Though I've written somewhat positively about Barack Obama in the past, I can't say that I've been too pleased with the direction of his campaign lately. The "bitter" comment will resound until November, though I found some of Kaus' analysis compelling on this issue (more on this later). I am not impressed that he has pitted space exploration against education (background here, via Transterrestrial Musings), a totally unnecessary and misguided opposition. Although I am skeptical of NASA's Constellation Program, I don't see why Obama believes that we need to sacrifice NASA's budget to pay for early education. Why not farm subsidies? Why space?
Now, Obama has followed McCain's lead in wondering whether vaccines cause Autism (link here, via Instapundit). This is the new way? While Bush has been a disaster the culture of science in this country, the left could bring about an equal disasters, just on different issues.
I know that Cosmic Variance has been high on Obama in general and has trumpeted his take on NASA, but, as some of the commentors have noted, his views on science raise concerns. I have become increasingly skeptical about the governments ability to affect change through social programs. I do know that the government can make a difference in science and technology, which may have far more implications for improving quality of life. My fear now is that Obama will not make sacrifice science funding in favor of an attempt to transform society.
Showing posts with label autism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label autism. Show all posts
World Autism Awareness Day
In recognition of World Autism Awareness Day, CNN will be focusing on the condition during the day tomorrow, with a worldwide focus. They have had a number of features online and on the network leading up to the extended day of coverage.
A good place to start is this Fortune article on the good work being done regarding the genetics of autism. It is a nice rebuff to the fervor that accompanied the Hannah Poling case.
On the anti-vaccination front, Respectful Insolence has continued its focus on the issue, and the Instapundit has been hounding McCain on his stance, high-lighting the danger of large segments of the population opting-out of vaccinations. In a rare extended Instapundit discussion, Reynolds offers some in-depth back and forth from doctors and other bloggers. I found the discussion of the "free rider" problem especially compelling, And this post (via Instapundit) from Megan McCardle is very well reasoned and well done.
It's a strange turn we have taken on the road against vaccines. I remember growing up and hearing from parents about the miracle of the polio vaccine. The story of science and medicine saving lives. As a bookend, I also recall sitting in on a Rotary Club meeting as a reporter a few years ago and hearing about their efforts toward total eradication of polio worldwide, a worthy effort but also a sign of all the progress that has been made. Now, a generation removed from the ravages of polio suspicion of vaccines has festered and I encounter people who are suspicious of vaccinations and ask me whether I believe it had anything to do with my son's Autism.
I have written previously that this trend toward a complete dissociation with mainstream medicine has it roots within the way medicine is practiced today (here) and past scientific failures (here). The strange thing about this trend is that many of the people who abandon conventional medicine opt for an alternative therapy, diet, or theory that has little or no basis in fact or any science behind at all.
In regards to Autism, I think it is even more curious (or tragic) because thanks to advances in genetics and neuroscience in combination with an influx of funding, we are in the middle of absolute revolution in the our understanding of the condition (for some previous discussion of this science check here). In a few years, I think the causes of autism will be extremely clear and well-understood. I think we may have a genetic test for Autism.
In the future, I am much more concerned with the implications of possibly selecting out embryos that do not have Autism markers. I am not sure that this is as good a thing as it may seem at first glance and I would like to discuss it more here in the future.
A good place to start is this Fortune article on the good work being done regarding the genetics of autism. It is a nice rebuff to the fervor that accompanied the Hannah Poling case.
On the anti-vaccination front, Respectful Insolence has continued its focus on the issue, and the Instapundit has been hounding McCain on his stance, high-lighting the danger of large segments of the population opting-out of vaccinations. In a rare extended Instapundit discussion, Reynolds offers some in-depth back and forth from doctors and other bloggers. I found the discussion of the "free rider" problem especially compelling, And this post (via Instapundit) from Megan McCardle is very well reasoned and well done.
It's a strange turn we have taken on the road against vaccines. I remember growing up and hearing from parents about the miracle of the polio vaccine. The story of science and medicine saving lives. As a bookend, I also recall sitting in on a Rotary Club meeting as a reporter a few years ago and hearing about their efforts toward total eradication of polio worldwide, a worthy effort but also a sign of all the progress that has been made. Now, a generation removed from the ravages of polio suspicion of vaccines has festered and I encounter people who are suspicious of vaccinations and ask me whether I believe it had anything to do with my son's Autism.
