Science Cheerleader » philadelphia inquirer

“Sometimes scientists must make themselves heard.”

Darlene — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:39:58 +0000

Credit: John Overmyer/Phila Inq

Dr. Steven M. Altschuler, chief executive of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, penned this editorial in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. This was written as part of the Philadelphia Science Festival, continuing through April 28.
A good reminder that scientists have valuable information the public ought to learn so they can make better-informed decisions. (What’s not referenced, is that the public often also has valuable information scientists and policy makers ought to consider when assessing risks and societal implications of emerging fields of research and technology.)

Here’s an excerpt from Dr. Altschuler’s piece:

Often, it makes sense to extend their scientific findings beyond our patients and care providers by speaking out on public-health issues.
In the public exchange of ideas, scientists are not voicing just another set of opinions; theirs are backed by peer-reviewed evidence. The famous American physicist Richard Feynman is quoted as saying, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

To be clear, scientists don’t have all the answers; but they do have “evidence-based” information which should trump misinformed opinions and anecdotes.
It’s also important to remember that much of science is an ongoing process full of promise and peril and sometimes conflicting information: “red wine is good for you!” “red wine may increase chances of developing breast cancer.”

Don’t let incompatible media snippets turn you off. The last thing we need is another excuse not to make the effort to become better informed on important research issues. If you’re confused about what you read, dig a little deeper, or simply ask your doctor (or me) to point you to reliable sources of information. Read more about identifying reliable sources of medicine.
The good news is, there are mounting efforts underway to bring together the scientists, policy makers, and the public to confer on a number of emerging research topics such as geoengineering and synthetic biology. Don’t be surprised to receive an invitation to participate in one such effort before too long!
Until then, stay informed and don’t be afraid to ask questions and engage in dialogue with the scientists who are “making themselves heard.” I bet we’ll all learn from each other.

“The Score: How the Quest for Sex Shaped the Modern Man”

Darlene — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:06:54 +0000

Meet Faye Flam, a talented journalist and media personality who makes science sexy AND makes sex “sciencey”. We have much in common though she actually has a degree in science (Physics, CalTech), she’s an amateur circus acrobat, and she’s a much stronger writer than I am (or is it “than me”?).

I met Faye a few months ago, here in Philadelphia where she’s a popular columnist at the Inquirer. Check out the archives of her controversial (although no longer running) column, “Carnal Knowledge,” where you can find answers to practically anything you’ve ever wanted to ask about sex, through the lens of the sciences: anthropology, genetics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, psychology and even botany. That’s right. Botany. Test your Sex IQ with Faye’s Sex Quiz.

Her book, The Score: How the Quest for Sex Shaped the Modern Man was published this summer. I read it at the beach where no fewer than a dozen people offered remarks about my book choice. The most common comment: “What’s to learn? You have four kids don’t you?”

This book is much richer than I anticipated. There’s a terrific storyline to hold the reader’s interest involving a Boot Camp for men who wish to bed women, quickly. But the heart of the book is a deconstruction of evolution down to its primordial form where we learn, through Faye’s wicked sense of humor and gift for analogies, how some species fumbled their way into reproduction while others developed deliberate (sometimes comical) rituals and protocols.

Playgirl gave it this review:

Flam wrestles billions of years of science into an understandable and engrossing narrative, peppered with plenty of anecdotal animal-world examples that will leave you awed and amazed. She answers the burning questions you may or may not have had stewing in the back of your mind since eighth grade like: Why do humans come in (give or take) two sexes, instead of 30,000+ like mushrooms? and Are there gay animals? Plus those that come up regularly at the dinner table like: If we can have babies without sex, do we really need males? and Why, oh why, do men like porn so much more than women like porn?

I asked Faye how she became interested in science and what she thinks about stereotypes placed on scientists.

Science Cheerleader: Can you tell me a little about your earliest interests in science?

Faye: I think I was always interested in science – I thought math was beautiful and amazing from geometry on up. I liked physics and chemistry too. Even when I was little I was interested in nature. My family went on some long-distance sailing trips and sometimes we’d be out at night and my dad would show me how to find the North Star and explain that the Milky way was all made of stars. We also took road trips to the desert where I learned about adaptation.

Science Cheerleader: You are beautiful and some might say you don’t quite represent the face of science. How would you answer such critics?

Faye: I’m not sure how to answer the question about looks. I’m flattered, I think, though I don’t believe there’s really any kind of look that goes with science. That’s one of the great things about science – scientists can be tall or short, skinny or fat, blonde or brown-haired or bald. Scientists can wear cheap glasses frames and buy their clothes from thrift shops. In general I think they set an example of open-mindedness we should all try to emulate.

Thanks, Faye!

Mentally healthy? Go on, pop a pill anyway, say scientists (!?)

