rigid limit for characters, words, and/or pages. Abstracts are designed to get a reader excited about the project/paper in about a paragraph. A clear and concise wording of manuscripts is essential for successfully clearance of the peer-review process. And in a grant application, a scientist has perhaps 12 pages to make a persuasive case for an allocation of government/non-profit funds for an outlined project. Here it must be clear what the goals are, the rationale behind such goals, and how said goals will be accomplished. As well as demonstrating a technical and scientific mastery, the applicant must also act as a sales person for her idea--justifying her research as a valuable investment in the future of human health, for example. Absolutely, it can be a powerful skill to be able to communicate well in increments of two sentences.

In another article, Pamela Paul investigates the decline of the phone call--and takes the opposite stance that I did in my rant from last year. She writes,

"“I remember when I was growing up, the rule was, ‘Don’t call anyone after 10 p.m.,’ ” Mr. Adler said. “Now the rule is, ‘Don’t call anyone. Ever.’ ”

Phone calls are rude. Intrusive. Awkward. “Thank you for noticing something that millions of people have failed to notice since the invention of the telephone until just now,” Judith Martin, a k a Miss Manners, said by way of opening our phone conversation. “I’ve been hammering away at this for decades. The telephone has a very rude propensity to interrupt people.”

Though the beast has been somewhat tamed by voice mail and caller ID, the phone caller still insists, Ms. Martin explained, “that we should drop whatever we’re doing and listen to me.”"

I believe my arguments for simple communication etiquette were less anti-social and did not include avoidance of the telephone call all together. It's true: if my phone rings, 70% of the time it's Mom, and 20% of the time it's either Dad or JD (my brother). But to give up on the phone altogether seems like we are accepting that we would rather e-mail or text and thus lose the subtle communication cues which come from face-to-face or even verbal communication. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have received a message and wondered /worried what sort of tone it was expressed in--a detail which would have been easily and instantly communicated had I been able to hear or see the communicator.

There are all sorts of cues we are losing, cues we are only just beginning to understand. David Brooks noted in his "Social Science-Palooza II" (which was interesting in plenty of other ways, too) that the young are better able to perceive unspoken social cues, and (separately) that our communications can be influenced by our sense of taste.

Times like these make me yearn for days of old, when there were clean lines for appropriate forms of communication. I, too, was instructed that it was rude to make phone calls after 9 pm. In high school there were times when my parents likely would have preferred an e-mail as an alternative to a two-hour long conversation (likely about nothing important). But some small part of me wishes that, on occasion, we still sat down and talked. Mr. Selsberg makes a strong case for the value of succinct eloquence, but perhaps this should be balanced with being well-versed in the conversation skills as well.

His and Hers: Books

2011-03-20T11:34:00.002-04:00

I've mentioned this before: the hopeless romantic in me reads the New York Times wedding page. This week's announcement of the marriage of Sascha Rothchild and Matt Kay was a bit long and melodramatic . I thought it wasn't going to strike an "oh that's so sweet" chord with me until...

"Upon moving in together, they commingled their books without a worry as to who owned what. Ms. Rothchild read that as a sign."

From personal experience I know that upon moving in with anyone (room-mate, in my case, or soul-mate) you commingle lots of things: DVDs, kitchen implements, furniture, etc. Books, for me, sorted broadly by genre, then author on my "private" shelves, have never been included in that category. They are somehow deeply personal, and I find myself quite territorial about them. When I lend them to friends and family I write my name in the front cover. Despite gentle suggestions that perhaps I should pare down my collection (this unsolicited advice tends to come from those who help me move the resultant weighty boxes), the thought of discarding books feels reflexively wrong--akin to burning them.

While this may divulge some sort of bibliomania on my end, I find it adorable that a commingling of book collections can represent a meaningful trust/commitment step in a couple's relationship. Cue the "awww."

100 Best Spine Surgeons in America...What Gives?

2011-03-14T10:14:00.001-04:00

The internal page for the college is boasting the inclusion of one of our faculty members on the recently released list of the "100 Best Spine Surgeons in America" by Becker's Orthopaedic and Spine Review. I was interested in which instiutions hosted the other 99 best spine surgeons, so I checked out the list myself. After getting about halfway down the page, scrolled back up, then began counting to confirm a feared conclusion: of the 100 "best" spine surgeons in this country, just 2 of them are female. I was dumbfounded--particularly as medical school classes are reporting higher and higher numbers of female entrants and applicants. And while I may have subconsciously expected a male-majority on the aforementioned list, the 98% figure was astonishing.

It's unclear where such a gender bias originates. I'd be willing to bet that of all the spine specialists in the united states, far more than 2% of them are women--which would rule out a representitive proportionality on the list. The site for the list reports:

"Physicians included in this list have been selected based on surveys, research and nominations. All physicians who are placed on the list undergo a substantial review with other peers and through our own research."

To me, this seems like odd selection criteria for surgeons. I suppose what really must be addressed first is the question: what makes a great spine surgeon? I would imagine it would depend on who you ask. Patients might value bedside manner and intrapersonal interactions. Other physicians and hospital administrators might value a colleague who is easy to work with and yields good patient outcomes, or a surgeon who takes on challenging cases. An insurance company might value surgeons with the most cost-effective outcomes, and those who report minimal "relapses." So the notion of an objective survey truely assessing the BEST spinal surgeons in the country is questionable, at best. Research and nominations also seem to depend on who is doing the nominating. It's also important to realize that the subtitle for Becker's Review is "Business and Legal Issues for Orthopaedic and Spine Practices."

Ultimately, I cannot answer whether the list is biased or not, only raise question with the striking minority of female surgeons.

Do Women Leaders Matter?

2011-03-08T23:47:00.000-05:00

On this, the 100th International Women's Day, Nicholas Kristof posed the question: Do women leaders matter? He writes about Bangladeshi (female) Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has done virtually nothing to advance the standing of women in her country, while countryman (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Muhammad Yunus has, through microfinance, helped countless women work towards financial self-sufficiency. He writes,

"It’s astonishing – and so disappointing – to see a woman prime minister who does nothing for her country’s women go after a man who has devoted his life to helping the neediest women. And it’s a reminder that the struggle to achieve gender equality is not a battle between the sexes, but something far more subtle. It’s often about misogyny and paternalism, but those are values that are absorbed and transmitted almost as much by women as by men."

Kristoff continues to point out (the obvious) that poor leaders are not necessarily representative of their gender. Interestingly, though, he continues: "But it’s less obvious to me that women leaders at the top of a country, at least initially, go out of their way to improve things for women citizens at the bottom." His conclusion seems to be that women of power matter more at local than at national levels.

I've had to think about this a bit.

On one hand this seems like an obvious conclusion. Any astute student of civics and political participation realizes that those who represent them at a local level (city, county, district) have a much greater impact on their day-to-day activities than national leadership. This is irrespective of gender, and largely dependent on the sociopolitical ideas of that leader.

But in the end, I find myself irritated by the question posed in the first place. Anyone can point to leaders who were good/bad for humanity--leaders of either gender, a multitude of religions and creeds, and every color imaginable. No one points to LBJ claiming that minority political leadership doesn't matter because a white president signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, it would be a tragic generalization, gross over-simplification, and wholly inaccurate to claim that various political tyrants of the world, the vast, vast majority of whom were male, make male leadership inherently flawed. I'm skeptical of the column which relies on such a generalization in order to pose a seemingly provocative, gender-sensitive question.

Kristof is right, some women hinder rights for other women. But it is foolish to recognize this fact outside of the true scope of human nature: there are those (men, and women) who believe in equality for all people, those who believe in equality for some people, and those who don't believe that equality is desirable at all. I echo Mr. Kristof's hope that in the next 100 years, the gender of a leader will no longer be a notable point when describing leadership, national or local, good or bad.

Room for Debate

2011-03-08T23:07:00.000-05:00

As a follow up to my earlier post on the controversy and rhetoric ignited over the past few weeks regarding unions, there was an interesting back-and-forth yesterday on the New York Time's "Room For Debate" forum called "Why Blame the Teachers?" The introduction reads:

"With states and cities going through hard times, teachers, their pensions and their unions have become big targets for budget cutters. Lawmakers in some states are trying to change teacher tenure rules and school districts are laying off teachers by the thousands. In public debate and private conversations, teachers have come under increasing criticism for being ineffective and overpaid. Yet not long ago, education reform efforts sought to elevate the prestige and pay of teachers as a key to improving achievement in the classrooms.

How and why have public views of teachers changed? Have there been swings in attitudes toward the teaching profession in past decades? What are the consequences for school systems if public opinion of teachers were to decline?"

What follows are some thoughtful essays on many aspects of the teacher's union issue including commentary, history, and related policy issues.

Columnist David Brooks also has some interesting ideas about how we measure/assess education. He points out that the human experience includes reason and emotion, and the two are inextricable tied. Nevertheless, we largely exclude the latter from our educational assessments--but qualities such as empathy and motivation are important parts of our success as human beings.

Nurses Unions and Patient Outcomes

2011-03-06T22:15:00.000-05:00

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've already heard the national news about Wisconsin's governor Scott Walker proposing a budget bill for this year which would weaken/eliminate collective bargaining rights for many public employee unions. The result, unsurprisingly, is a lot of rhetoric about the value or lack-thereof in unionized bargaining. Inevitably, discussions turn to something like, "Unions don't just help the workers they represent get better wages and benefits, they also hurt/hinder [some "innocent" group of people affected by the work X, Y, or Z union workers perform]." A great example is school teachers, and the endless debates over whether teachers unions benefit their students or not. This is because although wages, hours, and benefits are certainly a part of collective bargaining, there's much more about the "workplace environment" which is negotiated, including class sizes for teachers and patient loads for nurses.

Linking teaching unions to improved (or not) student performance has historically been problematic and hinges on the question: how does one fairly and accurately evaluate teacher/student performance. Grades are hardly objective. Standardized exams tie teachers to a student's results, but pose problems for teachers who need to include remedial instruction to students who are "behind" the acceptable achievement standards for his or her age. Graduation rates are useful for assessing the success of a school district as a whole, but do little to attest to the performance of individuals over the course of a student's primary education. Confounding factors include parent involvement, and geographical/socioeconomic environment of a particular school and a host of other factors which influence student performance. Nevertheless, it seems that there are constantly new ways to assess these factors together, and such reports manages to be hardly conclusive and fuel both sides of the teacher union debate.

After a conversation about unions on Saturday, I got to thinking about better ways to look at the impact of unions on something I'm a little more familiar with. Nurses unions seemed like a logical starting point, since health care is something I'm a bit more familiar with, and I had imaged straightforward ways to measure patient outcomes. Over the past weeks of political turmoil in this state, I've heard several times that nurses unions negotiate workplace conditions like how many patients, at a maximum, may be assigned to each nurse to care for. The argument was that this fact makes nurses unions better for the public as a whole--which doesn't seem like a bad idea, but has remained un-investigated in ALL media converge I've observed on the collective bargaining rights. My search terms were simply: nurses unions patient outcomes. I consulted JSTOR, PubMed, and Google/Google Scholar. I sought objective (so...let's pretend this is synonymous with a peer-review process) and quantitative assessment of patient outcomes to sift through the anti- and pro-union rhetoric.

I was surprised that there hasn't been more recent study on the subject, particularly since nurses unions report increasing membership at the same time as private sector unions seem to be declining (source). Unfortunately, I went to the National Nurses United site, which conveniently has an entire page devoted to one of its core missions: establishing safe RN-to-patient ratios. That site links to a study published last year in Health Services Research which states:

"California hospital nurses cared for one less patient on average than nurses in the other states and two fewer patients on medical and surgical units. Lower ratios are associated with significantly lower mortality.When nurses’ workloads were in line with California-mandated ratios in all three states, nurses’ burnout and job dissatisfaction were lower, and nurses reported consistently better quality of care."

There is some quantified justification for such claims within the meat of the article--but I still felt that the mortality-odds-ratios reported were less than straightforward. I was really only able to find one article which quantified a 5.5% drop in myocardial infarction mortality statistic in unionized versus un-unionized hospitals. It's important to realize that a lack of statistical evidence for the patient value to nurses unions does not provide de facto evidence that unions hinder patient care. Obviously, there are a host of economic arguments which provide several more dimensions of depth to collective bargaining agreements and the role they play in our working society and economy. I have not addressed these. But I think everyone involved in these debates would do well to add a certain dimension of quantitation (and not just in dollar terms) to the rhetoric which seems circular, and colloquially hinged in some subjective idea of "fairness."

Beautiful, Talented...and a Huge Nerd!

2011-03-01T12:33:00.000-05:00

I'm cross-posting this to HerStory of Science, because I believe it lends itself well to the subject.

There is a really cool article on the New York Times about Natalie Portman's scientific success: finalist for the Intel Science Talent Search, straight-A student, Harvard degree in neuroscience (she studied the evolution of the brain). Now Ms. Portman boasts an Oscar for Best Actress as well--and I'll admit to being genuinely impressed. There's some mention of some other outrageously sucessful, gorgeous, and intelligent Hollywood women, too, who provide nice role models for young women who aspire to be actresses or scientists.

The articles ends with: "You can be a scientist, but if you want your name in lights, you’d better play one on TV." I hope that one day this changes, and little girls can look forward to the prestige of being a scientist in the same function that Hollywood actresses play today.

NIH Funding Dialogue

2011-02-25T13:54:00.000-05:00

Dear Michael BF,

Ah! I love your comments! Thanks for reading (and responding). You bring up some excellent points—and I’m sure if given a face-to-face opportunity we could spend several hours ruminating on the subject of funding for biomedical research. (This really did begin briefly—fail—and somehow spiraled out of control, so it’s turned into a post of its own.)

As you aptly alluded to, scientists tend to be terrible at PR—which is precisely the point behind science advocacy. I envision a career in science policy as one which enhances public awareness for science, as well as contributing to how those discoveries are integrated into our daily lives.

The “product” of laboratories is often abstract (papers, ideas, PhDs), but sometimes material as well (a new drug, improvements on equipment or new methodology). Either way, the American economy is not exactly dominated by durable goods, so I don’t see this a unique weakness of research science. Arguably, the vast health care and financial sectors fail to produce a tangible product as well. The products of American scientific enterprise are spread globally, which contribute to no noticeable difference in quality of life between the U.S. and other developed nations. Additionally, as research budgets become tighter and tighter, universities offer fewer tenure-track positions, and place more emphasis on salary-support through grant funding while higher education costs to students and their parents continue to rise.

While the entire NIH budget is, as you pointed out, the highest R & D expenditure after defense, half-ish of that budget is allocated for the peer-reviewed grant process, a portion of which is set aside for “true” small-business loans. From the NIH Budget Office:

"The $16.4 billion provided in FY 2010 for support of medical research through competitive, peer-reviewed, and investigator-initiated research project grants (RPGs) represents 53 percent of the total NIH Budget request. NIH estimates it will support 9,849 new and competing RPGs in FY 2010, an increase of 7 above the number estimated for FY 2009, excluding Recovery Act funds. The average cost of a new and competing research project grant in FY 2010 will be about $400,000, an increase of two percent above the FY 2009 estimate. The total number of RPGs to be supported in FY 2010 is expected to be 38,042, an increase of 171 over the FY 2009 non Recovery Act level."

