Vaccines, the good kind of chemicals!

This blog is a classroom extension on an extra topic requested b an inquisitive and curious student who forwarded me an email outlining some possible problems with the swine flu vaccine.

First, the email.

Dear Friends

Just in case any of you may be contemplating having the swine flu vaccination, I thought you may like to see a list of its ingredients so you can make an informed choice.
LIST OF VACCINE FILLERS & ADJUVENTSL This list, officially administered by design with every vaccine provided to the public, in addition to the squalene that appears to be in this upcoming swine flu vaccine, is of great concern to many parents and grandparents, with the announcement that they will start vaccinating children and pregnant women first and then "wait to see if there are too many adverse events" (including seizures, neurological problems, and death).

This is not an auspicious start. Although not a logical argument, I find any email that contains SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS to be a warning sign that the author may not have done his or her homework.

So, the first point appears to be some concern about squalene. Squalene, a natural chemical that is made in many organisms (including humans), has been given to 22 million people with no safety problems according to the world health organisation. So, if you get an email that lists squalene as a potential harm, you can stop reading and delete the email. The person writing it hasn't done their homework.

That last bit, claiming that they're going to vaccinate pregnant women and children and then 'wait and see' if there are too many adverse side effects is a wonderful bit of fear mongering. Pregnant women and children get the vaccine first because they're a high risk group. No evidence is given in the article that pregnant women and children are being treated so callously, it's just a nice little gem of fear to cap off everything else.

In addition to the viral and bacterial RNA or DNA that is part of the vaccines, here are the fillers:
? Aluminum hydroxide - directly linked to causing Alzheimer's disease ? Aluminum phosphate - directly linked to causing Alzheimer's disease ? Ammonium sulfate - an inorganic chemical compound used as fertilizer and "protein purifier"; known to cause kidney & liver damage, gastrointestinal dysfunctions ? Amphotericin B - an "antifungal disinfectant" and anti-biotic, which damages the urinary tract, bowels, and heart functions ? Animal tissues (a causal element for all the various auto-immune diseases associated with vaccination) : horse blood, rabbit brain, dog kidney, monkey kidney, chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg, pig blood, Porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein (the pig protein/tissue is an additional objectionable issue for Jewish and Muslim people) ? Calf (bovine) serum & fetal bovine serum (cow blood is recognized as a significant transmitter of Mad Cow Disease) ? Betapropiolactone? Formaldehyde - used as "a preservative & disinfectant" , known to cause cancer, chronic bronchitis, eye irritation when exposed to thebody's immune system? Formalin ? Gelatin ? Glycerol ? Human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue) ? Hydrolyzed gelatin ? Monosodium glutamate (MSG) - now known to cause cancer in humans, also linked to obesity ? Neomycin (anti-biotic) ? Neomycin sulf ate (anti-biotic) ? Phenol red indicator - a highly toxic disinfectant dye, attributed to liver, kidney, heart & respiratory damage ? Phenoxyethanol (antifreeze) - proven to have extreme neurotoxic side effects ? Potassium diphosphate ? Potassium monophosphate ? Polymyxin B ? Polysorbate 20 ? Polysorbate 80 ? associated with infertility when injected ? Residual MRC5 proteins ? Sorbitol ? Sucrose ? Thimerosal (mercury) - a neurotoxin linked to psychological,neurological, & immunological problems?especially autism. Nervous system damage (such as sub-acute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), brachial plexitis, post-vaccinal encephalitis, transverse myelitis and peripheral neuropathies) , kidney disease, birth defects, dental problems, mood swings, mental changes, hallucinations, memory loss, and inability to concentrate can occur. Symptoms also include tremors, loss of dermal sensitivity, slurred speech, and?in rare cases?even death and paralysis. This additive alone was the catalyst for another recent Class Action Lawsuit organized by mothers of children born with autism & the many related behavioral disorders associated with it. Autism is now occurring at levels never seen before in history; depending on the state, its rate is now 1 in 67 to 1 in 150. The autism rates used to be 1 in 20,000. Mercury may also be associated with the significantly increased rates of senility and Alzheimer's, which is associated with five or more successive flu vaccinations. Although most mercury (thimerosal) has been removed from children's vaccines, it is still in all flu vaccines at toxic doses. ? Tri(n)butylphosphat e, ? VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells - linked to the SV-40 virus known to cause leukemia ? Washed sheep red blood cells

