I read a rather interesting paper recently looking at the development of the human female pelvis, from late fetal stages until late adulthood. (You can find the full text for free here). The paper describes itself as challenging the “obstetrical dilemma hypothesis”: this is the idea that there are conflicting demands on the human female pelvis: to efficiently walk on two legs, a narrow pelvis is better, but to have large-brained babies, and to give birth safely to them, a wide pelvis is better. What I also find interesting, however, is that it takes the subconscious assumption that a large, bony structure, such as the human pelvis, is relatively fixed in proportion once you reach adulthood: turns out that, for women at least, it’s not.
There’s been a rush of new papers out lately which are starting to explain how Zika virus causes fetal damage. Understandably, since the suspicion of a link between Zika and microcephaly (an abnormally small head, associated with neurological defects) in humans was raised, there’s been an intensive research effort directed at uncovering the causality of this process, but I’m still impressed at the speed at which scientists are gaining answers. It was only last month, after all, that the CDC declared that there was a “causal link” between Zika and microcephaly. Continue reading
(Edit note: I somehow disappeared this whilst correcting an image, so if it’s still problematic, drop me a note!)
One of the major medical advances of the last century was that of organ transplantation: replacing diseased organs with healthy ones from donors (usually the recently dead, but there are exceptions: you can donate one kidney, or parts of your liver, for example). It is a process that has become ever more successful, with improvements in surgery and drugs that suppress the immune system, preventing it from destroying the donated organ. However, this has created a demand for donor organs that is not being met: about 100,000 people worldwide are waiting for donor organs, and many thousands die before they receive one. Continue reading
There’s a lot of science fiction books that ask the question “What is it like to be human in an alien world/society?” Recently, with the explosion in molecular paleontology that is taking place, I’ve found myself wondering what it means to be human in a world that was (once) full of other – well, were they humans?
How often do you hear a new medical treatment, or any scientific or technological innovation, as “It sounds like something out of science fiction but WonderDrug X will cure Deadly Disease Y….” ? Too often, in my humble opinion, and, in my suspicions, by people who don’t read that much science fiction (or fact). But there are some cancer treatments coming up that have been mooted (or at least something similar has) in science fiction. Let me throw some catchphrases at you: “Personalised medicine”, “Biological therapy”, and, best of all, “Nanobots!!!” Which obviously deserve three exclamations all of their own. Amidst the headline tags, there’s a welter of confusing terms: “Targeted therapy”, “Immunotherapy”, “Oncolytic therapy,” “proton beam therapy,” and, my personal favourite, “Cyberknife”. Now I’ll go through some of the newer cancer treatments that come with these labels attached: some in use, some in development, and see if they do the justice hype – and if science fiction really did say it all first.
Following on from my post on the new treatment for ALL, I thought I’d go into cancer in general a bit more. In this first part of a double post, I’ll briefly go into what cancer is and the principles of the main types of current treatments. In the second part, I’ll consider some of the more futuristic cancer treatments that are starting to enter the mainstream.