While an average award of $400,000 is a nice chunk of change, this is expected to sustain laboratory activities for a period of 5 years. And those funded grants represent anywhere from 10-15% of total applications received. This creates a far more competitive funding environment than previously experienced. I think that this will force researchers to become better communicators with laypeople, but I also think that that skill development risks occurring too late to save some high-scoring applications, and the jobs/educations they support. An interesting editorial on the subject can be read here, but according to their statistics, NIH funding for grant applicants has been halved over the past decade, while the number of applications has nearly doubled. The article suggests a doubling of NIH budget in 2008. Given the economic and political climate of the present, this is an unlikely outcome. However, it demonstrates that cuts to the budget make it more and more difficult for the research community to function as it needs to.

Finally, rising healthcare costs in the United States cannot be directly tied to a peceived lack of research innovation. Over the past half-century, the contributions of science tot he improvement of medicine have been tremendously valuable, whether obvious or not. What the advent of penicillin was to our great-grandparents, new chemotherapeutics, statins, and anti-retrovirals are to our parents and our generations. We (the collective “we”) have developed microsurgical techniques which decrease risk for post-operative complications and shorten healing time. We’ve created the first “cancer vaccine.” Here in Milwaukee, a collaboration between physicians at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin and the Medical College of Wisconsin's Human and Molecular Genetics Center was able to sequence a very sick child’s genome and translate that knowledge into a treatment for an otherwise lethal mutation in a largely unknown gene. (More on that particular story can be found here.) This is, undoubtedly, the future of medicine. And the health sciences community faces new and daunting challenges as well. Human beings are living well past the age at which there is any selective pressure against reproduction. New, chronic diseases (obesity, heart disease and stroke, diabetes and renal disease, arthritis and other types of chronic pain, etc.) have emerged as leading causes of morbidity and mortality—and are largely to blame for rising costs in health care.

As a graduate student I’ve heard over and over that all of the easy questions in science have already been addressed. Although I’m limited in my ability to attest to this fact, I will confirm that much of the low-hanging fruit has, indeed, been addressed. Continuing forward will require innovation, creativity, and hard work, but it also requires financial support. As in any investment venture, some projects will yield remarkable discoveries, and others will report disappointing outcomes. Some may point to this fact as reason to cut NIH and other R&D funding. I think that viewpoint is overly simplified, and loses sight of the true nature of research and development.

While this was not at all the consise response I had intended, I thank you again for prompting some stimulating ideas. Ultimately, you hit the nail on the head when you write, "...science and politics will be improved when scientists more clearly understand how they can be political actors, serving the public good..."

Cheers and happy ponderings,
Jessieroo

Advocacy?

2011-02-23T16:11:00.000-05:00

I've been deeply interested, as this blog can attest to, in science policy for a long while. More recently, I've been mulling over some post-graduation plans oriented towards developing a career out of this interest, coupled with my scientific training. The Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship Program caters to fresh PhD recipients and graduate students, and provides a 12-week crash-course in sciency policy by direct involvement at the Capitol. More competitive but perhaps better preparatory, the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowships last an entire year, are well-paid, and open to anyone with an advanced science degree. Of course there is time before any decisions need be made (as I don't believe my graduate program would allow for a 12-week hiatus), but in the mean time I am keeping my eyes out for activities and experiences which would allow me to be a more competitive applicant for these types of fellowships.

This spring, I will be presenting some of my research at a very large biomedical and research science conference in Washington D.C. On location alone, the trip lends itself well to the integration of science and policy--a fact which has not been lost on the professional societies I belong to (see below). This legislative sesson, bill HR1 has proposed a $1.6 billion cut to the already low funding of the National Institutes of Health. So on merit, the fascally conservative political climate also makes this visit fully of advocacy potential.

The American Physiological Society has a resource page exclusively designed for the potential for science advocacy this meeting provides. Conveniently, this includes tips for advocacy, as well as a useful link to a site which provides voting records on science-related legislation for elected officials within a certain zipcode. I think it would be an outstanding experience (the quintessential act of democratic participation, shy of holding and office perhaps), in any capacity, to meet with a legislator to discuss the funding for science, its relationship to the economy, and how it impacts US standing as a world leader in biomedical research.

Here's the way I see it:

Every academic laboratory in the country can be thought of as a small business. Although a lab may be part of an integrated university setting, ultimately it relies on "soft money," usually governmental (in my case from the NIH) which is brought in through the grant process from outside of the institution. In this way, each lab maintains its own payroll, supply inventory, and these things contribute to the procutivity of that research enterprise. Further limitations in government funding threaten the forward progress of the United States economically through the decreased funding for employing laboratory staff, graduate and post-doctoral students, and university faculty as well as through the hinderance of scientific inquiry. Science (I use the term quite broadly here) is perhaps the only discipline in which study-abroad activities are limited because advanced facilities and some of the brightest minds reside here. Repeatedly, President Obama has pointed to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects as the furture to American intellectual strength, and perhaps the foundation of our economic future as manufacturing outfits move outside of U.S. borders. On a more human level, the continued innovation and inquiry of the research community, at least in the biomedical sciences, is the end goal of an improved health and quality of life for patients everywhere. Decisions to cut NIH funding affect the future medical treatments of our parents and children.

So there's a reason, despite nation-wide economic struggles, to keep government dollars devoted to science a priority and available--it is the unique role of an advocate to bring these concerns to light with the people in power who require our votes to remain in office.

Things I Like: Improvement

2011-02-08T21:00:00.049-05:00

Biomedical research, in all of its vastness, can perhaps be boiled down to one common goal: to improve understanding and treatment of disease and health process, both in the United States and worldwide. The more esoteric researchers, and there are many, can claim a quest for the acquistion of new knowledge, learning for the sake of learning. I would argue that while intellectual innovation is critical to forward progress, the holy grail of this process is being able to synthesize new understandings of the miraculous workings of the human body into something meaningful: a novel, better treatment option, improvment on preventitive care, a way to improve quality of life.

As objective as the world of Science tries to be, there remain entrenched positions which have dramatic impacts on patient care. It can be challenging to recognize the assumptions made and test such mindsets against empirical data. So I was pleased to read that a group of physicians across the United States (including one from Michigan State!) tested the notion that removal of lymph nodes surrounding the aflicted area improves outcomes in breast cancer patients. Writes the New York Times,

"The discovery turns standard medical practice on its head. Surgeons have been removing lymph nodes from under the arms of breast cancer patients for 100 years, believing it would prolong women’s lives by keeping the cancer from spreading or coming back."

That the study, "Axillary Dissection vs. No Axillary Dissection in Women with Invasive Breast Cancer and Sentinal Node Metastasis," was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association is enough for anyone familiar with the field of biomedical research to know the study is a big deal. But more importantly, it means a cessation of one unnecessary, painful, and invasive surgical approach in patients who are already in quite a bit of physical and emotional pain. When physicians graduate from medical school and recite the Hippocratic oath, the pledge to "first do no harm." Studies which allow health care professionals to better live by that oath provide a nice success story in a sometimes tedious world of slow progress.

The United States of Shame

2011-01-27T14:12:00.000-05:00

Perhaps by now you've seen the following graphic; it's been percolating around the internet, surfacing through Facebook and e-mail links for the past few days.

It's an interesting visual analysis of what each state measures "worst" at--and perhaps what's more interesting is how these claims are justified and the questions they raise. For example, Kansas has the "poorest health" while Georgia is "most sickly"--what's the difference? In actuality, Kansas has the highest average limited activity days and Georgia has the highest rate of influenza. So some labels on the map are rather misleading. Beastiality in Washington? Because it had the most (4) reported cases. It's also important to note the discrepancies between reported cases (of anything, really) and actual cases.

The places dearest to me hold no surprises. Michigan has the highest rates of unemployment. Wisconsin is a state of binge drinkers (although this seems subject to wording of the question, as a 23% rate seems a bit over-the-top). I think this graphic was designed to be entertaining, but I think it serves as a compelling prompt for asking: how can we change some of these?

On the more alarming end of the spectrum, how come rape and violence against women seem concentrated in the Great Plains states of South Dakota and Nebraska, respectively?

NYT Book Review

2011-01-27T12:52:00.001-05:00

Reading the New York Times Sunday Book Review (which is not exclusively published on Sundays) is a danergous endeavor which tests the very limits of my self-discipline. If there's one thing I require alarmingly few excuses for indulging in, it's certainly buying (more) books. Either my mother or my bookcase (could it speak) would tell you that I have far too many; I continue to assert that that scenario is simply an impossibility. My "dream house" has a room full of bookshelves and plush chairs in which to enjoy my literary pursuits. Unfortunately I do not yet reside in said dream house, so I am, for the time being, space-limited. Nevertheless, I find the Book Review to be an excellent source for my growing "to-read" list.

Rebecca Traister reviewed Stephanie Coontz's "A Strange Stirring," and had my interest piqued at her first mention of Betty Friedan. "A Strange Stirring" reflects some tension regarding Friedan's classic--including its focus on relatively affluent, white housewives, and the phenomenon that more and more women are returning to the home from successful careers. I think Traister's review touches on this complexity and a more turbulent recent history of the women's movement, while still leaving the reader interested in buying Ms. Coontz' latest (of course this is generally the point of a positive review). I'm also interested in reading Cootnz's "Marriage: A History," which is mentioned in passing as "cheerily la[ying] waste to assumptions about love and marriage. (Oh, and NPR reviewed the book as well, here.)

Annie Murphy Paul reviewed "Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispathes from the New Frontline of Grilie-Girl Culture" by Peggy Orenstein. The book investigates the social, enconomic, psychological/biological, and limited critque on the "girly girl" or pink phase of female development/socialization. Paul concludes:

"The author’s process of restless self-examination continues, all the way to the book’s open-ended conclusion. Orenstein has done parents the great favor of having this important debate with herself on paper and in public; she has fashioned an argument with its seams showing and its pockets turned inside out, and this makes her book far more interesting, and more useful. Because the thing about a phase is: kids grow out of it. (The marketers are counting on that.) But parents’ internal deliberations about what’s best for their children are here to stay."

I agree, whithout reading a page, that the book is more directed at parental inner-turmoil over the phenomenon than a real social commentary. I can also image myself fairly frustrated by such an open ended conclusion--the acceptance that little girls will grow out of their obsession with princesses, while perhaps visible, does not reconcile the fact that there may remain lasting effects. Instead what I found most worthy of a read was:

"Orenstein finds one such enlightening explanation in developmental psychology research showing that until as late as age 7, children are convinced that external signs — clothing, hairstyle, favorite color, choice of toys — determine one’s sex. “It makes sense, then, that to ensure you will stay the sex you were born you’d adhere rigidly to the rules as you see them and hope for the best,” she writes. “That’s why 4-year-olds, who are in what is called ‘the inflexible stage,’ become the self-appointed chiefs of the gender police. Suddenly the magnetic lure of the Disney Princesses became more clear to me: developmentally speaking, they were genius, dovetailing with the precise moment that girls need to prove they are girls, when they will latch on to the most exaggerated images their culture offers in order to stridently shore up their femininity.” For a preschool girl, a Cinderella dress is nothing less than an existential insurance policy, a crinolined bulwark to fortify a still-shaky sense of identity."

Fascinating, though hardly universal. I abhorred pink, and refused to wear a thread of it until late into high school. I'm sure the behavioral psychologist would have something to say about that...

More Fun with Relationship Status

2011-01-23T10:18:00.001-05:00

PhD Comics once again hits the nail on the head. I giggled, and then felt a little bit sorry for myself. :)

One of Us

2011-01-16T14:19:00.000-05:00

I've been ruminating on the Tuscon, Arizona tragedy all week, quietly considering the various political and media spins on the situation, cognizant of the links to key buzzwords and catch-phrases like "bipartisanship," "domestic terrorism," and the entire realm of gun control.

Gail Collins questioned the ability of the Second Amendment to protect the right to bear weapons, Glocks specifically, which are designed as weapons for killing people, and killing efficiently. Other journalists described the gun control/gun enthusiasm climate in Arizona, ironically quoting Representative Gifford's own quip that, " I have a Glock 9 millimeter, and I’m a pretty good shot." They report that Arizona became the third state to waive requirement of a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon. Collins' sentiments were echoed a couple of days later in this New York Times editorial notes the particular role that Glock 19 guns play in violence in the United States--and some rather interesting reasons for this link due to both engineering and regulatory liberalism. On the same day that Collins' column was published, Paul Krugman pointed out the existing and entrenched political climate of party-line hatred as a catalyst for politically-motivated violence. Regrettably, he voiced his lack of surprise in this sort of violence. And I can't claim that I was terribly shocked by the shootings either.

But I find these analyses to be lacking. Perhaps naturally, they seek to explain the events in ways that can be translated into productive legislative change--to gun control laws, to the way we approach rhetoric, to a plea for increased bipartisanship, etc. They aim to prevent further tragedies against "our own:" our own legislators, our own families, our own friends, because the victims were "one of us." These are true.

But we are all, first, human beings. And the kind of outreach and outrage which has occurred in the aftermath of the Arizona shootings seems tragically limited to the loss of prominent American lives. Civilian casualties in armed conflicts worldwide are hardly reported on, and occur in might more staggering numbers. For example, estimates of innocent deaths in Afghanistan numbered over 1,500 for just the first half of 2010 alone--a likely underestimate. This week the New York Times reported on a "successful" Israeli airstrike which was reported to kill a Palestinian militant/terrorist. There was no mention of unintentional deaths resulting from the strike, but it should be noted that even bombs with targeting technology are not outrageously accurate. The United States is the largest seller and distributor of arms worldwide, and American corporations make billions of dollars annually from the violence we have come to view as expected and routine.

Perhaps, in addition to a closer look at gun regulations and more productive, less attacking political rhetoric, the media emphasis could be simply a plea for peace, for the preservation of human life amidst the proliferation of violence, armed conflict, and war--because they are all one of us.

Relationship Statuses (Stati?)

2011-01-11T10:58:00.002-05:00

I cannot recall how precisely I stumbled upon this page, but I got a chuckle out of it. Unfortunately, I don't see "happily committed...to my cat" or "I thought we really hit it off but he didn't call me back..." on the list. The additional suggestions by commenters at the bottom of the page are funny as well.

In Memoriam: Dorwan Stoddard

2011-01-10T10:27:00.001-05:00

I heard the story of Dorwan Stoddard this morning on NPR, but cannot find the transcript on their site. It was just a 30-second piece, designed to fit within their larger storylines, but it was beautifully written and I teared up a bit. (Recent blog posts would indicate I'm becoming quite a sap.)

Dorwan and his wife, Mavy, were lifelong friends and, after being widowed, married in their sixties. On Saturday, Dorwan was killed at the age of seventy-six as he shielded his wife in the Tuscon, Arizona shootings which targeted Congresswoman Garbrielle Giffords. (More info here, here and here.)

I understand why the 9-year old victim with a 9/11/2001 birthday recieves so much of the media spotlight--but this man made the ultimate sacrifice for perhaps the ultimate cause (love). I thought that Dorwan's story deserves to be shared, and provides and element of hope, faith in people's love for one another, which is truly humbling.

A Nerdy Fairytale

2011-01-09T13:41:00.001-05:00

Courtesy of the New York Times' wedding page: a positively adorable story about a couple obessed with Jeopardy! and married in Ireland.

Tricks to Staying Positive During the Grant Writing Process...

