It can be pretty tough for a person who isn’t affiliated with a university to get access to full scientific papers. However, I recently found two insect journals that have free online content. One is Florida Entomologist and the other is the Journal of Insect Science. I found both through BioOne. If you click on Browse, you can see a full list of the journals hosted there. Only the two insect journals and The Arabidopsis Book are offered freely. There’s still a pretty good collection of naturalist journals here, though, and just reading the abstracts could be valuable.

The New York Times reported on two avenues of research on stem cells that appeared in this Monday’s issue of Nature. The work reported in them is pretty remarkable. The Nature articles both present techniques that could potentially be used to create stem cells without destroying embryos—the primary objection that many have to stem cell research. The methods are reported to have worked in mice, but have not been tested with human cells.

One of these methods also raises some interesting questions. Those of you interested in science fiction and looking for a project for National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) might want to mull this over.

In the method I’m referring to, an egg is fertilized in vitro. This newly fertilized egg is allowed to divide until it reaches the 8 cell stage. One of these cells is than removed for the creation of stem cell lines, leaving the remaining 7 cell embryo capable of developing to term. This cell extraction method does work with humans, but the extracted cell is used in genetic screening. No human stem cells lines have ever been developed from such cells.

As stated in the New York Times article, this method does get around many of the ethical arguments against stem cell research. There are still those who object to in vitro fertilization, but they appear to be in the minority. I do wonder, though, if this technique might not open up a whole new set of ethical dilemmas.

In the New York Times article, Andrew R. La Barbera, scientific director of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, is quoted: “I suspect that indeed it will become routine to generate stem cells for everyone who undergoes preimplantation genetic diagnosis.” That viewpoint is considered “wildly speculative” by Brigid L. M. Hogan, an embryologist at Duke University (and probably many others).

Science fiction is supposed to be speculative, however. It seems unlikely that any embryo created the old-fashioned way would undergo preimplantation genetic testing, so they wouldn’t get their stem cell lines generated at conception. In vitro fertilization also isn’t cheap. Would in vitro fertilization provide an unfair health advantage to children born to wealthier parents? It’s already been demonstrated that health seems to be correlated with wealth. Will a gap in income lead to a greater gap in healthcare?

It’s probably far too early to worry about any of that yet. This technique has only been tested in mice, after all. However, if you happen to be bored during November, why not think it over with pen in hand (or fingers at keyboard).

This post refers to:

Wade, Nicholas. “Stem Cell Test Tried on Mice Saves Embryo.” New York Times. October 17, 2005

I have to say, I was pretty stunned when I heard the news that a vaccine had been developed for cervical cancer. Even more amazing, over a 2 year follow-up period, there was 100% efficacy.

BUT…

That 100% efficacy really applies only to the prevention of 70% of cervical cancer cases.

Don’t get me wrong—I’m really excited by this news. I’m just worried that others, in their very justified excitement, might miss a few crucial caveats, which this article does point out. However, what if you didn’t read the whole article and only read this subhead?

’100 percent efficacy’ against cancer-causing virus, maker says

The statement isn’t wrong. There was 100% efficacy (or success rate in a clinical trial) of the vaccine against two particular strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV). While nearly all instances of cervical cancer are caused by some form of HPV, the two forms against which this vaccine is apparently effective cause 70% of those cases. That the vaccine works against these two particular strains is actually pretty damn good.

There are a couple of other things to note from the article, which I’ll summarize in bullet points:

• The study involved 12,000 patients and had a 2-year follow-up, which is pretty compelling.
• While 2 years is a pretty good length of time, it’s not clear if in the longer term, the vaccine will become less effective, perhaps making booster shots necessary.
• One woman (out of nearly 6000) did develop precancerous cells, so there is still a slight risk over the long term.
• The inconvenience of needing 3 shots in 6 months might reduce real world effectiveness.
• The vaccine is also effective against two strains of the virus that cause 90% of genital warts.

Overall, I think it’s actually a pretty rosy picture.

This post refers to:

Associated Press (via CNN.com). Study: Vaccine blocks cervical cancer. October 6, 2005

Grady, Denise. Vaccine Prevents Most Cervical Cancer. New York Times. October 7, 2005

Sometimes, the things I read converge in thought-provoking ways. Recently, I’ve found several items relating to the lives of women in the Middle East. Two are news pieces about the travels of Karen P. Hughes, the U.S. Under Secretary of State. The other two are pieces of creative nonfiction by Lisa Ohlen Harris about the time she spent living in the Syrian city of Damascus. (See below for links.)

The two news articles are informative. More importantly, however, I think they invite the reader to think more deeply about what the U.S.’s cultural role in the Middle East should be. Ms. Hughes and the administration she represents are offering to the women of the Middle East what from a Western point of view is freedom and autonomy. At first glance, it seems bizarre that these women, who can’t drive or vote, say they are already as free as they wish to be.

From the quotes in the article, it sounds like Ms. Hughes is listening and is trying to understand where these women are coming from. I don’t think that either these women or Ms. Hughes (or the administration she represents) will change their minds. I hope, however, that both parties are really listening, that they are approaching this situation with respect for the autonomy, opinions, and values of the people of these Middle Eastern countries.

There’s too little in these articles to draw any conclusions about Ms. Hughes’s performance. I do, however, like her strategy of presenting the ways in which Americans and Middle Easterners are similar and have similar values. I’d like it if everyone could see that for, all their differences, most people are a lot alike. Of course, I need to take my own advice more.

This brings me to Ms. Harris’s works of creative nonfiction. I think they serve well to show these differences and similarities. They’re colorful presentations of the Middle East through a pair of blue eyes from the U.S., and if nothing else, I found them enjoyable to read. That I say little about them here should by no means be seen as a reflection of their merit.

This post refers to:

Harris, Lisa Ohlen. “The Pied Piper of Damascus.” Eclectica. July/August 2005.

Harris, Lisa Ohlen. “Through the Looking Glass.” Eclectica. July/August 2005.

Weisman, Steven R. Saudi Women Have Message for U.S. Envoy. New York Times. September 28, 2005

Weisman, Steven R. Turkish Women, Too, Have Words With U.S. Envoy (on Iraq War). New York Times. September 29, 2005