Trying to find your way around this place? Like most expositions, we offer a map: 
Occasionally, I talk about this when I'm giving a talk on science literacy, and most often, I'll present the following statement asking if it's true or false:
There is a human disease characterized by uncontrollably messy hair. It is called the "uncombable hair syndrome."
Anyway, it's true and the disorder is also known as Pili trianguli et canaliculi
Basically, a genetic syndrome affecting the structure of one of the proteins in the hair follicle. Results in literally uncombable hair (hence the name).
An abstract from Pediatr Dermatol. 2007 Jul-Aug;24(4):436-8.
A 4-year-old boy was noted to have unruly, spangled hair, which could not be combed flat. His mother reported that his hair had always had that texture and that it seemed to grow slowly. A hair pull test demonstrated that hairs could not be easily extracted, and light microscopic examination of the hair revealed pathognomonic characteristics of uncombable hair syndrome, including a triangular cross-sectional shape and canal-like longitudinal depressions.
Note that apart from the surreallness of such a disorder, I often use this talking point to bring up the following notions:
1. That there are a lot of crazy ass diseases out there (genetic or otherwise).
2. That from a therapeutic point of view, you need to look at the market value of finding a cure, before the whole finding a cure process to the start (i.e. do you think a lot of places are looking at treating uncombable hair syndrome?) Plus, if you take that question further, you can start getting into the arena of neglected diseases.
Here's a slide graphic that works well with that transition.
And here is the basic appeal behind the issue of neglected diseases (from researchappeal.org)
* Every day over 35,000 people die from infectious diseases such as AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and most neglected diseases such as leishmaniasis, Chagas disease and sleeping sickness.* These diseases affect hundreds of millions, yet we lack safe, affordable, effective, field-adapted vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs to tackle them.
* Between 1986 and 2001, global funding for health research rose from $30 billion to US$106 billion, but progress towards new health tools for the poor remains insignificant.
* Of 1,393 new medicines approved between 1975 and 1999, only 1% was developed for tropical diseases and tuberculosis.
* Basic science about infectious diseases exists and biomedicine is developing extremely fast, but without political determination this progress cannot be used to develop essential products.
* The profit-driven model of drug development is not suited to developing essential health tools for neglected diseases.
* Current regulatory practices are poorly adapted to assessing the therapeutic advances of new drugs, vaccines and diagnostics for neglected diseases.
* Higher levels of intellectual property protection have not resulted in increased drug R&D for global health needs.
Medicine & Health
Education & Careers
Comments
Isn't follicular combicity also related to the presence of superfluous confluences in the cranial configuration of hirsuteness? I.e. some people have a double crown.
Me? The last few remaining hairs on my head are cropped so short that there is no comb with tines short enough to impinge on them. Now, my chest that's a different matter...
Posted by: David Bradley | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM
Are you aware of the bad hair day (Bhrd) mouse?
http://www.openhelix.com/blog/?p=410
But actually, from the description, I would also look at wooly. Well, not that you are actually looking for a mouse model...
Posted by: Mary | June 26, 2008 12:42 PM
Oh my dog! Does this mean that the free market doesn't solve every problem?
Posted by: Mark P | June 26, 2008 12:51 PM
The free market considers that every problem it doesn't solve was, ipso facto, not a problem. If it were a problem, the free market would have solved it. QED
Posted by: derek | June 26, 2008 1:19 PM
There's a time and a place for mathematics, and this is it.
Posted by: oneeyedjack | June 26, 2008 6:05 PM
And, just to bring it back around full circle, from Wikipedia's article on Vaniqa:
Posted by: thalarctos | June 27, 2008 12:09 AM
Hi,
Thanks for your information about this Uncombable Hair Syndrome.
Regards
Team : Hair Extensions
Posted by: Hair Extensions | June 27, 2008 1:39 AM
Assuming there's no seriously negative side-effects of 'uncombable' hair (and if any were mentioned in the post above please excuse me, I didn't have the patience to read the whole thing), why call it a 'disease' and a 'disorder'? Jeez. That's just disturbing to me. What's the big deal?
Posted by: jes | June 27, 2008 10:22 AM
jes, You've obviously never had to listen to your kid's high-pitched whining and complaining as your wife tries to hold her down while combing tangled hair.
Believe me. There are victims. My dwindling supply of aspirin from the headaches induced by such hair-combing sessions can attest to that.
Posted by: drfranklives | June 27, 2008 10:48 AM
jes:
I think the issue is not so much the problem itself (ACHOO syndrome would be another example) but whether it's a fellow-traveler with a more significant problem. As an example (though it's more autoimmune than genetic), take the link between psoriasis and certain forms of rheumatoid arthritis -- psoriasis in and of itself is somewhat disfiguring but mostly just annoying, but when the autoimmune attack spreads to the joints, the ensuing arthritis is a serious, potentially crippling problem.
Posted by: Brian X | June 27, 2008 11:59 AM
Actually, this needs a pithy, celebrity-related name to give it a good kick in public awareness.
I'll go ahead and suggest "Phyllis Diller Syndrome"
:)
Posted by: G Barnett | June 27, 2008 5:01 PM
Is the freedom to give voluntary donations to charities which conduct research into neglected diseases not considered a free market solution?
Posted by: zydborg | June 27, 2008 6:13 PM
"Is the freedom to give voluntary donations to charities which conduct research into neglected diseases not considered a free market solution?"
Manifestly, since people have that freedom and the problems are not solved, it is not a solution. (And even if some problem was solved via charity, it would not be a market solution.)
Of course it might occasionally happen that some super-rich person might, on a generous whim, give enough money to supply the poor of the world with the drug, or whatever, that they need but can't afford, or they might give toward research into some rare and non-glamorous disorder (because they, or someone they love suffer from it, or even just on a whim), but clearly this sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule.
When the free market does solve problems it solves them because the logic of the market makes it inevitable. The whole point of free market solutions is that they do not depend on the affections and whims of individuals. That is what supposedly makes them better than planned, command economies; but for lots of problems they just do not work, and this is one sort of example.
Posted by: Nigel | June 28, 2008 3:03 AM
While I may or may not have this syndrome, I can attest that my hair is indeed quite uncombable. It insists on standing straight out from my head in all directions. No matter how much hair spray or mousse I use, it invariably stands up after a short time. Then, instead of standing up in a glorious mane of fringe, it clumps together in spikes.
To combat this, I now wear my hair no longer than half an inch, and have for the past 15 years or so. One of the more interesting phenomenon associated with my particular condition is the tendency of my hair to wick water or sweat to the ends of each strand, where it forms into tiny droplets that catch the light.
Posted by: BruceH | June 28, 2008 6:59 PM
Did you know that 90% of all new medicines are discovered by the pharmaceutical industry (Journal of Health Economics, The Price of Innovation: New Estimates of Drug Development Costs, 2003)? Only 3 in 10 of the medicines provide returns on the development investments, and of millions of compounds screened for approval, only 250 of these enter precilinical testing, 5 enter clinical testing, and 1 of those millions will actually be approved. You can see that the cost of R&D here is extravagant (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturer’s of America (PhRMA) 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile).
Posted by: Amanda | June 30, 2008 11:21 AM