Cats sense death

This story is a few years old, but no less fascinating. I remember hearing about it on the news several years ago, probably around the time the linked CBS news article was published. But, I came across Oscar the cat's incredible story in a recent Smithsonian magazine article and it rekindled my original astonishment.

Oscar is an orphaned cat that now resides at a Rhode Island nursing home, along with many dementia patients. Somehow, Oscar knows when patients are approaching death. In those final hours, he will wander into the patient's room, jump into their bed and keep watch. Shortly after the patient has passed, Oscar makes his exit.

What fascinates me about this story, is this scientifically unexplained bond between human and animal. Some unknown signal, potentially an undiscovered chemical pheromone, alerts Oscar to the patient's impending death. While it is incredible that Oscar signals the doctors to notify the patient's next of kin, this isn't the most remarkable part of the story. I think it's even more amazing that Oscar seems to give the dying person company in their final moments. It really makes you wonder how much more animals understand about the world that escapes our notice.

Divide and conquer the generations

I watched Friday's Glenn Beck episode on FOX News titled "what are your kids learning?" A portion of it can be found at the website linked into the title. All I can say, is that I was pretty disturbed by the content of the show.

Al Gore, the former vice president of the United States of America, a position to be respected and trusted, was quoted in this Beck episode. Apparently, Gore told middle and high school students who were in attendance of an inaugural youth conference that "there are some things about our world that you know, that older people don't know." He was essentially telling children to ignore their parents because they wont possibly understand the knowledge that this new generation has.

In what way can this message be responsible? In reality, all it does is to sow a seed of insubordination and rebellion in impressionable children. I mean I would be furious if someone tried to come between me and my children and pressure them to believe something while simultaneously telling them to not trust or value our family unit or my perspective. Can we say peer pressure? If this was a drug they were selling I think everyone would, without question, be irate. It's really no different, it's the same tactic. It's simply divide and conquer.

In addition, elementary age children were shown in this Beck episode to be singing in school. What were they singing? Surely songs like "God Bless America" or "O Beautiful." You know, traditional songs sung when we were young and in elementary school. No, they were singing nothing of the kind, but rather were filmed singing "Yes, we can, can, can! Yes, we can, can, can! Yes, we, can, can, can!" or "Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama, he said that all must lend a hand to make this country strong again. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama, he said we must be fair today equal work means equal pay. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama." Ok, let's try to be fair for a minute and say maybe this was from the campaign time. But that doesn't make me feel any less uneasy. I mean when and where did it become appropriate to have little kids sing and pledge their loyalty to one man or political party over our collective nation?

I too am part of this "We" generation born between 1978 and 2000 that is being targeted to progressively move our country in a profoundly new direction. And yes, I agree we have monumental issues that need to be addressed. But I am very suspicious and skeptical about the efficacy of the message being conveyed to this "We" generation. This incendiary message does nothing other than promote a generational divide between the youth and their parents, while simultaneously undermining the values and history of our nation and ancestors. In times like these, we need less of this divisive rhetoric and more emphasis on the strength and perseverance of past generations who weathered the storms of great wars and depressions in order to give us a world better than the one they received.

I think one thing this Beck show teaches, is how essential it is to be involved in your child's development even once they enter public or private school. Stay engaged, inquire about what they're learning and, if necessary, pitch in to help shape and improve their curriculum.

Cell robbers?

A co-worker lent me the book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by Rebecca Skloot. I read it last week, hence the intermittent posting, and I thought I would comment on the content of this work of non-fiction.

Skloot's book tells the story of a woman named Henrietta Lacks, who died of cervical cancer. Cells from her biopsies, which were taken during her treatments at John's Hopkins, lead to a biomedical research boom. Around the world in the biomedical research community, Lacks' cells became known as the HeLa (pronounced He-lah) cell line. HeLa cells grow robustly in the laboratory because they harbor the human papillomavirus HPV-18 type, the cause of Henrietta Lacks' cervical cancer. These cells are still used every day around the world in numerous laboratories to conduct experiments.

Overall, this book gave an interesting clinical history of Henrietta Lacks' treatments. It captured some of the socio-economic issues of her day, some of which are still seen when the book discusses Lacks' family in the present day. As a scientist, the descriptions of the science were accurate and well explained in layman's terminology.

Personally, the most interesting and alarming part of the book was the portion that discussed the ethical concerns surrounding the acquisition of patient cells without their consent. In some cases, these cells or other biological material is exploited by scientists through patents and profit from discoveries made with these patient specimens.