Well, that's quite the grab-bag of ingredients and scary consequences. Let's put it in perspective. Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is a chemical. I've made it from caustic acids and bases in a lab. It is the primary ingredient in acid rain. It's so toxic it corrodes metal, and it's even used by elite athletes as a performance enhancer. Check the facts for yourself. The point being, of course, is even if you limit yourself to the truth, you can create completely irrelevant claims. DHMO, or dihydrogen monoxide is (of course) H₂O, or water.

It's not just the chemical that makes something dangerous, it's the amount and context. Water is deadly if you're exposed to the solid form for long periods of time without protection. If you really want to show that the vaccine ingredients are actually harmful, link to the study studying the vaccine ingredient given in the dose expected. All this list essentially says is "DIS VACCINE CONTAINS LOTZ DA CHEMICALS. CHEMICALS VRY BAD." If I can make a list of true dangers about water, just imagine what I could do with a list of chemicals in spinach.

If you wish to know exactly what really is in the vaccine, here's the list:

Non-medicinal ingredients:

Antigen suspension vial: Thimerosal, sodium chloride, disodium hydrogen phosphate, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, potassium chloride, water for injections. The drug substance contains trace residual amounts of egg proteins, formaldehyde, sodium deoxycholate and sucrose.

Adjuvant emulsion vial: sodium chloride, disodium hydrogen phosphate, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, potassium chloride, water for injections.

Medicinal ingredients:

H1N1 influenza antigen from A/California/7/2009, NYMC X-179A (H1N1)v strain and AS03 adjuvant.

I won't bother defending each chemical, other than to note that the vaccine has undergone extensive testing without a single safety concern appearing. Moreover, the vaccine was made in a 'standard' way, and isn't different from how they make other vaccines, so if there was a health problem with one of the non-medicinal ingredients we'd already know from previous studies on previous vaccines.

I will, however, make a special mention of thimerosal. Thimerosal is a mercury compound that's wonderful - it helps prevent an infection due to the injection of the vaccine. As people know mercury is toxic, they often assume that anything containing mercury is toxic. There are a couple of problems with this. First, they are forgetting dose - I wouldn't recommend bathing in thimerosal, but the tiny amount in a vaccine is harmless. Secondly, mercury and different compounds of mercury are all different. For example, sodium is a highly reactive metal that explodes when thrown in water but sodium chloride is a tasty condiment we put on french fries. If you wish to know more about thimerosal and toxicity, read the World Health Organization statement that the research shows there is no evidence of toxicity.

So that very long list of possible ingredients is, in many instances, a fabrication, and where it's not a fabrication it's an attempt at scare tactics.

THESE ADDITIVES ARE GIVEN TO OUR CHILDREN WITHOUT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.
Sue Collins
Co-Founder
New Jersey Alliance for Informed Choice in Vaccination, NJAICV
"Parents and Individuals Concerned about Vaccine Safety and the Right to Informed Consent"
NJ-AICV is a completely volunteer organization. 1-800-613-9925
www.NJAICV.org (201-651-1142- Fax) PO Box 243
, Gillette , NJ 07933http://www.facebook .com/pages/ New-Jersey-
Alliance- for-Informed- Choice-in- Vaccination/ 57253034250
All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone.

So, what's the real information?

The real information is that the vaccine does have a risk. A serious life-threatening event from any immunization campaign is roughly 1 in 100,000. The death rate for the regular seasonal flu (which H1N1 may or may not match) is 1 in 1000 to 1 in 2000. Or, assuming the lowest risk for the flu:



Be careful about email and the Internet - choose your sources wisely.

Regards,

Mr. Neufeld

Don't Panic

Several students have started to ask about 2012. I hope this email addresses some questions.

Science has not only made us safer - it can help us feel safer too.

