Amid what seems like constant chaos in the White House, it appears as though the next source of trouble for the Trump administration may come from celestial bodies–namely the upcoming solar eclipse–according to astrologers.

On August 21, a solar eclipse will occur that is expected to cast a 70-mile-wide shadow diagonally across the entire United States. Solar eclipses occur approximately once every 18 months, but this will be the first time since 1918 that the shadow will stretch across what is known as “the path of totality.”

While Americans are making plans to see this particularly rare event, astrologers have been analyzing the cosmic events surrounding it to discover what it means for the future. Even in present day, eclipses still hold a lot of power in astrology, according to Wade Caves, an astrological consultant who earlier in July published a 29-page analysis of the coming eclipse.

“What we’re talking about is the ability of the sun to be able to give light and life-generating heat, and all these things being momentarily taken away,” Caves told Newsweek. “So there’s this symbolism that’s built in with eclipses about…things coming to a close, and in often a very dramatic fashion.”

Astrologers are not so much intrigued by how rare this eclipse is, but rather how well the astrological activity surrounding it lines up with Trump’s chart.

Bad Omen for Trump

The eclipse falls just before the end of the Leo sun sign, which is in a “rising” stage on Trump’s astrological chart–meaning that the president is exuding personality traits very similar to that of a typical Leo. The personality of the  average Leo tends to fall somewhere between egotistical and confident, so Trump’s zodiac sign shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Leo is also symbolized as a lion, which is commonly used to represent rulers and kings.

As a result, Caves believes that the timing of the eclipse is a bad omen for Trump.

“It seems to me very possible that by this time next year, we’re looking at the reality of Trump not being in office,” he said.

Caves is not the only astrologer with this belief. Debra DeLeo-Moolenaar, a British astrology blogger, interprets eclipses to be “a big burst of energy” that spreads across the sign chart of a nation or person, “giving energy and power into something that’s already in play.”

She believes that growing frustrations throughout the nation may be “set off” by the solar eclipse, and that the moon symbolizes “the common people” blocking their leader–the sun.

In February, DeLeo-Moolenaar wrote that astrological charts showed Uranus, which is apparently known for being disruptive, approaching Trump’s astrological “birth planet,” Mars, during the eclipse. This, she said, indicates a potential “crisis of some sort” for the president.

Is War Written in the Stars?

Eugene Johnson, another astrologer, wrote an analysis in April of the eclipse that expanded to Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune, and suggested that the United States should be prepared for some significant event just short of war.

“[The eclipse will] mark important developments on the world stage because of the high preponderance of outer planets involved,” Johnson added.

Astrologer Marjorie Orr noted last November that the eclipse is a part of what is known as the Saros series–which has included eclipses in 1909, 1927, 1945, 1963, 1981 and 1999. Coincidentally, significant political events occurred during each of those years, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

“Certainly this eclipse presages violence in one form or another,” Orr wrote.

Pseudoscience or Nah?

While it may be easy to dismiss these astrologers’ conclusions as pseudoscience nonsense, it’s worth noting that there has been speculation over the use of astrology in the White House before.

Not only did Ronald Reagan experience an assassination attempt in 1981–one of the Saros series years–but he had a deep interest in astrology himself. He is said to have scheduled important meetings, presidential debates, cancer surgery, State of the Union addresses, and his 1967 inauguration as governor of California based on astrological information.

First Lady Nancy Reagan was even said to be in constant contact with an astrologer named Joan Quigley, who died in 2014 and wrote a book about her time in the White House. Considering how highly Trump regards Reagan, and some of the similarities between their presidencies, it’s possible that the eclipse is on the president’s radar.

But even so, there are those in the scientific community who come out against such predictions. Duncan Steel, an American scientist and author of “Eclipse: The Celestial Phenomenon that Changed the Course of History,” called them foolish.

“Way back, when people had little ability to predict when eclipses would occur apart from recognizing that there are distinct cycles, perhaps it is understandable that doom-mongering based on eclipses occurred,” he said in an email to Newsweek. “But for people nowadays to imagine that they are portents of doom is just daft…. If people believe that the forthcoming solar eclipse ‘means’ anything for the U.S., for Trump, for the world, then they are deluded.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Astrologers Believe Solar Eclipse Could Signal the End of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday his intention to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal, an international environmental agreement dedicated to curbing the rise in global temperatures, adopting greener energy sources, and cutting down on carbon emissions. This decision drew criticism from foreign leaders, business executives, and even the mayor of Pittsburgh.

The announcement, given in the Rose Garden of the White House, was filled with the usual “America First” rhetoric that focused on a fear of being laughed at.

“We want fair treatment,” Trump said. “We don’t want other countries and other leaders to laugh at us anymore.”

To his credit, Trump defended his decision with evidence from the scientific community in between the comments focused on American exceptionalism. He mentioned that even if the agreement was followed all the way through by every country that signed it, the planet would see its global temperature drop two-tenths of one degree Celsius by 2100. A “tiny, tiny amount,” he said.

The good news is that the claim stems from a 2016 study by MIT titled “How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” and is technically true. The not-so-good news is that Trump left out a key finding in that study. Researchers say that if nothing were to be done, global temperatures could rise over 5 degrees Celsius which one scientist said would be “catastrophic.”

Whether or not the president is aware of this fact is unclear. However, Trump’s track record on issues related to the scientific community does not provide much optimism for his understanding. His views on climate change, for example, leave a lot to be desired. On Nov. 6, 2012, he infamously tweeted:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Trump later downplayed the tweet as a “joke” in 2016 when Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attacked his views on climate change in a Democratic Primary debate. But that was not the only time he has tweeted about global warming. Vox compiled all 115 of Trump’s tweets that mention his climate change skepticism including the following:

Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

Despite the president’s old tweets, NASA’s climate change website states that at least 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends are a result of human activity.

It’s not just climate change that the president has some questionable views on. Earlier this spring, the Washington Post reported Trump’s beliefs on how the human body works. According to the New Yorker piece the article references, Trump stopped engaging in athletic activities after college because he “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”

This is not true. The American Council on Exercise states that exercise improves the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to muscle tissue, allowing muscles to produce more energy for the body. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends at least 150 minutes of intense aerobic exercise per week. And the Mayo Clinic says that exercise improves muscle and heart health which gives people more endurance, and more energy.

But the most fascinating scientific belief that our commander-in-chief holds is his support for the use of asbestos. Trump believes that the movement to phase out asbestos in the nineties was a conspiracy set up by the mob. In his 1997 book, “The Art of the Comeback,” he says the following:

I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special ‘dump sites’ and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn’t hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire.

Later in the book he calls an anti-asbestos law “stupid” and claimed that it is “also 100 percent safe, once applied.”

This belief continued well into the 21st century. In 2005, he credited the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 to its lack of asbestos and doubled down on this in 2012.

.@dubephnx If we didn’t remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn’t (cont) http://t.co/d10u18dh

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012

 Prior to its collapse, the World Trade Center had upwards of 400 tons of asbestos used in its insulation, fireproofing materials, steel, and drywall. Nearly 410,000 people were exposed to the deadly carcinogen that kills 10,000 Americans a year, according to the World Trade Center Health Registry.

The connection between asbestos and mesothelioma, a cancer developed through asbestos exposure, has been known since the early 20th century but only recently been acted upon due to a decades long cover-up.

The irony in all this comes from a standout quote from Trump’s speech last week: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” he said. Between 1999-2013, Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh resides, had 1,616 people die from asbestos-related deaths, the highest in the state, and the asbestos-related death rate was nearly 80 percent higher than the national average.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump’s Interesting Relationship with Science appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday was the March for Science in many cities around the U.S. (and the world). According to the organizers, over 600 cities participated yesterday. The organizers explain the purpose:

People who value science have remained silent for far too long in the face of policies that ignore scientific evidence and endanger both human life and the future of our world. New policies threaten to further restrict scientists’ ability to research and communicate their findings.  We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but seek to eliminate it entirely.  Staying silent is a luxury that we can no longer afford.  We must stand together and support science.

The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue. Anti-science agendas and policies have been advanced by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and they harm everyone — without exception. Science should neither serve special interests nor be rejected based on personal convictions. At its core, science is a tool for seeking answers.  It can and should influence policy and guide our long-term decision-making.

But, as with many of this year’s protests, one of the highlights was the awesome signs many protesters came up with. Check out some of the best in the slideshow below:

These Awesome Science March Signs Prove Scientists have a Sense of Humour | https://t.co/11IBFaC8Gi pic.twitter.com/E2wItAgQgs

— Academia Obscura (@AcademiaObscura) April 23, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Killer Signs at the March for Science appeared first on Law Street.

Legal Battles over the Mirena IUD: What’s Next?

