The post got a very late critique from someone in the homeopathy “industry”, so I took each of their points and updated my original post, making it even more robust than it had originally been. Incidentally, that first draft was written originally for a medical magazine and had been checked over by a homeopath and a general practitioner, so it’s not that it hadn’t been in half decent shape to begin with.

One of the big claims that homeopaths make is that there is lots of positive evidence for what they do and that anyone who says there isn’t is being economical with the truth. Well, there are a few clinical trials, that demonstrate something-ish, but lots more that say a very lot about how homeopathy really doesn’t work.

Cochrane Reviews, NHS Choices, etc are great starting points for looking at clinical trials:

Homeopathy for dementia – Summary: “No evidence that homeopathy is effective in treating dementia”.

Homeopathy for ADHD – Conclusion: Overall the results of this review found no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy for the global symptoms, core symptoms or related outcomes of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Homeopathy for headache? – Results: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of homeopathy for managing headache; studies published to date are flawed.

Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments – Conclusion: There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic medicines for other adverse effects of cancer treatments.

Homeopathy in allergies and respiratory conditions – Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to judge whether or not homeopathy is useful in the treatment of allergic, ENT and respiratory conditions.

Quackwatch has an interesting summary of homeopathy in which the author points out that homeopathic products “are the only category of quack products legally marketable as drugs.” But, Bandolier has the best comment:

Even ardent proponents of homeopathy who have performed a critical overview conclude that homeopathy ’should not be substituted for proven therapies’.

This quote is based on a citation of Jonas et al in Annals of Internal Medicine in their critical review of homeopathy in which they state – “There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions.”

Proponents claim that homeopathy works. They claim that the repeated dilution (effectively infinite dilution to the point where not a single molecule of the original tincture is present in the solution) of an agent that causes particular symptoms will yield a treatment for similar symptoms presented by a patient with some condition or other.

Of course, they also argue that a homeopath does much more than a conventional physician in assessing “holistically” the patient’s state of physical and mental health…but then that suggests that the remedy hinges on bedside manner rather than a physical effect and doesn’t that then imply that the billion-dollar homeopathic over-the-counter remedies won’t work because the patient doesn’t get the pep talk from the practitioner? Anyway, if I were a GP I’d be wholly insulted that I was being accused of not taking care of my patients, just because scientifically it makes more sense to focus…

The homeopathy debate is almost totally one sided, any rational assessment can show that homeopathy is nothing more than quackery. Similar debates surround arguments about other forms of superstition, including the existence of ghosts, ghouls, fairies at the bottom of the garden, perpetual motion machines, and countless other medical panaceas.

Clinical trials have been done, they are generally weak, poorly designed, and when assessed en masse reveal little more than statistical deviations even in those claimed to be the most extensive and strong.

Respectful Insolence recently deconstructed FASEB Journal’s homeopathic deconstruction.

In addition, Bandolier provides a nice summary of homeopathic evidence: “Until large and well conducted randomised trials tell us differently, the conclusion is that homeopathy does not work, and its use instead of remedies of proven effectiveness is not a matter of trivial implication. Members of the public are relieved of much money each year by homeopaths. There’s little evidence they are relieved of any suffering.”

By the way, despite the existence of dozens of homeopathic clinics in Africa, the World Health Organisation (WHO) specifically states that it: “DOES NOT recommend the use of homeopathy for treating HIV, TB, malaria, influenza and infant diarrhoea”.

Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, & Linde K (2003). A critical overview of homeopathy. Annals of internal medicine, 138 (5), 393-9 PMID: 12614092

Baum, M., & Ernst, E. (2009). Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy? The American Journal of Medicine, 122 (11), 973-974 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.03.038:

It is considered unethical for modern medical practitioners to sink to this kind of deception that denies the patient his or her autonomy. Secondly, by opening the door to irrational medicine alongside evidence-based medicine, we are poisoning the minds of the public. Finally, if we don’t put a brake on the increasing self-confidence of the homeopathic establishment, they will cease to limit their attention to self-limiting or nonspecific maladies.

I expect this post will get a lot of irrational comments, I don’t intend to enter into personal correspondence, but would hope that readers could discuss the issues here. Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy? I don’ think so, open your mind too much and your brains are likely to trickle out one homeopathic drip at a time.