Vaccines? Perfectly safe. Aspertame in diet soda? Not a worry. Cell phones? People panic, but there's little to worry about. Homeopathy? You can save your money.

Tragically, pseudoscience and fear-mongering has consequences. Fearing the end of the world when the LHC started up, a teen took her own life. The anti-vaccination movement, now seemingly lead by Jenny McCarthy, has a body count. Children die because their parents refuse real medicine on their behalf.

Like the LHC, 2012 is not going to result in the end of the world. I'm sure it will be a great movie (any by any reasonable definition, the movie with the best special effects is the best) but it's just a movie.

Really.

The number of people who have jumped from "internet rumor + movie = it must be true" has reached such epic heights that in the U.S. NASA has actually created a special page to dispel the myth.

Think about that for a moment. This has nothing to do with NASA. NASA, as a scientific community, does not deal with (or really is equipped to understand) popular psychology and internet fads. When enough people become scared, though, it becomes a public menace.

"End of the World" predictions have a long (and failed) history. Be a little skeptical. The number of articles that end a story with "there is no evidence, so the debate continues to rage" misses the point - without evidence there is no debate. In science facts, rather than public opinion, determines whether or not there is a real debate.

And every time you accept pseoduscience as science, you make Carl Sagan Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson & Bill Nye cry.

Cheers,

Mr. "the Earth is still flat" Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

Environmental Disaster in Madagascar

See

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/toxic-shipwreck-madagascar-kills-whales-disease.php

Madagascar itself is an important ecosystem (well, they all are, but Madagascar has more rare and unique species in a small area than most).

Placenta Teddy Bear

We will do the reproductive system later (much later) in the year. This, however, seemed too weird to pass up.



http://www.inhabitots.com/2009/10/01/doing-it-for-the-kids-design-exhibition-placenta-teddy-bear/

I'm not normally squeamish, but I'm not entirely sure whether I'd want that staring at me.

Oh, and it's the internet. Don't believe all that you read. If you find out it's a joke or a prank, let me know.

Cheers,

Mr. Neufeld

Example of an Activated Complex

Chemistry video for Reaction Kinetics: activated complex.

Facebook, Video Games, and Comics, Oh My!

Dear Students,

A new study has been making the rounds. It suggests that Facebook is evil (surprise, surprise). Or, more accurately, that users of Facebook have lower GPAs.

Critically and uncritically reported across the interwebs, it's been noted that:

Recently, many news sources have cited Karpinski’s findings when making the claim that Facebook itself is a cause of lower academic performance. But Karpinski’s data only demonstrates correlation, not causation.

It takes a lot of correlation before you can tentatively suggest causation. In terms of initial plausibility, however, the claim seems reasonable, but is also a reason for some initial caution as well. The claim is one we've heard before.

Comic books were once considered evil as well (according to the link the Canadian Gov. even enacted legislation to combat the evil comic book threat). We all know how that turned out (aka "graphic novels", and literary praise). Then video games were considered evil. Now, Facebook is that thing kids do that might also be evil. As I read recently on a blog:

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

Or was that Socrates? The youth has been a favorite scapegoat for a long time, so having someone jump to this favorite conclusion would not be entirely unexpected.

So the study certainly deserves a close look before being repeated, and reported. The first surprising revelation? That they actually found anybody, at all, that didn't have a Facebook account.

The researchers surveyed 219 students at Ohio State, including 102 undergraduate students and 117 graduate students. Of the participants, 148 said they had a Facebook account. The study found that 85 percent of undergraduates were Facebook users, while only 52 percent of graduate students had accounts. (link)

Hmmm. So out of 102 graduate students, only 15% didn't have Facebook? Why are we even reporting that in %? IT'S ONLY 15 STUDENTS!

Look, I'm sure nobody is going to quibble with the idea that those who study more, achieve higher, and if people Facebook (I love verbing nouns!) more and study less, it could have an effect.

