OT: Darfur breaks my heart

We will look back on this and hang our heads in shame. It breaks my heart now. We must stop this - and by "we" I mean the world - my generation.

BBC NEWS Africa UN warns of new Darfur disaster

OT: Berry, berry stupid

The smart folks over at Tufts thought that berries might contain chemicals that were good for cognition. How to test this? They decided to go with rats who live in tiny cages and swim mazes. I think the Tuftians need to eat some more berries or something.

Given that blueberries and strawberries are sold widely as foods, why in the world would you need to test this hypothesis using rats who live in tiny shoe boxes before being killed and tossed in the dumpster? Surely there are already older people who eat different amounts of berries (epidemiological research), or would be willing to do so just to have the free food (clinical research)? Has anyone ever argued that berries are unhealthy? Bad for cognitive performance?

This just makes no sense to me. We are testing a hypothesis that is almost nonsensical in rats - and it costs them their lives. And we leave the translational research decades out. If there is no risk to humans (blueberries aren't a controlled substance as far as I know) and a potential benefit, why not cut right ot the chase and serve granny some fruit? FDA won't let them put the sticker on their berry baskets until there's a double-blind placebo-controlled human trial anyway...

See Tuftian nonsense berry article here: Berries beneficial for brains

To see similar examples of fruitless fruit testing, and a list of companies that do not test their fruit products on animals, check out http://www.caringconsumer.com/products_juice.asp

Self harm: who does it and why?

In the last year, multiple studies of self-harm, especially self-mutilation and self-cutting, have shown that this phenomenon is far more common among young people in the US and the UK than previously estimated. For one, data have historically been based on cases where the individual presents for medical care. The majority of cases go undetected and untreated.

According to the authors of this study, students reported that self-harm was associated with distress, and in some cases serious psychological issues.

'The reasons why boys and girls decide to self-harm are varied but the most frequent motive expressed by both males and females was as a means of coping with distress,' said Dr Rodham.
...
Self-harm was more common in pupils who had been bullied and was strongly associated with physical and sexual abuse in both sexes."

We know that self harm is also common in laboratory animals, including monkeys. Studies in large federally-funded primate colonies indicate that the vast majority of monkeys engage in abnormal behaviors such as rocking and pacing (Range: 89-99%). However, 25% or more engage in self-injurious behaviors including self-biting and banging their heads against their cages. As with the human data, a smaller proportion of those who self-injured actually received "professional" care, i.e. veterinary care in the case of monkeys, as a result of their injuries (about 11%).

The risk factors for abnormal and self-injurious behaviors include 1) separation from the mother before the natural age of weaning, 2) the age at which an individual was first place in an isolation cage, 3) the length of time that an individual has been caged, and 4) the frequency and intensity of experimental procedures conducted on the monkeys. Clearly, the self-injury is associated with early and persistent trauma.

Given the risk factors above and the insights from the Rodham study , it is clear to see that self-injurious behaviors by monkeys and humans are associated with distress and trauma.

See full release at: One in ten teenage girls have self-harmed, study shows

References for factoids about self-mutilation in monkeys noted above:

Bellanca R. and Crockett C. Factors Predicting Increased Incidence of Abnormal Behavior in Male Pigtailed Macaques. Am. J. Primatol. 58(2) (2002) : 57-69.

Brent L, Koban T, and Ramirez S. 2002. "Abnormal, Sbusive, and stress-related Behaviors in Baboon Mothers." Biol Psychiatry 52(11): 1047-1056.

Lutz C., Well A., and Novak M. Stereotypic and Self-Injurious Behavior in Rhesus Macaques: A Survey and Retrospective Analysis of Environment and Early Experience. Am. J. Primatol. 60(1) (2003) : 1-15.

Novak M. Self-Injurious Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys: New Insights Into Its Etiology, Physiology, and Treatment. Am. J. Primatol. 59(1) (2003) : 3-19.

