TMS sends a harmless magnetic pulse through your skull to alter brain activity. In experiments, sleeping volunteers immediately began reproducing the slow, deep waves seen in Stage Three and Stage Four sleep.

“With a single pulse, we were able to induce a wave that looks identical to the waves that the brain makes normally during sleep,” said Giulio Tononi.

Scientists refer to four stages of sleep. In Stage One, the body becomes more relaxed; some areas of the brain are already “asleep.” In Stage Two, or light sleep, theta brain waves signal changes in how the brain is working. Stage Three is a deep sleep characterized by both theta and finally delta waves, the deepest stage of sleep. Finally, Stage Four sleep, with only delta waves, arrives, driving your body’s respiration, heart rate, blood pressure and body temperature to its lowest point during your day.

The safety of the device is still being tested, but it sounds like a great napping tool - ie if you feel tired during the day, use this device, skip stages 1 & 2 of sleep, and wake up a few minutes later, refreshed. Personally, I’ve never mastered the art of the power nap, but polyphasic sleep has aways fascinated me. Anyway, check out the article at LifeScience.com.

If you’ve been following the news on global warming, you know that last month, the Intergovernmental Palen on Climate Change (IPCC) released a summary for policy makers. Scientific American published the key findings in an article Climate Change Verdict: Science Debate Ends, Solution Debate Begins. Now, a new article in New Scientist quotes independent analyst, David Wasdell, who claims that the policy recommendations have been “watered down” to appease various political powers.

Here are some of his criticisms.

Wasdell’s central charge is that “reference to possible acceleration of climate change [was] consistently removed” from the final report. This happened both in its treatment of potential positive feedbacks from global warming in the future and in its discussion of recent observations of collapsing ice sheets and an accelerating rise in sea levels.

For instance, the scientists’ draft report warned that natural systems such as rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less able to absorb greenhouse gas emissions. It said: “This positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2 °C of added warming by 2100.” The final version does not include this figure. It acknowledges that the feedback could exist but says: “The magnitude of this feedback is uncertain.”

Similarly, the draft warned that warming will increase atmospheric levels of water vapour, which acts as a greenhouse gas. “Water vapour increases lead to a strong positive feedback,” it said. “New evidence estimates a 40 to 50 per cent amplification of global mean warming.” This was absent from the published version, replaced elsewhere with the much milder observation “Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback.”

The final edit also removed references to growing fears that global warming is accelerating the discharge of ice from major ice sheets such as the Greenland sheet. This would dramatically speed up rises in sea levels and may already be doing so. The 2006 draft said: “Recent observations show rapid changes in ice sheet flows,” and referred to an “accelerating trend” in sea-level rise. Neither detail made the final version, which observed that “ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica… could increase or decrease in future”. Wasdell points out recent findings which show that the rate of loss from ice sheets is doubling every six years, making the suggestion of a future decrease “highly unlikely”.

Download Wasdell’s report, Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?.

When will climate change stop being a political issue and start being an issue all humans take seriously and start actively trying to change?

With most biotechs, government agencies provide funding. Unfortunately, that’s not an option for stem cell researchers because the Bush administration has made it quite clear that they don’t support government backed stem cell research. Many companies are turning to foreign investments.

More recently, California has started funding stem cell research. Last month, California’s Stem Cell Agency approved $45 million for stem cell research - and they’ve just authorized $75.7 million more for 12 non-profit academic institutions.

Hopefully other states will soon follow California’s lead.

Now, it looks like Dr. Robert Lanza and his team at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. have found a way to do so. They presented their findings in the August 24 issue of Nature.

“The approach described here does not involve the destruction of an embryo, nor does the biopsied cell ever develop into an embryo at any point. Therefore, we hope this method can be used to increase the number of stem cell lines available for federal funding - and thus give the field a badly needed jump-start,” Lanza said. “But I guess we’ll have to see what the President and Congress have to say about it all.”