Homeopathy really doesn’t work is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

On the SpectroscopyNOW site, this issue, I covered natural chemicals that can help sunflowers soak up toxic cadmium from the soil (another example of the phytoremediation process I discussed in more detail on Sciencebase.com recently). I also describe a new approach to spectroscopy that could help chemists work out the absolute structure of natural products with medicinal potential.

In the same issue, under the X-ray banner, I explain how US researchers have for the first time homed in on the role of the trace element selenium in male infertility. Their work offers some new clues as to what leads to malformed sperm in some cases.

I also report on yet another “omics”, in which conservators take a leaf out of the biologists’ handbook to find a way to judge a book not by its cover, but by its odour.

Over, on the Intute physical sciences blog, formerly my monthly Spotlight column, I reported on proton spin, magnetic wind, and the latest catalysis research with implications for industry.

And, ever present, the ubiquitous and omnipresent Alchemist. First to fall under The Alchemist’s crystalline gaze is Korean work into coating yeast particles with a protective silica shell to stabilize the organism for new lines of research. Geochemistry billions of years old reveals a sulfidic past and answers questions about how the Earth got its oxygen-rich atmosphere. In biophysical chemistry, US scientists have found a way to extend the redox range of copper-containing proteins and in computational chemistry Dutch scientists explain precisely how hydrogen interacts with copper surfaces. Good news for those fearful of mercury dental fillings, as a new composite material emerges from polymer and nanochemistry research. Finally, a cash injection from US recovery funds could see the establishment of yet another “Facebook for scientists”, only this time it’s aimed squarely at American institutions.

Latest science headlines is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

In a perfect world, remediation would be powered by a renewable energy supply, there would be no solid waste to dispose of, and the heavy metal contaminants could be recycled back into the industrial process with minimal losses. That would be industrial Utopia, of course, but something close might exist if scientists can genetically modify aquatic plant species to grow quickly and soak up heavy metal ions from wastewater.

So-called phytoremediation technology has been used as an economical and eco-friendly option for treating wastewater for several years. It could have an even more significant impact on industry in the developing world, as genetic engineering programs mature.

“Phytoremediaton technologies involving the use of aquatic plants can be a better alternative to traditional/conventional technologies for treating wastewater in terms of low capital investment, minimum human power, less damage to environmental resources and limited energy consumption,” says Bhupinder Dhir of the Department of Environmental Biology, at the University of Delhi, India. He points out that the biosorption potential of aquatic plants should be more keenly explored for developing remediation methods.

Crucial to success is to grow wetland and other aquatic plants that produce a large biomass quickly even in highly toxic wastewater, but also express high levels of metal-sequestering proteins and other factors. For instance, over expression of the plant enzymes cystathionine gamma synthase and selenocysteine methyltransferase in aquatic plants could quickly soak up heavy metals. Species such as Spartina and Typha are already under investigation as transgenic wetland plants carrying Mer genes, which can absorb mercury from contaminated aquatic ecosystems.

However, all this work, still leaves one major problem: what to do with the contaminated plant biomass once the wastewater has been cleaned up?

“The decomposition of metal loaded plant biomass with passage of time raises an issue of major concern among the scientific community,” says Dhir. “Appropriate treatment of plant biomass retaining high levels of heavy metals before disposal is important to prevent further threat to the environment.” He suggests that post-harvest treatment is essential, perhaps involving composting and the associated reduction in volume.

Phytoremediation may eventually offer a leafy green possibility for cleaning up industrial wastewater even if we have not quite reached Utopia. However, there also has to be a way to retrieve the heavy metal leachate from this process. Incineration, pyrolysis, and biogas production are all being considered for the end products of phytoremediation. The technology will only become acceptable once a safe way to extract the heavy metals from the biomass and then safely dispose of the residue is found. And to be environmentally worthy that also has to be both energetically and economically viable.

Bhupinder Dhir (2010). Use of aquatic plants in removing heavy metals from wastewater Int. J. Environmental Engineering, 2 (1/2/3), 185-201

Genetically engineered heavy metal fans is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

Juggling matters on the brain – UK scientists have used magnetic resonance imaging to reveal that learning a complex task like juggling can causes changes in the white matter in the brain. The findings could have implications for developing new approaches to neurodegenerative diseases, such as multiple sclerosis.

Cancer transition – Anticancer drugs for treating ovarian and colon cancer could use rare metals as weapons in the battle against these diseases. The presence of unusual metal centres in organometallic compounds presents a novel affront to tumour cells that may even beat cancer cells that have evolved resistance to conventional drugs.

