Many years ago (in my youth) I enjoyed the outdoors, hiking and mountain climbing. Occasionally when climbing a mountain it eventually became clear that the route we were taking was not going to get us where we wanted to end up (at the top). We could see the mountain top clearly. But for various reasons we could not see the path to take to be successful in our climb.
There is a big splash on capital hill now about an upcoming visit to the US by Pope Francis because of his recent statements on “climate change” (e.g. here). He apparently has adopted an extreme advocacy position on climate with out consideration of the best available science.
The climate change path he is on seems right at the moment. But consider the best available science. Consider the substantial unintended consequences that will result. Consider the problems with and limitations of the underlying data that is being used to advocate policies to prevent an undefined “climate change” that will have no practical effect on climate changes.
If Pope Francis’ goal (the mountain top he is trying to reach) is to improve conditions for the poor worldwide and motivate rich developed countries to assist less developed countries who face a myriad of challenges, not just climate, (usually with very meager financial resources if any) and not break the backs of the poor, then I’d say he is trying to climb the right mountain. He sees the mountain top.
But at the moment he is on a path that is counterproductive to these goals, in many ways taking him (and others) in the opposite direction of the goal. Extreme “climate change” activism is not the path to take to reach this mountain top.
As the saying goes:
“You can’t get there from here.”
Arbitrary changes in data corrupt science and engineering. Why shouldn’t the NCDC be held to the same research integrity expectations as imposed on government funded researchers in general (e.g. here). Is there a mechanism in place to objectively investigate allegations of research misconduct? If not, why not?
Source: Real Science
Moffat I, Chepelev NL, Labib S, Bourdon-Lacombe J, Kuo B, Buick JK, Lemieux F, Williams A, Halappanavar S, Malik AI, Luijten M, Aubrecht J, Hyduke DR, Fornace AJ Jr, Swartz CD, Recio L, Yauk CL. Comparison of toxicogenomics and traditional approaches to inform mode of action and points of departure in human health risk assessment of benzo[a]pyrene in drinking water. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2015 Jan;45(1):1-43. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.973934.
Toxicogenomics is proposed to be a useful tool in human health risk assessment. However, a systematic comparison of traditional risk assessment approaches with those applying toxicogenomics has never been done. We conducted a case study to evaluate the utility of toxicogenomics in the risk assessment of benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), a well-studied carcinogen, for drinking water exposures. Our study was intended to compare methodologies, not to evaluate drinking water safety. We compared traditional (RA1), genomics-informed (RA2) and genomics-only (RA3) approaches. RA2 and RA3 applied toxicogenomics data from human cell cultures and mice exposed to BaP to determine if these data could provide insight into BaP’s mode of action (MOA) and derive tissue-specific points of departure (POD). Our global gene expression analysis supported that BaP is genotoxic in mice and allowed the development of a detailed MOA. Toxicogenomics analysis in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells demonstrated a high degree of consistency in perturbed pathways with animal tissues. Quantitatively, the PODs for traditional and transcriptional approaches were similar (liver 1.2 vs. 1.0 mg/kg-bw/day; lungs 0.8 vs. 3.7 mg/kg-bw/day; forestomach 0.5 vs. 7.4 mg/kg-bw/day). RA3, which applied toxicogenomics in the absence of apical toxicology data, demonstrates that this approach provides useful information in data-poor situations. Overall, our study supports the use of toxicogenomics as a relatively fast and cost-effective tool for hazard identification, preliminary evaluation of potential carcinogens, and carcinogenic potency, in addition to identifying current limitations and practical questions for future work.
Click here for paper (fee).
Posted in toxicity