Thank Ivan

An article published this week in Natural Neuroscience proves that patients in vegetative and minimally conscious states may not be as unaware as you think. Scientists from the University of Buenos Aires, the University of Cambridge, and the Institute of Cognitive Neurology in Argentina used Pavlovian Conditioning on a sample of vegetative patients for any signs of conscious awareness. The researchers played a tone immediately before blowing a puff of air into a patient's eye - pretty advanced stuff, I know. After numerous tries, patients began to blink after the tone, but before the puff. The results show proof that these patients can in fact be conscious and, to some degree, can even recover. A method far cheaper and quicker than extensive brain imaging, classical conditioning has obviously come a long way from Pavlov's dogs.

No Free Rides (Major Post 2)

Imagine you live in a small, growing community known for its very family-friendly, suburban neighborhoods. Due to the increasing number of families moving into the area, local government and other public officials have decided to expand the current public school system. But in order to finance the plans, all residents would have to face higher taxes. Now all we have to figure out is how much should each citizen have to pay?

Should the costs be split equally among everyone in the community? That would seem fair, right? Well, is this solution fair for the Matthews family down the street who send all three of their children to the private high school in the city? They'll get no use out of the school system. What about the Johnson couple who retired last year and are now living on a fixed income? All their children have grown up and left the nest. Should they have to help finance the expansion plans? What about the Chin family? They have twin girls and a younger son all in the public school system? Since they have multiple students currently in the school system, shouldn’t they pay a higher amount than families with one, two or no kids in school?

This simple example outlines the complexities of a long time problem economists have been trying to solve for centuries. The free-rider problem is a result of individuals wanting to consume more than their fair share of a public good or wanting to contribute less than their fair share to the costs of the good's production. How does this problem arise? Well, the situation depends on how much everyone values the good – based on each individual’s utilization of the good and how much each person benefits from it. The most rational approach would call for everyone to pay an amount proportionate to how much they truly value the good. In doing so, project financing could easily be raised and everyone would be happy. Simple, right? So all governments and other committees have to do is ask everyone how much he or she values any public good. But there's just one little problem…most people happen to be very good at lying, especially when it pays off to do so.

Exactly, why would people try to lie? I think the better question is why wouldn't people lie? If highly valuing a public good means paying a higher price for it, why would you want to tell the truth? In the end, if the good obtains the necessary financing and is produced, you would still benefit from it at a cheaper price than you could've/would've/should've paid. In the example above, common sense would determine that families with children that attend the public schools in the community should pay more taxes than those families who would not be utilizing the school system at all. Furthermore, families with multiple children within their household should pay higher than other families with less children in school. Therefore, in order to make an optimal decision, leadership groups need to know how much everyone values a public good. But how would you collect the true value individuals place on certain goods?


Leave it to neurologists to find a resolution. Neuroscientists at CalTech performed a study where they used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to track brain activity. In the experiment, participants were given values for different situations that were randomly chosen from a uniform distribution of low values or high values. Scientists were unaware of this figure, but then asked each person if their value was “low” or “high.” The incentive to tell the truth was that for every hypothetical public good that was produced (which was a maximum of half of all the situations due to the parameters of the experiment), participants received a cash reward that correlated to their allotted value. The only way that public goods were produced was if the reported values of all participants exceeded the costs. During the entire process, brain activity of each person was being tracked (A detailed explanation of the experiment can be found here). Researchers found that about 60% of the time, the neuroscientists could predict, from the brain image, whether the “low or “high” value reported by the individual matched the actual figure they were shown.

With this technology, neurologists are able to detect certain areas of the brain that are being stimulated which signify whether an individual has a high or low value for a good in question. Of course, there is no way for an fMRI machine to detect a specific monetary amount, but it does help to deter people from lying about how much he or she values a good. If individuals knew that there was a good possibility they would be caught if they lied, it’s likely they wouldn’t lie in the first place. This probability also increases when individuals find out that lying will lead to consequences, like an increased tax. Such rules and outcomes were established in the experiment, and scientists found that these parameters motivated participants to tell the truth 98% of the time. Therefore, this type of equipment can make great advances in solving the elusive free-rider problem.

If you’re thinking this is just some fancy type of lie detector, you might get your head bitten off. One of the scientists strongly states that this experiment is not about detecting lies, instead, it is about detecting values through brain activity and comparing them to reported values. The scientists were not trying to prove that they can spot when people are lying, but rather predict how much an individual truly values a public good.

After reading the article (gated) and the supporting material, I have a few issues with the experiment. Firstly, if you read the details of the experiment, information is disclosed to all participants that a higher average payoff is more likely to be received if they were all to tell the truth. Lengthy probability equations and complex tables and graphs could persuade anyone to always tell the truth in the experiment, especially if people were participating just to make a quick buck. Therefore, results could be bias since variation would be quite small.

Also, in the experiment, participants were provided a random figure as their value, but I wonder if results would be different if individuals were expected to determine a value on their own? Being given an exact figure is quite different than generating one, especially since most people can’t pick an exact figure when evaluating a public good. Moreover, there are numerous external factors in the real world that could affect how someone values a good. Among them are personal income, discretionary spending, household members, location, number of consumers, etc. Just because a person values a good highly, does not mean they have the means to pay a proportionate amount for it.

Finally, I question the actual role of the fMRI machine. A 60% success rate of predicting participants’ results isn’t extremely efficient and causes one to ask if participants only refused to “free ride” because they were threatened by the daunting presence of an impressive piece of machinery and guys in lab coats. If intimidation is key, it is really worth all the hassle? A simple lie detector test would be much quicker to perform and require a lot less effort – I imagine that the costs for fMRI tests are pretty high in comparison to a simple polygraph machine. I think the experiment is a great step towards solving the free-rider problem and opens up numerous doors towards combating the issue, but if a couple of burly club bouncers can fill the shoes of an fMRI machine, I think neuroscientists can find better things to do with their time. Overall, I’m impressed by the experiment and its findings are very telling, but real world application of the entire process is just a little implausible in my opinion.

