1473356533000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fpierre-tariot-md%2Fturning-to-baby-boomers-t_b_11779790.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Turning To Baby Boomers To Save The Next Generation From Alzheimer's
Today, more than 46 million people worldwide live with dementia, and Alzheimer's Disease International estimates that number will increase to more than 130 million people by 2050. Now imagine within the next 10 years that we're able to alter the trajectory of Alzheimer's disease and find a treatment that could stave off symptoms before we lose another generation. We would avoid the pain and suffering of the hundreds of millions of people impacted by Alzheimer's and the economic cost of the disease, which is estimated to be nearly $1 trillion dollars -- the value of Apple and Google, combined.

This is exactly what we aim to do with the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative (API) Generation Study, which launched this month.

After decades in medicine, I have seen first-hand the devastating impact that Alzheimer's disease can have on patients and family members. I have witnessed patients lose their identities and their ability to function as the disease takes hold. Families are often at a loss, struggling to understand and adapt to the confusing changes that happen to their loved ones. It is a heartbreaking journey.

Unfortunately, these stories are only becoming more prevalent. The World Health Organization sees Alzheimer's disease as a public health priority. Simply put, the disease will overwhelm us unless we do something to end it.

The Generation Study is testing whether either or both of two investigational compounds -- an active immunotherapy and an oral medication -- compared to placebo might prevent or delay the emergence of Alzheimer's symptoms in people who are at particularly high risk for developing the disease at older ages because of a relatively uncommon genetic profile they inherited from both parents.

Our study will enroll individuals in the Baby Boomer generation, specifically those people who are 60 to 75 years of age and currently show no signs of cognitive impairment -- and who also inherited two copies of the e4 type of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, the major genetic risk factor for developing Alzheimer's disease at older ages. Only about 2 percent of the world's population carries two copies of the APOE4 gene.

The Generation Study is unique in being the first trial to require participants to learn whether they carry none, one or two copies of the APOE4 gene. Learning one's genetic status can be emotionally wrenching, so we will provide genetic counseling to those willing to participate. Individuals will speak with a healthcare provider, such as a genetic counselor, to discuss their APOE results and address their questions and concerns.

The Generation Study is among several API efforts intended to find faster ways to test promising new treatments by focusing on people at high risk for developing Alzheimer's because of their age and genetic status. Thanks to the altruism of our volunteer participants, we are able to avoid the costs and time associated with testing investigational drugs in much larger population samples, which would inevitably include people who are at minimal risk of developing Alzheimer's and whose results would provide little insight on a potential treatment.

If we find that either or both of these investigational compounds are successful in preventing or delaying the development of Alzheimer's symptoms in high-risk individuals, this would be a huge win for all of us. And it would also open the door to other studies with even greater reach.

Almost 25 percent of the world's population carries one copy of the APOE4 gene, and they account for almost two-thirds of all persons with Alzheimer's disease. Can success in the Generation Study lead to success in other people at risk? That's a very exciting question.

Even if this research only results in our ability to delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease by five years, the impact could be enormous. Some estimates indicate that even a short delay could reduce the number of Alzheimer's cases by 50 percent. That's quite a legacy for Baby Boomers to leave future generations.

If you'd like to learn more about participating in the Generation Study, visit GeneMatch (www.endALZnow.org/GeneMatch), a tool that we're using to recruit potential study participants.

Dr. Pierre Tariot is the co-principal investigator for the Generation Study. He is the director of the Banner Alzheimer's Institute and a board-certified physician in internal medicine and geriatric psychiatry. After intensive training in developing new treatments for Alzheimer's disease at the National Institutes of Health, he spent 20 years as a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, where he directed a program dedicated to the care and study of people with Alzheimer's. He has devoted his career to helping patients and families cope with the effects of dementia and is a recognized leader in the development of new Alzheimer's treatments. He has published hundreds of scientific articles, is a widely sought-after speaker and consultant, and has won numerous awards for his service and research.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1473268579000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdouglas-anthony-cooper%2Fmontreal-is-about-to-kill-a-lot-of-dogs_b_11888296.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Montreal Is About To Kill A Lot Of Dogs, Based On Quack Science
A dog registered as a boxer has killed a woman in Montreal, so the mayor is calling for a ban on pit bulls. This would be amusing, if it weren't so predictable and depressing: in few areas of public policy do you encounter thinking this routinely deranged. And it all starts with contempt for science.

