Archived-by-Date Pages

	A Science Student's View of Science in Daily Life
Cyclohexane (C6H12): Chair Conformation.  Cyclohexane is a hydrocarbon consisting of a ring of carbon atoms, each bonded to two hydrogen atoms.  Pictured is a 3-D model of the most typical arrangement of its atoms in space, as visualized in two dimensions by convention.

Disclaimer:  These essays represent the views of a former natural science student and retired clinical trials lead statistical programmer/analyst.  Nothing in these essays should be interpreted as a recommendation for a scientific experiment.  The essays that this page lists do not challenge medical orthodoxy, although some of them examine skeptically recent moves to overturn it that are wrongly and hastily honored by the authorities.  For more details about the background of the author, Dorothy E. Pugh, see About Us. 

Are there good reasons to study science even if one isn't headed toward a science career?  One is that we need to be good clients of science.  When we get physical exams, for instance, we need to understand all of the standard lab tests and their implications.  Are we getting all the tests we need?  What are the full implications of out-of-range values?  Will they lead to potentially harmful further tests or treatments? Will they take into consideration what only we can know about our health?  What questions should we ask our physicians?  What is a satisfying answer?  Reading explanations of standard blood and urine tests is basic, but taking an anatomy and physiology course is even better.

Another consideration that we cannot afford to overlook is how science is used to determine public policy.  This becomes especially important when our government takes surprise measures that inflict harm on us and which it claims are supported by scientific research.  These measures might or might not be based on a correct understanding of the scientific literature, and the science itself might have errors.  We should have the right to ask what justifies these measures, and to protest if the answers that we get do not satisfy us.  The more scientific sophistication we have, the deeper we can dig.  If we do not do this, we are submitting to a type of dictatorship. 

Sometimes scientists operate as private citizens by questioning how our government uses published scientific findings, sometimes their own, to set policy. Some might be pressured to change their findings to suit government purposes by the threat of withheld government funding of future research. The 2023 movie Oppenheimer might have been inspired by recent concerns about government-funded groups designing viruses with bioweapon potential.

Can government-funded scientists be trusted to engage in safe and beneficial research?

Are our scientists working on projects with aims and methods that we understand and at the very least do not represent a risk of danger to our country? If they are collaborating with scientists from other countries, how much can we trust these countries and in what areas? If such research has the potential to develop weapons, even if the participants' stated aims indicate otherwise, should we allow it? These concerns surrounded the activities of several American virologists in connection with the virus causing the COVID-19 pandemic and other related viruses that were proven deadly. This is one area where relevant publications provided great aid to the public's understanding of this issue, not just in describing accomplishments but in statements of opinion revealing a scientist's approach to political resistance. In this case, Congress moved early to investigate, but the privileged nature of the positions of those it investigated has created substantial roadblocks to holding them responsible for their choices.

Scientists operating outside their specialties

What can people who are not trained professional scientists call attention to?  One is an increasing problem of scientists and physicians operating outside their specialties when they set influential public policies; this is often tolerated because of their high social status.  Recognizing this requires of us a basic knowledge of what each specialty does, i.e., what we require of specialists in these areas even though we might not know the specifics of how they practice it.  For instance, virologists are mainly laboratory scientists who study viruses interacting with human cells and design vaccines and antiviral drugs; some guide clinical trials for these vaccines and antiviral drugs.  When a virologist is entrusted with broad responsibility in a pandemic, for example, and ignores the input of epidemiologists about issues that require epidemiological expertise, such as the hospitalization rate and geographical spread of a new infection, this should trigger a red flag.

This was a problem during the COVID-19 crisis, when it took more than a year to determine the fatality rate of the infection and about two years to determine that the risk of infection outdoors was negligible. In the end, it took an atmospheric physicist (Linsey Chen Marr) to determine that the main cause of the spread of the virus was building ventilation systems that recirculated the air; it turned out not to be enough to determine what happened within our bodies; what brought the virus to them and caused it to multiply outside them was a crucial piece of the diagnostic puzzle. But to make her findings have legal force, she had to cope with World Health Organization bureaucratic rules based on their determination of how small aerosols move through the air. On the other hand, she stepped over the line earlier when she recommended wearing face masks, which was more properly a medical judgment (perhaps with the input of chemists and psychologists) and which ran into massive resistance because of unanticipated human factors problems.

Another such issue is that of "gender-affirming" puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and surgery for children and adolescents. This involves substantial, sometimes irreversible, physical alterations to treat a purely psychological problem. As was not the case in most other specialties, this swiftly became standard medical practice with dissent quickly stifled and sometimes punished. Questions remain about proper informed consent and long-term outcomes.

Too complex for QA; solutions decided on (and forced) too simplistic

Sometimes government decisions are made on the basis of models with extremely complex data sources developed by scientists whose interdisciplinary backgrounds are difficult for non-scientists to learn about. As a result, the only way that non-scientists can assess them is via extensive question-and-answer sessions. For this, they typically have to rely on Congressional hearings.

