The Iron Ring

This past weekend my boyfriend and I babysat my beautiful, tiny 4 month-old niece on Saturday night and she was perfect! No screaming or crying for four hours, nothing but smiles and playing and I think we love her even more! So I am dedicating this post to her, and I intend to write a bit about the chemicals that make us love babies, and make babies love us, and how mothers and babies can help promote each other’s health just by being near. (This picture is my sister and my niece about 18 hours after she was born in May)

There is a hormone called ‘oxytocin’ that has been associated with love, not just the love we feel for tiny babies, but also romantic love, particularly for those of us mammals who are monogamous (a mere 5%).

For mothers and babies, oxytocin plays a special role. In women, oxytocin levels rise even during pregnancy, turning us literally into maternal creatures. As the baby arrives, oxytocin stimulates uterine contractions as well as the secretion of breast milk and it is used clinically in labor and delivery. And when mothers hold their babies, particularly tiny ones (under 5 months), their oxytocin levels increase, and their blood pressure goes down. When mother holds child, not only does oxytocin kick in for both of them, but so does dopamine, a powerful dose of pleasure in the brain.

As it turns out, we don’t just crave maternal contact, we actually need it.

The same effects happen when couples spend time together too, with a direct link between levels of oxytocin, and physical contact between couples; such as hugging or holding hands. The good news for women is that these rises in oxytocin cause decreases in blood pressure as well as decreases in the stress hormone norepinephrine. And guess what? The same effects don’t happen in men.

I suppose this explains my wonderful weekend; between my niece and my man I was swimming in dopamine.

An article appearing in Scientific American discusses the unrealized potential of a new field called ‘Pharmacogenomics’, defined as ‘applying genetics to medicine’. The idea is that we are all a bit different on a genetic scale, and if we could figure out some of the ways we are different, we could begin to prescribe medicines based on those differences. For example, maybe only one in ten people will benefit from a particular drug but we have no way of separating the people who will benefit from those who will not. But what if we had a test for a biomarker that would tell us who would benefit? The problem is these biomarkers are not that easy to find, we are left with reams of data explaining our genetic differences with little ability to connect that to how we would respond to

One of the reasons the field has not matured as we would hope is because for a long time the FDA did not explicitly outline how companies might go about getting approval based on their tests for biomarkers. But this past March they came out with such guidelines, so now the onus falls back onto the companies.

And they have little to no incentive to move to this pharmacogenomic model, as it would severely limit their customer base for a given medicine. For example, imagine how drug commercials would change- would they disappear? Why market to everyone when people will be going to the doctor for a genetic screen to decide which drug to take?

But on the other hand, the system would decrease the number of people with adverse effects as well. Suppose a genetic screen could have outlined who would and wouldn’t benefit from Vioxx? That would not only have saved money but also lives.

So what is the reason for the lack of realization of this potential? Is it lack of international cooperation among scientists? Is it because drug companies believe they stand to lose money if we move to this more personalized model? It may be necessary for governments to offer incentives to pharmaceutical companies to make this major change.

Appearing this week in Science is a piece entitled, ‘Integrity in International Stem Cell Research Collaborations’ which explores issues surrounding transnational research collaborations when different countries view the stem cell issue in widely varying ways. It seems one major issue was that of extraterritorial jurisdiction; or in other words, can a country control what its scientists do when they are outside their borders.

Apparently, some countries can (and do) and others do not. For example, German researchers do not seem to have the right to engage in human embryonic stem cell research, even if on British soil, whereas Italian scientists may do so, provided they are not actually in Italy.

Perhaps even more curious is the question of ethical responsibilities of scientific journals. How much information is the journal required to know in regards to the origin of these scientific materials; ie, the informed consent process in regards to donations of embryos, gametes, etc.? Further, if the research collaboration occurred outside of a scientist’s home country, can the publications resulting from that collaboration be taken into account for promotions, awards, etc.?

It would seem a bit unfair that a scientist could somehow circumvent the law by approaching international collaborators and producing research in another country. In this case, it would not seem fair to consider those publications when judging that scientist against their collaborators in their home country. But how different is this from the process of collaboration in general? If a scientist wishes to move forward in a direction that requires equipment or supplies that they cannot afford, they reach out to researchers who have those materials, often times in different departments or universities. Can we consider living in a country that permits human embryonic stem cell research to be simply having more resources?


***as a follow up, appearing today (8/18/06) in the NYTimes is an article describing how American scientists are moving to Singapore to conduct stem cell research.

Good news! My lab has officially moved to our new building! We are no longer located in a basement! And the best part of is that I have a view now, I have about a foot of window space at eye level when I am at my desk where I can just see the top of the Palestra. This is living. The picture I’ve included here was taken from the roof of the new building this past weekend by one of our new lab neighbors.

All my excitement about my new light got me thinking about Seasonal Affective Disorder (http://www.nmha.org/infoctr/factsheets/27.cfm). As I grew up in a relatively cold climate I am familiar with the disorder, the symptoms of which are depression due to lack of light.

The exact physiologic mechanism of SAD is still under investigation. What is known is that it has something to do with the body’s internal clock, the ‘circadian’ rhythm, and it also has something to do with melatonin. The body produces the hormone in darkness, and it is depleted in light. People with SAD don’t destroy melatonin properly and the excess causes changes in circadian rhythm and depression. The disorder is usually treated by use of a light box.