Image courtesy of Daniel Lobo; License: (CC BY 2.0)

In 2011, a personal injury complaint was filed in regards to Mirena, an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Since then, over a thousand lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of Mirena. Some Mirena users have suffered from uterine perforation, inflammation, organ damage, and a host of other medical complications. The Mirena IUD is Bayer’s most popular model worldwide, and the company markets the product as safe and efficient. Yet as the number of lawsuits continues to rise, Mirena’s reputation may take a hit. Read the full issue brief here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Issue Briefs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The President-elect has been criticized because he claimed that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. The new proposed head of the EPA is a climate change denier. And the new proposed Secretary of State is an oil company CEO with close ties to Russia. So, it’s no wonder that environmentalists across the globe are worrying. Now, American climate scientists are copying as much of their research and climate data as possible onto independent computer servers, in an attempt to protect the information from any political interference.

“Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,” said Nick Santos to the Washington Post. He is an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis and spent last weekend copying climate data onto a non-governmental server that will be available to the public. Other efforts include “guerrilla archiving” in Toronto–meaning the copying of irreplaceable public data–discussions on how to download as much information as possible as quickly as possible, and the creation of a website for storing all this scientific information.

This isn’t something we should have to be worried about as researchers in the developed world. But here we are.https://t.co/m9nTzWgvF7

— Ari Belasen (@DrBelasen) December 13, 2016

On Friday, Trump’s transition team sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy to find out the names of employees who attended domestic and international climate talks. It also asked about all publications written by employees at the department’s laboratories for the past three years. This could be a sign of coming retaliation against employees who simply were doing their jobs, and drew criticism from Democrats and environmentalists.

Yes Mr. Trump, climate change is a “hoax.” It was just a haphazard occurrence that that 13 of the 15 hottest years have occurred since 2000. pic.twitter.com/2kvVpjTNb5

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 12, 2016

On Tuesday, however, the Energy Department’s spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said it would not comply with Trump’s request. He said that the demand for individual names of employees left many people in the department feeling unsettled. He said:

We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department. We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.

For many people it is deeply worrying that several of Trump’s cabinet picks are skeptical about climate change, which is a fact the vast majority of scientists in the world agree upon. Michael Halpern from the Center for Science and Democracy said it’s not unreasonable to believe the new government would want to get rid of climate data that proves a fact that they dispute. “There is a fine line between being paranoid and being prepared, and scientists are doing their best to be prepared…” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scientists Rush to Back Up Climate Data Before Trump Takes Office appeared first on Law Street.

Just as Dracula drank blood from young humans to stay alive forever, scientists in California have found that injecting blood from young people into old mice rejuvenates the rodents. The young blood improved their memories, cognition, and physical shape. Earlier experiments had already shown that putting young mouse blood into old mice worked the same way. The older mice’s brains started looking younger and there was a definite rejuvenation effect. But for the younger mice it had an eerily reverse result, slowing them down and making their brains age faster.

After positive results from the mouse-only experiments, researchers at California company Alkahest were curious whether it would work with human blood too. So they injected some year-old mice (that is at least middle aged, in mice terms) with blood plasma from 18-year-old humans. And bingo! After three weeks of injections twice daily, the mice were running around and performing as well on memory tests as three-month old animals. It was also discovered that the brains of the treated mice created new neurons, a phenomenon called neurogenesis that is important to learning and memory.

Teens can be annoying but I hope we don’t drain their blood just to save some old mice https://t.co/V5hBHXdvCQ

— Ryan Teague Beckwith (@ryanbeckwith) November 15, 2016

Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray led the mice-on-mice 2014 study at Stanford University and started Alkahest when he became interested in performing the experiments on people. And who doesn’t want to be young forever? Though it is unlikely that this technique would remove your wrinkles or make you live forever, scientists do believe that it could help people suffering from Alzheimer’s or other age related diseases. It has actually already been tested on people with Alzheimer’s, and Wyss-Coray is expecting to have some results by the end of 2016.

Hide now, teens. Or wear good blood armor https://t.co/xh9jysO4Mg

— Scott Stein (@jetscott) November 15, 2016

In August, a startup company called Ambrosia, also based in California and led by Jesse Karmazin, launched a program that will charge people $8,000 for a one-time injection of young blood plasma plus lab tests. Participants don’t need to be sick nor old–anyone over the age of 35 can join.

Though the concept is legal, it has drawn criticism for being unethical, with a huge cost and no certain results. “There’s just no clinical evidence [that the treatment will be beneficial], and you’re basically abusing people’s trust and the public excitement around this,” said Wyss-Coray. He also warned that it’s not a good idea to swap blood with someone at home, in case anyone felt inspired, since the blood needs to be screened for diseases and the plasma needs to be separated out. “Certainly you can’t drink the blood. Although obviously we haven’t tried that experiment,” he said.

Karmazin said he was inspired by vampire-like Russian scientist Alexander Bogdanov, who in the 1920s injected himself with young human blood that he claimed made him look younger. By August, Karmazin had enrolled three elderly people interested in his experiment, which is registered at the federal website ClinialTrials.gov. But according to some scientists, this experiment and an increasing number of other studies are dubious and are granted a fake legitimacy by being listed on that site. There are also concerns that the study isn’t being well run–there is currently no placebo group, and it will be very difficult to measure any progress if participants are as young as 35.

But as always, the rich and famous are interested in staying young forever and Karmazin’s project has caught the eye of billionaire and Trump transition team member Peter Thiel, who in August said he wants to try it. He has also spent millions of dollars on startup companies researching anti-aging medicine. And why save his money? After all, he’s not getting any younger.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Young Blood Rejuvenates Old Mice: Could it Work on Humans? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Oh My Gosh, They Made A Three Parent Baby!

Five months ago, a scientific miracle was born in Mexico (because the U.S. ain’t about that life), a child born with the DNA of three parents. I know, I know, you must be asking: how does one have a three person baby? Well this family, fearing that their baby would inherit an awful condition from the mother’s side, allowed doctors to create an embryo using the dad’s sperm, the mom’s egg, and donor DNA, by removing the mitochondrial material that carried the disease and replacing it with the donor’s mitochondrial DNA. They essentially deleted the chance of that particular disease from the family’s offspring using this awesome new technique! Crazy, right?

The baby now carries less than one percent of that gene and doctors say it shouldn’t become a problem.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

China just launched the world’s largest single-dish radio telescope, which will search for gravitational waves, radio emissions from stars, and extraterrestrial life. The telescope, located in Guizhou province, started operations on Sunday. It took five years to construct and is a demonstration of China’s intention to show off its scientific power and gain international prestige.

The telescope cost $180 million to complete and has a diameter of 1,640 feet, or 500 meters. It surpasses the second biggest telescope in the world, Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, which is 1,000 feet in diameter. It’s also twice as sensitive and five to ten times faster. It’s called The Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope,or FAST, and might even find some intelligent alien life.

“The ultimate goal of FAST is to discover the laws of the development of the universe,” said researcher Qian Lei of the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to state broadcaster CCTV. “In theory, if there is civilization in outer space, the radio signal it sends will be similar to the signal we can receive when a pulsar (spinning neutron star) is approaching us.”

Worlds largest radio telescope starts operating in China https://t.co/5j7Iv9tgsU pic.twitter.com/xZgiT7KKPl

— Zesty China News (@zesty_china) September 26, 2016

But the search for aliens has required the relocation of more than 9,000 villagers in the area, in one of the poorest provinces in China. The area is ideal for a telescope, being surrounded by huge hills that protect it from noise and wind. The telescope needs a three-mile radius of complete radio silence to work properly. The state has said that the displaced people will be compensated with money or new houses, but the decision was not welcomed by some villagers, many of whom have lived in the area for several generations.

“I’ve lived here all my life. My ancestors arrived here in the Qing dynasty over 200 years ago,” said local carpenter Huang Zhangrong to the New York Times. He said he didn’t want to leave and that he heard others saying the housing they were relocated to was poorly built. “We don’t want to leave, but the government says it’s for the good of the country.”

Jokes about China and aliens popped up fast on Twitter.

guess China doesn’t know aliens from outer space always speak English and land in US corn fields #wastedinvestment https://t.co/Ct4J0ZLNN9

— Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) September 26, 2016

It is clear that China has its focus set on international fame and Nobel Prizes. Even though scientific investments rarely pay off fast, any accomplishments can bring international prestige.

“Astronomy is an ultimate expression of ‘pure’ science that has little immediate practical benefits. It is a luxury that only the most advanced economies enjoy,” said Luis C. Ho, the director of Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics at Peking University to the Times.

While historically competing with the West, China has in recent years become an economic super power. Now they are aiming to be a scientific and astronomical power as well. And considering their history of prominent astrology and astronomy, that might very well happen. As part of this attempt, China’s space program wants to send an astronaut to the moon by 2025 and to land an unmanned vehicle on Mars by 2020. They want to build the biggest particle accelerator in the world, and opened their second space station in September.

