A blog about science, medicine, media and the ramblings of Irish hack....

Thursday, May 22, 2014

A matter of policy...

Some quick thoughts about policy, populism and the election tomorrow....

Three years ago, my long suffering friend Danny 'Teegan' Murray and I embarked on a long, tedious poring-over of the election manifestos and platforms for all the major political parties. The result was the now defunct comparethepolicy.com ; one would simply click on a tab (economy, health, social issues etc) and hey presto, all the actual policy that parties had decreed was neatly tabled for ease of comparison. It was useful to some people at least, being reported in Metro and the Sunday Business post amongst others. It was quite a labour to sift through literally hundreds of pages of policy documents and there was zero financial reward for us, so why did we do it ? Because, primarily, we are scientists and believe that facts and not lazy perceptions should be easily available to help us decide what is the best call. As we are both politically non-partisan pragmatists, we wanted to cut through the spin and detail what the actual policies of different parties were, which we had noted was often at odds with what the public and our peers thought. And perhaps naively, we figured that we could help change the country for the better by going to this effort.

While for this local election, neither Teegan nor I had the time or inclination to sink hours of our life into a similar project to comparethepolicy.com , I'll use this blogpost to quickly share some thoughts on policy and realism in politics, and what we learnt. With any luck it will benefit all of you heading to the polls tomorrow.

  • For undecided voters and non-partisan pragmatics, comparethepolicy helped them make choices based on evidence.  Yet it was fairly clear that for many, the people or parties they vote are less about policy /evidence and more about gut feelings or pre-exisiting political ideology. This is precisely what we should strive to avoid - decisions made based on emotive reactions rarely lead to ideal outcomes. For example, it is very easy for a candidate to promise to change something. But unless that candidate clearly details how and why they intend to achieve this change, the promise is deeply suspect and should be treated as such. Of course politicians get away with it because despite our collective political cynicism, we're still not savvy enough to do a Paxman and ask the hard questions of "how" and "why". 
  •  Certain parties had very clear political manifestos, with clear aims and methods for achieving these aims. Others had loose ideas but no coherent way of achieving them, and others still had zero concrete policy. In 2011, of the Irish Political parties, Fine Gael's 5 point plan was the clearest, followed by Labour's manifesto with Fianna Fail's in a distant third. The Green party policies were aspirational and interesting but had no clear method for achieving them. Despite Teegan and I reaching out several times to Sinn Fein and ULA, we we unable to get a clear policy document for either, though the ULA did send us their press releases. We included what we could from these, but in terms of policy they left much to be desired. We asked Sinn Fein for clarification numerous times on their economic policies (especially their much touted default line) but received curt unclear answers each time.  
  • The PR system is a rather excellent way for ensuring that the country get the people they elect in office, but people still seem to misunderstand how a coalition works; the influence of a government partner is decided by their share of the popular vote. Yet despite this, we have a recurring national habit of kicking the junior coalition partners (PDs, Green, Labour) despite their influence being relatively low, regardless of the quality of the policy they got through. This does suggest that we may not make the most rational of decisions, either based on a misunderstanding of how PR works or an emotive ideological reaction.  
  • Many people let their political loyalty blind them, despite not being that familiar with the policies of the party with which they identified; we received several irate emails from people claiming we'd misrepresented their party, despite the fact we'd included the links (or in some cases, scans) to where these documents could be found. This meant people were poorly informed of the actual policies their favoured party had.

These were some lessons we learnt from compare the policy, but overall we learnt that people simple solutions to complex problems, despite these solutions rarely existing. Everything has some cost associated with it, or some consequence. We were, and continue to be, distrustful of those espousing simple narratives over complex things; when we asked certain parties campaigning under a "burn the bondholders" mantra what they meant by bondholders and how they would achieve this, the answers were muddled and economically confused to say the least. 

But despite all this, you might be able to identify some of these traits in the current upcoming election. I sadly cannot vote in the Irish elections tomorrow due to working in the UK, but if you're still undecided, the only real advice I can give you is to be critical and dubious of populism. For example, here's Paul Murphy's poster for election as MEP;

6 years presumably since the bank bailout, but this poster is gloriously confused...
 Paul Murphy is running for MEP, yet most of this promotional material refers to water tax. Even the SP have taken to prefacing themselves with "Stop the water tax". Fair enough, but this is utterly disingenuous; first off, the water charge is not a tax - it is a metered charge. The only reason for calling it a tax is to trigger an emotive reaction to the word tax. Secondly, even if it were, domestic issues are NOT the remit of an MEP - unless Paul Murphy thinks he could stop water charges in all of Europe which already pay them (which he couldn't) it's a non-issue, and utterly dishonest or misinformed. This is naked populism, and Mr Murphy isn't alone in this issue - many of the Dublin MEP posters I saw last week were running on domestic issues, indicating the candidates don't actually understand the role of MEP or assume their electorate is too stupid to call them on it.  My old DCU college mate Padraig O'Connor has asked the same question here.

Other populism is just an insidious and can have health consequences; I've written for the Guardian about the Fianna Fail (and to a lesser extent, Fine Gael) candidates pandering to fluoride panic and in more detail on this blog previously. As the ever insightful Colette Brown details, these moves are nothing more than posturing for a local election. I should be careful to not tar all politicians with the same brush; Labour councillors Padraig McLoughlin and Ronan McManus received reams of personal abuse for taking the position supported by scientific evidence and deserve kudos for that.

It will be interesting to see how this election pans out for Labour, and whether we will continue the trend of kicking the Junior partner; On a personal level I really like Pat Rabitte at times - he correctly points out that Labour's share is government is relatively small and thus their influence share small. People seem to forget this. FG have 81% of the sway, yet we'll likely blame the minority party as we always do. That's kind of depressing, as I think Labour's influence is government has been to moderate FG, and they got some very difficult legislation passed in the X-Case, which they have supported for years. With only about 1/5 of the public vote, this is impressive and deserves some respect. Yet if they get hammered, it'll likely just act to increase the voter share of right-wing parties (and a handful of independents with no clear policy) and then we'll moan again about how right-wing our government are, despite the fact we've caused that. Despite the economic improvement since 2011, I suspect this will occur. Perhaps we get exactly the government we deserve.

