Carbofuran (Furadan)

National Geographic headliner for health this week revolves around poisoned lions in Kenya. As I watched the video Lions Poisoned in Kenya I began to focus on the food web and the different plans of recovery for the affected species (specifically addressing scavengers and lions). Recorded moments of dying vultures and lions made me contemplate about how many other animals in the tropics could be be affected by the pesticide Furadan or Carbofuran (which is widely available in Kenya). Carbofuran is highly toxic and can be used inappropriately. I was disturbed at the assumption that the herdsmen were to be blamed for this tragedy. I expect that the motive is for survival, but the outcome causes more harm. My heart is torn because the issue is far more complicated. Human culture is taught to favor the lions, the hippos, and the vultures since they are widely recognized. A certain type of competitive hierarchy is built which is easily influenced by the media and society. How does human culture measure importance?

Another topic I was thinking about is the:

Diversity in the Tropics

There are several reasons or theories-- physical and historical, to why tropical diversity is high. For example, tropical areas are less seasonal (warm to hot and moist year round), and they sit in the equatorial sections of the world. The source of it all depends on the Earth's tilt and movement. This in turn affects biodiversity in certain regions. Kenya has a tropical ecosystem that provides evolution to progress at a quicker pace. In addition animals specialize in food sources. Historically, there are less interruption with ice sheets and climate change (temperature plays a large role in biodiversity).

Although this may be true for an area such as Kenya, lions are large mammals who need improvement in survival and reproduction. If Carbofuran has a detrimental effect on large mammals, how concerned should humans be? Is it not interesting that down the line, the goal to survive actually makes a turn and attacks those who have initiated the problem.

Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

Lost in the midst of the Inauguration craze last week was the approval by the FDA for an embryonic stem cell trial, marking the first tests in human from such cells. While it may not be a coincidence that the approval came the same week as a new administration promoting change took office, researchers and biologists alike can rejoice in this breakthrough decision, allowing further embryonic research 10 years after its possibilities were first discovered.

This first clinical trial will explore the treatment of spinal chord injuries, a project put on hold last March in leu of sufficient data. Paid for and conducted by the biotechnology company Geron, doctors explored the long term effects of the use of embryonic cells and provided video evidence of the treatment restoring motility in paralyzed laboratory mice. While their research may have been amongst the largest proposals presented to the FDA, many feel that it was President Obama's promise to loosen the grasp the Bush administration had over embryonic stem cell funding.

While the article itself does not provide much in the way of the science involved, it does cite the different organization and researchers/doctors involved in this medical breakthrough. The reporter also included some alternatives to embryonic methods developed over the past decade, alternatives that can avoid the controversies surrounding the obtaining and use of human embryos.

( F.D.A. Approves Stem Cell Trial )

More Research on Slowing Aging

This press release for an article published in the January 21 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reminded me a lot of what we discussed last class.

Apparently three researchers at Brown have found a fruit fly gene that extend the life span of the flies from ~35 days to ~70 days. They first found this "I'm not dead yet" gene in 2000, but it wasn't until recently that they understood how it worked.

Essentially they now know that the gene/genes are altering the metabolism of the flies such that free radical levels in the flies cells decrease. Free radicals can damage cells and, in turn, shorten life spans.

This study makes me want to research what has been published on the impact of antioxidants on human health. I've always heard eating foods rich in antioxidants (like pomegranates, blueberries, and red grapes) helps to reduce free radicals, but how much does one really need to eat in order to see a health impact?

New Twist on Nature/Nurture Argument

The debate about how the genetic makeup and surrounding environment influence an organism's development is often described as the Nature vs. Nurture debate, but evidence from a variety of sources is increasingly showing that this discussion should be phrased more accurately as "Nature and Nurture". But even this reformulation leaves something to be desired, because of how the environmental impact on one's genes is often portrayed. Research being conducted by Dr. Art Petronis at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is giving a deeper insight into how complex the interaction between one's environment and genetic profile really is. Genes are traditionally thought of as more or less unchanging (except for the natural deterioration of gene function associated with age), and one's environment is described as the element that determines how and which genes are expressed in a given organism. Dr. Petronis' study of epigenetic factors--molecules that attach to DNA and alter how it is expressed--is helping to piece together important puzzles, such as why one identical twin will develop a disease while the other does not. His research is showing that one's environment not only determines which genes are expressed, but that the environment can chemically alter an individual's genes, and hence how the are expressed, in subtle but important ways. The most fascinating part is that Dr.Petronis has been able to show that these epigenetic factors are partially heritable, meaning that we are all born not only with our DNA, but also the environmental agents that can change how it functions. Pretty weird stuff.

"A compound in women's armpit extract could potentially open the door to sniffable contraceptives"

A nice article on human pheromones in this weeks Nature.

What do you think?
Any questions you would ask the author if you could?
Why do you think it has been so difficult to find pheromones in humans?

Thanks to Dave Plachetzki!

Obesity Benefits Big Oil

This is a portion of a blog I wrote for Miller-McCune Magazine's website...

Two University of Illinois researchers estimate that as many as 1 billion gallons of fuel are consumed each year in the United States due to excess weight in the American population.
The recently published study in the journal Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment says between 734 million and 1.104 billion gallons of fuel could be saved annually through improved fuel economy if weights of all overweight, obese and extremely obese Americans could be reduced to their maximum normal body mass index. Quantitatively, that's a large volume of fuel, but compared to the 75 billion gallons consumed by passenger vehicles each year in America, it's a relatively small percentage.
Jacobson and King recognize that the 1 billion gallons of gasoline translates to only about 0.8 percent of the fuel consumed annually by noncommercial passenger vehicles in America; however, this small amount equates to approximately 9.71 million metric tons of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere each year. That's equivalent to taking 1.7 million passenger cars and light trucks off the road for a year.

More Fox News - so juicy!

Now Fox News is ready to tackle a REAL health issue - extended breastfeeding. There are a lot of random assertions without any scientific backing on this episode but what struck me the most was the cutoff date for breastfeeding suggested by the interviewed psychotherapist, Dr. Virginia Klein (BTW - not a child psychologist) . She said that breastfeeding should end when the child can chew. This occurs before the first birthday for most children which puts her cutoff earlier than the earliest weaning age recommended by the American Association of Pediatricians (1 year) and the World Health Organization (2 years). Breastfeeding longer than 2 years has been shown to possibly have some benefits. For example, nursing toddlers may have fewer and less severe illnesses. There are no studies showing any psychological detriment to extended breastfeeding. Not a lot of studies have been done on this, though, so there is really no way to know.
Perhaps instead of pushing her personal opinion on a health segment, Dr. Klein should have advocated for more research on the subject.