Low Dose Naltrexone – Bogus or Cutting Edge Science?

Posted on by

On SBM we have documented the many and various ways that science is abused in the pursuit of health (or making money from those who are pursuing health). One such method is to take a new, but reasonable, scientific hypothesis and run with it, long past the current state of the evidence. We see this with the many bogus stem cell therapy clinics that are popping up in parts of the world with lax regulation.

This type of medical pseudoscience is particularly challenging to deal with, because there is a scientific paper trail that seems to support many of the claims of proponents. The claims themselves may have significant plausibility, and parts of the claims may in fact be true. Efforts to educate the public about such treatments are frustrated by the mainstream media’s lazy tendency to discuss every study as if it were the definitive last word on a topic, and to site individual experts as if they represent the consensus of scientific opinion.

Recent claims made for low dose naltrexone (LDN) fit nicely into this model – a medical intervention with interesting research, but in a preliminary phase that does not justify clinical use. And yet proponents talk about it as if it is a medical revolution.

Background on Naltrexone

Naltrexone is an FDA approved drug that binds to and inhibits opiate receptors – whose primary known function is to bind endogenous opiates (endorphins and enkephalins) and reduce pain. These are the same receptors that morphine, heroine, and other opiate drugs bind to. The primary use of naltrexone is to rapidly reverse opiate toxicity, or in the chronic treatment of opiate addiction.

But biology is always more complex than our initial understanding of any system. Evolution has a tendency to use what is at hand, and so receptors and hormones have been frequently co-opted for other uses over evolutionary history. This is partly why medications often have side effects – the target of the drug is used for more than just the desired effect.

There is also evidence that opiate receptors exist on other cell types, including cells involved in immune function, and activating or inhibiting these receptors may therefore modulate immune function or other biological functions. So far so good – all interesting and fairly standard basic science.

Translational Research

In the case of LDN the major problem comes at the level of translational research – taking what we are learning from basic science and applying it to specific clinical applications. It should be noted that this type of research is very unpredictable. Most of the promising leads provided by basic science do not lead to effective treatments. There are many possible reasons for such failure to translate to clinical outcomes. It is possible that the basic science picture is still significantly incomplete, and the piece or pieces that are missing alter the ultimate clinical effect of the intervention. It is also possible that the basic science is simply wrong in one or more of its conclusions. Further, the basic science may be correct, and the predicted outcome legitimate, but the size of the effect clinically insignificant, and therefore not seen in clinical trials.

Or, the basic science may be looking at markers that are associated with the biological or disease process they are interested in, but are not causally related (just downstream effects), and therefore manipulating the markers has no effect. Or the markers may be very nonspecific and completely incidental. For example, many things will activate the immune system incidentally, resulting in elevated markers for immune activity. But modifying these markers, or even immune activity may do nothing for the underlying disease or process you want to treat.

There are therefore many blind alleys. The basic science should therefore be used cautiously, to point in the direction of potential translational research – but not to justify clinical treatments.

Translational and other clinical research then proceeds to preliminary pilot studies. These types of studies are generally small and either open (not blinded) or with some blinding. They are not large, rigorous, and reliable clinical trials. The purpose of pilot studies is to see if a new treatment or approach is basically safe, and if it has any potential. You want to make sure that patients do not do clearly worse on the treatment. The point of preliminary research is to justify larger clinical trials – not to support clinical claims.

I have discussed previously the work of John Ioannidis that indicates that most published research is wrong. Don’t take this the wrong way – on scientific questions the research eventually works itself out. But when you take any question that has been fairly definitively answers, and then look back through the literature, many if not most of the preliminary studies published on the question turn out to have been wrong in retrospect. The take home lesson for this is that, when you are at the pilot study stage most positive studies will not pan out when more rigorous studies are done.

This should not be surprising. There are multiple factors that are known to bias small or poorly controlled studies toward the positive – placebo effects, experimenter bias, and publication bias just being the most obvious.

If you read the conclusions to even very positive pilot studies you will find, “This study indicates that treatment X is well-tolerated by patients with disease Y,” or “This study indicates that larger clinical studies are warranted.” When researchers have to couch their conclusions in terms that will get past peer-review, that is all they can say. Problems arise, however, when proponents (whether or not they are the researchers) begin to make clinical claims that go beyond such caution.

Low-Dose Naltrexone

So what is the current state of the science of LDN? At this point the basic science shows that opiate receptors, as I indicated, do more than modulate pain. This means they are a potential target for the development of new drugs, or new applications of existing drugs. While naltrexone is an antagonist – it inhibits opiate receptors – LDN causes a compensatory upregulation of native endorphins and enkephalins, which last beyond the effects of the naltrexone itself. This means, paradoxically, that a daily dose of LDN can be used to chronically increase endorphin and enkephalin levels.

This is all perfectly reasonable, but still a bit preliminary, basic science. It indicates the potential for translational research – nothing more.

What about the clinical evidence? A search of PubMed for “low-dose naltrexone” reveals only pilot and preliminary studies. The quick bottom line is that there does not appear to be a single medical application of LDN (outside of addiction) that is supported by a class I clinical trial, let alone a consensus of rigorous studies. What we do see is a smattering of pilot studies for a few diseases.

One study on fibromyaligia found symptomatic relief and reduced pain and tenderness. Beyond being preliminary, such effects could simply be due to increased endorphins (natural pain reducers), without having to invoke any other mechanism.There are also a few studies looking at Crohn’s disease and experimental allergic encephalitis (EAE – a rat model of multiple sclerosis) with some  positive effects. The EAE study adds the further element of extrapolating from an animal model to a human disease.