How is this study unique or interesting? Its sample size is small, not much indication that there were controls (I'll be interested once there is access to the full study), and it's correlation rather than causation. This is acknowledged by the author:

Karpinski emphasized that the results don't necessarily mean that Facebook use leads to lower grades. "There may be other factors involved, such as personality traits, that link Facebook use and lower grades," she said. (link)

Sure. And that's the point. It's a small study. It happened to mention the phenomenon Facebook. So the media picked it up, mostly uncritically, and ran with it.

The problem with science reporting is rarely with the scientist, but the reporting. Even CNN agrees.

Double-checking isn't just for exams.

Cheers,

Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

Nocebo and Aspartame

Dear Students,

Continuing our discussion last week of the placebo effect, is the placebo's lesser known evil twin: the nocebo effect.

Like the placebo effect, the nocebo effect is when a pill, agent or treatment that should not have any chemical, physical or mechanical effect, actually has an effect. In this case, however, it is not a positive effect based on the patients expectations, but a negative one. Some examples are listed here, and the common theme is that if a patient believed a treatment to be dangerous, it gave the feared side effect. Simply telling a patient about the side effects of a medication can increase the chances of it occurring, enough so that that the nocebo effect can possibly reverse the effect of real medication from good to bad.

The placebo effect explains, for example, explains why acupuncture can relieve headaches, and homeopathy. I have always noticed a curious argument from those that promote alternative medicine and other placebos: real medicine is harmful! It seems, although I suspect it's done unknowingly, that not only do 'alternative medicine' cheerleaders reap the benefits of the placebo effect, they also drive people away from real medicine with the nocebo effect. Since real medicine is evaluated through scientific inquiry, we know the effects of drugs and procedures and how much they do (and do not) work. It seems more than a little strange that these warnings from the alternative medicine camp dismiss out of hand scientific evidence, yet wish people to accept their claims uncritically. Propagating a fear of medicine is similar to the fear of chemicals that I have written about before (aka Chemical Free Veggies).

What prompted this weeks post was my science class's reaction to my version of "coffee" aka diet cola with lovely, lovely aspartame. Lots of people seem to think aspartame is harmful, but a quick check of reputable sources clearly proves otherwise:

A sweeping review of research studies of aspartame says there is no evidence that the non-nutritive sweetener causes cancer, neurological damage or other health problems in humans. - ScienceDaily (Sep. 15, 2007)

There is no evidence to suggest that the consumption of foods containing this sweetener, according to the provisions of the Food and Drug Regulations and as part of a well-balanced diet, would pose a health hazard to consumers. In addition, other scientific advisory bodies such as the Scientific Committee for Food of the European Community, and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization have reviewed all the available safety studies and have found aspartame to be safe. More than ninety countries world-wide, including the United States, countries of the European Union, and Australia and New Zealand, have also reviewed aspartame and found it to be safe for human consumption and allow its use in various foods. - From Food and Nutrition by Health Canada

Or just go to the Snopes page and scroll to the bottom and click and read the statements from the FDA, among all the others.

Of course, as the Health Canada website linked above states, aspartame is dangerous if you have phenylketonuria (don't worry, you'd know if you had it), but otherwise it's perfectly safe.

What does this have to do with the nocebo effect? People do report adverse effects from aspartame anecdotally (i.e. personal stories), and claim that they know aspartame is bad.

How is this resolved? From a scientific perspective, we know that aspartame is safe, insofar as we can know anything.

From Health Canada : The Safety of Sugar Substitutes

"Some people have reported sensitivities to aspartame. However, researchers have been unable to confirm these reports through clinical studies. There is ongoing research investigating this issue."

From Health Canada : Aspartame

"One study was conducted on children and adults claiming to have experienced aspartame-induced seizures. On some days they were given a placebo and on other days they were given a large single dose of aspartame. Monitoring by EEG of their brain signals demonstrated that aspartame was no more likely to cause seizures than a placebo."

But where there's smoke, why isn't there fire? If that many people report reactions, why can't we find them when we study them?

Nocebo effect.

