Tag: science

Posted on

School is getting…”interesting”…

A few quick points, as I’ve been very, very busy recently. I had a committee meeting today that went pretty well, I think. For those that don’t know, your dissertation committee is basically the group of people that say “you’re ready to graduate,” so these meetings are pretty important so you can keep them apprised of your progress toward (eventual) graduation.

Anyway, I went over all my recent data, much of which I obtained last week after fighting with some assays and finally getting them to work. Either way, the committee was pretty pleased with what I had to show them. Suffice to say, I now have a list of stuff to complete and, assuming I complete that list (or the vast majority of it) by December, then my Dec. meeting will be my last one before my actual Dissertation Defense next Spring.

So yeah, basically, this is a good indication that I’ll actually be able to graduate next May, provided nothing catastrophic happens. The list of stuff I have to complete, for the most part, is pretty straightforward and shouldn’t include the learning of any new techniques (and that’s usually what ends up causing “hiccups”).

On another, semi-related note, I’m the Course Director for Drugs We Use and Abuse, the undergraduate-level class that we, as graduate students, teach in the Fall each year. Because of this, I’ll be the person coordinating all of the lectures and deal with all the undergrads give their lame excuses for why they can’t attend class. It isn’t a huge responsibility, provided you delegate the duties, but it will make me busier than normal during the Fall semester. I’m very much looking forward to this, as I intend on teaching once I find (read: apply for) a permanent position post-graduation.

I have a feeling this school year will have a “whirlwind” feel to it.

And I certainly have my work cut out for me.

Posted on

Science Again Confirms What We Already Knew

Edie isn’t the brightest bulb on the chandelier, or sharpest tack in the box, or whatever…but she certainly isn’t the smartest dog around, either.

And now, science has proven it.

A group at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver found that dogs can learn and respond to around 165 words, which places them in the same league as the average two-year-old. Amongst the highest performers, you would find Border Collies, Golden Retrievers and German Shepherds. Heck, even the Poodle is up there.

Who’s at the bottom?

Well, among others, the Bassett Hound and the Beagle.

What’s Edie? Well, she’s mostly Beagle, but pretty sure there’s some Bassett Hound in ‘er somewhere, too…

I guess this explains a lot…

Posted on

That’s kinda neat!

untitled-1

So, I’m officially a published author now. I heard a few weeks ago that the manuscript I’d been working on (for, like, a year…) was accepted to Neurotoxicology, a bi-monthly journal published by Elsevier, but I didn’t want to post anything here until it was up on Pubmed. I should be receiving proofs sometime this week so I can look at the final version of the document (i.e. what it’ll look like when it’s actually in the journal), so maybe I’ll put up a picture of that, too!

Either way, I decided to search for “Linsenbardt” in Pubmed today and see if I was there. And I am.

That’s kinda neat! 🙂

Unless you have access through your university, you can’t actually read the paper yet. Elsevier is pretty annoying about such things, making you pay for access otherwise, but because NIH funds were used to pay for the work done in the paper, it’ll have to be made available, free, to the public sometime eventually.

I’m starting my second paper now (as in, as we speak…), and my PLAN is to get that submitted by October somewhere. But, as some of you know, that last paper took me FOREVER to actually get out and submitted. October is when the annual Society for Neuroscience meeting is, however, and it’d be nice to tell prospective employers that I have one paper published and another one on the way. Also, for the purposes of graduating, getting two first-author papers is a good thing (as in, typically, if your name is first on the list, then you either did most of the work, or wrote the whole paper yourself…not always the case, but usually it goes something like that…so “first-author” is pretty important).

Posted on

I want my Tylenol!

This is just crazy talk.

According to that blurb, the FDA has voted to reduce the maximum amount of acetaminophen (Tylenol) that can be administered over-the-counter to 650 mg. For those that don’t know, “Extra Strength” falls around 1000 mg per dose. According to CNN, “a 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention population-based report, that estimated that acetaminophen was the likely cause of most of the estimated 1,600 acute liver failures each year.” Also, “overdoses of acetaminophen have been linked to 56,000 emergency room visits, 26,000 hospitalizations and 458 deaths during the 1990s.”