An example is the new approach to cope with climate change.  It is well-known that arctic ice has been rapidly melting and that the polar vortex is experiencing abnormally great disturbances.  However, it is not obvious that the main cause of these problems is fossil fuel consumption in the temperate zone by cars in the U.S., nor that that is such an urgent problem that we should be willing to endanger national security and submit to runaway inflation and possible food shortages to rein in this problem.  On the other hand, there seems to be little or no concern about the effect of the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on the ozone layers at the poles; since they are catalysts, i.e., perfectly recycled reactants, in ozone-destroying reactions, and nothing is being done to reduce their numbers, what is there to keep them from continuing to reduce the number of ozone molecules there? Doesn't it make sense that the main problem might be at the poles, even though these problems lead to chaotic weather elsewhere by disrupting the polar vortex?  Why are we not being encouraged to buy cars with hybrid engines until the problems associated with electric vehicle technology are straightened out? How will we provide the extra electricity needed to power electric vehicles? After all, these hybrid vehicles require neither charging stations nor substantial expansion of electric power sources. It is our right as citizens to have these questions answered.

Reduction of "low quality" medical services to cut costs

On the other hand, the changes brought to general medical care policy, even to primary and preventive care, via the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mostly flew under the radar.  Because it entailed greater government payouts, cutting medical care costs became a top priority.  This involved a campaign to identify and eliminate "low quality" care.  Indeed, as some insurance companies pointed out, some care simply didn't make sense, e.g., performing Pap smears on women who had had hysterectomies.  But the definition of "low quality" care was expanded to include care that did indeed benefit some people but was deemed too expensive by cost-benefit analyses, conducted by bureaucrats based on their (mis?)understanding of relevant clinical trials.  This targeted most screening tests, i.e., those administered to patients without apparently relevant signs, symptoms, or risk factors.  These targeted tests involved the overwhelming majority of blood tests and all urinalyses.  Unfortunately, many of the conditions triggering positive results in these tests lack distinctive signs and symptoms, and many have none.  Just three of such conditions are (early) bladder cancer, thyroid disease, and hypercalcemia; the latter can indicate a variety of serious conditions including several types of cancer and can cause others such as kidney stones, even though it often has no symptoms.  A key player here is the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, begun as an advisory group to Congress in 1984, but whose recommendations have now taken on legal force under the ACA.

Incomplete reporting of clinical trial results

There are remaining unanswered questions about the messenger RNA anti-COVID vaccines. What is the actual spike protein dose that vaccine recipients get? And what are their antibody titers? Maybe there is a lot of individual variability in ribosome productivity. Ribosomes, as we learn today in BIO 101 classes, are little peptide protein factories in the mitochondria of cells which read the instructions of the messenger RNA to do so. Could it be that the ribosomes of young people are more productive than those of old people? Could it be that their antibody production in response to spike protein molecules varies, too? How concerned should we have been about the myocarditis cases and deaths in young athletes? Why had messenger RNA research encountered so much resistance at the grant proposal stage? What is the whole story? Given this, should the Nobel Prize have been awarded so soon?

An important government solution

Our federal government does keep the public informed about its executive branch policy decisions in great detail as required by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.  Its websites contain information designed to be understood by the average citizen.  This Act even provides for 30-day public comment periods on proposed rulings by its agencies.  Perhaps the most important information citizens should know are the basics of what is considered to be standard preventive/primary medical practice today, i.e., what one is likely to encounter at an annual physical exam.  These web pages provide this information:

https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/

https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-women/

https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-children/

In this spirit, I have written the following essays:

Essays

Major essays (heavily researched literature reviews)

"Subclinical" Hypothyroidism: Is Restricting Treatment Based on Science or on Politics?  (begun January 22, 2013, with continual revisions through September 6, 2024)

Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble: The Hard Problem of (Very) Soft Water   (Major revisions on July 27-August 21, 2008)

My Two Cents on the Cost of U.S. Medical Care   (July 11, 2008)

Bat Viruses, Gain-of-Function Research, and National Security   (July 31, 2021)

Thinking outside the box: hypotheses worth pursuing

The Migraine Mechanism: an idea

Common Sense about Fevers (February 26, 2022)

Race, Age, and Other Surrogate Variables: Are We Really Thinking This Through? (September 18, 2020)

Noses and Common Sense in the Time of COVID-19  (September 5, 2020)

NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer Live Cam Stills: Ocean Animals (July 14-15, 2017)

An Unprecedented Disaster or Just the Tip of the Iceberg? Lessons from a Recent Medical Scandal (May 19, 2017)

A New Regulatory Catch-22: Hypothyroidism and Depression (October 21, 2016)

In Defense of the EpiPen: Human Factors and Social Progress (August 28, 2016)

My Two Cents on Climate Change (February 17, 2015)

What about the water in climate change models? (January 6, 2014)

How Chemistry and Physics in the Kitchen Might Affect Your Biology  

How to Ask a Good Naïve Question  

Mitral Valve Prolapse: Personal Thoughts (December 16, 2016)

Copyright © 2013-2024 by Dorothy E. Pugh