Even trade?: Treatment stops cancer, although it may make you blind
National Cancer Institute researchers report that an experimental cancer treatment successfully stopped the spread of malignant cells in mice but, on the downside, also destroyed healthy eye cells causing vision loss. The scientists report the mixed results in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. The study involved a therapy that involved extracting immunity-boosting T cells from patients (in this case mice), having them replicate in the lab, and then injecting them back into the subjects to target a substance made by melanomas. The latter, the most fatal type of skin cancer, affects melanocytes—cells that produce pigment, or melanin, responsible for skin and eye color. The injections successfully attacked the tumor cells but also went after healthy ones. Joan Stein-Streilein, an ophthalmologist at Harvard Medical School's Schepens Eye Research Institute who was not involved in the study, says that if enough pigment-producing cells in the eye's iris (colored part) are destroyed, it can lead to blindness. Also, destruction of healthy melanocytes in the skin can result in a condition known vitiligo, which causes white patches. The researchers note that steroid eye drops appeared to stave off destruction of the iris cells, but they warned researchers to heed the findings in designing new immunotherapies.
Putting the heat on energy-efficiency in cars
One thing that cars are good at producing—in addition to pollution—is heat (just touch the hood of your car after a long drive). Researchers at Germany's Fraunhofer Institute for Physical Measurement Techniques IPM are developing a thermoelectric converter that can turn heat from a car's exhaust fumes—which can reach 1,292 degrees Fahrenheit (700 degrees Celsius)—into electricity that the car can use to power itself and, in the process, cut fuel consumption by as much as 7 percent as well as reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Two thirds of the energy produced when a car turns fuel into energy is emitted unused in the form of heat—with about 30 percent radiated from the engine block and another 30 to 35 percent escaping as exhaust fumes. The researchers envision a car that can use the heat generated by its exhaust pipe to produce and store an electric current—much like a battery does. If they're right, cars would be able to use this energy source to power their headlights, engine-cooling fans and air conditioners, thereby gulping down less fuel.
Fantastic voyage: Pill-cam allows doctors to tour esophagus and stomach
Miniature cameras that patients can swallow help doctors view interior images of intestines, but they've never been much good at taking pictures of the esophagus (where they spend only three or four seconds on their way to the stomach) or the stomach itself—where their 0.2-ounce (five-gram) weight causes them to quickly drop to the lower wall and obscure useful information. Physicians instead rely on endoscopy exams to get a look at a patient's esophagus or stomach. But a steerable camera (being developed by a team of researchers from Israeli-based technology company, Given Imaging, Ltd.; the Israelite Hospital in Hamburg, Germany; Imperial College London; and the Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering) may give those leery of endoscopies another option: They can swallow a camera-bearing pill that also holds a transmitter to send images to an outside receiver, along with a battery and several light diodes that briefly flare up like a flashbulb every time a picture is snapped. The doctor controls the camera's movement using a magnet held over the patient's body. A prototype device has already demonstrated in an experiment that the camera can be kept in the esophagus for about 10 minutes, even if the patient is sitting upright.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentMasterpiece? Really? It hardly holds up on a close parsing of the lyrics. To call it a masterpiece--and state it as such a given--is a sad state of affairs. So much for journalistic objectivity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many articles do you plan to run about this film? The frequency and fervor of your protests borders on religious fanaticism. Get over it already!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think the inclusion of the article in question is either religious fantacism or even that the article is about a protest over religious fantacism. On reading the details of the article, I see no indication that Yoko Ono is complaining about creationism or fundamentalist, anti-science propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYoko Ono is not known for her contributions to rationality; quite the opposite has been the case in the past. If my information is correct, some years ago Yoko Ono endorsed a for-profit mass-transformation mind-control cult (est) and its founder (Werner Erhard). I don't know if she has ever pulled that celebrity endorsement.
But mind-control cults are not the issue at hand at this time. Most of what has been under discussion has been about the validity of certain creationist claims and in particular a claim that there has been a government conspiriacy to suppress intellectual freedom.
The inclusion of the Yoko Ono story is probably an oversight on the part of SCIAM. I would hope that readers would be more likely to engage in critical thinking rather than looking to professional celebrities for an indication of what to think and what to believe.
--
Edited by Bradley at 06/07/2008 11:08 AM
Um, "antiscience film"? Are those words Yoko's, or the author's? If Yoko's, then the article made little attempt at making that clear. If the classification is the author's, then he likely didn't see the film... but instead has prejudged it because he disagrees with any work that challenges his own view. That disagreement is fine; but attempting to convince potential theatre-goers that the film is made by those 'against science' (they are not) is a lie hoping to combat a different lie. Thanks for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisanti-science? The film specifically makes it clear that it is the intent of the producer(s)/Ben Stein to educate people that they should "FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, WHEREVER IT MAY LEAD".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like a pro-science statement to me.
It does sound as if Stein is hoping the use of the song "Imagine" will fall under "fair use" under American copyright law. I'm no lawyer, but since he is not criticizing or commenting on the SONG, I don't know if that will fly. I criticized and commented on the film, though, in my blog: http://ginkgo100.blogspot.com/2008/06/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit makes no difference anyway ....all they will do is pick the highest profile area ..where the film will be shown and fill it to the rafters, with Media and invite ...a lot of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny other corporation using songs without permission would have been screwed to he wall.......The case was probable being heard in the bible belt..........where all Law Order , Time and space, are squeezed into 6,000 years they probably thought that a bill has been passed for that too, but did not want to check up as that would require them to look at some evidence ....and we all know how creationist feel about none-faith based evidence.......sheesh do these people just think they can do what they want??