Now, I’ve got mixed feelings about this… First of all, if I have a headache, I take the maximum dose (1000 mg) and it goes away. Simple as that. Done it for years. Regular strength usually doesn’t work as well, hence why Extra is kinda nice. Now, I’m just going to have to take three pills of Regular Strength (equaling 975 mg) to get the same efficacy.

Here’s the issue: people that have liver issues probably shouldn’t be taking acetaminophen. Alcoholics shouldn’t take acetaminophen. People that are drunk shouldn’t take acetaminophen. EVERYONE ELSE is probably okay (please correct me if I missed one there). The reason it’s a problem is because acetaminophen is metabolized in your liver by a specific enzyme, CYP2E1 (and others, but that’s the biggie here), and this enzyme also metabolizes alcohol. Problem is, it’ll take care of the alcohol first before going after the acetaminophen. Therefore, if you take acetaminophen while you have lots of alcohol in your system, it will hang around in your blood stream. If it stays in your blood too long without being metabolized by CYP2E1, it is converted to a “free radical,” which then goes on to wreak havoc to your liver, amongst other organs, causing acute organ failure. Chronic alcoholics also have less glutathione in their bodies, and that compound is very important for clearing the other dangerous metabolites of acetaminophen.

So yes, you don’t want acetaminophen hanging around all that long. And if you have liver problems, you shouldn’t take it. Or if you’re drinking, you shouldn’t take it (take naproxen or ibuprofen instead).

But making me take an extra pill, when I detest taking pills, is just dumb.

Posted on

A new day for science…

“Rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama said. “In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.”

As reported in an article from the Associated Press, President Obama recently reversed Bush policies that disallowed the use of embryonic stem cells in research paid for by NIH funding (except for a select few stem cell lines that were already available, but few of those were considered useful by the scientists using them).

For those that don’t know, the NIH (National Institutes of Health) comprise the vast majority of research dollars spent in America, not only funding public entities but also private, through your tax dollars. For the most part, in order to reach tenure at a research-driven university, you need what’s known as an “R01” NIH grant, usually giving $1 million in funding for a period of 5 years (with the possibility of renewal). That’s why Bush’s policy was such a big deal. By saying that “no NIH funding will pay for embryonic stem cell research,” he essentially limited the funding to select funding bodies (e.g. foundation grants), meaning that what could have been lots of research into stem cells over the last 8 years turned into very little.

So, on the one hand, it’s a big deal that stem cell research is back in the purview of the NIH. The more important part for me, and for the rest of the country, is the other part(s) of Obama’s speech today, outlined above: political ideology will no longer play a massive role in what’s funded and what isn’t by the NIH; science will again have a voice in government; and scientific thinking will have a friend in the White House.

If evidence shows that embryonic stem cells was a stupid thing to look at, then by all means its funding will be cut. However, if it shows promise, more money will go to it and it will provide all the cures that have been promised (that remains to be seen, in my opinion…). That’s how a lot of science works, through Natural Selection: the programs that are productive, find cures and discover new treatments to help people are the ones that are favored. Government policy shouldn’t try to limit these solutions before they’re even tried, especially when based on misguided ideology and/or lobbying groups. As Obama points out:

“But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

Posted on

Neuroscience 2008

From Neuroscience 2008

Well, I got back from DC today…was there for a few days for the Society for Neuroscience 2008 convention (last year’s was in San Diego), where I presented a poster of some data I’ve been working on (and hope to get published soon!). Overall, the poster presentation (which was Sunday morning) went beautifully well. Last year, I presented later in the conference, so there were less people around to listen to me make stuff up… This year, however, was earlier so there was much more interest and, in general, many more people.

Other than that, I looked at lots of other posters and talked with some folks from different labs, checking into some Postdoc opportunities. I got some good information, and some good ideas as to where to go next (with my research and my career).