Aspartame is an evil 'chemical', and emails such as this have been floating around for at least a decade. It is difficult to test (I suspect it would be hard to get ethical approval for studies that intend harm, even if it's just for testing a nocebo effect), but Occam's razor can serve us well here. Which is more likely? A phantom bad effect that inexplicably goes away when studied, or a nocebo effect combined with some selective thinking? If I was misinformed about aspartame to begin with, it would be not unexpected that I would attribute any bad reaction I had to any aspartame I consumed, combined with the added booster the nocebo effect gives to actually experiencing a side effect.

There is an upside, however. Given aspartame fears, it would not be unusual or unreasonable for anyone to be suspicious of aspartame. This isn't all that harmful, other than they've eliminated one method to lower their sugar intake. We don't run and check every little bit of information we come across, but if there is one area we truly need accurate and tested information, it is for our health. Whenever someone tries to inform me of their newest health fad (or even when I'm seeing a new doctor), I'll ask what they think of aspartame.

If they believe aspartame to be bad, I know that whatever fad they're trying to convince me of needs to be double-checked very carefully. Knowing truths that are easy to confirm with appropriate authorities, but very few commonly believe, is useful.

Cheers,

Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

Placebo

Dear Students,

The placebo effect is a perfect topic for any science class, and nearly always comes up when discussing the scientific method. It comes up in the house all the time as well. Boys are sick, and the want some cough medicine. Or a money chit to buy some health product. Or to buy that particularly Canadian version of pseudoscience, Cold FX.

The placebo effect is when a pill, agent or treatment is given that should not have any chemical, physical or mechanical effect, but a cure occurs because of the treatment. A sugar or starch pill instead of pain medication, creating an incision without actually performing surgery, etc.

Of course it's not just that. It isn't just taking a sugar pill, and then getting better. People get better for all sorts of reasons, including the disease just running its course. The sniffling, snorting colded up person who's finally had enough goes and buys some pills and gets better in two days. It doesn't matter what they took: cold Fx, echinacea, chicken soup, nothing, etc. The cold's almost done, and no matter what, you're going to be better in two days. We just naturally credit the last thing we did to address the problem. A real placebo effect would require that a sugar pill actually prevent or reduce the duration of a cold.

As the preceding single example shows, it's complicated. There's lots of reasons people who are sick can get better, so much so that even the placebo effect itself is disputed. It is also differs depending on what you're trying to cure. Pain is notoriously amenable to the placebo effect, possibly because pain is so much a product of our mind and our expectations. Many women endure the pain of childbirth more than once, and apparently willingly. Yet if one forced such a pain onto a person against their will would be an agonising and traumatic event. Regrowing an arm or a leg, however, is a completely different story. (If you're thinking that the placebo effect works best on those areas that alternative medicine seems to emphasize, you're right. Funny kind of coincidence...)

So it would be obvious that any attempt to determine if a procedure or pill works, one would have to put a lot of effort into checking if it actually works.

Cold-FX did that. For example there are two separate studies, both of which showed that it did nothing. Then they combined the studies with some fancy statistical footwork, squinted their eyes, and presto! A faint result.

Even if one accepts the faint result, it does not claim to work as people think Cold-FX works. People feel a cold coming on, so they start popping some Cold-FX pills, expecting it to work like real medicine such as tylenol or antibiotics. Then, no matter how ineffective Cold-FX may be, some people will get better. Whether that's a misdiagnosis (they weren't really getting a cold after all!), luck (3 day cold instead of 7, hurrah!), ignorance (my cold only lasted 7 days!) or placebo (it worked just like a sugar pill!), for some people, for some of the time, anything will work. Throw in some good marketing, word-of-mouth, and a healthy dose of Skinner, and soon you'll have perfectly ordinary people claiming drinking urine is good for you.

Once you have a large group of people giving anecdotal stories, evidence and science are often ineffective. See all of this for examples.

The point of this long introduction, was that a student mentioned gluten-free diets, and asked for my opinion. I, naturally, don't have one, but as a science teacher our classes often examine evidence, learn about credibility, and how to determine true from false information. In essence, it might work, it might not, there's no real good evidence that it does according to what sites we could find that weren`t biased. At most, some parents found it helpful, which isn`t much given what we know about how easy it is to fool oneself.

