Finding a cure for Alzheimer's

For the last 8 months or so, I've been part of a research lab on campus.  Our lab studies acetylcholine receptors, which are proteins in the body whose function has to do with both movement and cognition, among other things.  In our research, we study the effects of another protein, beta-amyloid, on the acetylcholine receptor.  Beta-amyloid is a protein whose misfolding causes much of the pathology and neurodegeneration seen in Alzheimer's disease.  When beta-amyloid folds the wrong way, it causes other beta-amyloid copies to fold improperly as well, amplifying the degenerative effect.  We hope to characterize beta-amyloid's effect on the acetylcholine receptor to better understand the pathology of Alzheimer's.

Of course, this is only a piece of the puzzle.  Alzheimer's is a problem that encompasses many molecular players in the brain, which is why so many scientists are working on it right now.  With the scope of the problem so wide, it's hard to feel like your work is making a difference.  In fact, it may not be; it's possible that the key to curing Alzheimer's is something my current lab isn't associated with right now.  Even when labs develop drugs or other therapies that look promising for the treatment of Alzheimer's or other neurodegenerative diseases, there's still the problem of getting them across the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which excludes many molecules from entering the brain (for a good reason, of course, but it makes drug research difficult).

A couple weeks ago, for my advanced neuroscience class, we read a couple journal articles about the difficulties in getting drugs across the BBB and several ways of getting around it.  Some of them seem to do more harm than good, but more recent techniques show promise.  One of these techniques involves introducing a pathological protein like beta-amyloid with an immunologic adjuvant (an adjuvant is something that stimulates an immune response).  The adjuvant both activates the immune system and disrupts the BBB so that beta-amyloid can get across.  But why do we want to put a disease-causing protein in the brain?  Well, while the BBB is disrupted, the immune system is making antibodies against beta-amyloid.  Normally, this wouldn't matter, because if the antibodies can't get into the brain where the problem is, nothing gets solved.  But because of the adjuvant, antibodies for beta-amyloid are introduced into the brain.  And, theoretically, if we could properly introduce these antibodies without overly raising levels of beta-amyloid, it would be like a vaccine for Alzheimer's.  A VACCINE.  FOR ALZHEIMER'S.

Yep.  You heard me right.

Before anyone comes up with conspiracy theories about why this promising technology isn't already being distributed to everybody, understand that there's more that has to be done before this kind of a thing is ready to be safely and effectively used in humans.  But if this is modified to the point that it reliably and repeatedly works, it would solve one of the most expensive and debilitating medical problems in this country.  Not only solve it, but prevent it.  I haven't read much more about it since then, but it's very possible that the blood-brain barrier will be a major research focus of mine for my scientific career.  Whatever I end up doing, I want my research to help alleviate suffering.  I may just be working on a small piece of the puzzle for the rest of my life, not contributing in any noticeable way to any major problems.  But if something I discover helps somebody else to discover something that changes the world, I'm okay with that.  Because I did my part.

Cognitive enhancement

A few months ago, in my behavioral neuroscience class, one of the students was giving a presentation on "nootropics".  I had never heard this word before, but I listened with increasing interest to information about several drugs that supposedly improved attention, focus, intelligence, and even creativity.

I was no stranger to a couple of them.  I had heard of the ADHD treatment drug known as Ritalin (methylphenidate) and had known a couple of friends who had been prescribed the drug.  For a short time in high school, I was diagnosed with mild ADD and took moderate doses of Adderall to increase my focus.  The drug's initial effect was immediately noticeable:  I had intense focus throughout the day, and was more interested in some of the class material at school than I otherwise would have been (we were learning about Emily Dickinson in English that day, and...well, let's just say she's not my muse).  I also experienced the loss of appetite, feeling of stimulation, and mild insomnia that the doctor had told me was pretty likely.  Over time, I started to notice Adderall's effect less and less.  Later, I would only take it on the day of a big test or other important event; and eventually I ceased using it entirely.

This student's presentation caught my attention because it had never crossed my mind that thousands of people with no mental deficiencies whatsoever take these drugs in the hope of becoming smarter, more creative, or more mentally fit than their peers, coworkers, and competitors.  The concept of swallowing a substance to give myself an intelligence boost was intriguing.  I wrote my post about creativity shortly after this experience, spurred on by the idea that a drug might be able to make me more creative.

Noticing the excitement many people have about these "revolutionary" drugs, Hollywood's started to pander to the public's idea of smart pills.  Lucy and Limitless both toy with the idea of a drug that can unleash untold mental power (though the idea that we only use 10% of our brains is completely untrue and ridiculous).