There is also a pilot study of LDN in autism. While one outcome measure was positive, the rest were negative – which to me is a negative study.  At the very least, LDN looks less promising for autism than for either painful or autoimmune diseases, which does make sense given that autism is a very different and complex disorder.

So far this would all be just an obscure corner of medical research, hardly worth the public’s attention and of use only to medical researchers looking for promising leads to follow up. But here is where the pseudoscience comes in – some advocates are promoting LDN as a breakthrough medical treatment for a long list of diseases and disorder, going well beyond the research.

The website, lowdosenaltrexone.org, embellishes the preliminary research and presents LDN as an effective treatment. They list that it is effective for:

Cancers:

* Bladder Cancer
* Breast Cancer
* Carcinoid
* Colon & Rectal Cancer
* Glioblastoma
* Liver Cancer
* Lung Cancer (Non-Small Cell)
* Lymphocytic Leukemia (chronic)
* Lymphoma (Hodgkin’s and Non-Hodgkin’s)
* Malignant Melanoma
* Multiple Myeloma
* Neuroblastoma
* Ovarian Cancer
* Pancreatic Cancer
* Prostate Cancer (untreated)
* Renal Cell Carcinoma
* Throat Cancer
* Uterine Cancer

Other Diseases:

* ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease)
* Alzheimer’s Disease
* Ankylosing Spondylitis
* Autism Spectrum Disorders
* Behcet’s Disease
* Celiac Disease
* Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
* CREST syndrome
* Crohn’s Disease
* Emphysema (COPD)
* Endometriosis
* Fibromyalgia
* HIV/AIDS
* Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
* Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
* Parkinson’s Disease
* Pemphigoid
* Primary Lateral Sclerosis (PLS)
* Psoriasis
* Rheumatoid Arthritis
* Sarcoidosis
* Scleroderma
* Stiff Person Syndrome (SPS)
* Systemic Lupus (SLE)
* Transverse Myelitis
* Ulcerative Colitis
* Wegener’s Granulomatosis

Right there we have a huge red flag – a treatment that works for a long list of diseases with different etiologies. Many of the diseases on the list are auto-immune, and therefore an immunosuppresant could theoretically be applied to many auto-immune diseases. But many of the diseases on the list are not auto-immune.

Treating a long list of cancers is another red flag, as well as HIV/AIDS. The justification for this is that LDS “boosts the immune system,” this phrase alone also being another indication of a dubious treatment. Scientists do not talk of “boosting” the immune system because this concept is too vague to be of any use. The immune system in healthy individuals is probably already operating within optimal parameters, especially since immune activity is a trade off between fighting off invaders while not causing too much damage to the host. Increasing immune activity, therefore, does not always equal improving immune function. In individuals who have a weakened immune system because of chronic disease, poor nutrition, or toxicity their immune systems can be restored to more normal function with treatment – but these are often specific treatments that address an underlying cause.

Further, there is an inherent contradiction in simultaneously treating diseases that are auto-immune (the immune system attacking the host), and immunodeficiency diseases (like AIDS) and claiming to treat cancer by “boosting” immune activity. Increasing immune activity actually worsens auto-immune diseases, and suppressing the immune system would worsen AIDS. This is a difficult contradiction to resolve.

The end result is just another bogus treatment with claims that are literally too good to be true, based upon pre-clinical or preliminary evidence only. Proponents have turned into proselytizers – saying on their website:”

If you or someone you know has connections in the media, the medical community, or to those in developing countries involved in AIDS policy or treatment, please let them know about LDN.

Truly promising and science-based treatments do not need an organization to promote them. The science will speak for itself.

Conclusion

The opiate system and drugs to manipulate it are standard biomedicine, and we may see an expansion of the indications for naltrexone as the clinical research progresses. I would also not be surprised at all if this line of research does not pan out – we simply cannot tell at this stage.

Meanwhile, the LDN community are turning a promising if preliminary treatment into essentially what is snake oil by promoting it for an implausibly long and contradictory list of indications. They are making the classic mistake of extrapolating prematurely from preliminary evidence, and relying heavily on anecdotes. Anecdotes are just another form of preliminary evidence (a particularly weak form at that)  that should only be used to indicate promising new research, but not as a basis for clinical claims.

Ironically, LDN promoters may in fact harm research into LDN by giving it a bad name. Researchers may be reluctant to hitch their careers, or funding agencies commit resources, to a treatment that has a dubious reputation. If the research is promising it will still get done, but if anything it is likely to be slowed by the efforts of the LDN promoters.

This is just one of the many ways in which pseudoscience poisons the system.


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]

Faisal Shahzad an AntiWar Activist, hated Bush, even a 9/11 Truther?

Posted on by

by Eric Dondero

Naturalized citizen and Islamic Terrorist Bomber Faisal Shahzad opposed the War in Iraq. New reports suggest he held views much in line with leftwing AntiWar activists who fiercely opposed the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are even indications he may have been aligned with the so-called "Truther movement." A witness told the Associated Press, that Shahzad believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. In truth, Hussein harbored top Al Qaeda Terrorist Abu Massad al Zarcawi and hosted two Al Qaeda-linked Terrorist training camps: Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam.

Investigative journalist, and author of two Best Selling NY Times books Richard Miniter in his book "Shadow War: The Untold Story of How the Bush Administration is winning the War on Terror" (2005) documented 23 hard instances where Hussein and the Iraqi government were cooperating and actively assisting Al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks.

From Tampa Bay On-line (via Memeo, Memeo):

Shahzad's behavior sometimes seemed odd to his neighbors, and he surprised a real estate broker he hardly knew with his outspokenness about President George W. Bush and the Iraq war.

"He mentioned that he didn't like Bush policies in Iraq," said Igor Djuric, who represented Shahzad in 2004 when he was buying a home.