Consider the National Post's Barbara Kay, almost certainly Canada's most prominent enemy of this ill-defined category of dog: the "pit bull." Kay is one of the saner voices on her side of the debate, and I sense she genuinely believes that she is acting on behalf of dog bite victims. For years she has written screeds calling for the ban of these dogs, based on what she considers solid scientific evidence. It would help, however, if she actually knew what a scientist was, and how they can be identified in the wild. I've never dealt with a journalist so distressingly lax when it comes to vetting her sources: she does not so much cherry-pick experts as pick diseased cherries and pronounce them epidemiologists.

In particular, Barbara Kay relies upon two crusaders who stress that they were personally bitten by pit bulls. I have written before about Merritt Clifton, the alleged statistician she describes as "her primary source." I addressed his claim that he had "more than a hundred peer-reviewed publications." I found only one -- unrelated to pit bulls -- in a marginal Asian journal. Since then an immaculately researched book has emerged -- Pit Bull: the Battle Over an American Icon (Knopf) -- and the author, Bronwen Dickey, is a more intrepid detective than I am: she managed to find two. Both in this same comically obscure journal. "In one of them, he cites his own newsletter twelve times. The rest of the citations came mainly from Web sites, news reports, and press releases." Dickey is clear on Clifton's credibility as a scientist: he "possesses no relevant credentials."

The woman Barbara Kay describes as her "other primary source" is Colleen Lynn. Here, Bronwen Dickey's revelations are priceless: "Before her bite injury, Lynn maintained a fortune-telling Web site called DivineLady.com, on which she referred to herself as 'Divine Lady, Beholder of the Soul.' In 2011, she self-published the third edition of Divine Lady's Guide to the Runes."

And the Divine Lady now runs DogsBite -- a sober, professional looking website, as long as you don't click on the links to drooling hate groups -- which credulous journalists consider a primary source for scientific information about pit bulls. Bronwen Dickey reminds us: "Lynn has no professional credentials in statistics, epidemiology, or animal behaviour; neither do the sources she relies upon most frequently."

These are the experts, peddled by Barbara Kay, who are informing Mayor Denis Coderre's decision to introduce a breed ban. Their favoured legislation is strongly rejected by every expert organization on the continent, including the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists.

When it comes to Breed Specific Legislation, it is not a question of two worthy opinions to be carefully considered and weighed against each other. It is a matter of science versus the worst kind of quackery: rune-throwing fortune tellers, wildly unqualified statisticians, and a posse of foul-mouthed trolls. There is no argument here, any more than there is in the sorry vaccine debate: it's simply knowledge versus willful, howling ignorance.

Barbara Kay's third vaunted source -- her "bible" -- is a book by Alexandra Semyonova, a former welfare inspector for the Dutch SPCA. Despite having spent time at good schools -- Johns Hopkins and University College London -- Semyonova likes to talk about "science whores": these are trained scientists with peer-reviewed publications, who come to radically different conclusions from hers, and therefore must be in it for the money.

I read Kay's bible after some urging. Semyonova's book is called The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs. Which doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "The Old Testament." Still, it's not a bad book. Sure, she cites Merritt Clifton, so her statistics can be safely ignored, but it's not a dreadful book, really, until you come to the end -- the section entitled: "Myth 99: Scientists know what they are talking about because they study animals in an objective way."