The Chinese state broadcaster recently reported that the telescope had picked up radio signals during a test from a pulsar that was 1,351 light years away from earth. But so far, no intelligent life form has made contact.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Begins Search for Aliens and Fame With World’s Largest Radio Telescope appeared first on Law Street.

A recently discovered parasite that lives in turtles’ blood has been named after our president–as an honor. Baracktrema obamai is the official name of this thin two-inch parasitic flatworm that was discovered and named by biology professor Thomas Platt. And his explanation as to why he picked the name is the best part of the whole story: “It’s long. It’s thin. And it’s cool as hell.”

Platt, who is actually a fifth cousin of Obama, just retired from Saint Mary’s College in Indiana so this is his last scientific achievement. He has previously found more than 30 species, and named most of them after people he respects and wants to honor.

Obama is now officially a parasite (it’s an honor) as biologists name worm after POTUS: https://t.co/E2U4NjurIF pic.twitter.com/IseWTD74gw

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) September 8, 2016

Platt says Baracktrema obamai “are phenomenally incredibly resilient organisms. I hold them in awe and with phenomenal respect.”

The little creature is 30 to 50 times longer than it is wide and has “post-cecal terminal genitalia.” The turtles that host it live in Southeast Asia, where Obama wrapped up a visit on Thursday.

Obama also has a hairworm, a spider, a lichen, a fish, and an extinct lizard named after him.

Biologist Michael Sukhedo, editor of the journal where Platt’s study appears, told the AP: “Parasites are cool, crucial to life and all around us.” Although most of them are named as an honor to someone, sometimes they’ve been named for revenge. Sukhedo said that one biologist named a whole category of parasites after her ex-husband: microphallus.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newly Discovered Parasite Named After Obama, Since It’s “Cool As Hell” appeared first on Law Street.

Third Eye Blind, mostly known for ’90s hits like “Semi-Charmed Life,” played a charity show last night at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio. It was hosted by the Recording Industry Association of America and AT&T, and mostly included RNC attendees and guests. But the members of Third Eye Blind may have been the only ones having fun at the concert–the band spent most of their performance trolling the RNC attendees in the audience.

The band released this statement, outlining how exactly they came to play the event in the first place:

About last night: https://t.co/LIOhIIzGqg pic.twitter.com/nqPKeSYepj

— Third Eye Blind (@ThirdEyeBlind) July 20, 2016

Stephen Jenkins, the band’s singer, kept asking the crowd to “raise your hands if you believe in science”–a clear shot at the GOP’s continued refusal to address climate change. Apparently many of the audience members booed the “science” question. The band also refused to play their hits, instead playing their more obscure songs.

The one big hit they did play was “Jumper,” which was written about one of Jenkins’ friends who was gay and committed suicide. Jenkins introduced the song by talking about acceptance and tolerance, and mentioning his gay cousins.

.@ThirdEyeBlind Epically Trolled People At The Republican Convention #RNCinCLEhttps://t.co/0UxH3vsLIwpic.twitter.com/x9KheBC25x

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) July 20, 2016

Onlookers also tweeted about other funny and tongue-in-cheek moves on the band’s part: 

apparently @ThirdEyeBlind also played their song “Non-Dairy Creamer,” which has these tongue-in-cheek lyrics pic.twitter.com/PBk3VYnMOV

— Rachel Zarrell (@rachelzarrell) July 20, 2016

The band had previously refused to play at the 2012 Republican convention after being asked, and Jenkins explained their logic in an article on the Huffington Post, saying: 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Third Eye Blind Expertly Trolls RNC Attendees appeared first on Law Street.

It’s like the “X-Files,” but in real life! Researchers at the University of California, Davis want to create part-human, part-animal embryos, also known as chimeras, for the purpose of medical research.

The concept is that having access to an animal with certain human cells would allow for more accurate results when researching how different illnesses progress. The term “chimera” comes from Greek mythology–it’s a monster made up of several animals, for example a goat with a lion’s head and a snake’s tail. But actually creating chimeras in real life raises some important ethical questions. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has refused to fund the project, due to its controversial nature.

One of the possible end results would be to breed farm animals with human organs so that they could be donated to terminally ill people. But New York Medical School professor Stuart Newman thinks this is taking it a step too far: “You’re getting into unsettling ground that I think is damaging to our sense of humanity,” he told Boise State Public Radio.

Rob Stein, a Boise State Public Radio reporter, actually got a firsthand look at how the chimeras would be produced, by accompanying biologist Pablo Ross to his lab in California. They discussed a procedure that involved creating a human pancreas in a pig that could be eventually transplanted into a diabetes patient; it involves inserting human stem cells into pig embryos, and then implanting them in the pig.

These kinds of processes are where chimera critics worry things could go awry. Newman points out that if something were to go wrong, it could actually result in a pig with a human-like brain and some sort of human consciousness. Or an even weirder result–a pig giving birth to a part-human baby! As chimeras become a more likely reality, the question is if we really are willing to take that risk and cross those ethical lines.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scientists Want To Create Chimeras: Part-Human, Part-Animal Embryos appeared first on Law Street.

In the latest episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver went over the problem with scientific studies in the media. He pointed out that if you start a story by claiming “scientists say…” you can give credence to any kind of not-so-true information. According to Oliver, the problem is the amount of information floating around out there masking itself as science, whether it’s actually only tested on five people, based on information that later got misinterpreted, or biased because of who sponsored the study. Or, my personal favorite, only tested on rats instead of people.

Oliver highlighted the fact that many scientists are under a lot of pressure to publish as many studies as possible, in as prestigious of publications as possible, to get more funding to be able to keep doing their jobs. Which means no one really wants to do replication studies because they are less likely to get funding, which in its turn leads to no one confirming the original study to corroborate its results.

As the Brit pointed out, “a lot of bullshit” is out there making us believe pseudo news stories that have been distorted since the press release. Take a look at these grains of gold: women are more open to romance when they are not hungry; a glass of red wine is the equivalent to going to the gym for an hour; or driving when you’re dehydrated is as dangerous as driving drunk (this study was sponsored by Coca Cola).

One notable video clip Oliver showed was from the “Today Show,” with one host saying, “You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with that.”

And this is precisely what makes people not take science seriously–the idea that you can just pick what you like as easily as you pick which diet to be on. Oliver points out that it’s the same mindset that makes people not believe that climate change is real or that vaccines will give your kid autism. So all in all, always double-check your facts and go to the original source–otherwise you might actually still believe that smelling farts will prevent cancer.

Check out Oliver’s full takedown below:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Takes on Bad Science in the Media appeared first on Law Street.

As reported previously on Law Street, Oregon and California recently passed legislation to allow women seeking certain hormonal contraceptives to bypass a doctor and a prescription and speak with a pharmacist instead in an effort to make contraception more accessible for women.

Women in Oregon were able to start getting these contraceptives prescription-free in January.

As of Friday, the law in California has now been enacted and women can begin to use this service.

Advocates believe that this will make it easier and less costly for women to obtain contraception. The issue of unintended pregnancy has been at the forefront of many discussions now because of the heavy debate on abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S. (6.1 million) are unintended. Fifty-four percent of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. resulted from a non-use of any method of contraception.

Obviously, one of the best methods to prevent unintended pregnancy is using some form of contraception. Unfortunately, for some women it is not just as easy as picking it up from their local pharmacy. In most cases, a woman must see a doctor in order to get the prescription they need–costly and sometimes inconvenient or impossible for some women.

There is one key difference between California’s and Oregon’s laws. There is no age-restriction for women seeking contraception in California but in Oregon you must be 18 or older and have obtained your first prescription from a doctor.

Other positive steps were taken this week when the FDA loosened regulations on the abortion-inducing pill mifepristone, now allowing women to request a medication-induced abortion up to 70 days after conception, rather than the previous 49 days. The second drug is also now allowed to be taken at home rather than in the doctor’s office.

This news comes at a time when many clinics have been forced to shut down around the country due to strict abortion laws in many states. The Supreme Court has been hearing testimony, debating the issue and will decide on the constitutionality of these key legislations. But for now, the FDA’s decision is a step in the right direction to lessening the burden on women in some of these states where legislatures are trying to outlaw legal abortion.

There is good news coming out of other parts of the West, too. In Colorado, a program was started in 2011 that aimed to have long-lasting contraception, like IUDs and implants, accessible and free to teenagers. Through this program, by 2013, the rate of teenage pregnancy had dropped 40 percent. However, due to the initial funding running out, Gov. John Hickenlooper asked the state for funding to continue the program. Republican lawmakers said no, but the program has survived through private grants and donations, which was an unexpected win for health providers in the state. As a lot of abortion providers are forced to shutter in many parts of the state, these small reproductive rights victories are key.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reproductive Rights Breakthroughs in Oregon and California appeared first on Law Street.