2011-01-08T16:09:00.000-05:00

The busy-ness of the past several weeks has spurred from maniacal work on an application for an American Heart Association Pre-Doctoral Fellowship. It's like a debutante ball for nerds: my emergence into the world of grant-writings and the peer-review process. Being cognizant of the current funding atmosphere, where funding rates are quite low and plenty of interesting and well-written grants go unfunded, it can be tempting to get discouraged about the fate of all my hard work.

Luckily though, there are scientists out there with much crazier projects than mine who manage to get funded, not to mention a Science publication. Take, for example, the group out of Israel who found:

"...that merely sniffing negative-emotion-related odorless tears obtained from women donors, induced reductions in sexual appeal attributed by men to pictures of women’s faces. Moreover, after sniffing such tears, men experienced reduced self-rated sexual arousal, reduced physiological measures of arousal, and reduced levels of testosterone. Finally, functional magnetic resonance imaging revealed that sniffing women's tears selectively reduced activity in brain-substrates of sexual arousal in men."

As summarized and reported by the New York Times and numerous other media outlets, "chemical signals in women's tears damped arousal." The results seem gendered (they didn't investigate whether men's tears turn women off, and they didn't investigate alternative reactions to tears like empathy) and like they fit safely into the bounds of normal social behavior (cue the ever-emotional woman). Of course, in Israel they don't have to deal with the U.S. National Institutes of Health--nevertheless, I feel that when contrasted with such bizarre investigations, my own research (into blood vessel function and its relationship to dietary salt) is deserving of some financial support too.

When this doesn't work, I opt for daydreaming about the New York Times' list of "41 Places to Go in 2011," of which I will likely visit: 0. Although Durham North Carolina and Miami Florida seem a little benign and unoriginal, respectively, all the locations sound fabulous and I would go gladly (given the time and resources to do so). Zanzibar, Chile, and India would top my re-ordered list. And while time remains the resource in shortest supply, perhaps my adventure-related finances could be spared a bit by employing "11 Tricks to Cutting Travel Costs in 2011." Disappoitningly, though, many of the tips involved various branded credit cards and the perks which accompany them.

Ultimately, a certain confidence in the quality of my work is likely the best way to avoid feelings of helplessness and insecurity as my application prepares for departure from my cozy desk into the abyss of critique and (hopefully) onward to success. And, hey, there's always next funding cycle...just in case.

January

2011-01-08T15:35:00.000-05:00

It's been awhile. Things have been busy and sometimes I consider that perhaps a month-long hiatus from blogging is indicative of the sorry fact that thoughtful and regular updates are outside the demands of my schedule and energies. I also consider the information (intentional or not) about myself which is divulged to the infinite public of the Internet by continuing to communicate through this medium. Of course, it remains a balancing act between sensible safety and paranoia--but it's undeniable that revealing too much has the potential to be both physically/emotionally dangerous and a professional/political liability, no matter the liberties afforded by the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, I return to the "Pursuit of Sapience" in this new year.

Although my educational/professional trajectory is sometimes not conducive to regular blogging, I am committed to the idea that we all choose to make time for the things which we value. Some weeks this site will go un-valued, as I will opt for spending free time in a more social manner, or simply decide that I need to sleep. In spite of this, I cannot help but to peruse the New York Times and National Public Radio sites every morning and think, "I could write about this." And I e-mail myself links for potential posts. I am also dedicated to the idea that this blog is an opportunity for my extracurricular interests to flourish and for me to learn.

So, happy 2011 to us!

Lists: Top Five Rants and a Rave

2010-12-07T19:33:00.002-05:00

First, the rant-worthy:

Gendered toy advertisements, just in time for Christmas. There is no reason why a doll-house requires a special nursery (a doll nursing is depicted in the ad). Why not include a science lab or an indoor basketball court? Why not teach little boys to be good husbands/daddies the way we teach little girls to be good wives/mommies?
You're damn right I'm frustrated! In compromising to keep Bush-era taxcuts and extend unemployment benefits, Congress (both parties) and Obama have failed to address the top buzz-words this election cycle: deficit spending. All the rhetoric about a balanced budget is worthless, and one fact remains true: the number one issue on the hearts and minds of politician has been, is now, and will be reelection. Also, in case you were curious, $60 billion can buy a lot, like tripling the NIH budget, paying for college for half of college students, etc.
The cruelty of teenagers. And the fact that maturity is not synonymous with age progression.
I'm not sure why everyone is surprised by a recent international education study which ranks China at the top and the United States at or below average in math and science. Perhaps we can learn and grow from this?

And the rave-worthy:

I'm two hundred pages into Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and have found it to be enlightening, educating, and a bit depressing. The premise is simple: the historical accounts of national history we are exposed to in the United States are largely told by the ruling class, a politically, socially, and economically powerful group of initially Anglo-Saxon, white, land-owning men. Mr. Zinn examines history through the lens of the disadvantaged, with the hypothesis that many of American's "greatest achievements" occurred with the interests of not the public but the ruling class in mind. His account is fabulously readable, and avoids much of the fanaticism of conspiracy theories. If you've not checked it out, I highly recommend investing some of your precious spare time.

Mourning Mrs. Edwards

2010-12-07T18:52:00.001-05:00

I'm saddened by the loss of Elizabeth Edwards. Through the ordeal of elections, life in the public sphere, John Edward's affair, and a battle with cancer, Mrs. Edwards maintained a sense of dignity and class which is so rare. NPR quoted her as saying, "Resilience is accepting your new reality, even if it's less good than the one you had before. You can fight it, you can do nothing but scream about what you've lost, or you can accept that and try to put together something that's good." Perhaps she was not so composed away from the reporters and cameras, still her strength was astonishing and admirable.

Dollars and Percents

2010-11-23T14:20:00.005-05:00

Thursday is Thanksgiving, and perhaps fittingly I've been thinking a lot about inequality in the recent weeks. Equality, or the lack of it, tends to be broken down into seemingly more manageable categories: by race, nationality, or religion, by gender or sexuality, by class or resources, by power. No matter the context, it ultimately boils down to a simple dichotomy between the "haves" and the "have nots."

My contemplations began with Nicholas Kristof's November 6^th column "Our Banana Republic," which details a widening of the gap in the United States between the wealthy and the rest of us. Kristof makes the case that American citizens need not journey outside of our borders to find economic inequalities which mirror those of the very nations we find most morally repulsive: unjust, unequal, and corrupt. Notes Kristof:

"The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

C.E.O.'s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent."

Perhaps this marks a need for amendment of the Pareto Principle (or the "80/20 rule"), but it also provides an alarming backdrop for a lame duck Congress debating extending some $800 billion worth of Bush-era taxcuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Mr. Kristof claims such drastic inequalities are "morally repugnant," such philosophical appeals rarely change the course of history. Equality becomes acceptable seldom on its merits alone and too often coupled to social, political, or economic conditions which drive change. In this case, I think the question remains: how much economic inequality can the American system support? "Economic polarization also shatters our sense of national union and common purpose, fostering political polarization as well." The argument is made that such gross disparities in affluence further weaken an already struggling U.S. economy.

My thoughts on the op-ed piece remain amorphous—flashes of ideas which fly through my thoughts like a randomized slide show. I've long known that upward socioeconomic mobility, even in the land of the American Dream is largely a fallacy. I am disappointingly unsurprised by the deepening, widening chasm between the rich and the poor (or the middle class). And still, (perhaps due to some deep-seeded sense of national pride) I cannot accept the labeling of the United States as a banana republic. Such regimes formed from a lopsided agrarian economy with limited/non-existent personal liberties. Even on the most cynical of my days, I cannot forget that the freedoms we enjoy in the United States are beyond what other citizens of the world can dream of.

What I really kept pondering was how/why this chasm is growing. Why now? Tax cuts on the first $250,000 of earnings over the past handful of years are hardly enough for percentage points of change in the distribution of American wealth. What does this disparity really mean?

On November 17^th, the New York Times ran another column by Nicholas Kristof which dealt with many of the same themes, "A Hedge Fund Republic?" This time, Kristof addressed responsible use of tax dollars, and so transitioned from a philosophical discussion of income inequality to a more pragmatic (and political) approach. He writes,

"One way to examine that decision is to put aside all ethical considerations and simply look at where tax dollars will do more to stimulate the economy. There the conclusion is clear: You get much more bang for the buck putting money in the hands of unemployed people because they will promptly spend it.

In contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are partly saved — that's both basic economic theory and recent history — so they are much less effective in creating jobs. For example, Republicans would give the richest 0.1 percent of Americans an average tax cut of $370,000. Does anybody really think that those taxpayers are going to rush out and buy Porsches and yachts, start new businesses, and hire more groundskeepers and chauffeurs?

In contrast, a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush administration makes clear the job-creation power of unemployment benefits because that money is immediately spent. The study suggested that the current recession would have been 18 percent worse without unemployment insurance and that this spending preserved 1.6 million jobs in each quarter."

It's interesting that such discussion was well outside the public discourse prior to the November elections. Such an absence seems particularly strange when considering that EBay tycoon Meg Whitman spent over $150 million of her personal wealth on her failed candidacy for California Governor. Meanwhile, this morning saw the release of a report which saw corporate profits over the last quarter reach record-breaking levels.

Erase Hate

2010-11-11T17:40:00.000-05:00

While watching a Discovery Channel show on Skin Heads (or some such organization) on which a Southern Poverty Law Center representative commented, I decided to go to their site. Actually, I was interested in what kind of employment opportunities they offer--and was disappointed to confirm that an advanced education in cardiovascular physiology doesn't seem to prepare me well for such an advocacy position. Regardless, I was pleased to discover that the SPLC hosts a well-organized and immensely informative website.

The SPLC tracks hatred and violence across the United States and posted a Hate Map of activity in various states. Although I'm unsure what I expected, I was surprised by the map for a few reasons. First, considering Michigan's 26 logged hate groups, I was (pleasantly) surprised that Wisconsin logged only 8. II was saddened to see that no state boasted zero hate groups. was also surprised by some of the hate distribution. States which I typically think of as tolerant and progressive (Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts) were each still home to ten or more tracked hate groups. Meanwhile, New Mexico, a border state which I would have expected to have more groups, only has two. It would be interesting to track hate groups against population, as a way to normalize for state's populations.

But the SPLC also tracks those who "stand strong against hate." The site reads:

"Racism is a serious problem in America. Fueled by immigration fears, the economic crisis and the election of a black president, racist hate groups increased their numbers again in 2009. The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented a staggering 932 hate groups operating in our country — a more than 50% increase since 2000."

You, too, can add your green dot on a map which tracks tolerance. (It does, however, ask for your full name and address--although neither will be shared.) There are over 1,000 in Wisconsin. Over 1,500 in Michigan. And

And on this day, Veteran's Day, standing up for tolerance, acceptance, and the freedom for all people to lead happy and healthy lives, seems like the most patriotic sentiment of all.

Cheese Heads, and Hips

2010-11-09T00:37:00.000-05:00

Finally, past the banter and polarity of election "news," I've been provided with more interesting blog fodder. Hooray! When this happens I am conflicted: do I stuff everything into a giant eclectic post or type several more focused entries? Today, I've opted for quantity over quality (but hopefully not too much) because it makes me feel more productive.

I heard about the cheese drama first on the New York Times site, then again on NPR on my drive home from work. Since I am residing in Wisconsin, after all, I feel that I need to address this. In essence, with the help of a USDA-conceived organization called Dairy Management, "Americans now eat an average of 33 pounds of cheese a year, nearly triple the 1970 rate." Dairy Management has beautifully achieved its goal of both increasing solid cheese consumption and increasing cheese presence on menus and ingredient lists. Simultaneously, other branches of the USDA concerned with nutrition are warning of saturated fat levels and high caloric values for the very foods that Dairy Management is helping to bring to the market. Domino's Pizza is used as an example--and you may recall the recent television advertisement campaign which features Domino's customers being shown the real dairy farm from which their cheese (which has increased on their pizzas) originates. And apparently the research to back up statements like "three servings of diary can lead to a slimmer waistline" is lacking and controversial.

For full disclosure, allow me to start with: I love cheese. 33 pounds a year is likely an underestimate, especially if we're including blue cheese, ricotta cheese, (is cream cheese actually cheese?), and goat cheese. I'm a big fan of foods in which cheese plays an integral role: tacos, quesadillas, lasagna, grilled cheese. I put cheese on my sandwiches and in my salads. I'm inclined to defend my food choices.

Secondly, different branches of various government support/report different conclusions (or no conclusions, or retrospectively erroneous conclusions) with some frequency. Consider that nutrition experts are currently waging a war on high fructose corn syrup, yet government subsidies on corn allow for "artificial" sweeteners to be much more cost-effective than cane sugar (and, by the way, yields the same number of calories).

The obesity "epidemic" can be linked to about a hundred thousand lifestyle choices which includes how much cheese one decides to consume or not consume. Since cheese does provide nutritional value in calcium, vitamins A and D, and some protein, I think it's a bit premature to begin targeting it as a scapegoat in what is largely a disease of choice. Encouraging restaurants to lower caloric values, fat content, and portion sizes is a laudable goal, which faces a difficult battle in a tide of free market feelings currently. (And these quests are likely not helped out by this man who lost weight and established a more normal lipid profile --lower triglycerides, lower "bad cholesterol," and higher "good cholesterol"-- by consuming a Twinkie diet...)

What actually concerns me the most is this alleged surplus of dairy fat which exists as the result of several quite successful campaigns encouraging low fat milk consumption and a decrease in milk consumption over all. I'd like to know why Dairy Management doesn't focus more energy on replacing soda cans with milk jugs in schools and low-income homes. I'd also like to know ways to redistribute this food surplus to where it is needed most: the places where saturated fat and calories are less of a concern than rumbling tummies and nutritional deficiencies.

Just some food for thought...

Also, and unrelatedly although perhaps a small victory for all the anti-candy nutritionists out there, as NPR quotes,

"John Mason, executive director and founder of the Ghana-based Nature Conservation Research Council, has forecast that shortages in bulk production (of cocoa) in Africa will have a devastating effect: "In 20 years chocolate will be like caviar. It will become so rare and so expensive that the average Joe just won't be able to afford it.""

Now there is a real tragedy. I expect a government task force to save the chocolate to be established shortly--as a matter of national peace and security.

Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros - Home

2010-11-08T23:17:00.000-05:00

This song is featured in a commercial, although I can't recall which one. I heard it again in a bar over the weekend and promptly sought it out on YouTube and iTunes. Musically, I'm digging the syncopation and whistling combination. And you can't beat a song that makes you smile.

This is how it happens...

2010-11-05T10:27:00.002-04:00

As I lay in bed before falling asleep last night, my wandering thoughts focused themselves on experimental direction/design, a thesis proposal that is months from conception, and carefully considering which activators/inhibitors to use in mechanistically characterizing differences in the vasodilation signaling cascade between my treatment groups. Usually those thoughts have nothing to do with anything useful and revolve around weekend plans, what to make for dinner, or whomever I'd like to be fallign asleep with rather than MooShu Kitty (not that she isn't a lovely snuggle-buddy). This is the beginning of a slippery slope which cumulates in a maturation of scientific ("hypothesis-driven") thought from an undergraduate to a graduate level. Because a doctorate is really a training in thought process, I equate this to that moment when scholars of foreign language report thinking or dreaming in their second language. I would congratulate myself here, but I know too many professors to be able to think of this as anything but the beginning to my science-induced insanity.