17th century mathematics and 21st century materials – Nanoparticles can self-assemble into quasicrystalline structures, according to researchers in the USA. The newly discovery structures could provide useful insights into how such non-periodic, and yet ordered, that lie half way between amorphous solids and regular crystals can arise.

Spectroscopy quickly reveals drug contamination – Near infrared (NIR) reflectance and laser Raman spectra can be used to quickly screen drug samples non-destructively and to spot contamination. The techniques could not displace nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and electrophoresis required by drug regulators, but could be used as a quick first test for screening potentially contaminated drug products.

Organic ferroelectrics – Raman spectroscopy touches on the properties of an organic ionic material, only the second of its type to be synthesised, that apparently undergoes a phase transition at low temperature making it ferroelectric.

Methylmercury marker – Detecting methylmercury usually involves complex sample preparation and a sophisticated analytical procedure. Now, a European team has developed a novel approach to detecting this hazardous substance much more quickly and easily using a new type of fluorescent marker.

Juggling cancer nano news is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

On a circuitous road trip (goin’ Greyhound) we’d set off from Melbourne, where an ex-pat couple we knew lived (working for ICI, he, and Monash U, she), that October. We travelled West to Adelaide and then North through opal (hydrated silica) capital Coober Pedy and up to Ayers Rock (now Uluru), Mount and The Olgas (now Kata Tjuta).

Uluru is an inselberg, literally “island mountain”, an isolated remnant left after the slow erosion of an enormous mountain range of which Kata Tjuta and Mount Connor (now Artilla).

At the time, you could climb Uluru, which twenty years on doesn’t seem like the most politically correct or respectful thing to have done, but we were both young. And, more to the point neither of us adjusted our makeup at the top (as one climber did!), instead we just stared in awe at the scale of the red rock and the green sea of spinifex grass and bush that stretched away int the distance in all directions; there’d been rain.

An evening camping close to Uluru exposed us to the intense beauty of clear starlit skies with no light pollution, something I’d experienced from a northern perspective in West Virginia the year before. But, this time it was all the more powerful for being shared with my eventually-to-be wife.

Anyway, back to Katherine and the Berlin Wall. We, of course, knew of the political changes that were taking place in USSR (now former-USSR). A revolutionary tide of change was sweeping across the Eastern Bloc (now Eastern Europe and Russia etc), the East German government announced on November 9, 1989, after several weeks of civil unrest, that all GDR citizens could visit West Germany and West Berlin. Crowds of East Germans climbed on to and crossed the wall, without being shot, joined by West Germans on the other side in a celebratory atmosphere. The climbing was accompanied by general chipping away at the Wall providing the hardcore with which the way was paved for formal German reunification concluded on 3rd October 3 1990.

To watch this great icon of the Cold War being figuratively and literally torn down from the remote outback, on a puny, untuned portable TV, was just the most bizarre experience…

…but probably not quite as bizarre as diving on the Great Barrier Reef and learning all about the world’s biggest organism having the world’s biggest orgasm. That mass spawning, which occurs when moon, tides and weather are just right in November, gave me the background and inspiration to write one of my first professional pieces of science writing (which incidentally won me an award very early in my career). The possibilities for sexual innuendo were almost limitless.

1989 was a year of major change for the world it seems and for me personally, as I’ve discussed in previous posts. It’s 20 years since I met my wonderful then to be wife (not pictured above). It’s 20 years since I started my career in science communication. And, it’s 20 years since I last lay on a creaky bed in a backpackers’ hostel watching world history happen while Aussies complained it was still too chilly to swim and insects buzzed around the Bush.

Berlin Wall falls in Australia is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

Another seeming impossibility comes to light: a new microscopy technique for visualizing non-fluorescing biomolecules using the kind of stimulated emission suggested by Einstein almost a century ago.

An exchange program leads to a new way to make nanoscopic tools from tiny wires of cadmium sulfide, we hear, while an extract of grape skin shows promise as a novel therapy for sickle cell anaemia.

Finally, a young medicinal chemist receives a prestigious American Chemical Society fellowship in organic chemistry.

All the write-ups and links in the current issue of the ChemWeb chemistry zine.

