Allergy, Genetics

Any proof for hygiene hypothesis by lockdown babies?

It is an interesting question – does social distancing influence later allergy ? Lawler et al. in November 2021

http://www.doi.org/10.1111/pai.13591

report the impact of COVID‐19 lockdown in 365 Irish babies at 6 months of age enrolled in the CORAL study. These were a subset of 3773 infants born in two participating major maternity hospitals in Dublin between March and May 2020. Unfortunately only 10% of children participated, so families were self-selected.  Allergic rhinitis was common in both mothers (36%) and fathers (30%) which is higher than reported by Allergy Ireland (26%) and explained by the authors that parental allergy is “higher than the general population, which may have contributed to parental desire to enrol in this study.”

A follow-up in March 2022 in 344 children consecutively shows higher food allergy (4.7% vs 3.5%, NS) when compared to an earlier cohort (BASELINE 2008). Atopic dermatitis increased of 15.5% in the BASELINE study to 25.3% in CORAL (no P reported) which is not unexpected given the interest of parents in an allergy study.

Nevertheless the authors needed now to analyze their stool samples sitting in the shelves. This is the content of  the March 2023 preprint that has just been published. There may be some association of some bacteria with atopic dermatitis but in the end it is a useless result as the strongest risk factors for atopic dermatitis – parental history and/or FLG mutations – are missing from the presented models

At the end we can safely assume that the 2020 lockdown did not have any influence on allergy prevalence in Ireland.

Related posts: Is there an association of CARD15 variants with allergy? | Inkubationszeit des Coronavirus | Der chinesische Menschenversuch | The Gangelt Study | No proof of hygiene hypothesis |

Software

Audio/video sync testfile

Here is a 60 fps audio/video timer file of 10s duration with a 440 Hz beep every 3s to test latency in OBS.  Direct download here.

 

Continue reading Audio/video sync testfile →

Related posts: Link list essential photo & video & audio | Der chinesische Menschenversuch | How to revamp an outdated chromebook into an up to date multimedia machine | FaRMI | Show speaker video at the wall |

Philosophy

Deviation from preregistration

I know tons of papers that deviate from their initial plan, but I am not aware of so many papers where this can be unequivocally found by comparing pre-registration and publication.

It has been mentioned recently and there seems also a formal analysis in the literature

We observed deviations from the plan in all studies, and, more importantly,  in all but one study, at least one of these deviations was not fully disclosed.

Further research required,

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch | Is there an association of CARD15 variants with allergy? | Journal of Allergy | The mutant says there is no God | Can’t believe in a TCRA association (at the moment) |

Philosophy

Why research integrity matters

A new paper by Lex Bouter clearly shows

Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other’s findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse.

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch | Allergy protection on farms – why also studies in mice could have failed | A excellent explanation why we get cancer at an advanced age | Is there an association of CARD15 variants with allergy? | Unintended research consequences |

Philosophy

Revolten gegen die Macht des Wissens

aus Bogner, Alexander: Die Epistemisierung des Politischen. Wie die Macht des Wissens die Demokratie gefährdet, Zitat

Die Wissensgläubigkeit der Moderne ist schon früh zum Gegenstand philosophischer Kritik geworden. … Es herrscht der unbedingte Glaube daran, dass Wissen besser ist als Nichtwissen, dass rationale Analyse dem intuitiven Erleben überlegen ist und das Bewusstsein über dem Sein steht. Scientia potestas est verkündeten schon die Frühaufklärer. . …
Im Zuge des technischen Fortschritts und militärischen Wettrüstens wird offensichtlich, dass das Wissen auch Risiken, Gefahren und Verwüstungen hervorbringen kann. Man lernt, dass das Wissen um die kleinsten Elementarteilchen in seiner technischen Anwendung zu den größten Katastrophen führen kann (Atomkraft). Und man kriegt zunehmend Angst vor der technischen Neugestaltung der Natur (Gentechnik), auch der menschlichen (Biomedizin), so dass die Ethik bald zur ständigen Begleiterin der Genetik wird. Außerdem kommt man darauf, dass Wissen keineswegs eindeutig sein muss. …
Die von der linksalternativen Bewegung popularisierte Expertenkritik trägt dazu bei, dass bald alle Leute in allen wichtigen Fragen, vor allem in Gesundheitsfragen, routinemäßig eine zweite Meinung einholen.

was erklärt warum wir heute so viele Klima-, Corona-, Impf- und Aidsleugner haben. Aber wäre die Entwicklung verhinderbar gewesen?

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch | Best of — Heinrich Heine [German] | Inkubationszeit des Coronavirus | Ralf Frisch und sein “Fuck you Greta” Artikel auf Zeitzeichen | Translation needed |

Video

Hoffnungslos positiv

interessant ist der Beitrag so ab 10:28, auch wenn ich Popper nicht gerade zu den Positivisten zählen würde. Von Foerster als radikaler Konstruktivist passt ,auch wenn ich hier eher an Jean Piaget gedacht hätte; auch nicht so sehr an die Einmischung allenfalls dass die wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis von der subjektiven Erfahrungswelt bestimmt wird.

Genetics, Philosophy

Arguments against germline therapy

from Tina Rulli “Reproductive CRISPR does not cure disease” in bioethics 2019.

