DANCING NEBULA

DANCING NEBULA
When the gods dance...
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Friday, April 26, 2013

Controversially, Physicist Argues Time Is Real

 

Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer

Date: 26 April 2013 Time: 03:25 PM ET

 

Most physicists think time is a subjective illusion, but what if time is real?

Most physicists think time is a subjective illusion, but what if time is real?
CREDIT:
Shutterstock/Kim D. French

 

NEW YORK — Is time real, or the ultimate illusion?

Most physicists would say the latter, but Lee Smolin challenges this orthodoxy in his new book, "Time Reborn" (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, April 2013), which he discussed here Wednesday (April 24) at the Rubin Museum of Art.

In a conversation with Duke University neuroscientist Warren Meck, theoretical physicist Smolin, who's based at Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, argued for the controversial idea that time is real. "Time is paramount," he said, "and the experience we all have of reality being in the present moment is not an illusion, but the deepest clue we have to the fundamental nature of reality." [Album: The World's Most Beautiful Equations]

Smolin said he hadn't come to this concept lightly. He started out thinking, as most physicists do, that time is subjective and illusory. According to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, time is just another dimension in space, traversable in either direction, and our human perception of moments passing steadily and sequentially is all in our heads.

Over time, though, Smolin became convinced not only that time was real, but that this notion could be the key to understanding the laws of nature.

"If laws are outside of time, then they're inexplicable," he said. "If law just simply is, there's no explanation. If we want to understand law … then law must evolve, law must change, law must be subject to time. Law then emerges from time and is subject to time rather than the reverse."

Smolin admitted there are objections to this idea, especially what he calls "the meta-law dilemma:" If physical laws are subject to time, and evolve over time, then there must be some larger law that guides their evolution. But wouldn't this law, then, have to be beyond time, to determine how the other laws change with time? Other physicists have cited this objection in reaction to Smolin's work.

"The problem I see with the argument for laws that evolve in time is one that you yourself identify in the book: what you call the 'meta-laws dilemma,'" Columbia University physicist Peter Woit wrote on his blog Not Even Wrong. "You speculate a bit in the book on ways to resolve this, but I don't see a convincing answer to the criticism that whatever explanation you come up with for what determines how laws evolve, I’m free to characterize that as just another law."

Smolin admitted this is currently a sticking point, but maintained that there are possible solutions.

"I believe you can resolve the meta-law dilemma," Smolin said at the Rubin event. "I think the direction of 21st-century cosmology will depend on the right way to resolve the meta-law dilemma."

Smolin and Meck discussed the consequences of his idea, including what it means for our understanding of human consciousness and free will. One implication of the idea that time is an illusion is the notion that the future is just as decided as the past.

"If I think the future's already written, then the things that are most valuable about being human are illusions along with time," Smolin said. "We still aspire to make choices in life. That is a precious part of our humanity. If the real metaphysical picture is that there are just atoms moving in the void, then nothing is ever new and nothing's ever surprising — it's just the rearrangement of atoms. There's a loss of responsibility as well as a loss of human dignity."

This story was provided by LiveScience, a sister site to SPACE.com. Follow Clara Moskowitz on Twitter andGoogle+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Hear the Big Bang in high fidelity

 

As the universe cooled and expanded, it stretched the wavelengths to create "more of a bass instrument," says physicist John Cramer. In fact, the sound was so "bass" that he had to boost the frequency 100 septillion times (that's a 100 followed by 24 more zeroes) just to get the recordings into a range where they can be heard by humans. (Credit: iStockphoto)

U. WASHINGTON (US) — New high-frequency audio recreates the likely sound just after the Big Bang—when the entire universe was ringing.

A decade ago, spurred by a question for a fifth-grade science project, University of Washington physicist John Cramer devised an audio recreation of the Big Bang that started our universe nearly 14 billion years ago.

The sound of the Big Bang (20 seconds) © John G. Cramer/2013

Now, armed with more sophisticated data from a satellite mission observing the cosmic microwave background—a faint glow in the universe that acts as sort of a fossilized fingerprint of the Big Bang—Cramer has produced new recordings that fill in higher frequencies to create a fuller and richer sound. (The sound files run from 20 seconds to a little longer than 8 minutes.)

The effect is similar to what seismologists describe as a magnitude 9 earthquake causing the entire planet to actually ring. In this case, however, the ringing covered the entire universe—before it grew to such gargantuan proportions.

“Space-time itself is ringing when the universe is sufficiently small,” Cramer says.

In 2001, Cramer wrote a science-based column for Analog Science Fiction & Factmagazine describing the likely sound of the Big Bang based on cosmic microwave background radiation observations taken from balloon experiments and satellites.

A couple of years later that article prompted a question from a mother in Pennsylvania whose 11-year-old son was working on a project about the Big Bang: Is the sound of the Big Bang actually recorded anywhere?

Cramer answered that it wasn’t—but then began thinking that it could be. He used data from the cosmic microwave background on temperature fluctuations in the very early universe.

The data on those wavelength changes were fed into a computer program called Mathematica, which converted them to sound. A 100-second recording represents the sound from about 380,000 years after the Big Bang until about 760,000 years after the Big Bang.

“The original sound waves were not temperature variations, though, but were real sound waves propagating around the universe,” he says.

Cramer notes, however, that the 2003 data lacked high-frequency structure. More complete data were recently gathered by an international collaboration using the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite mission, which has detectors so sensitive that they can distinguish temperature variations of a few millionths of a degree in the cosmic microwave background. That data were released in late March and led to the new recordings.

As the universe cooled and expanded, it stretched the wavelengths to create “more of a bass instrument,” Cramer says. The sound gets lower as the wavelengths are stretched farther, and at first it gets louder but then gradually fades.

The sound was, in fact, so “bass” that he had to boost the frequency 100 septillion times (that’s a 100 followed by 24 more zeroes) just to get the recordings into a range where they can be heard by humans.

Cramer has been part of a large collaboration studying what the universe might have been like moments after the Big Bang by causing collisions between heavy ions such as gold in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.

Creating a sound profile for the Big Bang was something to do on the side, Cramer says.

“It was an interesting thing to do that I wanted to share. It’s another way to look at the work these people are doing,” he says.

Source: University of Washington

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Science suggests that size does matter

 

"Our results hint that humans might have larger penises because before humans wore clothes, females may have been more likely to mate with well-endowed males," says Bob Wong. (Credit:"size label coverage" via Shutterstock)

MONASH U. (AUS) —Asked to rate 3D, computer-generated male bodies, women in a new study preferred taller figures, as well as those with larger penises.