Alchemical Anomalies is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

List categories expanded:

# archaeo – archaeology (thanks to @r8lobster for the suggestion and tweeps)
# bio – medicine, physicians, health, psychologists, psychiatrists, bioinformatics, pharma
# chem – chemical sciences, materials, nanotechnology
# earth – geology, geography, environment, climate, oceans, marine science
# physics – physics, particles, maths
# sci-comms – science communicators, educators, editors, writers, bloggers, marketing, publicity, government
# tech – science computing, software, hardware, technology, engineering
# space – astronomy, space travel, stars, planets, cosmology

The manually compiled Scientwists list of science people on Twitter grew from around 100 of my contacts in January 2009 to almost 700 members, who asked to join or who retweeted the link as of October.

Justin Reid helped automate the inclusion of bios and photos and 2020science did some amazing analyses to show how all those science types were interconnected. The scientwist list is now on Listorious and doing very well in the Top 140 of all lists listed, the more followers the better, would love to make the Top 10 by the end of the year, get science in its rightful place – so please do follow the scientwists list and help make that happen!

A lot of work went into building up the resource, especially when I felt compelled to migrate it all to TweepML.org to allow users to more easily follow members.

Meanwhile, Twitter was working on its own lists feature, which is now open to everyone. I recreated the scientwists list using their system, but they limit membership to just 500 and that was full very quickly. Pressure was then on from various contacts to categorise all those science types and call me stupid and imagine that I have nothing better to do, but I’ve now done that. I’ve also added lots of new science types along the way as they emerged from different corners of the twitterhood.

I’ve categorised people as best I could, some are not on the original scientwists list because of space limitations. Those tweeps, however, will be be listed in two lists as appropriate. Those on the scientwists list will have one additional listing depending on what appears to be their main focus.

The TweepML version of the scientwists list (I’ll add you here too, if you ask):

0 to B | C to D | E to I | J to L | M to O | P to R | S to S | T to Z

Twitter science list categories is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

Anyway, she asked my opinion on a few matters regarding twitter and quoted me at some length. But, as is the way with such articles, which I’ve experienced from all three angles now, as interviewer, interviewee, and editor, she trimmed off the fat and rind from my responses, so I asked her if she’d be happy for me to reproduce them in their unedited entirety and she was, so here they are:

As far as I can tell you are the most widely followed science-based Twitter there is. Is that right?

I’ve no way of confirming that, but of the scientwists I follow, I don’t think many of them have 5000 or more followers. With the exception of @ProfBrianCox (8000+) and @RichardWiseman (12000+), and a few others. I’m small fry, though, compared to some of the much more successful Twitter users in other niches and I don’t just mean celebrities.

What do you think makes your Twitter entries so popular?

One reason is probably my proactive approach to building up a following with whom I engage on a daily basis via Twitter and in some cases on other online networks. If you tweet and then just sit back and expect users to beat a path to your door it doesn’t work. You have to be “out there” talking to people, being useful for potential followers, drumming up interest and then continually offering something back in return. Being friendly and avoiding expletives may help too ;-)

From what I have read your tweets are all about science or science policy. Do you ever Twitter about personal things?

It’s important to have a niche, I’ve been a science writer for more than 20 years, I guess talking about science is a big part of my life. Occasionally, I’ll tweet a photo via TwitPic I’ve taken or a song I’ve recorded via SoundCloud…but in general my followers know me for the science stuff.

Few scientists Twitter and most of them are postdocs or grad students? Why are few scientists into Twitter?

Well, I created a list of scientwists that now has more than 600 members, and there are lots of science Twibes now, including my scientist Twibe (500+ members). But, those are still small numbers compared to the numbers of scientists who could join. But, I don’t think it’s just Twitter that they are not into. I’ve spoken to lots of people who either just don’t “get it” (online social networking) or if they do get it, they see it as a waste of time.

There are, however, lots of niche online services aimed directly at scientists, even these are, in general, struggling to reach critical mass. That said, LinkedIn and Twitter themselves were not overnight successes. I just wrote about this very issue of generation F scientists on my blog.

Do you think it would be valuable for more scientists to Twitter?

I think there is a lot to gain from being connected in this way. Again, there has to be a way to build a mutually beneficial following that has some purpose. Certainly, there is little point in scientists joining simply to tweet about their coffee breaks, walking holidays, or showering schedule. However, if they wish to share their successes and failures in the lab, swap useful information and tips, or seek advice, then Twitter could be a useful way to do that.

Is the 140-character limit a good or bad thing for disseminating scientific information?