Darlene — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:50:18 +0000

We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function. Nature commentary.

Last night, during a lovely baby shower for my friend Catherine, someone mentioned that parents are giving their perfectly healthy children drugs like Adderall and Ritalin to help them focus in school and give them a “competitive advantage.” Sounded absurd. Until this morning when I read an AP article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that opened with this:

“Healthy people should have the right to boost their brains with pills, like those prescribed for hyperactive children or memory-impaired older folks, several scientists contend in a provocative commentary. College students are already illegally taking prescription stimulants such as Ritalin to help them study, and demand for such drugs is likely to grow elsewhere, they say.

As more effective brain-boosting pills are developed, demand for them is likely to grow among middle-aged people who want youthful memory powers and multitasking workers who need to keep track of multiple demands, said one of the commentary’s authors, brain scientist Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania. ‘Almost everybody is going to want to use it,’ Farah said.”

Oh, by the way, it’s a felony to strike deals to obtain prescription drugs. Still as many as 25% of college students do this!

Read the Nature commentary. It provides valuable insight and illuminates one of the many ways innovation and society don’t always travel at the same speed. It also demonstrates why it’s important for us “average citizens” to keep up on these issues–this is heading towards the development of new science policies.

After reading the article, did your opinion on this matter change?

9/08 Philadelphia Inquirer: Crowd Sourcing. Idea Power from the People.

Darlene — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:46:37 +0000

Science Cheerleader featured in Sunday, September 14, 2008 Philadelphia Inquirer article.

Crowdsourcing: A concise description of Citizen Scientists

Darlene — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:59:27 +0000

Just thought I’d share this recent Philadelphia Inquirer article with you. It’s on the concept of Crowdsourcing and you’ll see the Science Cheerleader in there in referenced to how citizen scientists can advance science through Crowdsourcing.

Cheers!

Science Cheerleader’s tips for being less plastic

Darlene — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:45:50 +0000

Being plastic on the outside is tacky. But plastic on the inside might be a killer.

A couple of weeks ago, the National Institutes of Health sided with an independent scientific panel expressing concerns about some possible effects of bisphenol A –an ingredient in plastics–on the brains of fetuses, infants and young children.

Bisphenol A is found in practically everything we use on a daily basis from reusable food containers, to plastic baby bottles to the interior linings of soup cans.

On April 18th, the Canadian government announced plans to ban the import, sale, and advertising of plastic baby bottles containing bisphenol A (the rate of exposure to infant brains is greater than the exposure to larger adult brains). The chemical can disrupt estrogen activities, has been linked to obesity and is suspected of impairing normal brain development.

The FDA and other regulatory authorities worldwide, the plastics industry, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Grocery Manufacturers Association say plastics containing bisphenol A are safe. The ACC says media coverage of the controversy is “unnecessarily confusing and frightening the public.”

Certainly confusing. Who’s a girl to trust here?

And most definitely, frightening. According to this statement ”Recent studies have confirmed that bisphenol A exposure during development has carcinogenic effects and produce precursors of breast cancer.” Yet neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor the International Agency for Research on Cancer have evaluated bisphenol A for a human cancer connection. What gives?

Confused and frightened citizens are demanding answers.

The good news is there are lots of smart people looking into whether or not bisphenol A is harmful to us. I’ll keep an eye on this and report back on developments.

In the interim and in response to consumer concerns, Walmart and Toys-R-Us are pulling from their shelves plastic baby bottles made with bisphenol A. Whole Foods already did in 2006. Playtex Infant Care is distributing one million free no-BPA “Playtex Drop-Ins Original Nurser Systems” bottle liners. And the Energy and Commerce Committee is looking into how and why the FDA approved this chemical.

And here’s what you can do, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

For suspect plastics in general

Avoid placing hot food or liquids in plastic containers.
When heating in a microwave oven, use only cookware labeled “microwave safe.”
Buy products in cardboard cartons instead of plastic containers.
Check recycling codes for clues about plastics components you may want to avoid: Recycling code 7 may mean the product contains bisphenol A.

For bisphenol A

Look for “BPA-free” claims on toys, baby bottles and containers.
Reduce use of canned food.
Avoid polycarbonate and PVC
If you use hard polycarbonate plastics (Nalgene bottles, baby bottles, sippy cups), do not heat or use them for warm or hot liquids.
Do not wash polycarbonate plastic containers in the dishwasher with harsh detergents.

For phthalates

A group of compounds called phthalates has raised concerns similar to those involving BPA.

Look for phthalate-free toys or those approved by the European Union (EU).
Plastic wraps generally should not be heated or placed in a microwave oven.
Avoid synthetic fragrance in personal-care products.
Check nail polish labels.(Phthalates are used in some nail polishes to reduce cracking.)