Tonight will be the first Republican primary debate of the new year, and the seven candidates that made it on to the big stage are expected to talk about a whole wide range of issues. But one issue that has been notably absent from the debates so far has been science–particularly climate change. These are issues that are going significantly affect future generations, and that’s why a non-profit called ScienceDebate.org has rallied some kids to request that the 2016 presidential candidates talk about science:

The fantastic ad was created by ScienceDebate.org, a nonprofit which features a petition asking the candidates for president (and other elected offices) to debate and talk about science, medicine, technology, and climate change in their campaigns. The petition reads:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for public debates in which the U.S. presidential and congressional candidates share their views on the issues of science and technology policy, health and medicine, and the environment

The nonprofit argues that the American people support hearing about scientific issues in the debate. According to ScienceDebate.org and Research!America, in a recent national poll:

87 percent of likely voters think the candidates for president ought to be well versed on science issues. 91 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Independents also said the presidential candidates should participate in a debate to discuss key science-based challenges facing the US.

Those stats are interesting, because it does seem like Americans want to hear politicians talk about science almost across-the-board. However, it’s kind of unclear exactly what aspects of science they want actually discussed. Climate change, for example, remains a huge point of contention in American politics–according to a ABC/Washington Post poll conducted in late November, 36 percent of Americans don’t think that climate change is a big problem, and 51 percent think scientists disagree on climate change, despite the fact that a vast majority do not disagree.

That being said, regardless of how you feel about climate change (and other scientific issues) it is important to know where the candidates stand. I’d like to see the Republican candidates talk about it tonight (as would the kids from from the above video), but given their track record to date, it’s probably not likely.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Will the Presidential Candidates Talk About Science? appeared first on Law Street.

Regardless of the political debates about global warming, scientists have long been involved in trying to combat this environmental problem. But what exactly are activist-scientists doing–or not doing–to address global warming?

One facet of combatting global warming is dealing with raised carbon dioxide levels. A lot of talk about carbon dioxide levels focuses on so-called “carbon sinks”–forests that, due to plants’ ability to process carbon dioxide, remove the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere–and their potential to mitigate the effects of global warming. But can forests and artificial means of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere actually “save us” from global warming?

Capturing Carbon Dioxide

Instead of working to prevent the rising carbon dioxide levels that have been fueling global warming, one of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent projects has been the capturing and storage of excess carbon dioxide. This process involves the harvesting of carbon dioxide from facilities such as electricity power plants that emit a great deal of carbon dioxide. Once the carbon dioxide is harvested directly from these sources, it is channeled–sometimes by pipeline and sometimes by truck–usually underground, where it is re-introduced into the earth in order to produce more oil.

Carbon dioxide capturing and sequestration is often upheld as an easy fix to global warming:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology that can capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and industrial processes, preventing the carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide capture can occur through three basic methods. Pre-combustion capture is used in industrial processes like natural gas burning; post-combustion capture is used in the food and beverage industries; and oxyfuel combustion capture is used with water instead of air as a combustion material in industries other than power generation.

Once harvested, the carbon is transported and injected into the earth in liquid form, where it is often channeled into increasing oil production. While sponsors of carbon capture argue that this process is completely safe, there are serious concerns that the injection of such large amounts of liquid into the earth actually increases the likelihood of devastating earthquakes.

Is fueling oil production to fight global warming wise?

Though many support carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, there are serious concerns that this process is used to directly increase, rather than reduce, dependence on non-renewable, highly toxic oil production and use. The carbon dioxide that is harvested from power plants is channeled back into oil production and therefore “helps the United States continue producing record amounts of oil.”

This capture and sequestration method is arguably so popular because it actually creates profits for the massive multinational corporations involved in oil production and related fields. But some scientists are concerned that this process actually further entrenches unsustainable energy practices. David Biello at Scientific American points out:

The process will perpetuate fossil fuel use and may prove a wash as far as keeping global warming pollution out of the atmosphere. Then there are the risks of human-caused earthquakes as a result of pumping high-pressure liquids underground or accidental releases as all that CO2 finds its way back to the atmosphere.

There’s certainly evidence that this corporate-motivated approach to reducing carbon emissions has its drawbacks, especially given the amount of energy that is inefficiently used by the capture and sequestration technology.

 Alternative to Oil: Artificial Photosynthesis

Some scientists are beginning to reevaluate their hesitations about carbon sequestration. Scientists at Berkeley have been working to refine a way that captured carbon can be broken down through artificial photosynthesis instead of being channeled back into oil production.

Dr. Peidong Yang, a chemist at the Berkeley Lab working on artificial photosynthesis–the process that plants use to create food by breaking down carbon dioxide and sunlight into glucose and water—has stated about the research that:

Our system has the potential to fundamentally change the chemical and oil industry in that we can produce chemicals and fuels in a totally renewable way, rather than extracting them from deep below the ground.

Through combining nanowire technology with specific bacterial populations to mimic the photosynthetic processes that leaves undergo naturally, the Berkeley team has created the potential for solar-powered chemistry that non-lethally utilizes sequestered carbon.

The question now is once this new technology is ready for market (it is not quite there yet) will the corporations that profit from the current methods of the re-use of sequestered carbon utilize it?

To the Forests: Natural Photosynthesis and Global Warming

It is important to note, however, that despite the hopefulness with which many are embracing the new developments in artificial photosynthetic capabilities, we seem to be forgetting one crucial thing: Photosynthesis, even on a massive scale such as that accomplished by rainforests, cannot reverse or halt global warming.

Because carbon dioxide is essentially “plant food,” it is easy to focus on an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as being good for plant growth. In turn, the more plants there are, the more carbon dioxide will be taken out of the atmosphere. Since extremely excessive carbon dioxide emissions are a principle driver of global warming, plants (particularly strong concentrations of plants, such as rainforests) are often thought to be helpful in reducing carbon emissions and in slowing global warming. Indeed, some scientific studies show that, under certain laboratory greenhouse conditions, increased carbon dioxide levels can contribute to a greater amount of plant growth. This is extremely important because, as Carol Rasmussen, a member of NASA’s Earth Science News Team, reports:

Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. If the rate of absorption were to slow down, the rate of global warming would speed up in return.

Through a natural process referred to as carbon fertilization, plants “eat” the extra carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human processes, thus reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Recently, however, the purported impacts of carbon fertilization have been called into question: a recent study found that increased tree growth does not always result from increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Regardless of whether forest growth is stimulated by increased carbon dioxide, Climate Science Watch encourages us to think beyond the small picture of plants taking already overwhelming amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. There is a bigger picture of the relationship between global warming–which is already occurring–and plant life. A report by Climate Science Watch reminds us that:

Climate [change] impacts like drought, floods, extreme weather, shifting seasons, and increasing ranges of weeds, invasive species, and plant pests will all negatively impact crop yields [and other plant growth].

Additionally, other nutrient restrictions limit the amount of increased natural photosynthesis that can occur in forests. Differentials in rainfall levels and subsequent droughts that are already being caused by global warming negatively impact the amount of plants that can grow and photosynthesize.

Hammering home these cautionary pieces of evidence is the fact that massive forests like the Amazon have been suffering from increased tree mortality–both due to direct human destruction and the indirect impacts of altered conditions from climate change. Therefore, the Amazon rainforest is consuming a billion tons less each year than it has previously. For perspective, each yearly Amazon drop amounts to twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the U.K. per year.

So Should We Take Carbon Dioxide Back Out of the Atmosphere?

Investing hope and massive resources in carbon capture and sequestration, forest-driven photosynthesis, and artificial photosynthesis produces a sense of calm in many that the impacts of global warming can be combated without creating actual changes in the corporate practices that are increasing dangerous carbon dioxide levels. These debates about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are important, but they are fundamentally invested in addressing symptoms rather than causes. While these are great scientific achievements, the causes of global warming need to be addressed as well.

Resources

Primary

Environmental Protection Agency: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration

NASA: NASA Finds Food News about Forests and Carbon Dioxide

Additional

Environment 360: Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution?

Alternet: Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit From Global Warming

Guardian: Chevron Accused of Racism as it Fights Ecuador Pollution Ruling

Guardian: Tropical Rainforests Not Absorbing as Much Carbon as Expected

Guardian: Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions

Science Daily: Major Advance in Artificial Photosynthesis Poses Win/Win For the Environment

Climate Science Watch: The CO2 “Fertilization” Effect Won’t Deter Climate Change

Corp Watch: Climate Change and Environmental Racism

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Carbon Dioxide Capture: Can it Stop Global Warming? appeared first on Law Street.

NASA’s Mars Curiosity rover detected changing methane gas levels on the much-talked-about planet, spurring reports this week of the possibility of life. According to Sushil Atreya, a member of the rover team, “This temporary increase in methane–sharply up and then back down–tells us there must be some relatively localized source…biological or non-biological, such as interaction of water and rock.” This is great news for the many hopeful applicants to Mars One, the human colony project slated for 2024.

