A Truth Universally Acknowledged

A story in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune caught my attention today, not only because it was an interesting article but because it may indicate a shift in our country’s approach to health care. As we all know, the number of people with diseases and conditions that are preventable is growing in America (and globally). One way to deal with this is on an individual level, treating the symptoms or curing the disease after the fact. In this model, the focus is on individual treatment, or downstream of the event. Another way to deal with this problem is at the community level, working to prevent the disease or condition from ever occurring. In this model, the focus is on prevention, or upstream of the event. (I’ve greatly oversimplified the issues – there are accidents, genetic predispositions, etc that we can’t prevent – but you get the general idea.)Health care costs are skyrocketing, competing with gas, food and mortgages. Perhaps at an individual, day-to-day level, we can’t control gas, food or the housing crisis. But we can do something about our health. If we take steps to prevent something from occurring, we can dramatically increase the health of our nation (and ourselves) while reducing the money spent on treating health issues.

An article published in the Journal of Forensic Science details the fruits of a collaboration between the University of Leicester and the Northamptonshire Police, which led to a “major breakthrough” in crime detection, perhaps allowing “hundreds of cold cases being reopened,” according to a press release.

The University’s Forensic Research Center has been working with Northamptonshire Police's scientific support unit to develop new ways of taking fingerprints from a crime scene. The collaboration between the boffins and bobbies – boffin being British slang for someone engaged in technical or scientific research, apparently, and bobby being slang for police – was formally launched May 14. (For those without an intimate knowledge of U.K. geography, Northamptonshire Police headquarters is located in Northampton, about 70 miles NW of London. The University of Leicester is another 40 miles or so northwest of Northampton.)

The newly developed method enables scientists to visualize fingerprints even after the print itself has been removed, the press release said.

Do you ever get the feeling that science figures out a problem a few years after the fact, but then discovers that their methods for fixing the problem are also hopelessly outdated or just plain wrong, which puts us back another several years and at that point we may as well just give up and have wine with breakfast and hot fudge brownie sundaes for dinner?

We know that Americans are fat. (If you don't believe me, look down - do you have a lap?) We also know that kids are getting fatter, which leads to a whole host of problems that will further tax our already overburdened health care system. Now, it seems as if maybe we're not getting fat as fast as we thought they were - although it could be a statistical aberration - and even if they are, we aren't sure if the diagnostic tools we have are relevant!

Actually, I have no proof – yet. But an article this month’s issue of Scientific American highlights the myriad therapeutic benefits of blogging, so maybe dashing off a quick article will help with my aching back…

Jessica Wapner writes in her article that self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off.

“Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits.

A segment on ABC’s Good Morning America May 19 caught my attention, so much so that I spent a good chunk of time attempting to find research to back up the claims.

The idea itself seems to be obvious – if you have a neurological disorder affecting your brain, you should examine the brain in order to figure out exactly what’s going on to figure out how to best treat the problem, right?

I am not a neurologist, so my thinking could be flawed. A comment by the doctor featured in the segment made sense to me, though: diagnosing children with behavioral disorders like ADHD and autism without looking at their brains is like trying to diagnose heart problems without actually looking at the heart.

Common Sense 101: if benefits outweigh the costs, generally people will opt in to whatever action is under consideration. If you can prevent or reduce your chance of death from cancer by early screenings at a nominal fee, you will probably get screened.

Now throw a twist into the equation. Say that screening is only 50 percent effective at catching early cancer. On the benefit side, screening will still prevent or reduce cancer. On the cost side, you may not catch a tumor; you may be exposing yourself to harmful radiation (which ironically could contribute to the cancer you’re trying to prevent), emotional stress from false positives and possible physical harm from false negatives; and you’re spending money on a service that only works half the time. (Using the same idea, if your airbag only worked in 50 percent of accidents, would you pay for it to be installed in your car, or would you demand that auto manufacturers developed an airbag with 100 percent efficiency?)

President Bush has a bill on his desk, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which will prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. He is expected to sign the bill, but is science – and the people – ready?