I followed my interest in this topic until I decided to make it the subject of my undergraduate honors thesis, so I've done a fair bit of research into the objective cognitive effects of some of these drugs.  Spoiler alert:  they don't live up to the hype.  Many studies have found a significant enhancement of one or more cognitive skills by Ritalin or Adderall in healthy individuals, but the effect is usually small.  Often, when there is an effect, it is most dramatic for those who started out as low performers; proficiently intelligent people usually didn't benefit and sometimes experienced impairment with increasing doses.

Despite the evidence against the characterization of these substances as "smart drugs", many experts and ethicists push to make pharmaceuticals like these available to anyone who wants them, ADHD diagnosis or not.  Others think that widespread availability will just lead to more social inequality:  the rich will find it easier to get their hands on smart pills, and will simply become more successful while those who are unable to obtain them continue to suffer.  I'm still somewhat divided on the issue, and I'm not sure exactly what position I'll end up taking in my thesis.  Common drugs like Adderall and Ritalin aren't without their side effects; dependency is possible, and one aspiring medical student spiraled into psychosis, addiction and eventually suicide on nothing but Adderall, collected entirely under prescription by licensed psychiatrists.  Still, college students across the nation illegally obtain Adderall from peers to cram for exams or pull all-nighters to write a paper.

More recently, several drugs have come on the market that supposedly have a less severe side effect profile.  Modafinil, an FDA-approved treatment for narcolepsy, and cholinesterase inhibitors, for the treatment of Alzheimer's, are gaining underground popularity as the new generation of neuroenhancers.  Anecdotal evidence is rampant regarding individuals' experiences with these drugs and others, detailing the positive effects and the success stories.

Smart drugs are an interesting ethical issue to debate.  If a drug existed that was proven to have a significant positive impact on whoever took it, and exhibited little to no risk, would you take it?  Would you want friends and family members to take it?  How would you feel if anyone and everyone could take it?  Would you want to limit its distribution in any way?

Comment with your thoughts if you're interested.

Ecotheology: Why don't we discuss it very often?

As I stated earlier, the topic of caring for the earth is rarely a subject of public religious discussion.  I don't remember it being a topic of any Sunday school lesson or church talk in my memory; and to my knowledge, environmental consciousness has never been the subject of any general conference talk in my lifetime, though several LDS church leaders have made statements about it.

Caring for the environment is something that a majority of people have to be on board with before it can be really successful.  It doesn't do to have an extremely vocal, radical minority who are complete conservationists when the rest of us waste resources like it doesn't matter.  There are many possible ways that Americans could be motivated to be more caring towards the earth; and while our society is becoming increasingly secularized, I think that religious motivation can still inspire many people to action on this matter.

Admittedly, I speak mostly from personal experience; since it was digging deeper into my religion's teachings about the value of the earth and its inhabitants that finally made me care about this when I didn't before.  But I've found at least a few teachings in several major world religions that can inspire believers to be more unselfish; not only towards other people but towards all life on earth.  Nearly every religious tradition has examples of loving, unselfish people who sacrificed much so that others could avoid suffering.  Whether the exemplar is Buddha, Mohammed, or Jesus, there's no reason not to extend that example of compassion to all life.  So why isn't there more effort to promote the idea of caring for the earth through the religious atmosphere?

Honestly, I don't know how well the idea would take, especially in American culture.  I consider caring for the environment to be a commandment from God, but if leaders of churches were to actively encourage their congregations to conserve and give back, I don't know if it would have much effect.  Church members might agree with these teachings, try hard to be environmentally conscious for a couple weeks or a couple months, and then the movement would fizzle out and die.  I think many of us would just feel guilty about it without really doing anything.  It would take the focus off of other, perhaps more important, things.  So as nice as the idea sounds to me, I can't see it working very effectively.

Despite this, studying the value of God's creations has brought a great deal of fulfillment to me.  In the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, founder Joseph Smith said, "Love is one of the chief characteristics of Deity, and ought to be manifested by those who aspire to be the sons of God. A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race."  While learning about how much earth and its creatures are really worth, I felt this kind of love in a way and with an intensity I never have before.  I think anybody who sincerely searches to have this compassion can feel it too.  I hope this knowledge permanently changes the way I live my life, and I hope it does for you.

