Official "Science News" Thread

[Batalov]

I'll hand the mic to a friend from work today:

...I heard about this finding and the unfortunate thing is that chances are that it’s not going to work on a large and diverse set of samples. Not sure how many samples he used to validate his findings.

Many diagnostic tests work on small patient sets. Many people have cured cancer in mice. Unfortunately we haven’t made much progress in pancreatic cancer in 50 years. Drug and diagnostic development is a lot harder than the public appreciates, but they sure love these types of stories. They love American Idol too, which says a lot about their taste and ability to discriminate good from bad.

after a bit of more banter, we concurred that

-- Right, mess up their hair and put a black turtleneck and glasses on them and the public goes crazy with their generalizations on what scientists are supposed to look like.

-- So, the answer is obvious then – to gain the trust of the public, we need to mess up our hair and wear black turtlenecks (some of us have the hair part down already…)

[LaurV]

Stupid question: do we really have to fight against those things? Aren't "mutation" part of evolution? In about 999870 years, we may end up like the only species on earth which did not evolve in the last million years... I am thinking to something like Asimov's "End of Eternity"...

(I have relatives I loved, who died from cancers, to avoid any future cuss).

[Dubslow]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/scie...eo-342455.html

Video of a fish's brain when it sees food.

[science_man_88]

3D-Printed Human Embryonic Stem Cells Created for First Time

In a new study, researchers from the University of Edinburgh have created a cell printer that spits out living embryonic stem cells. The printer was capable of printing uniform-size droplets of cells gently enough to keep the cells alive and maintain their ability to develop into different cell types. The new printing method could be used to make 3D human tissues for testing new drugs, grow organs, or ultimately print cells directly inside the body.

sounds interesting.

[only_human]

Tests in Mice Misled Researchers on 3 Diseases, Study Says

For decades, mice have been the species of choice in the study of human diseases. But now, researchers report stunning evidence that the mouse model has been totally misleading for at least three major killers — sepsis, burns and trauma. As a result, years and billions of dollars have been wasted following false leads, they say.

The paper, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, helps explain why every one of nearly 150 drugs tested at huge expense in patients with sepsis has failed. The drug tests all were based on studies in mice. And mice, it turns out, have a disease that looks like sepsis in humans, but is very different from the human disease.

The drug failures became clear. For example, often in mice, a gene would be used, while in humans, the comparable gene would be suppressed. A drug that works in mice by disabling that gene could make the response even more deadly in humans.

Even more surprising, Dr. Warren said, was that different conditions in mice — burns, trauma, sepsis — did not fit the same pattern. Each condition used different groups of genes. In humans, though, similar genes were used in all three conditions. That means, Dr. Warren said, that if researchers can find a drug that works for one of those conditions in people, the same drug might work for all three.

The study’s investigators tried for over a year to publish their paper showing that there was no relationship between the genetic responses of mice and those of humans. They submitted it to the publications Science and Nature, hoping to reach a wide audience. It was rejected from both.

Some researchers, reading the paper now, say they are as astonished as the researchers were when they saw the data.

“When I read the paper, I was stunned by just how bad the mouse data are,” Dr. Fink said. “It’s really amazing – no correlation at all. These data are so persuasive and so robust that I think funding agencies are going to take note.” Until now, he said, “to get funding, you had to propose experiments using the mouse model.”

[kladner]

This is a string of thumbnails and paragraphs on the evolution of processor chips.

http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/mi...tory,5-23.html

[rogue]

Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...m-temperature/

[xilman]

Originally Posted by rogue

Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...m-temperature/

Originally Posted by arstechnica

This experiment marked the first room-temperature BEC ever observed in the laboratory.

Funny. I thought a laser was a photon BEC.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by only_human

Tests in Mice Misled Researchers on 3 Diseases, Study Says
...

Thanks, Science and Nature -- I wonder how many researchers who have made careers from mouse models sit on those editorial boards?

[Batalov]

There's no argument that mouse is a poor model for studying many diseases, e.g. glaucoma. Even cats and dogs are. Basically only primates are suitable, but testing on chimps is insanely expensive and is confounded with very laborious protocols and humane treatment*. Any serious translational research starts from testing that the model works.

The PNAS article specifically dissects the failure of translation from mice in particular diseases. Many comments from people who know what the article is about are reasonable. Here's one:

People are going to use this to say that all science is bad or that animal testing is bad. But this research wouldn't be possible if we didn't fail so many times in mice.

The other thing is that most of those 150 drugs were pulled during testing when they showed no effect. But, there is non-stop griping about the length of the certification process. We now see it is important. Not every drug pans out. Those tests are expensive in the short run, but in the long run they save money on useless candidates. In fact, what we should really ask is why any of them made it through, even for a short time.

Fact is, we need mouse models because mice are cheap and they have short lifespans. And we need human testing because, ultimately, we are trying to treat humans.

The NYT line about billions of dollars wasted is particularly nasty. It can be applied to most serious research. 90%+ of scientific research is a history of failed experiments. Is a geological expedition a waste of millions of dollars when the search party brings back nothing, and a roaring success when they have searched for silver and found copper? One cannot have success without failures.

As Knuth, von Braun and many others said, research is what you are doing when you don't know the outcome.

_________
*in relative terms. Mice are also treated humanely, but they don't have to be cared for for the remainder of their natural life.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Basically only primates are suitable, but testing on chimps is insanely expensive and is confounded with very laborious protocols and humane treatment

Have you noticed the advertisement's "small print" for most of these new drugs?

"In rare cases may cause death."

"If you find yourself with an erection for more than four hours, consult your doctor."

Hell, if I find myself with an erection for more than four hours I'll be at Harbor Lights....