What I found on this mayo clinic website is that the benefits of light box therapy only occur if the light hits the eyes directly; it won’t work to just be exposed to the skin. However, the light needs to enter your eyes indirectly, as direct light is damaging to the eyes.

I still find it fascinating that hormones play such a critical role in neurological pathways; for example, we learned all about cortisol this spring in Neuropharmacology. I think it not only indicates the complexity of the central nervous system, but also that studying it in isolation will likely leave out major pathways. I hope I am not revealing too much when I say (for example) that I am on a medication that is traditionally used to treat depression but I am on a very low dose that is designed to affect a completely different system altogether......

HOLA
Todays post comes from the other side of the world, I am in Buenos Aires, Argentina and I apologize if my punctuation is not so good. Among other things, I cannot seem to be able to type a question mark.

Having little time for reading things online, I would like to write today about a little bit of science that relates to my travels, namely, the myth that toilets and other bodies of water move in a different direction in the Southern hemisphere.

Before I explain why that is not true, let me say the toilet I frequent here does not move in a circle at all, in fact the water seems to rush in from all directions and then move directly out the back of the bowl. Its impressive, actually, and also a bit tempermental.

As the myth goes, toilets swirl one way in the north and another in the south due to something called the Coriolis effect. In fact, the coriolis effect is a real thing, that does effect large bodies of water such as hurricanes, http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html. It is also the effect noted when a projectile is launched from the poles, as the earth moves under it, the projectile will not land directly where it was aimed. But our toilets are too small to feel the effects of Coriolis, and our sinks are too tiny to feel the effects of the rotation of the earth.

One thing that IS opposite down here are the seasons, it is definitely winter here and I am wearing my hat and gloves! With any luck Ill be able to throw in a picture or two tomorrow

ADIOS

Before I sink my teeth into today's post, I want to include a link to a peice that I wrote that is printed in the August issue of "The Scientist" which just came out online. (http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/24093/) Its short, but it was really interesting for me to write because I got to call up Invitrogen and interview someone there about their dyes.

Moving on- my attention was drawn today to a news story surrounding Aubrey Blumsohn, who is a professor at Sheffield University in England. Blumsohn was involved in a collaboration with Proctor and Gamble in which he claims P&G withheld access to key data and tried to attach his name to the analysis anyway (http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/)

The article has details that would be unnecessary to repeat here. The gist of it is that Proctor and Gamble seemed to have a clear idea of what the outcome of the studies needed to be, and were insistent on presenting that vision regardless of what Blumsohn reported. In fact, they made it difficult for Blumsohn to present anything at all by withholding information and keeping him essentially ‘blinded’ in his analysis.

In other words, P&G was interested in buying a name; Sheffield University, Aubrey Blumsohn, etc, to attach authority to their results.

If this bothers you, imagine for a moment how it is different from how drug reps interact with physicians. I read an article in The Atlantic recently about drug reps, and the doctors who claim they are not affected by them (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200604/drug-reps)

But they are affected by them, and the statistics prove it.

“From 1996 to 2001 the pharmaceutical sales force in America doubled, to a total of 90,000 reps. One reason is simple: good reps move product. Detailing is expensive, but almost all practicing doctors see reps at least occasionally, and many doctors say they find reps useful. One study found that for drugs introduced after 1997 with revenues exceeding $200 million a year, the average return for each dollar spent on detailing was $10.29. That is an impressive figure. It is almost twice the return on investment in medical-journal advertising, and more than seven times the return on direct-to-consumer advertising.”

It’s clear that for better or worse, a delicate drug rep-physician balance exists, but what about academia? What’s especially bad about the Blumsohn scandal is that Sheffield University was not just complacent; they actually encouraged Blumsohn not to disrupt the flow of money coming from P&G.

What is the difference between investing in drug reps for physicians and investing in research grants as a means to an already determined end?

In this month’s Scientific American is an article about the expert mind. While most us go on believing that experts have innate abilities, this article completely debunks that idea, claiming, via the model of chess masters, that experts are trained, not born.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

The article claims that the difference between those of us who become concert cellists, and those of us who spend six years in the Penn Orchestra sitting no higher than fourth chair (ahem) is something they call ‘effortful’ learning. In other words, those of us destined to become experts are adept at challenging themselves, always pushing to perform the hardest sonata, solve the most difficult problem, and beat the greatest chess master whereas most of us settle for baseline ability. The example given is learning how to drive. Most of us learn well enough to pass our road tests and not kill ourselves on the road and so we’re happy. An ‘expert’ would continue challenging themselves.

Here is my question; isn’t it possible that even if the ability to be an ‘expert’ is not innate, the ability to be an effortful learner is? Perhaps it is not the case that anyone could become an expert, but that anyone is who an expert in something could just as easily have been an expert in something else. It’s certainly a case of nature vs. nurture, since we cannot go back in time and hand Tiger Woods a violin instead of a golf club.

But as the article points out, the real issue raised is that of teaching. If this theory is true, we can no longer go on sorting students by abilities, but rather we need to change the way we challenge each student to help every student become ‘effortful’ learner.