The unsung "job creators"

Unless you've been living in a cave these last few years, you've undoubtably heard the term "job creator" thrown around a lot.  The phrase is often used in reference to CEOs and other businessmen (and women) who run companies.  Actually, more often than not, it is used to refer to anybody who somehow has made a lot of money (regardless of how many actual jobs they've personally "created" or whether they simply inherited their wealth).  The connotation is of a benevolent capitalist who invests in an industry with a forward eye towards sustaining local economies.

These executives are elevated to near angelic status by some, but truth be told, they are all actually sitting at the end of the "job creation" chain.  The true stimulus for developing industries and subsequent employment usually happens much much earlier.  It usually begins in the laboratory.

Building an economy by asking a question

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, science and technology has served as the bedrock of emerging industries.  Without theoretical physics, we would never of had atomic energy.  Mathematics gave us computers.  Molecular biology gave us biotechnology.  Geology gave us most of the energy industry.

But often the scientific discoveries that allowed for an industry to bloom were not intended to shape an economy.  These research endeavors were started merely to satisfy a curiosity.  My favorite example of this is photography.  Few can argue that the advent of the photograph didn't fundamentally change our world.  It not only revolutionized journalism, but also spawned hundreds of new companies, most notably companies like Kodak.

However, the early photograph came about because of independent, basic science discoveries in physics and chemistry.  The research on photons, electromagnetism and light sensitive materials that lead to the photograph weren't developed explicitly for photography.  They were the result of many independent scientists who were simply curious about the world around them.  It wasn't until Joseph Niepce and Louis Daguerre put these together that the early photographic process began to get off the ground.

Or take another example more closely tied to my work. The advent of the now almost ubiquitous medical imaging procedure MRI didn't come around on its own.  It was built off of fundamental discoveries in physics on the electromagnetic properties of molecules and atoms, as well as biological studies on the tissue content of the human body.  So basically, answering questions about how hydrogen atoms spin and how fatty the human brain really is led to perhaps the most important medical technology advancement since the vaccine.

Now these aren't isolated anecdotes.  Nearly every industry built off of a technological advancement that can trace its roots to basic science discoveries that had no clear applications when they started. 

Pulling the rug out from under new industries

Today, science is exploding (sometimes literally) with many new fundamental discoveries.  We've found the Higgs boson, we've discovered life in places we never dreamed possible, and we've even figured out how use viruses to make neurons fire by using lasers.  None of these discoveries have any applied uses that we know of... yet.  But who know's what industries they may lead to in the coming years and decades?

Unfortunately, despite these amazing discoveries and advancements, the appreciation for basic research is plummeting in this country.  In general scientific literacy and public support for science is dropping.  Even major scientific funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are pushing for more "applied research" projects at the expense of basic science.  While this may help facilitate immediate advancements in existing industries, it is only a short-term strategy that shifts focus away from the real work that leads to the advent of entirely new industries in the long-term.

I say it's time to take a step back and appreciate who really are the "job creators" around here.  Is it the executive who sends paychecks to tens, hundreds or maybe even thousands of employees or is it the unsung people whose discoveries eventually build entire industries that end up employing thousands or millions of individuals?

So the next time you hear a politician or television pundit talk about thanking a "job creator," head to your local university or research lab and thank a scientist.

Of soda bans and neural strands

A lot of comedic energy has been recently focused on New York City's ban on extra large sodas. Nowhere is this more so than  at the Daily Show, where Jon Stewart recently pointed out the irony that marijuana is practically legal, buyer beware if you want 32oz of your favorite beverage.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Yet it is interesting that Mr. Stewart chose this particular comparison.

Years ago, social and political pressure mounted on science to show that chronic marijuana consumption could damage brain cells.  The story was to be that toking up meant killing neurons.  Well despite decades of federally funded research, there has been no definitive link between the consumption of marijuana and brain cell death.  Sure,  there is a slight possibility that the ink is there and we haven't found it, but it hasn't been for lack of trying.  