Because I work within the biomedical research community, I'm keenly aware of how these human samples are necessary for scientific discovery. However, even I found myself shocked and horrified to think that my own cells, or even the foreskin of a future son, could be donated to biomedical research without my consent or knowledge as a result of me consenting to treatment or common procedures. I find the whole thing quite deceitful and I felt like this was a huge invasion of privacy.

These ethical concerns have led to new requirements mandating patient approval for some scenarios, but these improvements are insufficient. It is true that human specimens can no longer be named in laboratories in a manner such that identifying personal information could expose the true identify of the patient from which the material originated. Despite these small changes, it is my belief that for most procedures patients are not asked for permission regarding the subsequent use of their "body" parts that are taken during treatment.

Skloot mentions how in some cases biological material acquired from patients can be quite lucrative, yet patients have no legal rights to any of the proceeds made from patents on or sales of their own material. Skloot cites the legal justification made in one court case that stated patients have no claim to these materials because they were deemed to have "abandoned" the material. Other patent law arguments were made to uphold this ruling by stating that man's ingenuity modified these materials such that it was no longer as it was found in nature. Another argument was that patients would hold up scientific progress because of their greed and desire for a cut of the profit from the use of their own biological material.

Regardless of the philosophical argument, it is my opinion that patients should be asked before each biopsy or diagnostic test whether they consent to donate their material to research. Just like people have to choose to donate their organs upon death, we should be asked and have our wishes legally respected regarding what is done with our biological material. Anything else is akin to doctors stealing bodies, like they did back in the 1800's and early 1900's in order to have fresh cadavers to practice on in medical school. Body-snatching is not allowed anymore, and yet doctors have ample access to cadavers. So, I don't quite buy the argument that asking for patient consent would hinder science, just like it didn't cut down on blood, sperm, bone marrow or organ donation.

Next time you have a biopsy done, ask your doctor what will happen to your material. And if you are uneasy about this exploitation of patients, then please share this article and contact your local congressman or senator!

Out for blood

First of all, I find Family Guy to be hilarious. But at the same time, I find the success of Family Guy to be a paradox because the series rely almost exclusively on politically incorrect jokes in our politically correct world.

I missed the recent episode that stirred up political controversy, but I heard all about it after the fact. In case you missed it, the uproar was over how the show mocked Sarah Palin's actual handicapped 1 year old son through the portrayal of a fictitious mentally handicapped character in the episode. People at work said "it was clearly sarcasm, what was all the fuss about?" Without having seen the show, I couldn't comment.

But now I have seen the clip, as well as Palin's response to the episode. After seeing both, I must say that I didn't find the Family Guy scene to be particularly funny, and I sympathized with Palin. Occasionally choked-up, Palin said she couldn't believe how cruel people can be in making fun of a little child that already is going to grow up with a difficult life. To her, Trig is like every other child, happy and enjoying the world. In that moment, listening to her describe her parental perspective, all I saw was a mother defending her child from a vicious world.

No matter what one's political persuasion, I just couldn't believe how people could hate someone so much to think that such a low blow was in any way fair game. It just made me stop and think about how ugly things have become. It is as if blood has been tasted and the kill must be completed. Is this really what our mainstream culture and media is all about nowadays?

Literally, you're dumb if you smoke

I read the following article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587241,00.html) on the FOX News website and found the conclusions to be controversial. This article describes a scientific study titled "Cognitive test scores in male adolescent cigarette smokers compared to non-smokers: a population-based study" that was published this month in the journal Addiction.

This study examined whether there was a correlation between smoking habits and the intelligence quotient (IQ) of over 20,000 Israeli military recruits. This paper reported that the average IQ of non-smokers was 101, but dropped to 94 for smokers. Furthermore, they claim that the drop in the IQ score correlated with the amount of cigarettes consumed by the individual. So, the average IQ was 98 for less than five cigarettes a day, and dropped to 90 if over a pack of cigarettes were smoked per day.
In conjunction with previously published reports, the authors of this scientific study conclude that a low IQ score is a risk factor for smoking addiction. Thus, they propose that anti-smoking campaigns should target youth with low IQ scores.

I don't know why, but I can't help feeling that the conclusions made by the authors of this study are biased by the age in which we live. For starters, tobacco was a major American agricultural crop because there was an insatiable European and global desire for this product for centuries. Smoking in some form, whether by cigarette, cigar or a pipe, was common among all strata of society. Now flash forward to modern day, a time where science has shown that smoking is an addiction known to cause death from lung cancer. Given our increased understanding of tobacco cigarettes as a carcinogen, I see the temptation to say in jest that choosing to smoke is stupid. But joking and attempting to prove such a sentiment are two completely different things.

