Category Archives: Issues in Science

The next generation of Antibiotics?

Posted on November 5, 2012 by | 1 comment

Imagine yourself in a world where there is absolutely no treatment for any type of disease caused by bacteria, because of the rise of “superbugs” or antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  This could be the future we could be facing if we continue to over-use conventional antibiotics.

There is no doubt that one of the greatest achievements of the past century was the discovery of antibiotics. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections by killing bacteria or by inhibiting their growth. They do work very well; unfortunately, one major flaw in the current antibiotics is that they cause surviving bacteria to develop resistance.  In other words, treatable infections becoming untreatable, due to over use of antibiotic treatments. Therefore, we should pursue a different approach when it comes to dealing with bacteria.

One such approach is to prevent bacteria from “talking” with each other in other words, preventing bacteria from using quorum sensing.  Quorum sensing is how bacteria communicate with one another through chemical signals.  Quorum sensing is particularly important for bacteria that cause disease (pathogenic bacteria). These bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate their “assault” on their host, and helps them escape from the response from their host’s immune system.

Bioluminescence, a process, that is achieved only with quorum sensing. From http://jb.asm.org

Here is a video of Dr. Bonnie Bassler, from Princeton University, explaining how bacteria “talk” to each other, and what the potential applications are towards controlling bacteria:

YouTube Preview Image

As explained by Dr. Bassler, the biggest application from manipulating quorum sensing is antibiotics. Since disease-causing bacteria use quorum sensing to “attack” their hosts, we could stop these bacteria from using quorum sensing, and therefore they will not cause their disease.

Is there any evidence of this approach actually working? According to a article, by Thomas Rasmussem, and Michael Givskov, they have identified some chemicals that are quorum sensing inhibitors.  These chemicals were found to reduce the ability of bacteria to survive and cause disease.  They also examined other ways on how to stop quorum sensing, such as preventing formation of quorum sensing molecules, and degrading quorum sensing molecules. Clearly, the results of the study show the potential of anti-quorum sensing chemicals. Hopefully, enough potential to remove the threat of bacteria once and for all.

– Dominic

1 Comment

Posted in Biological Sciences, Issues in Science

Tagged , , , ,

Malicious Scientific Miscommunication

Posted on October 29, 2012 by | 6 comments

As you probably have seen in malls or in online ads, there have been a recent surge in products known as “energy bracelets”. Examples you may have heard include “negative ion” bracelets or “hologram bracelets”.

You have probably also heard that these bracelets can improve balance, treat disease, and perhaps even save the world. Skeptical, you might ask the salesperson why or how these bracelets would help you. They would then give you a whole lot of scientific jargon and explain why each piece of false evidence is true.

YouTube Preview ImageA video from Infinity Pro advertising their bracelets. Notice the extreme amounts of scientific jargon that mean absolutely nothing?

If you were to look at a typical bracelet website, such as  Energy Force,  you would find that they make numerous claims such as

“ENERGY FORCE…regulates your body’s frequency to an ideal level. Optimal health and peak performance occur when your body maintains ionic balance (the exchange between negative and positive charges) and free flowing energy pathways (harmony) at the optimum frequency.”

How does this bracelet maintain balance? Why does ionic balance matter for health? How does it help you stay healthy? Why is it good to have the “optimal frequency”?

In reality, you wouldn’t find any answers to these questions, because these claims are not scientifically proven.

However, there are some much more devious scams that try to trick you in much less obvious ways. They do this by manipulating scientific data in order to make it fit their claims.

Picture made by EQBandz. Source: http://www.eqbandz.com/images/banner2.png

Some examples of the claims made by EQbandz

1. “Anti-oxidising: US Dept. of Agriculture found that anions led to 52% less dust in the air and 95% less bacteria“
2. “Emotional: 25 people tested with seasonal affective depression (SAD) found that anion treatment proved to be as effective against SAD as antidepressants without the side effects of these drugs”
3. “Immune system: Norwich Union Insurance Group: Reduced incidence of sickness and headaches by 78% when exposed to 1000 anions per C/C.”
4. “Aging: Dr Nagao Katsharu, Japan found that skin cells were replaced at 2.5 times normal speed with anions by accelerating the delivery of oxygen to the cells and tissues.”

