5 myths about psychotropic drugs and children

Brain Blogger has a list of 5 common myths concerning the prescribing of psychotropic drugs for children and adolescents... here's the quick countdown...
1. children are little adults (clearly there are differences in physiology as well as psychology)
2. children have no reason to develop depression or anxiety (tell that to the bullied as well as the bully)
3. psychiatric disorders are the same in children as they are in adults (there may be some overlap, but these are largely different)
4. children can be prescribed the same drugs as adults just in smaller doses (again there may be some, but in most cases there simply isn't enough research to know whether or not this is ok for most drugs)
5. drugs are successful at treating psychiatric disorders (while there are many drugs that show some efficacy, they should not be considered a cure-all, and in some cases, drugs can do more harm than good)

Happy Darwin Day!

Today is the anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth (Feb 12th, 1809).  Last year was the bicentennial celebration, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything cool going on this year... like this petition to get today officially recognized as a holiday.

I Can Haz a College Education?

Apparently, in Britain, cat owners are more likely to have a college degree than dog owners.  Why might this be?  Well, it is hypothesized that people who have college educations have jobs or lifestyles that leave them less time for more needy pets... like dogs.  (I wonder what having a bird or a fish says about your education?)  Anyway, apparently there is a cultural element to this as well, seeing as how, in the United States, there does not appear to be a similar trend, as reported by Justin Wolfers at the Freakonomics Blog:

"unlike Britain, there’s no educational gradient here. In the U.S., 31.5 percent of cat owners have college degrees, which is statistically, insignificantly larger (i.e. no different) than the 30.1 percent of dog owners who hold diplomas. (These numbers are lower than the British numbers, partly because I’m referring to the qualifications of the respondent, not the maximum qualification in the household.) There are no real income differences to speak of, as both cat and dog owners are each as likely as the other to be in either the top or bottom income quartile."

And then, there's also this fun link to a press release for an article claiming that people "who define themselves as "dog people" are more extraverted, more agreeable and more conscientious than self-described "cat people."  

Before you say "Duh"

A new study out suggests that (medical) marijuana may not help to prevent cognitive decline or to lessen the accumulation of amyloid protein deposits in a mouse model for Alzheimer's disease.  Now, before you go crazy laughing and wondering why scientists do studies to find answers that anyone with a little common sense could give you, there is actually a precedent.  Marijuana acts in the brain on cells that express receptors usually attuned to molecules that the brain makes, called endocannabinoids (endogenous cannabis-like molecules).  Now, endocannabinoids have been shown to help keep brain cells alive under "stress" (stress being a catchall term for conditions known to kill nerve cells), and a compound called HU210, which activates cannabinoid receptors much more potently than marijuana had been shown in previous studies using rats to have some efficacy in keeping neurons alive under the types of "stress" the brains of Alzheimer's patients experience.  What I like best about this study is that it shows how science gives you answers even when they're not what you want to hear:

"As scientists, we begin every study hoping to be able to confirm beneficial effects of potential therapies, and we hoped to confirm this for the use of medical marijuana in treating Alzheimer's disease," says Song, a member of the Brain Research Centre at UBC and VCH Research Institute and Director of Townsend Family Laboratories at UBC.

"But we didn't see any benefit at all. Instead, our study pointed to some detrimental effects." 

So, if previous studies showed some benefit, but this one showed no benefit, which ones should we believe?  Well, obviously, more studies should be conducted, preferably on humans... I might just know some people who would volunteer to be studied.

Domino's Pizza and Puffery...

So, Domino's has this new commercial out, where they define "puffery: (n) exaggerated statement based on opinion. Not fact."  I like this word.  You could say that the main point of this blog is to undermine puffery.  Which is why I find it interesting that Domino's would use it in their commercials.

You see, Domino's was founded by Thomas Monaghan, who also founded several religious/political organizations, including the Thomas More Law Center, which is the law firm that so adamantly took up the cause for so-called "intelligent design" (a.k.a. creationism) in the 2005 Dover Trial (Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District).  In case  you aren't familiar with creationism, or its latest iteration, "intelligent design", it is pretty much the epitome of puffery, in that it flatly denies facts in favor of deeply held beliefs that are not based on any factual evidence (so, opinion).  Anyway, Monaghan sold his majority share in the pizza chain in 1998, so I guess I shouldn't be too hard on the pizza slinging franchise, but then he probably still owns a small portion of the company (he held on to 7 per cent back in '98), so as a general rule, I still don't order pizza from Domino's (though this is mostly because our local pizza shops have way better pizza than any chain).  