What it does have, however, is the placebo effect combined with concerned parents. If my daughter needed help, and if someone told me that something as simple as changing her diet would help, I'd try it. And I would desperately want it to work. Add in all the previous caveats about why people can get better, plus all the reasons why someone could appear slightly better, and multiple positive anecdotal reports would be expected. Changing the diet of an autistic child appears unlikely without really good, plentiful evidence outside of anecdotes.

People like to pick on pharmaceutical companies for making expensive drugs. Nobody seems to recognize the vultures picking over the worry and guilt of parents that is the alternative health care industry.

There`s a lot of garbage out there. My students know not to believe me, but it bears repeating. Research. Check credibility. Periodically re-examine the evidence. And remember that when you think you`ve found the truth, and all the scientists are on the other side, you might want to double-check your results.

A bonus question for my student ethicists. If the placebo effect does work, it involves lying to patients. Should a health care professional be allowed dishonesty in order to cure their patients this way? Is charging for it justifiable?

Cheers,

Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

We are all family!

Dear Students,

This week in science ten we were discussing adaptations and speciation. What constitutes a species is one of those messy areas in biology. A species is defined as a group of related organisms that interbreed with each other. The definition is relatively straightforward, but given how evolution occurs the boundaries are going to be fuzzy.

An example of the problem is a ring species such as the Laras gull. These gulls exist as separate geographical populations, and each can interbreed with its neighbour.

Gull A can interbreed with Gull B which can interbreed with Gull C which can interbreed with Gull D which can interbreed with Gull E. These are stable populations, and you might expect that they are all the same species, except that Gull E cannot breed with Gull A.

Yah. The first time I understood what that meant my head exploded just a little bit. We often think of our evolutionary lineage extending back to a common ape-like ancestor, with some sort of 'missing link'. Except, if you understand evolution, you understand that species are not separated by discrete 'links', but by slight variation. This makes a bit more sense if you think of following your family tree backwards. First you meet your parents, then your grandparents, then your great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and so on. Richard Dawkins suggests that if you go back approximately 250,000 greats you'll meet the common ancestor for chimps, bonobos and humans. Every step of that journey, meeting each one of your ancestors, there were none that would be considered a separate species from those immediately before or after. Yet the difference between the beginning and the end is that of a different species. There's sometimes a misconception within popular culture that a new species arises when a baby is born that has significantly new abilities from its parents, and that needn't be the case. Each birth is a tiny step in a journey, and it's only when comparing the end points that the label of differing 'species' makes sense. While with the gulls the difference is one of genes and geography, with chimps and humans is one of genes and time.

There are species today in which this blurring of boundaries can still be seen. Donkeys and horses can breed and the offspring will either be a mule or a hinny. Donkey's and horses are close enough to interbreed, but it's still not quite close enough. Mules and hinnys are often sterile. The number of chromosomes in each species is different; donkeys have 62, and horses 64. This gives the mule 63, and the odd number usually prevents meiosis, which in turn causes sterility. Ligors and tigons are another example.

Which, of course, brings up Oliver, the Humanzee or Chuman. Oliver is a chimpanzee that prefers to walk on two feet, and his physical appearances seemed to suggest a more human 'look' than was normal for chimpanzee's. Oliver also apparently like human females more than chimpanzee females. Naturally there has been speculation that he is a cross between a human and a chimpanzee. Since 94% of human and chimp DNA is identical, although chimpanzee's and humans share the same chromosome problem as donkey's and horses; humans have 46 and chimps have 48. This difference occurred as what is called chromosome 2 in humans is fused homologous version of 2 chromosomes in chimps. This piece of evidence for common ancestry played a small role in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in the United States where creationists cdesign proponentsists tried to add religious views to the science classroom.

So what about Oliver? Is he chimp, or is he something in between? Given the differences in chromosomes, it was not difficult to test this hypothesis. If chimps have 48 chromosomes, and humans have 46, then a confirmation of 47 chromosomes in Oliver would confirm his humanzee status. This test was performed, and Oliver has 48 chromosomes, and remains a cousin rather than a brother.