Click here to read Mankind is Mars-Bound: All the Facts on Mars One.

NASA is very clear about one thing: the discovery of fluctuating Methane levels does not mean that there absolutely life on Mars, but rather that life is one possibility among many that could account for this activity. According to John Grotzinger of the rover team,

That we detect methane in the atmosphere on Mars is not an argument that we have found evidence of life on Mars, but it’s one of the few hypotheses that we can propose that we must consider. Large organic molecules present in ancient rocks on Mars is also not an argument that there was once life on ancient Mars, but it is the kind of material you’d look for if life had ever originated on Mars.

This is not the first time that scientists have made a discovery like this one. Smaller methane fluctuations have been detected several times over the last several years, and the team was able to tap into the “hydrogen isotopes from water molecules that had been locked inside a rock sample for billions of years,” the analysis of which added to knowledge of martian water on Mars.

This illustration portrays possible ways that methane might be added to Mars’ atmosphere (sources) and removed from the atmosphere (sinks). NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover has detected fluctuations in methane concentration in the atmosphere, implying both types of activity occur in the modern environment of Mars. Courtesy of NASA/JPL -Caltech/SAM-GSFC/Univ. of Michigan.

Law Street writer Madeleine Stern wrote an in-depth explain about the Mars One program that I highly suggest you read in light of this new information coming out of NASA. Mars One, the brain child of Bas Lansdorp and Arno Wielders, is a nonprofit organization based in the Netherlands that is working toward colonizing Mars. The colony, slated to be established in 2024, will be filled with selected individuals who will make the one-way trip after a three-round selection process to weed out the competition. The first round of Mars One applicants are going to be trained for their life on Mars beginning in 2015, with aspects including physiotherapy, psychology, and exobiology–the study of alien life.

So while we wait for more answers to the questions of what the latest Mars methane discovery means and where it is coming from, you can still throw your hat into the ring to become one of the planet’s first inhabitants. Or hey, at least you can buy a $50 sweatshirt to offset the projects $6 billion price tag.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks to New Discovery Your Seat on Mars One is Looking Good appeared first on Law Street.

Dinosaurs are hard to keep up with despite their extinction more than 65 million years ago. We discover a new dinosaur about every two weeks. Yet experts estimate only 28 percent of dinosaurs that existed have been identified. Frequent  findings bring these animals to life, providing us with clues on how they might have looked and lived.

With these fast-paced discoveries, it should come as no surprise that the original Jurassic Park featured outdated dinosaurs. Audiences were expecting to see some tweaks in the look of the creatures in the forthcoming Jurassic World movie set to release in June 2015.

Disgruntled experts claim the dinosaurs appearing in the trailer are “stuck in the 1980s.” Jack Horner, paleontologist and scientific consultant on the film, isn’t worried. He states that the movie is purely fiction, not a documentary.

As someone who hasn’t given much thought to dinosaurs since elementary school, the outcries made me curious. How much do we really know about them? How do we even know what we do know? I explore these questions below.

How much can you find out from a bone?

Fossils go beyond bones to include anything that provides evidence of prehistoric life. They can be physical remains, trace remains (footprints and teeth marks), animal feces, pollen, spores, or even ripple marks from a long-dry prehistoric ocean.

The paleontologists who study fossils incorporate computer science, archaeology, biology, geology, ecology, anthropology, and more to explore evidence of the past. Like investigators on a crime scene, they detect clues where most people would see rubbish.

What do they look at?

• Microscopic fossils. They’re small but make up a large proportion of fossils just as microorganisms make up a large proportion of biomass.
• Traditional fossils. These include imprints, bones, shells, molds, exoskeletons, and other petrified remains of ancient life.
• Plant fossils. These reveal much about prehistoric lifestyles and ecologies.
• Plant spores. Plant spores, or palynomorphs, resist decomposition better than other types of fossils. Due to their resistance to decomposition, they’ve been useful in oil and gas exploration.
• Trace fossils. The study of trace fossils, or ichnology, focuses on tracks, footprints, and trails. Since many animals don’t leave behind anything that will fossilize, trace fossils provide the best evidence of how ancient creatures lived.
• Formation of fossils. Taphonomy is the study of how and why fossils form.

How do they study the fossils?

Fossils are rare, fragile, and require meticulously attentive handling. New, high-resolution X-ray computed tomography (CT) enables scientists to create complete and detailed scans of fossils so they can be examined in new ways by many people without fear of damage. The scans operate like extremely powerful medical X-rays that produce unbelievably vivid images.

To tout the benefits of the technology, Dr. Timothy Rowe uses the example of a dinosaur skull. With the scan, he can cut apart the skull digitally, without harming the fossil to explore different structures that might indicate how its brain worked and so much more.

The Fossil Record: An Incomplete Puzzle

The collective pieces of the dinosaur puzzle are called the fossil record and it’s definitely missing some pieces.

Producing fossils requires rare conditions. Most animals were eaten, leaving nothing behind to fossilize. Many animals and entire animal groups, like soft-bodied and small-boned organisms, never became fossils. Furthermore, wind and water erosion often swept away buried remains, especially in mountainous areas.

So while we know a great deal from what clues we do have, the clues are patchy. One scientist even estimated that only 2,100 adequate dinosaur skeletons exist. It’s extremely rare to find a whole dinosaur skeleton.

How do we figure out what they looked like?

The Basics

Using clues from the past and knowledge of modern animals, scientists make educated guesses about what dinosaurs may have looked like.

All reconstructions start with the foundation–the skeleton. It’s rare to find a complete skeleton, so scientists piece together an anatomically correct dinosaur from what fragments and pieces they have along with their knowledge of modern animals. Body parts made from cartilage are never fossilized; we can recreate skeletons, but we don’t know with absolute certainty how their joints moved.

After the skeleton comes the meat and muscle. Markings on the fossils where muscles were attached indicate their past location and size. The fossils tell them where the muscles should go, and studying modern animals helps them determine how much muscle mass to add.

The Embellishments

After the basic shapes come the embellishments: skin, colors, feathers, and more. Reconstructing these embellishments is less of an exact science since there is typically less evidence.

• Skin. A fossil is rarely surrounded by impressions made by the animal’s skin. If found, the impressions provide good indication of skin texture.
• Armor. Plates and spikes are fossilized easily relative to other features. When found with good skeletons, scientists can get a clear picture of how the armor might have been arranged on the body.
• Feathers. Fossils have shown impressions that indicate theropod (beast-footed) dinosaurs had feathers or feather-like structures. And a Siberian unearthing presents compelling evidence that other dinosaurs, and not just theropods, were feathered. The finding was significant because it contained the remains of many different ancestrally distinct species with feather imprints. It suggests that almost all dinosaurs had some kind of feathers. Even skeletons of the fierce and familiar Velociraptor have been found with quill knobs similar to what anchors feathers to the bones of modern birds. While the absence of these knobs doesn’t indicate a lack of feathers, their presence almost certainly confirms the feathers existed.
• Color. A rare feather fossil has been found that contains two types of the organelles that pigment hair, skin, and feathers called melanosomes. They two types were: elanosomes, which give zebras their stripes; and phaeomelanosomes, which make human hair red. The findings suggest that the particular Sinosauropteryx studied had a dark orange striped tail. A breakthrough like this is rare, so many artists are free to take license when choosing how to color their depictions.

How does dinosaur science affect dinosaur art?

Artists do what they can to make their depictions as accurate as possible, but because new developments happen so frequently and art takes time, renditions become outdated at a fast pace.

Thomas Holtz, a University of Maryland paleontologist, walks through some depictions of dinosaurs featured in past issues of National Geographic Magazine to call out what would now be different in artist renditions. Here are just a few examples:

• Many old dinosaur depictions feature them dragging their tails, yet we haven’t found any trace fossils of tail drag marks. Scientists believe that dinosaurs kept their tails upright and above the ground.

• Early dinosaur art often shows them in upright postures similar to humans. We now know such an upright posture is unlikely for any dinosaur–most of them moved in a nearly horizontal fashion.

• Depictions of a blunt-headed Brontosaurus are invalid. Brontosaurus was actually found to be simply a type of Apatosaurus and had a long, tapered skull.

New discoveries happen every day. The dinosaur toys kids are playing with in a handful of years will probably look completely different from the ones we enjoyed.

What’s new in dino world?

Dinosaur knowledge updates come fast and frequent. Here’s some of the latest dinosaur news.

• Researchers used computational fluid dynamics to create the first model of dinosaur breathing. The study suggests that dinosaurs had such long snouts to accommodate very deep breaths and lots of mucus. The mucus kept foreign particles out of their nostrils and the deep breaths cooled the blood to prevent their brains from overheating.

