"Likewise, asthma rates have tripled over the last 25 years, Dr. Landrigan said. Childhood leukemia is increasing by 1 percent per year. Obesity has surged. One factor may be lifestyle changes — like less physical exercise and more stress and fast food — but some chemicals may also play a role.
Take breast cancer. One puzzle has been that most women living in Asia have low rates of breast cancer, but ethnic Asian women born and raised in the United States don’t enjoy that benefit. At the symposium, Dr. Alisan Goldfarb, a surgeon specializing in breast cancer, pointed to a chart showing breast cancer rates by ethnicity.
“If an Asian woman moves to New York, her daughters will be in this column,” she said, pointing to “whites.” “It is something to do with the environment.”"
Kristof, Nicholas. Cancer From the Kitchen? A New York Times Article accessed on their website December 6, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06kristof.html?_r=2
Posts
Interesting stuff, but as you implied, nothing really new. And there are certainly other possibilities for explanations of each of these conditions (see below), so I'm curious as to the intent of the article. Was it that the author just learned of these things at the symposium and felt the need to share with the general public?
ReplyDeleteHelicobacter pylori colonization is inversely associated with childhood asthma.
Yu Chen and Martin J. Blaser
J Infect Dis. 2008 August 15; 198(4): 553–560. doi: 10.1086/590158
What particularly interested me was the statement that there is only one microbiologist in Congress. I guess I'm actually a little surprised that there's even one, but it brings attention to the fact that there's remarkably little knowledge in Congress on most things they deal with. Does anybody know of a source that breaks down Congressional representatives' by previous occupation? Perhaps we need to elect officials by knowledge source rather than just geography. In other words, instead of having 435 members divided by region & population, divide the 435 members by industry and the percentage that industry has in GDP. Eligible members would just need a PhD in a related field. I'm sure this wouldn't be simple to delegate and would probably increase the influence of corporations as they could fill the seats with their own people, so it's more just a passing I thought I'd share than a legitimate (if extremely remote) possibility.
I too am surprised by the number (1) of scientists in congress. Are we also supposed to assume because he is a scientist he speaks for all scientists on science related laws too?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the first part of Steve's comment, I would like to note the article was published in the NY TIMES. When you write to a non-scientific audience I think you have to use anecdotes and "dumb" down the material. I would guess if he were speaking to a group of Drs his material would not sound as if he had just listend to a symposium.
This is less a rebuttal to Steve and more a criticism of science education in our society that necessitates the author's approach.
That idea about electing people based on job and that job's representation in society is really interesting. I think the idea is that naturally our democracy would do this for us. If we can find that it doesn't, then that'd be really interesting. For example, how many scientists are in the United States (divide by population of adults)? If we find that it's less than 1/435 of all jobs, then perhaps we'd have less to complain about.
ReplyDelete