Ecotheology: Religion and the environment

Ecology is a rarely mentioned topic in religious teaching, at least in my experience. I don't remember participating in a Sunday school lesson about why we should take care of the environment, and I don't remember our environmental responsibility being a subject of any talks in sacrament meeting (the LDS Sunday service) or general conference (a worldwide semiannual LDS gathering). Several church leaders in the past have spoken about the need to care for the earth, but it's far from being a major topic of Mormon discussion. I'll focus more in my next post about why I think that is.

This post will focus much more on the LDS perspective of environmentalism. I haven't given as much time to study this topic among world religions like I have with animal consciousness, so I'm sticking to what I'm familiar with right now. But I hope the principles I mention here will be widely applicable to many faiths and traditions.

Religious arguments of environmental ethics are often grounded in doctrine regarding the creation of the earth and its purpose for existing. The biblical creation story, common to several major world religions, makes it clear that mankind has dominion over the earth. Some theologians have interpreted that dominion to mean ownership and inherent human privilege, when others have seen it as a call to responsible stewardship. Book of Mormon scripture teaches that "the Lord hath created the earth that it should be inhabited; and he hath created his children that they should possess it" (1 Nephi 17:36).

LDS scriptures gives a unique perspective as to the spiritual identity of the earth and all things on it. I mentioned a scripture in my last post (Moses 3:5) which teaches that all animals and plants have spirits and were created spiritually before they were created physically. Later in the book of Moses, we read about a revelation given to Enoch that gives a remarkable level of personification to the earth itself. "Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?" I don't know if I believe that the earth itself has a spirit and a consciousness; but if it does, we're giving it plenty of reasons to be pained and weary.

In a nutshell, believing that the earth is something worth caring for is a motivation to be an environmentalist. But even those who take a humanocentric view of the universe have reasons to care for the earth. One of the main reasons is sustainability. It's a simple fact that several of our major resources are, though abundant, finite. If we continue to be wasteful, ignorant, and greedy, we will run out at our own peril. It might not happen during our lifetime, but we're sad examples of compassion if we leave a legacy of waste to our children and grandchildren. In the Doctrine and Covenants (other LDS scripture), the Lord states: "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment" (104:17-18). We have enough, if we use it wisely. If we don't, and if we don't care about the state we're leaving other unfortunate people in, there will be consequences, here and in the hereafter.

My opinion on this matter is very much similar to the opinion I have of animal rights and welfare. We don't have to be complete ascetics and abstain from all the luxuries of life and technology, and we don't all have to be environmental activists (I don't plan to be). I think we'll make much more progress if we each improve our own lifestyle and strive to conserve than if we seek to change things through protest and lobbying. Changing the way we do large-scale industry will definitely have big effects, but changing the way the American household uses energy will too. There's plenty of people fighting for environmental change in the public square, but my preferred approach is personal. Whether we're religious or not, each of us has many reasons to conserve the precious and finite resources we have on the only earth we have.

Further reading:

Righteous Dominion and Compassion for the Earth, by Elder Marcus Nash of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Scriptures and statements from church leaders about the environment
Mormon newsroom: Environmental stewarship and conservation

Ecotheology: Animal consciousness and vegetarianism

This will be another series, but probably only 3 posts long this time.  I'm kind of doing this to wrap up a process I just finished, which was writing a great questions essay for the honors program at BYU.  The "great question" I wrote about was:  "Are humans the only animals with a consciousness?"  It's been a long process and a long journey, and it's affected me more than I thought it would.  The essay requires students to approach the topic from three different academic disciplines; one of my three was theology.  I found a lot of interesting materials detailing the position of several major world religions on the status of animals, and what I found still surprises me.  If you're interested, the full text of my final draft of the essay can be found here (it's a couple dozen pages, so set aside some time).

In a nutshell, animals know and experience a lot more than most people realize.  Apes especially, but dolphins, elephants, and African grey parrots (among other species) have done remarkably well in tests of self awareness, intelligence, learning, memory, planning, and creativity.  Individuals of multiple species have consistently shown the ability to recognize their image in a mirror as themselves, showing that they have a level of self-concept that many people categorically deny animals.  Chimpanzees and other great apes display remarkable proficiency in American Sign Language; several lab subjects have attained a vocabulary of several hundred words.  Dolphins have found ways to solve problems that no one had shown them before, suggesting evidence of planning and creativity.  And several African grey parrots, in research situations, have developed a habit of answering questions deliberately wrong because they were bored of the testing procedure.  I won't cite evidence here; references are available in the text of my essay.