The researchers showed the male bodies to 105 female participants with the images differing in height, body shape, and penis size, and asked them to assess the figures’ sexual attractiveness.

As reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers found that penis size influenced how the female participants perceived attractiveness—and the bigger, the better.

“There is always much debate on the subject and we wanted to address the notion of whether size matters using a valid scientific approach,” says Bob Wong of the School of Biological Sciences as Monash University.

“Our study altered several male body parts at once using used life-size, 3D figures to show for the first time that penis size has different effects on attractiveness depending on height and body shape.”

In line with popular belief, height and shoulder width were also influential, with women preferring taller men and men with broad shoulders and narrow hips—V-shaped—rather than pear-shaped.

“We found that penis size affected a man’s sexual attractiveness, but height was equally as important, with taller men considered more attractive,” Wong says.

An overall impression of attractiveness to women, without focusing on any particular body part, is what distinguished the research from previous findings,” says lead author Brian Mautz of the Australian National University.

“The only previous study of this topic in humans used five small drawings of male figures that differed only in penis length. It was very obvious to the female participants which character they were being asked to assess. In that situation, it’s easy for people to self-deceive or lie and distort the results,” Mautz says.

Wong says the results support the theory that female mate choice could have driven the evolution of larger penis size in humans.

“Our results hint that humans might have larger penises because before humans wore clothes, females may have been more likely to mate with well-endowed males,” Wong says.

Source: Monash University

Straight from the Source

Read the original study

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1219361110

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Passing gas: A modern scientific history

SUNDAY, APR 7, 2013 04:00 AM PDT

 

Our most embarrassing bodily function has scientists — and big business — obsessed

 

BY MARY ROACH

Passing gas: A modern scientific history(Credit: Makc via Shutterstock/Salon)

Excerpted from "Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal"

Michael Levitt did not set out to make his mark on the world by parsing the secrets of noxious flatus. His fellowship advisor had the idea. The gas chromatograph had just come into use as a laboratory tool, and no one had yet had the ingenuity — or nerve — to apply the technology to human emissions. “He called me into his office,” Levitt recalls. “He said, ‘I think you ought to study gas.’ I said, ‘Why’s that?’ He said, ‘Because you’re pretty much of an incompetent, and this way if you discover anything, at least it’ll be new, and you’ll be able to publish something.’”

Levitt published thirty-four papers on flatus. He identified the three sulfur gases responsible for flatus odor. He showed that it is mainly trapped methane gas, not dietary fiber or fat, that makes the floater float. Most memorably, to this mind anyway, he invented the flatus-trapping Mylar “pantaloon.”

“Even now,” he says of his flatus work, “it overshadows everything else I do.” Levitt and I are sitting in a conference room upstairs from his lab at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. Levitt has a goofy, lopsided smile and a pale complexion. I couldn’t recall, while writing this, whether his hair was gray, so I typed his identifiers into Google Images. A photograph of a can of baked beans came up.

For the record, here are some of Michael Levitt’s other contributions to medicine: He invented the breath hydrogen test, which originated not as a flatulence assessment technique but to diagnose malabsorption of carbohydrates in the small intestine. He debunked a diet fad for foods made with “nonabsorbable” carbohydrates. He showed that the wriggling movements of the villi are the key to intestinal stirring and to healthy absorption of nutrients. “I wrote the book on intestinal stirring.”

After what I judge to be a sufficient number of follow-up questions on intestinal stirring, I ask whether it might be possible to see the Mylar pantaloons.

Levitt designed the garment for a pair of studies that aimed both to identify the gases responsible for noxious flatus and to test devices claiming to adsorb — the formal term for binding to something’s surface — those gases. He doesn’t know where they are stored, but digs out a photograph of a woman standing in the lab, modeling them. Shown uninflated, they fit more snugly than I’d pictured them. The material is silver, crinkly, and reflective. They’re the sort of clothes baked potatoes wear.

I ask Levitt whether it was difficult to recruit volunteers for the flatus studies. It wasn’t, partly because the subjects were paid for their contributions. People who sell their flatus are more or less the same crowd who turn up to sell their blood.

“What was hard,” Levitt says, “was finding the judges.” Levitt needed a pair of odor judges to take “several sniffs” and rate the noxiousness — from “no odor” to “very offensive” — of each of the sixteen people’s flatal contributions. The hypothesis was that noxiousness would correlate with the combined concentrations of the three sulfur gases. And it did.

Curious as to which olfactory notes the different sulfur gases contributed to the overall bouquet of flatus, Levitt purchased samples of the three gases from a chemical supply house. The judges agreed on the following descriptors: “rotten eggs” for hydrogen sulfide, the gas with the strongest correlation to stink; “decomposing vegetables” for methanethiol; and “sweet” for dimethyl sulfide. Though lesser players like methylmercaptan contribute as well, it is for the most part these three notes, in subtly shifting combinations and percentages, that create the infinite olfactory variety of human flatus. To quote Alan Kligerman, “A gas smell is as characteristic of a person as a fingerprint is.” But harder to dust for.

The great variety of flatus smells — from person to person and from meal to meal — presented a quandary for the second phase of the study, the evaluation of various odor-eliminating products. Which — whose — wind should represent the average American’s? No one’s, as it turned out. Using mean amounts from chromatograph readouts as his recipe and commercially synthesized gases as the raw ingredients, Levitt concocted a lab mixture deemed by the judges “to have a distinctly objectionable odour resembling that of flatus.” He reverse-engineered a fart. This “artificial flatus” was put to work testing a variety of activated charcoal products: underwear, adhesive-backed underwear pads, and chair cushions. (Activated charcoal is known to be effective at binding sulfur gases. The circulating air supply in NASA spacesuits is filtered with activated charcoal, lest astronauts’ flatus be blown across their face three times a minute for the remainder of the spacewalk.)

In a separate study to simulate real-life gas-passing conditions, Levitt taped a tube beside the subject’s anus, beneath the charcoal pad or underpant and the subject’s pants. (Cushions were strapped in place.) The subject then pulled the Mylar pantaloons over whatever product was being tested, and an assistant duct-taped the cuffs and waistband to the skin. Levitt hit a switch, and just under a half cup (100 milliliters) of synthesized flatus shot through the tube for two seconds — Levitt’s best guess for the size and life span of a typical fart. “Immediately following gas instillation,” wrote Levitt in the final paper, “air inside the pantaloons was constantly mixed via vigorous palpation over a 30-second period.” Levitt claims to have no video footage. Last, a syringe was fitted into a port in the Mylar to withdraw the gas, and Levitt measured the sulfur gases the charcoal had failed to trap.