Here the counterfactual statements are truly special. "The scientists who have studied dogs have done it either in highly unnatural circumstances (the lab), or they've only watched the dogs for short intervals." If you believe this silliness, I suggest you look up Dr. Ian Dunbar, a scientist with stellar academic qualifications -- a veterinary degree, a doctorate in animal behaviour from Berkeley, a Special Honours degree in Physiology and Biochemistry -- who has become famous for training dogs through decades of experience in the field. (He oppose BSL, of course, calling it "frankly stupid".)

I urge you to read "Myth 99" in its ridiculous entirety. Semyonova writes: "We now know that science often attracts people who have various, more or less serious, autism related disorders, perhaps in particular Asperger's syndrome." She laments science's "obsession with measurement and quantification." She suggests it might be a result of autism.

In short: rigorous science is overrated. Perhaps a kind of illness.

Barbara Kay seems to have come to her own self-serving conclusion: rigorous science reporting is overrated. I read her quirky bible, but despite my insistence, she has declined to read Bronwen Dickey's book, an exhaustive and likely definitive study representing seven years of research. Which didn't prevent Kay from tweeting this bit of non-libel, based on her profound insight into a book she hasn't read: "Why does @BronwenDickey hate kids?"

Let's take a look at what happened in Ontario when those evil "science whores" failed to prevent Breed Specific Legislation in 2005. For a short time it looked good: "A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010." And then -- when pit bulls were finally getting thin on the ground -- the numbers began to rise: "Toronto's reported dog bites have been rising since 2012, and in 2013 and 2014 reached their highest levels this century."

How could this be? Simple: other dogs stepped in to fill the gap. Irresponsible owners remained irresponsible -- since the laws did not apply to them, simply to maligned breeds -- and their dogs continued to bite. In 2014, pit bulls didn't even make the top ten list; the top biter in Ontario was the German Shepherd (a perennial), followed distantly by the Labrador retriever. Of course, had the wise rulers of Ontario listened to the science whores, they would have known to expect this: Breed Specific Legislation has been a disaster worldwide. Not one respectable study supports breed bans.

Oh, and if you care about dogs at all: "By 2012, the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association estimated that the law had led to over 1,000 dogs and puppies in Ontario having been needlessly put down."

Perhaps you don't care about dogs, but you value fiscal responsibility? Ontario's worthless Breed Specific Legislation -- while killing dogs, and doing nothing to make humans safer -- has certainly cost a whole lot of money. The precise figure hasn't been released, despite numerous requests, but we can infer how much from a study of Prince George County, Maryland (whose BSL costs are considered on the low side, relatively speaking): "The average cost to seize, detain, test, and euthanize a single pit bull was $68,000. In the fiscal year of 2001-2002, the total cost of pit bull confiscations was $560,000." Needless to say, this half million dollars purchased precisely zilch: "Studies proved that the community had no measurable safety benefit from the ban, and lost out on thousands of dollars from cancelled dog shows, tourism, and consistent 'pit bull' report calls from concerned citizens."

You'd think that Barbara Kay, a political conservative, would have strong ideas about fiscal restraint. But no, saving money has the unbearable consequence of saving pit bulls from the needle. Which is the only reason I can imagine Ms. Kay so greatly favours the failed Ontario legislation over the much less expensive program introduced in Alberta, which happens to actually work.

You see, Mayor Coderre need not look south of the border for relevant expertise here. By coincidence, the most lauded urban experiment in the containment of dog bites -- studied across the world -- is the Calgary Model. It's a remarkable success, and it's much cheaper than Breed Specific Legislation. The downside? It's a lot of work, and -- this really hurts -- it requires humans to be responsible. Calgary's bylaws governing dog ownership, described in depth here, are some of the strictest you'll encounter: yes, leashes are mandatory, as are licences. The legislation happens to be breed neutral, meaning that if your German Shepherd or your Dalmatian bites someone, you won't be off the hook. The program stresses education -- as opposed to BSL, whose fertilizer is ignorance -- which means even more in the way of human responsibility. So, it's a bit onerous. On the plus side it saves money, dogs, and humans.