What does theology say about the status of animals?  Most people are familiar with the Hindu and Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation, which basically demolishes any spiritual barriers between us and the other creatures.  Countless stories exist in theological legend about animals conversing with or instructing humans, including the biblical story of Eve being deceived by a serpent.  A closer look into the Hebrew text of the Old Testament suggests that God gave spirits to the animals, and Mormon theology is quite explicit about that (see Doctrine & Covenants 77:2 and Moses 3:5).  Historically, Christian religions have been most disposed to deny the consciousness or spirit of animals, but theologians like Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, seek to overturn Christianity's disrespect and feeling of dominance towards the rest of God's creatures.  I could go on, but suffice it to say that if you're religious, you have a lot more reason to believe in animal consciousness than you thought (check out Lisa Kemmerer's book "Animals and World Religions" if you want to learn more).

So why should we care?  One thing I really enjoyed about Kemmerer's book is that it included an appendix detailing the current status of animal cruelty in the American meat industry today (the book was published in 2012).  Before reading this, I was familiar with several activists' accounts of how animals were treated in slaughterhouses and such, but I simply assumed that it was a thing of the past.  Not so.  I won't go into detail, but current practice isn't much different from what it historically has been.  There's enough evidence to pretty solidly debunk Descartes' idea that animals don't feel pain.  There's plenty of suffering still happening to billions of them.  And if you study theology deeply enough, it gives you a reason to care about it, no matter what religion you belong to.

Outside of this blog post, I don't plan to become an animal rights activist.  Frankly, I don't know how effective any efforts will be to get the meat industry to change the way they do things.  But we can change how much we support the industry; namely, by changing how much of their products we buy and consume.

This is Graham Hill, an environmental activist of sorts.  This short TED talk is aimed towards people who have thought about being vegetarian before, but didn't think they would be able to do it completely.  In Hill's words, "Imagine your last hamburger."  For me, I think going vegetarian would be doable but difficult.  I don't know if I could ever go vegan; I enjoy dairy too much.  The reason I enjoy Hill's approach is this:  when I've heard other people's arguments for vegetarianism in the past, it frequently seems to be couched in language that suggest we should accept vegetarianism completely or not at all.  Go big or go home.  Hill realizes that this sort of rhetoric is counterproductive; what about all the people who see and agree with the good reasons for it, but don't want to go 100% (like me)?  All-or-nothing vegetarians are wasting their time and effort on them.

So he offers an alternative:  be a weekday vegetarian.  Monday through Friday, no meat.  Saturday and Sunday, eat what you want.  After all, he says, "If all of us ate half as much meat, it would be like half of us were vegetarian".  He doesn't cite any of the reasons why most people go vegetarian (check this out if you want to see the best ones), this talk is primarily to offer people an option besides complete vegetarianism.  This is something I plan to try out when I'm back in college.  Feel free to join me if you'd like.

My OK Go fanboy post

So, a few months back my brother wrote a fan post on his blog for one of his favorite artists, Sara Bareilles.  Now, Sara Bareilles is talented and all, and I do respect her as an artist.  But I choose to write about musical groups that don't put my man card in danger (and I'm only writing that because my brother hates it when I talk about man cards).  So, OK Go.

Some of you may be aware that OK Go recently came out with a new music video.

Yeah.  Awesome.  I know.  I've shared it with a few people over the last few weeks, and about half the time, they're like, "Who's OK Go?"

WHAT THE HECK, PEOPLE.  And most of the other half says something like, "Wait...weren't they those people who danced on the treadmills and stuff?"

Yes.  Yes they were.  But PEOPLE.  They have done SO MUCH MORE cool things since then (which was 2006, by the way.  8 years ago).

Like this.

And this.

And freaking THIS.

PEOPLE.  They built a mile-and-a-half long instrument, and they're playing it with a car.

WITH A CAR.

Oh, and they do almost every single one of their music videos in one continuous camera shot, with the exception of the car video, and End Love, which was probably stop-motion photography.

They're coming to Salt Lake in two days, and I think it goes without saying that I can't wait to see them.

One thing that impresses me about the band is that several of these projects have brought together dozens of people to try and do something that's never been done before.  But the main reason I love OK Go so much is because they take creativity so far beyond the limits of what anybody thought a band could do.  I'm pretty sure at some point during the making of one or more of these music videos, somebody came up to them and said, "Um, isn't this pretty much impossible?"  "This is never, NEVER going to work."  "You've tried this, like, 40 times already, why don't you just give up?"  "Why are you buying 280 guitars and 55 pianos to make this music video?"

