Poorly Darwin
In her review of Brian Dillon’s Tormented Hope, Amanda Gefter mentions the theory that Charles Darwin was a hypochondriac (3 October, p 48).
Darwin suffered from a chronic, incapacitating illness for much of his adult life; he also suffered 鈥� and still suffers 鈥� from numerous misdiagnoses. These incorrect diagnoses include psychogenic illness with various subconscious stimuli, arsenic poisoning, lactose intolerance, lupus erythematosus and Chagas’ disease.
Hypochondriasis was a diagnosis favoured by some of Darwin’s contemporaries. Psychogenic or psychological diagnoses for Darwin’s illness have been kept in orbit by people who would have us believe that Darwin was psychologically flawed and therefore his theory 鈥� surely a “theory” no longer 鈥� is also flawed.
I contend that Darwin had cyclical vomiting syndrome, a little-known but well-defined disorder associated with mitochondrial DNA abnormalities. CVS produces all of the bizarre symptoms experienced by Darwin, including headaches and fear. Like many of today’s sufferers, Darwin also experienced eczema, motion sickness and tooth decay. There is good evidence of a matrilineal inheritance pattern for CVS, and Darwin’s mother and his maternal uncle also had the same disorder in a debilitating but less severe form.
Darwin did not know of mitochondria nor their DNA, which is a pity because he would surely have rejoiced in hearing his correct diagnosis.
Meat for a ritual
I read with interest Andy Coghlan’s article on recent research findings about the pain experienced by animals when slaughtered without stunning (17 October, p 11).
I head a project in Europe called , which aims to improve welfare at slaughter by finding more common ground between what science tells us about slaughter and what procedures are found acceptable by religious traditions. We know that both Muslim and Jewish authorities are concerned about the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter; however many of them interpret the practice of stunning as incompatible with their religion. Reaching compromise is complex. Wide variations in slaughtering practice already exist within faiths: for example, the majority of halal food in the UK is obtained from animals that have been stunned before slaughter.
As part of the Dialrel project, we have conducted spot visits in slaughterhouses in several countries in the European Union and we have discovered that there are more animals slaughtered according to the religious rules than are necessary to meet the demands of the halal and kosher markets. Moreover, both conventional and religious practices of slaughter could be improved. If stunning is not performed according to the suggested rules or the equipment is not in optimal condition, it can be ineffective. Animals can experience high levels of stress before stunning and slaughtering if they are not handled properly.
We are planning a scientific workshop for early next year, with veterinarians and animal scientists from the Dialrel project and experts from both the halal and shechita certifying bodies, to discuss possible strategies for improving all the practices of slaughter. We hope that new practices, such as post-cut stunning, which is already implemented in Australia, will be adopted. We believe that this intervention would help to improve the welfare of animals in the case of religious slaughter.
From Shuja Shafi, Muslim Council of Britain, London, UK
Andy Coghlan appears to have made up his mind that stunning is the solution to the welfare problems associated with the slaughter of animals, yet he ignores some important facts that are published in the very journal volume he cites.
Troy Gibson and colleagues showed in a carefully controlled experiment that in two out of seven calves stunned, the process was ineffective, as demonstrated by periods of EEG activity 鈥� an indicator of cortical function (). Thus they demonstrated that stunning did not render those two calves completely insensible to any pain and distress.
This failure to render the two calves insensible to pain was attributed to either incorrect positioning of the stunner on the animals’ heads, a deflected shot, or incorrect function of the stunner itself. It is well recognised that mis-stuns occur in practice, and that each instance compromises animal welfare. A frequency of up to 5 per cent is considered satisfactory, meaning that even if as many as 1 in 20 animals are mis-stunned, the slaughterhouse is still considered to be practising good animal welfare.
Even working on anaesthetised animals that are further immobilised by a purpose-designed head frame, Gibson’s work showed an almost 30 per cent incidence of mis-stuns. This must surely raise concerns about the practicality of achieving the required level of accuracy and precision in a commercial environment.