The challenge, it turned out, lies in bringing the gas fully into contact with the charcoal — easy with an airtight spacesuit, less so a business suit. Seat cushions were relatively useless, most products trapping a scant 20 percent of the sulfur gases. The underwear pads delivered a 55 to 77 percent reduction, their efficacy compromised by “rectal gas blow-by”: the tendency of the wind to glance off the pad and out the sides rather than penetrate it. The seventy-dollar briefs performed best, adsorbing virtually all sulfur gases, though it was unclear how many wearings they were good for. And given the cost, in terms of both cash and self-esteem, they would seem to have a limited market.

*

As an alternative to wearing activated charcoal or gluing it to your underpants, you could swallow some pills. But don’t bother, because Levitt has done a study on this too. Activated charcoal pills did not “appreciably influence the liberation of fecal gases.” Levitt surmised that the binding sites were saturated by the time the charcoal made it to the rectum.

Bismuth pills, on the other hand — and Levitt has tested these, too — reduce 100 percent of sulfur gas odor. Bismuth is the “bism” in Pepto-Bismol. Daily doses of Pepto-Bismol can irritate the gut, but not bismuth subgallate, the active ingredient in Devrom “internal deodorant” pills.

I had never before heard of Devrom. This may be because mainstream magazines often refuse to run the company’s ads. Devrom’s president, Jason Mihalopoulos, e-mailed me a full-page ad he had hoped to run in Reader’s Digest and AARP magazine. A smiling gray-haired couple stand arm in arm below the boldface headline “Smelly Flatulence? Not since we started using Devrom!” Mihalopoulos was told he could not use the phrases “smelly flatulence” and “stinky odor,” or the word “stool.” One of the magazines suggested changing the copy to say that the product “eliminates intestinal gas,” but that’s not what Devrom does. That’s what Beano does. So unless you read the Journal of Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing or the International Journal of Obesity Surgery, you won’t see the happy, internally deodorized Devrom couple.

The noxious-rectal-gas taboo in mainstream advertising has proved stronger and more lasting than that of condoms and even vibrators, which now turn up in brazenly suggestive ads on cable television (though still under the century-old euphemism “massager”). Mihalopoulos told me the editors of a CNBC feature on quirky businesses refused to air a segment about Parthenon, the family-run business that makes Devrom. “People don’t like to hear flatulence,” he said, quickly adding that he meant the word. Or anyway, people think people don’t.

Given the obvious strength of the taboo, I wondered who had posed for the Devrom ad. How much do you have to pay people to appear in a full-page ad in a national magazine, talking about their smelly flatulence?

“Oh, I’d be shocked if someone would be willing to pose in an ad we’d run,” Mihalopoulos said. “It’s a stock photo.” Meaning anyone, for a fee, can run the image for whatever purpose they choose. The couple probably have no idea. Think twice before you sign a model-release form.

Most Devrom customers are people with extenuating digestive circumstances. They’ve had their stomachs stapled or bypassed to shed weight, or they’ve had all or most of a diseased gut removed and they’re excreting into an ostomy pouch. Mihalopoulos explained that, depending on how high up the opening is, the pouch may need to be emptied every few hours. Less time in the colon means less water is absorbed. The runnier the waste, the more surface area is exposed to the air and the more volatiles escape to reach the nose. “If you were to use the restroom at the airport, say …” Mihalopoulos paused to figure out where he was going with this. “You could tell right off that someone was emptying their pouch.”

It seemed, then, that we were not even talking about passing gas. “No, that too,” said Mihalopoulos. He explained that some people with an ostomy pouch will open a corner of it to let a little gas out. “It’s like Tupperware.”

Mihalopoulos didn’t have data he could share regarding the number of people who were taking Devrom to defang garden-variety flatus odor, rather than because of a medical situation. I’m guessing there aren’t very many of them, and I think I know why. I think I know what’s keeping internal deodorant from charging ahead as a mainstream product. I’m going to let Beano inventor Alan Kligerman tell you what it is. “When I talk to people,” he told me, “when I really get them down to the nitty-gritty, I don’t know anybody, really, in their heart of hearts, who has any objection to the smell of their own.” And, unlike bad breath or stinky feet, “smelly flatulence” is everyone’s problem. And thus really, no one’s.

As with the first bottle of Scope, the first bottle of Devrom, Mihalopoulos confirmed, is often left anonymously by a coworker or purchased by a spouse. “They themselves don’t object to it,” he said, “it” referring to the smell, not the purchase. Levitt said he is constantly approached at cocktail parties by women complaining about their husbands’ gas. He has never once heard a husband complain about a wife, despite this scientifically proven (by Levitt) fact: “the flatus of women has a significantly greater concentration of hydrogen sulfide and was deemed to have a significantly worse odour by both judges.” (However, this is likely balanced out by the male’s “greater volume of gas per passage.”)

The Devrom company is to be commended for not aggressively pushing internal deodorant on the public at large. Good for you, Jason Mihalopoulos, for not following in the springtime fresh footsteps of douche marketers and, most recently, the Fleet enema company. “Keep your backcountry clean,” says the Fleet Naturals ad copy, over an image of pristine mountain wilderness. “Created specifically for rectal cleansing … Mild enough for daily use.” Really? On top of gargling, on top of powdering our feet and perfuming our armpits, now we should worry that our assholes smell?

I later stumbled upon a “Tell Your Patients …” press release that Fleet had sent out to physicians. (One of them had posted it on his blog.) It turns out that Fleet Naturals is a product “for before or after anal intimacy.” Well OK then.

The simplest strategy for bouts of noxious flatus is to not care. Or perhaps to take the advice of a gastroenterologist I know: get a dog. (To blame.) Barring that, a person might try to steer clear of certain foods, the ones that provide bacteria with the raw materials for making sulfur compounds. The main offender is red meat. Cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, cauliflower) can also kick up a stink. As can garlic, dried and sulfured fruit (for example, apricots), certain aromatic spices, and, for reasons unclear, beer. In short, so many delightful things that a sane person would, I like to think, rather have the gas.