Dropping Marketing "Bombs"

2010-11-04T23:53:00.000-04:00

Beyond the occasional letter from Grandma (which I love), my mailbox is generally dull and full of bills and junk mail. Today I got a pamphlet from my pal Victoria who has a secret I thought I knew. I thought the secret behind her pouty lips and alluring, perfectly made-up eyes (well, really, her made-up, airbrushed everything) was about a man--after all, the billion dollar lingerie outlet was founded by a man for other men to comfortably shop for gifts for their wives (indirectly for themselves).

This is only part of the story. My pamphlet reads: "Hello Bombshell! Miraculous Push-Up instantly adds 2 cup sizes!" It features a slim, tanned, toned, blond with smoky eyes, tousled hair, and breasts nestled in the aforementioned product. So I looked it up: (Photo courtesy of VS)

It's limited edition bra encrusted in real crystals--for an astonishing $250 (or $240 if you use the enclosed $10 off any bra coupon). Extravagant? Absolutely. Outrageous? Perhaps not as much as one might imagine.

I'm not just posting Victoria's Secret photos to increase readership (or maybe I am), but my point is that those baby blues are meant to entice even the very straightest of heterosexual women. My mail is meant for me to glean that if I wear such underthings, then I will not only look as sexy as this model but I will also feel as sexually appealing as this model. And that is a not only a terrific feat of marketing/branding--it's quite interesting on a psychological level.

It takes one look at a Victoria's Secret annual report or a trip to your local mall to know that this business strategy has worked. In 2007 the brand reached over 41 million consumers and brought in nearly $190 million in revenue. Since those figures have both grown each year, I can only assume that these numbers would need to be inflated to estimate current statistics. A trip to the mall reveals that men are not browsing lacy things to take home to their wives and girlfriends. One Time article even reports that toting the signature pink Victoria's Secret bag makes (some) women feel sexier. This is not on accident.

So in the end, it's true, Victoria has discerned the secret to separating millions of women from their money: and what women want: to feel sexy and desirable and powerful. They want to feel the thousand words that those photos of pouty, voluptuous models are worth. They want to be "bombshells." Well done, Victoria.

In Training

2010-11-01T20:57:00.000-04:00

While listening on my way to work/school this morning, I found this NPR story on neurofeedback therapy very interesting. My mom always told me that when people act a certain way, they become it. So, for example, a depressed person acts happy they may become happy. The idea that we are capable of training our brains is, to me, spectacularly fascinating because it implies that we have the ability to alter the very biology of our neural circuits--changing receptor expression patterns, synapses, neurotransmitter release or sensitivity just by, literally, thinking about it (albeit in a highly focused sort of way).

Speaking of training...

I had my follow-up appointment today, x-rays and removal of my stitches. The incision site seems to have healed beautifully, and with time the tracks in my bone, left from the screws, will heal up too. More importantly though, I've been given the go-ahead to run again. It's a daunting thought, when I consider how out of shape I am, to think of going for a run as a relaxing, enjoyable activity like it once was--but I'm excited to give it a go. Slowly. :)

I Love Your Hair!

2010-10-24T22:39:00.000-04:00

There were a few news stories over this past week that got my attention, and interestingly they share a common theme: hair.

I think for a lot of Americans, hair is a big part of the way we present ourselves to the world around us. The way we color and cut it displays a certain sense of individuality, and many of these looks are associated with their own sets of assumptions and stereotypes (think balding men with comb-overs, "dumb blonds," or someone with a bright blue mohawk). And although I am not so obtuse as to claim that the same phenomenon does not afflict our male counterparts, women tend to care deeply about having the "right" hair. I think these articles are touching on that sense of insecurity.

In chronological order:

First, NPR reported on an Italian writer for the Sesame Street children's show who wrote a song for his adopted Ethiopian daughter who was insecure about her coarse braids. called "I Love My Hair." It's a really touching piece (and there's a video of the song in the link). It also made me think a lot about the ethnicity of hair--and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that although models and Cover Girls have become more racially diverse, their hair remains much the same: long, thick, flowing, smooth, and of course flawless. Barbie-style hair--which I would argue is unattainable for all cultural backgrounds, except the plastic.

Second, younger girls are not the only ones yearning for Barbie hair. Young women can drop $250 for a "Brazilian Blowout" hair treatment--designed to keep hair smooth and soft for about six weeks. It also might also contain fifty times the acceptable amount of formaldehyde, reports NPR, making hair dressers ill, and potentially endangering clients as well. That's high enough to serve as a tissue fixative in some protocols.

Lastly, an older woman reflects on standards for appropriate wear of gray hair in "Why Can't Middle-Aged Women Have Long Hair?" The piece focuses on the "social norm" that women with graying locks cut them off for a matronly, oft-permed coif--reminiscent of the Golden Girls and nearly every grandmother I've encountered.

I'm not sure what the moral of this chronicle is. I fear bad-hair-days as much as the next person, but I can say that great hair is not worth getting sick for, nor is it worth denying my sense of personal style for age-appropriateness.

Me Too.

2010-10-24T11:49:00.000-04:00

(Perhaps I've voiced this opinion before...) I believe that part of the reason the PostSecret project resonates with so many is because the postcards from across the country/world speak to the troubles and triumphs of the human experience: love, education, employment, sickness, health, death, birth, hopes, fears, etc. At least, that's why I check the site every week:

This is not my secret. But sometimes I fear that it could be, and to a certain extent that drives me. It's not so much about the 70-hour work week or the $30K salary. I simply cannot psychologically afford to "waste" my twenties immersed in my education/career just to look back and feel that it wasn't worth it. In a small way, the issues I touch on in this blog allow me to ignite, explore, and maintain my enthusiasm for my work. In doing so, I am able to think more clearly about career choices that would be gratifying for me, even with insane hours and low pay.

Wisconsin Midterm Elections

2010-10-23T11:57:00.001-04:00

Gail Collins of the New York Times wrote a revealing piece on Wisconsin elections, and on the race for Senator Russ Feingold's seat in particular. She writes,

"It’s ironic that Feingold, who is possibly the most independent member of the Senate, a Mr. Clean who votes against his party regularly, is among the incumbents in the most danger from an anti-Washington voter rebellion. Especially since Johnson is not all that impressive. Unless you like Ayn Rand and are yearning to see the country run just like a plastics business.

“My opponent never even refers to Wisconsin,” said Feingold, 57, a twice-divorced policy wonk who thinks the election is being hijacked by big money conservative forces outside the state. He loves to talk about Wisconsin’s “great progressive tradition,” as well as “the rich tradition of clean government.”"

It doesn't surprise me than, like most of his incumbent peers, Mr. Feingold's reelection prospects seem murky, particularly considering the anti-establishment political climate. At the same time, these voter attitudes puzzle me. If there is such a rich sense of political dis-satisfaction, why are we not witnessing a surge in Independent voters and candidates alike? Lining up along Republican lines, the Tea Partiers hardly count. I support Russ Feingold because he does seem able to think independently (on occasion) of his party. For me, this is a valuable quality in a career politician.

The most troublesome part of these mid-term election is simply the lack of enthusiasm. In my volunteer work I poll Wisconsin residents on how they feel about various political candidates. While every one seems to have there own opinions, few of them seem eager to participate and share their voice in the political process. I've heard every excuse by now: I'm too old, too young, too busy, unemployed, I'm a parent, etc...but I will not be voting in this election. Apathy fails to produce progress, my friends, no matter how you may be able to justify it.

Smashing Pumpkins, for Real

2010-10-21T15:07:00.002-04:00

More physics, less chemistry, edible ingredients, and just as much awesome. I was hooked by the end of the story's byline: "Farmers have hit upon an important realization: to sell pumpkins it helps to shoot some out of a cannon." Well, DUH!

An apparently there's a World Championship Punkin Chunkin contest in Deleware where last year's winning pumpkin traveled nearly a mile! Sadly, I won't be able to get the time off, but consider my attendance so added to my "bucket list."

I Would So Take This Class!

2010-10-21T14:02:00.001-04:00

Furthering my mild-obsession with the sometimes-blurred line between the culinary and the chemical, I found an article describing a unique (and totally awesome) educational approach to chemistry and physics: "At Harvard, the Kitchen as Lab."

To me, it seems like this course format does well to cater to didactic and well as experimental learners in an engaging and innovative manner. What a cool way to experience chemistry and physics! And although at first I was a bit disappointed that such an opportunity is available only to the nation's educationally elite, I soon recalled that the Lyman Briggs School at Michigan State offered similar courses, like the newest educational collaboration with ConAgra Foods which provides students with a glimse into the world of industrial food science.

With regards to my post earlier this week about Obama's emphasis on increased/better science education: I think thinking outside the box of didactic science courses are a great way to supplement lectureship in a way that gets kids excited about not only learning but also excited about science. I would not be surprised if, in the future, these types of courses become more common in the way basic science departments across the country approach undergraduate (or high school) education.

Origins of Morality

2010-10-18T22:40:00.000-04:00

I'll be the first to regrettably admit that I know very little about artist Hieronymus Bosch, nevertheless, I really enjoyed Frans DeWaal's essay "Morals Without God" in The Stone--a NYTimes opinion forum for "contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless."

For me, it was a well-written argument on evolutionary psychology which addressed some of the larger philosophical issues that are sometimes taken for granted when we talk about evolution in any capacity: the notion of the diminishing animal-human continuum, and the perceived antithesis between science and religion. I generally am cautious to applaud the field of EvoPsych for a lot of reasons mostly grounded in it's tendency to use animal behavior as an excuse for (rather than explanation of) troubling behaviors like bigotry, rape, and violence. However, I think Dr. DeWaal walks the fine line between "explanation" and "excuse" quite well. In a single support of evolution and the animal-human continuum, he writes,

"If we consider our species without letting ourselves be blinded by the technical advances of the last few millennia, we see a creature of flesh and blood with a brain that, albeit three times larger than a chimpanzee’s, doesn’t contain any new parts. Even our vaunted prefrontal cortex turns out to be of typical size: recent neuron-counting techniques classify the human brain as a linearly scaled-up monkey brain.[2] No one doubts the superiority of our intellect, but we have no basic wants or needs that are not also present in our close relatives. I interact on a daily basis with monkeys and apes, which just like us strive for power, enjoy sex, want security and affection, kill over territory, and value trust and cooperation. Yes, we use cell phones and fly airplanes, but our psychological make-up remains that of a social primate. Even the posturing and deal-making among the alpha males in Washington is nothing out of the ordinary."

From there, he provides some fascinating research points on primate altruism and their apparent sense of "fairness" among their peers before returning full circle back to human morality. I particularly identified with the belief that "reason is the slave of the passions" and Dr. DeWaal's statement that, "Rather than having developed morality from scratch, we received a huge helping hand from our background as social animals." It makes teleological sense--and I think the idea that certain moral judgments seem universal across societies and faiths complements the notion of morality as an evolutionary trait.

But I spent the most time thinking about the final point that Science cannot fill the moral void that would be left in a world without religion. The essay reads:

"Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch."

I agree--the goal of science is not to answer moral questions. Similarly though, religion's goal has historically not been restricted to just questions of morality. Where religion has held a monopoly on explaining the wonders of the world for millennia, science has stepped in. That science, religion, and society are inextricably intertwined is true and makes imagining a separation of these factors with a surgical precision not only impossible, but also a rather moot point. Nevertheless, the points previously laid out, on top of a well-developed legal foundation, seem to indicate that our morality is in some sense so deeply ingrained in our evolutionary psyches that formal religion is more helpful than necessary. Arguing both sides made the conclusion to an otherwise riveting essay a bit unsatisfactory for me.

Go Science!

2010-10-18T20:10:00.001-04:00

I think nerds first become painfully aware that their academic talents often go under-appreciated in grade school. The sports heroes get their photographs taken with large trophies and names in newspapers. Today, President Obama gave some well-deserved face time to some future scientists in a White House science fair where he quibbed, "You know, when you win first place at a science fair, nobody's rushing the field or dumping Gatorade over your head, but in many ways, our future depends on what happens in those contests, what happens when a young person is engaged in conducting an experiment or writing a piece of software or solving a hard math problem or designing a new gadget."

I heard about the event on my drive home from work on NPR, then saw a more brief but broad story on NYTimes describing some Obama's efforts towards young American advancement in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). First of all, Mr. Obama appearing later this year on Mythbusters is totally rad. The show has had a cult-like in science dormitories across the country for years (I would know) and could use some high-visibility guests.

But less "feel-good" than Obama's appearance on the television program is the inability for science-friendly legislation to make it through Congress. Beyond any arguments about partisanship, much of this is heavily influenced by the court of public opinion. Think about it: we're in the midst of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month where everything from NFL jerseys to yogurt lids have been painted the signature "breast cancer" shade of pink. Why so much attention? Because breast cancer a.) has a tremendously effective lobbying base, and b.) we all care. If stem cells had half the support than breast cancer research does (no, these disciplines are not so very different--there are a host of ethical dilemmas plaguing both)...well, no one can say for sure. But you might be able to imagine the great potential for progress. Today's political climate is particularly troubling from the point of view of science. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) directly support nearly 350,000 researchers (more if you include the graduate students they employ) across the country with less than $30 billion, annually. To an average voter during troubled economic times, this may seem like an astronomical amount of money. But if you really think about those numbers, that averages to about $90,000/year/researcher to cover: salary, health insurance, laboratory space, scientific equipment, and other work-related expenses. Considering that a single piece of machinery can cost tens of thousands of dollars, an argument that this money is mis-appropriated fails to truly appreciate the enormity and importance of scientific innovation in the United States.

Don't Hate on the Cat Ladies

2010-10-15T00:02:00.001-04:00

MooShu Kitty is on holiday at my parents'--it's a spacious house with plenty more hiding places than my apartment and my momma spoils her even more than I do. She will return to Milwaukee next week, when Momma comes to town for my surgery. In the meantime, my apartment seems quiet and cold when I come home without a little ball of orange, mewing in greetings or crying for breakfast at my feet while I make my morning tea.

Yep, I am a happily committed cat lady.

So, and not surprisingly, I was amused by this morning's essay, "Cat People are People, Too" by Sloane Crosley. (I, too, have been advised against "advertising" my cat and NPR interests.) But cat people are like kindred spirits--just read the comments. Dozens of stories about reader's beloved pets with names like (my favorites): Mister Wiskers, Condoleeza, Mookie, and the pair Fred and Ginger. I'm not saying cats are better, just standing up for the single, twenty-something, cat-owning female. We're not up-and-coming-spinsters, we just want a little bit on companionship in the interim. Goodness knows no boyfriend is going to be happy to see me every time I walk in the door, or regard my kitchen scraps as five-star cuisine.

I'm a 30%-er

2010-10-12T14:02:00.001-04:00

The Press seem to be addressing many of my most important childhood wonderings this week! I'm delighted. It generally began with a large popsicle and ended with a headache, fingers covered in grape-colored stickiness, and: "Mom, why do popsicles make my brain freeze?!" Today, the New York Times writer Anahad O'Connor tackled: "The Claim: 'Brain Freezo' Only Occurs on Warm Days."

First of all, it's awesome that not only did some group at a well-respected univeristy (McMasters...only in Canada...) did the study in the first place, but also that nearly 150 youngsters got "moderate" amounts of ice cream in exchange for their "brain freeze" reporting.

It turns out that, no, brain freezes do not only occur on warm days and only 30% seem to be afflicted by these horrendous headaches following cold-food consumption. The myth seems justified though when one considers that people tend to consume ice cream (frozen beverages, etc) more quickly on warm days in order to avoid the mess that follows melting. Either way, now you know.