Now let's flash forward to today, with over 1/3 of the US population is obese and, as a population, we just keep getting bigger.  This is mainly due to a decrease in physical activity and an increase in high caloric diets like the nefarious "super-sized" sodas.

"So what?" you might say,  "It's not like that soda is killing my brain cells."

Actually, a growing body of evidence suggests that it might be doing just that.  Well to be clear, not that single soda per se, but the obesity that such high caloric intake can lead to.

From the waistline to the brain

Most people, even scientists that I talk to, assume that if there is a relationship between the brain and obesity, it is only in the sense that certain people's brains drive them to eat more and that's why their obese.  Maybe you've got a more addictive personality to begin with, so you're hardwired to seek reward and your drug of choice ends up being doughnuts and soda pop.


Now I wont argue that there might very well be a case for this argument and, in fact, there is some data to justify this hypothesis.  But let's step back for a minute and consider some general facts.  The brain needs a lot of energy to do its thing.  In fact, you can think of the brain as the United States of the global energy supply of the body.  It occupies only about 2% of the total tissue volume in our body, but it uses almost 15% of the output from the heart, 20% of the body's oxygen, and 25% of the circulating glucose.  


Now everyone knows that obesity is linked to all sorts of metabolic problems (e.g., diabetes, high blood pressured, cardiovascular disease, etc.).  So if we stick with our metaphor of the brain being like the United States of energy consumption, then think about what happens when energy prices skyrocket in this country.  The cost of doing things incrementally goes up and the overall productivity of the country pays a price. In fact, there are many studies showing that the brains and cognitive processes of obese individuals function differently than lean counterparts.


But emerging evidence suggests that obesity may be much more nefarious to the brain than simply raising the metabolic gas prices.  It might actually be, that's right... attacking brain tissue itself.


Okay, I'll admit that last statement seems to be quite hyperbolic, but emerging research is giving us a very startling picture on the relationship between the size of your gut and your brain health.  


Take for example a recent study my colleagues and I did that will be coming out in the journal of Psychosomatic Medicine.  We looked at how the underlying architecture of the brain itself was different in obese individuals compared lean counterparts. We took a group of neurologically health adults who spanned a range of body mass index (BMI) scores.  Higher BMI means, generally speaking, greater obesity.   We then used MRI to measure the integrity of the physical connections in the brain.  Remember that the two fundamental tissue types in the brain are gray matter (the cell bodies) and white matter (the long strands that connect cells together).  The type of MRI we used, called diffusion tensor imaging, looked at this latter tissue type (by measuring something called fractional anisotropy, which a very basic measure of white matter integrity).


We found that with every point increase on the BMI scale, there was an incremental decease in the integrity of white matter throughout the brain.  Now other studies also show this relationship between obesity and white matter, but our findings point to a global and pervasive effect throughout the brain.


As if that wasn't scary enough, in another study, recently published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, my colleagues and I used the same MRI approach to look at how social factors relate to neural health.  We found that lower social status (i.e., lower family income, fewer years of education and living in poorer communities) predicted a reduced integrity of the physical connections in the brain.


Let me repeat just to drive the point home: Socioeconomic status could actually predict the microscopic architecture of the connections in the brain. 


How can this happen?  Well it turns out that this relationship is mediated by an increase in unhealthy life-styles like smoking and, that's right, increased obesity. So life-style factors and access to resources that affect physical health may be directly influencing the physical structure your brain itself.  That means this health-to-brain relationship has vast societal implications that we are only just beginning to comprehend.

A molecular link between physical health and the brain

Okay, if you've stuck through this far, you are probably wondering how the heck changes in the body can influence the brain?  Well in the study I just described my colleagues also measured levels of a molecule called C-reactive protein (or CRP) in the blood.  This little protein reflects inflammatory  activity, which is an immune system reaction and is the reason why recent cuts turn red and flushed.  It turns out that, the link between both smoking and obesity and the brain could be mostly explained by increased CRP levels.  