It’s a double-edged sword. The majority of my tweets are pointers to other resources, so there’s a headline, an enticement in other words, and a link to the resource. You don’t need more than 140-characters for that; and it still leaves room for someone to retweet it. However, you cannot have a decent, full-blown, high-level discussion via text message and Twitter is just the same. A lot of scientists recognise that and use FriendFeed as an “uber-twitter” instead.

Do you think Twitter could have an important role in science?

Well, it already does in a limited way. Certainly, I have heard about some scientific discoveries first on Twitter. It also occasionally throws up a truly unique viewpoint on a discovery or theory that can be stimulating for my writing and presumably could do the same for scientists reading those tweets too. The apparent spontaneity and brevity helps, but you have to keep up with a lot of streams to find the nuggets.

What is its value to you?

Fame and fortune! No, seriously, I just find it fun to use and it provides another way to let people know about what I’ve written and so get them reading my words. What more could a science writer ask? Also, as a writer, it’s yet another outlet through which I can express myself as and when the urge arises.

You also have a blog. How do you choose what’s a blog or Twitter-type entry? How do the two media differ?

I’m not sure I know what you mean. I blog about scientific discoveries, policy etc, and also point to my published work on other sites, I try to be unique in what I blog about, so there would be no choice between blogging or tweeting something. I don’t write blog entries with Twitter in mind, I write them with the reader in mind, and I rarely change the way I write a headline to suit Twitter, if I do it’s only to shorten it by a word or two.

The headlines from my blog are automatically fed to my Twitter account using the WordTwit plugin for Wordpress. I hope they will act as a springboard for readers to jump to the blog. I also use a plugin called ChatCatcher, which pulls in comments people make about a post on Twitter and FriendFeed and ties them to the post in question.

How do you choose whom to follow?

Now, that’s a whole new can of worms to open. I no longer actively seek out new people to follow, although if I comes across someone interesting elsewhere I will usually follow them on Twitter. However, when someone new follows me, I do try to check out their bio, their website and their most recent tweets. If those things are of interest, then I’ll follow back.

I created a tongue-in-cheek Twitter decision flowchart that is actually semi-serious to reveal my thought processes and seems to gel with a lot of readers. Mostly, it’s about filtering out spammers, cranks, and selfish marketers.

My Whole Cell Twitter Interview is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

Pressure was on from lots of science tweeps for to categorise my scientwist list…so I’ve made a start.

The spillover (lots of tweeps in the T to Z group from the TweepML.org version of my scientwist list have now each been given a category as I cannot squeeze them into the 500 limit for the main scientwist list.

Everyone else will get a second list assignment where appropriate as follows:

• bio – med, health, psy, bioinformatics, pharma
• chem – chemical sciences
• earth – geo, environment, climate, oceans
• physics – physics, maths
• sci-comms – science communicators of all breeds
• tech – science computing, technology, engineering
• space – astronomy, space travel

If you’re a science type on twitter and aren’t yet on the list then let me know, either by commenting, email, or tweeting. Retweets of the list always welcome.

However, if you’re not following me and I am not following you, then remedy that situation first – I’m @sciencebase. Also, if you’re updates are protected, unprotect them otherwise there’s little point in adding you.

List categories for Twitter scientists is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog

However, just as I migrated the old manual list to Tweepml.org to help automate bio and avatar updates, Twitter announced the release of its own lists system. As far as I can tell Twitter lists are now public knowledge (I no longer see the request not to tweet about it).

As such, I’ve been gradually adding the scientwists to my own twitter list. Creating such a list doesn’t seem to have as many advantages as the Tweepml system, but worth doing nevertheless. It does. however, offer users a way to share their “filtered” lists with others. So, view that stream for tweets only from science types.

Unfortunately, Twitter lists have a limit of 500 members per list. You can create 20 lists per account, but rather than breaking the main scientwists list in two, I plan to simply not add those members of my original list if they fail to meet certain criteria.

I will continue to add any science types who ask, to the original scientwists list now running under Tweepml. But, if you have protected updates, I won’t migrate you to the new scientwist Twitter list. Equally, if you express only a passing interest in science rather than actually working with science in some capacity (research, librarian, science writer etc), then I will add you only to the Tweepml version.

Finally, if you don’t follow me, and I don’t follow you, then I won’t be adding you to the scientwist list on Twitter, although you can still be listed on my Tweepml list.

Twitter lists offer yet another metric for those who worry about such things to
focus on. On how many lists are you listed?

Scientists on Twitter is a post from: Sciencebase Science Blog