But I may have just become somewhat cynical since 2011, and less inclined to believe that facts matter to the electorate at large. I hope I'm wrong. In any case, no matter who you choose to vote for, try to get the information you need and be critical rather than cynical. And please, do not be afraid to ask "why" and "how" - if the candidate can't give a fair answer, then feel no shame about passing them over. 

Jeremy Paxman rebuked by BBC over his criticism of the corporation as he announces retirement from Newsnight
Think like Paxman. Avoid ghosts like Pac-Man.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Health policy must be formed on the basis of evidence, not scaremongering..

A cautionary tale of sorts and an urgent plea to Irish politicians to check their sources before they go and make asinine claims and set bad policy on matters of science of health ..

There are certain topics I write about that generate howling letters of disapproval. Topics like abortion, climate change, secularism, gay rights, nuclear power, and homeopathy have all garnered me angry tweets, emails and in some more disturbing cases long rambling letters with vague threats. I accept this as an occupational hazard - the more prominent your forum, the more likely you are to get projectiles lobbed at you and while that's never justified I accept it for what it is - I'm extremely privileged to be both lucky and ostensibly articulate enough to get the odd say in two prominent papers, and hopefully have been able to sway some people towards an evidence-based approach to certain topics, which has always been my primary goal in writing for a mainstream audience. I am no shrinking violet and usually laugh off the odd unhinged e-mail or tweet that some eijit decides to send me - the kind of emails that have have sections WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS and a grasp of logic so tenuous that you stand dazzled and almost impressed by their brave refusal to be a confined to anything even remotely resembling reality.

Yet of all the contentious issues I've tackled, the vitriol I've garnered for water fluoridation is both impressive and admittedly baffling. It is also a subject that showcases the combined scientific ignorance of many of our elected representatives, and for that reason I wish to revisit it and ram this point home. Back in September 2013, a number of Irish senators made some alarming claims about the damage fluoride was doing. Hotpress magazine were running scare stories based on the claims of self-described scientist Declan Waugh. However, the portents of doom were simply not supported by the data - the epidemiological evidence is not even remotely ambiguous- fluoride has been shown for decades to be beneficial to dental health in the correct concentration, saves much more than it costs and in the recommended concentrations has no serious side-effects. The WHO recommend about 1 mg / L for optimal benefit. Ireland stands at 0.7 mg / L, below even the recommended level. Frightening claims claims of cancer, bone disease, autism and pretty much everything else under the sun being linked to fluoride in water are simply not supported -or outright contradicted- by medical evidence. Waugh's charges themselves had been considered - and roundly slammed by the Irish expert board on fluoride. Dr Seamus O'Hickey of the Irish Expert Board on Fluoridation and Health examined the claims and concluded "... in spite of its presentation, its content is decidedly unscientific..the allegations of ill health effects are based on a misreading of laboratory experiments and human health studies, and also on an unfounded personal theory of the author’s.".  The report summary is found here and is pretty damning - this should be a major red flag; in science, the conclusion must fit the evidence. It is profoundly unscientific to start with a conclusion and bend the data to fit it.  

Despite the rebuke from the IEBF, the issue just wouldn't go away and each week worrying claims would pop up in regional newspapers. Seeking to readdress this balance, I wrote a little analysis of the situation for the Irish Times. I've written about the vehement and passionate response this generated here.  [Note - In  Irish Times op-eds, I'm limited to 800 or so words which doesn't always give me scope to deal with all specific claims - Journalist Gerry Byrne recently wrote a pretty scathing analysis in the Sunday Times on Waugh's claims, and his blog post on the subject is worth reading if you want specifics of why such claims are bogus ]. I considered it a fringe issue and in many respects a waste of time. That should have been the end of it; except in November, Sinn Fein TD Brian Stanley tabled a motion  calling for the removal of fluoride in water based on these long since discredited scare claims. He was supported by a handful of other TDs, including Luke Ming Flanagan and Clare Daly., who parroted the same old empty rhetoric. This was doubly disappointing for me, as since I was old enough to vote I've always cast one for Daly - a policy I will sadly not be repeating any time soon.

Luke Ming Flanagan at a publicity stunt strip off to raise money for "The Girl Against Fluoride" - I don't even....

Around this time I got a call from George Hook's producer to debate Brian Stanley on air. By this stage I was irked; Health policy should be made on the scientific evidence, not based on people's irrational fears. The oft-repeated nonsense about fluoride has been scientifically thrashed for decades. As elected Representatives on €92,672 plus expenses a year I supposed I had held some vague hope that politicians might do their homework before making worrying pronouncements that 5 minutes on wiki-fucking-pedia would have nullified, but it would appear this is too much to ask. Fluoride is in some respects a sideshow; the crux of the matter is that if we base our decisions on emotive and poorly formed ideas, everyone suffers. This is especially true in health, as should be clear to anyone who remembers the cost in human suffering if misinformed panic over vaccination a decade ago - suffering that, incidentally, is still ongoing. With this in mind, I agreed to partake in the debate.

I met Brian before the chat- he was an affable guy, but it was immediately clear he wasn't overly familiar with what he was talking about. He didn't really seem to have much of a grasp of the chemistry or biology involved, or any real understanding of the epidemiological data. To his credit, he admitted this straight off the bat and told me he had been "tutored" by some folks in the anti-fluoride movement, on whom he was relying on solely for information. I thought it somewhat daft for a politician to place so much stock on the claims of a lobby group for their information, particularly when the medical literature doesn't back it up.

Prior to the debate, I asked him about this, and the more conspiratorial elements of the anti movement. He admitted there were some pretty "out there" people pushing the issue to him but he was trying to ignore them and focus on the concerns of his demograph.  Again, I wish to stress that I do think Brian acted with good, if somewhat self-serving, intentions to represent the voter core he was aiming for. I just should strongly disagree with the idea that the best way to serve your constituents is to cater policy to the most uninformed or outlandish. While I haven't listened to the audio of the debate, from the twitter response Brian's shaky knowledge was evident enough that it discredited him somewhat.