Fish Poop and Other Lofty Pursuits

2010-10-11T23:16:00.000-04:00

I distinctly remember, some years ago, asking, "Mom, what happens when fish poop?" So I'm tickled that not only do people study whale-poop, but also that NPR reports on those findings--whales, it turns out, by defecating at the surface of the ocean play an important role in the nitrogen balance of the ocean ecosystem and help to feed the very organisms they feed on.

And, although the focus is whale-poop, an answer to my question was addressed as well: "The difference between whale poop and fish poop is that whale poop tends to float, or at least stay near the surface." Now you know.

Another Battle in the War on Soda

2010-10-11T22:44:00.000-04:00

An article in today's New York Times really got my gears going, it was titled: "New York Asks to Bar Use of Food Stamps to Buy Sodas." The article itself was more fair than the title might suggest--citing the ethical, economic, and social consequences of the restriction.

All things considered, I think the soda ban is an intriguing idea. Consider the premise: many of the cheapest foods are also high in calories and low in nutritious value. Food stamps provide resources which can only be devoted to feeding low-income men, women, and families. Perhaps public funds should be used to buy (more) nutritious food choices--orange juice instead of soda, cereal instead of potato chips, fresh (or canned) fruits and vegetables instead of frozen pizzas. The Food Research & Action Center (a non-profit) reports that obesity and poverty are inextricably intertwined. Because it's likely that these people rely on Medicare, Medicaid, and other forms of public health care to attend to their medical needs, it may seem like it is our right as American taxpayers to determine what should and should not be covered by Food Stamp programs.

These conclusion may seem hastily made, as the article reads:

"George Hacker, senior policy adviser for the health promotion project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said a more equitable approach might be to use educational campaigns to dissuade food-stamp users from buying sugared drinks.

“The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages,” Mr. Hacker said. “However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not want to stigmatize people on food stamps.”"

Indeed, we hardly limit the nutritional/caloric choices of wealthy obese people, and we wouldn't intervene in those choices if poverty were linked to the underweight. We're also not offering to publically fund private gym memberships for these Food Stamp recipients. It also seems prudent to point out that people do not become overweight/obese on soda alone. The key word we're missing here is simple: moderation. We're also missing nutritional education, incentivizing healthy food choices and physical activity, etc.

Despite the counter-argument I've just provided, and although I stand by my skepticism that culpritizing soda will be an effective anti-obesity strategy, I'm inclined to believe that if one cannot use Food Stamps to buy alcohol or prepared food, then soda is certainly a fair exclusion as well (particularly since diet soda wouldn't be excluded). As controversial and tunnel-visioned as actions like this may be, wouldn't it be interesting if it worked?

Sunday Secrets

2010-10-10T23:26:00.000-04:00

This one is true for me--perhaps not so secret, now.

Love you, J.D.

Sun-Shine

2010-10-05T22:31:00.000-04:00

I saw this article on the New York Times site and thought what Vinod Khosla is doing with his money is really cool because it's not only philanthropy, it's thought-through philanthropy. His investment choices touch on many themes which come up again and again in dialogues on global poverty including: education, the role of women, sustainability, and micro-loans.

Lists: 5 Things That Make Me "Cry" for My Momma

2010-10-04T22:23:00.000-04:00

During their travels in Kenya to celebrate their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary, I was unable to communicate with my parents for nearly a month. When they aren't off galavanting around other continents, I speak with one or both of my parents every day--but my mom and I are particularly close. While I was really missing her last week, I drafted another list: Five Things that Make Me "Cry" (Usually Figuratively) for My Momma. And, thankfully, she and my dad have returned safely, armed with hundreds of photos. :)

1. Good Days: Like when my Science goes right, or I have a great night out, or it's a beautiful day in Wisconsin. She is my biggest fan.

2. Bad Days: Like when I break my ankle, or my football team loses, or I'm missing home a little bit. Aided by years of experience in the corporate world, Momma also provides great advice regarding my interpersonal/relationship/communication mishaps.

3. Rice: I am physically not capable of boiling rice without either burning it or yielding a sloppy gooey mess. So on stir-fry, curry, or jambalaya nights, Mom gets a nice telephone call in order to carefully review the intricacies of rice-cooking on an electric stove.

4. Moo Shu Kitty: Apparently inter-office etiquette states that it's obnoxious to share with your coworkers all of your stories which begin with: "Oh my gosh, you'll never belief how clever/stupid/silly/cute my kitty (child?) is!" So I call Momma to tell her all about Moo's adventures in nap-land and all the other mundane methods by which she amuses me. Yesterday she jumped on the coffee table and slid across, falling ungracefully off the other side. Then she got locked in the broom closet for a couple of hours. Like I said, mundane.

5. Plants: My mom is the queen (in my mind) of green thumbs. My hatred for weeding her sprawling gardens made me swear I would never grow anything, ever. However perhaps the adage of slowly becoming your mother is a teensy bit true: last year I discovered a strange love for houseplants. Every so often I require a consult on my agricultural strategies.

What a Wonderful World?

2010-09-29T20:37:00.000-04:00

As an alternative to working on my take-home cardiovascular physiology exam, I went out for a little walk to the park down the street. It was a beautiful, near-perfect Wisconsin autumn day: seventy degrees and not a cloud in the sky. I sat with my toes in the grass, thinking about how marvelous it is to be alive.

Simultaneously, there is one life missing from this planet. In a story which can only be described as truly tragic, Tyler Clementi took his own life following a "prank" which broadcast an intimate (homosexual) encounter in his dorm room at Rutgers University in New Jersey. I have placed Mr. Clementi's sexual orientation in parentheses because I think the expectation for privacy is universal across sexualities--although admittedly, his perhaps closeted homosexuality certainly didn't help the situation. As for the two students who contributed to broadcasting the webcam, I find their actions positively deplorable. It is impossible for me to conceive of anything positive resulting from such a broadcast, even without a suicide on the line. Justifying such actions with excuses like "It was just a joke," or "We didn't mean to hurt anyone," are the words of irresponsible young people who seem better able at operating electronics than thinking through simple actions.

I don't think growing up (middle school, high school, or entering a new environment at a university) is ever an easy process. Perhaps though I was fortunate to have done most of my growing up without many of the scourges of so-called cyber-bullying. By the time Facebook launched in February of 2004 I was a junior in high school and YouTube surfaced a full year later. When I was in high school, texting was not an acceptable alternative to a phone call and webcams didn't come pre-integrated into laptop computers. But the point here is that bullying has serious consequences, no matter the medium.

Tyler, I'm sorry.

Believe What You Will

2010-09-28T22:45:00.001-04:00

I was amused by finding the two following articles this evening:

First: In a recent poll, "Atheists Outdo Some Believers in Survey on Religion" or... "Basic Religion Test Stumps Many Americans." Either headline you may prefer, the opening line says it all: "Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people, but they are also deeply ignorant about religion." I'd have liked to have a try at the Pew research survey--it's a shame it wasn't published.

Second: I like Science, and I like when Biblical phenomena are explained by Science. Not coincidentally, I found the NPR story that "Wind May Have Helped Moses Part the Red Sea" both interesting and timely, especially since the assertions seem to be well-corroborated by the Bible itself.

Contraception and Poverty

2010-09-26T13:13:00.001-04:00

Today should be cleaning day, but after a fabulous weekend visit from JD, my not-so-little younger brother, I have found myself in a chilly apartment, curled up with MooShu Kitty and a mug of tea, pouring over the Times site.

I have to admit, I have a bit of a brain-crush on op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof and really enjoyed his article this morning which discussed the potential for contraception to revolutionize the fight against global poverty. It's timely, as the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, many of which involve not only global poverty but also infant and maternal health, are assessed after their first decade of implementation. Mr. Kristof begins:

"This is a high-tech revolution that will affect more people in a more intimate way than almost any other technological stride. The next generation of family planning products will be cheaper, more effective and easier to use — they could be to today’s condoms and diaphragms what a smartphone is to the bricklike cellphones of 20 years ago."

Indeed, these are monumentally important strides, but I think that a page-long article is insufficient to fully grasp the complexity in touting birth control as the answer to global poverty. There are a number of social, not scientific or economic issues, which Mr. Kristof failed to touch on in his piece.

The concept of choice does not merely apply to affluent white women who can afford to manage their own bodies and reproductive health. There cannot, must not, be broad policies mandating contraceptive use on merits of socioeconomic status, although anyone who recalls the Norplant controversies of the 1990's knows that this has already been attempted, by the US government no less. (Although a bit long-winded this essay provides a nice analysis of the Norplant issue, which wasn't really touched on in the Wikipedia link. In essence, women on Welfare were offered economic incentives for Norplant contraceptive implantation--only to learn later that implant removal was not covered under Medicaid and physicians were often not trained for the removal procedure.)

If access to safe and effective contraception is going to make an impact on population "burden" (a controversial idea on its own), the proposition hinges on use. It's important to be cognizant of the fact that social dynamics, particularly religious views, in the developing world often are counterproductive to contraceptive utilization. The Catholic Church's Humanae Vitae is a barrier to a whole host of reproductive issues--including AIDS control--on the continent of Africa. Until options other than the ever-effective abstinence-only family planning options are offered as not only available but also moral or socially acceptable, the reproductive behavior of millions of devout-yet-impoverished human beings isn't likely to change.

Despite my belief that every human being should have access to affordable and safe family-planning materials, including not only contraceptive methods for male and female partners, but also pre- and post-natal health care, I am cautious of placing some sort of population management burden on the shoulders of the world's poorest. The claims that in a world of limited resources the abundant reproduction of the underclasses is contributing to disease, poverty, scarcity, etc. are not at all original--famously being traced back to writings by Charles Darwin and Adam Smith in the mid-1800s. (Recall EcoMarci's post on a similar subject, here.) The blame-game is particularly difficult for me to endorse when families like the Duggars on TLC's hit show "19 Kids and Counting" are almost-heroically portrayed as standing up for their extreme religious/reproductive beliefs/behaviors. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that the world's impoverished are the only ones reproducing beyond what they can support. The television schedule might be less infuriating if certain child-laden American families didn't have to create reality TV shows to support their abnormally-large brood.

The fact of the matter remains, American families, no matter how many children they choose to bring into the world, generally support those children to the fullest of their ability. I was born into a two-child family where I was afforded abundant food, toys, space, and educational resources. Scale this to a global perspective and I have utilized enough "limited resources" in the past twenty-three years to fully fund the lives of dozens of hungry children in Africa, or India, or Appalachia. In reality, none of us are absolved. Contraception is only one, very small, part of this complex puzzle of global poverty.

Scaples and Power Drills

2010-09-23T22:01:00.001-04:00

I've been in a lot of pain the past month--returning to relying on extra-strength Tylenol to manage my pain enough to be on my feet all day in the laboratory.

I thought I remembered hearing in lecture or reading somewhere that chronic pain is a leading cause of doctor visits and a leading health care expenditure. I was unable to back up these assertions based on data but during my PubMed search I did find a pretty interesting abstract on post-operative pain. Researchers in Ireland published in the Clinical Journal of Pain found that polymorphisms in a single gene (whose product is involved in neurotransmitter metabolism) can be linked to differences in post-operative pain sensitivity (different than chronic pain, I know). I think this kind of study really underscores the potential for individualized medicine, driven by cheaper and cheaper sequencing technology, to take a patient's genome, find minuscule differences in genetic code which translate to real functional differences and help create treatment programs (or post-operative pain management regimens) to manage the consequences of those gene differences which exist in us all.

I saw Mr. Surgeon this afternoon, who related my pain to the positioning of my screws, and their juxtaposition with the ligaments which connect bones in my foot to bones in my ankle/leg and allow me to move my foot up and down or side to side. We made the decision to remove the screws next month, nine months to the day following my first surgery. The procedure is supposed to be short, small, and only minimally/temporarily impact my function/movement.

I'm not excited about this. I hate anesthesia and I hate the way I feel after regaining my non-sleeping consciousness. But I hate saying, "I can't," and I hate feeling like I am physically unable to do exactly what I want to do. So I think this is a good decision. Plus, I get to keep the screws. (Oh, and since I asked, they really do use power drills in surgery to remove my hardware.)

The Paycheck Fairness Bill and 70s-Style Gender-War Feminism...

2010-09-22T13:59:00.001-04:00

I was appalled by Christina Hoff Sommers' opinion piece in today's New York times, not because of her conservative/moderate approach to gendered pay disparities, but because of her alarmist, hyperbolic future-telling concerning the Paycheck Fairness Bill:

"The Paycheck Fairness bill would set women against men, empower trial lawyers and activists, perpetuate falsehoods about the status of women in the workplace and create havoc in a precarious job market. It is 1970s-style gender-war feminism for a society that should be celebrating its success in substantially, if not yet completely, overcoming sex-based workplace discrimination."

That's like saying that any anti-discrimination legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s, sets group X against group Y. Laws set police enforcement against criminals--and ANY law passes somehow empowers certain trial lawyers (that is, after all, their job) and some activists. It also goes so far as to imply that such antagonism is morally wrong because it wreaks social havoc by disturbing the status quo. But, in order to avoid any sex-based antagonism perhaps the bill's flaw lies in that it is too specifics: we should also ensure equal pay for minorities, the disabled, regardless of religious creed or sexual orientation. And "wreaking havoc?!" You don't have to be a supporter of this bill to understand the extremity of that statement.

As for assessing the "truth" in gender pay disparities--data is, as always, in the eye of the beholder. Writes Sommers:

"But that wage gap isn't necessarily the result of discrimination. On the contrary, there are lots of other reasons men might earn more than women, including differences in education, experience and job tenure.
When these factors are taken into account the gap narrows considerably — in some studies, to the point of vanishing. A recent survey found that young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts, mostly because more of them earn college degrees."

Young (attractive?), childless, and single...which is exactly what percentage of the female workforce? And if these successful young women are, in fact, earning more than their male counterparts why does this vanish? I'd like to point out that it takes both a woman AND a man (usually, of course) to become un-single and un-childless. And everyone gets older and more experienced. So I'm not sure that those particular factors can be offered up to differences in life choices. Even still, although women may gravitate toward work at companies with family-friendlier policies, it's not as if they are the sole recipients of these benefits. In the example of university departments used in the article, I'm unsure why tenured professors at a public institution are paid differently by department in the first place. Supplementary grant payments aside, these people are, at least in the eyes of the university, performing the same work: advising, mentoring, teaching, researching, etc.

While I agree with Ms. Sommers that legislative vagueness is problematic--I must disagree with the assertion that this is feminist warfare in the same way that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" policies is hardly gay warfare. I am disappointed that this piece paints working towards a more just and equitable future as social heresy, bordering on criminal.

Richness of a Different Sort

2010-09-21T23:48:00.001-04:00

Among the treasured books that were cornerstones of my childhood imagination were my Roald Dahl books--my favorite being "The BFG" (Big Friendly Giant). So I thought NPR's biopic piece on his life outside of children's literature was fascinating. We should all be so lucky to lead such rich lives.

A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle

2010-09-21T22:03:00.000-04:00

Which, aside from one word, is completely unrelated to my subject matter--never the less, it makes me smile and I learned today that I have been incorrectly attributing that quote to Gloria Steinhem; it was actually an Australian named Irina Dunn.

Tangents aside, my subject is fish--specifically of the genetically-engineered variety.

