Mad Science!

No, this isn't about the Geier's, or any other practitioners of scientific hocus pocus.

Mad Science! was the theme for Buddy Boy's birthday party with his classmates (was I only dreaming, or did we really have birthday parties when I was a kid that weren't "themed"-our parents would host them at the house, we'd play some silly games like pin the tail on the donkey or pitching clothespins into milk bottles, have some cake and call it a day).

As readers of this blog will recall, I was just a bit anxious last week that we would have enough kids coming to even have a party. My unspoken fear was that Buddy Boy was being ostracized already as the "odd kid", and that no one wanted to attend his party because of that.

Liz mounted a phone campaign to "follow up" with all of those that hadn't RSVP'd, and we ended up with 12 kids total, out of a possible 20. Certainly a respectable showing (I would have been satisfied with 6-7, including our own 2, so 12 was great). The scientist came in and performed most of the usual type stunts that kids like, while providing some education along the way. Things like demonstrating the amazing water absorbing properties of sodium acrylate (the stuff that's used in disposable diapers), a Tesla generator, how different metals burn with different colors, and (of course) fun with dry ice. All of the kids made their own 'slime', which they got to take home with them.

Instead of gifts, we had each kid bring a book, and then we had a book exchange. It seemed to go over well. One very thoughtful young girl, who admitted that she didn't like bugs at all, brought a book all about bugs that she thought that Buddy Boy would like. He ended up picking a different book, "Diary of a Fly'.

Two hours (three with set up and take down), no major incidents (I don't count the one kid at my end of the table who was eating the cake by putting his face in it-he was being encouraged by some of the other kids), all of the kids seemed to have fun, and Buddy Boy and Sweet Pea both liked it. Not a bad day at all.

Maybe we should sponsor a couple of Mad Science parties for all of the so called "scientists" spouting all sorts of idiocy regarding autism's causes and "cures". It might raise their level of science education.

Veni, Vidi, Villi

I mentioned in my last post that Buddy Boy wanted to go see the Body World exhibit at our local science museum. I've had mixed feelings about this, as this exhibit has been surrounded by some controversy, and from what I had heard it sounded like it was more sensationalistic than educational. But a fair number of people that I know had gone to see it and were favorably impressed, so after talking with Liz and with Buddy Boy we decided to go.

The exhibit, for those that aren't familiar with it, exhibits dissected human bodies posed in various poses. Most of these poses are somewhat artistic or athletic in nature. This type of exhibit has been made possible by a process called plastination that was developed by the founder/owner of Body World, Gunther von Hagens. There are 4 Body World exhibits, which in the US circulate between various science museums. These exhibits have been shown in some art museums in Europe, but in the US they are shown as 'educational' exhibits in science museums. They have made a lot of money for von Hagens, as well as the museums that host the exhibits.

Although the hosting museum did not do anything that I considered exploitave, and had some docents explaining some things in the exhibit, on the whole I was a little bit uncomfortable with it. I suspect my discomfort stemmed from the basic difference in how the bodies were displayed, as compared to my medical dissection classes. When we dissected bodies in school, it was a special class. We were admonished to always respect those who had donated their bodies so that we could gain knowledge, the bodies were always treated respectfully, and when we were finished with them at the end of the term we had a short ceremony in the lab to "thank" them for their contribution to our learning, after which the bodies were taken away for burial.

In contrast, the bodies in Body World are posed, as I stated above. I suppose in some ways this can be justified to illustrate how certain muscles are used in certain ways, but it struck me somehow as being located somewhere between voyeurism and pornography.

That being said, the dissections were all top notch, and there was certainly knowledge to be gained for those who approached it who had not had previous anatomy experience.

As we walked thru the exhibit, Buddy Boy clearly felt that this was my domain. Whenever someone near us would ask a question of someone near them, Buddy Boy would interject "You should ask my dad, he's a doctor!" I just smiled and kept walking.

There was one great "That's my boy!" moment during our walk thru. At one point there was a docent talking about structures that he pointed to on a coronal section of a person's abdominal region (kind of a one inch thick human CT scan). While pointing to the intestines he stated that a particular structure he was pointing to was very important to digestion, and before he could ask anyone to identify it Buddy Boy piped up "It's the villi!". The man looked up at Buddy Boy, smiled, and asked him if he knew why they were important. That was all the encouragement Buddy Boy needed.