The motion was, by the way, defeated. Thinking that was finally the end of it for another few years (the fluoride conspiracy theory stuff pops up with cyclic tenacity every few years, and has since the 1950s ), I enjoyed the wedding I'd come back for, had a lovely weekend and mainly ignored the nasty comments I got on twitter. But when I came back to work, it became clear I had irked someone...

Pro-tip: If you're going to write a long, rambling letter trying to someone's employer,  at least attempt to get their name and profession correct. "Physicist gets done for medical negligence" would be a first, mind..

Mr Waugh (despite getting my name wrong, and apparently unaware that I am a physicist, not a physician)  had penned a long letter to my employers, asserting a number of things that I was supposed to have said. Some of which he quoted mainly correctly, some out of context and some of which was completely and utterly false. As to why he wrote to my university and not me, I can only hazard guesses. Waugh himself is an appointee to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland since 2012  (as Gerry Byrne's article in the Sunday Times explains, Mr Waugh claims to be director of the SEAI but they do not have such a position and in any case, have clarified Mr Waugh is an ordinary board member) , yet I wouldn't write to the Irish government condemning his factual distortions as this would strike me as pointless and potentially vindictive - Waugh's personal opinions on fluoride are presumably his own views, and he is entitled to them. As to why he he didn't extend me the same courtesy I am unsure. As I take pains to make clear, in my capacity as a science and medicine writer I don't speak for any of the institutions for which I work. In my biographic information, I make clear that I am a physicist, not a physician. These details are important, as it's important for a science writer to be as transparent as possible and to clarify that I am an independent scientist and not someone with a vested interest in a particular narrative. I write because I feel it's important and useful to analyse media issues from a scientific perspective, not because anyone tells me to do so.

To their eternal credit, the university were very supportive,  and reiterated that academics have a right to their own opinion. Even so, it made me apprehensive about writing more on the topic - I am 28 years old, and still a relatively young scientist and while I love communicating science, the last thing I want is to be hounded or have my colleagues and friends hounded, especially for stating something that is, scientifically at least, uncontroversial. I authored other pieces in the interim, on other topics I deemed both more important and less thankless. I tried to avoid fluoride, and its passionate but often scientifically illiterate fan base. I gritted my teeth and did my best to ignore it when politicians made populist noises to appease these campaigners, but it grated on me severely as a number of senators and TDs I had formerly quite liked continued to make populist noises and parrot the the claims of these groups with zero apparent interest in checking this against the scientific literature.

Then, in February this year, the matter arose again when some towns in West Cork decided to pass motions limiting the use of fluoride. This was being hailed as a vindication by the protesting groups, a "proof" fluoride was dangerous. This was of course circular logic and utterly wrong-headed, but more ominously a textbook example of blind scaremongering and political expediency trumping scientific analysis. This is a dangerous chasm to fall into, and so I accepted an invite oto RTE's today with Sean O'Rourke. Of the four speakers, I was the only one in support of the practice and had to refute the laundry list of claims by the speaker prior to me, Owen Boyden. Claims like...

  • Ireland and Singapore are the ONLY countries that fluoridate!!!  - Not even close, and utterly disingenuous. America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada also add fluoride to their water to name but a few. Other countries in Europe add fluoride to their milk, salt and food. There's also the fact that fluoride in water often occurs naturally as a function of mineral load, so that certain areas will be naturally higher in fluoride than others. The only way anyone can ever drink pure H20 would be to go a chemistry lab and down a glass of de-ionised water. Yet more countries have a dental system with regular fluoride rinses.

  • Fluoride causes cancer etc! - This one boils my blood. It's utter nonsense and designed purely to scaremonger. As I outlined in my IT piece, the National cancer institute in the US have buried this one on numerous occasions yet it crops it all the time, precisely because it is  so scary and emotive that it can effectively paralyse reason. Boyden claimed that thousands of international scientists supported this view - I would wager that if he really thinks that's the case, Boyden has never read an oncology or epidemiology paper in his life.

There were plenty more - I outlined the case for fluoride, and argued that health policy must be rooted in fact, not emotive fiction. You can listen here if you're so inclined. Despite the fact I was the only guest supportive of the practice and outnumbered by others, somehow they still felt hard done by...

Now I'm sponsored by Glaxo-Smith Kline? News to me!

It didn't take long for accusations of conspiracy to surface; Boyden claimed I was sponsored by drug company Glaxo-Smith-Kline. Firstly, as I keep having to point out, I'm a physicist. Unless drug companies now illicitly fund mathematical models on the sly as part of some nefarious scheme, it's a charge that makes no sense. I have no dealings with GSK. In any case, I'm pretty sure GSK have nothing to do with water fluoridation so the conspiracy charge fails on two counts. Whether Boyden actually believes this or just said it to save face is anyone's guess.

The Girl against Fluoride, the chosen moniker of Aisling Fitzgibbon, also took to her facebook page to decry me and add her own conspiracy charge. Bear in mind that Fitzgibbon's main qualification is apparently in the totally-legitimate-and-not-at-all-weird-sounding Angel therapy. She also professes belief in homeopathy and has a background of vaccine opposition. Oh, and her family believe that the pill leads to homosexuality too - Geoff Lillis has written all this up before and it's worth reading his background piece here, and while I don't want to engage in an ad hom argument, much of this might suggest Aisling FitzGibbon is perhaps not the most reliable budding epidemiologist going and maybe has some teensy problems with the scientific method. Rather depressingly this hasn't stopped her getting the ear of several politicians in Ireland.

Pssht. I'm actually funded by the Lizard people. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Such charges are tiring and real copy-and-paste jobs: I don't think I've ever (knowingly) defended pharma interests - I have, and will continue, to slam bad science however. I also don't work in materials as a ten second google search would have revealed but why let the truth get in the way of a good narrative? Nor, as I have mentioned before, is this the first time TGAF and her followers has accused me of conspiracy. Last time it was the Rockefeller foundation who were apparently footing my bills I believe, but tomorrow it could be monsanto, or the NWO, or the illuminati, or whoever. The point being is that charges of conspiracy and inconsistent as all hell and meant to distract from valid criticism. Perhaps because the foundations of their argument are so shaky, attacking the messenger is easier than honest introspection and detached analysis that might show their whole raison d'etre is fundamentally misguided. 

