Responding to a firestorm of criticism, Kellogg’s claim that eating Cocoa Rice Krispies will “support” your immune system has been withdrawn.  In a press release posted yesterday, the company announced it would, “…discontinue the immunity statements on Kellogg’s Rice Krispies cereals.”

Oddly, Kellogg’s maintains that, “…science shows that these antioxidants help support the immune system.” I sent them a note last week, requesting literature citations supporting this position. No reponse yet.

Nurition and health expert Marion Nestle has been blogging about the Krispie fiasco, and even has a letter from the San Francisco City Attorney, demanding evidence for the immunity claim.

While at my family’s breakfast table over the weekend, a Kellogg’s Cocoa Krispies box caught my eye.  “Now helps support your child’s immunity,”  the box blares.  On the back, Snap, Crackle, and Pop are in superhero form – masks, fighting poses and all.

The trouble is, the claim is not supported by any real scientific evidence.  Yes, vitamins and antioxidants in natural foods like fresh fruits and vegetables are part of a healthy diet. But exactly what role vitamin-fortified foods play in helping your immune cells fight disease is not understood. (Read more…)

While home with the flu yesterday, I watched several episodes of Discovery Channel’s Cash Cab – the surprisingly entertaining show where unsuspecting New York cab riders are invited to participate in a quiz show (and win cash) while riding in a cab to their destination.

Almost every “ride” featured a basic science/health trivia question.  A sampling:

1. In 1953, scientists Watson and rick discovered that DNA takes what unique shape? (Read more…)

The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded on Monday to three American scientists: Elizabeth H. Blackburn (University of California, San Francisco), Carol W. Greider (Johns Hopkins University), and Jack W. Szostak (Harvard). The three discovered telomeres, short sequences of DNA at the end of each chromosome that act as a protective cap, helping to limit how many times a cell can divide. This New York Times article has a nice description of telomeres and the broader significance of this work for cancer therapies and aging research.

So how much federal funding was invested in this Nobel Award?  According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately $32 million between the three researchers. To the average reader, this sure sounds like a lot. But when you consider that an average 4-year research grant to support a small lab can easily total $1.5 million, and many labs have two or more, it’s actually a bargain.

It’s also worth pointing out that the economic burden of cancer illness and deaths in 2004 alone was nearly $200 billion.

The recognition that telomeres play an important role in aging and cancer – which was not foreseen – serves as yet another reminder why research dollars invested in “basic research” are dollars invested wisely.

As an aside, every time I think of telomeres I recall one of my favorite Saturday Night Live skits, “Stand Up and Win.” It’s the one featuring Jerry Seinfeld as M.C. of a game show. The winner receives a year’s supply of the plastic thingies that protect the ends of shoelaces. Seinfeld exclaims, “They don’t have a name!”

This week, the New York Times published a nice profile on Nobel Laureate Martin Chalfie at Columbia University. Chalfie shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry last year for his work on an amazing protein found in jellyfish called Green Fluorescent Protein, or GFP. The article is a great reminder of how very basic research on jellyfish and worms, of all things, yields invaluable scientific tools and knowledge.

GFP has the natural property of absorbing invisible ultraviolet light and producing green light – a discovery made in 1961 by Osamu Shimomura (who also shared the 2008 Nobel Award with Roger Tsien and Chalfie).

Chalfie’s “aha” moment, in 1989 at a department seminar, was a recognition that the light-producing properties of GFP could be harnessed as a sort of molecular flashlight. (Read more…)

In advance of President Obama’s national speech on health care reform tonight, I thought I’d direct your attention to a cleverly-written piece in the New York Times a few weeks back, “A Common Sense American Health Reform Plan.” Author and economist Uwe Reinahardt pokes a little fun at the idea that our health care reform plan should be guided by good ol’ American common sense.

My favorites on his tongue-in-cheek All-American Wish List for Health Reform:

4. Cost-effectiveness analysis should never be the basis of any coverage decision by public or private third-party payers in health care, for to do so would put a price on human life — which, in America, unlike everywhere else, is priceless.

7. Government should stay out of health care. Specifically, government should not control health care prices, nor should it increase its spending on health care, which is out of control.

On the topic of health care reform, NU’s medical school recently hosted Dr. Stephen L. Ondra, spinal surgeon and Senior Policy Advisor for Health Affairs in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ondra delivered the keynote address at our medical school convocation, making several key points. (Read more…)

Science Chicago held their public outreach finale this afternoon in Millennium Park.  It was beyond fantastic.

Several thousand people turned out for a huge array of engaging science activities. Dinosaurs, liquid nitrogen demos, kazoos made of tongue depressors and rubber bands, magic with Sharpie ink (thanks, Mike Davis!), and a live PBS television Design Squad show were just a few of the highlights. As a science educator, it was really neat to see so many engaged kids (and parents!).

My personal highlight was the kiddie pool of oobleck. This stuff is just amazing (read my previous post for more). Made of two parts corn starch and one part water, it’s a fun science activity you can do at home.