Sunday Comics: Top Ten Science Comic Book Covers

Yes, if nothing else on this blog screams to the world that I am a HUGE NERD, trying to marry my love of science with my love of comics should pretty much seal the deal.  Anyway, this list is pretty random.  I have no idea if I have found even the bulk of science related comics (though something tells me I got pretty close), and of course, these are mostly rated on my own personal opinion of what looks cool on a cover.  (Which means the rankings have nothing to do with content, particularly since I have only read a couple of the comics on the list.).  Anyway, there are obviously some good ones that didn't make the list (like this one at Nature), but here's the list...

10. Science Comics #1 (Feb 1940). Okay, so the "Science" in Science Comics is likely referring to science fiction rather than real science, but since this is a list of the top "science comic book" covers, it seems like I would be a little remiss not to include any covers from a series called "Science comics".  Plus, with "Electro" breaking through a steel wall to save the damsel in Bond-villainesque distress, this cover seemed to be much more exciting than some of the others that were up for consideration.

9. Captain Science #1 (Nov. 1950).  Again, this is an old school science fiction (rather than science fact) title, but again, he's Captain Science!  Plus, how can you not love the quasi-futuristic clothing (or lack thereof).  Clearly, in the future, all scientific research will be carried out with ray guns and in see-through clothing (thus ensuring your eyes remain focused on your work).  Also, I have to wonder, how does one go about obtaining the moniker "Captain Science"?  Do you think, if I just started referring to myself as Captain (or perhaps Admiral) Science, my friends and family (and co-workers)would all play along?

8. Two Fisted Science #1 (1997).  For the first real science comic book to make the list, we have Two Fisted Science, the comic from GT labs that would eventually be fleshed out into a graphic novel chronicling such heavy hitters as Galileo, Einstein, and Richard Feynman.  I love the title: "Two fisted science".  It makes it seem so action packed... I can't help but feel like the professor (I'm assuming it's Einstein) is reaching out of the page to give you the knowledge smackdown.  No, sir, I don't have any questions.  Please don't box my ears again with your two fisted fury of science.

7. The Sandwalk Adventures #3 (2001).  Charlie Darwin expounds upon his adventures on the Beagle and the finer points of evolution by natural selection... and, as follows logically, gets attacked by a giant space bug... Actually, this set of books, compiled into a graphic novel by "creator" Jay Hosler, is really a great primer on evolution (and as the cover shows, obviously entertaining too).

6. Optical Allusions (2008).  Another great book from Jay Hosler.  How could you not like this one?  You can see all of the crazy characters from the adventures of Wrinkles the Wonder Brain (yes, the hero of the book is a walking, talking brain).  And toward the bottom of the page, Charlie Darwin is punching a bad guy right in the jaw!  The only thing that would make this cover better would be a 1960's batman-esque "Wham!" or "Ka-Pow!" balloon over Darwin's mean left hook.

5. A Journey Through the Digestive System with Max Axiom, Super Scientist.  Okay, first of all, this guy's name is Max Axiom: Super Scientist?  God I hope he has business cards.  Second, he is surfing down the esophagus and out of a hemi-sected stomach (over what looks like the large intestine)!  And, his surfboard has lights on the bottom of it! Enough said.










4. Dignifying Science (2003).  Another graphic novel from GT Labs, and this one is obviously one that is well needed and well deserved.  I would probably put it up at number 1, except the one thing I don't like is how the cover model looks like just that (a model).  Why does she have to be all dressed up, in front of the dressing room mirror to do science?  And while her test tubes and other equipment suggest heavy duty science, I can't help but notice that the set she is holding makes it look like she is spritzing herself with perfume.  It's like the artist is saying, "sure, women can be scientists, but their first priority is looking pretty."  Which, to me seems to be a tad defeating. Other than that, a great book, profiling the likes of Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin, and I believe it was even nominated for an Eisner Award.  You can check out some of the contents here.
(I know, that was pretty deep for a guy who just went crazy over Max Axiom surfing through the GI tract.)

3. Clan Apis #3 (Feb 1999).  Another great one from Jay Hosler.  All you ever wanted to know about the secret lives of honeybees.  Also, I like that the publisher is "Active Synapse", though I obviously take issue with the burst of light filling the synapse in the logo.  What really puts this one on the list, however, is that I can't help but admire such great artwork when the subject matter is a couple of insects and a dung ball. Seriously, look at the shading on that dung ball.  I've eaten meatballs that looked worse.

