The (New) Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project

The (New) Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project is "[a]n ongoing quest to track the Daily Mail's classification of inanimate objects into two types: those that cause cancer, and those that cure it. Inspired by and a direct continuation of the Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project ...." It is hilarious. This is a genius level idea.

While I'm on it, The New Yorker has a lengthy article on Dr. Mehmet Oz of The Dr. Oz Show. Oz is a highly qualified, highly successful cardio-thoracic surgeon who loves the limelight and has sort of promoted alternative therapies unsupported by evidence, as he acknowledges. "Sort of" because he seems to suggest they work, or might work, and does not seem to bothered by evidence to the contrary. He's being "open minded." His wife, Lisa, who is the daughter of a very prominent heart surgeon, is, in fact, a "Reiki master." That means she attempts to heal through a "spiritual practice" of laying on hands. It's not even ancient voodoo: it was invented by a Japanese Buddhist monk in the 1920's. (And I don't doubt that many people find it comforting, and that this can be therapeutic in itself -- but it's not treatment.)

The False Positive Paradox

I've posted before about my affection for Randall Monroe's webcomic xkcd and his related work, humor, and insight, and tonight (via Neatorama) I learned that it's been two years since his fiance was diagnosed with stage III breast cancer.  She's beating it so far.  He's noted the stats, and had a webcomic on this, but it also reminded me of something separate: the false positive paradox. (Well, that sounds like a downer, but it's not.)

The false positive paradox arises when a fairly reliable test yields fewer correct positive results than incorrect positive because the incidence of whatever is being tested is so low in the population. For example, imagine 1% of a population has a disease and a test for the disease is 95% accurate. That means if one gets a positive result there is, in fact, only about a 16% chance that one actually has the disease (specifically, the chance of a correct positive result is 1% x 95% = .95%; the chance for a false positive result is 99% x 5% = 4.95%; the chance of having the condition with a positive result is then .95 / (.95 + 4.95) ≈ 16%).

Happening Science

I've noticed a slew of interesting science news stories in the last few days.  The New York Times has reports on the rapid developments in growing artificial organs, the developments by chemist Paul Chirik of Princeton that allow iron and to be used in place of platinum as a catalyst in certain reactions (and a similar process that allows cobalt to be used as a catalyst in making plastic), and on confirmation that a meteorite that fell last year in Morocco came from Mars.  And then there's this cool video, via Physics arXiv, showing that liquid droplets hitting a pool will sit on the surface and no coalesce if the surface is vibrating:

The world is simply cool (and getting cooler).

First Gene Therapy Drug Treatment Approved in Europe

Video via Scientific American. The treatment works through injecting an otherwise harmless virus that inserts a missing gene into each of the treated person's cells (or the critical cells).

AARP's Response to Claims About the Canadian Healthcare System

A doctor writing for the AARP addresses five claims about the Canadian healthcare system that are often asserted by those opposing healthcare reform in the United States. These include: