Tested on humans
Kathy Archibald writes to set the record straight on the benefits of testing drugs on animals (24 September, p 24). However, she seems to misunderstand the current methodology of drug development.
She says: “We would all be safer without animal tests, which correctly predict drug side effects only between 5 and 25 per cent of the time.” Fact: Animal studies can only be used as a coarse screen for gross toxicity purposes, and for unacceptable side effects of a drug before that agent ever touches a human. The real safety testing for side effects is carried out in large “Phase 3” controlled trials in humans who have the target disease, and at the dose and formulation anticipated for use. It is on this data, captured from thousands of patients’ exposure over several years, that an assessment of safety is made before licensing.
The spectre of Vioxx is then invoked by Archibald, apparently to underline how the failings of animal testing have allowed this drug to put patients at risk. For many drugs, rarer side effects may not be statistically detectable until tens of thousands of patients are exposed, and therefore usually not until some time after release onto the market. Merck, however, is in trouble over Vioxx precisely because it had successfully obtained sufficient human data to elucidate the hazard associated with Vioxx, but allegedly suppressed some of the findings.
By all means criticise the pharmaceutical industry for the failings it displays. But be under no illusion that animal testing is the root of the problem.
Daily dose of coffee
I am writing to dispute the assumption made by Michael Jacobson of the US Center for Science in the Public Interest, who says: “For women who are pregnant, [cutting out caffeine is] not a great sacrifice.” As a woman well into my second pregnancy, I couldn’t disagree more. Not only did my daily cup of coffee help me get through the nausea and exhaustion in early pregnancy but I also found that it virtually eliminated the headaches and migraines I suffer from.
Coffee also contains a great deal of potassium, which can help with the terrible leg cramps many women suffer late in pregnancy.
I’ll admit to a lifelong dependence on caffeine. My husband and co-workers all benefit from me receiving my daily dose 鈥� otherwise I am cranky, foggy, and just plain annoying. Weaning myself off it entirely would be a long process 鈥� one I would avoid unless absolutely necessary. And my midwives say as long as I keep my intake to one or two cups a day and the rest of my diet is good, there is no need for me to cut out caffeine.
Of course, the irony is that while doctors tell pregnant women to cut out all caffeine, one thing they often fail to tell their patients is that if they take extra iron (especially in prenatal vitamins), they must avoid coffee, tea, and high fibre foods for at least an hour. This is because these foods and drinks contain polyphenols which bind to the iron in the digestive tract, making it impossible for the body to absorb. It is still unclear whether decaf versions are missing these polyphenols, but indications are that because all decaf versions do contain some caffeine, they should probably be avoided too.
From Jolane Abrams
So if we abide by Manfred Kroger’s dictum 鈥� “An addictive drug is something you commit a crime for” 鈥� then cigarettes must not be addictive when legally purchased, while diamonds should be put in the Class A bracket. Nobody ever got mugged by a caffeine junkie because caffeine is presently both legal and cheap. But if this should change, we could see a rash of caffeine-related crime. Or should that be a jitter?
Bristol, UK
From Gregory Sams
Your feature story on coffee reads like a cleverly crafted marketing piece, written by the coffee industry. The author, Richard Lovett, misleadingly uses the words caffeine and coffee interchangeably throughout. Different sources of caffeine have different effects, and different side effects, and coffee has developed a far more tarnished health image than tea, dark chocolate or the mat茅 and guarana of Argentina and Brazil. This arises from the experience of long-term coffee drinkers who developed problems, which went away when they replaced coffee with another caffeine source. Green tea is recommended for its health-giving side effects, yet its caffeine content can still keep you awake at night.
Yes, there are health concerns about coffee addiction and sugar-laden caffeine soft drinks. To suggest that these exist because of “health food advocates’ bias against processed foods” is just what we would expect from someone who, like Manfred Kroger whom you quote, is a spokesman for the Institute of Food Technologists. Does this food technologist not realise that fresh coffee is about as processed as peanut butter? According to some, the waxes and acids in coffee do more damage than the caffeine.
On what basis does the author assume that “sure, caffeine is a habit-forming stimulant, but nobody abuses it?” There are many who have fought long and hard to overcome the coffee habit, precisely because of damage caused by over-consumption driven by their increased tolerance to the drug. The author dismisses scientific studies on the addictiveness of caffeine and the difficulty of withdrawal from this drug by again quoting food technologist Kroger’s view that “an addictive drug is something you commit a crime for” and telling us that nobody ever got mugged by a caffeine junkie. What flimsy logic to apply to a relatively cheap product, widely available to all ages. First we need to ban, tax or control it 鈥� then we’ll get the crime.
Perhaps the choicest bit of information to emerge from the article is the sorry fact that “coffee is the number one source of antioxidants in the US diet”. Judging from the enormous amount that they spend on medicines, surgery and hospital care, Americans could be rated as the most unhealthy people on the planet. Perhaps their choice of antioxidant has something to do with it.
London, UK
From Adam Hickman, Leicester School of Pharmacy
In addition to the obvious benefits of a coffee in the morning, increased alertness and spring in your step, coffee has hidden benefits. Coffee may provide symptomatic relief of asthma, due to the presence of caffeine. Caffeine belongs to a group of compounds called methylxanthines, which also include theophylline and theobromine (found in chocolate).
Methylxanthines are thought to inhibit phosphodiesterase, giving rise to increased intracellular concentrations of cyclic AMP, thus mimicking the action of Bronchial beta-2 receptor stimulation 鈥� that is, salbutamol inhalers 鈥� by inducing bronchodilation.
The use of caffeine in asthma relief was first postulated some 200 years ago, this has been reinforced by recent materia medica, and now methylxathines are commonplace in the clinic: uses include symptomatic relief of asthma and congestive obstructive pulmonary disorder.
Despite the bad publicity, people in coffee-drinking countries still enjoy an average of 280 milligrams of caffeine a day, an intake well bellow that what can cause ill effects. It is a practice that may benefit their health as well as their taste buds.
Leicester, UK
Thanks to the military
Robert Hinde’s critique of Michael White’s book Fruits of War rightly pointed out that civilian spin-offs from military technology should not be seen as a justification for war (10 September, p 52). However, such spin-offs are even more pervasive than he suggests. Modern military developments have produced everything from nuclear power to digital computers and cheap air travel, as described in my book Weapons Grade: Revealing the links between modern warfare and our high-tech world (Constable Robinson, 2005).
Massive funding and freedom from market forces mean this will continue. Areas like nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and human-machine interfaces are being largely developed to meet military requirements, often in highly classified programmes.
We only have technology like the transistor, the internet and GPS navigation because the Pentagon decided to share them. The UK also gained nuclear power stations, whether we like them or not, as an adjunct to its nuclear weapons programme.
Without some fundamental change, the direction of technology will continue to be governed by military demands and not civilian needs.
Coal is still dirty
Bennett Daviss argues that coal is here to stay and it doesn’t have to be a disaster for the climate (3 September, p 38). But we think “an energy future that is heavily reliant on coal” is definitely a bad thing for Australia and the environment.
The article discusses improving coal technologies to increase the ratio of energy produced to CO2 released, but even if this is done, CO2 is still released. The cost of implementing clean coal technology is prohibitive and the length of time needed to develop technologies like pulverised coal or gasification to the point of substantial difference to the environment is far too long.
Daviss says “‘clean coal’ technology is gradually nudging the efficiency of coal-fired plants upwards.” But Mark Morey, a director of Cambridge Energy Research Associates in Massachusetts, expects that it will take 40 to 50 years to reach the efficiency levels required to benefit from such technology.
If we continue on our current course, the very near future will see the environment damaged irreparably. So it would be better for our governments to invest this money in improving renewable energy technologies such as wind or, better still, solar power towers (31 July 2004, p 42) which have been proven to work in Madrid.
Polyontologias
We recycle and we collect the separate categories of waste in different cardboard boxes, one of which is for cardboard. So our cardboard box is a cardboard box.
From Peter Shaw
Here in South Australia there is an independent parliamentarian in the state legislature named Nick Xenophon, a name which in an English-speaking country like Australia is a bit foreign sounding. My clumsy ancient Greek tells me that Xenophon also means foreign sounding.
College Park, South Australia
From Peter Whitehead
If Richard Saunders’s large musical instrument that he thought was splendid and cost $1000, was actually the property of the Grand Hotel, then the statement “This is a Grand piano” would be four ways true.
Cairns, Queensland, Australia
From Michael Barke
On one occasion at work, talk came round to the regular absence of a colleague. His exasperated manager said that it was due to recurrent bouts of diarrhoea, which the employee claimed was a problem he had inherited from his father. This prompted the diontological observation: “Runs in the family!”
For the record
鈥� We erroneously credited the graph on p 34, 24 September, to Ray Kurzweil. It should have been Theodore Modis.
Egil's growing pains
I was interested in the possibility that the Icelandic Viking Egil Skallagrimsson may have suffered from either Paget’s disease or fluorosis (17 September, p 48). But based on the symptoms reported in the article, I think another condition may be possible 鈥� acromegaly, the overproduction of growth hormone.
Excess hormone secretion in youth 鈥� before the bones’ growth plates fuse 鈥� results in increased stature or gigantism and may be that the reason Egil was “far above normal height”. Later in life, excess growth hormone is linked to coarsened features 鈥� a prominent brow ridge, enlargement of the nose and chin, and bossing of the forehead.
While Paget’s disease may also cause thickening of the skull, it leaves bone structurally abnormal and prone to fracture, making it less likely to have resisted the blow from the back of the priest’s axe.
The most common cause of acromegaly is a tumour of the pituitary gland which, as it enlarges, can cause progressive blindness, headaches and impotence 鈥� all of which blighted poor Egil.
From Paul Buckland, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University
Stephanie Pain’s discussion of Philip Weinstein’s Journal of Archaeological Science paper on the bones of Egil Skallagrimsson provides an interesting example of an attempt at interdisciplinary study, but it fails both to be sufficiently critical of the primary source, a 13th century account of a legendary figure of the tenth century, and to draw other parallels from the North Atlantic, where the bones do survive.
Like Robin Hood, Egil may be based on an actual person, but how much of the saga can be accepted as truth is highly debateable. The extreme position would be to regard most sagas as literature, little better than fairy stories as historical sources, and few modern historians would accept Egil’s saga as anything other than an exceptionally crafted story, which utilises a historical framework and projects the context of the time in which it was written onto the pre-Christian past. So why trust the description of Egil’s physiognomy any more than the description of Grettir the Strong’s mythological adversary Gl谩mr in the 14th-century Grettis saga?
Setting aside the historical veracity of the saga, evidence for fluorosis in medieval Iceland is hard to come by, with no clear example in all the animal bones examined over the past 25 years by Tom McGovern and his team from City University of New York. This may reflect the fact that sick animals will be slaughtered before symptoms become apparent on the bones. Recently, Hilda Gestsd贸ttir has reported possible signs of fluorosis on skeletons which may relate to the 1783-844 Laki eruption in the south of Iceland, but her re-examination of all the earlier material from Iceland has produced no other convincing evidence. The one specimen that might fit Egil’s description, actually comes from the cemetery of the cathedral at Gardar in Greenland.
What finally kills the fluorosis hypothesis is the geographical location of the estate which is claimed to be that of Egil. Mosfell lies far west of any contemporary eruption site, in a catchment which does not drain from any ice cap where included volcanic ash might have sequestered fluorine. If there ever was an historical Egil Skallagrimsson with the features suggested in the saga, then he lived in the wrong place to be directly affected by fluorine from eruptions, a point further emphasised by examining any ditch section around Mosfell for relevant historical volcanic ash (tephra) horizons.
Bournemouth, Dorset, UK
Learn to experiment
I am staggered that Simon Blackburn believes that “many children must leave school never having performed an experiment or even having seen one described, let alone having been introduced to the logic of experimental inquiry” (17 September, p 41).
It appears that this was the experience of his own children. If so, he clearly did not send them to a state school in the UK, where the teaching of scientific enquiry 鈥� which involves frequent experimentation 鈥� has been mandatory for children between 5 and 16 years of age since the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988.
Comet water for Mars
With all the water they may contain, comets could be a way of terraforming Mars. We could direct them into the atmosphere of Mars, creating heat, water vapour and untold amounts of other nutrients necessary for life. We may be able to speed up the colonisation of Mars by several dozen years.
