Log in

No account? Create an account
Nobel Conference 50: Where Does Science Go From Here? (Wednesday) - Barnstorming on an Invisible Segway [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Marissa Lingen

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Nobel Conference 50: Where Does Science Go From Here? (Wednesday) [Oct. 28th, 2014|01:37 pm]
Marissa Lingen
[Tags|, , ]

See my first post for a description of Nobel Conference and Tuesday’s speakers.

Wednesday morning began with a rare livestream session, this one from Steven Weinberg. He talked about the clues we have to the hidden world beyond the standard model: where do things get weird consistently, and what would it take to find out what’s going on there? I was particularly pleased that he wanted a positive reason why formal mathematical simplicity should appear in our theories–that “we just like it a lot” is not a great reason and in fact can lead us astray, as it may have in the current formulation of Einstein’s equations, which he suggested may be more complicated than we think due to undetectable terms due to extra powers divided by very long lengths. My favorite moment was when he declared something “of no fundamental interest–well, it’s interesting to astronomers, but they’re interested in a lot of things.” (I am like astronomers in this.) I found the talk energizing and fascinating, ranging as it did across interaction strengths and neutrino masses, but the reaction of the people around me was frankly disheartening: they did not seem to follow what he was getting at.

Then came one of the stand-out first-rate blow-your-mind talks of the conference, one of the ones that moved me to tears, one of the talks that made me sad that standing ovations have become so common so that people do not feel the impact of it when I leap to my feet, because quite often people stand, particularly when they are about to leave for lunch. Harry Gray is the father of bio-inorganic chemistry. He is also, quite incidentally, a former professor of my friend Ctein, I learned later, but that had nothing to do with his talk, which was mostly about a thing he calls the Twenty-First Century Solar Army. And wow, wow, wow, wow. I came away a convert to Harry Gray’s Solar Army. If you know a teenager who’s interested in chemistry, Harry Gray will send them the materials they need to help participate on a genuinely useful level in this really cool project. They can help find two different catalysts, one for reducing and one for oxidizing, seawater, to use for clean hydrogen fuel. It’s explained very clearly on the website, and they’ll go into more detail if you’re interested and contact them. Harry Gray is the sort of person who is big enough that he doesn’t need to hog credit–he was giving names of specific high school and college students who have helped with breakthroughs, because he can, he needs to, he wants this to work, and he wants more help with it working. He talked about the range of things he wanted to try requiring either robots or students, and he preferred students because they’ll talk back and tell him when he’s wrong, and I went, oh, yes, you, you are the guy. (Although I’m hoping we’ll get robots there too someday. But that’s another Nobel Conference.) They did a really cool photo anode with an intercalated N2 in the middle of the WO3 that the referees of journals did not believe until they got confirmation from both Berkeley and Brookhaven because it was just too far “out there.” It’s great stuff. And you don’t have to be in the US to do it, he’ll take recruits to the Solar Army from anywhere and send them materials. The kids involved have started having their own conventions, SEAL-CONs, to talk about their work, and it’s been going on long enough that a lot of them are going on to work in the sciences as grad students or beyond. It was so wonderful. I ran into one of my old professors afterwards, and we were so excited that we hugged each other twice, and we’re both from here. So. Yeah. Solar Army, look into it, wonderful stuff.

Thank heavens lunch was between that and Jennifer L. West’s talk, because if there hadn’t been a substantial break, I’m not sure I could have coped. And West’s was the other talk that moved me to tears with how good it was. She led in with talking about matching the scale of the treatment to the scale of the medical problem. She touched on growing biomimetic patterned tissue to match certain types of cells (mostly thin/avascular cells) and the need to figure out how to grow capillaries on scaffolds. Then the main body of her talk was about nanoshells and their use in cancer treatments through photo-thermal therapy. These incredibly small silicon balls have finely determined shells of gold. They’re injected into the blood stream of cancer patients, and their size is selected such that they won’t be filtered out in the kidneys but will collect at the tumor sites due to the way tumors form blood vessels–basically, tumors are kind of crap at forming blood vessels and end up with leaky vaculature compared to normal cells, so if you get the size of your tiny nanoshell gold-and-silicon thing right, it will congregate in just the spot of the tumor. Then when you irradiate with light near the IR spectrum (650-900 nm), it’s harmless to the rest of the healthy tissue but causes rapid heating of the nanoshell (15 C hotter than surrounding tissue) and burns off only the tumor.