These claims sound like the band is 100% scientifically proven to work! However, if one was to track these down, they would find that  these claims reference studies that were done using gigantic air-ionizer fans, which are much more powerful than a small bracelet. Interestingly a simple Google search reveals that the “doctor” in claim 4 does not seem to even exist. There are much more problems with these claims, and they can be found here.

katatrepsis has this to say:

[The companies are basically saying] “look at all this good stuff air ionisers do, here’s a bracelet that does the same thing” [which] is like saying “look how great scuba equipment is for breathing underwater, here’s a paper bag filled with air”

The conclusions that can be made from research have to be very carefully constructed. By taking legitimate research and formed their own unscientific conclusions, these companies can maliciously miscommunicate the studies to trick potential consumers.

As students in a science communication class, we have a duty to be able to identify these miscommunications and set them straight for the public, as katatrepsis does.

– Tony Hui

References:
http://trueler.com/2011/10/19/holographic-energy-bands-bracelet-watches-scam/
http://www.lifestrength.com/the-vitamin-you-wear
http://katatrepsis.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/negative-ions-and-health-a-review/
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/powerbalance.htm
http://www.health24.com/fitness/General/16-4634,60576.asp

6 Comments

Posted in Issues in Science, Science Communication, Science Communicators

Tagged , , , , ,

Is Genetically-Modified Food Safe?

Posted on October 28, 2012 by | 3 comments

Genetcially modified foods (GMF) surround our daily lives. The vegetables and fruits at grocery stores, and the meat that  can be bought at a deli are all, at some point, attributed to the enhancement of genetics. What does it mean to be genetically modified? At a molecular level, the genetic make-up of an organism is either altered by insertion or deletion of specific segments of a gene, which results in different phenotypic traits. These traits exhibit better resistance to harsh weather conditions, resilience to insect infestations, and they are easier to grow across all conditions.

YouTube Preview Image

(Explains how genetically modified foods plays a role in society and introduces Monsanto, the biggest biotechnology company in the world.)

So what are some advantages to GMF? The biggest advantages are production cost and efficiency. GMF is cheap to produce and easy to grow. An example of this is corn. Thousands of tons of corn are produced each year, and about 82% of the corn on the market are genetically modified. Other advantages include pest resistance, disease resistance, drought tolerance, and salinity tolerance.

Fig.1 This is an example of what a genetically modified corn can look like. There are different colors located on different beads of corn.

As for disadvantages, there really hasn’t been any real implications or diseases associated with GMF in humans. In Canada, GMF are treated like any other food, and there are no specific laws that push for companies to label their products as genetically-modified. Though there hasn’t been human related health hazard cases, a study done in France on rats showed rats that were fed genetically-modified corn died prematurely, and tumors developed in the liver, kidney, and skin.

Fig.2 Rats that ate genetically-modified corn from Monsanto exhibited tumor growths around the body. These growths eventually lead to the death of the subjects prematurely.

So should consumers like ourselves trust the ongoing development of GMF? As of yet, there hasn’t been any concrete evidence to support that GMF can cause tumor growths, cancer, or any serious health issues in humans; however, there is a correlation between them. Presently, I think it is safe to consume GMF, but with a regulated diet including organic foods. In addition, I believe that  governments should push for stronger regulations and tighter laws that govern the production and distribution of GMF.

-Daniel Liao

Sources:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/food-aliment/gm-tg-eng.php

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

http://www.globalresearch.ca/potential-health-hazards-of-genetically-engineered-foods/8148

 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-gmcrops-safety-idUSBRE88J0MS20120920

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations

Pictures and Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAP6ZtfP9ZQ

http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/doctors-warn-avoid-genetically-modified-food/

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/groundbreaking-study-links-monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-organ-failure

 

3 Comments

Posted in Biological Sciences, Issues in Science, Science in the News

Tagged , , , , ,

Hearing Loss and Earphones

Posted on October 22, 2012 by | 3 comments

The IPod and MP3 player revolutionized the way we listen to music. It is possible to carry thousands of high quality songs in a super portable device. Everywhere you look, whether it is at a gym, at a school campus, in a library, or even on the street, you are bound to see numerous people with their earphones in their ears, listening to their music. Through observation, you will notice many people spend hours listening to music with the music so loud that others are able to hear the music clearly around them. People that are listening to their music loud and for prolonged periods of times are damaging their hearing. In order to understand how loud music from earphones damages hearing one must first understand how hearing works in the first place.