*

I traveled to Minnesota with a fantasy that Michael Levitt might be able to whip up a batch of artificial flatus. I’m curious to see how close Science can get to Nature. Levitt smiles one of those placeholder smiles that buy you a moment to phrase your no. He elects to fob me off on his research partner Julie Furne, who has the ingredients downstairs in the lab. I recognize Furne’s name from the pantaloon studies. It turns out she had been one of the odor judges.

Things haven’t changed all that much for Julie Furne. We find her in the lab, syringing gas out of a plastic vial in which a raisin-sized rat turd has been incubating at ninety-nine degrees. (She and Levitt are investigating the relationship between intestinal hydrogen sulfide and colitis. More on this shortly.)

Furne recently arrived at her fifth decade, her brown hair beginning to silver at the hairline but a girlish humor still intact. Instead of a lab coat, she wears a muted orange heather cardigan, vintage from the fifties, I’m guessing. There was probably a time when you could have pressed this sweater to your face and smelled traces of hair spray or homemade pot roast. Probably you wouldn’t have that experience now.

“This is Mary,” says Levitt. “She’d like to sniff some gases. But don’t kill her.”

Hydrogen sulfide is as lethal, molecule for molecule, as cyanide. This may explain why humans evolved such exquisite sensitivity to its smell. Repellent odors are unpleasant but often helpful in terms of not dying. As with any poison, dosage makes the killer. The concentration of hydrogen sulfide in offensive human flatus is around 1 to 3 parts per million. Harmless. Ramp it up to 1,000 parts per million — as can exist in manure pits and sewage tanks — and a few breaths can cause respiratory paralysis and suffocation. Workers die this way often enough that a pair of physicians, writing in a medical journal, coined a name for it: dung lung. Hydrogen sulfide is so swiftly lethal that farm- and workplace-safety organizations urge anyone who enters a manure pit or attempts to clear a blocked sewage pipe to wear a self-contained breathing apparatus. Which may explain the man my husband and I once saw walking along a sidewalk in San Francisco in a wet suit with a toilet plunger over his shoulder. “Hell of a clog,” Ed said.

It is fitting that the Devil is said to smell of sulfur. Hydrogen sulfide is a diabolical killer. Its telltale rotten-egg smell, screamingly obvious at 10 parts per million, disappears at concentrations above 150 parts per million; the olfactory nerves become paralyzed. Without the odor to warn them, coworkers and family members may rush into a manure pit to rescue the fallen. Whole families have been taken out in a catastrophic “chain of death.” One case report included a police photo taken after the victims had been pulled from the mire and laid on the ground. It was a wrenching play on the family portrait, the four adults arranged in a row in matching knee-high muck boots, black bars over their eyes. The farmer had gone in to unclog a pipe. Both he and the worker who tried to rescue him collapsed and died. The farmer’s mother found the two, hurried down the ladder and also succumbed. Then the son came along. And on it went, all the way to a team of pathologists nearly overcome in a poorly ventilated autopsy room.

Hydrogen sulfide is a reliable way to kill oneself — as well as the people who try to save you. In 80 percent of the hydrogen sulfide suicides in this country, emergency personnel or good Samaritans have been sickened by the fumes when they tried to help. One suicide in Japan caused the evacuation of 350 neighbors.

“Ask Julie how she felt,” says Levitt over his shoulder as he leaves. The day of her training as a flatus odor judge, Furne worried that she’d poisoned herself. She was “sick as a dog” and had a headache all that evening. Vegetarian activist John Harvey Kellogg wrote that he had “known vigorous young men” who suffered “violent attacks” of headache from working in a lab with “the bowel discharges of a meat-eater.”

The hydrogen sulfide pulled from the tube that held the fermenting feces of rat E2 clocks in at a concentration of 1,000 parts per million. “You don’t want to smell that straight up,” says Furne. She glances off to the side, reading out an imaginary headline: “AUTHOR KILLED BY FECAL ODOR.” Furne has a homey northern Midwest accent, the voice of “Fargo’s” Margie, diluted to a nonlethal concentration.

But this is hydrogen sulfide off-gassing in a vial smaller than a lipstick. Are there circumstances in which ordinary concentrations can harm you? Are flatulent people a public health risk? The author of “Inner Hygiene,” James Whorton, quoted a nineteenth-century physician who thought so. He admonished the flatulent to hold in their gas for the sake of family and friends, saying, “It is as much a crime to poison a neighbor with gas, as with a poison more tangible.” I wondered if there might be a grain of truth to this — inside a confined space, say. When it’s cold, I tell Furne, I sometimes sleep with my head under the covers. Winter is brussels-sprout season, and they’re Ed’s favorite side dish.

Furne assures me there’s enough air under a comforter to dilute a spouse’s hydrogen sulfide and render it harmless. When I followed up with Levitt by e-mail, he concurred that the “passive inhaler” has no cause to worry.

Especially compared with the perpetrator. He who dealt it incurs a “relatively enormous exposure to hydrogen sulfide via absorption through the colonic mucosa.” Or as John Harvey Kellogg rather more excitably put it, “If the mere breathing of the greatly diluted volatile poisons arising from such putrescent matter will produce highly unpleasant effects, how much more grave must be the effects when through the retention within the body … all of their poisonous contents are absorbed and sucked up into the blood and circulated throughout the body?” Levitt had been quick to add that no research has shown that absorption — of hydrogen sulfide or any other colon-residing breakdown component — into the bloodstream is harmful.

In matters of health, however, the public rarely requires proof. Most people trust intuition more than they trust studies. And the theory behind fecal self-poisoning — aka autointoxication — makes strong intuitive sense. “[People] reasoned that if feces are foul, then the body must be in the best condition when freest from such material,” wrote Walter Alvarez in his wise and tide-turning 1919 essay in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The less time “feculent” poisons reside in our colons, the thinking went, the less we absorb into our blood, and the healthier we’ll be. Autointoxication was one of the most pervasive and enduring concepts in the long, bloated history of medical pseudoscience.

*

As a diagnosis, a health buzzword, autointoxication peaked in the early 1900s. It was a natural offshoot of “miasma” theory. From the early to the late 1800s, before physicians figured out the role of microorganisms and insects in causing and spreading disease, much of the blame was placed on clouds of nonspecific toxic gases — or miasmas — emanating from open sewer flows, garbage dumps, even graves.

If one bought into the dangers of miasmas, it wasn’t much of a leap to buy into the dangers of one’s own internal sewage. Purveyors of laxatives and enema devices played up the connection, referring to the colon as “the human privy,” “an obstructed sewer,” “this cesspool of death and contagion.” Whorton’s book reproduces a magazine ad for the French laxative Jubol, showing tiny uniformed men on their hands and knees with scrub brushes and buckets inside a colon, like workers in the Paris sewers.

