Nature blog: Virginia moves toward Personhood for embryos http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/virginia-moves-toward-personhood.html

Share/Bookmark

“[...] the only way to get objective data is to have institutions that assume objectivity doesn’t exist. It’s not enough to force scientists and doctors to declare conflicts of interest, because our biases seep in anyway. Rather, we need to do a better job of funding truly independent studies and approaching with extra skepticism those that are not. We should also encourage researchers to make their raw data public, as Samuel Morton did, so that others can check it. As Stephen Jay Gould proved all too well, men are inveterate mismeasurers.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303936704576397771567839728.html

Share/Bookmark

How we come to know our bodies as our own http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/cp-hwc061411.php

Share/Bookmark

A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?

“DCA is an odourless, colourless, inexpensive, relatively non-toxic, small molecule. And researchers at the University of Alberta believe it may soon be used as an effective treatment for many forms of cancer.

Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the U of A Department of Medicine, has shown that dichloroacetate (DCA) causes regression in several cancers, including lung, breast, and brain tumors.

Michelakis and his colleagues, including post-doctoral fellow Dr. Sebastien Bonnet, have published the results of their research in the journal Cancer Cell.

[Update 2011.05.12:

in Science: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/31/31ra34.abstract

Full text: https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/DCA%20and%20Glioblastoma%20May%20%202010.pdf ].

Scientists and doctors have used DCA for decades to treat children with inborn errors of metabolism due to mitochondrial diseases. Mitochondria, the energy producing units in cells, have been connected with cancer since the 1930s, when researchers first noticed that these organelles dysfunction when cancer is present.

Until recently, researchers believed that cancer-affected mitochondria are permanently damaged and that this damage is the result, not the cause, of the cancer. But Michelakis, a cardiologist, questioned this belief and began testing DCA, which activates a critical mitochondrial enzyme, as a way to “revive” cancer-affected mitochondria.

The results astounded him.

Michelakis and his colleagues found that DCA normalized the mitochondrial function in many cancers, showing that their function was actively suppressed by the cancer but was not permanently damaged by it.

More importantly, they found that the normalization of mitochondrial function resulted in a significant decrease in tumor growth both in test tubes and in animal models. Also, they noted that DCA, unlike most currently used chemotherapies, did not have any effects on normal, non-cancerous tissues.

“I think DCA can be selective for cancer because it attacks a fundamental process in cancer development that is unique to cancer cells,” Michelakis said. “One of the really exciting things about this compound is that it might be able to treat many different forms of cancer”.

Another encouraging thing about DCA is that, being so small, it is easily absorbed in the body, and, after oral intake, it can reach areas in the body that other drugs cannot, making it possible to treat brain cancers, for example.

Also, because DCA has been used in both healthy people and sick patients with mitochondrial diseases, researchers already know that it is a relatively non-toxic molecule that can be immediately tested patients with cancer.” http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/

FAQ: http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/FAQS/

Science: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/31/31ra34.abstract Full text: https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/DCA%20and%20Glioblastoma%20May%20%202010.pdf

Cf.: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5166

Share/Bookmark

All complex systems contain parasites. In any system of cooperative behavior, an uncooperative strategy will be effective — and the system will tolerate the uncooperatives — as long as they’re not too numerous or too effective. Thus, as a species evolves cooperative behavior, it also evolves a dishonest minority that takes advantage of the honest majority. If individuals within a species have the ability to switch strategies, the dishonest minority will never be reduced to zero. As a result, the species simultaneously evolves two things: 1) security systems to protect itself from this dishonest minority, and 2) deception systems to successfully be parasitic.

Humans evolved along this path. The basic mechanism can be modeled simply. It is in our collective group interest for everyone to cooperate. It is in any given individual’s short-term self interest not to cooperate: to defect, in game theory terms. But if everyone defects, society falls apart. To ensure widespread cooperation and minimal defection, we collectively implement a variety of societal security systems.

Two of these systems evolved in prehistory: morals and reputation. Two others evolved as our social groups became larger and more formal: laws and technical security systems. What these security systems do, effectively, is give individuals incentives to act in the group interest. But none of these systems, with the possible exception of some fanciful science-fiction technologies, can ever bring that dishonest minority down to zero.

In complex modern societies, many complications intrude on this simple model of societal security. Decisions to cooperate or defect are often made by groups of people — governments, corporations, and so on — and there are important differences because of dynamics inside and outside the groups. Much of our societal security is delegated — to the police, for example — and becomes institutionalized; the dynamics of this are also important. Power struggles over who controls the mechanisms of societal security are inherent: “group interest” rapidly devolves to “the king’s interest.” Societal security can become a tool for those in power to remain in power, with the definition of “honest majority” being simply the people who follows the rules.