Djuric said he couldn't remember the exact words Shahzad used about Bush but "something to the effect of he doesn't know what he's doing and it's the wrong thing that he's doing."

"I don't know if he mentioned 9/11," Djuric said, "but something like that, Iraq has nothing to do with anything."

The New York Times (via Memeo) adds this ironic note:

a real estate broker who helped him buy the house, in Shelton, Conn., in 2004 remembered that Mr. Shahzad did not like President George W. Bush or the Iraq war.

“I didn’t take it for much,” said the broker, Igor Djuric, “because around that time not many people did.”

Yes, indeed. Around that time many Americans did not like Bush either: Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Al Gore, NetRoots, the Greens, the entire Progressive wing of the Democrat Party, and a host of other AntiWar advocates.

Is it safe now to begin referring to Shahzad as a "Liberal Progressive"?

(H/t Memeorandum)

Talking About Asteroids

Posted on by

Asteroids; the ultimate villain.  If they’re big enough (and many are), they are capable of destroying all life on Earth in a single event.  Many doomsday scenarios making their viral way around the Web prominently feature asteroids to play on this fear.  We know it’s happened before, and we know the odds are good it will happen again.

I wrote a post not too long ago called “Chicken Little Was Right” (you can look it over here if you’re interested) which talks about chunks of real estate bombarding Earth.  That’s definitely a concern when talking about asteroids, but today I want to talk about asteroids that aren’t falling to Earth destroying civilization.

Image released to Public Domain - Distribution of asteroids in the inner solar system

An asteroid is a small body orbiting the Sun; smaller than a planet but larger than a meteoroid.  They are closely related to comets, the main difference being asteroids do not have a coma, and comets do.  Comets are believed to come mostly from the Oort Cloud, while asteroids are mostly concentrated further inward; being somewhat rare beyond the Scattered Disc.

NASA/JPL artist's conception of the Dawn Mission probe with Vesta (left) and Ceres (right)

When talking about asteroids, the first thing that comes to mind for most people is the Asteroid Belt.  When I was growing up, it was still common belief that the asteroids where remnants of a planet that once orbited between Mars and Jupiter.  Now, of course, we know there never was a planet in that space; Jupiter became large enough to disrupt the accretion process.  We did get a few good-sized bodies in the Belt:  Ceres,  3 Juno, 4 Vesta, 5 Astraea, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea.  Ceres, in fact, is large enough to be classed as a Dwarf Planet.  The asteroid Ida, while not large enough to be a dwarf planet, is large enough to have her own little moon.  While Ida was the first asteroid found to have a little moon, many more have since been discovered.

NASA/JPL Galileo approach to Ida 02/1996

When asteroids get pulverized into dust, we get to see Zodiacal light.  This eerie, beautiful phenomenon is caused by sunlight reflecting off the dust.

Image: Mila Zinkova - Orionid Meteor Shower showing Zodiacal green and red light at bottom of image

There’s a lot to be said about asteroids, and the more we know about them, the more interesting they become.

And of course, one day an asteroid is going to come crashing into Earth and destroy most (if not all) life on the planet.

Meteor Crater in Arizona - Image PD US Gov

"Experimenting with Death: An Introduction to Terror Management Theory," Lecture, Observatory, Thursday May 6

Posted on by


This Thursday, May 6, join Morbid Anatomy and Michael Johns at Observatory for a night of all things Terror Management Theory! Full details follow; This will be a very good night and I hope very much to see you there!

Experimenting with Death: An Introduction to Terror Management Theory
An Illustrated Lecture by Michael Johns, Former Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Wyoming
Date: Thursday, May 6
Time: 8:00 PM
Admission: $5
Presented by Morbid Anatomy

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Denial of Death, cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker attempted to develop a unified theory of human behavior. He argued that it was the human capacity to grasp and contemplate our own mortality–and our need to suppress this knowledge–that was at the root of human culture and behavior, from genocide to altruism, religion to philosophy. Terror Management Theory (TMT) is a psychological theory directly based on Becker’s work, developed by a group of social psychologists interested in testing Becker’s assertions about death as a core motivator of human behavior. Over the last 25 years, psychologists in the North America, Europe and the Middle East have conducted hundreds of studies to test hypothesis derived from Becker’s work and the Terror Management Theory it inspired. This body of research compellingly supports Becker’s thesis and reveals the ways in which mortality salience influences behaviors ranging from aggression and stereotyping to creativity and sexuality. Using segments from the documentary “Flight from Death: The Quest for Immortality,” this lecture will introduce Terror Management Theory and discuss the often clever experiments that have been conducted to test its tenets.

Michael Johns is a social psychologist and works as a research scientist in the NYC Department of Health. He has published numerous research articles and book chapters on a variety of topics, including Terror Management Theory. Before moving to Brooklyn, Mike was an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Wyoming.

You can find out more about this presentation here. For more on Ernest Becker's wonderful book Denial of Death, click here; for more on the film "Flight From Death - The Quest for Immortality," click here. You can get directions to Observatory--which is next door to the Morbid Anatomy Library--by clicking here. You can find out more about Observatory here, join our mailing list by clicking here, and join us on Facebook by clicking here.

Head of Discovery and Engagement, Wellcome Library, Employment Opportunity

Posted on by


To quote the new call for applications for "Head of Discovery and Engagement at the Wellcome Library," "The Wellcome Library is the one of the world's great cultural treasures: a unique and irreplaceable collection, which documents medicine and its role in society, past and present." The Wellcome Library also happens to be one of my favorite places in the world, and the newly created position of "Head of Discovery and Engagement" seems like a potentially pretty darn great job.