OT: What women want

Who the hell thinks that women are sitting around pining for video games? Nice of a man who makes his living selling games to claim as much. Believe me - if women wanted video games, we'd make them or let our wants be known. A woman needs a video game (like she needs a man), like a fish needs a bicycle.

Notably, Gardner seems to use the words "women" and "girls" almost interchangeably. What patronizing, misinformed drivel.

BBC NEWS Technology Games industry is 'failing women'

Animal Emotions: Dogs

No one who has ever had a dog in his/her family ever doubted this!

Jilted dogs feel intense jealousy, new study reveals

Study Provides Evidence That Autism Affects Functioning of Entire Brain, August 16, 2006 News Release - National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Several investigators use animal models of autism whereby the parts of the brain responsible for processing social cues are destroyed surgically or chemically. Clearly, brain injury is something quite different than the effects of a condition with a strong genetic component. The absence of a thing (say that big chunk of brain) is very different than a version of that thing that works differently than the norm. Besides the inherent cruelty of these experiments, which often involve taking the baby monkey away from his or her mother, the model is a really poor fit - and we could surmise that even when we thought that autism only affected very specific areas of the brain.

And now, it seems, investigations of human children with autism reveal that the entire brain is affected. So what do we have now from the cruel monkey experiments. We have lots of data that mean nothing and hundreds of monkeys who will suffer their entire lives in cages with damaged cognitive and emotional skills that might help them process and cope with their fate. And, of course, the American Taxpayers have foot the bill for this cruel and fruitless endeavor and these monkey experiments have diverted time and human capital from human studies that are so vitally needed. Nice work.

Clinicians who work with children who have autism and those who invest their time and energy in thoughtful studies aimed at understanding the capacities and needs of these children deserve our thanks, and they deserve the financial support that is now squandered on animal models of austism.


Study Provides Evidence That Autism Affects Functioning of Entire Brain, August 16, 2006 News Release - National Institutes of Health (NIH)

OT: A rose by any other name...

Read more about friendship, love and grief in elephant society.


Scientists see depth of elephant feelings - Science - Specials - smh.com.au

TGN1412 - What the hell happened?

NEJM has published an article which chronicles the events in the 30 days after dosing with the experimental drug, TGN1412, in six healthy volunteers. All went into multi-organ failure.

Pre-clinical studies in monkeys showed two mild side effects: irritation at the injection site and a mild swelling of the lymph nodes in some animals. These effects were mils, despite the fact that they received considerably higher concentrations of the drug.

Compare that to the long list of effects shown in Table 3 of the NEJM article! These include:

Capillary leak
Hemodynamic instability
Lactic acidemia
Early acute renal impairment
Acute pulmonary changes (six patients)
Met criteria for acute lung injury (two patients)
Met criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (one patient)
Lymphopenia
Monocytopenia
Thrombocytopenia
Disseminated intravascular coagulation
Normochromic, normocytic anemia
Delirium
Partial amnesia
Paresthesia or localized numbness
Difficulty concentrating (late)
Headaches (early and late)
Nausea or vomiting

Differences between humans and the animals used in preclinical studies are identified as factors that ultimately lead to this disaster - because the effects were not predicted by the results of the animal experiments.

Link to full article below.

NEJM -- Cytokine Storm in a Phase 1 Trial of the Anti-CD28 Monoclonal Antibody TGN1412

The Whole Truth - or at least JAMA's version of it

JAMA has amped up the language in its disclosure policy, but doesn't think that publication bans should be levied against authors who violate these rules. Rather, they leave that to the administration of the alleged perpetrator's institution.

There is no reason to preclude responses by both bodies if, in fact, the policies of both were violated. Since publication is a currency that every author/investigator understands, and it is the arena of conduct in question, it makes sense that the response to publication misconduct take place in the realm of publication.

"The fact is that if editors demand strict standards of reporting as a condition of acceptance, investigators will meet those standards, and the standards will become the norm for how science is conducted."