In some ways the emotive reaction that this topic triggers is better understood through the lens of psychology - these people have made this narrative part of their world-view. They paint themselves as heroic characters striving against a government policy of control, as brave crusaders. That they might be wrong then fundamentally undermines their world view, and their perception of self. If this is the case, then perhaps they simply cannot deal with the cognitive dissonance that would cause; if they are wrong, then their fundamental self-perception is wrong.

Much of this ties in with the concepts of cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning - When I or anyone else criticise the claims they make, they view this not like scientists as a useful correction of an error but rather as a fundamental attack on "them", their identity, the narrative they have constructed. This response is particularly unfortunate as it is an insulating bubble where any analysis is paramount to heresy and anyone disagreeing is the enemy. And it is always easier to attack then to reflect candidly - when I read the paper this morning, I found that Cork Fianna Fail councillor Chris O'Sullivan has launched a motion seeking the "immediate cessation of water fluoride" in Cork. Either the counseller is genuinely that ignorant of scientific literature or this is a transparent ploy to win support on a populist issue in a specific area renowned for it's distrust of such interventions - it is no coincidence that West Cork also has the lowest rate of vaccination in Ireland and has been the epicentre of all recent outbreaks of measles.

In an act of appeasement, Minister Simon Coveney has pledged to hold a review into the subject. That's fair enough, but ignores the fact we already have an expert body on fluoridation, and the fact the scientific literature is quite clear on the whole subject. While I have no problems with reviews (and I'd imagine that as usual, fluoride will be given a clean bill of health as it has in independent assessments for decades ) I think it's naive to think this will make the protests groups go away - they have no interest in an independent scientific assessment, as they have already come to their dubious conclusion - No expert body will be trusted unless it agrees with their assertions, and given their entire case is fundamentally flawed, there is no good outcome to this.If the review board find nothing remiss, they'll merely play the conspiracy card, as they have with the IEBF.

The bigger question to me is why are our elected representatives pandering to such tired old claims?  Are we willing to allow health policy to be decided by scaremongering claims rather than solid scientific evidence? Even in an Irish context the benefits of fluoride are clear, with non-fluoridated areas having ~63% more primary cavities than fluoridated areas. This saves much more money than it costs, but more importantly than that it provides a baseline protection for everyone - are we really going to scrap that because of baseless claims rather than sturdy analysis? Are our elected Senators, TDs and counsellers really showing such contempt for science that they're willing to take the lead from pseudoscientists, conspiracy theorists and those fundamentally immune to evidence rather than listen to the expert boards convened on those very topics?

If that is the case it's more only depressing, but it sets a worrying precedent - if scientific expert boards and years of data can be so easily cast aside, this truly is a backwards set. If winning votes and taking popular positions matters more to our elected representatives than sustainable sensible policy, I think they should be called to task for it and forced to defend why they think that is acceptable.

I wish I had a simple answer for how to counter this, but all I can suggest is this; if you are Irish and feel like I do that such a path is a dangerous one to take, then I urge you to write to your representatives and point out that these claims are bogus and the self-appointed experts who have been making the most noise are nothing of the sort. Call them on their lack of basic research, their contempt for science - share the Irish expert body on Fluoride report, or Gerry Byrne's article, or even this - If anyone does contact their TDs and councillors on this, I'd be eager to hear their response and rationale for their actions or inactions.

Again, fluoride is a side-show but one that is so outlandish it needs to be challenged. Allowing these dubious voices dominate the conversation despite their steadfast warping of the evidence has been encouraged by many of our politicians and this is no acceptable.

There are consequences for poorly informed policy and we deserve better from our elected representatives.

UPDATE: Gerry Byrne debated with Declan Waugh on Today with Sean O'Rourke today, and his rebuttal of all of Waugh's claims was simply brilliant. I'll upload the audio as soon as it's available, but sadly I do not think even this car-crash performance from Waugh will deter his followers.[Audio here now!]

Side note - There have been some other figures in politics that have impressed me. Labour Councillors Ronan McManus of Bray and Padraig McLoughlin of Dublin have taken an incredible amount of personal flack for suggesting evidence based policy, and have politely but firmly countered the tide of nonsense. I say this as to make it clear I do not tar all politicians with same brush. On a personal note, I must thank Matthew Carrigan, Anita Byrne and Geoff Lillis for their constant debunking of many of these claims.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Tumour spheroids, global warming, homosexuality and motivated reasoning - a somewhat discombobulated research and writing update

 Just a very quick short post of what has been going on lately.. promise you there's a dedicated proper piece on a stand alone subject that should make an appearance later this week...until then, enjoy this somewhat eclectic assortment of subjects

When I logged into write this post, an embarrassing statistic hit me; it's been almost 6 months since I've actually posted something here. I won't insult your intelligence by stating  yet more reasons for my inconsistent posting patterns - my constant flimsy excuses for tardiness transports me back to my teenage days, concocting yet another convoluted excuse for why I had done precisely zero homework, a policy that worked solely because most teachers eventually gave up in exasperation and just stopped asking me.  

Despite the radio-silence here,  I've been relatively productive, juggling irons in a fire whilst mainly avoiding burning my fingers. So in no particular order, a little bit on tumour spheroids, motivated reasoning, climate change denial, self-delusion and the same sex marriage debate! 

(Admittedly that's a slightly jarring combination of topics, but I will endeavour in future to confine each post to a particular topic - stand by later this week for something specific!)

1. Oxygen modelling in multi cellular tumour spheroids 
When I'm not incurring the wrath of the Christan right, the paranoid left, conspiracy theorists, free-market disciples and quackery peddlers I do quite an amount of science. In fact, I even use science as a verb - "I science a lot".  In January we published a paper in Royal Society Interface on oxygen dynamics in tumour spheroids.

