A few months ago I wrote about Batman, the dog who became the first subject in brain cancer research trial at the University of Minnesota. 

Batman has a tumor called a glioma, the same kind that Sen. Edward Kennedy has. Both dogs and people are susceptible to it, and there is no cure. Researchers at the university are studying a cancer vaccine treatment in dogs in the hope it can also be used in humans. Batman had brain surgery in early August, and a series of vaccine injections since. But it will be some months before his doctors know if it worked. Last week Batman’s owner, Anna Brailovsky,  sent me an update on how he’s doing. It’s been quite the ride she said. Her  fear that the treatment is just prolonging Batman’s disease is regularly punctured by hope that it will work. Here’s what she had to say: 

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday I blogged about drugs to make you smarter. Now here’s another I’m tempted to try. A treatment for glaucoma, it turns out, also makes your eyelashes grow. Last week an FDA’s expert advisory panel recommended that it be approved for that use.  

The drug, known generically as brimatoprost,  is made by the same company that makes Botox, Allergan Inc. It was first studied to help relieve eye pressure, but then the researchers noticed something totally unexpected: eyelash growth. The company is now seeking U.S. approval to market the new use under the brand name Latisse.

Some of the panelists raised concerns about long-term use and the lack of data on blacks and other minorities. The drug must be applied continuously or lashes will shrink to original size after a few months, according to the company.

Panelists also questioned whether teenagers and other patients might use it inappropriately, although the drug would only be available by prescription. There was no data on patients younger than 18.

The Latisse version will come with an applicator to apply drops on the edge of the eyelid, rather than into the eye as it is for glaucoma. Sales for eyelash growth could fetch more than $500 million globally per year, Allergan has said. Its total revenues were $3.9 billion in 2007.

Sports doping is controversial enough. Well, how about brain doping?

At college campuses, poker tournaments and even orchestra halls use of prescription drugs to boost concentration, relaxation and memory in healthy people is on the rise. A 2005 survey of 10,000 U.S. students found that 4 to 7 percent have used prescription stimulants. On some campuses the rate is as high as 25 percent.

Professors, it seems, use them as well.

And why not?

That’s the question posed in a commentary published Sunday in Nature, the international science and medical journal. The authors, all of them major academic voices in law, medical ethics and health care policy, make the case that healthy adults “should be able to engage in cognitive enhancement using drugs.”

After all, they say, we drink coffee and take Vitamins, which also improve brain function.Why not a pill?

“We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function. In a world in which human work spans and lifespans are increasing, cognitive enhancements tools including pharmacological will be increasingly useful for improved quality of life and extended work productivity.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Turns out there’s actually a good reason to spend $150,000 on Sarah Palin’s clothes and $10,000 to her make-up stylist.

For women political candidates looks matter. A lot.

Both men and women, it seems, are strongly influenced by the perceived attractiveness of female candidates. In fact, the looks of a female candidate was pretty much the only thing that mattered to male voters, according to a small research study published today.  If a woman candidate is lucky enough to be perceived as both attractive and competent, well, then look out. She could win in a landslide among both genders, the study found.

For male politicians, on the other hand, looks don’t matter a bit.  The thing that matters most for them is looking competent - though they get a slight edge among women if they also seem approachable.

All of this helps answer the question of why in this enlightened age only seven women held the highest office in any country in 2006. And why less than 50 women have won those top positions since 1960, the researchers say. It also may explain why Palin is so popular with men.

Humans are culturally biased toward thinking that male faces are always more competent - i.e, dominant - so in an election they have the advantage. Regardless of reality, men’s facial features signal qualities that we humans associate with effective leadership.

That fascinating study was published today by PLoS ONE, an on line scientific journal. To read the full research paper, go here. The lead researcher, Joan Chiao, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern  University in Chicago, studies how culture and biology influence behavior.

She tested the perceptions of 73 university students by showing them photographs of real congressional candidates. The students were asked to rate each candidate according to attractiveness, competence and approachability. Then they were shown pairs of photos and asked which one they would vote for.

It all comes back to mating, she says. We choose political candidates the same way we choose mates. Men are most interested in attractive women. Women are most interested in men who are competent (high social status and good providers), and who are easily approached.

She describes those gender biases as “cognitive short cuts,” which is a scientific way of saying gender stereotype. That will change only as the number of women in politics increases, she said.

Can you overcome your inate gender bias and vote for candidates on their real policies and competence? Or are we doomed to rule by our most ancient instincts?

It is true, as it says on my blog bio, that I can talk about anything. Even stool transplants.  I do have sensibilities, but they’re overpowered by my fascination for the ingenuity of biology.

I first heard about stool transplants from my brother-in-law, who is an infectious disease doctor. He’d heard about it at a medical conference. What struck me at the time is that my brother-in-law thought it was a badly needed solution to a really tough medical problem caused by that sneaky little bug known as Clostridium difficile. (C. difficile for short.)

They look kind of pretty here, don’t they?

photomicrograph of Clostridium difficile bacteria

Hard to imagine that they could wreak such havoc inside the large intestine.

What really amazed me was the brilliance of the treatment –  aiding the good guys in the fight for survival of the fittest inside our intestines. I mean, once you get through the disgust aspect of it, a stool transplant is really an elegant medical idea. It’s cheap, readily available, and simple.

Think about it. There’s now a huge industry out there now to sell us pro-biotics, supplements that contain the beneficial bacteria that supposedly keep us healthy.  But those supplements contain a fraction of the bacteria we need. One doctor called a stool transplant “the ultimate pro-biotic.”

So what do you think? Is there anything else you’d like to know about the procedure, the infection, the patients who experienced it? Ask away. I’ll answer as many questions as I can here on Monday.