How does hearing work?

Diagram of the structure of ear. Shows external, middle and inner ear. Source: Temporal Bone and Ear Anatomy – Kevin Kavanagh MD

First sounds are picked up by the external ear. The sound wave pitches are then increased as the sound enters the ear canal. Next, the sound enters into the middle ear. The middle ear contains an important delicate bone structure called the ossicles. The function of the ossicles is to intensify the sound vibrations. Once the ossicles has done its job, the sound waves are moved into the inner ear. Tiny hair cells are then activated and are set in motion by the movement of fluid. These tinyhairs convert the vibrations into impulses. The impulses are then sent down the auditory nerve and the brain processes the sounds.

How do headphones harm your ear? 

The main location in the ear that hearing loss occurs is the inner ear. The high energy sound waves produced by loud music in earphones or prolonged earphone use, overstimulate the fluid, causing an over stimulation in the hair cells, which results in many of these cells to die. When these hair cells die,  certain frequencies of sound are no longer heard and processed by the brain. This is called hearing loss.

So how can you protect your ears?

If you regularly use your IPod and want to prevent hearing loss here these are the best preventative measures:

  • The most obvious is to control the volume of the device, don’t go over 60% of the maximum volume.
  • Use noise cancelling headphones so you don’t adjust the volume louder just because you are hearing background noise
  • Finally, limit the use of your IPod to only one hour a day, as this the time limit stated by researchers as the optimal time for use, considering the fact that your ears are exposed to  other high sound level factors such as traffic every day.

In the NBC news report below, Dr. Kourosh Parham, a ear specialist, describes preventative techniques in order to help people avoid hearing loss from earphones:

YouTube Preview Image

-Mandip Parmar

3 Comments

Posted in Issues in Science, Science in the News

Tagged , , , , , ,

Microbes with Arsenic DNA Backbones: Fact or Science Fiction?

Posted on October 20, 2012 by | 2 comments

In December of 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) took the scientific world by storm with a press release stating that a news conference would be held to “discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life”. At the press conference, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon claimed to have found a microbe that was able to incorporate arsenic as a substitute for phosphate in the DNA backbone. This conclusion was reached since the microbe managed to grow even in conditions with high arsenic concentrations and low phosphate concentrations. This microbe, strain GFAJ-1 of the Halomonadaceae, was isolated from Mono Lake, California, a lake known for its toxicity in the form of extremely high concentrations of arsenic.

Picture of GFAJ-1: (Creative Commons License: image by Jodi Switzer Blum)

Wolfe-Simon’s reasoning was that because arsenic is directly below phosphate in the periodic table, it has a similar chemical reactivity which allows it to be substituted for phosphate in the DNA backbone. According to NASA, the implication of this research is that the long-held assumption that all life on earth, from the tiniest microbe to large mammals, depends on six essential elements, one being phosphorus, may be wrong.

NASA sensationalized the implications of Wolfe-Simon’s research; it was claimed that the exploration for alien life that previously only included searching for the six essential elements, would have to be modified to include arsenic. A whole new branch of previously unexplored life forms could exist.

 However, the scientific community was not as receptive as the public to Wolfe-Simon’s work. Shortly after the online publication of Wolfe-Simon’s paper, an avalanche of criticism descended on the paper in the form of dozens of technical responses and online responses to the paper by skeptical scientists. The methodology of Wolfe-Simon’s experiment, the data analysis and the interpretation of results were all thoroughly criticized.