This. Is. Amazing.

They can adjust them to do either imaging (with the thickness of the gold adjusted to scatter the light) or therapy (with the thickness of the gold adjusted to absorb, as above with the rapid heating). So you can get a good idea of exactly where the tumor is without injecting tagging drugs, or you can just blast the sucker. The “blast the sucker” preliminary results are extremely good on breast cancer and brain cancer in the lab so far, and in clinical trials on head and neck, prostate, and lung cancers, with no bad side effects and really great rates of efficacy. They are also looking at extending to multimodal uses and doing CT imaging–they could do MR if they included gadolinium, too. You can also add a thermally responsive coating of a chemo drug to expel the drug when the laser is on, so that it gets delivered very directly to the tumor site, at which point I was gasping, “What do you mean more therapeutic modalities?” and muttering, “It slices, it dices, it juliennes.” It was all just so much and so cool.

She noted in the Q&A that the structure of brain tumors often breaks down the blood-brain barrier anyway, and that nanoshells can take advantage of this. She also noted that the designers had to be careful of the surface chemistry to minimize risk of emboli, but that this care was quite effective so far.

This was a couple weeks ago, so I did think of Velma. I thought of other friends with cancer, some for whom this treatment is not in time. But it just sounds like it will help so many people. I scribbled furiously as she talked about the potential applications in retinopathy and other problems. And I cried, because it was just so very wonderful. A few days later, a friend was Tweeting something about how “we’re not going to cure cancer, but we *can*” [some other charitable assistance]. And I thought, it’s not a zero-sum game. “Curing cancer” is not all one thing. We’re closer to helping a lot more cancer patients than we think, and those we can help, can go on and help with other things that need doing in the world. I understand that it can be frustrating when your cause is not as popular as some other cause, but like the man says, we all do better when we all do better, and guys, this is one of the things better looks like. This really is better.

Antonio Damasio started out by giving the aphorism, “Never tackle the problem of consciousness before you’re tenured.” Then he gave a list of different things people mean when they say “consciousness,” narrowing his own focus to the experience of subjectivity, which he tries to separate in study from the mind-making part of consciousness, and further separate the interior and exterior-directed mind-making bits. He talked about the body phantom, interoception, and brainstem nuclei structure. He also talked about myelination and the role of risk in consciousness. Finally, he brought up second-order maps and the possible role of reflexive looping in creating sensation awareness and consciousness. It was one of those things that I wanted to go back over again with the diagram of brainstem nuclei structure several times to make sure I had the details right, but it was very neat stuff, and he’s got several books and articles out that will be worth tracking down.

Patricia Smith Churchland was introduced as Manitoba’s punk rock neurophilosopher. She theorizes about the neurological basis of moral values and is very, very much against Richard Dawkins and his social theories. She hypothesized that oxytocin and vasopressin were the hub and basis of the system that built up into much more complicated social rewards and eventually social and moral values. She included the caveat that any category will have fuzzy boundaries and be socially influenced, so she was less interested in the edges between what’s social and what’s moral and more in the center of the concept. She talked a lot about the uses of oxytocin and vasopressin in nurturance and attachment in different kinds of mammalian brains and how simple these things aren’t, how they interact with dopamine and other chemicals in the brain and out of it. She also talked about some things we don’t know–the human density of oxytocin receptors, for example, and the fact that almost all experiments in this chemical set are done on men because oxytocin tends to send women into estrus, so…I will be interested in how this is handled in future studies, because it seems like it’s worth knowing. A lot of people early on wanted to just have snorting oxytocin be useful for something, or more oxytocin be better for attachment, (I have seen this in SF writers, so I wanted to note it here!), but there are issues with blood-brain barrier and with it having different effects all over the body or with tipping over into entirely different behaviors.