It made no difference that neither the specific poisons nor the mechanisms by which they might be causing harm were known or named. In the realm of quackery, vague is better. “It met a need,” wrote Whorton, “that medicine has felt in every age, providing an explanation and diagnosis for all those exasperating patients who insist they are sick, but are unable to present the physician with any clear organic pathology to prove it.” Autointoxication was the gluten of the early 1900s.

Bogus diagnoses beget bogus cures. Around the turn of the last century, hosing the colon was big business, far bigger than it is today, and nowhere bigger than at 134 West Sixty-Fifth Street, home of Tyrrell’s Hygienic Institute, a three-story New York brownstone dedicated to the manufacture and flatulent hyping of the J.B.L. Cascade colonic irrigator. J.B.L. stood for “Joy Beauty Life,” suggesting that your $12.30 was purchasing something loftier than a nozzle-topped whoopee cushion.

“The Internal Bath is taken by sitting on the J.B.L. Cascade,” states Charles Tyrrell in the 1936 promotional pamphlet “Why We Should Bathe Internally.” Tyrrell’s prior business had been in rubber medical goods. Aside from the rectal nozzle protruding from its flank, the Cascade looked little different from one of Tyrrell’s old water bottles.

Between businesses, Tyrrell had dabbled in small-press publishing. The experience served him well. He printed up thousands of thinly disguised promotional booklets that he distributed to pharmacists to hand out to patients. The gospel of autointoxication and internal putrescence was laid on thick and spiked with testimonials: from customers, doctors, clergy, all wordily professing their satisfaction and gratitude. Gone was their insomnia, their fatigue, their melancholia. Here was the fix for acne, for bad breath, for lack of appetite and “loss of vim and snap.” An internal bath would rid you of irritability, “outrageous cantankerousness,” “the inability to hold down a job of lumber grading for over six months without quitting or getting fired.” One set of before and after photos seemed to imply that a high colonic could transform an unkempt, drooping moustache into a vigorous, curlicued handlebar.

It seemed there was no medical condition so dire that an internal bath would not fix it. Mr. H. J. Wells of 342 Lincoln Avenue, Detroit, credited the Cascade with relieving his wife of “an accumulation of effete mucous tissue … in strips about half an inch wide and from four to six inches long.” Mrs. Cora Ewing of Long Beach, California, waved good-bye to “a sack of pus above the left ovary.” People thanked Tyrrell for curing their asthma, their rheumatism, their typhoid fever, and their jaundice. Paralysis even! Epilepsy! The medical claims were sufficiently far-fetched that Tyrrell felt a need to point out that the “disorders may be due to factors other than … autointoxication.”

The American Medical Association’s Bureau of Investigation received so many letters from outraged physicians that it drafted a form letter to send in response. “We plan to get around to this institution after a while,” it promised. The first such letter in the Tyrrell Hygienic Institute file at the AMA archives is dated 1894, and the last, 1931, suggesting that a little more vim and snap might have been applied.

One member rose on his own to the task. In 1922, physician and autointoxication doubter Arthur Donaldson artificially and incontrovertibly constipated three dogs by temporarily sewing shut their anus. After four days, all the while eating regular meals of meat, milk, and bread, the dogs showed no physical symptoms beyond a mild loss of appetite — nothing to suggest a poisoning from within. All three, impressively, “seemed to be in fair spirits.”

Donaldson didn’t rest his case there. He withdrew small amounts of blood from his surgically constipated charges, once at the end of fifty-five hours, again at seventy-two hours, and finally at ninety-six hours. This he injected into the bloodstream of two normal, unconstipated dogs to see whether symptoms suggestive of “fecal poisoning” would develop. They did not.

Donaldson contended that the symptoms people and doctors were so quick to blame on autointoxication were in fact caused by the simple mechanics of constipation: rectal distention and irritation. To test the theory, he packed four men with turd-sized wads of cotton. After three hours, the men began to exhibit the sorts of symptoms commonly blamed on autointoxication. The moment the wads were removed, relief ensued. If fecal blood poisoning had been the culprit, relief would have taken far longer. It takes several hours for the liver and kidneys to clear chemicals from the system. The reek of asparagus pee, Walter Alvarez pointed out, though not in those exact words, doesn’t abate the moment you set down your fork. It lingers through the following morning. The very swiftness with which the enema brings relief itself refutes the premise of autointoxication.

In the incomparable phrasings of gastroenterologist Mike Jones, “Everybody who’s bound up feels a whole lot better after a big dump. From where I sit, you don’t need to invoke anything else.”

*

The alternative approach to ridding the body of “faeculent poisons” was to eat so much fiber that digesta sped through the colon too quickly to generate them. Insoluble dietary fiber, or roughage, is the indigestible, nonfermentable parts of plants — internal yard trimmings that the gut cannot break down. This fiber sponges up water, contributing dramatically to fecal “bulk.” The bulkier the trash, the sooner you need to empty the bin.

John Harvey Kellogg was the archbishop of roughage. The healthy colon, he maintained, empties itself three or four times a day. This was “Nature’s Plan.” As evidence, he cited the estimable bowel frequency of “wild animals, wild men, … infants and idiots.” Kellogg’s sources included the staff at “well-managed idiot asylums” and ape keepers at the London Zoo. Kellogg paid several visits to the latter “for the express purpose” of discussing the toilet habits of their charges. The chimpanzees, noted Kellogg, “move their bowels four to six times daily.” All the more to throw at zoo visitors. Kellogg effected a habit of dressing in immaculate white suits, but probably not on the second and third visits.

Kellogg didn’t gather data on the regularity of “wild men,” but someone else sure did. In the early 1970s, epidemiologist A. R. P. Walker held a post at the South African Institute for Medical Research, affording easy access to Bantu people and others “pursuing a primitive manner of life.” In his travels through South African villages, Walker noted that “unformed stools are frequently encountered among rural Bantu.” One man’s ruined footwear is another’s “eureka!” moment. The Bantu, Walker knew, were almost never diagnosed with Western digestive diseases. Was it because they ate so much fiber? Did their woody digesta exit the colon too quickly to inflict harm?