I have written previously that this trend toward a complete dissociation with mainstream medicine has it roots within the way medicine is practiced today (here) and past scientific failures (here). The strange thing about this trend is that many of the people who abandon conventional medicine opt for an alternative therapy, diet, or theory that has little or no basis in fact or any science behind at all.
In regards to Autism, I think it is even more curious (or tragic) because thanks to advances in genetics and neuroscience in combination with an influx of funding, we are in the middle of absolute revolution in the our understanding of the condition (for some previous discussion of this science check here). In a few years, I think the causes of autism will be extremely clear and well-understood. I think we may have a genetic test for Autism.
In the future, I am much more concerned with the implications of possibly selecting out embryos that do not have Autism markers. I am not sure that this is as good a thing as it may seem at first glance and I would like to discuss it more here in the future.
Superbugs: Why are Virulent Strains of Anti-Science so Hard to Shake?
In a previous post, I discussed why Americans are unhappy with health care. It is a problem that could lead to a potentially catastrophic solution (nationalized health care). But, I think the health care problem may be related to an even more troubling phenomenon: the worldwide suspicion/distrust of science.
A possible tipping point in this trend came last week in the Hannah Polling case, in which the government conceded that:
Many have trumpeted this as a turning point in the battle to prove that vaccines cause Autism (See this link for militantly anti-Vaccine Web site). John McCain also endorsed the idea (see earlier post and this link). There is, fortunately, plenty of solid response posts to the Polling case and the McCain issue, including a well-done round-up of the Polling case from Respectful Insolence (post here via Instapundit and Volokh Conspiracy).
My question is how did we arrive at this point? There is a growing body of science which disputes the vaccine connection and there a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that Autism has genetic origins. Why are we still debating this?
There are numerous factors, but one major factor is that there is a credibility gap in science and medicine. It's related to the old cliche that "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate." People have a long memory for scientific failures, but a short memory for achievements. The ravages of science and technology receives the most attention while the staggering achievements of science and medicine as run-of-the-mill or possible curses in disguise.
A possible tipping point in this trend came last week in the Hannah Polling case, in which the government conceded that:
In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory
criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19,
2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which
predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as
a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.
Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners
in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).
Many have trumpeted this as a turning point in the battle to prove that vaccines cause Autism (See this link for militantly anti-Vaccine Web site). John McCain also endorsed the idea (see earlier post and this link). There is, fortunately, plenty of solid response posts to the Polling case and the McCain issue, including a well-done round-up of the Polling case from Respectful Insolence (post here via Instapundit and Volokh Conspiracy).
My question is how did we arrive at this point? There is a growing body of science which disputes the vaccine connection and there a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that Autism has genetic origins. Why are we still debating this?
There are numerous factors, but one major factor is that there is a credibility gap in science and medicine. It's related to the old cliche that "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate." People have a long memory for scientific failures, but a short memory for achievements. The ravages of science and technology receives the most attention while the staggering achievements of science and medicine as run-of-the-mill or possible curses in disguise.
There have been major failures. For instance, the science of child-birth and breastfeeding in the mid-20th century was woefully wrong, misguided, arrogant, and sexist. In the case of breastfeedingm, it took modern medicine only a single generation to nearly wipe-out a practice that had been very successful for millions of years. Fortunately, better science has prevailed and breast-feeding is now mainstream. But, that is the beauty of science, better science will prevail.
Skeptism about science has been exasperated by poor science reporting, poor marketing, and poor decision-making in the private sector, including hype surrounding the often contradictory science of nutrition (eggs are bad for you, eggs are good for you), the prevalence of anti-bacterial products and over-sanitation, and the botched introduction of genetically-modified foods.
While these failures have cost lives and injury, caused environmental degradation, and caused general confusion, they should not overshadow the achievements of science. Before the advent of modern science, infant mortality was high, life expectancy was lower, many people succumbed to diseases which have been wiped out. We have made amazing strides in these areas and we are on the cusp of many, many more. This is an unequivocal societal good.
I think few people feel this way. Many people believe that science is co-opted by profit and greed, that we were better off when we were "closer to the Earth," and that they can find better answers and treatments from the alternative or peripheral community. The problem with investing emotional and mentally in the alternative community is while they provide a correct every once in awhile, they far more often led people down a false path. For every Dr. Bradley, there are far more Dr. Nicks. Many studies are not peer-reviewed, or when they are disputed, the scientists behind them continue to promote their views despite the evidence. True, good, and well-done science can be proven wrong and will yield to even better science. Somehow, poorly done science on the periphery seems to linger. For this, there is not yet a vaccination.