The closing date for applications is May 10th; full job description and details follow:

Head of Discovery and Engagement
Wellcome Library
Closing Date: 5/10/2010
Salary: £50 000 - £60 000

Job Details
The Wellcome Trust is a global charity dedicated to achieving extraordinary improvements in human and animal health. We support the brightest minds in biomedical research and the medical humanities.

The Wellcome Library is the one of the world's great cultural treasures: a unique and irreplaceable collection, which documents medicine and its role in society, past and present. As Head of Discovery and Engagement, you will play a pivotal role in making these outstanding collections accessible, a key part of an ambitious strategy to transform the Wellcome Library. This will include revolutionising our web presence and reading-room services to meet the needs of existing and new audiences and developing the Library's role as not only a world-class research resource, but also as part of Wellcome Collection, one of London's most exciting cultural destinations.

A passionate advocate for our collections, you will lead the Library's outreach, communication and marketing activities and, by developing our understanding of users and their needs, ensure we have a robust framework for evaluating our success. As a key member of the senior management team, reporting to the Head of Library, you will need to demonstrate: significant experience in a public/user focused role in a cultural environment; a commitment to audience development and engagement programmes; a proven understanding of commissioning audience research and evaluation; a good knowledge of social media and web technologies and experience of creating/commissioning web content; previous staff management experience and an ability to manage budgets/resources; excellent written and verbal communication skills across a broad range of stakeholders; a demonstrable ability to contribute creatively and enthusiastically at a strategic level. In addition a strong interest in the history of health, medicine or science would be advantageous.

For more information on the Wellcome Library and the transformation strategy, please visit: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk For more information on this role or a job description and to apply online visit: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/jobs Alternatively write to: HR, Wellcome Trust, 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE. Please send a CV (including salary details) and covering letter explaining how you meet the criteria and what you feel you can bring to this role.

You can find out more by clicking here. To find out more about the astounding Wellcome Library, click here.

Image: The Wellcome Library via Himetop and drawn from chrisjohnbeckett's Flickr photostream.

Riverside County supervisors pledge support to find medical school startup money – Press-Enterprise

Posted on by
Riverside County supervisors pledge support to find medical school startup money
Press-Enterprise
Supervisor Bob Buster said the county has to do something to get the medical school opened on time because state lawmakers have failed to come up with $10 ...
Healthcare worker programs get funding from supervisorsVentura County Star

all 12 news articles »

Solar Powered Floating Home

Posted on by

the-last-resort-by-rafaa-51Floating homes have long been a dream for both designers and island owners who want to maintain the ecological purity of their island without compromising on luxury.

One of the most recent designs that is in the early development stages is both luxurious and eco-friendly. This solar powered floating home is about 5 meters wide and 15 meters long with two levels. Sleeping bunks, mechanical equipment and hatches are on the lower level and the upper level contains living space, a kitchen, a bathroom and two bedrooms. In total there are six beds and a sliding panel helps close off the rooms for more privacy. Vertical blinds on the facade act as a shading device for the interior as well as a privacy system. Stairs lead up to the roof, which serves as an extra deck, and roof integrated solar panels generate electricity for the two electric engines that propel the home.

Source: inhabitat.

Will Pathology PACS eliminate injuries or cause different ones?

Posted on by

I wonder who is more susceptible to work-related injuries.  Pathologists or radiologists?  Is anyone aware of any data as that below for radiology for pathology?  Will pathology PACS eliminate stress and strain from microscope use or simply create other injuries?

Radiologists may be prone to work-related injuries

By Erik L. Ridley
AuntMinnie staff writer

Thanks to a lack of attention paid to developing comfortable and ergonomic work spaces, radiologists appear susceptible to work-related musculoskeletal symptoms, according to research presented Monday at the American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) meeting in San Diego.


Researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston found that only 7.2% of surveyed radiologists did not have any work-related musculoskeletal symptoms. Investments in training and education seem required to address this health risk to radiologists, according to the study team.

"It's an important problem that affects every radiologist, regardless of your level of training, what specialty you're in, your location, and [whether you're in] academic or private practice," said Dr. Anand Prabhakar, a clinical fellow in abdominal imaging. "We need to do something about it before it becomes very debilitating to people."

Following anecdotal reports that many radiologists suffer from work-related musculoskeletal symptoms, the MGH research team sought to determine the prevalence of these symptoms in radiologists at a large tertiary-care hospital. They also wanted to investigate the effects of several workstation ergonomic factors and work habits on these symptoms, according to Prabhakar.

They administered a written questionnaire to 28 randomly selected radiologists (17 male, 11 female; age range = 36-50 years) from various divisions of a single radiology department. All of these radiologists primarily utilized PACS and speech recognition for interpretation, but also occasionally viewed hard-copy images, according to the researchers.

The questionnaire gathered information such as demographics, work-related musculoskeletal symptoms, work habits, and workstation design. Of the respondents, 50% had worked on the same system for longer than five years. In addition, 96% had two to three monitors at their workstation.

Only 7.2% were symptom-free, and 70% had seen a physician for work-related musculoskeletal symptoms. The researchers also found that 75% had changed their work schedule in response to symptoms.

Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms included:

  • Neck pain in 42.8%
  • Lower back pain in 39.2%
  • Headache in 32.1%
  • Shoulder pain in 32.1%
  • Wrist pain in 7.4%

The MGH researchers also discovered that three radiologists (17%) never adjusted their chairs; all had three or more symptoms of musculoskeletal pain. Only 32.3% of respondents always adjust their chairs, while 42.8% said they sometimes did.

As for adjusting their monitors, 60.7% never did. Elbow rests were never used by 53.5% of respondents, of which 46% had shoulder pain. Only 50% had a regular exercise program.

However, the researchers did not find any relationship between those who had more adaptive responses overall and those who had fewer symptoms.