Mayor Coderre has a genuine opportunity here: he could set an example, internationally, by introducing this groundbreaking legislation to a city twice the size of Calgary. This is personal: I lived in Montreal off and on for years -- one of my favorite cities -- and it would be thrilling to see it celebrated for a major contribution to the history of animal welfare.

The Calgary Model is not perfect, of course; nothing involving dogs and humans ever is. It requires constant vigilance and enforcement, and these have waned somewhat in recent years -- in 2011, for instance, Calgary experienced a distressing uptick in biting incidents. (Although not that distressing: the city retained "the lowest bite-per-population ratio in North America.") When the legislation is properly enforced, however, the results are peerless: Calgary "saw a five-fold reduction over 20 years -- from 10 bites per 10,000 people in 1986 to two in 2006."

Pardon my obsession with measurement and quantification. It's an illness I share with rational people who care about dog-bite victims.

NOTE: regarding the boxer I refer to at the top -- to be honest, we have no idea what kind of dog killed Christiane Vadnais. It was identified as a pit bull by the press, who are always quick to jump to this headline-friendly conclusion; then we discovered that it was registered as a boxer. Even this could be wrong; until we have DNA tests, we're simply throwing runes. All sorts of mixes can look like pit bulls. Alanna Devine, SPCA Montreal's director of animal advocacy, has the right approach: "The information that I think is pertinent here is that the dog was unsterilized, the dog was named Lucifer, and the dog had previously been involved in an attack against a human." In short, the owner would have been properly dealt with under the Calgary Model, and this tragedy would likely have been averted.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1473192555000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjohn-aitchison-%2Fhuman-vs-pathogen-the-art_b_11879040.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Human vs. Pathogen: The Art of Battling Infectious Disease

Mankind vs. Pathogen.

This idea--the ages-old, microscopic battle between parasites, bacteria, viruses and human immune systems--is the essence of the science performed by myself and so many other infectious disease researchers.

Winning this battle, advancing the knowledge and cures necessary to ultimately defeat global diseases, is precisely where our work is focused.

Inspired by the battle our scientists wage against deadly disease-causing pathogens, we have developed a series of posters to capture the spirit of this battle of "Human vs. Pathogen". Our aim is to highlight the creativity, imagination, and passion that infectious disease scientists bring to this battle each day--and the optimism we see right at the epicenter of the struggle.

The posters were a true collaboration between art and science, developed by our team at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and our design partner, Motive. The design muse stemmed from a combination of World War-era public health propaganda posters, classic movie posters, and comic book imagery.

"2016-09-06-1473189117-827257-HIV_72_DPI.png"

"2016-09-06-1473189251-8248827-MALARIA_72_DPI.png"

"2016-09-06-1473189395-6934219-SLEEPING_72_DPI.png"

"2016-09-06-1473189457-9453428-TB_72_DPI.png"

We are scientists. That's to say, this kind of art-driven project is entirely new for us. At the most basic level, we hope to capture a few imaginations, pique curiosity, and ultimately encourage more people to be advocates for infectious disease science, in every medium.

Why is this important?

It is an interesting time to work in the field of infectious diseases. Zika and Ebola captured the world's attention and concern like nothing we've seen since the dawn of the AIDS pandemic.

With the eyes of the world on these diseases, mountains were moved. Research dollars flowed in, red tape was cut, and the resulting forward progress over the ensuing months and years--researching and understanding the viruses, developing a pipeline of potential cures--amounts to more than has occurred in the previous decades for these diseases.

What this plainly demonstrated to me was the importance of public attention. When our will is there, when we are focused, when we have the imagination to see that life can fundamentally improve, we achieve great results for our collective health and safety.

The problem is that we perpetually find ourselves reacting to crises, when it is already too late to prevent tragedy. What this represents is a crisis of imagination--and it's one of the biggest challenges we face.

"Old news" diseases are often relegated to the back page. The tidal wave of attention we've seen for Zika and Ebola is precisely what we need for other global diseases that quietly continue to have an astronomical, sustained human impact, such as HIV, TB, and malaria. Infectious diseases claim the lives of 14 million people each year. To put that in perspective, this is somewhere near the population of the four biggest cities in the US. Combined.