America's New Favorite Vice (Major Post)

Check my email, reply to a text message, update my Facebook status, watch a YouTube video, and pay my credit card bill -- without breaking a sweat. The things I can get done on my five minute walk to class. Before my iPhone days I would have given my life in order to own a sleek, smart phone, but who knew that that is exactly what I'd be doing after all.

Last week, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a comprehensive report evaluating the amount of radiation emitted by more than 1,000 types of cell phones marketed in the US. The report is aimed at providing cell phone users with information to fill the gap left by vendors neglecting to share cell phone emission levels with their customers. Now anyone in the market for a new cell phone not only has to consider the perfect aesthetics, the memory space, the call quality, etc., but also the amount of radioactive waves invading their delicate brain cells.

This enlightening report adds fuel to the fire of researchers who have been advocating the significant health risks involved with excess cell phone usage. Since the first commercial cellular phone system was introduced to the United States in the 1980s, scientists have performed numerous studies investigating the possible effects of radiofrequency (RF) fields on humans.

One 2008 study performed in Denmark found that mothers who used a cell phone two to three times daily during their pregnancy reported a higher level of behavioral problems in their children, including hyperactivity and difficulty concentrating. These behavioral problems increased by 80% in children who had occasional use of a cell phone by age 7.

And, for all the males reading this, I bet none of you have ever thought that the cell phone in your pocket may be resting just a little bit too close to some precious cargo down there. A published report consolidated the findings of numerous experiments examining the relationship between cell phone usage and male infertility. A study in 2007 tested 361 men in an infertility clinic and found that high cell phone usage decreases sperm counts, mobility, viability and morphology. This was more so the case for men who kept their cell phones close to their waste -- anywhere from 6-8 inches of the genitalia was found to be unsafe.

In addition, a repeated study since the 1990s, reasearchers found:

In series of more than 1,600 animals, subthermal power densities from both pulse-modulated and continuous RF EMFs—including those from GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) mobile phones—have the potency to significantly open the blood–brain barrier such that the animals’ own albumin passes out of the bloodstream into the brain tissue and accumulates in the neurons and glial cells surrounding the capillaries.

Basically, cell phone radiation is causing the barrier between blood vessels and brain cells to deteriorate.Therefore, if large molecules are permitted to enter brain tissue and interact with neurons, what’s stopping smaller, toxic ones from doing the same?!

The study was investigated further to find how blood proteins found in animal albumin affect brain tissue. Scientists exposed several rats to differing levels of cell phone radiation for two hours. Fifty days after the exposure, it was found that about 2% of rats’ brain cells that were exposed to 0.1 watt or greater were dead or dying due to the accumulation of albumin in the brain.

Of course, there are a few differences between rats and humans, and it is difficult to apply such findings to cell phone use in the real world. Thankfully, Dr. L Hardell of Sweden’s University Hospital, Department of Oncology performed a study researching the cellular and cordless phone use of people who were healthy and those who had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Hardell and his team found that for every 100 hours of cell phone use, the risk of brain cancer increases by 5%, and that there is a 280% increased risk of brain cancer after ten years.

Although it may seem daunting, no one is telling you to get rid of that Blackberry. A slight change in your everyday use of that Blackberry, on the other hand, is recommended. The 3 billion cell phone users worldwide could increase the use of land lines, if available, cut unnecessary talk, text, and web browser time, and/or invest in a reliable hands-free device, even if you look a little crazy talking to yourself.

But even with these precautions, there is one group that should definitely be a bit more concerned with published reports. Today, 71% of teenagers in the US own a cell phone, and 51% of them talk to their friends on it every day. About 2 out of 5 teenagers, regardless of cell phone ownership, send text messages on a daily basis. Teenagers are the most active cell phone users out of any demographic, making them the most susceptible to RF fields. Not only is their excessive cell phone use a danger, but also their young, developing neurological system is more conductive to radiation than that of adults. Also, due to their thinner skull and smaller head size, RF penetration is much greater than that of an adult brain (see below).

Finally, since even elementary schools these days have cell phone policies, it is clear that cell phone usage is becoming more prevalent at very young ages, which increases total lifetime exposure to RF fields. Since it is unlikely that teens will cut back on their cell phone usage on their own, it is recommended that parents set some limitations as to prevent dangerous levels of RF fields of accumulating over time. As a former rebellious teen, I know that this is easier said than done. Just remember that they’ll thank you in the long run.

So, as a dedicated owner of a cell phone, what do I think? From EWG’s report, it is apparent that as technology progresses to give us “genius” phones, radiation emissions, unfortunately, increase proportionately. I do take into consideration the published reports out there regarding the ill effects of RF fields, and recommend everyone to limit their cell phone exposure. There are a number of other communication methods, and even though it's hard to believe, people still have land lines in their homes and offices. Hell, I may even start using that embarrassing Bluetooth earpiece that has been buried deep in my glove compartment for the past year. Still, although the evidence is convincing, the reported findings are far from definite and numerous health organizations and the FDA strongly state that there is "no reason for concern." Ultimately, I do believe it's better to be safe than sorry, but will I be handing over my iPhone for a RAZR anytime soon…over my dead body.

The Doctor Is In

Hey everyone -

This blog is dedicated to the discussion of life sciences and medical news, including, but not limited to, medical research, devices and technology, biotech, and important healthcare issues. So, if you're ready, have a seat and the doctor will be right with you.