This example suggests the impact evolution is having on our society. Where we once saw species as separate and distinct, we now see them as continuous and related. Where humans were once considered the pinnacle of design, we are now just one twig of a giant tree, members of an enormous family. The science has been clear for a long time (150 years!), but it takes time for the meaning to permeate philosophy and culture. The excitement over Oliver is a reflection of our growing understanding that we are all, in fact, related.

Cheers,

Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

Update : Some students asked if there was a difference between a tigon and a ligor, or a humanzee or chuman. There is. Offspring of two different species have the name of the male species for the first half, and the name of the female species for the second half. So a 'tigon' is the result of a male tiger and a female lion. (Our culture has patriarchal roots, and I presume the 'male first' rule extends from this older cultural expectation.)

The Changing Nature of the Classroom

Dear Students,

This week I had a former student drop in to say hi. In the course of the conversation I asked about university, and how we could prepare our students even better.

Disclaimer: Naturally this does not reflect every (or necessarily even most) universities, and may be coloured by the student (although he did go online and show me his courses so I have confirmed wherever possible).

In class, as a teacher, I have been guilty on more than one occasion of using scare tactics. Since our school's entire purpose is aimed at getting students into the university of their choice, I have often commented what university professors will (and especially will not) accept, and how uncaring many will seem. We care about your progress. If you do not do an assignment, you'll hear about it and (since we're a boarding school) we know where you live. There is no escape.

In university nobody will notice when you don't hand in an assignment. This much I remember from my own experiences, and as far as I can tell not much has changed. However, now it is apparently possible not to even know you have assignments!

The student, who attends a major Canadian university, was quite surprised to discover a few weeks into his courses that all course information was online. Quizzes and assignments are scheduled online, assignments are handed in online, and it is impossible to hand in an assignment on paper. Even some exams and mid-terms are online (and unsupervised). With no deadlines announced in class, unplugging for a day is no longer an option. By 'surprised', I mean a quiz had been posted and taken down, all without a single mention in class. Students who noticed got the chance to complete it. Those who didn't did not.

Class may consist of a PowerPoint presentation in which you've downloaded the material before class, and you're filling in the notes as the professor lectures. Some people apparently get really good at Tetris, and take the time to manage their social calendar on Facebook instead. The classroom is filled with laptops.

This is a bit different. You're expected to exercise more responsibility, but also have more opportunities to become distracted. Like most changes it comes with its advantages and disadvantages. I think I would have loved it as the ability to get the notes any time, and the online nature of assignments and quizzes would have kept me organized. The ability to surf when the teacher gets boring? That would probably take a bit more getting used to.

I have already started increasing the resources available outside of class, and have taught all of my students how to hand in assignments and take quizzes or tests online. With classroom laptops, however, I would want a management system. Software installed on each student's computer that would allow me to see what every student was doing, and take control or shut down the computer as necessary. University may be the place for increased personal responsibility, but I care far too much as to whether or not you're understanding the material to allow students that much distraction without a way to return you to task.

I'm curious to know what students think. Some have already started bringing a laptop to class. I haven't banned laptops, as some teachers are wont to do, as I do recognize the potential and the numbers are not high enough to worry about. As numbers increase, however, I will eventually be forced to either ban the laptop and force you to use dead trees to write on, or I will insist you install classroom management software on your laptop in order to have it in class.

Knowing your teacher could take control of your laptop at any point seems a little creepy, although the program would be under your control. Outside of class you simply wouldn't start the program, but inside the class it would be running in order to have the privilege of having your laptop out. Would it be worth it? Let me know.

Cheers,

Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

The Truth about Vaccines

Dear Students,

I was up at the Pharmasave today, and a stack of books for sale caught my eye. "The Truth about Vaccines" it exclaimed, while showing a happy elderly couple. Smaller print suggested "Natural alternatives to Vaccines", "Side Effects of Vaccines", and how to boost your immune system.

Here's the actual truth about vaccines. When your body is attacked by an invader, not only does your body mobilize B-Cells and T-Cells to fight the infection, it also creates memory cells that stick around and are primed to react very quickly if the same trigger (called an antigen) ever dares to show up again. Vaccines work by giving a weak or dead antigen to trick the immune system into creating these memory cells, and voila! You are now resistant to a disease that might otherwise have killed you. (See here for a quick overview in cartoon form.)