Cannabis times four
Your article states: “As police and dope smokers know, there are two types of cannabis [and now] researchers have discovered a third type, called rasta,” (17 September, p 12). Actually, there’s another strain of cannabis previously discovered called ruderalis. Rasta would be the fourth strain.
Let's stay at home
I was saddened to read about the US plans for further human exploration of the moon and Mars (1 October, p 6). What actual benefit or enhanced understanding has been gained from the 1970s visits to the moon? What is likely to be gained by further manned visits that could not be gained by robotic exploration and analysis?
I have been excited and impressed by the accomplishments of the NASA deep-space probes and the capabilities demonstrated by the Mars rovers. This ingenious work both enhances our understanding of our environment and provides opportunity for feedback to terrestrial investigative work. But to spend 拢300 billion plus on the proposed programme seems madness to me. It diverts money and intellectual capability away from problems that we know we have and we know need to be solved 鈥� such as those associated with global warming.
Kurzweil's dystopia
Ray Kurzweil’s vision of the future strikes me as very sad (24 September, p 32). We will live forever, we will adopt new gadgets mere moments after they are invented, and we will have nanotech solar panels that are, well, really awesome.
You know what? I don’t care. TV, cellphones, email, nanotech, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering: are any of us made happier by all this? I think the opposite is true 鈥� we are increasingly isolated, alienated and neurotic.
While we draw ever-closer to Kurzweil’s singularity, the horrors of the world continue unabated, and Kurzweil seems to have next to nothing to say about that. His vision of the future is devoid of humanity, even as he insists that being human is defined by “going beyond our limitations”. The tragic point that escapes him is that our most important limitations, the ones we really need to go beyond if we are ever to be happy, have nothing whatsoever to do with technology.
From Gordon Black
There have been many periods of enlightened progress in human history, usually quashed by religious fundamentalism. Kurzweil’s three revolutions 鈥� biotechnology, nanotechnology and robotics 鈥� “strong” artificial intelligence 鈥� are already under attack from this quarter.
Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, UK
From Mark MacDiarmid
In the late 1960s psychedelic gurus Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert are said to have had a graph on their office wall showing the critical number of LSD users necessary to lift the human species to the “next level”. I know Ray Kurzweil has 40 graphs in his new book, compared with Leary and Alpert’s one, but I think all three are still writing graffiti on the same wall.
Katoomba, New South Wales, Australia
From Robert Cailliau, CERN
Funny that Kurzweil’s curve shows the expansion of the internet measured by the number of web-server computers from 1980. We didn’t actually invent the internet until 1990 and it had no more than 12 servers online in December 1991.
Geneva, Switzerland
From John Lynch
Surely many people become very uncomfortable pondering as to whether they’d want their brain artificially “improved”. When “by the mid 2040s, the non-biological portion of our intelligence will be billions of times more capable by the biological portion”, I feel you would be quite justified in questioning whether we would still be human.
The supposedly much more powerful non-biological component of the brain would surely dismiss any ideas arising from the biological mind, bogged down by primitive products of evolution such as “feelings”. We almost all want to be healthy and have what might be called a long life, but if such traits which betray our humanity are the trade-off, I can not see many people keen to reach “The Singularity”.
King’s Lynn, Norfolk, UK
From Ian Reeve, University of New England
Kurzweil admits that are limits to exponential technology growth but “they’re not very limiting”. I would suggest there are some very substantial limits and one need look no further than page 51 of the same issue of New 杏吧原创 to find them.
Mike Holderness in his review of Transforming US Intelligence observes that opposition movements are now “brands rather than structures”. It is the exponential growth in information richness and media reach that sensitises the poor and marginalised to their plight and makes possible the unfightable decentralised copycat opposition of the Al-Quaida brand.
Exponential technology growth requires social, political and economic stability; that’s why India rather than Afghanistan is contributing to the exponential growth of web-servers. If technology growth in its present form, by provoking opposition to western cultural hegemony and greed for natural resources, undermines the very stability on which it depends, then it will be self-limiting rather than eternally exponential.
Show me technological growth that does not create haves and have-nots, and I’ll start looking out for Kurzweil’s approaching singularity.
Armidale, New South Wales, Australia