• A new pot-bellied dinosaur almost as big as Tyrannosaurus Rex was found. The strange new creature, Deinocheirus, had a large belly, big feet, and a sizable beak instead of teeth.

• A peculiar puncture wound in an Allosaurus suggests that Stegosaurus might have used its spiked tale to strike hungry predators below the belt.

• A nearly whole skeleton of what might be the largest terrestrial animal ever was discovered. Dreadnaughtus would have been about the size of a dozen elephants and seven times the size of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Its bones reveal the particular animal might have been growing at the time of death.

A Mysterious Future For a Long-Dead Animal

As I mentioned earlier, of all the dinosaur bones that probably exist, only 28 percent have been identified. The potential for future discovery is huge. Even questions that seem simple remain mysterious to us. Were dinosaurs hot blooded or cold blooded? How did they mate? Why did they have horns, spikes, armor, or feathers? We still don’t even know exactly how they all went massively extinct.

The new Jurassic World trailer inspired me to look into what we know about dinosaurs. I found that we know quite a bit, but have much left to learn. Now I’m just wondering what new information we’ll have by the time the movie is released in June.

Resources

Primary

Smithsonian: Dinosaurs in the Backyard: How Do We Know?

Idaho Museum of Natural History: What is a Fossil?

Smithsonian: Reconstructing Extinct Animals

Additional

The New York Times: Many More Dinosaurs Still to Be Found

National Geographic: ‘Jurassic World’ Dinosaurs Stuck in the 1980s, Experts Grumble

BBC: Fossils

Science Mag: Feather Quill Knobs in the Dinosaur Velociraptor

Pubmed: An Early Cretaceous Heterodontosaurid Dinosaur With Filamentous Integumentary Structures

National Geographic: Siberian Discovery Suggests Almost All Dinosaurs Were Feathered

Nature: Fossil Feathers Reveal Dinosaurs’ True Colours

National Geographic: What’s Wrong With This Picture? An Audio Critique

Scientific American: New “Dreadnought” Dinosaur Most Complete Specimen of a Giant

Teachers: Unearthing Dinosaur Bones and Fossils

Carlton College: Taphonomy: The Study of Preservation

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jurassic Park Realism: What Do We Really Know About Dinosaurs? appeared first on Law Street.

Petri dishes do far more than indicate if you have strep throat. They were a key prop in the theater of antibiotic discovery. A mere glance in a petri dish ushered in the antibiotic revolution.

On a bright and sunny (just a guess) day in 1928, Alexander Fleming puzzled over what he saw in a petri dish of Staphylococcus bacteria. One small, moldy area of the dish had somehow dodged the enterprising colonization of the bacteria. Fleming speculated this was not a coincidence. He wondered if the mold, Penicillium Notatum, was somehow inhibiting bacterial growth. He experimented some more and eventually published his findings in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology. Fleming’s brick wall had been isolating the penicillin from the mold to use as a drug. Luckily his research eventually ended up in the hands of two scientists at Oxford who were ready to take up the challenge.

Penicillin — the first antibiotic — was used to treat a human patient in 1941. We’ve probably all taken them, but what are they really? Antibiotics are microorganisms (and now synthesized drugs) that attack the bacteria that cause infection in your body. Just as bacteria couldn’t grow on the moldy part of Fleming’s petri dish, bacteria cannot grow in a body on antibiotics.

World War II soldiers were among the first to benefit from penicillin before it was released to the general public in the late 1940s. Newspapers hailed it as a miracle drug.

The potential downside of this miracle drug had not evaded the experts, however. Alexander Fleming himself warned of microbes developing penicillin resistance in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945.

Miracles Happen

Antibiotics thwarted some of the leading causes of death in human existence. Childbirth, ear infections, and even simple skin scrapes were often deadly before these saviors entered the fray. Many children didn’t see their first birthdays, succumbing to infections we don’t think twice about today. Having surgery in the early 1900s? Just kiss your family goodbye before you go under the knife.

Antibiotics are microorganisms ideally adapted to kill other microorganisms while causing little or no harm to the host. The word “antibiotic” actually means “against life.”

Scientists design synthetic versions of these antibiotic microorganisms so we may have a profusion of drug options. About 150 million prescriptions are written for antibiotics every year.

And that’s a problem because…?

Antibiotics may be miraculous, but bacteria are not taking the challenge lying down. They’re fighting back by developing mechanisms to resist antibiotics. Don’t take it personally, it’s what any organism would do for the sake of survival. It turns out that bacteria are marvelous adaptors. Two million people in the United States suffer from antibiotic-resistant infections every year and many die as a consequence. Additionally, the CDC estimates a cool $20 billion in resulting economic burdens.

In short, our arsenal of antibiotics is losing efficacy. If this continues unchecked, we risk being thrust back into the dark ages of medicine when common ailments put many a healthy body six feet under. Antibiotic resistance is also detrimental to treatments for more serious illnesses. Therapies for cancer and organ transplants are often complicated with infection. Doctors rely heavily on antibiotics to keep their patients’ strained bodies free of infection. If antibiotics become ineffective, these life-saving treatments might be relegated to the past. It would mark one monumental step back in health care.

If you’re not scared yet…

Everyone loves a good villain to embody their fears. Emerging “superbugs” epitomize scary. When antibiotics were new, development was explosive. New drugs essentially kept microbes on their toes and resistance was less prolific. Invention of new drugs has now stagnated enough that bacterial evolution threatens to overtake our developmental countermeasures.

Welcome to the world of superbugs, aka resistant germs. These include nightmares like:

Carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacteri‐aceae (CRE): Literally nicknamed “nightmare bacteria.” It’s resistant to nearly all antibiotics and kills about half of the people infected by it.

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): MRSA usually manifests as a skin infection. Because of its resistant capabilities, it can wreak havoc by spreading through medical facilities.

These monsters aren’t made up, they’re frighteningly real and we may soon lose our ability to fight them.

Let’s Get “Sciencey”

Microbes are tricky little beasts. They will always evolve to develop resistance to what threatens them. The more bacteria are exposed to antibiotics (which we just learned is quite frequently), the more chances they have to develop resistance. When bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, susceptible strains die, leaving zero competition for the resistant ones so they are free to survive and flourish. Scientists call this selective pressure.

Resistant bacteria get that way by acquiring resistance genes through genetic mutation or getting the resistance from another bacterium. They can even get multiple resistant traits and end up developing resistance to multiple families of antibiotics.

Watch the video below for a perfect explanation of how this happens.

Why is this happening?

1. They’re over-prescribed: Antibiotics are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs used in medicine. For example, the first Ebola patient in the United States was sent home on antibiotics before doctors knew what he had. Antibiotics won’t do anything for Ebola or even the sinus infection they believed he had. Most sinus infections are viral so antibiotics don’t do anything — unless it was 1 out of the 100 cases where the sinus infection is caused by bacteria.
2. They’re mis-prescribed: Physicians often have to use incomplete or imperfect information. They prescribe antibiotics as a an all-purpose band-aid.
3. They’re used heavily: The chance of bacteria developing resistance increases with antibiotic use. Unfortunately, doctors must rely heavily on antibiotics to reduce risk of infection in critically ill patients. Furthermore, close proximity among sick patients in hospitals creates an ideal environment for resistant germs to spread.
4. They’re used in agriculture: Agriculture use accounts for half of the antibiotics produced in the United States. Scientists agree that adding antibiotics to feed is a key problem in developing antibiotic resistance. Agriculturally, antibiotics are used to promote animal growth and proactively prevent infections in addition to just treating sick animals.

Who is going to save us?

The CDC released a report on the threat of antibiotic resistance in 2013. It was the first exhaustive compilation of the health threats antibiotic resistance presents. If you’re not up to reading the whole 100 pages, here is a snapshot of the strategies they recommend to save us all from antibiotic resistance:

1. Prevent infections from happening in the first place: No infection, no antibiotics, and consequently less risk that resistance develops.

2. Track antibiotic resistance: Tracking will shed light on the specific mechanisms of resistance development. With this knowledge, intervention strategies will be more informed and more effective.

3. Change the way antibiotics are used: Antibiotics are generally overused. Up to 50 percent of antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. Physicians can take up the mantle of antibiotic stewardship by using antibiotics only when necessary.

4. Develop drugs and diagnostic tests: Bacteria develop antibiotic resistance as they evolve — it’s a natural process resulting from biological pressure. Introduction of new drugs will slow down this natural evolution. Diagnostic tests will allow us to understand and track the evolution in a more timely way.

Hey…did we budget for all of this?

Federal spending to combat antimicrobial* resistance has been limited. In 2014, the budget was $450 million. That figure sounds grand, but it amounts to just about $1.04 per American. On the other hand, antibiotic resistance costs the United States an estimated $55-70 billion each year.

A little bit lopsided, don’t you think?