Our reactive human nature also undercuts the best opportunity we have to combat these diseases: scientific research.

Improving our world's health starts with science. Period.

We cannot combat infectious diseases if we don't understand how they operate and interact with our immune systems. Despite this, little to no research was conducted on the Zika virus, even though it was first discovered in 1947. Centuries later, many unanswered questions remain with tuberculosis and malaria as well.

Today, science is propelling new discoveries every day that hold the potential to save lives. Right now our teams at the Center are performing experiments with potential drugs for Zika, while also prepping a promising malaria vaccine candidate for early next year. These are just two examples.

We know the great influence we can have when more of us pay attention and raise our voice. There is no better time than right now to "join the fight" and champion the science necessary to create a healthier, safer world.

"2016-09-06-1473189814-821207-linebreak2.jpg"

You can support life-saving science by reaching out to your local elected officials.

Receive your own high-resolution digital version of the "Human vs. Pathogen" poster series with a $25 donation here. All proceeds will benefit the work of the Center for Infectious Disease Research.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1473188092000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgreater-good-science-center%2Fdo-you-have-a-negative-at_b_11878548.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Do You Have a Negative Attitude about Aging?
By Kate Wheeling

"2016-05-10-1462905373-2152535-grove.jpg"

Everyone reacts differently to stressful events, but new research, published last week in the Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, shows that our outlook on aging could affect how we deal with the stress of daily life.

Past research on how older adults react to stress has produced a mixed bag of results, according to Jennifer Bellingtier, a Ph.D. student at North Carolina State University, and lead author on the new study. Some studies show that older individuals handle stress better compared to their younger peers, while others find older adults are worse off. Some show that both groups fare about the same. "We thought aging attitudes could be a factor that explains why these results are all over the place," Bellingtier says.

"The research base is definitely building that it's important to have positive attitudes toward aging," she explains. Adults who hold a more negative view of aging report lower levels of life satisfaction, well-being, and social supports, and they're more likely to be hospitalized or to die young.

To find out if aging attitudes could also influence stress responses day to day, the researchers sent nine days' worth of surveys to 43 adults between 60 and 96 years old. On day one, the survey assessed participants' general attitudes toward aging ("I am as happy now as I was when I was younger," for example). For the remaining eight days, participants filled out surveys before bed about any stressful events -- such as disagreements or health problems -- and their moods.

As the team predicted, stressful events had little effect on the moods of adults with positive attitudes toward aging. On the other hand, participants with more negative views about aging had stronger emotional reactions to daily stressors.

The takeaway, according to Bellingtier, is that it's not just hypothetical, future events like hospitalizations that attitude can influence. "What we're adding is that it's also affecting how you respond to daily life," Bellingtier says. "It's going to affect you right now."

There are, however, several factors that affect the generalizability of these results. The participants were mostly women, and the study group was relatively small (though Bellingtier notes that the team has nine data points for almost every participant, which makes the data set more statistically powerful than other studies with a similarly small sample size). Additionally, all the study participants were from the United States.

"When you're looking at aging attitudes, those are always in a cultural context," Bellingtier says. In the U.S., growing older is not typically seen as a positive thing; in the media, for example, older adults tend to be portrayed as a burden or the butt of jokes. Many other cultures view their elders as wise and worthy of respect. More research is needed to find out if those attitudes protect older adults in other cultures from day-to-day stress as well.

But given the growing evidence that what goes on in our minds can influence what goes on in our bodies, maybe we could all use an attitude adjustment.