And they just do it anyway.  They never say it, but everything they do sends the message that creativity doesn't have limits.  There shouldn't be anybody who says, "You can't do this."  There shouldn't be anybody who says that something you created has broken the rules of creativity.  Because there are none.

Skepticism and deception: Finding the right balance

As a Christian person, I'm still trying to find the right midpoint between extreme skepticism and extreme gullibility.  Two questions are relevant in my mind:  How skeptical does the Lord allow us to be, and how skeptical does the Lord need us to be?  One scriptures that comes to mind is Matthew 10:16:  "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves:  be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves."

I was first introduced to this scripture on my mission in a somewhat different context, but I think it has significant meaning when applied to the issue at hand.  The word "serpents" in Christian scripture is most often a symbol for the adversary and/or his followers.  To me, then, this scripture means that Christ is commanding His apostles to possess the same intellectual skills as their greatest enemies.  They are to examine evidence, search for truth in as many valid ways as they can, and be unafraid to reject an idea that might be wrong (but be equally inclined to embrace an idea that is correct).

But the "harmless as doves" ending seems to reject the intellectual cynicism that is characteristic of many skeptics.  Some would argue that the attitude of a skeptic is one of his greatest skills; that the ability to be a skeptic, occasionally summoned, is far less valuable than the consistent habit of being a skeptic.  This echoes the words of Eliezer Yudkowsky (who I've mentioned in this post and this post), who said of rationality, "It's dangerous to be half a rationalist."  By this, he means that it's hazardous to someone's intellect to selectively practice methods of rationality.  Particularly, it's dangerous to apply the flame of curiosity and skepticism to everyone else's beliefs without turning that flame on your own ideas to assess them for credulity.

When I first read those words, I was reminded of something I thought about on my mission after talking about anti-Mormon literature with my companion.  I remember thinking, "You know, I bet somewhere out there, there's a piece of anti-Mormon literature that if I read it, I would leave the church."  I kind of left it at that, not really wanting to think about it more deeply.  Later on, I realized that that idea itself wasn't the problem, it was the fact that I simultaneously held that idea in my mind with the contradictory desire to not ever read anti-Mormon literature.  If I knew that there was information that would make me scrap my beliefs, but decided against that realization to stay away from the information, wasn't I avoiding truth?  Wasn't that the bigger problem?

While writing this series of posts, I realized that, in order for this cognitive dissonance to actually be a problem, it had to be the case that if any given information made me reject my current belief schema, it was because it was true information.  In other words, if it's possible for false information to make me turn away from my beliefs, then the cognitive dissonance is just the fear of being deceived.  I think it's entirely possible for me to read something that contains sound factual evidence, but to be misled by the interpretation an author claims from that evidence.

So, I could turn the flame of curiosity and skepticism up to 100% and aim it at myself and everyone around me.  I could spend hours reading everything that's ever written about Mormon beliefs or Christian beliefs, from apologists and antagonists alike.  I could spend every minute questioning and doubting instead of believing, but I'm not going to.  Why?  Because I think it would be far too easy to commit a type II error.

Let's say our null hypothesis is "Mormon/Christian doctrine is not true" (remember, null hypothesis include the word "not").  A type II error is failing to reject a false null hypothesis; in this case, rejecting Mormon/Christian doctrine when it is actually true.  I think if I tried to be as skeptical as possible, with my infantile skills of evaluating truth, someone smarter than me could easily deceive me into a type II error.  And in this case, weighing the consequences makes a type II error far more dangerous.  If I make a type I error, the consequence is me being a lifelong member of the church and being about as happy as I am now.  If I make a type II error, the consequence is me being a spectacular rationalist/skeptic (or so I think), but being deceived, which holds far greater consequences.  To put it simply, I'm not taking that risk.

But I don't want to be blind to truth.  I think God wants us to know all truth, wherever it is.  People might want to keep us from truth, but God doesn't.  As a developing skeptic and a developing disciple, I think it's best to increase my skills of both in parallel.  The more I learn, the better I'll understand how to find truth, the better I'll be able to discern fact from fiction, the better I'll be able to determine what a collection of facts implies, and the better I'll be able to make the right call about something and avoid type I and type II errors.  As I move forward in life, I'll  gradually turn up the flame of curiosity and skepticism so that I can find out what is really true.  But because I do it slowly, I won't subject myself to a level of curiosity that will mislead me.  I won't be hard on my own beliefs until I'm ready to do it without fooling myself.  And that, I think, is the right balance.