*Antimicrobial resistance includes antibiotic resistance but also refers to resistance of other microbes like parasites and viruses. Antibiotic resistance refers specifically to bacteria that cause infection. Most strategies cover the more comprehensive antimicrobial resistance.

Making plans…

The Obama Administration announced a game plan in September for facing antimicrobial resistance. Here’s the to-do list:

• Leverage findings from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report on combating antimicrobial resistance. The report suggests doubling the current federal investments from $450 million to $900 million a year. It also outlines recommendations for strong federal leadership, effective surveillance, research, clinical trials, increasing economic incentives for development, increasing stewardship for current antibiotic use, limiting agricultural use of antibiotics, and increasing international coordination.

• Implement the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria. The PCAST report was used to create a National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria. The strategy focuses on five major goals:

Slow the development of resistant bacteria and prevent the spread of resistant infections; strengthen national one-health surveillance efforts to combat resistance; advance development and use of rapid and innovative diagnostic tests for identification and characterization of resistant bacteria; accelerate basic and applied research and development for new antibiotics, other therapeutics, and vaccines; and improve international collaboration and capacities for antibiotic resistance prevention, surveillance, control, and antibiotic research and development.

• Form a task force that combats antibiotic resistant bacteria. Established by Executive Order, the task force is responsible for implementing the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria. It is working on a detailed report of specific action plans due in February 2015.

• Finance diagnostic innovation. A $20 million prize, co-sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, will be granted for a point-of-care diagnostic test that identifies antibacterial-resistant infections.

A little legal setback…

The July ruling in the NRDC v. US FDA case was marked as a major setback in the fight against antimicrobial resistance. The plaintiffs (including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Science in the Public Interest) were dismayed that the court ruled against compelling the FDA to ban the use of antibiotics in healthy animals used for food.

The case overturned two other district court rulings that would have required the FDA to rescind approved use of antibiotics for purposes other than to treat sick animals. Companies could have gotten around the ruling if they proved the drug in question posed little risk for contributing to the development of antimicrobial resistance in humans.

Some other hangups

There are a few other pesky issues that might hinder some of the strategies for reducing antimicrobial resistance:

• Individual privacy could potentially get in the way of optimal surveillance of antibiotic resistance. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) guarantees privacy of health information that is individually identifiable. Patient preferences could determine what information can be used to track antimicrobial resistance.

• Companies lack incentives to create new antibiotics because the traditional sales volume and price linkage is missing. Because fighting antibiotic resistance forbids overusing one particular drug, companies would probably not get a good return on investment.

• Ponderous approval processes for new drugs might also hinder the speed of new antibiotic drug development. A balance will need to be struck in ensuring speed of innovation without compromising safety.
  

  ---

So the government has antimicrobial resistance under control?

It has a robust plan for taking action against antibiotic resistance, but being an informed patient never hurt anybody. The CDC recommends a few steps you can take, including abstaining from antibiotic use for viral infections, not saving leftover antibiotics, and not taking antibiotics prescribed for someone else.

The fight against antimicrobial resistance is really no fight at all, but a call for permanent change in our medical and agricultural systems. As long bacteria exist and want to survive, our desire to survive must be stronger.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology: Report to the President on Combating Antibiotic Resistance

Additional

Cochrane Summaries: Antibiotics for Acute Maxillary Sinusitis

Food Safety News: White House Calls for Action Plan to Address Antibiotic Resistance

The White House: New Executive Actions to Combat Antibiotic Resistance and Protect Public Health

CDC: Untreatable: Today’s Drug Resistant Health Threats

Explorable.com: History of Antibiotics

American Chemical Society: Discovery and Development of Penicillin

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Antimicrobial Drug Resistance

World Health Organzation: Antimicrobial Resistance

Huffington Post: Feds Failing to Act on Antibiotic Resistance Despite Grave Threat

Natural Resources Defense Council: Food, Farm Animals and Drugs

CDC: Legal Issues Associated with Antimicrobial Drug Resistance

CDC: White House Announces National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistance

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Doing Enough to Prevent Antibiotic Resistance? appeared first on Law Street.

Cancer. Just one little word that sets hypochondriacs everywhere on edge. To some, the word means nothing but certain death. If that seems a little dramatic to you, guess what’s the second most common cause of death in the United States? That’s right, cancer.

What about the word “virus”? Scary…but not nearly as scary as cancer. It’s certainly not a word that evokes hope. But that may change as medical breakthroughs present a compelling question: can we use viruses to treat cancer?

How could we use viruses to cure cancer?

I know what you’re thinking. How can two negatives combine to achieve something as positive as a cure for cancer? The answer lies in your immune system.

Your immune system pinpoints a virus as a foreign invader, and works to eliminate it. Kind of like how our government would react to an alien spaceship entering Earth’s atmosphere.

On the other hand, your immune system has a harder time detecting cancer. Cancer cells share more characteristics with your own harmless cells than viruses. After all, cancer does originate from your own cells. It’s not in your body’s best interest to attack its own cells, so your immune system may overlook cancer as a threat. Kind of like how the government would react to a standard American aircraft filled with aliens. Seeing the aircraft as one if its own, they would leave it alone, and we’d have an invasion.

In summary, your immune system recognizes and fights viruses, but often not cancer.

So where does the cancer treatment part come in?

Our bodies can fight off viruses efficiently. What if we could hijack that fighting spirit and direct it towards cancer cells? What if we could manipulate our marvelous immune systems to fight off cancer?

That is the basis for how we may use viruses to treat cancer in a process known as oncolytic virotherapy.

Let’s go back to our surreptitious alien friends (cancer). They’ve made it into our atmosphere in their inconspicuous plane and are having a lovely joy ride when that alien spaceship (virus) joins them to transfer some of its passengers. Someone is bound to notice this suspicious activity and alert the authorities. Now the government (immune system), is wise to the presence of foreign invaders in both aircrafts and prepares for attack.

In oncolytic virotherapy, a virus infects a cancer cell. Distressed by this turn of events, the tumor cell releases cytokines which are really just messenger proteins. The cytokines raise the inflammation red flag and the immune system dispatches its sniper-like white blood cells to eliminate the source of inflammation–the infected tumor cell.

That was just one cell. What about an entire cancerous tumor? That’s where a virus’s prodigious replicating power is actually a good thing. Viruses don’t reproduce per se, but inject their own genetic material to commandeer host cells and replicate with their help. Replicating is a virus’s raison d’etre, host cells beware. After one cancer cell is successfully infected, the virus uses it as its replication puppet, consequentially infecting more cancer cells. So one transmission of a virus to a patient could cause destruction of many cancer cells and possibly an entire tumor.

To truly understand this process, take a moment to brush up on your viral replication knowledge. This video will help you out:

Will any virus work?

Any virus can infect and destroy a cancer cell, but it can also infect and destroy healthy cells. Successful oncolytic virotherapy requires a more selective virus–an oncolytic virus. The word oncolytic stems from oncolysis, which means the destruction of tumor cells. Oncolytic viruses are specifically attracted to tumor cells and leave your normal, healthy cells alone. This type of virus combats cancer cells without making patients sick.

That’s a new thing, right?

Yes and no. The concepts underlying virotherapy have been recognized for years. Doctors have pondered the use of viruses to treat cancer for more than a century as they discovered tumor remissions after viral episodes. As early as 1904, researchers noted a remission of cervical cancer in a woman given the rabies vaccination. But while early observations were strong, patient tests yielded erratic results. Then, technological breakthroughs took off in the 1940s and transformed oncolytic virotherapy from dream to possibility.

Scientists began studying genetic material in vitro by the 1970s, opening doors for new experiments and tests. The discovery of recombinant DNA technologies in the 1990s sparked an explosion of breakthroughs in genetic engineering. Genetic engineering took oncolytic virotherapy to new levels.

Genetically Engineering a Cancer-Killing Virus

Genetic engineering empowered scientists to devise oncolytic viruses with certain ideal characteristics for safer, more specific, and more effective oncolytic virotherapy. Scientists created viral vectors that target tumors in the body even more specifically than naturally occurring oncolytic viruses by isolating the human genes that code for tumor antigens. This heightened specificity diminished risk of infection in healthy cells and the toxicity witnessed in early murine (family of rats and mice) and human experiments was mitigated.

With engineered super viruses in tow, interest in oncolytic virotherapy soared.

Fear of engineered viruses  

Many find the concept of engineering viruses a bit on the scary side. I Am Legend, both the book and the movie, epitomizes distrust of viral engineering. The story features some possible side effects of tinkering with nature. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t go well for the people in this story.

But fear not, scientists aren’t cooking up a myriad of franken viruses in their labs unchecked. The field is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration with detailed oversight from the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee reporting through the Office of Biotechnology Activities. To conduct a human study, researchers have to file an investigational new drug application with the FDA. They must provide ample evidence of human safety from prerequisite lab and animal tests. Rest assured they are working hard to prevent a virus induced apocalypse.

