How To: Destroy a Planet Part II

As a regular reader of Paul Krugman's blog and NY Times column, I've grown somewhat enamored with the Nobel laureate. So much so that I've developed a bit of a heterosexual man-crush. But my being smitten is not what's important right now. Moving along...

Krugman is vastly knowledgeable about a number of issues, most of which are very close to my heart. I must admit I have very little interest in international economics, which is the Princeton economist's forte. But I do have a lot of interest in politics, particularly with respect to health care and social security, as I'm a firm believer in the importance of insuring the welfare of this fine country's populace. Poverty is, after all, a despicable thing. I also have a lot of interest in climate change, and this is a topic that Krugman addresses often and with great care. Case in point: Krugman's recent column, titled 'The Truth, Still Inconvenient.'

This is a very well written and thought out essay, but there is one point in particular that I would like to emphasize. Krugman indicates that climate change deniers are guilty of a certain degree of irresponsibility. After all, if climate change is indeed a myth, then the worst that could happen is that we uselessly spend a fraction more money than normal on trying to be more responsible citizens of our planet. On the other hand, if the multitude of research studies prove to be correct and climate change is a real and dangerous phenomenon, then the climate deniers have committed an egregious act of purposeful obfuscation that could be absolutely catastrophic. So you can kind of see how the consequences of these scenarios are not really equally balanced.

I know that I am certainly biased and may be oversimplifying the situation, but I think the overall idea here is most definitely accurate. But hey, this is something I've already discussed in a previous post. It's difficult to stress, though, how important this idea is: it's all about the consequences of one's actions, and it seems to me that staunch climate deniers have done a very poor job weighing the consequences of their actions.

Sure, Things Are Bad. But They Could Be A Lot Worse.

Today I think I'll mention a few important points in the news. First of all, if you haven't heard about the results of the Cop15 climate conference, and are interested in such matters, it's worth noting that what came out of the summit was the framework of an international non-binding treaty. I know that combining terms like 'non-binding' and 'treaty' sounds a little oxymoronic, and I find myself thinking 'what's the point?' But the point is this: like the health care reform bill that is being worked over by the House and Senate, a non-binding treaty is still a legal deal that can be refined and added to over time. It's a start (sort of), and that's what we should focus on. According to a brief article on ScienceNews.org, the Copenhagen Accord will establish, among other things, a trust fund that will be financed by industrialized nations to provide monetary aid to poorer nations to help them cope with the effects of climate change, and is a much needed continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. I, personally, am not happy with it, but I'm glad that it's been drafted.

In other news, in the aftermath of the earthquake that absolutely devastated Haiti, I've been hearing lots of stories - mostly on NPR, because I'm a total public radio nerd - about the slowness of aid coming from the US. Here's one such story that I found with a quick Google search. I agree that the US was beginning to look a bit unconcerned about the people of Haiti, considering that at the time when aid workers from Venezuela, China, France, and Iceland were already touching down at the Port au Prince airport, the only thing we had done was send a military plane over the country to examine the destruction and plan what to do. However, in the last 24 hours or so, the US has been able to mobilize or is preparing to mobilize a fairly impressive armada. Popular Mechanics has broken down the rescue effort quite nicely, which will include four Coast Guard Cutters, a C-130 cargo plane with aid supplies and personnel, flocks of urban rescue teams, an 894-foot Navy hospital ship, and the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson. The most important thing to consider here is that this appears to be a well thought-out support plan. The ships and plane should be able to reach their targets quickly and the Coast Guard cutters contain desalinization equipment, providing the clean water that will be needed to stave off diseases like dysentery. In general, I'm please with the US government's actions. Although they were somewhat sluggish, I think the aid workers and supplies that reach Haiti will be effective, and problems that plagued Katrina relief will be avoided. Mainly, I'm thinking of the horror stories about aid workers reaching New Orleans and not having supplies or not being allowed into the city. And I hope that, as disaster relief reaches full force, history will show that the United States was responsible for an effective response to the earthquake in Haiti.

But time will tell.

Climate Change and Cancer Imaging: A Big Week In The World of Science

I know that all eyes are on the Copenhagen Climate Summit, which is indeed a big deal, but that doesn't stop all of those lab coat-clad researchers and scientists from pressing on. Still, if you'd like to stay up-to-date with the latest goings on from the Cop15, you can do so at the Cop15 official website. There you'll find news updates, as well as some great blogs dedicated to keeping up with the events of this monumental summit. I personally will be keeping my ear to the ground as the meeting proceeds, and although my hopes are high for swift and firm action on curbing our negative impact on the environment and I know that I'm bound to be disappointed, I'm just excited to see the meeting draw such attention from the media. After all, the more time the Cop15 gets in the news, the more John D. down the street, who could care less about climate change, is exposed to it. And this generally translates to a populace that is more knowledgeable, and hopefully, more mindful of our effects on the planet. It's a winning proposition.

Having said that, I couldn't resist posting this video that I found on the Science News website. The video is from a presentation by Erik Sahai, a researcher at the London Research Institute, that was given at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Diego. Although the details of their imaging method are still a bit unclear to me, this research group was able to conclude that signaling by the cytokine TGF-beta is responsible for single-cell metastasis in breast cancer using real-time fluorescence imaging analysis. For clarity, the abstract from the ASCB meeting has been quoted below:

Imaging the metastatic process E. Sahai1; S. Giampieri1 1. Tumour Cell Biology Laboratory, Cancer Research UK London Research Institute, London, United Kingdom.

Cancer cells can invade surrounding tissue either as single cells or in collective units. We use intravital imaging to demonstrate a reversible transition to a motile state as breast cancer cells spread. Imaging primary tumours reveals heterogeneity in cell morphology and motility. Two distinct modes of motility are observed: collective and single-celled. By monitoring the localisation of Smad2 and the activity of a TGFβ-dependent reporter gene during breast cancer cell dissemination we demonstrate that TGFβ signalling is transiently and locally activated in motile single cells. TGFβ1 switches cells from cohesive to single cell motility through a transcriptional programme involving Smad4, EGFR, Nedd9, and numerous regulators of actomyosin contraction: M-RIP, FARP and RhoC. In contrast, different regulators of the actomyosin cytoskeleton are used during collective invasion. Blockade of TGFβ signalling prevents cells moving singly in vivo but does not inhibit cells moving collectively. Cells restricted to collective invasion are capable of lymphatic invasion but not blood-borne metastasis. Constitutive TGFβ signalling promotes single cell motility and intravasation but reduces subsequent growth in the lungs. Thus, transient TGFβ signalling is optimal for blood-borne metastasis.

If, like me, you didn't totally understand every single little tiny syllable of the abstract, have no fear. Without knowing all of the background of the project, the video is still pretty cool. And the caption explains a lot. And so, without further ado, I give you a rare look at the process of cancer metastasis:

How cancer cells move and spread from Science News on Vimeo.

Breast cancer cells (shown in green) individually peel off from the main tumor when they get a "go" signal from a type of growth factor called TGF-beta. Cells can also move in clumps, but that migration is not controlled by TGF-beta, shows a new study presented at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting. Immune cells called macrophages are shown in red and connective tissue appears in cyan and magenta.

Credit: Erik Sahai - Cancer Research UK