Consider an analogy. Imagine Bill has the following options:
6. Take SICK pill. Bill gets sick.
7. Take SICK pill, then take ANTIDOTE. Bill prevents sickness and remains healthy.
8. Do nothing. Bill stays healthy.
Now imagine that prior to this decision, ANTIDOTE is taken off the market so that it is unavailable to Bill. The unavailability of ANTIDOTE does not mean that Bill gets sick. For Bill has the option to simply not take the sick pill. Bill could just stay healthy (option 8). Offering ANTIDOTE is only morally urgent if it is inevitable that Bill will get sick, i.e., if Bill is forced to take the SICK pill (option 6).

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch | How does the soma to germline transfer work? | Gene therapy in jail | Bias against negative studies | Researchers are against the permanent rating of their work |

Philosophy

Unethical clinical research

Unethical is every research that is not ethical.

But what is ethical? A paper already 22 years back proposed 7 requirements that make a coherent framework.

  1. value— enhancements of health or knowledge must be derived from the research;
  2. scientific validity—the research must be methodologically rigorous;
  3. fair subject selection—scientific objectives, not vulnerability or privilege, and the potential for and distribution of risks and benefits, should determine communities selected as study sites and the inclusion criteria for individual subjects;
  4. favorable risk-benefit ratio—within the context of standard clinical practice and the research protocol, risks must be minimized, potential benefits enhanced, and the potential benefits to individuals and knowledge gained for society must outweigh the risks;
  5. independent review— unaffiliated individuals must review the research and approve, amend, or terminate it;
  6. informed consent—individuals should be informed about the research and provide their voluntary consent; and
  7. respect for enrolled subjects—subjects should have their privacy protected, the opportunity to withdraw, and their well-being monitored.

Fulfilling all 7 requirements is necessary and sufficient to make clinical research ethical.

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch | A broken contract | Informed consent – what else? | Is there an association of CARD15 variants with allergy? | Are randomized clinical trials gold standard? |

Joke

Giovanni, non vado dal barbiere nemmeno io

Martin Zips in der SZ über Trappatoni

Es war der 10. März 1998, als ein Italiener in München ein sprachliches Feuerwerk hinlegte,.. Längst sind die von Giovanni Trapattoni vor genau 25 Jahren gewählten schwungvollen Formulierungen in den deutschen Sprachgebrauch eingegangen: “Was erlauben Strunz?”, “schwach wie eine Flasche leer”, “Ich habe fertig”, so sprach der damalige Bayern-München-Trainer …

Erwähnt sei aber auch der wunderbare Satz Sergio Mattarellas kurz vor einer Fernsehansprache mitten in der Pandemie. Ein Mitarbeiter hatte dem Präsidenten zu Beginn der Aufzeichnung geraten, er solle sich eine Haarsträhne aus dem Gesicht wischen. Mattarella aber sprach: “Eh, Giovanni, … ich gehe gerade nicht zum Friseur.” Und da der Satz nicht rausgeschnitten wurde, wurde er in Italien zum geflügelten Wort: “Eh, Giovanni, non vado dal barbiere nemmeno io.”

Wenn ich mir die Webseiten von einigen Universitäten und Forschungszentren anschaue, dann denke ich dasselbe –  machen wir eigentlich primär PR oder doch eher Forschung?

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch | Best of — Heinrich Heine [German] | Inkubationszeit des Coronavirus | Mobilität der Zukunft gemeinsam gestalten | Ralf Frisch und sein “Fuck you Greta” Artikel auf Zeitzeichen |

Noteworthy

Die superdiverse Klassengesellschaft

Related posts: Wissenschaftsphilosophie ist für die Wissenschaftler ähnlich nützlich wie die Ornithologie für die Vögel | Der Betreiber einer Internetsuchmaschine ist bei personenbezogenen Daten, die auf von Dritten veröffentlichten Internetseiten erscheinen, für die von ihm vorgenommene Verarbeitung verantwortlich | Von Pettenkofer und die Cholera | Wie man die Testkapazität in Deutschland verdoppeln könnte | Es gelingt so selten jemand an die richtige Stelle zu bringen |

Allergy, Genetics

Top 5 talks of the 3rd International Summit on Human Genome Editing

The final statement came by email this morning statement-from-the-organising-committee-of-the-third-international-summit-on-human-genome-editing

Remarkable progress has been made in somatic human genome editing, demonstrating it can cure once incurable diseases. To realise its full therapeutic potential, research is needed to expand the range of diseases it can treat, and to better understand risks and unintended effects. The extremely high costs of current somatic gene therapies are unsustainable. A global commitment to affordable, equitable access to these treatments is urgently needed. Heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time.

And well, my subjective selection of  the best talks is also here (unfortunately the video quality is poor and there is no way to timestamp the URL, so you have to recall the time marks below).

As always masterful moderation by Robin Lovell-Badge including the fire alarm ;-) My top 5 talks are

  1. Chinese legislation whitewashed at 1:03:10
  2. David Liu excellent overview at 1:25:14
  3. Filippa Lentzos with a super nice talk on hopes and fears at 2:53:25
  4. Tue Kiran Musunuru with another excellent overview at  2:18:54
  5. Rising star Tina Rulli at 1:28:29

(Jennifer Doudna 4:25:17 was a bit disappointing when talking about my research field involving asthma and microbiome.
The two father mouse of Katsuhiko Hayashi that gained wider attention [Guardian, Nature, …] is found at  3:14:02.

 

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch | ChatGPT III: Write an essay on human genome editing from different religious perspectives including references | Fundamental and non fundamental objections of genome editing in humans | Safety conditions for genome editing | How we inherit acquired traits – all about non random mutations in the human genome |