Archive for the ‘Medicine’ Category.

Anticipation schedule

When: Thu 12:30
Title:  Bio-Ethics
All Participants:  Alison Sinclair, Judy T. Lazar, Laura Anne Gilman,
Russell Blackford, Tomoko Masuda
Moderator:  Laura Anne Gilman
Description:  Medical experiments, drug companies, cloning, insurance,
bookies and you.

When: Fri 12:30
Title:  Alison Sinclair Signing
All Participants:  Alison Sinclair
Duration:  0:30 hrs:min
Language:  English

When: Fri 20:00
Title:  Mad Social Scientists
All Participants:  Alison Sinclair, Sparks, Shariann Lewitt
Moderator:  Sparks
Description:  Why do the chemists get all the fun? Why do you have to
be a physicist to destroy the world? The panellists discuss the
possibility of using social science to destroy the universe.

When: Sun 10:00
Title:  Science for SF Writers
All Participants:  Julie E. Czerneda, Alison Sinclair, David Clements,
David D. Levine
Moderator:  David Clements
Description:  Where can you get crash courses on science for science
fiction writers? Is it actually useful?

When: Sun 11:00
Title:  Food for Writers
All Participants:  Alison Sinclair, Jon Singer, Sharon Lee, Debra
Doyle
Moderator:  Jon Singer
Description:  So you have 90000 words to write, tthree months to do it
in, and the fridge is bare. What foods keep you going?

When: Mon 10:00
Title:  Author Reading
All Participants:  Alison Sinclair, Edward Willett, Heidi Lampietti

Yellow fever, buccaneering doctors, surgical instruments from the Napoleonic War

A comment on the MARHST-L list, on which I quietly lurk, about yellow fever being a possible cause of ships found abandoned or with all crew deceased, sent me in search of confirmation via PubMed. Found a lead, via an article on illness aboard cruise ships, on a chapter in a history of naval medicine that looked promising according to the available snippets on Google Books. Further investigation will need to wait on a foray into a city with a good medical library. Along the way, I discovered an assortment of gems archived in PubMedCentral – the free archive of medical journals.

  • David Geggus considers how yellow fever, generally not a high fatality disease, caused devastating mortality in the British army in occupied Saint Domingue (Yellow Fever in the 1790s).
  • The Buccaneering Doctors (GM Longfield-Jones, 1992) who served aboard the seventeenth century privateers were valued members of the crew who could subsequently enjoy a respectable retirement or practice on land. Contemporary accounts, such as that of the wonderfully named Alexandre Oliver Esquemeling/Oexmelin (alias Henrik Barentzoon Smeeks) and William Dampier describe the hazards, hardships and medical practices of the times.
  • The successors of the buccaneers were physician-explorers such as Joseph Hooker. Botanical science was at the time an essential part of the practice of medicine, and Hooker traveled on expeditions to Antarctica and India, befriended to Charles Darwin, contributed his expertise in botany to Darwin’s developing theories, and presided at the first presentation of Darwin’s and Wallace’s work. (WE Swinton, Physicians as Explorers: Joseph Hooker, 1977, one of a series of articles).
  • JC Goddard unpacks The navy surgeon’s chest, from the time of the Napoleonic War. His conclusion: “the surgical armamentarium has changed remarkably little …”

Physician-writers from the BMJ

The most recent Netlinks in the BMJ includes a link to a page on the BMA site of fiction writers with medical qualifications, which in turn includes a roster of links to individual writers’ sites and other lists and databases of doctor-writers and writing about medicine.

Open Source Drug Development?

The idea of open source drug development gained some attention with an article in The Economist back last June. My ISP’s server and backup crash, coupled with my access and backup issues, made that original entry vanish into the ether. However PLOS Medicine (the open source, open access medical journal) has an ongoing series on initiatives in drug discovery for neglected diseases (in this instance, tropical and third world diseases); in its December issue, Stephen Maurer, Arti Rai, and Andrej Sali elaborate on their proposal to use an open source model for the development of drugs that are potentially of great benefit but are not of significant commercial interest for pharmaceutical companies operating on the standard commercial model. They propose using bioinformatics methods to identify possible drug targets, given our knowledge of various pathogenic genomes, and then tap academic and pharmaceutical companies for in-pipeline drugs or volunteer scientific expertise to help develop drugs against those targets.