Personally, my gut says the observed correlation between IQ and smoking may have a better scientific hypothesis. Nicotine, a compound that targets neurons and influences their activity, could have profound effects on the development and long-term function of an adolescent brain. Therefore, I'm curious to see whether studies in mice have examined whether nicotine exposure induces cognitive damage that could explain this study's observation that smokers have a lower IQ.

Are hotdogs the new Camel Joe?

Until reading the linked FOX News article, I was not aware that hotdogs currently have a choking hazard warning label on their packaging. But apparently, this already over-the-top safety measure isn't enough.

Tragically, a 4-year old died from choking on hotdog pieces. Now, this child's mother, backed by The American Academy of Pediatrics, is pushing for more warnings to be implemented regarding the danger of hotdogs. In addition, she is calling for changes in advertising of this classic American treat so that the ads are not targeted at children.

Obviously, choking is a serious issue and losing a child is devastating. But, am I alone in feeling like this reaction is extreme? I mean hotdogs aren't a pack of Camel cigarettes, whose manufacturer was accused of enticing children to begin a fatal addiction through the use of the Camel Joe cartoon image. My feeling is that every food could potentially cause a child to choke. So, where do we draw the line between predatory corporate advertising and personal accountability?

When we die...

During one episode of The O'Riley Factor last week, I saw O'Riley interview Dr. Jeffrey Long. Long is a medical oncologist who recently wrote a book titled "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences." This book is a summary of approximately 1300 international questionnaires and personal accounts of near death experiences (NDEs).

Most of the book is anecdotal with little to no concrete evidence. Therefore, the argument of an afterlife requires the reader to take a leap of faith and trust that these NDE accounts have not been falsified. But, as someone deeply curious about the philosophical and religious question of what happens when we die, I found myself intrigued by Dr. Long's book.

People that have had NDEs, called NDErs, remember experiencing very lucid visions of coming out of their body. Often, they see their own dead corpse below them during these out-of-body experiences (OBEs). Furthermore, NDErs witness conversations even some distance from their body, and these conversations are often corroborated once they are resuscitated. During an NDE, people frequently encounter known or unknown dead relatives who guide them through this journey. Interestingly, words are often not needed because telepathy is used to communicate to the NDErs. Frequently, NDEs include a life review in which the person sees forgotten actions and judges whether they were kind or good during their lifetime. Finally, the person reaches a barrier in which they ultimately can not pass before they are commanded back to their earthly body. These experiences are so powerful that NDErs are often transformed for the rest of their life.

Like many people, I've heard of out-of-body experiences (OBEs), people seeing white lights as well as past memories. I've also heard the medical establishment's perspective that these lights must be due to the death of optical neurons, that the replaying of past life events are because of dying memory neurons, or that these people are dreaming and not really dead. However, Dr. Long points out that NDEs occur in people who are clinically dead with no heart or brain activity, and thus, who have no ability to produce dreams, visions or conscious thought. Therefore, clearly the current medical explanation is incomplete.

Personally, some of the more compelling "evidence" discussed in this book pertained to people who have been blind since birth. These individuals have NDEs that are identical to people that are not blind. Meaning, people blind since birth have very vivid visual experiences during their NDE. To me, there is no medical explanation for a blind person having residual visual neural circuitry that could be randomly firing during the death of these neurons.

One of the last points of this book, was that there appears to be universalilty to the NDE experience. By comparing NDE accounts from around the world, Dr. Long reports that the same elements are present in NDEs regardless of the culture or religion in which the individual is associated. This is suggestive of a common human bond in life and death.

In conclusion, I found this book thought-provoking. However, I would like to see more data, which reminded me of a news article I read a while ago that can be found at the following website:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842627,00.html

This article describes an ongoing scientific study called AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation). The AWARE study is an international effort by 25 European, Canadian and American medical centers where cardiac arrests occur. In order to scientifically study the NDE, this study employed the strategic placement of visual elements or cues in locations within an emergency room that can be seen only from the ceiling. The hypothesis is that patients who report out-of-body experiences should be able to describe these visual cues if they were able to hover by the ceiling while looking down at their body. Unfortunately, this study is still ongoing and therefore these data have not yet been reported. But, I am anxious to see the results from this study!