So what does this mean? In cancer, oxygen plays an incredibly important role - cancer can be viewed as defective mutant cells dividing utterly out of control, and as a result tumour regions with poor oxygen occur when the cells grow haphazardly. Poorly oxygenated (or hypoxic) tumour regions become far more resistant to both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and conversely well oxygenated areas respond better. We're interested in modelling how oxygen diffuses through tumour tissue as a "map" of the underlying oxygen distribution would help better inform treatment strategy - essentially, if one had a map of oxygen, then it follows that you could boost dose or treatment to the regions that needed it most.

To model how oxygen diffuses through tumour tissue,  we looked at the simplest possible 3D case, a tumour spheroid - these are "balls" of tumour cells which divide aggressively until they run out of nutrients like oxygen. Picture a tumour spheroid as a clump of cells, growing in a sphere shape with a source of oxygen surrounding it. Oxygen diffuses through the ball, being consumed by the cells. However, at a certain size, all the oxygen is consumed before it reaches the centre most cells, and these cells, starved of oxygen, die out. This leaves a void of dead cells in the centre. The outermost well oxygenated cells are still happily eating oxygen and making clones of themselves, but the inner bunch die off, resulting is something like a hollow ball.

This pretty little thing is actually a stained cross-section of a DLD1 colorectal tumour spheroid - The centre is starved of oxygen or anoxic and the cells here die off. The cells in red are becoming hypoxic and the green ones are still merrily dividing.

In the paper just published, we derive a mathematical model which predicts oxygen level at any point in the spheroid, and explicitly predicts the boundaries of a tumour. This model can then be used to estimate the consumption rate of the tumour cells. Consumption rate is important, as cells which are oxygen hungry will devour diffusing oxygen quickly, resulting in more hypoxia and a thinner "shell" - in essence, consumption rate decides the extent of hypoxia to a large degree. 

Of course, theory is fun but it's important to validate it - we did that by using a series of DLD1 tumour spheroids, which fit the model very well and allowed us to pull out the estimated consumption rate. Spheroids are in some respects a very simple model of cancer as they're divorced from the complicated vasculature (blood supply) of a real human tumour, but the fundamental principle of oxygen diffusion and consumption is the same throughout, so understanding the relationships between consumption and oxygen status is a good first step. 
The whole thing is an interesting combination of physics, mathematics and biology. If you're interested in the detail, the paper is open access and available from Royal Society Interface here

2. Climate change denial and motivated reasoning
Back in October I wrote an unashamedly scathing rebuttal of climate-change denialism for the Irish Times, which is viewable here. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that we've caused it, yet despite that there are a sizable bulk of politicians, media commenters and irksome people who try to maintain the utterly untenable position that climate change is a myth. Rather than repeat myself, I'll steal from the piece -

"..Such contrarian writers and broadcasters paint themselves as climate “sceptics”, but this is a calculated misnomer. Scepticism is an essential part of scientific endeavour. It demands all claims are treated as unproven until evidence and experience either confirm or falsify them. Denialism, by contrast, is the stubborn and persistent refusal to acknowledge what the evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt. Evidence for climate change is overwhelming, confirmed by measurement, theory and experiment. Self-proclaimed climate “sceptics” are nothing of the sort; they are rank denialists, deliberately refusing to accept the incontrovertible evidence that their position is untenable."

As expected, the bog-standard climate trolls appeared in the comments and on my twitter feed within hours. Parroting the same pack of tired false buttals and quite literally calling black white; despite having an idealistic thing against blocking, the stream of aggressive nonsense ensured the block button on twitter became my friend. The demographics of the negative responses interested me though; they were all male, politically conservative with strong free-market views. Was there something to this?

Of course, anecdotal evidence is not evidence, so I had a peek at the literature to see if anyone had studied this from a psychological point of view and hey, presto - climate change denial  is associated with a particular set of conservative beliefs and a distaste for any form of regulation. But it isn't solely the preserve of conservatives to deny evidence to fit a pre-existing worldview; liberals can be just as guilty of dismissing solutions like nuclear power based on their own emotional reaction rather than the evidence. This is part of a phenomenon called motivated reasoning, where reality is filtered and selectively taken on board to pacify rather than challenge a preconceived notion.

Festinger explains motivated reasoning - I couldn't find one of that cliche quote things so I made one myself in ten seconds with that bastion of cutting edge photo manipulation Microsoft paint - because quotes with pictures is internet currency!

I penned a Guardian piece on this very subject, arguing that pragmatic decisions have to be made - decisions based not on some dubious worldview but grounded on the available evidence. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but I am dearly hoping we can collectively get our act together as a species. Am I being too optimistic? Have a gander and tell me yourself!

3. On why our ideological fixations blind us to reality

On the subject of fooling ourselves, I did a little bit for the Irish Times on this very subject back in January, investigating our collective staggering ability to get everything wrong about everything and still think we're good judges of those very things. 

4. Homosexuality, nature and same sex marriage
As the same-sex marriage referendum in Ireland appears on the horizon, the usual suspects (whom we cannot mention because in a neat Orwellian trick,  pointing out people are being homophobic is apparently hate speech now - for context if you don't follow Irish Media see here!)  are out shrieking about how damaging all this is to the "sanctity" of marriage and OH GOOD LORD WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

Helen Lovejoy - Iona material
Somewhere in all this sound and fury, the biological fact that homosexuality is perfectly natural has been glossed over by the anti-equality side, and the equally ominous insinuation that gay people are merely morally deviant scallywags who shouldn't raise kids is all too often made. I've poked that hornet's nest before over a certain institute's ramblings (Write up on that fun time here!) but decided it was important to yet again that homosexuality is perfectly normal and is not some strange lifestyle choice for deviants. I This ran in the Irish Times is December and you can take a peek hereEssentially , the take home message is

"Denying homosexuals the rights that are accorded to heterosexuals is not defending marriage or children, it is barefaced discrimination and no amount of oratorical dexterity or false expressions of concern can get over that."