The notion that stunning solves all animal welfare problems around slaughter is simply not true; stunning often creates more problems than it solves. A holistic approach is essential for realising the high standards of animal welfare we all endeavour to achieve. The UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should, along with other relevant agencies such as the Food Standards Agency, evaluate this evidence objectively, understanding both the strengths and severe limitations of the work.
From Daniel Weisman, London, UK
On reading the first paragraph of your editorial on the pain response in animals undergoing religious slaughter, I systematically, mentally replaced the words “slaughterhouses” with “fields”, and “religion” with “sport”. Doing so, I came to a more realistic view of human cruelty.
If you want to be self-righteous about animals suffering pain, as in your editorial, maybe you should campaign for the immediate banning of all sport shooting, thus saving pheasants, grouse, rabbits and stags from being blown apart for fun.
Industrial target
I was surprised that your article on technologies for reducing greenhouse gases (26 September, p 38) did not mention two of the major culprits 鈥� the manufacture of steel and cement. Between them they contribute about 10 per cent of the global total. Any improvements in the efficiency of these two industries would have a significant impact.
ITERative production
In his article on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, Stephen Battersby repeats the claim that nuclear fusion will produce much less radioactive waste than nuclear fission since the only radioactive waste produced is from the materials made radioactive by absorbing the neutrons produced during fusion (10 October, p 40).
However, a fusion reactor needs a supply of deuterium and tritium fuel. Deuterium exists aplenty in seawater, but with a half-life of only 12.33 years, tritium does not occur in significant quantities naturally on Earth. It has to be manufactured, and for that you need a supply of neutrons. There are two possible sources of neutrons in the quantities required: the fusion reactor itself, and fission reactors.
The fusion of one tritium nucleus with one deuterium nucleus produces one neutron, and one neutron can be used to produce one tritium nucleus. So, the neutrons produced in your fusion reactor are needed in the manufacture of tritium, you can’t afford to waste any.
Battersby’s article does a good job of showing how difficult it is to build a working fusion reactor, but does not consider that you must ensure that every neutron produced ends up making new tritium. The loss of neutrons that are absorbed in the reactor vessel or the superconducting magnets means that another source is needed to make up the deficit. In fact, you would probably be doing well to produce half your tritium using neutrons from your fusion reactor, which would mean you’d need to produce the rest in fission reactors.
For a given power output, fission reactors produce fewer neutrons than fusion reactors. However, they produce several times as much energy as a fusion reactor, and of course generate correspondingly large quantities of radioactive waste.
Overall, the fusion reactor and its fission reactor fuel suppliers will produce less radioactive waste than a fission only system, but not very much less.
The editor writes
鈥� ITER intends to test an approach to make tritium by coating the inside of the reactor with tiles made of lithium. It is hoped that neutrons interacting with the lithium will provide tritium for future fuel.
Hot fat
Peter Brooks refers to a compound that made munitions workers feel hot and lose weight in his letter about brown adipose tissue, or BAT (3 October, p 29).
It was during the first world war, not the second as he said, that this was observed. The compound was dinitrophenol, which increases heat production in most tissues of the body, not just BAT. It was used in the US in the 1930s to treat obesity, but was withdrawn because it had dangerous side effects and caused cataracts.
There are compounds that increase heat production mainly in BAT: beta-3-adrenoceptor agonists. However, although they combat obesity and type 2 diabetes in rodents, nobody has found one that works well in humans: they are usually cleared by the liver before they can reach BAT. If they do make it to the blood, the kidney whisks them away before they can have much of an effect.
Recent evidence for BAT in adult humans, plus evidence that it tends to be less active in obese people, may not resurrect beta-3-adrenoceptor agonists, but it is encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to target BAT with new types of drugs for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Qualified statement
I was delighted to see a job advertised on the pages of your UK edition for which I could apply 鈥� it called for a “Senior Sounding 杏吧原创” (). Do I need to sound important or just old to apply for this post?
For the record
鈥� Apologies to John Wearden, whose name we misspelled in our article on time perception (24 October, p 32)