Let's put it together.  Lower socioeconomic status lead to reduced physical health which led to increased inflammation which, in turn, led to reduced integrity of the white matter in the brain.

Schematic of the relationship between social and lifestyle factors the brain (adapted from Gianaros et al. Cerebral Cortex 2012)

Does this mean that cells are dying?  Well not necessarily.  


Remember, I said that white matter is the long fiber strands that connect neurons together.  So far all we can say is that the signal we use to measure this tissue is reducing.  However, adding one more fact into the equation leads to some very scary hypothesis as to what might be happening.

It turns out that the fat around your gut is actually an organ that secretes inflammatory molecules.  As that "organ" expands, it secretes more inflammatory chemicals (called cytokines). Many of these chemicals can cross the blood brain barrier that protects the brain from a lot of bad things.  Once in the brain they can induce a local inflammation of the support cells that basically serve as the scaffolding for the axons in the brain.  After a while, this scaffolding may collapse and break the underlying axons.

How do we know this can happen?  Well because this is precisely what happens in multiple sclerosis (MS) and we know that MS definitely damages physical tissue.

Now I should be up front.  The scientific evidence isn't there yet to suggest that obesity physically kills brain cells the same way MS does.  The emerging evidence nonetheless convincing that there is a troubling link between obesity and the same systems as MS.  This evidence keeps mounting every month as more scientific studies come out.

Food for thought

So while comedians and politicians may poke fun at Mayor Bloomberg's decision to ban extra-large soda drinks in an effort to curb obesity, we should take a step back and look at the science.  Increased obesity not only reduces your physical health, but it's becoming readily apparent that obesity is also interfering with the organ that sits as the root of all thinking.  Our work, along the studies from many other labs, shows that this has dramatic implications that extend into social issues as well as medical issues.  


Will banning 32oz sodas solve the problem?  Absolutely not... not even close.  But is it taking a problem seriously that we have, thus far, only been talking about tongue-in-cheek?  You bet it is.  


Brogan A, Hevey D, O'Callaghan G, Yoder R, O'Shea D. (2011). Impaired decision making among morbidly obese adults J Psychosom Res DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.07.012



 Brogan A, Hevey D, Pignatti R. (2011). Anorexia, bulimia, and obesity: shared decision making deficits on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406532# DOI: 10.1017/S1355617710000354

Gianaros PJ, Marsland AL, Sheu LK, Erickson KI, Verstynen TD. (2012). Inflammatory Pathways Link Socioeconomic Inequalities to White Matter Architecture. Cerebral Cortex DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22772650

Stice E, Spoor S, Bohon C, Small DM. (2008). Relation between obesity and blunted striatal response to food is moderated by TaqIA A1 allele Science DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18927395

If you don't like the message, kill the messenger

As some of you may know, one of my goals in life is to facilitate the role of science in society.   Last week I came across a little gem that reminds me of what we, as scientists, are up against as far as how science is discussed outside the lab.

Now before I start, let me be honest.  There have always been, and always will be, those who will instinctively disavow science.  For some it's a matter of fear ("That appears to threaten my world view and scares me").  For others it's simple ignorance ("That doesn't easily make sense to me, so I don't believe it").  But for a few it is really more a matter of power ("By minimizing science and its scope, I can act how I want regardless of what evidence there is that I shouldn't.")

The first two groups I can understand and even empathize with.  It's our nature to be cautious and skeptical.  Hell, as a scientist I'm trained to be skeptical and to wait for mounting evidence to make the case that I should reject my current beliefs.   However, usually those who dislike science out of fear or ignorance can be reasoned with if approached in the right way.  Remember that even Pope John Paul II, a man who lead an institution that was terrified of the concept of evolution, eventually conceded that it exists.

It is that third group of science denier terrifies me. And that brings me to what started this whole post.  Check out this clip of Presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaking to a law school audience last week.