On a side note I cannot help but feel I'd have more respect for that particular organisation if they just came out and said they had a religious ideological problem with homosexuality than their continued attempts to scaremonger the general public into supporting their dubious position. I'd still disagree to the hilt, but it would be far more honest than their current carry on. 

Warning: Some pretty homophobic comments under the tagline.

Right, that's your information overload for now. More focused post coming up soon!

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Summer round-up - Cancer Myths, fluoride panics and a little aside on science (mis)representation

Salutations, blog-o-philes - As usual, I'll be prefacing with an apology for tardiness. It's been several weeks since my last confession  my last update, but in my somewhat lame defence I've been fairly productive of late and have had to keep my extra-curricular Internet ramblings to a minimum. However, I have been getting myself into trouble in different media, so without further verbosity, here's what has been afoot since last time I abused this medium*

A bit about better understanding of science - Irish Times
Science is an oft-misunderstood beast; there are many who consider it like a forceful authority, something akin to a religion where scientists decree something to be and that's the orthodoxy all must accept. But nothing could be further from the truth; science is a method for discerning the world around us - it is constantly changing in the light of new evidence. This is why the all too frequently bandied about comparison of scientists to priests is not just wrong, but showcases a blithering misunderstanding of the entire process. The only "god" in science is evidence. In this piece, I attempted to explain this, and more importantly why understanding what does and does not constitute science is vital.

"If we cannot do this, we will continue to believe absurdities, with detrimental and even disastrous consequences. As we face the reality of global warming and denialists try to cast doubt on the facts, one must hope that we have learned something from history."

This is not simple poetic license, or hyperbole - climate change is very real, and the consequences of denying it are too unpleasant to behold - but it is hard to address a problem when so many brush away the science behind it as nothing more than a subjective opinion. This is a topic that matters, and despite the abuse science writers tend to get for this (myself included) and I will return to it.

On the plus side, at least I'm not getting chewed out by religious conservatives over this one! 

Giant's causeway - Not actually built by giants..

6 persistent Cancer Myths - The Guardian
Precisely what it says on the tin - Cancer is a subject rife with misconceptions and conspiracy theories, and in this bit I attempt to address just a handful of them; as it's such an emotive subject there was a chance it would come off as cold and uncaring but I am assured it reads well - it is also the first piece I've written that has been syndicated so that's a first on the plus side - on the downside, it did attract the ire of some slightly unhinged individuals who think it's ok to write demanding opus-length accusatory letters to your place of work when you've already blocked them on multiple social networking sites but the positive feedback and kind words I received have more than made up for the one or two angry people. Sadly, the ubiquity of cancer means that 6 myths barely scratches the surface, but it's a start. 

Sharks do indeed get cancer, like most complex multi-cellular organisms. Shark embryos ALSO cannibalise each other in utero because Sharks are bloody scary killing machines

Fluoride conspiracy theories - Irish Times 
Many of my Irish readers have asked me to cover this topic for the last year or so - initially I resisted, as I was afraid they were so fringe and deeply conspiratorial that giving them air time would only encourage them. Sadly, Irish music magazine Hotpress has been giving profoundly unscientific scare stories free reign and there are a significant amount of people who have been scare mongered by bogus health fears over something that has done precious little harm and lots of good. Another reason for my initial reluctance to cover it was because it has long been the reserve of conspiracy theorists. 

 It also has given rise to one of the best parodies of conspiracy theories ever committed to celluloid

I wasn't quite prepared for the barrage of personal abuse and hate mail I received over this one - most of them pretty lazy ad hominems in lieu of more reasoned arguments. The comments are sadly typical; constant streams of misquoted studies, selective quotes and shoddy reasoning (plus some terrible chemo-phobia and rank chemistry fails). One encouraging thing was the small but well reasoned band of individuals who attempted vainly to counter the sound and fury - a noble enterprise but one doomed to failure; arguing with conspiracy theorists is kind of like playing whack-a-mole - knock one mistruth down and they'll simply substitute another unfazed. Or just repeat the original mistruth louder. And then of the ad-homs; Of course, the mods deleted some of the more vicious ones but some of the more gentle gems remain; 

That's actually a stipulation in my contract!

 Some of the comments were actually indistinguishable from advanced satire;


But the exchange of the day for me was this, between the comic duo of Matthew Carrigan and Ronan McManus - they deserve double kudos for countering much of the nonsense on the comments too.

Toxic waster pushers extraordinaire...

It turns out that Matthew's observation was not in jest; the reason the article (and me) had been hit by such an influx of traffic was because girl against fluoride had mentioned it to her 11,200 odd facebook fans... and yes, they did go down the "who pays the scientist?" route... 

If the Rockefellers WERE bank rolling me, I'd want a pay rise and hazard pay for this nonsense. Plus possibly a jetpack

On the plus side, the article was well received by dentists and medics, and at least countered the nonsense Hotpress have deemed worthy of uncritical coverage - scares sell, but the onus should be on a publication to validate what it runs and it irks me supremely that magazines can run such garbage and mutter "public interest" as if they somehow gives them carte blanche to scaremonger. Yet sadly, as we've seen from the MMR debacle,  that is precisely what happens. If my piece in someway helps to nullify that corrosive influence, then I'm happy - but that shouldn't have to happen; journalistic integrity and editorial responsibility should ensure that any self-respecting publication would put the lie to such nonsense. Sadly, given the Daily Mail continues to exist unabated, this is little more than idealistic dreaming on my behalf. 

I finally got some footage from the RTE debate I did with MEP Patricia McKenna way back at Christmas. I've been working on NOT flicking my hair as much. You'll also see the excellent Denis Duff of BENE on the same segment - Debate starts about 19 min into it if you wish to skip ahead!

So folks, that's the round-up for now; I will try to do a stand-alone blog in the near future if I get a second to myself but for now, enjoy! Thanks for reading - Comments are always welcome, and as usual you'll find me on Twitter @drg1985

*"Abusing a medium"  always conjures up an image of repeatedly tasering Derek Acorah...