We did get some sight-seeing in, though, specifically getting to see the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum (w00t!) and the National Mall (and all their monuments…). They’re all pretty self-explanatory, and you can check out pictures here!

Oh, and I also got to see Jeff Lin. Good times.

Posted on

Gamer's minds are different

Ars Technica has a neat little blurb about a book that’s out by a psychiatrist titled “Video Game Play and Addiction.” In the blog posting, the writer highlights a few key points from one of the chapters that he finds “how gamers are different in terms of problem solving and how they approach problems and even social situations.” You can view the full list at the link above, but for now:

  • Gamers use trial-and-error methods of learning.

    • Gamers do not view a failed attempt as failure; rather, they view it as a critical step in learning how to succeed. This is a fundamentally different approach from that of prior generations that value success as the only option—an outlook that can paralyze the intent to learn.

  • Gamers attempt to work with what they have instead of waiting until situations are “perfect.” Gamers are able to function well in situations where they need to act under time constraints. Many adults face this same challenge in their work environments.
  • Gamers are more likely to ask for advice when needed. Many forums and peer structures are in place where players are able to ask about and advise each other on methods of playing through different levels of various games.
  • Gamers often feel that people can succeed with hard work. Some battles and puzzles in games require very sustained concentration. These situations can be more involved and more in-depth than some final exams. Yet gamers go through them for the joy and the learning anticipated from a successful outcome.

    • These kinds of things have always intrigued me, mostly because while I do enjoy playing video games, I prefer playing the so-called “real-time strategy” games…as in, the ones that involve selecting military units of specific types to counter different onslaughts by your opponent(s). While many would consider this to be “just a game,” I would argue that it’s more of a “faster-paced chess” in that there is a large amount of strategy to consider and mastering such a game can take just as long. You also have to think well in advance as to which units you’ll need at a given time, which ones to build first and what advancements to obtain to reach your goals in the minimum amount of time.

    I kinda think gamers tend to get a bad rap from those that think that “gaming is just shooting people,” when in actuality many games (arguably…) involve more thought than other activities (like reading?) that are generally considered to be “more worth a young person’s time.” I’m not saying that parents should allow their kids to play video games from the moment they get home from school until they go to bed, but it’s worth considering that there are games out there (examples: “Civilization” series, “Zelda” series, etc.) that can be very story-driven and engaging, yet also challenge the gamer to think about what puzzles they are completing or what strategies to undertake in order to accomplish their goals.

    Just a thought…

    Posted on

    Gamer’s minds are different

    Ars Technica has a neat little blurb about a book that’s out by a psychiatrist titled “Video Game Play and Addiction.” In the blog posting, the writer highlights a few key points from one of the chapters that he finds “how gamers are different in terms of problem solving and how they approach problems and even social situations.” You can view the full list at the link above, but for now:

  • Gamers use trial-and-error methods of learning.

    • Gamers do not view a failed attempt as failure; rather, they view it as a critical step in learning how to succeed. This is a fundamentally different approach from that of prior generations that value success as the only option—an outlook that can paralyze the intent to learn.

  • Gamers attempt to work with what they have instead of waiting until situations are “perfect.” Gamers are able to function well in situations where they need to act under time constraints. Many adults face this same challenge in their work environments.
  • Gamers are more likely to ask for advice when needed. Many forums and peer structures are in place where players are able to ask about and advise each other on methods of playing through different levels of various games.
  • Gamers often feel that people can succeed with hard work. Some battles and puzzles in games require very sustained concentration. These situations can be more involved and more in-depth than some final exams. Yet gamers go through them for the joy and the learning anticipated from a successful outcome.

    • These kinds of things have always intrigued me, mostly because while I do enjoy playing video games, I prefer playing the so-called “real-time strategy” games…as in, the ones that involve selecting military units of specific types to counter different onslaughts by your opponent(s). While many would consider this to be “just a game,” I would argue that it’s more of a “faster-paced chess” in that there is a large amount of strategy to consider and mastering such a game can take just as long. You also have to think well in advance as to which units you’ll need at a given time, which ones to build first and what advancements to obtain to reach your goals in the minimum amount of time.

