autismvox | October 2, 2008Orac in his first post about Autism's False Prophets by Dr. Paul Offit wondered at the book's chapter 5. Chapter 5 is entitled "Mercury Rising" and is (quoting Orac) a '"straightforward and relatively uncritical recitation of the 'science' used by antivaccinationists to show that mercury causes autism." Noting that he has "read and analyzed many of these studies and knowing that they are at best irrelevant and at worst rank pseudoscience" and that he found the chapter, with its uneditoralizing descriptions of studies by the likes of Mark and David Geier, Orac suggests that Offit's…
kevleitch | October 2, 2008In his entry today, Orac asks the question "How can we physicians and scientists deal with antivaccinationism? What "frames" can we use to combat the likes of Jenny McCarthy?".
This is an excellent question. I understand exactly why Dr. Offit did not cover this in his book: I think he had a very specific remit in mind and such a question went beyond that remit. Maybe he will do a an AFP 2 or maybe he is hoping another big name in the field of vaccines or autism will step up to the plate the way he has and tackle that. I hope they do too.
My field (I am a Web developer) is that of…
kevleitch | October 2, 2008In his post today, Dr. Offit raises the point that is at the heart of the matter for me.
A couple of bloggers praised the book for its tone, that I never appeared to get angry at the false prophets described in the book. The reason for that is that I'm not the father of a child with autism. If I were, I would have been quite angry. Angry because I think that the anti-vaccine forces have taken the autism story hostage.
I'm angry. I'm damn angry. I don't want to blog about vaccines. I don't want to blog about the frighteningly casual way serious medical interventions are tested on autistic…
pauloffit | October 1, 2008 I want to thank all of you who took the time to read the book and comment. Many of you had kind things to say about the writing and content, clearly understanding what I was trying to do and why I did it. I'll try and answer as many questions that were directed at me as I can, writing a blog entry every morning.
I'll start with the easier questions.
We tried to get companies that publish audio books interested in this book, but were unsuccessful.
All of my royalties from the sale of this book will be donated to the Center for Autism Research at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. I have…
autismvox | October 1, 2008Deconstructing David Kirby.
This is the title of one of two follow-up posts that Dr. Rahul Parikh wrote after reviewing Dr. Paul Offit's Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure and getting the usual treatment by the usual "anti-vaccine/pro-vaccine-safety/mercury militia" suspects: A smackdown by the likes of David Kirby himself, Kirby being the author of the book Evidence of Harm, whose very subtitle proclaims that mercury in vaccines has something to do with a supposed "autism epidemic," and that this is a "medical controversy." Since its publication…
kevleitch | October 1, 2008In June of 2003, I opened my blog with these words:
Megan was born on 17-02-00 weighing slightly more than usual. The first few months of her life were totally normal- we didn't feel concerned about her health or well-being at all. That changed however when she had her DTP jab.
I know there's been a lot about the jabs (particularly the combined MMR jab) in the news but we (or rather I, Naomi was a lot more dubious than me but I managed to convince her) decided to go ahead with it and on the night of her first lot of jabs Megan began projectile vomiting and developed a temperature that peaked…
pauloffit | September 30, 2008My name is Paul Offit. I'm the chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and my published expertise is in the area of vaccine safety and rotavirus-specific immune responses. (I'm the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq). I've written a book about the vaccine-autism controversy titled AUTISM'S FALSE PROPHETS: BAD SCIENCE, RISKY MEDICINE, AND THE SEARCH FOR A CURE. First: a little background on autism and the birth of the controversy.
There is no known cause or cure for autism. But in the late 1990s two hypotheses garnered a great deal of…
jessica.sachs | June 13, 2008I think Carl gets right to the heart of the issue both in this online conversation and in his book. "Are we really just getting started thinking about this stuff?" he asks.
In some cases, it seems that regulators are forcing researchers to go to near-impossible lengths to ensure safety despite no conceivable risk. (Hillman's cavity-fighting tooth bug?) In other cases, researchers appear to be rushing ahead with no one stopping them.