2. The Unexpected World of Nature #3 (2006).  Part of a series of books put out to accompany the PBS show "Nature".  This one doesn't really need much of an explanation, I mean come on, a treasure hoarding giant lizard?  Unless. like me, it reminds you of an ex-girlfriend, you have to admit, that is a pretty cool cover, and on top of that when it was available, it was free.  you can't beat that.

1. Fallout (2001).  Another book from GT labs, this one about Robert Oppenheimer and the development of the atomic bomb.  Clearly pretty heavy stuff for a comic book, but great art, and a great story as it follows Oppenheimer before and after the Manhattan project and examines his conflicting feelings on developing such a weapon.  The book also (obviously) delves into the relationship between politics and science (and political science).

Apparently...

The actor Roger Moore (my third favorite Bond) stated: “There are even surveys suggesting that eating foie gras can lead to Alzheimer’s, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. In short, eating foie gras is a tasty way of getting terminally ill.”
I applaud his desire to get people to stop eating foie gras, which, if you are unfamiliar with it, is liver from either a duck or a goose that has been fattened ("foie gras" is French for "fat liver", foie = liver, gras = fat, think Mardi Gras = Fat Tuesday).  The thing is, the fattening is done by force feeding the animal, which is kinda cruel, and thus, I agree in spirit that getting people to stop buying and eating foie gras is a good idea.

However, the question here is whether or not there is any truth to what James Bond is saying?  Or, is he another celebrity quack like Jim Carey and Jennifer McCarthy?  I am sure his heart is in the right place, but he demonstrates how it is all too easy for marginal, preliminary results to be blown out of proportion once they hit the mainstream media.  Even ScienceDaily (a site I often link to from this blog) used a little bit of sensationalism by mentioning Alzheimer's in the title of their article on the subject (of course they did make sure to mention at the end of the article that there really was no demonstrated link to Alzheimer's, but then some people only read the headlines.)

The study cited in the ScienceDaily article showed two things: 1. some brands of commercially available foie gras contained an aberrant type of amyloid protein and 2. when these proteins were force fed to mice (Oh, the irony!), the mice got amyloidosis (amyloidosis is mostly a catchall term for when there are abnormal amyloid proteins aggregating in tissue, it can have many causes, from autoimmune to infectious, which is probably why you hear it mentioned on pretty much every episode of House).  Anyway, the study makes no mention of seeing any amyloid fibrils in the brains of these animals (which is where you typically see the protein in people with Alzheimer's), nor does it make any claims of the mice developing symptoms akin to Alzheimer's, diabetes, or rheumatoid arthritis.  No tests were performed, nor were claims made, about memory or learning deficits in the animals.  In fact, the only mention of Alzheimer's in the whole article is in the last sentence, where the authors recommend that people should take caution in deciding whether or not to consume foie gras, especially if they have any diseases that involve amyloid proteins (like rheumatoid arthritis, typeII diabetes or Alzheimer's).  Which is to say that the authors of the study make absolutely NO CLAIM that foie gras causes Alzheimer's.  They merely suggest that someone with Alzheimer's (or a family history of it) would be better safe than sorry to avoid foie gras until more research can be done.

As if that weren't enough, however, we don't even really know if amyloid proteins contribute to Alzheimer's disease in any meaningful way.  Abnormal amyloid proteins form tangled masses that are the defining characteristic of the brains of Alzheimer's patients.  However, the presence of these proteins may just as easily be a symptom as a cause.  For years, it has been hypothesized that the production of easily tangled amyloid proteins is a major cause of Alzheimer's disease.   However, after decades of research and attempts to treat the disease by targeting these proteins, little to no progress has been made, suggesting that in the case of Alzheimer's disease, the amyloid proteins may be more symptomatic than causative. (This isn't to say that no progress has been made, and many neuroscientists still ascribe to the amyloid hypothesis, but amyloid as a cause of Alzheimer's is still just a hypothesis and far from conclusive).

So what is the take home message?  Well, it may be possible that eating foie gras can cause organs in your body to accumulate amyloid fibrils, and it may even be that it could contribute to diseases like Alzheimer's.  However, at this point there is no evidence for that assumption.  That being said, I would still recommend not eating foie gras until it is determined one way or another how transmissable these amyloid proteins are in humans, and because I still think it is kinda cruel to stick a tube down ducks' throats and pour in food.  But then you're all adults, so decide for yourself what you want to do.