Do You Double Dip?

This Super Bowl Sunday, there's a very important question on everyone's mind. No, not who's going to win - that ought to be a(n unfortunate) given. Much more important than that: do you double dip, and is it okay to do so?

Well, a new study - from the same researcher who answered the perennial 5-second on the floor food rule - shows that Mom was right: doubling down on the dip means you're swapping spit... and germs... and who knows what else, with any and everyone else using the dip.

So go for the disposable plates, spoon your dip onto your plate, and double dip to heart's content, without worrying about picking up the latest nasty cold going 'round the block.

As a bonus, here's the snippet of Seinfeld that prompted the research in the first place:



Cheers, and happy game day to everyone taking this opportunity to socialize under the guise of watching football!
-Kelly

The Enhanced Ethicist

Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the centre of practical ethics at Oxford University: "To fail to do beneficial research is as harmful as doing harmful research," he says. The whole article is available here.

And oh, yeah -- and James Hughes of the IEET quips: "When I get enhanced I want to look like Julian. Oh, and be tenured at Oxford also."

Are you an obnoxious patient?

CNN recently did a writeup on how to approach your doctor with your own research on a health condition. This seemed really timely in light of a previous set of comments I had previously written and some of the topics that have been recently discussed.

The question being asked is: Are you an obnoxious patient? I wonder how many of us can admit it if we are. In my case it becomes especially difficult to be objective since I feel like I have a vested interest in getting better, unlike my doctor to whom I may be just a patient. I also feel like I have learned a lot about my specific condition and I know which symptoms specifically apply to me. Yet, on the flip side, it is important to realize that the physician has probably seen a thousand patients like me and probably knows more about the progress of the condition and what I should expect. I guess its difficult being a partner... and trusting your partner.

UCSF Scrambles to Undo Damage

As I wrote about earlier this week, UCSF researchers released a study linking a new drug-resistant strain of staph known as MRSA USA300 to the gay community, prompting worldwide headlines that read such 1980s flashback headlines as "FLESH-EATING BUG SPREADS AMONG GAYS" and "EPIDEMIC FEARED--GAYS MAY SPREAD DEADLY STAPH INFECTION TO GENERAL POPULATION". Aside from fueling general fears, the report (and headlines) gave ammunition to anti-gay groups like the Concerned Women of America, who used this latest research as a rallying point for their point of view that homosexuality is sexually deviant behaviour, and these infections are proof of it. And while conventional wisdom says everything becomes a fad 20 years after it was originally around, this is one particular period of the 80s I think we could all do without.

Anyhow, the UCSF researchers actually appeared to realize the damage done, and are waging a media war of their own to undo the inaccurate media reports, misconceptions of what their study said, and undermine groups who are trying to twist their study for other agendas. On Friday, the university and its researchers issued an apology, saying

their release had “contained some information that could be interpreted as misleading.”

“We deplore negative targeting of specific populations in association with MRSA infections or other public health concerns,” it concluded. Dr. Henry Chambers, one of the report’s authors and a professor of medicine at the university, said he was surprised by how the report had been spun.

“I think we were looking at this from a scientific point of view and not projecting any political impact,” he said. “We were focusing on the data. You want to make sure it’s as right as possible and written up in a form that reviewers would understand what you’re trying to say, and do it in a clear manner so it’s not subject to misinterpretation. Which is what happened later, it appears.”

What is interesting about this is the acknowledgment by Dr. Chambers that they did not think outside their own discipline when writing their report or releasing the study. While that limited view and hyper-focus was a common and accepted part of a pre-internet academic community, which relied on published journals to transmit information - guaranteeing that at least the media would have to wait to attempt to stir up sensationalist claims. These days of electronic media, however, lead to a situation of electronic publication of paper results, which is how the UCSF MRSA USA300 report was made public. With that comes instant reporting, instant response, and the emphasis moves away from accuracy and towards sensationalism, an effort to attract the viewer eye. How do you compete with that?

The answer, it seems, is simple. You play the same game. Instead of ignoring the potentials of the internet for rapid information dissemination, for instant response, you do what Dr. William H. Parker, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine did. You fight fire with fire, create your own email messages with accurate information you encourage people to forward on, and make sure when you release your research results to the public, you consider both your academic peers and the lay people who will see the research. This might mean writing a "dumbed down" or accessible version of your report for release to general media outlets - but isn't that preferable to having your research misinterpreted and misreported?
-Kelly

Semen has Manly Enhancement Factors for HIV

Scientific American reports on a recent study that indicates semen appears to have a peptide that enhances the ability of HIV to infect cells 50- to 1000-fold. (The normal increase observed by enhancers is two to three times)

Excerpt:

Kirchhoff and his team screened through many of the 900 proteins found in seminal fluid in their hunt for potential inhibitors and enhancers of HIV transmission. Among the enhancing factors uncovered were fragments of a protein called prostatic acid phosphatase that is secreted by the prostate gland. An analysis of the peptide's structure in semen indicated that it hooked up with similar fragments to create amyloid fibers (clusters of protein fragments that have also been implicated in diseases such as Alzheimer's). The scientists refer to the amyloid fibers as "semen-derived enhancer of virus infection" (SEVI). If they do not link to become fibers, the researchers report, the peptide segments remain inactive and do not enhance viral transmission.

When assembled, however, these fibers then act like ferries, trapping and shuttling HIV virus particles to target cells. The researchers found that HIV spiked into semen was more successful than the virus alone at infecting T cells and macrophages (immune system cells that are believed to be the infection's initial targets in the body). They also tested the threshold of virus needed to infect human tonsil cells, noting that in the presence of semen, far fewer HIV particles were needed for transmission.

Researchers injected both the naked virus and SEVI-treated HIV into the tails of rats that had been given human immune system cells. The HIV with the semen component was five times more effective at transmitting the virus. In situations where low levels of virus are transferred—as during intercourse—Kirchhoff says, SEVI can make HIV up to 100,000 times more likely to spread when compared with the virus alone.

(Yes, the title of the article is amusing.)

This suggests new directions for research into HIV prevention that focus on men's physiology rather than on women's. I hope this will result in a paradigm shift that does more than tell women to "just say no" to sex and shares the burden of HIV transmission more equitably between men and women. Oddly enough, this is reminiscent of the potential paradigm shift that must have happened when it was discovered that men, and not women, were responsible for the sex of their offspring (rendering all those executions of wives who "failed" to bear sons completely erroneous). Or, even better, we will be able to leave the moralistic "blame game" behind completely and focus on what actually works: access to condoms and medically accurate sex education and actual legal and societal empowerment of women to enable them to be proactive actors rather than passive defenders regarding their health.

Creation of New Life Forms: the next step for DNA?

This article fascinated me. Scientific breakthroughs, especially revolving around the use of DNA science--and the ethics of it--always gets my attention. But this article was a mixture of fascination, awe--and fear. There also remained the lingering question in my mind of whether this could really be true--that researchers are indeed considering taking this next step--or if just simply a rumor spawned by someone's overactive imagination.

You can read the Washington Post article, and decide for yourself: whether the prospect of creating new life forms--synthetic life forms--from artificial DNA should be considered a scientific breakthrough--or a major mistake, and what questions it raises about science, religion, ethics and the very essence of genetics.