Longevity(Exceptional) - the genes have it

This recent press release has caused a world wide stir, with critics pointing out flaws in the analyses, though with the caveat that the identified flaws did not disprove the conclusions but raised questions that needed further investigation. In that link the researcher states his own research also identifies 150 specific markers in the exceptionally long lived. This more critical analysis though suggests the whole methodological approach is up the creek with one scientist quoted as saying the paper should not have been published because all the conclusions are suspect. The question is: Do we now know enough to enable people to realistically aim at extending their healthy lifespan? Not with studies like the above, but when the current centenarians were born people were only just becoming interested in the work of the quiet monk, Gregor Mendel, who pioneered modern genetics. Today we know so much more, and there is sufficient information to suggest it is possible to increase our lifespan and avoid illness. It is still a numbers game but we can play with the odds. First, some more of these genetic studies ... .

Diabetes Mediated by Pollution

This news release reminded me of this prior research which prompted me to think about this research. Then I found this and  this and this and this  and this which of course led to the obvious hypothesis being thus  and thus (full text available at link)all of which reminded of this recent research news wherein they still fail to recognise the obvious hypothesis. Take note from the last reference:

One striking observation is that obese persons that do not have elevated POPs are not at elevated risk of diabetes, suggesting that the POPs rather than the obesity per se is responsible for the association.

At a personal level I find this quite incredible because several years ago I wrote up a report for an environmental group wherein I argued that the compounds found in many electronic components were known to be toxic and needed to be safely disposed of instead of being put in landfill. The Queensland Environmental Protection Agency laughed at my report. Idiots, it was the obvious hypothesis back then, if only because several countries had already passed legislation to address the issue.

All that is a friggin disaster.

2- Enriched environment, stress, inhibits cancer?

In a previous post I mentioned the new research showing how an enriched environment can markedly impede the development of cancer. This research, the abstract of which is available here. (This research is concordant with research I earlier addressed, you can read it here.)The results of this current research indicate that a key variable is leptin. Leptin is a hormone released by fat cells(and other cells) that suppresses appetite. When writing up that previous post I was in a hurry so did not have time to think about it. As I driving over to a friend's place I had a petit epiphany, realising that there could very well be a linkage between the findings of this study and another post I put up on the same day that indicated regular coffee consumption is associated with cancer reduction. The typical assumption is that coffee confers this protection because it is extremely high in antioxidants, but together with the above research we can see another way in which coffee exerts its anti-cancer effects. There are some important lessons here, both in relation to the dangers of extrapolation when dealing with complex adaptive systems and the need to constantly re-evaluate our assumptions. I know, whilst thinking about this during the week I made some silly logical errors.

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

bad science
Dr. Ben Goldacre
Fourth Estate - London, 2008
Website: Bad Science


Purpose of this text: to inform the general public about how to better understand modern biomedical news and in particular health related news. He is a British doctor and keeps his focus on the British scene but his lessons are universal and badly needed. In an earlier post  I  made some comments on the chapter in this text "Professor Patrick Holford".

This is a very important book. If you have never read a text on how to read and understand biomedical literature yet read biomedical literature you should read this text.

Professor Patrick Holford - Nutrition Nonsense

The other day I picked up this text and late last night decided to read the chapter Professor Patrick Holford because I read a book of his some years ago. Ben Goldacre is a British doctor who writes regularly for the Guardian and has taken up the challenge of addressing all the kookiness out there in relation to health advice. Good on him, high time the medical profession put some effort into attacking the multitude of spurious nutrition advice out there. I may provide a full review of "Bad Science" later but for now I will focus on this Patrick Holford character.

Coffee and Cancer

Coffee used to be regarded as a dangerous substance. The research is now clearly pointing out that coffee can confer a great many benefits. This video from Healthday puts forward the results of some surprising research showing that regular coffee consumption is protective against a range of cancers.

Enriched environment, stress, inhibits cancer?

This report from the Ohio State University Medical Center presents some challenging ideas in relation to stress and cancer. It has been assumed that cancer patients should avoid stress, this advice being predicated on the common presumption that any stress suppresses the immune response. That idea is not correct, it is sustained stress that inhibits the immune response, but mild intermittent stress can have a positive effect on the immune response. I have previously addressed this issue in this post. This recent research again highlights the complexity of immune responses and how we still have much to learn.

For an excellent overview of their research these neuroscientists have provided a good video which you can view below. It is great to see scientists using these resources to communicate their findings to the public. We are witnessing a revolution in the dissemination of scientific information.

I have some other ideas I wish to follow up with this study so I may edit this post later. For now though, read the news article above and watch the video. Good stuff.

The Universe: A Biography

The Universe: A Biography

John Gribbin
Allen Lane, 2006

Links:

Cosmos Review
Amazon
New Statesman Review

John Gribbin is an astrophysicist with an uncanny ability to communicate his love for cosmology in an accessible and entertaining manner. If you are not familiar with cosmology then this book is an excellent starting point. Unlike Re-inventing Gravity which addresses the specific issue of gravity and goes into some technical detail, this text takes you along for the ride in a non-technical explanation of cosmology. If you are not familiar with the subject matter, it is better to start with this text before moving on to Re-inventing Gravity.

The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century

The Modern Mind: An intellectual history of the 20th Century
Peter Watson
Perennial, London, 2001

Links:

Amazon
Wiki entry on the author


This work is a remarkable scholarly achievement. The author admits he cannot cover in detail all the relevant ideas of the last century yet he does an excellent job in providing the reader with a sweeping panorama of 20th century thought.

The writing is lucid and entertaining, though at times I found some of the material covered tedious. That is to be expected, a coverage of this extent is bound to leave the individual reader with pages tedious to read. That is not the author's fault, it is just a function of human behavior. This is a valulable text, one that should be read in its entirety and then kept handy as a reference source.

The Intelligent Universe by James Gardner

I have long toyed with the idea that intelligence is embedded in the universe, it is not an emergent property but an intrinsic property. Materialists will resile at that idea but they can eat my shorts. As I like to say, how is it that in this materialist universe our most powerful tools are ideas?

I have long been sceptical of the strict materialist position because I have always found the probabilities of life emerging, let alone the marvellous complexity and diversity of life, as being so improbable that Hoyle's famous comment about life arising by chance being akin to a hurricane going through a junkyard and creating an aircraft in the process to be a reasonable argument. There is an important caveat here and it is this: when confronted with mysteries don't embrace ghosts to deal with the mystery. Acknowledge the mystery but don't second guess it.