(Rennie D. The present state of medical journals. Lancet. 1998 Oct; 352(Suppl 2):SII18-22.)

Laying out clear guidelines is an important first step. It's not the only step needed, however. Editors and publishers must be prepared to respond to violations of their policies directly quickly and fairly.

Over at the Nature blog on peer review, an unquestionably serious response is encouraged:

"There is little enforcement of current disclosure policies. Adopting policies that ban authors and their institutions from publishing for some period of time at the journal where the offense occurred would encourage disclosure."


Whether by the home institution, the funding agency or bodies associated with publication, responses need to be fair. Recent research on the perceptions and practice of misconduct indicate that investigators who perceive policies as unfair are more likely to "push the envelope of integrity."
(Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, deVries R. 2006. Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. J Emp Res Hum Res Ethics 1(1):51-66.)

An inadequate response to misconduct could be perceived as unfair by other authors, and may serve to create or perpetuate a culture of misconduct.

Indeed, making investigators and authors aware of the correlations and rationalizations of misconduct may help editors, administrators and peers identify, evaluate and report misconduct. This knowledge might also help investigators become more aware of their own thinking and their own biases, and ultimately prevent or minimize misconduct.

JAMA does publish corrections and even letters of apology from offending authors, but is that enough? I don't think so. The folks over at the American Journal of Bioethics don't seem convinced either:

"Having to publish corrections of data that wasn’t disclosed may be embarrassing, but the disclosure of such data is still very much a hit or miss affair. Requiring complete disclosure might help some, as might a few large verdict civil cases." (emphasis mine)

I think JAMA is moving in the right direction, but may be underestimating how quickly they could affect change through direct action. Really, because every article, "can and should have impact on patient care," time is of the essence. See the whole piece, here:

JAMA -- The Influence of Money on Medical Science, August 7, 2006, DeAngelis 0 (2006): 296.8.jed60051

Related posts:

Repeat offense: when author misconduct is editorial misconduct

Journal warns about article

Ethical retraction

Lies and coverups

"Little" ethical lapses

External Resources:

21 Cognitive Strategies To Justify Unethical Behavior

Drug companies accused of manipulation

'The main aim of drug companies is to sell a drug -- they don't deny that -- and our main aim is to help people,' Clarke said. 'Those two things don't always go together. "

How do we get good and fair drug trials in a system that is driven by profit and shrouded in secrecy?

Why do we rely on a system where 92% of drugs that enter human clinical trials fail? These miserable rates of failure don't even begin to address the drugs that are abandoned at earlier stages of discovery and testing.

Aussie claims drug trials are trash

TGN1412: Disastrous drug trial victim has cancer

And I bet he was just starting to think it couldn't get any worse.

Disastrous drug trial victim has cancer

to do nothing or share?

An interesting interpretation of where we all eventually find ourselves when we learn that something has gone wrong (event) or plain old just is wrong (state) and others are suffering:

To study psychological trauma means bearing witness to horrible events. When the events are natural disasters or “acts of God,” those who bear witness sympathize readily with the victim. But when the traumatic events are of human design, those who bear witness are caught in the conflict between victim and perpetrator. It is morally impossible to remain neutral in this conflict. The bystander is forced to take sides.


It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the
burden of pain.

Judith Herman, M.D.
Trauma and Recovery: from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror

Conduct Unbecoming

"Last month, a group of scientists published a review of research on vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), a controversial treatment for depression. But the article, published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, omitted an important detail: All the authors are paid advisers to the company that manufactures a device for VNS that was approved last year by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."

Oh yeah. The primary author is also the editor. And former big wig at the society that publishes the journal.

"The episode has raised a stir at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), publisher of the journal, which has promised an investigation as soon as lead author Charles B. Nemeroff--who is also editor-in-chief of the journal--returns from a vacation in South Africa. " The lions there might be kinder than the audience he'll face when he gets back from his safari.