Walker got busy clocking stool: British versus Bantu. Subjects swallowed radio-opaque pellets and then “voided” into plastic bags that they labeled with the date and time. The bags were X-rayed so researchers could see exactly how long it took the pellets to complete their journey. As with foot races, so with digestion: the slowest third of the Bantu were quicker than the fastest third of the Caucasians. This was because, Walker assumed, the Bantu ate a shitload of insoluble fiber in the form of millet and corn porridge.

Walker was the man behind bran. Papers published by him and, more recently, his research partner Denis Burkitt, fueled a decade-long fiber craze. Americans were forcing down unprecedented amounts of bran muffins, oatmeal, and high-fiber breakfast cereals. Whorton cited a 1984 survey that found a third of Americans eating more fiber to stay healthy.

You don’t hear so much about fiber these days. Curious, I ran a PubMed search on cancer and dietary fiber. The most recent study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2010, followed three thousand Dutch men for thirteen years. Get a load: “Frequent bowel movements were associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer in men, and constipation was associated with a decreased risk.” Mike Jones wasn’t surprised. The medical community was never completely on board Burkitt’s fiber train. “He was comparing the Bantu to, like, British naval recruits, guys who ate practically no fiber and they all smoked.” Many other factors also set the British apart from rural black Africans — how do you control for them all? “It was correlation, not causality, and you really couldn’t take it any further.”

So why did we hear so much about fiber back then? Because, Jones said, there was money to be made: “things to go out and buy and eat more of.” Walker and Burkitt wrote the tune, but it was the cereal companies that kept on playing it. Jones said that when he sat down and looked at the studies on dietary factors and colon cancer, the thing that stood out as a determinant of risk wasn’t how much fiber you ate, but how many calories. The fewer calories, the lower the risk. No easy profits there.

*

And get this. The newest research suggests that slower transit time — that is, longer exposure to your nasty stuff, may in fact be of benefit. Hydrogen sulfide appears to prevent inflammation and its sometime consequences, ulcerative colitis and cancer. In rodent studies, anyway, the gas has a significant anti-inflammatory effect on the walls of the digestive tract: the opposite of what aspirin does in there. Aspirin and ibuprofen combat inflammation everywhere but the stomach and bowel; there they create inflammation. Used in tandem with hydrogen sulfide, says Ken Olson, a professor of physiology at Indiana University School of Medicine and author of multiple papers on the topic, aspirin or ibuprofen may be thousands of times as potent at preventing tumor growth — at least, in mice and in laboratory-grown tumor cells. Human trials have not yet begun.

Hydrogen sulfide is not the devil. Beneath the danger and stench is a molecule as basic and indispensable as sodium chloride. The gas is produced in all of the body’s tissues, all the time, regardless of what was for dinner. (Some recent thinking disagrees.) “It’s a gasotransmitter, a signaling molecule, it has tremendous therapeutic potential,” says Olson. “This is the hottest area in biomedicine right now.”

The moral of the story is this: It takes an ill-advised mix of ignorance, arrogance, and profit motive to dismiss the wisdom of the human body in favor of some random notion you’ve hatched or heard and branded as true. By wisdom I mean the collective improvements of millions of years of evolution. The mind objects strongly to shit, but the body has no idea what we’re on about.

*

Here’s the other hitch with autointoxication. Absorbing things is primarily the business of the small intestine, not the colon. That’s what the smaller tube, with its millions of villi, is for: Delivering nutrients to the blood. The autointoxication zealots would counter that, as John Harvey Kellogg put it, “the foul fecal matters in the colon pass back into the small intestine.” But, in fact, they don’t. The ileocecal valve, the anatomical portal between the small intestine and the colon, opens in one direction only.

It is possible to force open the ileocecal valve from the wrong direction, but it does not happen naturally, in the course of day-to-day living. It has tended to happen unnaturally, while dead, on a slab in a nineteenth-century anatomy amphitheater with one end of a flexible tube disappearing up the rectum and the other attached to a pump. No less than five experimenters, representing Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, from 1878 to 1885, tested the competence of the ileocecal valve. “Heschl made a number of experiments on the cadaver and satisfied himself that the ileocecal valve serves as a safe and perfect barrier against the entrance of fluids from below,” wrote the author of one review. W. W. Dawson of the Medical College of Ohio put the ileocecal through its paces on thirteen cadavers; in twelve, the valve held strong. The transcript of the thirteenth cadaver demonstration is printed in an 1885 issue of the Cincinnati Lancet and Clinic. (“From your seats, … you see the colon expanding as the fluid enters.”) This one, he concludes, was an anomaly. “The valve was doubtless imperfect.” But the showmanship flawless.

It seems fair to say that it takes an unnatural volume of liquid, under unnatural pressure, to breach the heroic ileocecal valve and enter the small intestine from the rear. It takes, perhaps, a Joy-Beauty-Life colonic irrigator. In their fervor to rid the body of fecal residues, devotees of internal bathing were flushing the dread residues higher up into the gut, away from the colon — a region of the anatomy that does relatively little absorbing — and right on into the one that evolved specifically for the job, the small intestine.

You may be wondering why the minds of medicine so assiduously concerned themselves with the matter. Were they drawn to it simply as lecture hall spectacle? Not entirely. The experiments aimed to resolve a lingering medical debate over the value of “feeding per rectum.”

Reprinted from “Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal” by Mary Roach. Copyright © 2013 by Mary Roach. With permission of the publisher, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Former Salon columnist Mary Roach is the author most recently of "Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal." Her previous books include "Stiff," "Spook" and "Packing for Mars."MORE MARY ROACH.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Near-Death Experiences More Vivid Than Real Life

 

Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer

Date: 05 April 2013 Time: 10:00 AM ET

Many people report seeing a bright light at the end of a long dark tunnel after a near-death experience.
CREDIT: Dreamstime

Long after a near-death experience, people recall the incident more vividly and emotionally than real and false memories, new research suggests.

"It's really something that stays in the mind of people as a clear trace, and it's even more clear than a real memory," said Vanessa Charland-Verville, a neuropsychologist in the Coma Science Group at the University of Liege in Belgium. She, along with colleagues, detailed the study online March 27 in the journal PLOS ONE.

Mysterious phenomenon

Roughly 5 percent of the general population and 10 percent of cardiac-arrest victims report near-death experiences, yet no one really knows what they are, Charland-Verville told LiveScience.

Across cultures and religions, people describe similar themes: being out of body; passing through a tunnel, river or door toward warm, glowing light; seeing dead loved ones greet them; and being called back to their bodies or told it's not time to go yet.

Some think near-death experiences show the spirit and body can be separated. Others say oxygen deprivation or a cascade of chemicals in the failing brain are to blame. Some believe near-death experiences reveal the existence of God or heaven.