The potential FDA approval of the production and sale of genetically modified salmon has gotten a lot of media buzz in recent weeks, but I was pleased to see this story on NPR.org which outlined some of the specific genetic shenanigans that had been played. Mostly, they have to do with altered growth hormone patterns. The article, and plenty of others seem to imply that these genetic modifications yield an all-female, triploid, sterile population of salmon--but in fact these phenomena are not unusual in other salmon populations and are probably less significant than alarmist media may indicate.

Nevertheless, the critics are vocal. Writes an article cited by the NPR story:

"Critics have two main concerns: The safety of the food to humans and the salmon's effect on the environment.

Because the altered fish has never been eaten before, they say, it could include dangerous allergens, especially because seafood is highly allergenic. They also worry that the fish will escape and intermingle with the wild salmon population, which is already endangered.They would grow fast and consume more food to the detriment of the conventional wild salmon, the critics fear."

It's quite unclear to me how the addition of completely natural genes in fish species we already consume would lead to an increase in allergic responses. Oddly enough, environmentalism is also one of the key arguments supporting the use of genetically engineered fish as a proxy for the dramatically diminished populations of salmon in the wild. Also, states the same article, this is precisely why the fish would be bred to be sterile. Should the FDA approve of sale of these fish, a whole host of other genetically altered livestock could be made available in short succession. Many of these organisms would be engineered in ways to reduce the scourge of agriculture on the environment--so this to me is an interesting back-and-forth.

Wealth and Social Responsibility

2010-09-21T21:04:00.001-04:00

On reading Paul Krugman's New York Times opinion essay titled "The Angry Rich" this afternoon I got to thinking a lot about the power, and thus responsibility, of wealth: is it ethical to be rich?

Through to employment available to me through my future higher degree, I expect that I will one day be among earning an annual income which places me in the top 10% of American earners (as estimated by statistics on Wikipedia, for whatever those are worth). Add to this any income from my partner and my household income could inch into the 95th percentile. If I use my predicted household income ($250,000 a year) as a proxy for net wealth at some point--I am undeniably in the world's wealthiest 1%--and earning nearly seventy times more than the estimated eighty percent of humanity living on less than $10 per day. That's more than two-hundred seventy times more than the estimated three billion people living on less than $2.50 per day. I own a television, a lap top, and I eat fresh meat and vegetables nearly every day. The statistics on global, or even national poverty are positively astounding. So am I left with a responsibility towards the billions of people less fortunate than I am? What about my compatriots--the millions of tired, of poor, of huddled masses, yearning to breathe free?

These are not arbitrarily arrived-at numbers. $250,000 a year is the cutoff for the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest American families. I think it's easy, earning a tenth of that, for me to be of the opinion that these over-privileged whiners are abdicating their social responsibility to pay taxes in a progressive manner. Will I be in the same position when I am on the other side of the tax-bracket fence? Will I be willing to give up hard earned dollars to support a system of welfare, social security, Medicaid, food stamps? What about a system of public schools and libraries, roads, socialized military, police, and fire departments? What about the very system of research funding through public dollars upon which my livelihood depends?

I think in the end, we all take from the system we pay into--and it is impossible to partition or quantify this "usage." Who utilizes the taxation system the most: a welfare recipient or an Army recruit? A working mother on Medicaid or a Fortune 500 CEO who uses telecommunication infrastructure to build and maintain her business? A World War II veteran receiving Social Security benefits or the students of my generation with government-subsidized student loans? A farmer in Iowa for whom the price of corn has been artificially inflated for years, or a homeless man in need of food and shelter for the night? A physician who is reimbursed by Medicare or a scientist whose grant applications fight for NIH funding? What about the public dollars which fund an inmate on dealth row for decades? The point is: we all use the system every day, even if this use occurs in different ways.

What I'm not advocating for here is a lack of government fiscal oversight or public apathy towards a burgeoning budget. Instead I am insisting that there is a difference between this and the attitude that the number of zeros in my paycheck correlates directly with the amount of effort I am putting into my work or the amount that I am contributing to a national and global society. Although charity and philanthropy remain choices, taxation remains one small equalizer of wealth that must not be optional. I am suggesting that driving your Porshe on the interstate and connecting your million-dollar home to the city sewer system may not be unethical uses of your amassed wealth, but evading a social duty to assist both your neighbors and the less fortunate may be.

I hope that these attitudes remain true for me, are not inversely proportional to the amount of money in my bank account, the car I drive, or the home I reside in.

Touchy-Feely

2010-09-20T20:17:00.000-04:00

Morning Edition on NPR this morning had two (in my mind) related stories about the power of human touch for diagnosis and for comfort.

The very way Americans approach the biomedical establishment in this day and age hinges on a barrage of diagnostic tests involving state-of-the-art equipment. Thus, perhaps it comes as no surprise that skillful physical exams are a dying art:

"For centuries, doctors diagnosed illness using their own senses, by poking, prodding, looking, listening. From these observations, a skilled doctor can make amazingly accurate inferences about what ails the patient.

Technology has changed that. "We're now often doing expensive tests, where in the past a physical exam would have given you the same information," says Jason Wasfy, a cardiologist-in-training at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

As a result, many doctors are abbreviating the time-honored physical exam — or even skipping it altogether."

Simply from personal experience, the physical attention I've received from physician is quite limited. At this point, pulse, pressure, and temperature measurements are taken by the nursing staff. Checking ears, nose, throat, and eyes involve by-sight assessment but little physical contact. Given the political, economic, and social atmosphere of the medical world, I'm not sure how critical I can be. I do, however, think it's pretty cool that some top-notch medical schools are realizing this lapse and "fixing" it (at least in educational practice). I would have been interested as well in a take on the subject from an osteopathic school, who traditionally emphasize hands-on manipulation more than their allopathic counterparts.

The second story focuses on the power of human physical contact (the benign kind) to influence our psychology and our brain chemistry in ways like chocolate does. This, too, is of not surprise but I'm glad that people are performing this kind of research. Especially since I feel that so much physical contact has been eliminated (perhaps out of fear of lawsuits, perhaps just because we live by being so electronically connected).

MetS

2010-09-19T22:01:00.001-04:00

I spent my lazy Sunday afternoon watching football and making Louisiana-style gumbo using an amalgam of recipes, but mostly based on this one and this one. I think roux yields a richer, thicker sauce, so I've elected to spend the extra time doing that--which got me to thinking.

Roux is a reduction mixture of a whole lot of butter and white flour, which means that, although delicious, this recipe does nothing to break the stereotype that Southern cuisine is fairly fattening. After all, according to the Centers for Disease Control lists, states below the Mason-Dixon line are some of the largest. (And there's a very cool map of obesity trends over time provided on the CDC site.)

In my courses, we've been talking a lot about "metabolic syndrome," medical terminology which attempts to bridge a missing link between metabolic conditions (central obesity, insulin resistance or type II diabetes, high blood triglyceride levels, high cholesterol) and increased risk of cardiovascular events contributing to morbidity and mortality. The CDC estimated that greater than one in three American adults has metabolic syndrome...in 2006. And part of it just seems so obvious to me--that unhealthy people are unhealthy in many different ways. And part of it bothers me. It's so amorphous and poorly defined. And we use it as this excuse to tell people that their lack of health (despite hundreds of thousands of generations worth of evolutionary fine-tuning making sure we hold onto every single calorie we consume) is because they're lazy and gluttonous. These are health discussions seeped in connotations of blame and pseudo-morality.

I feel like I have to choose between two sides, neither of which I particularly like. A.) Metabolic syndrome (and the obesity "epidemic") are real, serious public health problems stemming from an over-abundance of high-fat, nutrient-poor food and lazy, undisciplined (uneducated?) public. B.) Metabolic syndrome is a ploy to place blame for burgeoning public health issues on the nations unhealthiest people--who are actually not to blame for their condition. Obviously I'm choosing the hyperbole here, but sometimes I feel like I have to choose between loyalty for the biomedical establishment (which I am, after all, a part of) and patient advocacy (or cognizance that health is confounded by socioeconomic/environmental issues).

The Threat of Tomorrow

2010-09-15T19:51:00.002-04:00

George Q. Daley was the keynote speaker at today's Research Day and gave an excellent seminar on some of his work on both human embryonic stem cells (hESC) and human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS). I cannot underscore the importance of stem cells, or the potential for stem cell-derived tissues in basic research, clinical trials, and in human/animal medicine. While iPS have been portrayed, particularly by the media, as solvent to questions of ethics regarding ESC use, they cannot be used to answer all questions or in all circumstances. (An idea he is quoted for in this New York Times article from August.) For an excellent review by Daley, see "Stem Cells: Roadmap to the Clinic" (you'll require institutional or library access).

Dr. Daley is a renowned scientist--faculty at Harvard and Boston Children's Hospital, a Howard Hughes Investigator, winner of a host of professional awards with a rich history of academic service, he even has his own Wikipedia page. What I find more interesting, though, is the fact that tomorrow Dr. Daley will give testimony in a Congressional hearing on the future of stem cells.

You see, Obama had overturned Bush Administration ban on most federally-funded embryonic stem cell research after he took office via presidential order. Then, on August 23rd of this year, a "U.S. judge rule[d] against Obama’s stem cell policy." Millions of dollars worth of research funding was halted in the NIH grant pipeline, and benchtop and clinical research projects all over the country were stopped in their tracks. Dramatically, last week an appellate court ruled that work on the cells may continue while further court considerations persist.

The future of embryonic stem cell research (and actually plenty of other stem cell research which uses ESCs as a "gold standard" comparison) has never been perched on so precarious a precipice. As Dr. Daley concluded his discussion this afternoon, he gravely stated, "If the House flips, I think the future of human embryonic stem cell work is dead." Those make for some high stakes in an already sticky election season full of anti-incumbent mentality.

Rethinking "Sometimes"

2010-09-15T18:41:00.000-04:00

Monday night, I posted an admiring snippet directed at EAMD's post titled "There is No 'Sometimes'" on the blog "Angry Feminist Doc." The incredibly well-researched piece refutes statements such as, "But isn't it possible that sometimes, there are things that women could do that could have helped prevent rape?" And, as my previous post indicates, my gut-feel is to agree with EAMD...indeed, there is no "sometimes." And article evidence is given for women being somehow at fault for their own rapes because they "were drinking," or "wear skinny jeans," or "wear bikinis." More troubling, the woman is to blame if she fights back or fails to fight back. (All links to these claims can be found at the original post.)

Of course I endorse the mindset that there is never ever an excuse for rape. It is never ever the fault of the victim (female, or male, straight, or gay, or incarcerated).

Nevertheless, I found myself troubled by my hasty assessment--mostly because if I am honest with myself, at the end of the day I want some agency over my own physical safety. Perhaps this is an emotional sham, but I want to be able to choose my behaviors with some belief that these make me marginally safer. Please do not, in any way, interpret this opinion with the desire to open some sort of philosophical loophole for placing rape blame on the choices victims make. I, too, wear bikinis and skinny jeans. I walk, sometimes alone, at night. I drink alcohol. I make these choices with the expectation of safety--on the beach, in the mall, at work and school, and at my apartment.

Ultimately, I think this tension for me exists because I do not think that "sometimes" directly translates to a victim being to blame.

Because risk can never be completely eliminated, because people do horrible things to other human beings, because violence (especially sexual violence) is in no circumstances condonable, victims cannot, must not be blamed for their rapes. After the event, "woulda, shoulda, coulda" is both a moot point and completely unhelpful. But the fact remains, I can do some-things to minimize my risk before I become a victim. So "sometimes" is perhaps a tense-dependent word, which for me is a word of action.

Lists: Things I Want to Cook Before I Die

2010-09-15T15:43:00.002-04:00

ListChen's recent post, "Things I Bought That I Love" reminded me how integral lists are to the way I operate.

Lists also seem to make sense for thought, task, rank, and a whole host of other assessment and decision making scenarios--which is perhaps why so many psychologists, self-help gurus, and motivational speakers advocate list making as a part of everyday operation. My mentor very much subscribes to this the idea that formulating a list of goals, no matter how large or small, is the first step to goal achievement. As such, I was given a blank notebook on my first day in his laboratory designed to be a private laboratory notebook of work, school, and personal-life related objectives, as well as some plans for their achievement. I am not as diligent about this list-keeping as perhaps I should be, but I do try to think about my direction at least once a week; and, as much as I hate to admit it, I do think that my goal list(s) keep my focused on and aligned with my studies and experimental work.

Given these two factors (Chen's post, and my mentor's influence), I thought it might be an interesting thing to post one list of my own every week or so. (The goals I make regarding posting frequency and content are seldom, if ever, achieved, and I recognize this...) But during my down time between classes this afternoon I was thinking about the following:

9 Things I Want to Cook (Deliciously) Before I Die:

(Or: My Recipe Bucket List)

1. Crème Brûlée: The ultimate in fancy, complicated, to-die-for desserts, so it has to be at the top of my list. Plus, the idea of a mini0blow torch designed specifically for crystallizing sugar is kind of awesome. Or, I could just use my oven's broiler...boring.

2. Roast Beef with Gravy and Yorkshire Puddings: Perhaps not for those who are opposed to the consumption of red meat, but in my family this is a holiday season tradition, and a favorite. Plus, the white, Anglo-Saxon in me adores Yorkshire pudding (which is more of a bread than a pudding in American sense of those terms). The supreme compliment to my own cooking skills would, of course, be to produce a better roast than my mother. That's no small feat.

3. Homemade Pasta: I've heard its laborious, messy, and difficult to get right but the results, when done correctly, are sublime.

4. Roast Chicken with Garlic Mashed Potatoes: The Midwest girl in me will always love a well-done meal of meat and potatoes. Garlic makes the whole thing that much better.

5. Lobster Bisque: If there is one thing the French do well, it's cooking. To me, the so-called "French Paradox" (i.e. high caloric intake, rich food, butter and meat consumption, and copious amount of wine, yet low er incidence of cardiovascular disease) seems like a wonder problem to be faced with.

6. Hot and Sour Soup: As written on the Epicuious page by Bruce Cost: "This authentic soup is essentially an ancient doctor's curative that combines the healing magic of chicken broth, the circulation-enhancing qualities of tree fungus and lily buds, and the antiseptic properties of vinegar. The heat isn't from chiles — it's actually from freshly ground white pepper." Sounds great to me, even the use of the word "fungus" in a food review.

7. Homemade BBQ Sauce (Preferably on Ribs): The child in me still delights in messy finger-food, and BBQ perfectly fits that mold. Spicy is a bonus. The recipe I selected uses crushed red pepper, but I would be inclined to use Cheyenne (chile) powder in amounts metered via the fail-safe technique of taste-testing.

8. Paneer Makhani: My favorite Indian dish, it's a thick sauce with cubes of fresh "cheese" cubes. It's also the only reason I ever consider converting to vegetarianism (although the rest of my menu clearly indicates this is an unlikely outcome for me). If I'm really ambitious, I will make my own paneer. Otherwise there is a delightful little Indian market just down the road.

9. Tiramisu: To add to my ambitions of fancy, foreign desserts.

"Angry Feminist Doc"

2010-09-13T23:14:00.002-04:00

Uhh, and one more thought.

I came across the blog "Angry Feminist Doc" while perusing the blog roll on "Her Story of Science" and was really struck by the latest post, here. The sheer number of linked evidences was impressive and frightening.