The Maverick
Cosmic Variance posts on John McCain's statement that there is strong evidence that thimerosal is responsible for the increased rate of Autism in America. While I don't know yet whether McCain is anti-science in the way of Bush II, I think this is certainly related to his "maverick" streak. It is likely that McCain will take many more of these kind of bold positions in the coming months.
However, I think this will probably be a positive for many people, possibly even among independent voters. I think many people are skeptical of science, or like to buy into the under-science (such as science that tells us we are secretly being poisoned with Diet Coke or something like that). They don't see this as McCain being an anti-science idiot, but a brave free-thinker.
However, I think this will probably be a positive for many people, possibly even among independent voters. I think many people are skeptical of science, or like to buy into the under-science (such as science that tells us we are secretly being poisoned with Diet Coke or something like that). They don't see this as McCain being an anti-science idiot, but a brave free-thinker.
I also think this may be also be at the root of McCain's problem with conservatives, his recklessly self-righteous. This is a case where some caution is a good thing. He may have given a legitimacy boost to a movement that rightfully should be fading in the face of good science. All this from the experienced, elder statesman.
Eli Stone/Austism Comment
In a post yesterday, I discussed the Eli Stone/Autism controversy. I watched the episode and find its attitude problematic. During the testimony by the mother of the autistic child, she said that "one week he was a healthy, happy child, the next week he had autism." This is meant to illustrate the impact of the vaccine on her son. But, I'm sorry, that's just not how it happens.
As I mentioned, autism is not isolated to the brain, but the neurological impacts stand out as developing so late in the your child's life. It's almost as if you remember a more normal time and wonder what happened. As you learn how the other problems with the body inter-relate with the neurological problems, you realize the signs were there much sooner that anyone could have known.
It is a condition, but I'm not willing to say its a sickness, at least not in the high-functioning case. Its tough, because without it your child would not be who he is and who he is amazing.
The portrayal of autism on Eli Stone as the tragedy of the once normal child lost to a vaccine (and by implication, corporate greed) is a soft, but stinging, insult. But, at least, it does help crystallize your own feelings.
As I mentioned, autism is not isolated to the brain, but the neurological impacts stand out as developing so late in the your child's life. It's almost as if you remember a more normal time and wonder what happened. As you learn how the other problems with the body inter-relate with the neurological problems, you realize the signs were there much sooner that anyone could have known.
It is a condition, but I'm not willing to say its a sickness, at least not in the high-functioning case. Its tough, because without it your child would not be who he is and who he is amazing.
The portrayal of autism on Eli Stone as the tragedy of the once normal child lost to a vaccine (and by implication, corporate greed) is a soft, but stinging, insult. But, at least, it does help crystallize your own feelings.
Eli Stone and the Marvelous Children
Apparently, there has been a controversy stirring regarding the new ABC show Eli Stone. In the pilot, the title character, who is a lawyer, wins a case based on the accusation by his client that vaccinations caused her child's autism. The American Association of Pediatrics is upset, CNN provides background here. Some sample blog sentiment here and here.
While I believe that using mercury as a preservative for infant vaccines sounds idiotic on its face, I do not believe that it has caused autism (the preservative thimerosal is no longer used in common childhood vaccines (see here), but it is possible that your doctor may have old stocks of vaccines and you may want to request a thimerosal-free vaccine). While Rolling Stone argues that the mercury-vaccine link is unassailable (article here, via TV with Meevee), the science has been building to dispute it. More damning is the biological logic of this science.
One of my favorite sources on autism is the UC Davis MIND Institute which posts video podcasts of lectures by leading scientists in the autism field (also available from iTunes). This is unfiltered science from the source. In some cases, I believe, the lectures include results from ongoing studies, so the science is literally cutting-edge (though not necessarily peer-reviewed).
One of the best lectures is given by Dr. Nancy Minshew of the University of Pitt (program description here). She describes the multi-system nature of autism, which, though not well known by the general public, impacts the brain, the immune system, and the gastrointestinal system. As she states, this kind of presentation is typical of a genetic disorder. If you have a mutation in your genetic code, it will not limit itself strictly to the brain, it will impact your entire body. And it does.