Prabhakar attributed the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems to a combination of factors, including the piecemeal approach of putting together radiology work spaces in the PACS era.

"For example, the PACS station is not purchased at the same time [from] the same vendor; it's not integrated with, say, the desk, telephone, mouse, keyboard, and dictation system," he told AuntMinnie.com. "There really has not been any interest in somebody putting it all together and really taking into account radiologist comfort."

Cost also can be a factor, Prabhakar said. Training and education are often not provided on how to set up work spaces to be more comfortable and ergonomic.

In another notable survey finding, radiologists expressed strong preferences for having more tools for combating repetitive stress injury, some of which are very low cost, he said. For example, approximately 70% of respondents thought a wireless mouse would be helpful and approximately 60% said a wireless keyboard would be helpful. And although it would be more expensive than a wireless keyboard or wireless mouse, more than 80% of respondents wanted a desk with an adjustable height.

"If we can somehow test whether those small things could help people, then I think it's a small investment in the long-term health of radiologists," he said. "I suspect, and I haven't proven it, that if radiologists are more comfortable, then they're going to work more efficiently. And that will increase productivity, which I think is the measure that administrators will look at before they invest in it."

As for specific steps radiologists can take to improve their work-space environment, Prabhakar suggests examining recommendations produced by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Those guidelines, which are available online as an e-tool, provide a range of tips for creating safe and comfortable workstations.

"Ultimately, I hope that this project inspires other people to take control of their own workspace, maybe inspire industry or academic institutions to address the problem, and hopefully future research will prove that this may improve our productivity," he said.

Future research efforts will evaluate the impact of training and education on the symptoms of work-related musculoskeletal symptoms, Prabhakar said.

Why NASA? [Part II of II]

Posted on by

In my last entry, I made what I believe is the fundamental case for space exploration – the fact that the survival of our species ultimately depends on it.  Perhaps the world’s most reknowned cosmologist, Stephen Hawking shares this view and, with the help of computer graphics, illustrated it on the Discovery Channel with tonight’s episode of “Into the Universe” – The Story of Everything.

Not only do we have external and internal threats to our continued existence, we have a final time limit of about one billion years.  The Sun is in its “middle age,” but it will eventually expand – in about five billion years – into what is called a red giant star.  At this point, it will have stopped fusing hydrogen in its core and will only be burning in the outer shells.

These regions where fusion is still taking place will expand out from the core and, eventually, engulf the Earth itself.  Long before its physical destruction, though, the planet will be rendered uninhabitable by the increased radiation as the Sun continues to age.  Even before the transition to a red giant, the Sun’s output will be so strong in a billion years that the oceans will boil off and the hydrogen lost to space.

Red Giant Sun
Video of the Sun expanding in its red giant phase

There are no “ifs, ands, or buts” about it.  We will not be able to call Earth our home forever.  By that time, we must have learned how to live on other worlds and, eventually, even how to cross the vast distances between the stars.  Though we may be able to live on Mars or terraformed moons of the outer planets for a time, the Sun’s expansion is likely to eject Mars and the outer planets into deep space.

Even if we figure out a way to stay in the solar system on entirely artificial habitats, the Sun will eventually die.  The outer layers will be cast off into a nebula of gas and dust.  Fusion will cease completely.  All that will remain is an extremely dense white dwarf, cooling away until it no longer even emits heat.

Yes, a billion years is a very long time from now.  The fact that we can even conceptualize such a problem, though, is a credit to our species.  We will have to solve it, eventually.  With today’s space programs, we are taking the first steps.  Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky said that Earth is the cradle of humanity, but that we cannot stay in the cradle forever.

blog post photo
Artist’s concept of a lunar base (NASA)

So, what role should the government have in all this?  Why should we even have a NASA?

First, I look to the Constitution itself.  At the very beginning, the Preamble says that our government was created, in part, to “provide for the common defence” and to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Given the potential near-term threats from space hazards to life, liberty, and property and the long-term necessity of space travel for our continued survival, I’d say we’re pretty well covered there.  A just government exists to protect the rights of its citizens through reasonable measures and in accordance with the rule of law.  Thus, a just government has an inherent interest in protecting its citizens against space-based threats and developing the means to do so.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to pay for such a capability and the President the authority to direct both the armed forces and any other agency established by Congress to execute that capability.  Some also argue that the Constitution grants Congress the ability to promote science and “the useful Arts,” but I think that is an overly generous interpretation of the clause granting Congress power to establish patents and copyrights.

If we agree that the US government has a just role in protecting its citizens and American property (including assets in space) from threats beyond our atmosphere, you still might ask why we don’t just let the military handle it all.  Until the Space Act of 1958, that’s precisely what the case was.

President Eisenhower and Congress agreed that the United States should have separate, but parallel, military and civilian space programs, unlike the centralized military system in the Soviet Union.  NASA was created to coordinate all non-military activity in space, as the commercial and civilian benefits of space applications were recognized early on.  This had the added benefit of initiating multiple development paths for American rocketry in its race with the Soviet Union for space supremacy.

Sputnik
Sputnik – The first artificial satellite and the beginning of the Space Race

However, we won the Space Race.  We beat the Soviets to the Moon.  Since then, our government has largely taken the position that what NASA does best is inspire the nation through its pursuit of science in space.  We’ve spent the past forty years trying to either figure out “what’s next?” or get back to where Apollo left off.

While basic science research is more important than ever, especially with the closing of private research institutions like the venerable Bell Labs, and is a vital component of ensuring NASA has the knowledge it needs, I don’t think that is necessarily the best attitude to have about NASA as an agency.  I think NASA has an obligation to be directly relevant to the country’s vital interests, beyond nebulous claims of our importance to prestige and technology research.