Let's listen very carefully to what Mr. Santorum says.  First he appeals to authority" "Because I believe what the Catholic church teaches with respect to homosexuality" he therefore should be allowed to hold his beliefs that same-sex couples should not have equal rights in terms of marriage and adoption.  Now if it were just a personal belief that would be fine.  We all have to appeal to authority at some point in order to have baseline assumptions with which to act in the world.  But when faced with new evidence that those assumptions are incorrect, a logical person would change the assumption.  Mr. Santorum inherently acknowledges this fact when he goes on to say that there is no evidence to refute his "bigoted" beliefs.

But now listen to what Mr. Santorum says when confronted with two critical pieces of information that there is, in fact, evidence to refute his assumptions.  First the fact that the American Psychiatric Association (not the American Psychological Association as stated in the video, although they take the same stance) delisted homosexuality as a mental illness in the DSM-III in1974.  This, by the way, was after numerous empirical studies showing that, in all other aspects, homosexuals had no other presenting symptoms or negative life outcomes than heterosexual individuals.  Second, the fact that there is overwhelming peer-reviewed research by behavioral scientists that children growing up in same-sex households are no different, in terms of mental health and emotional well-being, than those who grow up with heterosexual parents.

Mr. Santorum replies "The American Psychological Association is made up of people who agree with the American Psychological Association." He then follows up with this gem, "A lot of psychologists don't belong to the American Psychological Association. A lot of doctors don't belong to the American Medical Association."

Now keep in mind this is a serious (albeit unlikely) candidate for the GOP nomination.  He's a trained lawyer and served in Congress both as a Representative and a Senator.  So he should, by all accounts, be a very bright and logical man.  Yet his response to just the existence of scientific evidence refuting his beliefs is the same as that taken by the lunatic anti-science fringe: if you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

As a scientist, I'd be fine if Mr. Santorum argued with the science itself.  Every study and every field has its weaknesses. Had he argued that showing a lack of a difference is not the same thing as there not being a difference, he'd actually be correct.  In science, we call it "arguing the null."  Had he said that the research was still preliminary because the children adopted by homosexual couples are just now reaching adulthood, that would also be a valid and reasoned response.

But that wasn't Mr. Santorum's reaction.  This initial reaction reveals something far deeper than a simple lack of understanding of the issue.  It shows a complete and utter lack of respect for the science being discussed.  In fact, he turned the appeal to authority on it's head.  It's okay for Mr. Santorum to hate homosexuality because the Catholic church says so, but it's not okay for scientists in the APA to feel that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality because they're just preaching to the choir.  Do you see that Catch-22?

If Mr. Santorum were the only major politician to act this way toward science, I could let it slide.  He'd be annoying but not threatening.  Unfortunately this is the rule these days and not the exception.  For many politicians, as well as media personalities and a growing minority of the U.S. population, refuting a scientific fact outright because scientists say it is a badge of honor.  It's something to brag about.  In fact, we live in a world where most of the contenders for a major political party's presidential nomination don't believe in evolution or global climate change.  Both of which have thousands (that's right.. thousands!) of empirical publications supporting them.

And that brings us back to the motive. As I mentioned before, Mr. Santorum has to be a smart and logical man in order to get as far as he did.  The same is true for the other leaders who instinctively attack science as a whole (with the exception of Mrs. Bachmann who's a whole other kind of crazy).  I'm afraid, their attack comes from a need for power.  "I can ignore the research on homosexuality and evolution because I want to court the religious vote."  "I can ignore the evidence of climate change because I want to court the industries who it will affect."

Unfortunately, this is an endgame move in the debate.  There's nothing you as a scientist can say or do that will change their beliefs because their ignorance is a source of power.  Arguing with those who take this stance is like arguing with the three year old holding his fingers in his ears... you just have to wait until they grow up so you can talk to them like an adult.

