The journal Nature Communications has published a paper describing a small device that tricks the brain into believing the stomach is full after a small amount of food is eaten. The device has been tested in rats and must now be proven to work in humans before it can be sold to treat obesity. The device shown in panel d below is small and simple but ingenious.
The device is placed on the stomach and two gold-tipped wires are placed near the nerve that communicates stomach food status information to the brain (the vagus nerve). When the stomach churns in response to food, the device generates small electrical pulses that mimic the nerve's food status signals to the brain. Stomach churn causes the device to flex and that natural movement is the energy source for the electrical signal. Stomach movements are shown in panel a below and a trace of the resulting electrical signal is shown in panel b.
Since this has only been tested in rats, clinical trials will be necessary to demonstrate the device, or a variant of it, will be effective in fooling the human brain and lead to weight loss. Typically for drugs that are successful in mouse or rat testing, the chance of the drug ever receiving regulatory approval for marketing is about 0.1% or less. Most drugs that are reasonably effective in animals do not even make it into human testing for various reasons, e.g., toxicity, unknown mechanism of action and thus no obvious way to get regulatory approval, high cost of clinical trials, sometimes hundreds of millions, etc.
The odds of clinical success here are probably much higher, maybe about 40-50%, because (i) electrical signals are not drugs that have to act on a target molecule(s) which may or may not work the same way in humans as in animals, and (ii) similar but bigger, battery powered devices have been effective enough for marketing approval for treating obesity.
B&B orig: 12/20/18
Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive biology, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Video Animation of Cell Division
This video is the best animation I am aware of about is going on in a cell when it is dividing. It is both trippy and creepy at the same time. All the little machines are marching around doing stuff we are completely unaware of, unless we watch the video.
B&B orig: 12/21/18
B&B orig: 12/21/18
Things A Modern Authoritarian Regime Can Do
The New York Times reports that Hungary's far-right prime minister, Viktor Orban, recently signed into law a provision that allows businesses to require workers to put in up to 400 hours of overtime per year. Prior law allowed companies to impose 250 hours of overtime/year, and gave them one year to pay extra for the overtime. The new law gives companies three years to pay, and in some cases the rate of pay may be the same as the normal hourly rate.
Street protests against the new law have been held, with protesters calling it a “slave law”, but Orban dismisses opposition as “hysterical shouting.”
Bogus logic: A trait that seems to be constant among authoritarians is their liberal use of false information and irrational logic or reasoning. That detachment from reality and reason makes it easy to justify their actions and to criticize political opposition. In the case of the Hungary’s law, the ruling party asserts that the law is good because “those who want to work more to work more, and those who want to earn more to earn more.”
That irrational argument fails to recognize the facts that (i) if people wanted to work and earn more, they could arrange that with their employer voluntarily, and (ii) make sure they received extra pay for the overtime they agreed to work. In other words, the protesters are right to oppose the law.
The NYT comments: “Since re-entering office in 2010, Mr. Orban has made a series of moves that have set off alarms among European allies and others in Hungary: curbing judicial independence, restricting news media freedom and plurality, and blatantly enriching his business allies.”
Presumably this law is intended to enrich Orban’s business allies, and maybe some non-allied businesses as well. Things like this exemplify the rightist authoritarian mindset. The main thing that societies have in their defense against authoritarian attacks on average people are strong independent institutions such as courts and law enforcement, a free press and significant political opposition. When those institutions fade away, tyrants and kleptocrats are mostly free to rule as they wish.
Interestingly, public opposition to other Orban authoritarian moves has been met with limited public opposition. Orban won election to office by vilifying immigration, which made him popular. This new overtime law provoked opposition presumably by affecting people in personal, obvious ways.
There is not much that is subtle or new about how modern day tyrants, oligarchs and kleptocrats go about their corrupt business. The game plan has been about the same for millennia. The question is stark and obvious: What form of government is better, honest democracy or corrupt authoritarianism?[1] Countries like Hungary, China, Russia, Brazil, Turkey and others have made their answer clear, at least for the time being. They want corrupt authoritarianism, not honest democracy.
Footnote:
1. Another authoritarian trait is to claim to be honest and working for the public interest. Despite the incessant contrary claim, authoritarian regimes arguably are usually (~90% of the time) significantly more corrupt than honest, assuming there is a reasonably accurate and objective way(s) to evaluate levels of regime corruption. Authoritarianism and corruption seem to be fairly constant companions through history.
B&B orig: 12/23/18
America’s Slide Into Authoritarianism: Another Step Along The Way
Many sources have written on the resignation letter that Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis submitted to President Trump a few days ago. Mattis planned to retire at the end of February, but Trump fired him effective immediately, two months early. The reason Trump fired Mattis is because in his resignation letter, Mattis criticized Trump and his policies. The Washington Post writes this about the firing: “President Trump, who aides said has been seething about news coverage of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’s pointed resignation letter, abruptly announced Sunday that he was removing Mattis two months before his planned departure and installing Patrick Shanahan as acting defense secretary.”
Clearly, Trump is not concerned about a smooth transition. He moves to eliminate people who are not fawning sycophants or other forms of ‘yes’ people without regard for consequences beyond himself. Independent thinkers are obviously not welcome.
Mattis included the following comments in his December 20 letter of resignation:
The accusations -- true or false?: In essence, Mattis accuses Trump of not maintaining America’s alliances or showing respect our allies, and not defending America, its allies and the rest of the world against aggressive authoritarianism from China and Russia. Trump and most of his supporters will reject that as nonsense or lies. Others will see it as true.
For those who see the Mattis allegations as true, Trump’s response can be seen as another step by Trump toward authoritarian government because he is moving to establish his own authoritarian brand in America. If Mattis is speaking truth to Trump and American authoritarian populists, they have no choice but to (1) reject the allegations as false, or (2) concede that Mattis is basically right, authoritarianism is better than liberal democracy and American policy and alliances need to be changed.
Since truth and sound reason are antithetical to authoritarians whenever they get in the way, there is no reason to think that Trump or most (~95%?) of his supporters including congressional republicans will accept what Mattis alleges as basically true. The failure of Trump supporters fail to condemn Trump’s policies enables Trump to keep building his authoritarian kleptocracy. In itself, that is another step toward authoritarianism, and another step away from liberal democracy.
B&B orig: 12/24/18
Clearly, Trump is not concerned about a smooth transition. He moves to eliminate people who are not fawning sycophants or other forms of ‘yes’ people without regard for consequences beyond himself. Independent thinkers are obviously not welcome.
Mattis included the following comments in his December 20 letter of resignation:
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies.
My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.
The accusations -- true or false?: In essence, Mattis accuses Trump of not maintaining America’s alliances or showing respect our allies, and not defending America, its allies and the rest of the world against aggressive authoritarianism from China and Russia. Trump and most of his supporters will reject that as nonsense or lies. Others will see it as true.
For those who see the Mattis allegations as true, Trump’s response can be seen as another step by Trump toward authoritarian government because he is moving to establish his own authoritarian brand in America. If Mattis is speaking truth to Trump and American authoritarian populists, they have no choice but to (1) reject the allegations as false, or (2) concede that Mattis is basically right, authoritarianism is better than liberal democracy and American policy and alliances need to be changed.
Since truth and sound reason are antithetical to authoritarians whenever they get in the way, there is no reason to think that Trump or most (~95%?) of his supporters including congressional republicans will accept what Mattis alleges as basically true. The failure of Trump supporters fail to condemn Trump’s policies enables Trump to keep building his authoritarian kleptocracy. In itself, that is another step toward authoritarianism, and another step away from liberal democracy.
B&B orig: 12/24/18
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