But what makes finding an explanation even more complicated is that healthy people in meditative trances and those taking hallucinogens, such as ketamine, describe very similar experiences, Charland-Verville told LiveScience.  [Trippy Tales: The History of 8 Hallucinogens]

Life-changing events

Because it's impossible to monitor these events in real time, Charland-Verville and her colleagues spoke with those who had gone through these trancelike states, sometimes years earlier.

"People are transformed forever by the experience," she said. "People say they're more empathic, they changed jobs, they're giving, they want to help the planet."

The team gave memory questionnaires to eight coma survivors who had near-death experiences, six who had coma memories but no memory of near-death experiences, seven who had no memories of their coma, and 18 people who had not had any of these experiences.

The questions assessed people's memories of imagined events as well as memories of near-death events, comas and emotional events from real life.

Even years later, the near-death experiences seemed hyperreal. In fact, they were remembered more clearly and emotionally than all other types of memories.

Charland-Verville speculates that these experiences have shaped religious symbols across cultures since the dawn of time. Now, the researchers want to study the brain activity of these individuals.

"If it changed people's lives, there must be something different in their brain functioning," she said.

Unanswered questions

The findings, though fascinating, can't answer whether the mind and body can be separated, said Christian Agrillo, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Padova in Italy who was not involved in the study.

"But it seems to suggest that what people recall in that moment is particularly genuine," Agrillo told LiveScience. "It's not a false memory that occurs after the event."

In addition, the study was small and asked people after the fact, making it tricky to draw firm conclusions, Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš, a physician at the University of Maribor in Slovenia, wrote in an email.

In addition, "the study does not answer the question of whether [near-death experiences] really happened to patients or are only hallucinations, (which can be also perceived as real)," Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš wrote.

Follow Tia Ghose on Twitter @tiaghose. Follow LiveScience @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Scientists find hint of dark matter from cosmos

 

By JOHN HEILPRIN and SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press
  • The powerful Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 (AMS) is visible at center left. The blackness of space and Earth's horizon provide the backdrop for the scene, on May 20, 2011 (Flight Day 5 of the STS-134 shuttle mission).

    View Photo

    SPACE.com - The powerful Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 (AMS) is visible at center left. The blackness of space and Earth's horizon provide the backdrop for the scene, on May 20, 2011 (Flight Day 5 of the STS-134 …more

GENEVA (AP) — A $2 billion cosmic ray detector on the International Space Station has found the footprint of something that could be dark matter, the mysterious substance that is believed to hold the cosmos together but has never been directly observed, scientists say.

But the first results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, known by its acronym AMS, are almost as enigmatic as dark matter itself. They show evidence of new physics phenomena that could be the strange and unknown dark matter or could be energy that originates from pulsars, scientists at the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva announced Wednesday.

The results from the detector are significant, because dark matter is thought to make up about a quarter of all the matter in the universe. Unraveling the mystery of dark matter could help scientists better understand the composition of our universe and, more particularly, what holds galaxies together.

Nobel-winning physicist Samuel Ting, who leads the team, told colleagues at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN, that he expects a more conclusive answer within months about this "unexpected new phenomena."

The 7-ton detector, which was sent into space two years ago and has a 3-foot (0.91-meter) magnet ring at its core, is transmitting the data to CERN on the Swiss-French border, where it is being analyzed.

The instrument will search for antimatter and dark matter for the rest of the life of the space station — at least until 2020 — transmitting data to an international team of 600 scientists based in Geneva that is led by Ting, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The findings Wednesday are based on seeing an excess of positrons — positively charged subatomic particles.

Since the highly accurate AMS magnetic detector began studying cosmic ray particles in space, it has found about 400,000 positrons whose surging energies indicate they might have been created when particles of dark matter collided and destroyed each other.

"It is this level of precision that will allow us to tell whether our current positron observation has a dark matter or pulsar origin," Ting said.

Other scientists praised the results and looked forward to more.

"This is an 80-year-old detective story and we are getting close to the end," said University of Chicago physicist Michael Turner, one of the giants in the field of dark matter. "This is a tantalizing clue and further results from AMS could finish the story."

___

Borenstein reported from Washington.

___

Online:

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/shuttle

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer: http://www.ams02.org/

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

What a Rocket Launch Looks Like from Space (Photo)

 

by Miriam Kramer, SPACE.com Staff Writer

Date: 02 April 2013 Time: 10:34 AM ET

Soyuz launch from space

Residents of the International Space Station had a unique perspective when a Russian Soyuz rocket carrying three new space station crewmembers blasted off within eye shot of the orbiting outpost as it started its journey to the station.
CREDIT: Canadian Space Agency/Chris Hadfield (Cmdr_Hadfield)

Rocket launches aren't just amazing sights for people on Earth. They wow astronauts in space, too. 

The latest example comes from Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, who captured a surprising view of a Russian Soyuz rocket launching to the International Space Station blasted off on March 28. From Hadfield's viewpoint on the space station, the Soyuz rocket appeared as a bright orange glow rising from the Earth's surface.

Hadfield, who commands the space station's Expedition 35 crew, posted a photo of his unique view of the Soyuz launch on Twitter.

"Just watched the Soyuz launch! The rocket's red glare, powering up away from the Earth, turning towards us in hot pursuit. Incredible to see," Hadfield wrote. The astronaut posted the actual photo on Twitter later in the evening after the Soyuz had arrived at the station.

"Tonight's Finale: Soyuz Rocket Launch — the moment of ignition, as seen from their target, the Space Station," Hadfield added.

Usually, space station residents cannot see their future crewmates as they start their journey into orbit, but the launch last week was a special exception. The space station passed over the Soyuz rocket's launch site (Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan) just minutes before the rocket carrying NASA astronaut Chris Cassidy and Russian cosmonauts Alexander Misurkin and Pavel Vinogradov launched into orbit on a speedy, six-hour "express" trip to the orbiting lab.

While Russia has launched quick one-day flights from Earth to the station  using unmanned Progress cargo ships before, the March 28 Soyuz launch marked the first time the flight plan included a human crew.

Before this launch, it took two days for the Soyuz astronauts to dock with the station, but now astronauts will not have to spend as much time in the cramped capsule on their way to the orbiting outpost.