Volunteerism (Adventure No. 9)

2010-09-13T23:01:00.001-04:00

It's been a couple of months since my last "adventure" post. This isn't to say I was adventure-less this summer, rather I left them undocumented. EcoMarci's post "Being Alone" was a reminder that the purpose of my adventures was to become accustomed to, comfortable with, and eventually embrace my solo-ism. Every day sees a different degree of this achievement, but for now I'm focusing on one goal I first addressed in "Prelude to Adventures:" Volunteering.

For the past month, I've made a weekly pilgrimage downtown, to a non-descript yet character-laden old building in the Third Ward neighborhood. Its secured entryway smells like fresh woodwork, despite the building's age, and invites visitors up a winding stairway to wherever their destination lies.

My destination is a conference room where pizza boxes, a bowl of candy, and a pile of brightly-colored condoms greets me. I'm volunteering at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin--so in actuality the condoms are not at all out of place, and I am happy to grab a couple slices of pizza, too.

Tonight's activities prompted me to be particularly introspective. In light of tomorrow's primary elections here in Wisconsin, my colleagues and I were placing "Get Out the Vote" phone calls in support of candidates who support issues in women's (and everyone's, really) health. We did some polling on attitudes concerning both the big-ticket item: abortion, as well as federal/state funding of health care services like birth control, cancer screening, and routine physicals. It was definitely an opportunity to get far, far outside my comfort zone: speaking with complete strangers on the phone, discussing (with strangers) a fairly polarizing issue and sometimes dealing with the consequences, and meeting a wealth of new people in the other volunteers and organizers.

Despite my initial discomfort at phoning unknown voices, particularly during the dinner hours, I was pleasantly the surprised to find that the kinder I was to the person on the line, in general the kinder they were to me. I was only shouted at once--and the woman had several screaming children in the background, so I'll give her some latitude. Most surprising, I found many people actually apologized for being short with me, or "disapproving" of the mission of Planned Parenthood. One woman thanked me for working hard to increase voter participation, and another (humorous) old lady went on a mini-rant about "Tea Partiers" and "Hate-triots." I had to laugh, she was pretty passionate. And, gradually, I became comfortable asking for support of X and Y candidates, then wishing the men and women on the line a good night.

Additionally, I have really enjoyed my compatriots. I say this a lot: it's nice to get away from school and meet a different kind of person. Perhaps I should amend that statement to say something like: I like meeting and interacting with and befriending a lot of different kinds of people; adding to that diversity is a fun experience for me. I'm getting better at being proactive about introducing myself, incorporating myself into conversations, and (importantly) remembering people's names. I read a study somewhere, at sometime, that people notice you more when you address them by name. I make an effort to do that more in my interpersonal interactions.

But just as, if not more, meaningful is spending a few hours each week contributing to a cause that I find valuable. I get phone calls, likely from people just like me, asking for donations--but I think donating my time is a way for me to put my "money" (because time is money) where my mouth is. Particularly in this case, I know I'm not just helping low-income women, but I'm helping teenagers across the state receive comprehensive sex education, I'm helping men, too, have access to low-cost STD testing. And, in a small way, I'm ensuring that my own reproductive rights are protected for years to come.

Domesticity and Discovery

2010-09-13T22:14:00.001-04:00

If you're looking for an amazing recipe for lasagna, which I'm sure you were, look no further. Thanks to the wonders of Epicurious.com, I found "Turkey Sausage-Spinach Lasagna with Spicy Tomato Sauce," then modified the crap out of it. It's not that I'm bad at following directions, I just sometimes feel that I can do it better...Which in this case involved four easy modifications. One: I'm in wisconsin, home of Johnsonville sausage, so that's what I used, and it definitely wasn't turkey. Two: I used sauteed my own fresh spinach--about a pound and a half in a little bit of olive oil, then let it cool, drained it, and chopped it up. I don't think this made a huge difference, I was just using what was already in my 'fridge. Three: I used fresh basil, and lots of it. Four: I used mozzarella rather than provolone. I realize there's a flavor difference here--sue me.

All-in-all, I'd give it the following ratings:

Super-yummy.
Medium-easy/medium-time involvement.
Wow-what-just-happened-to-my-kitchen messy. (Don't fear, tomato sauce is easy enough to clean up)

Like my work in the kitchen, a lot of my time in the laboratory these days is mixing "ingredients" together in proper proportions, hopefully yielding intellectually delicious and mentally nourishing results. (Terrible segue, bear with me...)

And I'm not the only one: "Researchers Create Nanostructures, and Whip Up a Recipe, Too." So, now you know a cool party trick with sugar, salt, and Everclear. As one researcher astutely observed, “Since all the materials that we got from the store or bought were certified food-grade, we could just scoop them out of the vial and eat them. It’s not normally how we do things in a chemistry lab.”

I'll admit, I wouldn't dream of tasting any of my laboratory results. Nevertheless, the idea of crunchy soy sauce seems cool enough to give a go.

School-Season

2010-09-11T20:41:00.000-04:00

Thursday, I began my Advanced Cardiovascular Physiology course and I'm pretty excited about it for a few reasons. It's the first of my very focused "advanced topics" courses in graduate school--which means that I am free of multiple choice exams and, for the most part, right answers entirely. The emphasis is an critical analysis of information presented to us, the students, in a number of academic articles which evaluate the hypothesis that exercise is beneficial to cardiovascular health, and hypertension specifically.

For the first time in graduate school, I feel like I'm participating in a course which will not only enhance my knowledge of human physiology, but also tone my thinking and evaluating skills as a scientist. Additionally, as a discussion-heavy course it's among the first to incorporate my favorite "non-science components of science"--history, debate, ethics, sociology, psychology, and non-pharmaceutical medical interventions in the reduction of blood pressure. I feel engaged--it's a great change from lecture-based medical education.

Which, in a round-about sort of way brings me to two interesting articles this week on study habits and academic psychology: one, two. Ultimately, though, I think each article fails to address that every student studies differently, and that every student has different interests which make an education engaging to her.

Let's Hear it For the Girls!

2010-09-02T13:18:00.001-04:00

While lamenting a scond oil rig explosion occurring in the Gulf this morning, I came across some reason for celebration too.

As reported by (who else?) the New York Times, apparently there has been a surge in specialty lingere boutiques catering to the less-busty crowd, and inspiring a wave of breast-proudness for ladies of more modest proportions. This is so great: women being comfortable with their bodies of all shaps and sizes and shades of curvy--I love it. I also love the lacy green and purple bra in the headlining photo ("For the let-my-silhouette-shine camp: the Simone Perele Idylle Demi bra, $110.") Unfortunately, $110 is a bit out of my price range and I outgrew an A-cup, long, long ago. This has sparked a little A-cup envy, from this definitely-not-an-A-cup lady! (Although I didn't need a published article to remind me of the advantages of a smaller bust.)

Unconventional Wisdom

2010-08-31T23:21:00.000-04:00

With this post, and with a full hour-and-a-half to go, I will complete my goal of (at least) ten entries per month. Check plus! But more than just writing for the sake of writing, I did think this was genuinely interesting.

Over the past few weeks, a number of my more scientifically-inclined friends and acquaintances have embarked on a journey through medical school, while a number of others are entering second, third, and fourth years of training. They all look positively dashing in their white coats (especially you, Chen!), full of promise, and some relief at the preliminary payoff of a lot of hard work.

The timing of a piece on Dr. Donald Redelmeier in the New York Times was, given the White Coat Ceremonies and commencement of classes, appropriate. While my medical pals may find his conclusion that, "Interview for medical school on a rainy day, and your chances of being selected could fall," I was more interesting in his approach to patient care. Writes Kate Hafner,

"Another Redelmeier philosophical pearl is “Do not get trapped into prior thoughts. It’s perfectly O.K. to change your mind as you learn more.”

In patient care, he said, he frequently does just that. “I think I know the diagnosis and start the treatment, then follow up and realize I was wrong,” he said. “I intercept a lot of my own errors at a relatively early stage.”

This, not surprisingly, became the basis of some classic Redelmeier research around raising physicians’ awareness of their own thinking — cognitive shortcuts that might lead to a diagnostic error.

Professor Tibshirani said he once accompanied Dr. Redelmeier on rounds at the hospital. “I watched him talk to patients, and they love him,” he recounted."

This is not to say that Dr. Redelmeier's conclusions on cellphones, election day, and Superbowl automobile fatalities are not positively fascinating--they are. His approach to patient care, however, is one of those contributors to separating "good" medical care from "great" medical care. I'm sure if Dr. Redelmeier decided to do a statistical analysis, he would find that sometimes removing oneself from medical dogma--or at least being cognizant of such thinking--improves patient outcomes in quantifiable ways.

Medical Progress and Cystic Fibrosis

2010-08-31T22:42:00.000-04:00

Being situated in the research corridor of a major medical and medical educational facility puts me in a unique position to regularly marvel at the progression of basic science to terrific improvements in medical treatments and care. I was reminded of this privilege earlier this week, during a clinical correlation lecture for the medical genetics course I'm enrolled in. I was also reminded that with great power comes great responsibility.

Cystic Fibrosis (CF)is the quintessential genetic disorder from a scientists point of view (and many clinician's points of view as well). It was the first to be fully characterized by linking disorder to gene mutation to impaired protein function--and with the expansion in basic knowledge regarding the disease has come truly impressive improvement in care for afflicted patients. CF is caused by a mutation in the gene coding for the CFTR protein, a chloride channel important to secretory pathways and electrolyte balance. Because the condition is autosomal recessive, a child needs to inherit two mutated versions of the gene to present CF symptoms: one from Mom and the other from Dad. While less than a century ago patients typically died in infancy and young childhood, the median life expectancy for CF patients had risen to 20 years by the 1980's and now, just twenty years later, is approaching 40 years. There are even some patients surviving into their 60's and 70's. These vast improvements in outcomes are directly related to similarly vast progress made in understanding what the CFTR protein does, how it's impaired, and how such impairments result in the clinical manifestations of CF: salty sweat, pancreatic insufficiency, gastrointestinal problems, and serious sinorespiratory disease.

For example, knowing how the CFTR transports chloride ions, and subsequently regulates salt (sodium) and water balance to, we can understand how an abnormally thick mucous is produced in CF lungs, how this traps bacteria and leads to dangerous infections which significantly reduces lifespans. Using this information, pharmacologists are able to produce better pharmaceuticals to attempt to normalize mucous consistency (which in ordinary conditions is actually protective), and clinicians are able to make better decisions about antibiotic regimens and mucous break-up treatments. In the end, though, the fact remains that there is no cure and trials for gene therapies (or introducing a normal copy of the CFTR gene to restore normal protein synthesis and function) have been unsuccessful.

Alright, so why is this so interesting to me? Because I could spout off about a host of other diseases, too, and wisely have chosen not to.

Recall that patients are now living longer than ever, well into reproductive maturity. Our professor, who runs an adult CF center at a local hospital, now has patients who have had or are trying to have children--made possible by leaps and bounds in reproductive medicine as well. Also recall that if a person is afflicted with CF, two "bad" gene copies, if a child is conceived that child is guaranteed to be a carrier of one faulty CFTR gene. Various CFTR gene mutations are only present 1/3000 people of northern European descent (generally these people are carriers, not CF patients). So while an ordinary Caucasian child has a one-in-nine-million chance of receiving two faulty copies (other races/ethnic groups have much lower frequencies of the CF mutations), this risk is increased to one-in-three-thousand by one CF parent and one-in-six-thousand by one CF grandparent (assuming a carrier parent in the middle). Now, this is not meant to be alarmist, because those are still small odds (a child would be much more likely to be born with Down Syndrome, which has an incidence of one-in-one-thousand or fewer births) but it is quite interesting to me how medicine has the great potential to change gene frequencies by increasing reproductive potentials of individuals who would have previously been unable to pass on their genes to future generations. A lot of people would argue that there exists no ethical dilemma at all in such situations. I tend to disagree, I think the ethical issues, even when small, should always be considered.

Even more interesting is the potential benefit of a heterozygous CFTR-gene mutation state. From Wikipedia:

"It has been hypothesized that mutations in the CFTR gene may confer a selective advantage to heterozygous individuals. Cells expressing a mutant form of the CFTR protein are resistant to invasion by the Salmonella typhi bacterium, the agent of typhoid fever, and mice carrying a single copy of mutant CFTR are resistant to diarrhea caused by cholera toxin."

A citation was, not surprisingly, lacking but I've heard the argument before. And the theory perfectly explains why the mutations would remain in the population with some frequency even after thousands of years of CF-deaths in infancy.

**Covering my ass: Although I have provided the Wikipedia link for Cystic Fibrosis, the majority of factual information I have just provided is, importantly, originally from my class notes on the subject during a lecture by Dr. Biller. It's also crucial to note that I am in no way a clinician and do not intend for any of this to replace information provided by a licensed health care provider. I just write things.**

"Neurosexism"

2010-08-24T17:51:00.000-04:00

I was delighted by the NY Times review of Dr. Cordelia Fine's book "Delusions of Gender" which examines the scientific quest for identification of neurological sexual dimorphisms in the human brain, and subsequent links to human psychology and behavior. (Also, "Cordelia" is an awesome name!)

I took a sexual psychology class in my undergraduate years, part of which focused on the biological basis for differences in male and female aptitudes and attitudes. In retrospect, this emphasis is unsurprising since I later learned that Dr. Breedlove's research focus is on the subject--but this is the first time in my liberal education that I had given much thought to the idea that male and female brains could be fundamentally, biologically different. And, in fairness it was an excellent introduction to be subject.

Some sexual dimorphisms I can accept and take for granted: gonadal development and resulting reproductive differences, as well as the ensuing secondary sex characteristics which are most "obvious" when we think about physical appearances between men and women (breasts/fat distribution, hair growth, muscle development and bone structure, physical size, voices, etc). Brains become problematic because invariably differences between brain structure/biochemistry are extrapolated into conclusions regarding behaviors, often after years of social gender conditioning. Despite this, I still can't recall and formalized exposure to the defense of the null hypothesis ("hypothesis of no difference") in the brain-sex debate. Certainly the review of Dr. Fine's book changes this.

Of course, throwing in a little H.o.S. ("History of Science") never hurts. Writes reviewer Katherine Bouton:

"Experts used to attribute gender inequality to the “delicacy of the brain fibers” in women ; then to the smaller dimensions of the female brain (the “missing five ounces,” the Victorians called it); then to the ratio of skull length to skull breadth. In 1915 the neurologist Dr. Charles L. Dana wrote in this newspaper that because a woman’s upper spinal cord is smaller than a man’s it affects women’s “efficiency” in the evaluation of “political initiative or of judicial authority in a community’s organization” — and thus compromises their ability to vote."

And here is where the problems of neurological sexual dimorphisms, albeit in a historical context, become painfully obvious. The fact with science is that its findings influence society and policy making--such that when science manages to "backup" flawed social standards (like inequalities between races or genders) the policies appear well-grounded in the almost religious infallibility of Science, rather than the prejudice/biases of human beings.

In her work, Dr. Fine coins the term (or perhaps it already existed, but it's not on Wikipedia, so I won't know...) "neurosexism"--which I liked because it's the perfect marriage of science and sexism in a Twenty-First Century kind of way. But it's also critically important to recognize at least the problematic-ness of the studies Dr. Fine examines. Reported differences in male and female thought processes time and time again influence educational policies, and the very discussion of gender in professional science. There is power, even unintentionally, in conclusions from studies on sexual brain dimorphisms, even when such conclusions seem hazy and poorly supported.