The original discussion over on Slashdot, on which I first commented, veered off into discussion of intellectual property rights, not surprising given the demographics of the community, their area of expertise (not drug development), and their politics. Setting aside matters of intellectual property, the first part of Maurer et al’s proposal, to use bioinformatics methods to identify drug targets, is plausible: publically accessible bioinformatics resources are extensive and accessible by anyone with a computer, a project, and enough knowledge to be getting on with, and bioinformatics is already being heavily used in the identification of drug targets. The discipline, like most computing disciplines, is evolving so swiftly that the ability to decode indifferent documentation and understand the principles is almost more valuable than knowledge of any particular tool, beyond the core tools. But I do wonder whether life sciences has the demographic to make a meaningful go of this approach: bioinformatics is a young discipline, certainly younger that software engineering, and therefore the pool of practitioners is not as extensive; life sciences are less amenable to being practiced as a hobby and early, and I suspect life scientists would tend to be older and more settled into institutions before they gained sufficient knowledge to make an effective contribution, especially at the highly regulated later stages of drug development. In addition, successive long-term contractions in the life sciences job market have meant that many people who might have made a contribution have left the field over the years. Those are, however, merely impressions; in the time honoured phrase of the discipline, more research is required.

There is no getting away from the fact that the non-clinical and clinical testing phases for drugs are lengthy, expensive and highly regulated, although regulators and others take a special interest in neglected diseases and orphan drugs. Money, expertise and coordination will be required at this stage. Maurer et al mention the idea of “virtual pharma”, such as the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, whose mandate is to push promising drugs on through the pipeline; the work of the DNDi was described in the first issue of PLOS Medicine. Should the drug developers wish to take the drugs all the way through a regulatory application (which will be necessary if this is a new drug never marketed before), then the writing of a regulatory submission could be done in an open source manner, on-line, using open-source collaborative writing software, wiki, blog, database, or possibly even custom-built for the purpose.

In a letter in this month’s (February’s) issue, Richard Stallman of the free software foundation writes in support of the concept, reminding the reader that the open source software movement has 20 years’ experience in resisting commercial and proprietary interests. Moreover, he points out the possible effect of the open access movement in scholarly and biomedical publishing in advancing such work.

Stories, Statistics and Survival

From the British Medical Journal Christmas issue, a fine article by Thomas B Newman on the power of stories over statistics when stories are tragic and powerfully told and statistics are predictive but just not predictive enough to tell one the absolutely right thing to do in the unique situation. As the expert, the writer-of-guidelines, he reflects on his experience …

Ironically, the more of an expert on the evidence I have become, the more difficulty I have practising according to that evidence. This is because becoming a “jaundice expert” means becoming familiar with rare but tragic stories of children with kernicterus. These stories are so powerful that it is hard to keep them from trumping other evidence in determining practice.

The Lancet has recently produced a supplement on the subject of Extreme Medicine, containing a grab-bag of articles on medicine and physiology in hostile physical environments, medicine and psychology in times of threat, war and disease outbreak, and James Thompson’s dry and informed commentary on the subject of “Surviving a Disaster” …

Survival of extreme conditions involves many factors, some of them seemingly random … And yet, there is a fascination with the character of the survivor. We are reluctant to believe that their survival was random, and we seek a moral purpose, a redeeming virtue, or an easily applicable psychological trick that we can use in our own more humdrum lives.

… It is rarely a survival advantage to be well behaved. Compliant well-mannered people, awaiting instructions on what to do, often burn passively when a rush to the door could have got them out of the plane … What journalists describe as panic is usually a sensible flight from danger, a useful survival instinct only worth curbing in the special case of a confined space with a small exit … Gawping at an entertaining disaster is usually more common and more dangerous than panic, and the real challenge is to make bystanders recognise danger and run away.