Cassidy, Misurkin and Vinogradov join Hadfield, NASA astronaut Tom Marshburn, and Russian cosmonaut Roman Romanenko on board the International Space Station to round out the Expedition 35 crew. Romanenko, Hadfield and Marshburn are set to return to Earth in May. 

http://www.space.com/20438-soyuz-launches-and-docks-with-international-space-station-video.html

Follow Miriam Kramer @mirikramer and Google+. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on SPACE.com.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

You Don't "Own" Your Own Genes

brca

 

 

 

RESEARCHERS RAISE ALARM ABOUT LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL "GENOMIC LIBERTY" DUE TO GENE PATENTS THAT MAY IMPACT THE ERA OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE

NEW YORK (March 25, 2013) — Humans don't "own" their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases they might be at risk for. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report two researchers who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual "genomic liberty."

In their new analysis, the research team examined two types of patented DNA sequences: long and short fragments. They discovered that 41 percent of the human genome is covered by longer DNA patents that often cover whole genes. They also found that, because many genes share similar sequences within their genetic structure, if all of the "short sequence" patents were allowed in aggregate, they could account for 100 percent of the genome.

Furthermore, the study's lead author, Dr. Christopher E. Mason of Weill Cornell Medical College, and the study's co-author, Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey and a member of the High Performance and Research Computing Group, found that short sequences from patents also cover virtually the entire genome — even outside of genes.

"If these patents are enforced, our genomic liberty is lost," says Dr. Mason, an assistant professor of physiology and biophysics and computational genomics in computational biomedicine at the Institute for Computational Biomedicine at Weill Cornell. "Just as we enter the era of personalized medicine, we are ironically living in the most restrictive age of genomics. You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?"

The U.S. Supreme Court will review genomic patent rights in an upcoming hearing on April 15. At issue is the right of a molecular diagnostic company to claim patents not only on two key breast and ovarian cancer genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — but also on any small sequence of code within BRCA1, including a striking patent for only 15 nucleotides.

In its study, the research team matched small sequences within BRCA1 to other genes and found that just this one molecular diagnostic company's patents also covered at least 689 other human genes — most of which have nothing to do with breast or ovarian cancer; rather, its patents cover 19 other cancers as well as genes involved in brain development and heart functioning.

"This means if the Supreme Court upholds the current scope of the patents, no physician or researcher can study the DNA of these genes from their patients, and no diagnostic test or drug can be developed based on any of these genes without infringing a patent," says Dr. Mason.

ONE PATENTED SEQUENCE MATCHED MORE THAN 91 PERCENT OF HUMAN GENES

Dr. Mason undertook the study because he realized that his research into brain and cancer disorders inevitably involved studying genes that were protected by patents.

Under U.S. patent law, genes can be patented by those researchers, either at companies or institutions, who are first to find a gene that promises a useful application, such as for a diagnostic test. For example, the patents received by a company in the 1990s on BRCA1 and BRCA2 enables it to offer a diagnostic test to women who may have, or may be at risk for, breast or ovarian cancer due to mutations in one or both of these genes. Women and their doctors have no choice but to use the services of the patents' owner, which costs $3,000 per test, "whereas any of the hundreds of clinical laboratories around the country could perform such a test for possibly much less," says Dr. Mason.

The impact on these patents is equally onerous on research, Dr. Mason adds.

"Almost every day, I come across a gene that is patented — a situation that is common for every geneticist in every lab," says Dr. Mason.

Dr. Mason and his research partner sought to determine how many other genes may be impacted by gene patents, as well as the overall landscape of intellectual property on the human genome.

To conduct the study, Dr. Mason and Dr. Rosenfeld examined the structure of the human genome in the context of two types of patented sequences: short and long fragments of DNA. They used matches to known genes that were confirmed to be present in patent claims, ranging from as few as 15 nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) to the full length of all patented DNA fragments.

Before examining the patented sequences, the researchers first calculated how many genes had common segments of 15 nucleotide (15mer), and found that every gene in the human genome matched at least one other gene in this respect, ranging from as few as five matches 15mer to as many as 7,688 gene matches. They also discovered that 99.999 percent of 15mers in the human genome are repeated at least twice.

"This demonstrates that short patent sequences are extremely non-specific and that a 15mer claim from one gene will always cross-match and patent a portion of another gene as well," says Dr. Mason. "This means it is actually impossible to have a 15mer patent for just one gene."

Next, researchers examined the total sequence space in human genes covered by 15mers in current patent claims. They found 58 patents whose claims covered at least 10 percent of all bases of all human genes. The broadest patent claimed sequences that matched 91.5 percent of human genes. Then, when they took existing gene patents and matched patented 15mers to known genes, they discovered that 100 percent of known genes are patented.

"There is a real controversy regarding gene ownership due to the overlap of many competing patent claims. It is unclear who really owns the rights to any gene," says Dr. Rosenfeld. "While the Supreme Court is hearing one case concerning just the BRCA1 patent, there are also many other patents whose claims would cover those same genes. Do we need to go through every gene to look at who made the first claim to that gene, even if only one small part? If we resort to this rule, then the first patents to be granted for any DNA will have a vast claim over portions of the human genome."

A further issue of concern is that patents on DNA can readily cross species boundaries. A company can have a patent that they received for cow breeding and have that patent cover a large percentage of human genes. Indeed, the researchers found that one company owns the rights to 84 percent of all human genes for a patent they received for cow breeding. "It seems silly that a patent designed to study cow genetics also claims the majority of human genes," says Dr. Rosenfeld.

Finally, they also examined the impact of longer claimed DNA sequences from existing gene patents, which ranged from a few dozen bases up to thousands of bases of DNA, and found that these long, claimed sequences matched 41 percent (9,361) of human genes. Their analysis concluded that almost all clinically relevant genes have already been patented, especially for short sequence patents, showing all human genes are patented many times over.

"This is, so to speak, patently ridiculous," adds Dr. Mason. "If patent claims that use these small DNA sequences are upheld, it could potentially create a situation where a piece of every gene in the human genome is patented by a phalanx of competing patents."

In their discussion, the researchers argue that the U.S. Supreme Court now has a chance to shape the balance between the medical good versus inventor protection, adding that, in their opinion, the court should limit the patenting of existing nucleotide sequences, due to their broad scope and non-specificity in the human genome.

"I am extremely pro-patent, but I simply believe that people should not be able to patent a product of nature," Dr. Mason says. "Moreover, I believe that individuals have an innate right to their own genome, or to allow their doctor to look at that genome, just like the lungs or kidneys. Failure to resolve these ambiguities perpetuates a direct threat to genomic liberty, or the right to one's own DNA."