Friday, July 5, 2013

Fun and frolics with the Iona Institute

Last week I had an Irish Times piece on the misrepresentation of research by religious conservatives, which generated quite a bit of a response. I am firmly of the belief that anyone is entitled to whichever religious or irreligious views they like - if someone is opposed to same sex marriage or abortion on grounds of their faith, I respect their right to feel that way and hold those beliefs. But I have little truck for those who try to force their beliefs upon others, and especially those who misrepresent research in a cynical attempt to scaremonger and fortify their religious standpoint. This is essence is what the piece was about; perhaps inevitably, I highlighted some Irish examples of this from the Iona institute. They have taken the liberty of replying, and this piece contains a retort to some of their points.

First off, the piece itself: as with any Irish Times thread relating to abortion or religion, the comment thread became a flame war; it hit 517 comments rapidly before commenting was suspended. It probably goes without saying that is an editorial decision by the paper - of course even if I was to know of the legal or moderation issues which lead to this decision, I would not be liberty to discuss it. Rather annoyingly, there were an awful lot who seem to think that *I* have the authority to demand that comment threads be pulled from a national newspaper: this is charming, but false. It didn't stop a barrage of e-mails, tweets, and facebook messages accusing me of all sorts. Like...

Oddly,  this same individual was on a DIFFERENT IT thread a few days later, telling everyone who would listen that I had got the comment section pulled because I was afraid of his brilliant arguments. *facepalm*

Ah my old nemesis anonymous egg - still unable to distinguish between a liberal / libertarian / librarian

Sadly, in reality I have no control over the bottom part of the Internet. I have a simple policy when it comes to comment threads on my articles: I try to keep my interactions to a minimum, and only comment to clarify a point if it is ambiguous or being deliberately misconstrued. Despite the abandoning of the comment section, the piece was popular and was retweeted by several high profile folks like Richard Dawkins and Dr. Jen Gunter. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the Iona institute responded not one, but twice: In a strange postscript to an unrelated article, Breda O'Brien wrote:

"PS. David Robert Grimes, in an article on Wednesday, accused me of misusing research by Dr David Fergusson into the effects of abortion on women’s mental health. Did he miss the clarification on Morning Ireland on May 9th by Cathal Mac Coille stating that Dr Fergusson expressed no unhappiness whatsoever with how the Iona Institute has presented his research? As for his allegation that David Quinn effectively misused research about the effects of different family forms on children, may I suggest he reads David’s article in the current issue of The Village? That will set him straight. "

This is laughable; I accused Ms O'Brien of both misrepresenting AND cherry-picking; Ferguson is on record as complaining about such abuses of his work and a legal statement from some Irish radio-host (who I never mentioned in the article, incidentally) doesn't change that one iota. All that suggests is the Iona institute have very good lawyers. Moreover, I accused Ms O'Brien of ignoring the scientific consensus, cherry-picking to suit her religious conviction, which she continues to do here with aplomb and merely re-iterates the entire point of my original article And why in Christ's name would David Quinn's opinion on family matter? Has he recently been conducting peer-reviewed research? No. Has he misrepresented research in the past? Certainly. This is precisely the problem I wrote about and it is one that continues unabated here. Even more bizarrely, John Murray (also of the Iona institute) dedicates an entire piece to me, but has insurmountable problems keeping even a semblance of logical consistency:

"He says her “championing of this study is textbook cherry-picking” that can’t stand up to “even a cursory examination”. Frankly, it is Dr Grimes’s accusation that doesn’t stand up to a cursory examination..Previously, Breda had correctly summarised the study in her column in this newspaper. Fergusson et al , she wrote, “decided to examine the research in order to ascertain whether there were any mental health benefits to abortion. The findings are stark: ‘at the present time there is no credible scientific evidence demonstrating that abortion has mental health benefits' ... So Breda never claimed this study shows “abortion damages women”. Dr Grimes should have checked his facts first."

Let's pretend for a moment Ms O'Brien has 'correctly summarised' the study (a charitable stretch, but play along with me for a moment here...): she has STILL used this to imply something which is at best irrelevant and totally misleading: Ms O'Brien's original argument (viewable here)  was an utterly disingenuous straw-man of an argument; the evidence suggests abortion is not damaging to a woman's mental health, but there is PLENTY of evidence that denying women a choice IS damaging, and it is something O'Brien ignores either out of ignorance or because she is aware it would fatally cripple her argument. Moreover, the vast majority of women who opt for an abortion do not regret it (Fergusson 2008, Munk Olsen 2011, JHU 2008, RCP 2011)  further eroding O'Brien's weasel words. Surely if the Iona institute were so concerned with research, they'd have quoted the 2012 Lancet study which found women in areas where access to abortion is limited actually have a higher proportion of abortions and far more unsafe abortions (Sedgh et al 2012)?  In either case such questionable reading of Fergusson's admittedly limited research IS cherry-picking. I'll include a definition here just in case anyone from the Iona institute bothers to read this. Murray continues, undaunted:

"Based on research to date, we simply cannot say with any real precision how children raised by same-sex couples are faring. Until sufficient good- quality research is conducted, we must withhold judgment and not even consider redefining marriage, which is so valuable as our most child-centred social institution."

Non-Sequitur alert: re-defining marriage for whom? Why would same sex couples getting married make an a modicum of difference to the marriage of others? Nor is this a point I ever made: I merely challenged Quinn for MISQUOTING research with the intention to mislead. Nor was I the only person to do so. The research to date is actually pretty convincing, with over 150 studies providing a good basis for comparison. What Dr. Murray is doing here is simply what other opponents of LGBT have done for quite some time. In any case, one twitter user hit the nail on the head;

Paul makes a good point: Most people in favour of same sex marriage do so on human right grounds.It is a happy bonus that contrary to Murray's assertion, the evidence is pretty clear that if children are involved, they fare equally well raised by same-sex parents. The whole "defending marriage" and "re-defining marriage" are poorly founded tangents betraying a certain attitude: marriage is not just about raising kids. This mindset is at the root of such contrivances. At the risk of repeating myself, I make this abundantly clear in the original piece:

If the Iona Institute want to oppose same sex marriage and abortion on religious grounds, I'm all for it - that is their right, and one I would never begrudge them. But I re-iterate, it is not alright to ignore the scientific consensus and misrepresent research to bolster their views and scaremonger people into supporting them. Surely if their religious conviction is strong enough, they don't require secular validation anyway? The scientific consensus is that abortion does not damage a woman's mental health and that the vast majority of women do not regret their abortions; similarly, the evidence to date suggests strongly kids fare just fine when raised with loving single-sex couples. Religious conservatives may still disagree with both trends, and that is their right - but when they engage in cynical attempts to paint the research as somehow bolstering their viewpoint, it erodes their own moral position drastically.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Dear John; We need to talk

Some of you may be familiar with the work of John Waters; he's an Irish religious conservative who is blessed with strong opinions, laced with increasingly toxic amounts of homophobia and misogyny. Seeing as John's gone and upset every one again this week, this is my open letter to Dear old John

Dear John – we need to talk.

      You’ve been writing since long before I was even born, and your prose has never been in question – but of late, I cannot help but notice the rosary clutching morally indignant Ireland you paint is not the Ireland many of us know, and I'm concerned about your grasp on reality.  I’ve always found the open letter format to be twee, and feel perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have such discourse with you online. But you have made your hatred of modern technology clear, and claimed on numerous occasions that bloggers and Wikipedia editors are idiots, I wouldn’t dare demean your evidently gargantuan intellect by suggesting such a plebeian thing without due cause; while you have of course demonstrated that your preferred medium for mal-content rants is in the pages of the national paper of record, I shall confine mine to this unworthy medium. 

Firstly, before we even begin, what, may I ask, is a self-styled Liberal? Evidently some breed distinct from externally styled liberals but further than this I am in the dark; this particular line graces many of your recent outpourings, but what does it mean? Meaning is a word you’re very fond of, but of late I must admit to seeing only empty rhetoric masquerading as something deeper.

Is the opposite of a self-styled liberal a conservative with a stylist? So that's your secret, you dapper stud, you....

Take, for example, gay rights - Now, you speak much of the gay agenda, which I am curious about - What exactly is the gay agenda? A secret ploy to induce the village people into the rock and roll hall of fame? A nefarious plot to hatch another sex in the city movie? Were it the latter I might rally behind you on basis of taste, but I suspect the entire homosexual community is - somewhat ironically perhaps - far from homogeneous. If by gay agenda you mean the idea that people should not be discriminated against on basis of their sexuality then I cannot see how one could argue against that without being an absolutely screaming bigot. You’ve said gay marriage is ” destructive to the fabric of Irish society” – this fabric seems very fragile, what exactly is it composed of? A less charitable man might feel you are you just making things up again to support an incredibly weak argument.  No one is advocating forcing people to marry within their own gender, merely allowing homosexual people who love each other have the same chance to be miserable as heterosexuals 

The gay agenda laid bare?! All credit to GraphJam

Of course, your pet subject recently has been abortion – and of course, that in itself isn't unusual; it is a subject that has room for a whole myriad of different views. While I respect your right to have an opinion, would it kill you to think before you speak?  Or even do the most rudimentary fact checking?  Perhaps, Mr Waters, you are not aware that many couples take the decision to terminate together, rather than it being some selfish women-being-uppity-gits thing, as you've claimed recently.  Relationships have more nuance than perhaps you are familiar with. You're concerned these women are depriving fathers of their hard earned sperm, but maybe we need to revisit biology 101; while a man and woman share 50% of the genetic input for a child, it is totally false to even try and argue our roles are the same; let's be honest here, our chief task in the act of conception is a "fire and forget" operation If you’ll excuse the visual - a cameo role in a show which quickly becomes a one woman performance which we can at best support.

The video-game of the male role in conception....

You have said that "In the culture we have constructed of recent times, the question of the child’s survival is a matter primarily for the woman." This is an easy mistake to make - You seem to have conflated culture and biology.  I can see how the confusion arose; doubtless it is the fact that biologists develop their own kinds of 'cultures', but I assure you that these are entirely nothing to do with what you think you are arguing. Unless the process of mammalian pregnancy changes drastically and women begin laying eggs, your central thesis is fatally undermined.  If you do have problems with biology, I suggest as a man of faith you direct your complaints to management because I’m afraid liberals and pro choice supporters have precious little influence over this matter. Besides, he’s more likely to listen to you than me, given I keep doubting his existence. 

Here's a culture I made earlier!

 Speaking of that, we really should talk about the whole religion thing; you’re on record as saying that people of faith are "funnier, sharper and smarter" than atheists, so perhaps you can excuse the dullness on the part of this extreme agnostic when I ask where exactly you draw this nugget of divine wisdom from? You are adamantly against secular education, stating that education without religion indoctrination produces mindless unquestioning robots – yet as you insist on a theistic status quo without a modicum of evidence, perhaps you are not a man in possession of a calibrated irony meter?

As an aside, wouldn't it be AWESOME if these actually existed?!

I wouldn’t ever wish to take away the beliefs that you hold dear, be they religious or moral.  But I would kindly ask you stop insisting the rest of the country subscribe to them. When the recent survey showed the Irish are quite irreligious, you dismissed it as meaningless and said religion “defies measurement... through media as limited as numbers”. Sadly John, democracy does have a keen respect for the will of the population, and no matter how holy you think your cause is, the numbers say you're barking up the wrong tree. 

This is the crux of the issue that in all your columns you fail to see; you bemoan how secular elements of Ireland have become without realising the majority of the country wants a place where all religions are accepted but none mandated for. No one is forcing you into gay marriage, abortion or any of the other things you rail against, but you and your ilk are trying to force the hand of the many others who do not share your beliefs.

Being an apologist for the Catholic church must be incredibly time consuming at this point in history, when the church are claiming moral authority while defending child rapists in their ranks,  but kindly stop presuming to speak for Ireland. Ireland can speak for herself. Whether you choose to listen is your call.



Sorry for that aside to anyone that came here looking for the usual science / medicine stuff, I will go back to ranting about that shortly!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...