Update: As if on cue, last night's GOP primary debate featured Rick Perry demonstrating my point perfectly.  "Just because you have a group of scientists standing up and saying 'Here are the facts'... Galileo got outvoted for a spell."  The important point being distorted by Mr. Perry is that Galileo was not outvoted by his scientific peers... he was outvoted by the Catholic Church.  His "natural philosophy" peers respected and built off of his work.  In fact, by taking such a stance against the empirical findings, Mr. Perry is putting himself in the same boat as those who "outvoted" Galileo.

Virus-guided laser neurons and the need for creative exploration

Like all meetings, this year's Human Brain Mapping conference was packed with the ubiquitous blend of brilliance and social awkwardness that permeates nearly every neuroscience meeting. That's why I like science.

Real geeks, unlike chic geeks, embrace the fact that they live 90% of the time in their heads, trying to frame the world that they see into the science that they know. Either trying to understand how something works or what would happen if two disparate things were suddenly fused together to make something new.

Most of us are constantly living in our own heads. That's why the "absent minded professor" isn't really much of a stereotype as it is a valid descriptor of our behavior.

But it is this mental wandering that makes good scientists great. Daydreaming has it's creative advantages. Those "what if?" or "how did that work?" scenarios that constantly bounce around within our cranium are the key to pushing science forward.

Case in point, the story behind "virus-guided laser neurons" (also known as "optogenetics"). For those of you who have never heard of optogenetics, it's the mind blowing technology by which viruses are used to insert genetic material from algae or bacteria into the neurons of living mammals. This genetic clipping changes the properties of neurons so that they will either fire or not fire in response to light pulses of particular wavelengths.

You heard that right. Viruses change neurons so that they can be controlled by lasers... in living animals. I'll let you think about that one for a minute.



This technology was developed by Karl Deseroth and his lab at Stanford around 2004. In just a short time, this tech has revolutionized neuroscience and lead many to speculate (privately and openly) that the Nobel is waiting in the future.

Dr. Deseroth was featured as a keynote speaker last week and while the whole lecture was absolutely fascinating, something he said at the beginning caught my attention. Deseroth mentioned that when his lab started working on the idea of optogenetics, they were using funds from a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health that had proposed to do something VERY different. But his lab wanted to try this new venture and they took the risk and it paid in dividends.

"It's a great example of the need for creative exploration," Deseroth said.

And therein lies one of the many problems facing today's researchers. Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are taking fewer and fewer risks in science. They're hedging their bets on what seems to be the safest horse and in the process stifling most of the creative processes that lead to developments like optogenetics. As the government cuts more funding to science and education, what's left in the pot gets distributed mainly to the established laboratories who are building on established ideas.

Ask anyone who's written an NIH grant recently about the process. Go ahead, buy them a beer. They'll go on at length about how you need to have already finished half the experiments that you "propose" to do in the grant application. This is before it's even considered "fundable." Indeed, the average age at which researchers get their first full NIH grant is now 43 years old! Consider that most professors start their first position in their mid-to-late 30's.

As a result, most scientists in my field spend a vast majority of their time designing and performing research projects that they don't really want to do. They write grants to tell the NIH what it wants to hear. They'll write grants creatively dancing around the projects that are of interest to them, so that they can get the funds to do the real science.

I've even had one established scientist (with decades of experience in neuroscience) tell me that he always writes grants knowing that he'll only do 50% of what he proposes. He'll then spend the other 50% of funds on projects he really wants to do.

This problem is compounded when you consider that, in neuroscience, the current funding rates for grants at the NIH range from ~2.5-16.0%, depending on the agency (down from a stable ~20-25% in the 1990s). That's a lot of highly intelligent brain power being wasted on useless dead ends that could be spent creatively exploring something really interesting.

Unfortunately, that's the dirty secret of the world in which we do science in this country. Unless it changes, the US may stop becoming the place where people can turn crazy ideas like making virus-guided laser-neurons into a reality.

In the meantime, I'm going to keep on daydreaming my weird science ideas.

(Image taken from Technology Review)