Interestingly, they did it by using stem cells at the 8-10 cell stage (days 2-3), rather than the 4-5 day old blastocyst, which contains a few hundred. At the earlier stage, none of the cells have differentiated, while at 4-5 days, you start to see differentiation between the inner cell mass (ICM) and the trophoblast, the part that will eventually go on to form the placenta.

Perhaps now, the President may reconsider his veto and support federal funding of stem cell research.

How Natural Twins Are Formed
There are two types of twins: monozygotic (one egg) which produces identical twins and dizygotic (two egg) which produces fraternal twins. With fraternal twins, there are two separate fertilization processes, each with its own sperm and egg. With identical twins, there is only one fertilization process, but at some point, the inner cell mass (ICM) splits apart to form two completely separate embryos.

Identical twins happen in about 1 in 400 births. About 33% happen before day 5 after fertilization, 66% happen between days 5-9, and splits after day 9 are rare and increase the risk of conjoined twins.

Prior to day 5 - If the ICM splits prior to day 5, each embryo will develop its own trophoblast cells, and 2 separate chorion will form.

Between days 5-9 - At this stage, the trophoblast cells have already differentiated themselves from the ICM, so if the ICM splits at this point, there will only be 1 chorion that will encase the two embryos.

At day 9, another layer forms around the embryo called the amnion. This will eventually become the amniotic sac which surrounds the embryo with amniotic fluid. If the twinning division has occurred before day 9 - and in most cases it has - each embryo will form its own amnion. If, however, the ICM splits after day 9, there will only be 1 amnion. With only one chorion and one amnion, the chance of the embryos conjoining and possibly sharing organs or body parts increased dramatically.

Stem Cells As the Precursor To All Cells
Looking at twin development, we can see that even if the cell mass divides between days 5-9, each division will go on to form a fully developed human being. The ICM remains undifferentiated during this time and can form any part of the embryo.

It’s also safe to say that at this stage, the mass of stem cells bears no resemblance to what we think of when we think of a human being. It’s just a bunch of cells, not unlike a cluster of skin cells or organ cells. If you saw it at this stage, you wouldn’t be able to tell that it would go on to become a human, nor does it possess any type of consciousness or any of the other characteristics we use to describe what makes someone a “human being” or “person.”

In my third installment, I’ll talk more about when cells start to differentiate during the 2-3 weeks of development and the neural tube starts to form.

Reference:
Bioethics and the New Embryology, ISBN: 0716773457. Picture, slightly modified, taken from pg 17.

The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong. The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research.

Since then, Snow has retracted his remarks about stem cell research being murder, but that has just fueled the controversy surrounding the debate.

In my next few articles, I’m going to talk about the stages of embryonic development during those first 5 days when the fertilized egg divides to form a blastocyst, which is what scientists use in embryonic stem cell research.

The Growth Of Embryonic Stem Cells
Obviously, to produce an embryo, a sperm must fertilize an egg, and each donate 23 chromosomes. The fertilized egg is then called a zygote. Over the course of the next few days, the zygote divides into 2 cells. Those two cells each divide to create 4 cells, and so forth, at a rate of one division every 12-18 hours.

By the time they reach 16 cells, they form a cluster called a morula, which consists of a small group of internal cells surrounded by a group of external cells. The outer cells become trophoblast cells, which will eventually go on to form the chorion, a portion of the placenta once the mass attaches to the uterus. The inner cell mass (ICM) becomes embryonic stem cells and will eventually form the embryo and its various surrounding sacs (yolk, waste and water).

Here’s a picture of 2 developing embryos (identical twins) with the different parts labeled.

When people talk about embryonic stem cell research, they talk about the 4-5 day old blastocyst made up of a few hundred cells. At this point during normal embryonic development, the cell mass has not yet attached to the uterus.

Cell Differentiation
At the point where the cell mass consists of 2, 4, or 8 cells, you can take any one of those cells, put it into a Petri dish full of nutrients, and it will go on to form a blastocyst complete with its own trophoblast cells and inner stem cells. For instance, if you take 1 of the cells from the 8 cell mass, you won’t get 1/8 of an embryo. It will grow into a full embryo that can be implanted into a woman and over 9 months, will grow into a baby.