This article was originally published on Pacific Standard. Read the original article.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1473188086000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmedical-discovery-news-%2Fautism-causes_b_11877758.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Autism Causes

By Drs. David Niesel and Norbert Herzog

A diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder or ASD in a child can be devastating for parents. Scientists have been seeking the cause of ASD for decades but it still remains elusive. ASD is a group of neurodevelopmental disorders that result in a wide range of symptoms, disabilities and skills. The official categorization of ASD includes three primary diagnoses: Autistic Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Delays - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) and Asperger syndrome. The diagnosis of Autistic Disorder must include impairments in three cardinal domains: communication abnormalities, impaired social functions and repetitive behaviors and restricted interests. Autistic Disorder is more on the severe end of the spectrum with impairments in all three domains. Autistics exhibit marked problems with social interactions, they have delayed and abnormal communications development with as many as 50% not speaking at all. Behaviorally, those affected can be insistent in maintaining routines, resist change and can engage in repetitive behaviors such as hand flapping or rocking.

People with PDD-NOS have some but not all of the symptoms of AD or another Pervasive Developmental Disorder. While those with Asperger's Syndrome have problems with social interaction and respond unusually to their environment much like individuals with autism. However, they do not have the communication and cognitive deficits. They can exhibit unusual idiosyncratic interests in very limited things, for example train schedules, snakes or the weather.

So what causes autism? Twin studies have revealed that there is a strong genetic component to autism. If one identical twin is affected with Autistic Disorder there is a 36-95% chance that the other twin will also be affected. While the risk for fraternal twins is 5-20% which is also the chance of a couple with an autistic child having a second child with autism. The second clue that there is a genetic component is that there are other known genetic disorders in which there are higher autism rates including Downs Syndrome, Turner Syndrome and duplications in chromosome 15.

The search for the gene(s) involved has been underway for many years. There are close to 800 genes that have been found altered in people with autism. It appears that different genes or combinations of altered genes lead to autism in different people. No two autistic individuals are likely to have the same genetic alterations leading. It has been determined that 5-10% of autistic individuals have acquired new mutations not present in their parents' genes. Gene alterations may couple with environmental exposures in causing autism. For example, gestational diabetes, folic acid deficiency at conception, in utero exposure to certain drugs, living near a city with air pollution all increase the risk for autism. There is also some evidence to suggest that the gut microbiome plays an important role in development and disruptions in the normal flora may also contribute to the development of ASD.

Scientists are working hard to understand the complex genetic and environmental factors that are involved in ASD. Unfortunately, the causes of ASD are very heterogeneous. One fact is irrefutable, autism is not caused by vaccinations.

Medical Discovery News is hosted by professors Norbert Herzog at Quinnipiac University, and David Niesel of the University of Texas Medical Branch. Learn more at www.medicaldiscoverynews.com.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1473182468000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Frebecca-shaw2%2Fwith-our-planet-at-the-crossroads-science_b_11875910.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
With Our Planet At The Crossroads, The Future Of Conservation Depends On Science
This week, conservation takes center stage as 6,000 global experts dive deep into the issues that will define the physical future of our planet. And with the all the far-reaching impacts of these decisions affecting the long-term sustainability of our planet, it's a gathering that cannot come soon enough.

"2016-09-06-1473177013-8324484-RebeccaShawblogphoto.jpg"

Photo Credit: © Michel Roggo / WWF

The World Conservation Congress is the single largest conservation event in the world. It brings together a broad cross-section of conservation minds. Leaders and decision-makers from governments, businesses, indigenous organizations, academia, and NGOs are here to identify evolving trends, current threats, and innovative solutions to the challenges we collectively face in safeguarding biodiversity and protecting ecosystems that provide life-supporting services like clean water and air.

Expectations are high as momentum is on our side. Last year, international leaders set a collective agenda to end poverty and ensure sustainability remains front and center when they adopted the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals. And, some 195 nations came together in a concerted effort to combat climate change and prepare our communities for its impacts, with the signing of the Paris Agreement. On the heels of these two ambitious agreements, this year's Congress looks to set a global agenda for how we manage our natural environment for human, social and economic development - and do so in a way that lives up to the promise set by these pacts.

It's no small task. And like all significant challenges the world faces today, we need the right mix people with the right kind of talent and a diversity of perspectives to drive the kinds of innovative solutions needed to get us back on course. At the Congress, delegates are building relationships among unlikely partners - from local communities to multi-national companies to global NGOs - to identify the kinds of disruptive solutions we need.