Buddy Boy proceeded to explain that it was in the villi that all the important nutrients were absorbed, which then went into the bloodstream, and were subsequently carried throughout the body where they were needed. The docent put down the section, smiled, and said "I think that pretty much covers it". The six or seven people standing around him just looked at Buddy Boy in awe. I must admit that I was impressed that Buddy Boy had identified the villi from a cross section, though I suppose the hint that the structure was important to digestion helped a lot.

As the years go by, I wonder more what the future holds for Buddy Boy. Right now I'm wondering how to combine anatomy and farming into a viable career.

Twisted Logic

photo credit-mknowles
creative commons license


Dr. James Watson, 79, who described the structure of DNA with collaborator with Dr. Francis Crick in 1953, is in the news again. He was supposed to speak in London today to a sold out crowd, but the invitation was withdrawn after some remarks he made.

According to a story reported online in The International Herald Tribune Oct. 18th, 2007

...In its profile of Watson, The Sunday Times Magazine quoted him as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really." ...

Dr. Watson claims he was misquoted (which is a common occurence in the press), and said

..."I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," he said. "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." ...

And that might be the end of that, except that the good doctor has a history of making other statements, such as

... while he hopes that everyone is equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." ...

...Watson has caused controversy in the past, reportedly saying that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.

He also suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, proposing a theory that black people have higher libidos. ...

I think it might be a little harder for Jimmy to wiggle out of those quotes.

A quick search of the web brought up some other interesting things Watson has said. Keep in mind when reading the next quote that Watson is reported to have a son diagnosed with schizophrenia. This quote came from an interview he gave in 2006.

...“We can dissect the essence of schizophrenia, bipolarism and autism to find out how the brain doesn’t work. The essense of schizophrenia is the brain can’t function. You are seeing the essence of stupidity. The same systems tweaked slightly the other way will be the essence of intelligence. We can find out why some people can play piano better than others—just a better brain, you have to be bright to play Rachmaninoff. My goal would be in ten years everyone with a mental disease would get DNA diagnosis first.” ...

In the American Renaissance on Oct. 14th, there was an interview quote that said

...He talks of the "horror and destruction" of life that can arise from having a severely autistic child, and hopes that by diagnosing autism early, "we might prevent some [autism-prone] families having subsequent children". ...

I think that Dr. Watson is a very good scientist, who has discovered some great things.

I also think that just because a person is intelligent, doesn't necessarily mean that they are smart, logical, or compassionate. Unfortunately Watson does not seem to have the ability to see beyond his own prejudices.

I wonder what he will say if he shows up with Simon Baron-Cohen to the Cambridge Union Society on Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2007?

Noise-Part 2

There are a lot of subcultures in American society, and when Buddy Boy was diagnosed as being on the spectrum, I immediately became aware of this subculture, which had it's own abreviations (ASD, IEP, FAPE, IDEA, FBA, LRE), language with specialized meaning (inclusion, para's, advocates, facilitated communication), and organized groups (ASA, DAN, FEAT).

The other thing I immediately noticed were the plethora of different treatments that were espoused as being either helpful or necessary.

Having been trained in the scientific method (I am a physician), I was very interested in the physiologic basis of how these treatments worked, and what scientific proof there was of there efficacy. Behavioral therapy, communication strategies, diet modification, supplements, chelation, etc., etc., etc. My head reeled with all the things that I could be doing. Unfortunately, the more and more I looked at it, the more empty it all seemed. Sure, ABA has a couple of studies that support it, and some things (like diet modification) have so little downside that trying them might be worthwhile. But the majority of interventions seemed to be just so much noise. All of us have precious little money to spend on interventions (after spending money on evaluations, OT's, PT's, advocates, doctors, etc.).

So why do so many people seem enamored of so many interventions that are probably not even useful, and may be harmful? Kristina Chew, Ph.D., over on Autism Vox talks today about "flocking". This indeed may be important in this phenomenon, but I have a slightly different take on this. Personally, I think it is a combination of the decline of science education combined with magical thinking. For a good discussion of magical thinking, see this.

Over the last few decades the number of college graduates obtaining degrees in science subjects has declined in America, Canada, and Great Britain. This article briefly talks about the impact on the US economy, but I think there is also a tangible effect on how we as a society view many things in the world. Unless one has some basic grounding in statistics and has some facility in critically reading scientific papers, the difference between causality and correlation disappear, and anecdotal evidence is viewed as equivalent with controlled studies.

And if you have no way of differentiating between junk science and real science, then it all becomes just a lot of noise. And noise and autism don't go together very well.