By days 4-5, the cells have already somewhat specialized into the trophoblast and ICM. If you take an ICM cell at this point, it won’t form a trophoblast cell but it can form any of the types of cells that make up an embryo. In other words, at this stage, the ICM isn’t yet specifically determined to become a particular kind of cell - it can develop into any type of cell. The type of cell it eventually becomes depends on its interactions with other cells.

Unfortunately, up until recently, scientists working with stem cells ended up killing the embryo to get to the cells in the ICM. This week, however, a group of scientists have published a way to harvest stem cells without killing the embryo.

In the next article, I’ll discuss the phenomena of identical twins.

Reference:
Bioethics and the New Embryology, ISBN: 0716773457. Picture taken from pg 17.

Today, astronomers voted to demote Pluto of its planet status after 76 years of equal status with the Big 8… can you imagine how many books and model solar system toys now have to be reproduced?

2500 scientists meeting at the the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague debated and finally approved a definition of the word “planet,” redefining Pluto as “dwarf planet” and leaving only 8 major planets in the solar system.

Sadly, Xena didn’t make the cut either after much speculation that it would. According to the IAU

In short, a “planet” is now defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit…

A dwarf planet, according to the new definition, is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

Pluto was demoted because its orbit is eccentric compared to the other 8. At points, it’s actually closer to the sun than Neptune.

So now there are 8 planets and 3 dwarf planets (Pluto, Ceres, and 2003 UB313 aka Xena).

The leading company providing cryopreservation has only 200 clients and has yet to use any frozen eggs. Worldwide, there have been somewhere between 150-200 live births from egg freezing, not enough to reliably determine a success rate. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine still calls the technique “investigational.”

On the other hand, the rate of live births from proven assistive reproduction technologies like in vitro fertilization is 30.2% for 35- to 37- year-olds and 20.2% for women 38 to 40. You’ll likely have better odds simply using your remaining fresh eggs. It’s not until you’re over 40 that IVF success rates drop to 11%.

It’s interesting to see just how far we’ve come since the first test tube baby, Louise Brown, was born on July 25, 1978, weighing at 5lb 12 oz. By 1999, 300,000 women around the world had conceived through IVF.

Author:

Self-help is an $8.5 billion industry but is it doing anyone any good? In SHAM, Steve Salerno argues that there’s no proof that it has.

As a former self help publisher, Salerno found it odd that self help gurus do market research on potential buyers and that the most likely customers were people who bought a self help book in the past 18 months. After all, shouldn’t someone be expected to read a self help book and be cured? Why would they need to buy another book on the topic?

Self help books fall into two categories: “victimization” - because we are victims of our upbringing and genetics, we can’t be held responsible for our actions - and “empowerment” - if we only believe in ourselves, we can do anything. Because of these categories, Salerno argues that the self help industry is responsible for our beliefs that something is wrong with us.

What follows is a mishmash of anecdotes about the personal lives of big name self help gurus like Tony Robbins, Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, and John Gray. He also takes swipes at the life coaching industry, alternative medicine, motivational speakers and even Suze Orman’s personal finance books. As I read the book, I found myself wondering just where the line was between “self help” and virtually any spiritual or non-fiction publication. By Salerno’s definition, it seems like any psychologist, spiritual leader or business exec who offers advice to the masses falls into the broad category of “self help.”

Which brings me to my first major issue of the book - with such a broad scope, how in the world can you prove scientifically that the self help industry is a sham? What would be the benchmarks of success? How would you conduct the experiment? In cognitive therapy, for instance, the psychologist and patient set milestones to achieve a particular result, but I have to wonder what the success rate of that industry as a whole is - and how that would even be an apples-to-apples comparison? Throw in alternative medicine, pseudo-science, spiritual healings and everything else, and you get a jumbled mess not a scientific study.