Oh. And he has been called on the carpet before for failing to disclose financial interests that could affect his scientific objectivity. This made waves in the scientific and popular media.

Nature Neuroscience
New York Times
Washington Monthly

Nemeroff gets millions of dollars from the National Institutes of Mental Health (taxpayer dollars no less) in addition to the payments he accepts from various drug and medical device firms. As Chair of Psychiatry, I'm sure he gets a healthy salary and benefits package to begin with.

And he has a decades-long legacy of conducting cruel maternal deprivation experiments with monkeys (roughly 1-2 million dollars per year for these in the last five years alone).

Despite all of this...he receives kudos from his scientific colleagues for his productivity.

Apparently ethics don't matter when you are highly cited.

Article available in this week's issue of Science (subscription required)

OT: Duh! Research that states the obvious

Every day I read announcements about new research results that appear to state the obvious. Of course we need to question our assumptions when we do science, but do we really need to spend time and money to "prove" some of this stuff? Here are three recent examples.

When people make irrational decisions, emotions are involved. DUH
Irrational decisions driven by emotions. By definition, they aren't based on rational thoughts. Are they made by aliens controlling our minds?

Apes are more intelligent than monkeys. DUH.
Apes, not monkeys, ace IQ tests. A co-author was quoted as saying the conclusions were "reassuring." Reassuring? Like there was any doubt? I don't know any primatologist or biological anthropologist who has ever claimed this wasn't true. Given that the results were drawn from reviewing hundreds of previously published papers, what else could be expected? Methods haven't been improved or changed. There were no new hypotheses or predictions being tested. Of course the outcome is going to be the same.

People who can't read well have a hard time understanding medical consent forms. DUH. Low literacy increases...misunderstanding of medical consent. People who are strong readers and well educated don't understand them either. If you can't read Dick and Jane, are you going to understand all the legalese in the forms?

It's even worse when it comes to animal experiments. You get total crap like "diet and exercise affect body weight" (Stop the presses! Someone notify Jenny Craig!) and "some individuals are more active than others." DUH. Double DUH. Did anyone actually think that all individuals of *any* species had the same activity level? Does anyone actually think that meaningful activity is possible in such a highly confined environment? A monkey might be able to pace or spin, but that's behavioral pathology, not an individual preference for a higher-than-average activity level.

DUH! experiments are wasteful and tarnish the public's perception of science. When DUH! experiments also involve animal cruelty, they tarnish the reputation of humanity.

Chernobyl monkeys

Monkeys die horrible deaths from lethal radiation.

“The primates that [sic] did not receive the drug suffered “multiple severe abnormalities and injuries,” as a result of the irradiation, according to the statement.

What is it like to suffer and die of radiation poisoning?

OT: Jane Goodall Institute starts "geoblog"

Jane Goodall Institute Advances First 'Geoblog' Featuring 'Chimp Soap Opera'

How cool is that?

Chimp killed by bite from rattler

Chimp killed by bite from rattler

So much for the theory that the ability to see snakes was a driving force behind primate evolution. Our lemur cousins fare no better:

"... snake-related deaths of zoo animals are
rare. Seven years ago, a pair of lemurs died
from snakebites, he said. "

As for the delay in responding to the bite, and calling the reptile house for advice instead of a veterinarian for emergency administration of anti-venom...it's just another example of how exhibitioners who claim to have animal interests and conservation at heart are actually driven by dollars and image/PR.

Words of wisdom...

...about the mental and emotional lives of animals.

"Because animals can enjoy life, our moral obligations to them are greater. We may not have an obligation to provide pleasure to animals, but actively depriving them of the opportunity to fulfill natural pleasures - as we do when we cage or kill them - is another matter. As we awaken to the rich landscapes of animal sentience, it only follows that lobster tanks and foie gras are on their way out. "

Here, here! The entire piece is eloquent and compelling. Read more for yourself!

In our dealings with animals, good feelings count