Carl highlights what I consider a prime example of the latter issue in "Darwin at the Drugstore" (subsection "Skin of the Frog"). He describes how Michael Zasloff…
jdennehy | June 12, 2008Back in the 1970s, a scientist named Ananda Chakrabarty received the first patent for a genetically modified lifeform, an oil eating "Superbug" from the bacterial strain Pseudomonas putida. The feat was doubly hailed as a major step in bioremediation and a travesty of nature. In the long run, Chakrabarty's Superbug was a failure. It was unable to survive in the wild, unable to compete with native bacteria, and unable to move towards food sources.
The moral of the story is that it is very difficult to tinker with nature and produce an organism that can survive outside the rarefied confines of…
jessica.sachs | June 10, 2008Yikes. Carl, how am I ever going to get that "parahuman" image out of my head!
I get your point. This image evokes the abhorrent reaction that early critics had against the idea of tinkering with any life, even "mere" E. coli.
Most people start to squirm when the transgenics concerns animals, especially when it produces visible "mutations." Today, I suppose that most people are comfortable with the idea of transgenic E. coli churning out useful chemicals inside sealed vats. We harvest and purify the chemicals. No harm done. Right?
So let's take the safety question one step further. In…
jessica.sachs | June 6, 2008Carl, of course, is right in that it wasn't long ago that biologists scoffed at the idea of bacteria being more than bags of chemistry. Carl's thoughtful reply to my question included what, for me, is the best distillation of what virus's "are." He writes,
"So viruses may or may not be alive, but they are definitely a part of life."
And as John and several commenters point out, viruses sure as hell evolve!
Still, I find myself in the gotta-have-metabolism camp. To me, that's the dividing line between chemistry and biology.
As Carl notes in the section "The Shape of Life," (page 20), "But on…
jdennehy | June 4, 2008It has been suggested that the first posts of this book club be devoted to the Universal Rules of Life. So... What is life?
Jessica asks,
Carl, twice in the book you refer to viruses as "creatures." Perhaps you used the word metaphorically. In any case I'd love to know whether you think viruses qualify as being alive, and I'd love to hear your reasoning either way.
Historically, viruses have been considered non-living. Some of the first discoverers of viruses, Frederick Twort for example, thought they were enzymes secreted by bacteria. Other biologists, such as Felix d'Herelle, contended…
pharyngula_2 | June 3, 2008Everything you need to know about biology is in E. coli. Sure, there are some apparent differences between us and a bacterium, but it's all details … lots and lots of details. That sweet humming core of life — metabolism, replication, communication, evolution — it's all whirling away in the tiniest of us all, and so you can learn much that is universally applicable by focusing on just one kind of creature.
That, I think, is the message of Carl Zimmer's latest book, Microcosm(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). I could argue a little bit with the idea, since a key principle in understanding evolution is…
jessica.sachs | June 2, 2008I knew I'd love Carl's Microcosm for the delicious irony of using a mere "germ" to illustrate the mysteries of life itself. Well, I'm also partial to bacteria and their multicellular abilities, which Carl describes wonderfully. .
First, as the other science writer on the panel, I'd like to express my appreciation for Carl's way with a metaphor. I think for many of us, what makes science writing take flight are these wonderfully unexpected yet perfect comparisons that convey understanding along with a flash of sensory fireworks. For instance, Carl describes a (eukaryotic) cell's stained…
jdennehy | June 1, 2008Escherichia coli is a superstar of the microbe world. Like Zelig, E. coli has been on the scene of some of the most important discoveries of biology. For example, Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod deciphered gene regulation using E. coli's Lac Operon. Roger Kornberg discovered DNA polymerase using E. coli. Even E. coli's parasites (phages) are better known than the vast majority of living things. The story of E. coli is an amazing one, so it is puzzling that E. coli does not have its own biography.
That is, until now: Microcosm.
And I couldn't think of a better biographer than science writer…