The term “dishonest minority” is not a moral judgment; it simply describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social change. Societies without a reservoir of people who don’t follow the rules lack an important mechanism for societal evolution. Vibrant societies need a dishonest minority; if society makes its dishonest minority too small, it stifles dissent as well as common crime. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/05/status_report_t.html

Cf. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/02/societal_securi.html

Share/Bookmark

(coenzyme Q10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coenzyme_Q10 , phosphatidylcholine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphatidylcholine , and vitamin D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D )

Share/Bookmark

How to build a religion: “FANCY founding a religion? Keen to reform a flagging faith? Here a few tips on how to attract and retain followers, thus ensuring that your gospel spreads far and wide, affording spiritual solace to as many souls as possible.

At the outset, you must realise that success is unlikely if you go wholly against the grain of human nature. Granted, religion is all about forging the perfect man, or at least ensuring that, as far as possible, he lives up to divine expectations. But preternatural power has forged man in such a way that he will swallow some of your ideas about how to achieve this more easily than others. [...]” http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/04/science_and_faiths

Share/Bookmark

Tyler Cowen

Share/Bookmark

A new study on Israeli judges shows that, when making parole decisions, they grant about 65% after meal breaks, and almost all the way down to 0% right before breaks and at the end of the day (i.e. as far from the last break as possible). There’s a relatively linear decline between the two points.

http://lsolum.typepad.com/files/danziger-levav-avnaim-pnas-2011.pdf

Cf. http://lesswrong.com/lw/58y/the_bias_you_didnt_expect/

Share/Bookmark

Breakthrough to bridge the gap between man and machine: a research team has developed a technique for mapping both the connections and functions of nerve cells in the brain https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1104/11041102

Share/Bookmark

The Purple Healthcare Plan

We, the undersigned economists, support the following principles governing fundamental healthcare reform and endorse immediate implementation of the Purple Healthcare Plan.

Principles of Healthcare Reform

1. All Americans need a basic health plan and should be free to purchase supplemental health insurance coverage.
2. Healthcare should be privately provided with people free to choose their doctors and hospitals.
3. All who can pay for their health plans should do so through a combination of existing tax payments and health plan co-payments.
4. The government’s projected healthcare costs must be strictly capped and affordable on a long-term basis.
5. Health plans should be affordable regardless of one’s pre-existing health conditions or risk.
6. The system must provide strong incentives to prevent overuse of healthcare services and discourage bad healthcare behavior.
7. Medical malpractice reform is needed to keep providers from engaging in unaffordable defensive medicine.

The Standard Plan

1. All Americans receive a voucher each year to purchase a standard plan from the private-plan provider of their choice.
2. Vouchers are individually risk-adjusted; those with higher expected healthcare costs, based on documented medical conditions, receive larger vouchers.
3. Participating insurance companies providing standard plans cannot deny coverage.
4. Each year a panel of doctors sets the coverages of the standard plan subject to a strict budget, namely that the total cost to the government of the vouchers cannot exceed 10 percent of GDP.
5. Insurance companies providing standard plans contract with private providers to cover their plan participants.
6. Americans choose doctors and hospitals included in the standard plan they choose.
7. Plan providers compete and provide incentives to improve participants’ health and limit bad health practices.
8. Plan providers offer supplemental plans to their participants and cannot deny supplemental insurance coverage to their participants.
9. The government (federal and state) ends the tax exclusion of employer-provided health insurance premiums.
10. Like all other Americans, Medicare, Medicaid, and health exchange participants are covered by the Purple Health Plan subject to appropriate transition provisions.
11. The roughly 10 percent of GDP now spent or allocated by federal and state government on these and related programs, as well as on the tax exclusion of employer-provided health insurance premiums, is reallocated to help finance the vouchers.

http://thepurplehealthplan.org/node/2

Share/Bookmark

The Continuing Saga of the Gene Patenting Case

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/nature-vs-nuture-the-continuing-saga-of-the-gene-patenting-case/73359/

Share/Bookmark

What You Can’t Say: “Have you ever seen an old photo of yourself and been embarrassed at the way you looked? Did we actually dress like that? We did. And we had no idea how silly we looked. It’s the nature of fashion to be invisible, in the same way the movement of the earth is invisible to all of us riding on it.

What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They’re just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they’re much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed. [...]” http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Share/Bookmark

Felice Fawn

Share/Bookmark

Regan Penaluna

Share/Bookmark