The Space Act itself says that “the general welfare and security” of our country require that NASA seek and encourage the “fullest” commercial use of space.  It also requires NASA have a watch program for Near-Earth Objects to “provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard,” I might add.

Space exploration for its own sake is enough to get me out of bed in the morning, go for my run, shower, and head down to Clear Lake.  However, it has become clear to me that isn’t enough to justify the cost to the American taxpayer, as much as many of my colleagues wish the politicians would just give us the money and leave us alone.

In the process of carrying out its Congressionally-designated mission to protect the Earth from space-based threats and increase our understanding of the planet and space phenomena, NASA can and must undertake initiatives that help solve America’s strategic problems.  By thoughtful selection of NASA’s programs, we can all get the best of both worlds.

For example, rare-earth metals are resources both vital to modern technology and largely supplied by foreign countries, like China.  There is serious concern that China may restrict the supply of these materials to feed their own domestic needs.  Preliminary surveys of some Near-Earth Objects suggest that they might have more usable metals, including rare-earth elements, than has ever been mined in the history of civilization.

NASA technology developed to study, track, and deflect threatening asteroids could possibly be commercialized to provide the United States with vital commodities that we lack in abundance within our borders, if it can be done economically and safely.

blog post photo
Artist’s concept of an asteroid mining operation (NASA)

Perhaps that’s a bit too much of a stretch, though.  After all, it might turn out to be cheaper to cut some kind of deal with a country that has the resources we need, but lacks the capability to extract them on their own.

Let’s consider energy independence, then.  Solar power is often criticized because it doesn’t work when the weather is bad or at night.  The Sun is always shining in space, though.  The fundamental technology already exists where we could collect solar power in space and beam it to the ground on a frequency largely transparent to the atmosphere.

It just hasn’t been demonstrated on a large enough scale to be useful – yet.  The National Space Security Office has done studies showing how space-based solar power could allow the military to provide clean, safe, on-demand power to forward-deployed bases.  In some places, the cost per kilowatt-hour for the military today is 20 times what we pay stateside.  Space-based solar would also eliminate costly and dangerous powerplant fuel convoys.

The European Space Agency sponsored a study that showed a powersat system could pay back its energy costs of being established within its first year of operation.  However, the problem is that the cost of launch to orbit is still very high, so much so that the commercial space industry tends to be very conservative.  It would be hard to get a powersat initiative going without a large first customer.

Advances in technology are reducing the size and increasing the efficiency of solar panels, though.  New designs currently in development could provide as much power as all eight arrays on the International Space Station on a single array a fraction the size.  Such high-density production will also be useful for electric propulsion systems that are orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical propulsion in space.

blog post photo
Artist’s concept of a powersat (NASA)

Author Ben Bova laid out a possible roadmap to a powersat future, though, in 2008.  The United States built its giant hydroelectric dams through public-private partnerships where private investors were backed by low-interest, long-term loans guaranteed by the government.

A similar program where NASA demonstrates the technology for in-space applications and turns over mass production to private industry for such customers as the military could be just the thing to spur the creation of this new industry – an inherently high-tech field with direct security and economic benefits to the country.

If you’re still skeptical about solar, though, there is always nuclear power to consider.  To minimize crew exposure to cosmic radiation and dramatically reduce transit times (perhaps to intercept an asteroid or comet), nuclear-based propulsion in space may be required.  This will require the development of safe, simple, but highly-productive nuclear reactors suitable for launching into orbit and propelling spacecraft.  Such advanced nuclear power would certainly be useful for terrestrial applications, as well.

In partnership with the Department of Energy and private industry, NASA could play a key role in developing lightweight, but safe, nuclear reactors that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy production.

NASA has published its successfully commercialized technology since 1976.  However, Tang and Velcro remain – incorrectly, I might add – the “spinoffs” captured in the public psyche.  I think this is because we have not been successful as a community at designing our leading programs and missions to simultaneously contribute to solving America’s most pressing issues.  Once we do that, I don’t think there will be any question of NASA’s relevance.

Just as President Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark out into the frontiers of America to see what opportunities awaited us, NASA is the Congressionally-empowered civil agent of the government to explore our opportunities in “the High Frontier”, gather the knowledge and develop the technology we need to protect ourselves and our investments, and foster America’s best utilization of space resources.

blog post photo
Artist’s concept of an aerobraking Orbital Transfer Vehicle (NASA)

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

Why explore space? [Part I of II]

Posted on by

There is a strong sentiment held by some these days that America doesn’t necessarily need to explore space or that, if it does, we should leave it entirely to the private sector.  I’d like to discuss why I think space exploration is important and the role I see for government in that endeavor.  For this first post, I’ll talk about the “why”.

The fundamental reason I think we should explore space at all is pretty straightforward, actually.  We are almost certain that we know what killed the dinosaurs.  Sixty-five million years ago, an object 10-15 kilometers in size impacted the Earth near the present-day town of Chicxulub on the Yucatan Peninsula.  For a sense of perspective, this asteroid or comet was almost as big around as the Inner Loop/610.

The Chicxulub collision was more powerful than one billion Hiroshima bombs and left a crater more than 100 miles in diameter, now mostly covered by the Gulf of Mexico.

blog post photo
Artist’s rendition of the Chicxulub impact (NASA)

While there are a variety of collolary theories regarding other environmental stresses that led up to or followed the impact, the scientific consensus to-date is that this was what triggered the mass extinction that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.  Sedimentation layers around the world that correspond to the time of the impact have much higher concentrations than normal of iridium, an element that is rare in the Earth’s crust and relatively abundant in asteroids and comets.