And then I went home and collapsed and absorbed it all. Wow, wow.

Originally published at Novel Gazing Redux


[User Picture]From: ckd
2014-10-28 07:25 pm (UTC)

That West talk...just wow.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mrissa
2014-10-28 07:52 pm (UTC)
I just--using tumors' bad vasculature against them.

That's poetic, is what that is.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whswhs
2014-10-28 07:30 pm (UTC)
Damasio's joke about tenure actually fits in with something I've been thinking about the past year or so: The theory of tenure is that it enables faculty member to pursue dissident ideas without fear of losing their positions, and thus encourages a community of critical discourse. But it can take ten years or more to get tenure, and that's after the years it can take to get a Ph.D. in the first place. So people aren't getting tenure when they're young and naturally radical and most likely to dissent; they're getting it after they've spent years buying into the academic establishment. I think of the one panelist at the convention I attended nine days ago saying that she was on the tenure track and was keeping her head down (and she was clearly a progressive oriented to gender and ethnic identity theories, which are a lot more acceptable in most academic environments than, say, libertarian individualism); I grant that this may have been a joke, but it's the sort of joke that covers up a truth. Are we really going to get a lot of dissent and innovation if getting tenure requires you to practice caution for a decade or two, concealing what you really think from senior faculty and likely enough even from yourself?

I could make an argument for the reverse arrangement: You get tenure when you enroll in your doctoral program, and you keep it till you get your Ph.D. and for ten years afterward. And then it goes away. You'd be protected during the naturally most creative and radical phase of your scholarly career, and then when you were getting older and more conservative (academically conservative, not politically conservative!) you'd be expected to have learned how to negotiate with the establishment.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mrissa
2014-10-28 07:56 pm (UTC)
Hmm. The problem with the reverse argument is that the doctoral program enrollees need to be able to be critiqued on quality terms. There's that line to walk: when is a culture criticizing its young because they simply aren't meeting standards of quality and when because they are entirely good enough but in a direction that challenges established orthodoxy? Hard problem to solve. And while we'd love to think that the hard sciences have less of it, the example I mentioned from Harry Gray, where the journal referees did not believe their intercalated N2 until they'd gotten Brookhaven to confirm it, because Brookhaven was conservative enough--Berkeley wasn't--is pretty clear evidence that it can happen in any field.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: timprov
2014-10-28 09:48 pm (UTC)
So what happens if you coat a nanoshell with oxytocin?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mrissa
2014-10-28 09:50 pm (UTC)
I don't think anyone has studied that. For people with brain tumors, you could get it delivered to the brain at least. For the rest of us, probably nothing, or if there was a stomach tumor you could at least get it delivered to where it would mess with hunger cues etc.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: sheff_dogs
2014-10-28 10:39 pm (UTC)
Wow, lots of wow.

Thank you for sharing the wow.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: David Wilford
2014-10-28 10:46 pm (UTC)
I can personally vouch for this scientific observation:

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: finnyb
2014-10-28 10:48 pm (UTC)

Retinopathy? Fascinating! (My own severe vision issues--think legally blind--were caused by Retinopathy of Prematurity.)  I so rarely heard people talk about any sort of retinopathy at all, particularly with any ways to help. Fascinating!

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ashnistrike
2014-10-29 03:08 am (UTC)
Awesome stuff!

Oxytocin is weird, and there are a lot of studies that don't show what they claim to--not only because of the snorting thing, but because we don't actually know how blood oxytocin levels correlate with central nervous system levels, and the assays are done wrong a good percentage of the time so reported figures vary wildly. And there are some cool findings that suggest oxytocin actually heightens whatever your social default is--even if it's to be a paranoid jerk rather than lovingly attached.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: firecat
2014-11-02 01:51 am (UTC)
Thank you for the writeup posts, I love them!
(Reply) (Thread)