We are sharing our insights into new technologies that can help plan for future growth, making sure the pace of development does not exceed the pace of conservation. We're driving solutions with unleashed creativity, grounding them in sound science, and redefining the way we approach conservation at scale.

I'm here talking about how WWF works with our partners to help drive conservation, using science to accelerate biodiversity protections while helping improve local communities.

We're ramping up high-tech solutions for combatting wildlife poaching. The illegal taking of wildlife has sky-rocketed in recent years, largely driven by demand in Asia. It's an incredible threat to tigers, rhinos, elephants, gorillas and other extraordinary wildlife in Africa and Asia. With sky-high price tags for horns, tusks and other body parts, these animals don't stand a chance unless we can stem the tide and reverse these trends.

Made possible by a grant from Google.org, WWF's Wildlife Crime and Technology Project is using adapted and new technologies to create seamless systems to protect wildlife from poachers. We are arming parks and reserves with thermal cameras and human-detection software, equipping rangers with devices to track the presence and movement of wildlife, and aggressively testing new uses for drones as part to our anti-poaching efforts. By deploying these and other technologies, we are leveling the playing field for rangers and actively protecting threatened species.

Science can also quench the thirst of a water-loving planet. Across the globe, climate-driven droughts are increasing in frequency and intensity. In recent years, heat waves and droughts in the Midwestern US, India, Brazil, and California set records. As these events grow more severe, we'll likely see increased conflicts among industry, farmers, city-dwellers and the environment as the amount of water available for consumption progressively declines.

We need to manage these resources with a transparent and collaborative science-based approach. It's our best hope for escaping future water wars and the scarcity trap. We need to embrace these new approaches, such as WWF's community-based Basin Report Cards, in which participants create a shared knowledge base to actively manage their local water supply sustainably and adaptively over time, even in the face of a changing climate.

We must continue conserving the reefs that foster biodiversity and feed local communities. For 3.1 billion people around the world, fish is an essential source of protein, accounting for almost 20 percent of the annual intake of animal protein. For those who are highly dependent on marine sources of protein, the local fish market is the nearest coral reef. Coral reefs provide the most diverse habitat of all marine ecosystems, housing one quarter of marine species in only one-tenth of the ocean's surface area. In these places, we must meet human dietary needs while ensuring the long-term persistence of the diversity of species. This requires a mix of social and natural science to get the balance right.

In Indonesia, WWF and its partners have established Marine Protected Areas designed to safeguard biodiversity, ensure productive fisheries and increase human well-being. Carefully established monitoring programs for social and environmental outcomes indicate that in many cases, the triple bottom line is possible and sustainable.

As this week's Congress points out, it's not an understatement to say our planet is at a crossroads when it comes to conserving nature. Decisions we make in the coming years - and even this week - will have long-term impact on the health and sustainability of the world we leave to those who follow in our steps. As we discuss, debate, and decide on those actions, it's critical we ensure good science guides the way.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1473182459000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmarjorie-senechal%2Fi-trigger_b_11873602.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
I, Trigger
In August, the Dean of my alma mater, the University of Chicago, sent a letter to its freshmen nixing trigger warnings and such. The ban hit the headlines , provoking lively debate ("PC or not PC?") in comment-land. Lively, but unfocussed, because "trigger" is a looking-glass word. Besides, the issue goes much deeper. To nudge the conversation toward clarity, I offer my personal experience, not with triggers but as one.

Imagine this. I'm talking with people I've never met before, say at a college reception. They're all articulate, accomplished: a sociologist, a biologist, a psychologist, and a historian. "What do you do?" someone eventually asks me politely. I say "Mathematics" and they all start trembling. Not in awe, but in fear. Their eyes brim with tears. And then, one by one, they confess. "My algebra teacher was wonderful but geometry made no sense to me." Or "I loved math up to sixth grade, but after that, I was blocked." Or "My brother was good at it." Or "I wanted to be a doctor but I failed calculus."