The impact itself would have generated dust clouds and sulfuric aerosols that blocked the Sun’s light and devastated plant life.  This triggered a catastrophic collapse in the food chain.  We have also found evidence for the tsunamis generated when the asteroid hit the water, such as marine sand in places where there were no seas, at the time.  The heat pulse from the impact and the re-entry of debris cast out into space would have also ignited firestorms across the planet, dumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

Even if there were multiple impacts that triggered other calamities, as some scientists suggest, the Cretatious-Tertiary extinction event stands as a lesson for us in the fundamental value of having both knowledge and understanding of the workings of our solar system.  As one science fiction author once astutely put it, the dinosaurs died because they didn’t have a space program.

A study of Earth’s geological record will show the evidence of past impacts, some perhaps even larger than that which killed the dinosaurs.  An asteroid or comet impact is believed by some scientists to have played a role in the immense Permian-Triassic extinction event 250 million years ago, though we are much less certain about its causes.

However, we do know that 96% of all marine species and 70% of land-based vertebrates were wiped out.  The Permian extinction is also the only known mass extinction of insect species.

In more recent times, we have actually observed dramatic collisions between asteroids and comets and other planets in our solar system.  Perhaps the most notable example is from July 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was seen striking Jupiter after having been broken up by the planet’s immense gravitational influence.

The actual impacts occurred on a side of Jupiter pointed away from Earth at the time.  The Galileo probe, though, was already en route to Jupiter for its planetary science mission and observed the collision as it happened.  The first impact created a fireball of nearly 43,000 degrees Fahrenheit and with a plume nearly 2000 miles high.  The Hubble Space Telescope even saw the fireball plume rise over the edge of Jupiter’s visible disc.

blog post photo
Hubble Space Telescope imagery of the fireball (NASA)

Twenty-one impacts were observed over six days.  The largest created a dark spot in Jupiter’s clouds approximately the diameter of the Earth and released energy equivalent to 600 times all of the nuclear weapons on the planet – combined.

Closer to home, the Tunguska event of 1908 is believed to be an airburst of an asteroid or comet fragment a few miles above the surface of the Earth.  The blast was likely equivalent to the most powerful thermonuclear weapons ever built – between 10 and 30 megatons of TNT – and destroyed over 800 square miles of Siberian forest.  Such an impact could easily devastate a metropolitan area.

Asteroids and comets, of which over 1000 are classified as “Potentially Hazardous Objects,” are not our only worry, though.  The Ordovician extinction, approximately 440 million years ago, is theorized by some scientists to have been caused by a gamma ray burst from a relatively nearby supernova.

In such an event, one study showed that a 10-second gamma ray beam could destroy half of the Earth’s ozone and expose life on the surface to intense prompt UV radiation.  Following the event, the Earth would be vulnerable to increased absorption of solar radiation, as well.  This could have catatrophic effects on the food chain, because of mass die-offs of plants and plankton, and lead to widespread disruption of the biosphere.

blog post photo
Artist’s rendition of a gamma-ray burst (NASA)

Put simply, there are things out there in space that can kill us and our only defense is to go out there, study and understand those threats, and develop strategies for mitigation.

Human beings tend to cluster in groups for mutual benefit and survival.  It is an evolutionary strategy that usually works well for us.  However, there are always a few who break out on their own to explore new areas and establish new groups.  Most do not succeed.  However, those that do ensure the continued survival of our species and introduce tremendous growth.

If fact, I would argue that the United States itself is a perfect example of that.  Our nation was founded by people who left the Old World behind to start anew and make something special for themselves.  That is how the original Thirteen Colonies were started.  That is how “the West was won.”  As a nation, we have been at our best when we are out on the frontiers.

Now, we live in a world with a globalized economy.  The leadership of the United States is in question.  History is starting to repeat itself.  Like many great nations before us, we are becoming fat and complacent, more concerned with entertainment than accomplishment.  However, we still have advantages in resources and ingenuity.

blog post photo
Artist’s rendition of an exploration mission to an asteroid (NASA)

I can think of no more fitting legacy for the United States than to lead the way in what Gerard K. O’Neill, physicist and space advocate, called “the High Frontier.”  The problems of space travel, asteroid and comet deflection, and the colonization of other worlds are immense.  We are, quite literally, just scratching at the surface.

The balance here on Earth is tenuous, though.  Every human being that has ever lived and died has done so here on this planet.  All of our proverbial eggs are in one basket.  There are many threats to that balance from within, such as global climate change, natural disasters, and our own propensity for violent political and economic struggle.  We cannot assume that our fortune at living in a time relatively conducive to human civilization will continue indefinitely.

Just as the United States escaped the majority of the devastation of World War II to become the world’s technological and economic powerhouse, I think it likely that our descendants on other worlds will one day be called to do the same by avoiding calamity here on Earth.

So, what role is there for the government in all of this?  That will be the subject of Part II.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries.

2005 YU55

Posted on by

Radar image of asteroid 2005 YU55. Image credit: NASA/Cornell/Arecibo

Kind of following up Marian’s post about asteroids, scientists at JPL have “imaged” the near-earth asteroid 2005 YU55 using the Arecibo Radar Telescope in Puerto Rico back on April 19, 2010.

Orbital track of 2005 YU55. Courtesy JPL

The asteroid at one time was listed as a potential threat because its orbital path brings it very close to Earth on occasion, a few passes of which could not be ruled out for possibility of impact.  It takes a number of observations to be able to predict an orbit.  It follows that the predictions can only be as accurate as the observed position.  You can appreciate when looking through a telescope how difficult it can be to get a very precise position.  Sure you can get very close but even a small error can add up over a long distance.