Here’s a video of the NASA Press Conference announcing Wolfe-Simon’s work. From 0-2:55, Wolfe-Simon provides the motivation for her work and from 2:56-9:39, Dr. Steven Benner, Founder and Distinguished Fellow of the Foundation of Applied Molecular Evolution, discusses why he is skeptical of Wolfe-Simon’s conclusions.   (attribution: rrhea22)

YouTube Preview Image

Rosie Redfield, a microbiology professor at the University of British Columbia, has been one of the leading voices in the criticism of Wolfe-Simon’s work; along with a scathing blog post about Wolfe-Simon’s research two days after it was published,  she later published an article refuting Wolfe-Simon’s conclusions about the ability of GFAJ-1 to incorporate arsenic in its DNA backbone entirely. Redfield showed that GFAJ-1 was unable to substitute arsenic for phosphate in the DNA backbone through growing the microbe in the same conditions described by Wolfe-Simon, then analyzing the DNA strands for arsenic incorporation.

For all of us out there in the world fervently hoping for a new avenue of previously unexplored alien life forms, it looks like GFAJ-1 does not provide proof that there is an organism able to incorporate arsenic in place of phosphorus. This doesn’t mean there aren’t any organisms able to do this out there in the world, it just means we have to keep on exploring and researching!

References:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/02dec_monolake/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Nz_6Pbydo&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GKmKyfXuFw

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/this_paper_should_not_have_been_published.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120204183.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6093/470.short

 

2 Comments

Posted in Biological Sciences, Issues in Science, Science in the News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Good news to Chocolate lovers

Posted on October 15, 2012 by | 6 comments

Yummy chocolates. Picture by WoofBC on Flickr

        Do you have to restrain yourself from indulging in that chocolate calling you from the store windows? Well, now you can loosen up a bit! The good new is that more studies are showing that chocolate is actually beneficial for your health. Most of us love chocolate. Chocolate is a popular food around the world. It is given as traditional gifts on some holidays: Valentine’s Day, Easter, Halloween, and Christmas. However, we try to avoid eating chocolate whenever possible because of its fattening characteristics, and because it is addictive. Addictive things have never been good for us. However, chocolate consists of many compounds besides fats and sugar. Of the many compositions, I’ll focus on flavonoids, which naturally originate from cacao, the main ingredient in chocolate.

        In contrast to our beliefs, chocolates can have a positive effect on our health. There are still some contradicting opinions, but there has been increasing evidence of chemicals, such as flavonoids, in cacao that improve our health. On October 10, 2012, a study by Franz H. Messerli was published correlating between chocolate consumption in 23 different countries and their populations’ cognitive function. His study was based on the Nobel Prize winners to mimic the overall cognitive function of the 23 countries. It so turns out that increase in the amount of chocolate consumption does increase the number of Nobel laureates in the countries. This, as mentioned above, is due to flavonoids in the cacao. These secondary metabolites have been proven for better cognitive function[1]. For example, elderly patients reduce the risk of dementia by taking flavonoids[1]. The study’s results were that unsurprisingly, Switzerland, famous for their chocolate, was in the lead of both chocolate consumption and Nobel Prize winners. Now, I don’t think chocolate is the absolute causation of increased number of Nobel Prize winners, but according to the article, chocolate somewhat has an influence on the cognitive function.

        Furthermore, flavonoids lower blood pressure by relaxing the blood vessels in the in the brain. We all know that high blood pressure can be deadly because they are highly known for the causation of strokes and heart attacks.

Choose dark Chocolate! Picture by Boz Bros on Flickr

        An important point to note is that not all chocolates have flavonoids. Dark chocolate contains four times more flavonoids than milk chocolate, while white chocolate doesn’t have any [2]. So choose dark chocolate to satisfy your cravings and maintain your health! But of course, you shouldn’t depend on dark chocolate for better health. They, too, have calories and sugar[2]. Chocolate can help, but the key to health is healthy eating and exercise. We should consume chocolate from time to time, we might build up more stress if we have to force ourselves to stay away from it!

The following video shortly explains the health benefits of chocolate:

YouTube Preview Image

Article on Messerli’s study

Article from CBC

-MinJi-

6 Comments

Posted in Biological Sciences, Issues in Science, Science in the News, Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,