There are a few other truths. Like failing to vaccinate your children may kill them. Why people believe otherwise, and the pseudoscience involved, may be a possible research topic for a future class.

There are a couple of possible focus points, but the most recent is such a perfect example of the importance of conducting science ethically and honestly. The researcher that started the whole vaccine denier mess? It turns out he may have actually faked the data to begin with!

The world is a dangerous place. Science reveals the danger signs. Luckily some places may be waking up to the danger.

It would seem, however, that when it comes to medicine that our provincial government may also be edging into a non-science approach to medicine. Naturopaths may soon be allowed to prescribe medication! Some of the information in the article is interesting for what it is trying to imply. Naturopathic practicioners have a regulatory College, they call themselves physicians, and take both undergraduate and graduate science courses. Does this make them science-based? Of course not. What's the harm? Check for yourself here.

In one class we've been discussing the difference between real science, and people that try to fake a science, using intelligent design as an example. Those of you reflecting in your journals as to how to tell the difference, naturopathy would be a great topic to investigate.

Cheers,

Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

Happy Darwin Day!

Happy Darwin Day!

(Click to embiggen.)

Via http://www.wordle.net/, it's the text of Darwin's classic On the Origin of Species, with the words that appear most often scaled to appear equivalently larger.

Teh Intertubes. Is there anything it can't do?

Cheers,

Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

Links for Darwin Day :

Six-minute Tree of Life video that appeared on the BBC One programme 'Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life' narrated by David Attenborough.

Darwin Day Celebration

Heat the Hornet by Richard Dawkins

Nature has some great podcasts on Darwin.

A virtual Evolution Lab (it's sorta like a game...)

Biomorphs!

This isn't evolution, but it looks like a cool version of evolution.

Updates of student suggested links:

Darwin on Wikipedia

The Darwin Awards (of course)

Devolve Me - see what you'd look like as an early human!

A's for everyone!

Dear Students,

Via the Blog Pharyngula (unlinked as the blog is occasionally NSFS), although here is the original Globe & Mail article.

University of Ottawa professor Denis Rancourt is in a spot of trouble. To quote:

“Grades poison the educational environment,” he insists. “We're training students to be obedient, and to try to read our minds, rather than being a catalyst for learning.”

More to the point, he's given all his students an A+. At the beginning of the course. And not in some sort of soft course like art appreciation, but physics! The university is naturally peeved, and at one point had him escorted off campus in handcuffs. Leaving aside the issues of academic freedom, the story does illustrate rather well the love/hate relationship teachers have with grades.

There is the obvious point, in that I don't want to be operated on by a doctor that hasn't had his skills measured or verified in some way. Grades, however, can certainly be an impediment to learning. Students can focus on the mark, trying to figure out how to raise their score, ignoring the broader context of what the course is about. Students who can name the structures of the lung, but cannot answer why the body needs oxygen would be an example. As a teacher it can also be used as a stick, forcing students to complete work not because they find it useful to learn the material, but because I think the task is required for understanding. There is no question some students would stop trying if an 'A+' was already granted. There is also no question that some students stop trying because the grades they get are discouraging. And really, is someone who got an 'A' on a course but can't remember any different? I find the hard-working student in Chemistry 11, whether they got a 'C+' or an 'A', is usually more prepared for Chemistry 12 than the naturally brilliant 'A' student. Universities and professional programs often just expect you have the knowledge and (once accepted) don't really care what you previous grades were. You just better know it.

I don't have an answer to this. As much as I admire the professor's chutzpah, and disapprove of the university's tactics (if you can't try cutting edge teaching experiments in university, where are they going to be tried?), I suspect some form of evaluation will always be with us. At some point, at some point, the engineer or the doctor is going to have to prove they know what they need to know.

But what do you think? Would you work in a course in which you already had the highest mark possible? Has the grades you've received ever stopped you from making your best effort?

Cheers,

Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School

(Update : Some further reading here.)