With the Arecibo Radar Telescope the scientists were able to track the asteroid with very fine accuracy.  The image above was take on April 19, 2010 and while described as ghostly (which it is) the resolution is 25 feet (7.5 meters) per pixel, not bad for an object 1,300 feet (400 meters) across.  The asteroid also appears spherical in shape.  By tracking the asteroid from April 19th to the 21st , scientists were able to reduce the uncertainties in the orbit by half and we know there no chance of a collision for at least 100 years.  More observations will enable longer term predictions.

Source

Kabinett des Grotesken ("Cabinet of the Grotesque"), Berliner Medizinhistorisches Museum der Charité, Spiegel Online

Posted on by


My friend, German journalist Michael Kneissler, just sent me a link to an article and an amazing short film celebrating the world famous Berliner Medizinhistorisches Museum der Charité on its 300th birthday, prompted by a new exhibition at the museum entitled "Charité--300 years of medicine in Berlin."

Following is an excerpt from the article--found on Spiegel Online and entitled "Kabinett des Grotesken" ("Cabinet of the Grotesque")--via a sloppy Google Translation:

Human malformations, surgical instruments, the Dildo-box of a sex researcher: The Collection of the Berlin Charité shows the dazzling variety of medical research. To mark its 300th anniversary Clinic presents highlights from the world famous now its archive.

Hands upset, steal: impossible. In the showcases the treasures of the Lord Virchow are safe. Very safe. And yet the guards sneak past every now and again. Ready to intervene immediately. They know that the temptation is to press for the issue "Charité - 300 Years of Medicine in Berlin" on the trigger...

Brains, livers, lungs, testes, ovaries removed - from the different and peaceful perished miserably, preserved in jars for viewing, Educate and quenching. An exhibition of the Interior, without taboos. Even human fetuses are also included. One with legs fused together, one with eyes grown together in the middle of the forehead. A Cyclops. Unreal and yet real.

Virchow himself called this collection - eagerly gathered for medical students and the public in order to warn of an unhealthy lifestyle - his "favorite child", for some visitors to the house if these preparations now the favorite image design: "Krass," it escapes some...

This dazzling looking exhibition is on view at the Berlin-based Medizinhistorisches Museum der Charité until February 2011; very much hope to see it before it comes down!

You can read the whole article and watch the wonderful video walk-through on the same page (just click the play button!) by clicking here. You can find out more about the museum in English by clicking here. Image above is drawn from the video.

Thanks so much to Michael Kneissler for sending this along!

Still growing strong

Posted on by
Kittiwakes now on eggs!
Mother Mallard with chicks

Guillemots on the cliffs
Sunday 2nd May comments:
Its been all go over since I last updated – a combination of staff shortage (the majority of the team have been away on a boat training course) as well as induction days for two new members of the team, weather and the onset of the hectic breeding season has resulted in a fewer blog posts than I would have liked!” However fear not, I’m back and expect regular updates from hereon in. So what’s happened since last weekend…read on…
The breeding season continues with pace as the first Kittiwake eggs were discovered on 26th April and more have been discovered since. The significance – the first Kittiwake eggs in April since 1989 - the early start to the season continues! Ringed Plovers have re-nested following their egg predation in mid-April, whilst four Pied Wagtail nests have been discovered across the islands – one pair using the traditional nest site in St.Cuthbert’s Chapel.

Its not all about eggs – Shags have now got young – the first chicks started hatching on 30th April. However the Terns have yet to settle, although numbers are increasing nightly with over 1,2000 Sandwich, 1,000 Arctic’s and 36 Little Terns graced the islands roost last night. Migration through the islands has continued to bring some exciting discoveries with highlights over the last few days shown below.

Monday 26th April: Shoveler 4 in Kettle, Little Tern 1 (first of the year), Swallow 31N, Dunnock 1, Black Redstart female on Brownsman, Song Thrush 1, Wheatear 8, Willow Warbler 8, Chiffchaff 2, Whitethroat 1, Rook 2 over and Reed Bunting male on Inner Farne

Tuesday 27th April: Peregrine 1 immature, Tufted Duck male north, Red-breasted Merganser female north, Red-throated Diver 4N, Grey Heron 1 west, Common Scoter 42N, Yellow Wagtail male east over inner group, Dunnock 2, Wheatear 2, Blackbird male, Willow Warbler 3, Chiffchaff 1 and Linnet 3.

Wednesday 28th April: Pink-footed Goose 290N, Whimbrel 1, Common Sandpiper 1, Swallow 6N, Ring Ouzel 1 male lingering on Inner Farne (3rd of the spring), Yellow Wagtail male over, Wheatear 25, Dunnock 1, Blackbird male, Redstart 2 (pair), Blackcap male, Whitethroat 2, Willow Warbler 12, Chiffchaff 3, Linnet 1.

Thursday 29th April: Wood Pigeon 1, Wheatear 27, Whitethroat 2, Sedge Warbler 1, Willow Warbler 10, Chiffchaff 2, Blackcap 1 female with very pale wing panels (like a Black Redstart!).

Beijing to Anchorage The Diamond Princess

Posted on by

Diamond Princess Beijing to AnchorageAfter a fantastic time in Beijing it was time to begin the main part of our vacation. We arranged a private car through the same tour company that looked after us for the last 3 days. Not wanting to travel 3 hours in a Red Flag sedan the size of a Mitsubishi Galant we asked for a bigger vehicle. We both thought it would be an Audi A6 but as it turned

Cachoeiras cachoeiras cachoeiras…

Posted on by

After leaving Ilha Grande we took a short bus ride to the town of Paraty a pretty little town with cobblestoned streets. Paraty is also the home of cachaca sugarcanederived spirit that makes Brazilrsquos famous caipirinhas. Caipirinhas are great the first taste of them is reminiscent of a tequila mixed cocktail which might put you off but if you stick with it yoursquore fairly drunk a