Salerno’s criticisms that self help gurus do market research and target past clients seems more like good business skills than sketchy behavior. First, the competition in the book industry is fierce - not just to get published but to actually get people to buy your book. If you don’t have a large enough target market, chances are, the publisher will pass. Second, it’s not just self help gurus but just about all businesses that look for repeat business from customers. It costs a lot less to sell a past customer more stuff than it does to acquire a customer. That’s just business economics. (And personally, I’m more likely to buy a second book from an author I like and respect - especially if I’m interested in the topic.)

That Salerno chides the self help industry for failing to cure its customers with one dose also seems silly to me and shows a complete lack of understanding for human psychology. First, he rightly addresses the issue that after reading a book or attending a seminar, you get a boost in motivation. But as time passes, that feeling fades. To get it back, you must engage with the material again and again.

I’m not sure why this is surprising. If all you had to do was listen to a lecture once and not complete any of the exercises or re-engage with the materials, all college students who actually attended their lectures would have 4.0s. Unfortunately, that’s not how most humans learn. We must review the material several times for our neural patterns to form long term memories. Alternatively, it’s not like one time behavior has much of an effect on us. We can’t go to the gym once, diet for a day, or attend a cognitive therapy session and expect miracles.

Then, there’s the question of who’s responsible for our learning - the guru or us? Salerno chides the industry for promoting victimization and then questions whether it’s the guru’s fault, rather than our own, if we don’t succeed. This seems horribly backwards to me.

For instance, let’s say I read The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama. (By Salerno’s standards, this would seem to be a self help title.) If I don’t walk away from the book a changed person and happy for life, is that the Dalai Lama’s fault or mine? Is it remotely believable that without any work whatsoever on my part other than reading the book, I should achieve a lifetime of happiness on par with Dalai Lama and if not, it’s because he’s a shoddy teacher out to take all my money (or perhaps his co-author, Howard Cutler, is)? Or that I failed in some way?

Salerno also takes issue with sports motivation, which completely baffled me since there are numerous scientific studies out there showing a connection between positive thinking and achieving results. He didn’t refer to any of them during his criticisms of coaching.

Finally, for a book that supposedly is a scientific look at self help, he didn’t spend much time analyzing what attracts people to the industry. If Salerno is to be believed, it’s because these gurus are such excellent sales people and prey on insecurities created by the self help movement over the last 50 years. He doesn’t provide any real evidence for this other than a handful of brief correlations like the divorce rate is higher or that the self help industry is growing significantly.

He also doesn’t mention other possible influences like people turning away from organized religion, people looking for spirituality in a secular world, that post modern culture has exposed us to new ideas, that the $550 billion global pharma industry spends billions to promote ‘cures’ and finance psychiatrists, the looming threat of terrorism, or that scientific advances like stem cell research, cloning, and artificial intelligence that might make us question our purpose in life and what it means to be human.

The book has lots of interesting trivia but not enough evidence to support its premises. If you want to know the dirt on Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, and Tony Robbins, you’ll find it highly entertaining. But if you want a scientific look at the self help industry’s impact on our culture, look elsewhere.

When Xena (UB313) was found in July 2005 by Caltech’s Mike Brown and colleagues, it changed the way astronomers thought about what planets are. Next week, the International Astronomical Union will clarify the definition of a planet and either upgrade Xena to planet status or downgrade Pluto to just another object in the Kuiper Belt. It’s also possible that the asteroid Ceres and Pluto’s moon Charon will become planets.

According to Brown’s op-ed piece in today’s NY Times

If you were to look unemotionally at the hundreds of thousands of bodies orbiting the sun, only eight (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) would clearly distinguish themselves by their large sizes.

The remaining objects, which are significantly smaller, are mostly either rocky bodies in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter or icy bodies in the Kuiper Belt in the distant regions beyond Neptune. Of the more than 1,000 known objects in the Kuiper Belt, 2003 UB313 and Pluto are the largest and second largest.

Since Pluto was discovered back in 1930, many kids have made models of the solar system with 9 planets. It’s become a cultural phenomenon and many people don’t want to see it downgraded.

Brown is hoping that the committee keeps Pluto and upgrades Xena. I’m rooting for it too.