Their confessions perplex me. I'm neither a therapist nor a priest. Should I have warned them that my answer might upset them, and offered them earplugs? Or smiled politely and said, "That's all right, dear, you have other talents?" No. As a staunch UC alum I challenge them: "Why are you telling me this? "

Silence. I push on: "When you meet a violinist, do you turn pale and say you couldn't play a note!? When you meet an economist, do you blush beet red and stammer that you dropped the course?" No, they admit, they do not. "So why do you confess to me?" They laugh nervously, then steer the conversation back to their own terrains.

What's going on? It seems I've rung a bell -- the school bell. Let's ponder the metaphor. The English have rung bells from time immemorial so I looked up "ring, v " in the venerable Oxford English Dictionary, expecting to find a long and interesting history. But no! The metaphor is just eighty-four years old! Here are the first two entries under "c. to ring a bell : to awaken a memory":

1934 A. Huxley Beyond Mexique Bay. Why should the Local Pavlov have
chosen to ring just those particular bells which happen to be rung?
1933 L. Thayer Counterfeit iii. Wait a second, Ray... Why does that name ring
a bell with you?

Why did this metaphor emerge when it did? What happened just about then, besides the Great Depression, the rise of Hitler, and the first sighting of the Loch Ness Monster? Here's one: Ivan Pavlov's work on conditioned reflexes was diffusing to the English-reading public.

The famous Russian physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936) won the Nobel
Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1904 for his work on mammalian digestive systems. But the bell that rings when we hear "Pavlov" isn't a stomach rumbling, it's the literal bell he used in his later work on dogs. As the Nobel Foundation website explains to children,

...he struck a bell when the dogs were fed. If the bell was sounded in close
association with their meal, the dogs learnt to associate the sound of the bell with food. After a while, at the mere sound of the bell, they responded by drooling.

Maybe that's it! People who quake when they learn what I do are conditioned! Not to drool at the sound of a bell, but to tremble and weep at the sight of a math teacher! Think about it. Year after year, children stress out on timed tests. Decades later, when they meet me, stress-behavior kicks in reflexively.

Nonsense, you may be thinking. These adults are grown up; they got over that long ago. But maybe they haven't. Maybe they can't. I wasn't surprised to learn, from the OED , that Aldous Huxley made the Pavlovian connection. He was interested (to say the least) in drugs and visited physicians who studied them. My father was one such doctor but don't I think Huxley paid us a call. Dad worked in the Addiction Research Center at the Narcotic Farm, a federal prison/hospital near Lexington, Kentucky. The Narcotic Farm was indeed both prison and hospital: inmates served time on dope charges, but they were also there to be cured. After detox, they were counseled and taught useful trades-farming, carpentry, and so on-to prepare them for clean, productive lives on the outside. Yet most of them returned one, two, or even ten years after their release, addicted all over again. The relapse rate was ninety per cent.

What is relapse, and why is it time-independent? Dad, a disciple of Pavlov, thought
addiction might be a form of conditioning. Just like in dogs, but with drugs instead of food, and syringes instead of bells. Indeed, ex-addicts were cured if they didn't go home again. They didn't relapse in new lives in new places. But, hanging out with the old gang even for a day, or setting foot on the old street corner, brought on the old craving full force. I learned about conditioned reflexes at the family dinner table; what I know about that science, I learned then. But, naive though I must be, I'll put it out there anyway: I trigger relapse!

With this insight, I'll take another tack next time. I won't warn or soothe or challenge my weeping interlocutors. Instead, I'll invite them all -- the sociologist, the biologist, the psychologist, the historian, the violinist and the economist -- to join forces and work together to understand triggers in addiction, PTSD, math anxiety, literature and much more. That's a conversation for a college.

Note: This blog draws on my essay "Bells and Whistles," in P. Casazza, S. G. Krantz, and R. D. Ruden, I, Mathematician, II, COMAP, Bedford, MA, 2016.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

Realistic tech or lazy plot device what do you think?