She also discusses the likelihood that the prevalence of autism in the past was much higher than anybody could have known because of the institutionalization of mentally ill people and how these people were treated. Today, it is recognized far more commonly. The diagnostic tools are much improved. While a diagnostic cause for the "autism epidemic" is downplayed in the Rolling Stone article cited above, Slate has a nice article about the book Unstrange Minds. The book explores how the increase in autism is a function of evolving diagnostics.
In the Slate article, it is mentioned that autistic children are called "Marvelous Children" in Senegal. It is true.
That is probably the biggest trouble I have with a show like Eli Stone stoking the fear-mongering against vaccines. Behind the campaign against vaccinations is the idea that autism is a horrific outcome for a family, a "sueable" outcome. In severe cases, it is true that it is an extremely difficult burden. In many cases, the children are high-functioning and have subtle differences from typical children. These differences are sometimes frustrating, sometimes heart-breaking, but also sometimes amazing, sometimes marvelous.
I think the fear that Eli Stone and the media in general have generated makes it much more difficult for parents to consciously recognize that their child may have autistic symptoms and seek help for the child in a timely fashion. That's the ultimate outrage.
So, while Gregg Easterbrook believes that TV causes autism, my only warning is that TV may lead to a warped perspective.
(P.S. I believe that the problem with mercury vaccines is not that they cause autism but that are autistic children are less able to healthily process vaccines with mercury due to their gastrointestinal problems. This article discusses a study which shows that children process mercury much faster than previously believed, but this quote sums up a major hole in the study:
While I believe that using mercury as a preservative for infant vaccines sounds idiotic on its face, I do not believe that it has caused autism (the preservative thimerosal is no longer used in common childhood vaccines (see here), but it is possible that your doctor may have old stocks of vaccines and you may want to request a thimerosal-free vaccine). While Rolling Stone argues that the mercury-vaccine link is unassailable (article here, via TV with Meevee), the science has been building to dispute it. More damning is the biological logic of this science.
One of my favorite sources on autism is the UC Davis MIND Institute which posts video podcasts of lectures by leading scientists in the autism field (also available from iTunes). This is unfiltered science from the source. In some cases, I believe, the lectures include results from ongoing studies, so the science is literally cutting-edge (though not necessarily peer-reviewed).
One of the best lectures is given by Dr. Nancy Minshew of the University of Pitt (program description here). She describes the multi-system nature of autism, which, though not well known by the general public, impacts the brain, the immune system, and the gastrointestinal system. As she states, this kind of presentation is typical of a genetic disorder. If you have a mutation in your genetic code, it will not limit itself strictly to the brain, it will impact your entire body. And it does.
She also discusses the likelihood that the prevalence of autism in the past was much higher than anybody could have known because of the institutionalization of mentally ill people and how these people were treated. Today, it is recognized far more commonly. The diagnostic tools are much improved. While a diagnostic cause for the "autism epidemic" is downplayed in the Rolling Stone article cited above, Slate has a nice article about the book Unstrange Minds. The book explores how the increase in autism is a function of evolving diagnostics.
In the Slate article, it is mentioned that autistic children are called "Marvelous Children" in Senegal. It is true.
That is probably the biggest trouble I have with a show like Eli Stone stoking the fear-mongering against vaccines. Behind the campaign against vaccinations is the idea that autism is a horrific outcome for a family, a "sueable" outcome. In severe cases, it is true that it is an extremely difficult burden. In many cases, the children are high-functioning and have subtle differences from typical children. These differences are sometimes frustrating, sometimes heart-breaking, but also sometimes amazing, sometimes marvelous.
I think the fear that Eli Stone and the media in general have generated makes it much more difficult for parents to consciously recognize that their child may have autistic symptoms and seek help for the child in a timely fashion. That's the ultimate outrage.
So, while Gregg Easterbrook believes that TV causes autism, my only warning is that TV may lead to a warped perspective.
(P.S. I believe that the problem with mercury vaccines is not that they cause autism but that are autistic children are less able to healthily process vaccines with mercury due to their gastrointestinal problems. This article discusses a study which shows that children process mercury much faster than previously believed, but this quote sums up a major hole in the study:
But Isaac Pessah of the UC Davis MIND Institute pointed out that the researchers
had only studied healthy children. They didn't address "the key issue of whether
a subset of kids with metabolic disorders would handle it
differently.")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