I highly doubt Dr. Fine's work will put an end to gendered brain discussions; nevertheless, her book looks like a good read for an opposing viewpoint in the ongoing controversy. (Thus has been added to my book queue on Amazon.)

90 Years Old and Better Than Ever

2010-08-18T19:38:00.001-04:00

With very, very little pomp and circumstance on the issue, American women celebrated 90 years of the constitutional right to vote today and the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I was disappointed that the occasion was neither marked on the NY Times site or NOW.org (surprisingly?) as I had hoped the occasion would spark a dialogue touching on how far we've come and what remains to be done. But more than a "feminist-geared" discussion on gender equality and progress, what really seems appropriate here is is discussion on voting itself.

Even in the much-abridged histories of the U.S. suffragist movement and the Civil Rights Movement of more recent history available on Wikipedia provides ample evidence of the generations-worth of work that went into ensuring that ALL Americans have the right to make their voices heard in the political process. Yet today, and even in the most popular races, voter turnout is abysmally low. A rather poor salute to men and women who devoted their lives towards visions of equality and civic duty that they we never able to participate in.

Finally, it seems prudent to state that the upcoming mid-term elections lend an ideal opportunity to not only commemorate the Nineteenth Amendment, but also contribute to the political process in a more constructive way than just complaining about the economy/taxes/war/oil spill/environment/healthcare/buzz word of your choice.

Sexy Beasts

2010-08-11T20:33:00.001-04:00

Because it was recommended by a mysterious anonymous commenter, and because it was a link to the Seed Magazine site, and because I continuously grapple with the teachings of evolutionary psychology/biology, I was interested in Eric Michael Johnson's review of the book "Sex at Dawn."

I have not read the book in question, but the overarching hypothesis seems to be that current human sexuality (essentially, the time and effort human beings devote to sex, while also separating sex from procreation a majority of the time) is the evolutionary result of ancestral "multimale-multifemale mating groups." It is with this evolutionary sexual foundation, we have (perhaps erroneously) built societies which often stress monogamous, male-female sexual relationships and the avoidance of an amalgam of sexual taboos. Social constructs dictate with whom, and when, and where, and how we should be having sex--and as Mr. Johnson's review points out with monogamy as a key example such directives are not well followed in today's culture. I don't think these ideas are so very new, but I'm sure the authors have amply defended and exemplified them.

This is by no means the first time that I've read about or discussed the evolutionary contexts for human sexuality. I still can't get passed two *little* hang-ups though.

First: while evolution provides and interesting and often explanatory framework for these discussions, the fact remains that these are theories and cannot be proven.

Second, even if they could be proven, what has happened in the past has little bearing on what is happening now or will happen in the future: we continue to evolve, and some past adaptations are now obsolete. I'm not necessarily arguing that our sexual evolutions are obsolete, but human beings have changed in a number of social ways. For example: although our ancestors scavenged and ate raw meat, society now mandates that we cook our meat before consumption (with a few exceptions). We used to run around quite naked and hairy. Now clothes are a "must" and body hair is taboo (to a certain extent, and especially for women). Evolution is not normative: it does not determine how human beings should or should not behave.

Finally, I always end up feeling like evolutionary psychology is used as an excused for failing to adhere to cultural norms. I know that not all cultural standards regarding behavior are defensible. Nevertheless, I can't condone a pseudo-scientific justification for infidelity. If infidelity, swinging (as the article mentions) or whatever, is your thing then those expectations should be laid out at the beginning of a potential relationship. The problem with infidelity is not unfaithfulness in itself, but breaking the spoken or unspoken agreement between two people for exclusivity. The problem is not that we may be evolutionarily programmed for multiple sexual partners, it is that we continue to willingly enter into monogamous relationships and then find ourselves unable to control whatever primal urges exist for extra-marital/relationship affairs. Evolutionary background or not, we must remember that being a human being uniquely gives us more control over our biology than any other species.

Random Acts of Kindness

2010-08-10T20:36:00.000-04:00

This evening, while retrieving some ingredients for dinner, a man stopped me in the middle of canned vegetables and said, "You are very pretty." He was almost gone before, smiling and bewildered, I thanked him. Artichoke hearts in one hand, basket in the other I assessed my presentation: worn blue jeans and a plain, yellow t-shirt, (slightly ridiculous but completely functional) bright blue Crocs, and hair swept back into my go-to do when I've awoken too late to shower. Certainly not so impressive in my own critical eyes, but it felt great to be complimented by a man. I'm not sure what about the encounter crossed over the line from creepy/awkward to flattering/kind (perhaps because it seemed like a genuine compliment rather than a sexual advance?)--but I hope that this stranger knows that he made my day.

The Three that Sparked My Fancy

2010-08-09T22:27:00.000-04:00

One: Paul Krugman's "America Goes Dark."

I like Krugman's defense of government services, and thus taxes. As American citizens, we have been spoiled into thinking that our qualities of life come not from government involvement but from our fabled notions of capitalism and industriousness. Not so. One cannot simultaneously bemoan the loss of education funding or deteriorating roads and argue for tax cuts year after year, administration after administration. George Bush (senior) was painfully cognizant of this when he reneged on campaign promises and subsequently lost his second bid at the presidency--but retrospectively you have to respect the man for choosing a better balanced budget over political legacy.

Krugman writes,

"The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud — to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we’re seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole."

I suppose I was naively under the impression that the Bush (II)-era tax cuts were a one-time economic stimulus--so this congressional session's bickering is that much more baffling. Once more, these discussions include stereotyped notions of welfare (or social security) recipients, and wasted spending. (Speaking of "wasted spending"--I bet the deficit could be lessened if the US saved all the dollars spent on lobbying , campaigning, and political donations.) Either way, I simply do not see options for spending without an increase in tax revenue. If Obama chooses against this option, it will surely be something his successor will have to contend with.

Two: Ross Douthat's "The Marriage Ideal."

I've never been a Douthat fan. Weirdly, as I read his analysis of the Proposition 8 reversal, I found myself thinking, "Oh my goodness, I think this time he actually got it right!" He cites all the go-to arguments against gay marriage as "losing," and for good reason:

"Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.

Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy.
In this landscape, gay-marriage critics who fret about a slippery slope to polygamy miss the point. Americans already have a kind of postmodern polygamy available to them. It’s just spread over the course of a lifetime, rather than concentrated in a “Big Love”-style menage.

If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary. The lifelong commitment of a gay couple is more impressive than the serial monogamy of straights. And a culture in which weddings are optional celebrations of romantic love, only tangentially connected to procreation, has no business discriminating against the love of homosexuals."

Alright, deduct points for reality TV reference, but in the bigger picture I have to agree with him. You can't defend an institution of marriage as "just one man and just one woman" when such a foundation historically and presently does not exist. Douthat even touched on the prejudice of it all--and for a moment I was impressed. Until:

"But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit."

After spending paragraphs explaining why common arguments against gay marriage are un-founded, the reader is left with: traditional marriage is a great idea. That's it? And just because homo- and heterosexual marriages are different we should distinguish them as such? And how are they so very different? Since every couple that I know, straight or not, has its challenges, and adoption makes "potential fruit" a non-issue...

Proof that even a well-reasoned court ruling from a Reagan-appointed judge falls on the deaf ears of social conservatives--even when they have run out of reasons to oppose the proposition outside of bigotry itself.

Three: Stephanie Rosenbloom's "But Will it Make You Happy?"

I'll start by putting it out there: I love my stuff. I have a hard time parting with the t-shirts from high school clubs (they're vintage!) and books I likely won't get the chance to read again for decades. Nevertheless, I was pretty inspired by this Oregon couple who retain only 100 items apiece (including things like toiletries, dishes, and clothing!) and live off $24,000 a year. Oh, and the guy is completing his doctorate in physiology! Interestingly,

"New studies of consumption and happiness show, for instance, that people are happier when they spend money on experiences instead of material objects, when they relish what they plan to buy long before they buy it, and when they stop trying to outdo the Joneses."

My mom has been telling me this for years: Don't buy it unless you love it. If you don't love it, sleep on it. The article terms this "emotional efficiency" or getting the most happy for your dollar. I like that idea quite a bit.

The rest of the piece analyzes that psychology of spending in ways that I think we could all take something positive away from. For me it will be the two most-stressed points: a.) anticipation of a purchase increases the pleasure we receive and b.) experiences yield more satisfaction than stuff. I've been saving for a new television since May, and hope to make my purchase before the beginning of football season, and I will continue to save up for a trip to Costa Rica (to take place next winter) to experience the rain forest with my family.

Being an Island of Tolerance

2010-08-08T12:43:00.000-04:00

All my favorite blogs have been updated in the past twenty-four hours--I feel that I should follow suit.

Some days more than others, I find my mood is largely influenced by what I read. More often than not, what I read is the New York Times site. My mom says that this exclusivity, coupled with my disdain for the "news" that CNN reports, makes me a news snob. I disagree, but this is neither here nor there. This morning, after my parents had embarked on their return home from a lovely visit, I finished the breakfast dishes and plunked down on my couch, computer in hand. It's odd to, at ten o'clock on a Sunday morning, have already finished everything that needs to be done for the day. I had anticipated a leisurely stroll through the (web)pages of the NYT--and then started crying at the first article I clicked on.

At first, I sat dejectedly in my living room thinking, "Gosh, what the Hell is wrong with me?" On further evaluation, I've decided that this is one of those "it's not me, it's you" situations. Observe and evaluate: "Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition."

I'm not necessarily advocating for tears...but in all the press that the battles over mosques in the United States are receiving, why do I feel like I am alone in mourning a meltdown in political, cultural, and religious tolerance?! This is clearly not an isolated incidence of such blatant xenophobia either--we've got battles over the US-Mexico border (oft discussed in terms of illegal immigration, but often just masking deeper prejudices), and continuing trends of a Congress seemingly unable to make compromises across party lines. I mean, read the sign in the article: "Mosques are Monuments to Terrorism." Yeah, you could say that I am a little upset.

More upsetting, I don't have any good contributions towards a solution to the problem--aside from a nice slap to the face, which being the pacifist that I am, I can hardly endorse. If there is one tenant that this nation has been built on and time and time again defended it's freedom. I understand that this includes the freedom of speech, and so my qualms are not with the demonstrations or the voicing of opinions--rather my dismay lies in the fact that some people find these attitudes acceptable in the first place. I'm disappointed that the same amount of press coverage isn't given to refuting the statements made in these demonstrations or to alternative, tolerant viewpoints.

Although I have little-to-no-control over others, I can adopt the Gandhian policy of being the change I wish to see in the world. This afternoon is the last day of Arab Fest in Milwaukee's Summerfest Grounds. Admission is free if you bring three non-perishable food items which will go towards the Hunger Task Force (recall that this economic downturn has increased the load put on soup kitchens and food centers everywhere). I think embracing Arab culture is a perfect (small) way to take a stand for cultural tolerance everywhere.

The NFL Gets a Bump on the Head

2010-08-01T21:59:00.001-04:00

Every August, so begins another season of both NFL and NCAA football as well as the resulting friendly rivalries, tailgates, mascots, cheers...and a serious number of concussions. It should come as no surprise that when two teams of eleven men rush at each other from opposite sides of a line of scrimmage and then proceed to tackle each other to the ground that personal injuries abound, despite amounts of padding and helmets that make the early years of football look positively barbaric.

Historically, the NFL's approach to head-trauma (concussions in particular) has been pretty nonchalant. One player pamphlet from 2007 read:

"Current research with professional athletes has not shown that having more than one or two concussions leads to permanent problems if each injury is managed properly."

As if taking one look at Mohammad Ali leave any room for doubt as to the long-term ramifications of head injuries...?! I'm not sure if the reticence to admit that concussions are a serious health problem came from a sense of liability or cliched "be a tough guy" attitudes which permeate the league. Either way, concussions have received more and more interest (research and otherwise) in recent years as more and more young people are participate in increasingly more competitive athletics. I was pleased to learn that the NFL is therefore taking a tougher stance on head-injuries with one small step (from ESPN):

"NEW YORK -- The NFL will distribute a new poster to teams that warns of the dangers from concussions in much harsher language than the league had previously used.
Traumatic brain injury "may lead to problems with memory and communication, personality changes, as well as depression and the early onset of dementia," the document reads. "Concussions and conditions resulting from repeated brain injury can change your life and your family's life forever."
[+] Enlarge
The acknowledgment of such risks is a significant change from a pamphlet previously distributed to players, starting in 2007."

I'm not convinced that a locker room poster will do much to change the way the game is played--but perhaps it will allow guys who need help to get the medical attention they need. After all, concussions and brain damage don't care how tough you may or may not be.

Cheers to another season of Spartan Football and, as always, Go Green!

Mad Men and Bad Girls

2010-08-01T21:18:00.000-04:00

Maureen Dowd's column of the same title this weekend had me hesitant to applaud until the very end--in part because I wasn't quite sure point Dowd was defending. Perhaps using the show "Mad Men" as a backdrop was a tool to draw more readers--since in drawing parallels between the show and film "Breakfast at Tiffany's" ended with:

"Even though many of us grew up not realizing it, Holly’s a hooker. And in the new season of AMC’s “Mad Men,” which started last Sunday, Don hires a hooker and wants to be slapped.

Set in the same era, the two Manhattan fantasies are dashing escapes from the prim, airless Eisenhower era. Both feature magnetic characters, smoke rings and, in Capote’s phrase, “martini laughter.”"

From there, and following a weak transition, the piece focuses on the film history of "Breakfast at Tiffany's," prostitution, and their lingering roles in pop culture. But, finally, in the concluding paragraph Dowd piqued my interests:

"“In ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s,’ all of a sudden — because it was Audrey who was doing it — living alone, going out, looking fabulous and getting a little drunk didn’t look so bad anymore,” Wasson writes. “Being single actually seemed shame-free. It seemed fun.” So, as a haute hooker, Audrey Hepburn was a fairy godmother, not only to feminism but to the prevailing ethos that style and cool trump all."

Ah ha! The f-word.

I saw "Breakfast at Tiffany's" for the first time last week, in fact, and I should admit that I was tickled by the ending (spoiler alert!) in which the free-spirited gal gets both her man and her cat. However, I'm not sure that the word "feminism" ever graced those thoughts. After all, had Dowd missed the parts Holly spent looking for a wealthy suitor? However, I cannot argue with the fact that, yes, Audrey Hepburn's character made single and un-caged seem both "shame free" and glamorous. From that standpoint, I can see a relationship between Holly and Carrie (of "Sex and the City"), although I can't help but to wonder why this word "free" seems to be attached to a woman's sexual behavior as well as to her lifestyle--at least in Hollywood.

Applying this all to my own life, I'm left with conclusions that simply don't work for me. Single is acceptable/glamorous if you a.) behave in a sexually liberated manner, b.) are a fashionista c.) most importantly, are affluent enough to afford designer shoes, days at the spa, and trips to far-away places, and d.) of course, eventually end up with the perfect guy.

This is Worth Reading

2010-07-20T22:24:00.000-04:00

A friend posted the following article on Facebook (do I mention this site too often?) and I felt it aptly represents many of my feelings on the subject of beauty, image, and self esteem.

"Why I Don't Care About the Beauty Standard."

In the end, I believe Ms. Kelley is correct: "In other words, you can be Hillary Clinton or Heidi Montag. It’s your choice." Cheating husband notwithstanding, I know who I'd rather be.