    I kinda think gamers tend to get a bad rap from those that think that “gaming is just shooting people,” when in actuality many games (arguably…) involve more thought than other activities (like reading?) that are generally considered to be “more worth a young person’s time.” I’m not saying that parents should allow their kids to play video games from the moment they get home from school until they go to bed, but it’s worth considering that there are games out there (examples: “Civilization” series, “Zelda” series, etc.) that can be very story-driven and engaging, yet also challenge the gamer to think about what puzzles they are completing or what strategies to undertake in order to accomplish their goals.

    Just a thought…

    Posted on

    $30,000 from the National Parkinson Foundation…to play the Wii…

    So, I saw this blurb on Wii Nintendo Fanboy, referring to a press release discussing how the Medical College of Georgia has been awarded a $30,000 grant from the National Parkinson Foundation to test 30 individuals for improvements in their Parkinson’s symptoms by playing the Wii.

    More specifically:

    “‘Occupational therapy looks at how the illness affects the patient’s whole life, from the psychological, cognitive and sensory motor standpoints,’ says Dr. Ben Herz, assistant professor of occupational therapy in the School of Allied Health Sciences and a study principal investigator along with Dr. John Morgan, neurologist. ‘Our therapists are responsible for helping someone maintain or gain their independence with functional activities.’

    “While occupational therapy is frequently used in the comprehensive care of Parkinson’s patients, evidence is needed to support its short- or long-term effectiveness, says Dr. Herz.

    “’We’re hoping to show a slowing of the progression of the disease and a decrease in medication while increasing function. If we can teach patients to exercise and do functional activities, maybe we can have them take less medications,’ he says.”

    Anyway, this is an idea I had…but…didn’t write a grant for it. I’m wondering if I could have gotten such a thing past my Prelim committee, and have Dr. Westfall playing Wii Sports during my exam…would have been more fun… 🙂

    Posted on

    Where do I go for stem cell treatments? China!

    So, I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR this morning when they had this article about stem-cell treatments offered by Beike Biotechnology – in China… The article specifically highlights how Americans with little hope of curing ailments (like a family’s blind 7-month-old daughter) are going to China to give these treatments a try. The company uses stem-cells harvested from umbilical cords, so they aren’t embryonic in nature (i.e. somewhat less controversial…). It’ll set you back upwards of $10,000-$20,000 (less the cost of actually getting to China to try it!).

    I guess the problem I have with this is on two fronts:

    1). There are a variety of ethical concerns from a scientific standpoint, in that (according to the article) there is little research in the field to suggest that implantation of these stem cells should yield any beneficial effect. And by “little research,” I mean in cell culture, rats, mice, etc. Essentially, it seems to me that these people are being given experimental treatments that shouldn’t be given to humans yet. It would be one thing if there was a great deal of promising data to suggest moving forward with human trials, but it seems like this company kind of decided to skip that part and just jump right in on people.

    2). What does it say about American policy when people are willing to go to a different country to get these treatments (ethical or not…). According to the article, over 600 foreigners (not necessarily all Americans…) have gone to this company to get the treatment, which thereby means that there are people here in the US and other countries that want the option. However, there are so many restrictions here in the US on experimentation (let alone human trials) that these individuals are forced to go to countries that have “skipped” over the, perhaps, more proper procedures.

    Perhaps if the US provided more funding and support for stem cell research, we wouldn’t have Americans traveling overseas to get experimental treatments for their 7-month-old children? I’m not even saying embryonic stem cells (although I’d still like to see more research on them), but even on umbilical cells – without proper funding and support, researchers can’t get the work done, thereby risking other, less ethical, groups coming forward with these treatments and offering them to the public.

    Where exactly is the morality of denying money and support for stem cell research when it forces families to go overseas to get treatments that we could have developed ourselves?