Other than oversight…

What other government activities could possibly affect the future on oncolytic virotherapy? Well, if there’s one thing cancer research requires other than brilliant brains, it’s money. In that vein, organizations like the American Society of Clinical Oncology find the stagnant growth in federal funding for cancer research disheartening.

In fact, 75 percent of oncologists in the United States say that current funding slumps impact their ability to conduct cancer research. Check out this infographic from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that sums up the situation.

Even so, proposed legislation to invest in biomedical research, encourage innovation in biotechnology, and fight off the deadliest cancers proves confronting cancer remains a priority for representatives. It looks like the War on Cancer started by the Nixon administration in 1971 is still going strong today.

Does oncolytic virotherapy work?

Mayo Clinic announced a great success in oncolytic virotherapy last May. One nearly hopeless woman saw complete remission of her multiple myeloma after injection with the measles virus – enough to vaccinate 100 million people. Speaking of vaccines, Dr. Mark Federspiel actually came up with the proper concentration of the virus by building up a strain of the measles virus used safely in vaccines. Watch to find out how this success is giving doctors hope for a one-shot cure for cancer:

Hungry for more evidence? Check out Table 1 of this article for a list of published clinical trials in the field of oncolytic virotherapy. One major critique of the therapy is that lab successes often don’t translate to human trials.

What are we waiting for?

There are a few kinks to work out in the field of oncolytic virotherapy before the procedure gains mainstream acceptance.

Here are a few key hurdles:

• The explosion of engineered viruses created by pharmaceutical and biotech companies have presented scientists with more options than they have time or money to test. Furthermore, modifications come so fast, a state of the art engineered virus can quickly become obsolete.
• Treatment toxicities are always possible when using a virus to treat a disease. Healthy cells risk infection as even meticulously engineered viruses have the ability to mutate.
• Finding the right balance of immune suppression and aggression is difficult. The immune system must be weak enough to allow the virus to get to the host, yet also strong enough to combat the infected tumor once the virus has reached it.

Conclusion

A one-shot cure for cancer? Who wouldn’t love that? While it seems like a fairy tale, recent successes are creating buzz that we may be getting closer. Even if one shot doesn’t do it, many believe oncolytic virotherapy can be used synergistically with other cancer therapies to induce tumor remission.

Hope is the most important part of our War on Cancer. Hope drives us to continue fighting in the face of a daunting adversary. Is there reason to hope viruses may be used to treat cancer? Absolutely. Is further research and testing needed? Again, absolutely. The field of oncolytic virotherapy has made incredible progress since the first whispers began over 100 years ago. Surely the next century will bring more advancements than we can possibly imagine today.

Resources

Primary 

Cancer Research Institute: Cancer and the Immune System: The Vital Connection

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Oncolytic Virotherapy

Additional

American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Figures 2014

Genelux: What is Oncolytic Virotherapy?

BBC: How Does the Body Fight Off a Virus?

American Cancer Society: Immunotherapy

The New York Times: Viruses Recruited as Killers of Tumors

UC San Francisco: Killing Cancer Through the Immune System

Clinical and Translational Oncology: Viruses in Cancer Treatment

Mayo Clinic: Harnessing Viruses to Treat Cancer

Dove Press: Applications of Coxsackievirus A21 in Oncology

Dove Press: Reovirus in Cancer Therapy: an Evidence-Based Review

NIH: Oncolytic virotherapy

Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: Oncolytic Viruses for Cancer Therapy: Overcoming the Obstacles

BMJ: Fighting Cancer With Oncolytic Viruses

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fighting Fire With Fire: Can Viruses Cure Cancer? appeared first on Law Street.

Conflict between religion and science is nothing new; starting in the seventeenth century, Enlightenment philosophers began to criticize religious traditions in favor of strict reasoning and the scientific method. More recently, a study led by Princeton economist Roland Bénabou argues that highly religious states lack scientific innovation. Controlling for factors such as per capita GDP, education, and foreign direct investment reveals the persistent obstacles to innovation that religion imposes. Measuring by the number of patents filed, countries — and even American states — show “a strong negative relationship” between religion and scientific innovation.

This study is vital to understanding the nature of religion in society and public life. Unfortunately, the scope and rigor of the research give credence to the claim that religion can be an impediment to progress. Considering that religion will not, and should not, go away any time soon, how do we reconcile its tendency to block scientific innovation with its importance in civilization? Full disclosure, I can’t say that I know the answer, but here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, this study may evoke concern about religion’s place in politics  But if we ignore religion in our politics and shove it to the margins of public discourse, the religious issues that we encounter won’t suddenly disappear. Instead, they will remain pervasive without an open forum for solutions and compromises. This study should, if nothing else, inspire us to bring religion into public discourse so that our leaders can foster open scientific inquiry. The study even cites the beginning of Islam’s spread and the “initial willingness of Muslim leaders to engage with logic and rational sciences.” Although opposition to such innovation was soon after opposed, progress was made “in chemistry and in medicine, and the use of the experimental method became widespread.”

Indeed, throughout much of ancient and modern human history, religious institutions have actively supported scientific endeavors. For centuries, throughout Europe and the Middle East, almost all universities and other institutions of learning were religiously affiliated, and many scientists, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and biologist Gregor Mendel (known as the father of genetics), were men of the cloth. Others, including Galileo, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and astronomer Johannes Kepler, were deeply devout and often viewed their work as a way to illuminate God’s creation.

– Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project

Further, we should remember that patents in modern technology are not the only measure of societal progress. Research in sociology suggests that religion actually played a key role in the development of communities. New York University professor Jonathan Haidt examines some of the most important sociological development theories in his book, The Righteous Mind. He discusses how, evolutionarily, humans “have a few group-related adaptations” along with those that natural selection gave us on the level of the individual. Religion helps progress “gene-culture coevolution,” forging stronger groups and communities through cultural and genetic evolution. As Haidt writes, “religious practices have been binding our ancestors into groups for tens of thousands of years.”

Undoubtedly, scientific innovations and technological advancements are key to growth; be it economic development or further cultural tolerance, science and reason can be powerful forces for development. That being said, the ancient communities that evolved into today’s great nations are indebted to religion’s role in bolstering their abilities to cooperate. So, while religiosity can be an obstacle for technological innovation, it has historically been a force for creating strong moral communities and binding groups together.

Choosing one way to measure how a state or society advances can help us track progress, but it is dangerous to ignore other metrics for understanding human development. We should keep in mind the positive effects of religion, and not declare it unfit for political discussion. Our rational discourse and scientific creativity would suffer from doing so.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and is looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Wally Gobetz via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Role of Religion in Scientific Innovation appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us remember Todd Akin, former Missouri Senate candidate, for his comments about how women cannot get pregnant if they are “legitimately raped.” Unfortunately for him, and for everyone who has to deal with his moronic comments, the fiasco hasn’t ended there. In a recent attempt to explain his 2012 comments, all he did was dig himself into a deeper hole. It’s probably time to just stop talking, Mr. Akin. I mean, I’ve heard from doctors that if you legitimately have stupid thoughts, you won’t say them because your mouth has the ability to shut the whole thing down. Or, in this case, your hand will lose its ability to write a book if you plan to write legitimately ridiculous words.

In his new book (how did he get a publishing deal?), Firing Back, Akin defends his infamous 2012 “legitimate rape” comments and blames the evil media for spinning the whole thing. Someone needs to explain to Akin what spinning means, because he obviously doesn’t know. The media saying exactly what a politician says during an interview is not spin, Mr. Akin. That’s what we call “reporting the facts.”

In what I am sure is a positively invigorating piece of literature, Akin tries to educate his readers about what “legitimate rapes” are. You see, some rapes are not “legitimate” because some women falsely accuse, and when he spoke about a woman’s body shutting “that whole thing down,” he didn’t mean the reproductive system battening down the hatches. Rather, he was referring to rape-related “stress” inhibiting her ability to get pregnant. He does concede that perhaps his wording was a little off.  I feel like I need a Todd Akin Dictionary of Rape Terms to understand this guy’s insane reasoning.

Well, almost…

His comment brings up so many questions: what exactly is “illegitimate rape?” When a woman rejects sex sarcastically? When her attacker rapes her in a certain location? As far as I, and hopefully most other people with common sense know, uteri and fallopian tubes don’t have the capability of self-realization. I’ve never heard a case of ovaries yelling, “We’re under attack! Shut the whole thing down!” to their reproductive-system comrades.

Reviews say that the take away from his new book is that despite his apology immediately following the comments in 2012, Akin is legitimately not sorry. Apology redacted.

But not actually…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jennifer Moo via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Todd Akin Needs to Legitimately Stop Talking appeared first on Law Street.