Or, as Science Chicago did, use a cement mixer and 800 pounds of corn starch to create an entire pool of the stuff.

Running or bounding across the surface was, according to my excited seven year-old, like walking on water. As you can see, adults enjoyed it, too.

One poor kid stopped mid-pool and sank surprisingly quickly. He had to be yanked out by two volunteers, legs covered in the gooey stuff.

Hats off to Cheryl Hughes, Rabiah Mayas, and the entire crew at Science Chicago for a terrific day!

While in my home state of Minnesota last week on vacation, I read a very troublesome editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. On display at mall: Human indignity, written by columnist Katherine Kersten, takes to task Bodies… The Exhibition, a Body-Worlds-type exhibit that opened recently at the famed Mall of America.

For those unfamiliar with Body Worlds, this traveling anatomical exhibit of real human bodies has proven very popular and successful in demystifying our inner workings. It respectfully showcases the elegance of our anatomical structure, and provides visual lessons about the destructive outcomes of smoking and obesity. The smoker’s lung is not pretty.

Kersten’s opening salvo:

If you’re heading to the Mall of America this weekend, you’ll find something new to gawk at, along with the lacy lingerie at Victoria’s Secret and the sea horses at Underwater Adventures. It’s “Bodies … the Exhibition,” a show that features human cadavers.

Really? C’mon. Comparing an aquarium, a human physiology/health exhibit, and scantily-clad Victoria’s Secret models is the beginning of, well, a scantily-clad argument.

She goes on to use terms like “high-falutin’” when describing the exhibit’s educational goals.  She criticizes the choice of location for the exhibit, the Mall of America, as being too commercial (shouldn’t exhibits be held where the people are?). The issue of whether or not the exhibit bodies were procured according to accepted medical standard, raised midway through the article, is a very valid and important concern. Kerstens, however, quickly returns to the crux of her argument:

At “Bodies … the Exhibition,” we sense the danger of a line being crossed. The issues the show raises intersect with many of the important questions we face about the nature of humanity in our scientific age.

In short, she thinks the exhibit is in poor taste and that it markets death as entertainment. I don’t see it that way at all. (Read more…)

The Pew Research Center recently published its annual survey of science attitudes and knowledge, polling several thousand members of the American public and the scientific community (report summary | full pdf report).  The survey covers quite a spectrum, including public & scientist views on climate change, evolution, scientific achievements, religion, and the state of science funding. The public survey also included a 12-question quiz designed to sample respondents’ science knowledge.

The report overview paints a fairly rosy picture of the public’s perception of science:

Americans like science. Overwhelming majorities say that science has had a positive effect on society and that science has made life easier for most people. Most also say that government investments in science, as well as engineering and technology, pay off in the long run. And scientists are very highly rated compared with members of other professions: Only members of the military and teachers are more likely to be viewed as contributing a lot to society’s well-being.

However, scientists’ view of the public’s scientific knowledge is not nearly as flattering. (Read more…)

Researchers in the United Kingdom have succeeded in coaxing human embryonic stem cells into becoming sperm. Though the process is inefficient and there is some debate over whether the sperm are fully developed, this work will hopefully lead to a much-needed experimental system for understanding the biology of sperm development.

The more controversial and longer-term outcome, as suggested by the lead researcher, Dr. Karim Nayernia, is that stem cells might one day be used to generate sperm as a treatment for male infertility.

It’s worth pointing out that the same researcher accomplished a similar feat in 2006 using mouse embryonic stem cells to produce mouse sperm.  Only in this case, the experiment was taken one step farther – the sperm were injected into mouse eggs.  Though the mothers gave birth to live pups, they suffered from many abnormalities. All died within 5 months.

This example illustrates the technical and ethical challenges in moving reproductive technologies from the lab to the clinic. There really isn’t an easy path. It also should serve as a reminder that the United States needs to address the relative vacuum in efficacy, safety, and ethical oversight for the rapidly developing field of reproductive technology (a ~$10 billion/yr industry).

In the UK, reproductive technologies are closely regulated at the federal level by a governing body known as the Human Fertilisation and Embrology Authority (HFEA). The UK has carefully crafted rules on the research and clinical use of gametes (sperm/eggs), human cloning, genetic technologies as applied to human embryos or gametes, etc. In this case, any procreative use of sperm created from stem cells is prohibited.

In the United States there are few rules. The practice of medicine, by and large, is regulated at the state level. Our federal government leaders have been unwilling to call for a national discussion on implementing uniform rules for gamete donation, embryo creation, research, storage, etc. (a report from the 2004 Presidential Council on Bioethics notwithstanding). In fact, when Canada passed its Assisted Human Reproduction Act in 2004, it left the United States as one of the few developed nations without a national policy.

The result has been lax medical oversight, introduction of new technologies without sufficient studies on safety, and a piecemeal collection of rules.

The progress coming from the UK reminds us that we need to have a national discussion soon.