Science Ain't So Bad

NO SUCH THING AS PEOPLE POX!

Mr. and Mrs. ScienceAintSoBad are off on a trip to see relatives but, first, a short article.

I’ll try to make it good.

CHICKENPOX AND SUNLIGHT

Dr. Phil Rice (University of London) looked at the results of 25 studies from different parts of the world about chickenpox. Do some regions have more chickenpox than other, he wondered?  And, if so, does it depend on humidity? Does it depend on temperature?

The amount of chickens?

Nothing,nothing and nothing.

Could it have something to do with the amount of sunlight?

Bingo! The more sunlight there is, the less chickenpox.

This isn’t news to people who are experts in this field. They figured this might be true. After all, UV light is used to sterilize stuff, right? But this is actual evidence. Science is an evidence game. Now it’s okay to say that chickenpox doesn’t like sunlight. And people who live where it’s sunny may escape the disease and its zitzs.

So?

So Dr. Rice didn’t exactly fall all over himself being specific but he does say there must be some way that this could lead to new methods for reducing the spread of chickenpox.

I hear the motor running. I’ll see you next time.

—————————————————————–

Image credits to Hikingartist.comFrits Ahlefeldt-Laurvig and flickr.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

GERMS

Nobody has anything good to say about plagues so it’s probably good that antibiotics came along with their ability to knock off bacteria. Viruses are a whole other deal, though. They’re so small that bacteria couldn’t see them without a microscope.

If bacteria had eyes.

Viruses drift around acting dead which, I guess, they are since they don’t eat, excrete, make babies, and wriggle around like living things (such as bacteria) do. But they’re not quite as dead as you might like. They have a very obnoxious trick. If  the right virus happens to come into contact with a  cell, it can use its shape to fool the cell into opening up its protective membrane and letting it in. Which is the mistake of a lifetime for that cell since the virus quickly winds up in charge. The cell loses its right to vote. Even worse,  the virus starts making  copies of itself, using the cell’s equipment. If this happens to your cells, you “have” a virus. This is how people wind up with HIV, for example. (Please don’t tell me they have to take their clothes off first; I happen know that.)

VIRUSES VS BACTERIA

There are many antibiotics that work against bacteria. Researchers keep trying to invent new ones. It’s a cat and mouse thing. We get a great antibiotic going and the bacteria figure a way to fool it.  It is true that there’s a  fear that we’re losing our edge over bacteria; some think that the miseries of ancient times will return but MISTER ScienceAintSoBad thinks that won’t happen.

Bacteria, however,  are old news. The new frontier is viruses; they have been a harder nut to crack. Only in the the last few years have there been any drugs at all. How do you get at the virus to kill it? After all, it’s living in your cells; you don’t want to kill THEM do you?

See the problem?

Todd Rider  (MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory) has a new approach. His drug, DRACO, goes after a type of RNA that’s only present in virus infected cells. DRACO would be a “broad spectrum” antiviral drug, meaning it would (or should) work against pretty much any virus. Which could mean the end of the common cold as well as the end of the common HIV infection and the end of herpes in all of its rotten forms and many, many other great, great things. Early results are exciting. With  luck,  licensing and human trials will follow.

How do we feel about this potentially fantastic development? ScienceAintSoBadRating = 10.

We’re wishin’ on your star, Todd Rider.

———————————

Credits for the above image? Mister ScienceAintSoBad created that work of art. My vision of a pink germ.

Ain't THAT Bad!

ARE THERE REALLY DIFFERENCES IN THE BRAINS OF LIBERALS VS CONSERVATIVES?

You never know when you’ll actually need a brain. When you’re fly fishing, gray matter and white matter help. I dunno about politics. Is brain meat actually an advantage there? Some say yes. Some say no.

One thing’s for sure. Liberal brains and conservative brains? They’re not the same thing. Ryoto Kanai (Current Biology) says he bothered to look at the brains of conservatives and found nothing at all.

All right, all right. He found stuff. But what? He found great big amygdalas (the part of the brain that, supposedly, recognizes danger). When he looked at liberals, he found a bigger cingulate cortex (which  handles conflicting information). He says his research is the first neuroscientific evidence for biological difference between liberals and conservatives.

Let me help you distill this scientific work cause it’s so darn important. He’s saying conservatives are cavemen. Liberals are critical thinkers.

SCIENCE AIN’T

Here’s the thing. Its not like neurology’s a dead zone. Scientists really ARE figuring out what’s going on in our skulls. Great things are happening on that front. But you gotta keep a wary eye out cause “science” (those WERE quotes) can put lumps in YOUR brain if you  believe everything you read. Dr. Kanai’s study showed a gross difference – a size difference – between two parts of the brain whose functions are “thought” (quotes again) to play a role in threat awareness vs information sorting. The author, himself, says it’s very unlikely that these differences “directly encode” political differences. He says that more grants.. uh.. I mean.. more studies are needed.

ScienceAintSoBadRating = 3 Nothing wrong with looking at this stuff. Careful about yer conclusions though. Okay?

—————————————-

Thanks to x-ray delta one and Flickr for the cartoon.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

ASEXUALS

Just about everything that makes us human comes in small, medium, large, and extra large doses so it shouldn’t surprise you if I tell you we’re not all the same in the sex drive department.

Some people are a little over and some are under, there too.

Lots of people don’t have sex, of course.

Few of the readers of this blog do.

But are there people with no sex DRIVE? None at all? I am NOT asking (not interested, actually) in whether you are straight or gay or transwhatever. I’m asking whether ANYTHING  gets you interested, sexually speaking.

Ever.

I did some research.

No not THAT kind of research. I looked for studies. Data, and such. And, well doggone! It’s true. Lots of people don’t GIVE A RAT’S BUTT ABOUT SEX AND  NEVER WILL!

Funny huh?

Anthony Bogaert (Brock University) started describing the phenomenon a few years ago.  Asexuals  constitute about 1% of the population. About 3,000,000 people in the United states. Naturally, they have an organization,the Asexual Visibility And Education Network, which is trying to increase awareness.

No reality show so far.

Media hyped groups do come in and out of fashion with regularity, of course. I guess we’re about finished Don’tAskDon’tTelling gay people, so we may have spare time for something new.  Would YOU be comfortable serving with them in the marines? Would asexuals  GET the  lusty humor? Would it be possible to behave honorably under fire without a sex drive?

Although asexuals aren’t attracted to either sex, many get married and dutifully try to satisfy their partners. No more complaints than you might expect, all things considered.

(Is this important science? You decide. I just keep the stories coming. )

More detail from Dan Childs (ABC News).