Does diagnosis help?

Sometimes I wonder about labels for the abstract and the concrete.  This may seem a surreptitious way to give the appearance of being busy.  I know better than that.  What better way to look at Mental Health week than to pry into the world of labels.
Since my early teens I struggled yet coped in some shape or form to deal with anxiety, depression and the disassociation I all simutaneously felt often without cause.  Exams made me more anxious than usual, as did the Christmas period for understandable reasons.  There was the apperition of a pattern when really none existed.  How I survived I really can't say.  It certainly wasn't mind over matter or will power: survival was by mere chance, and eventually the odds stacked against me.
1st label: acute major depression.
A box of pills and she'll be right, mate.  See you later (ie not at all).
Later that life… I was back.
2nd label Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
And on we go. 3rd & 4th labels were Chronic Major Depression with Psychotic Features.
Right. So now you think "Uh-oh, that's all we need: a bloody psycho."   Psychosis is an unfairly loaded word.  Another will appear shortly, but for now let's deal with the 'p' word.  Psychosis merely means hallucinations and so forth are real.  That's it.  As much as I love Hitchcock films, real 'psychos' don't randomly murder people.  If really bad, a psychotic person is much, much more likely to hurt themselves rather than other people.
So this time I thought - when my thoughts were ordered - "No biggie, just another episode of depression and the auditory hallucinations (hearing voices) had the upper hand."   Yes, that was true, however the team stated from scratch.  From both my reporting and my history, some new things were discovered, resulting in a slightly different twist of diagnosis: Schizoaffective Disorder.
Okay, I'm now waving goodbye to all those who now believe I'm a whack job.  Who doesn't stigmatise schizophrenia? You don't?  I don't believe you: to my shame I still have a negative attitude to schizophrenics, and I bet I've met far more in my life than you'll ever knowingly meet.
That aside, I'm not a schizophrenic, I know all the jokes and it's an awful illness.  Look up  schizoaffective disorder by google, bing or wiki.  The point is in my case I've never had mania or hypermania, just "normal" and depressed. I have auditory hallucinations. I'm not generally paranoid. During depression I tend to be very suicidal and require hospitalisation.  Does this new diagnosis change anything?  Not really.  The only change is instead of taking a prescibed anti-psychotic when feeling overwhelmed, I take it twice daily with room to take a little more when I know I'm struggling to be coherrent or my brain is too noisy.  That's all.
The prognosis isn't too good.  For example I'm more likely to kill myself than die of natural causes, but - excuse the black humour - I can live with that.  If the current anti-psychotic loses efficacy, the alternative drugs aren't a barrel of laughs and I'm not sure I could  live with that.  But let's not cross bridges before the chickens have hatched or get splinters from fitting on the cents.
Diagnosis, like a label, does help.  Without them we don't know how to handle the contents let alone know what the contents are.  However context is just as important. 

Health reform: a good place to start is to remove homeopathy

Australia has one of the finest health care models in the world, yet it is under constant reforms and tweaks that aren’t always in the patients’ best interests.

Every citizen and resident is entitled to the very best in health care at any public hospital; a universal health care.  Complimenting the public system are the private hospitals, which cater for those who don’t need emergency surgery or care, or want a “better” standard of care, or wish to avoid being on a waiting list for non-essential or minor surgery, or even prefer to use their health insurance than use the tax-payer funded public system.

The use of the private hospital system is made more affordable by “reforms” introduced by the Howard Liberal-National government by giving a tax deduction of 30% for private health insurance.  It was one piece of many of the Howard government’s middle class welfare program.  When the Rudd Labor party swept into power (even unseating Howard, something that is almost unheard of) the middle class welfare didn’t end.  The 30% tax deduction for private health cover remained to anyone who had it.  In fact, the extra Medicare Levy imposed on the highest income earners would also be reduced to the same percentage Medicare Levy as the lowest income earners as a reward for having private health insurance.

The health insurance industry is also a strange beast.  Providers are almost exclusively Not-For-Profit Mutual Funds.  Further, their rates are capped and each year negotiate with the Federal Health Minister through the department on any increase in rates for services.  The arguments by the Funds are the same; without an increase the Funds won’t be able to provide the services resulting in a loss of membership and thus more pressure on the public health system.  The government’s position is almost always the same, claiming that most Funds are gouging their members for services they don’t need or won’t use.

This raises an interesting point.  Should these Funds be free to offer a range of products for a discerning public can pick and choose from, or should they be restricted to services that are only covered by Medicare?  (Currently dental is not covered by Medicare, but each State has a system for dental subsidy for those least able to afford dental care.  A plan exists to bring Dentistry into Medicare.)

Before the Coroner of Western Australia, Alistair Hope, is a case that raises very serious issues for the Health Fund industry.  The death of Penelope Dingle highlights the damage homeopaths can do in a self-regulated industry.  Yet it is almost impossible to be a member of a Fund without having the option of at least one “alternative medicine” in the bundle.

While Mr Hope has yet to hand down a finding, it is time for the Federal Health Department to refuse Health Funds any increase in fees until they remove any unproven medicine from their packages; naturopathy, homeopathy, in short, woo.

This isn’t the first time a Coroner has had to deal with the effects of homeopathy, but hopefully it will be the last.  As long as Health Funds package “alternative medicines” with basic cover, or even Ancillary cover, it legitimises the woo.  If any citizen or resident wants to have homeopathy or any other unproven medicine included in their insurance, then why should it be subsidised 30%?  If such treatments did work, we wouldn’t have a regular stream of Coroner’s Reports condemning the practice and practitioners, nor would we have families begging for justice.

This is a challenge for the new Gillard Government and for Health Minister Nicola Roxon in particular; stop the Health Funds from bundling woo into their packages.  The next time the Funds cry “we need to increase our premiums” the government should stand firm and suggest the Funds could save money if woo wasn’t automatically bundled with services that are legitimate, and remove the 30% refund for any service that cannot prove its efficacy.

That should save Medicare enough money to finally include dental services.

Good news, bad news.

Today was the day I meet with my neurosurgeon.  Not the one that operated on my back originally, but nonetheless a consultant and therefore good enough for me.

Knowing that the fraternity has rules I asked “Should I call you Mr?”  He smiled as the MRI and CT images loaded on his computer monitors and replied “Dave was good enough for my mother, so it’s good enough for you.”

Dave it is.

We chatted about things in general, then about the things that mattered.  He showed me the MRI, scrolling back and forth to satisfy himself the titanium had fully bonded. The plates, the screws, the 2 delicate cages that held a donor wedge of bone in place where a disc once was.  Fusion was total and couldn’t be undone.  But he wasn’t happy.  The work Emir, my original neurosurgeon, did was first class.  The problem was not of the surgery but of my body continuing to break down.  The arthritic spine was evident, almost glowing white hot on where vertebrae rubbed on vertebrae.  However we all knew that and it wasn’t a surprise.

The surprise is that the canal which the spinal cord passes through is too narrow, and becoming even more narrow.  There is no room for spinal fluid to surround the vital bundle of nerves.  It’s like having a delicate bundle of fibre optic cables being crushed in a vice from all sides.  Without intervention the sheath that protects the bundle will rupture and the core of nerves will become damaged without prospect of repair.

Fortunately the structure is stable for the moment.  It will become less stable over time, but Dave is a conservative and won’t operate unless the vertebra above my fused vertebrae become unstable.  I like his thinking; the more of the spine that is fused, the greater the pressure on the spine overall as the forces cannot be dissipated.  That’s what discs are for, to act as shock absorbers and dissipate much of the forces on the spinal column.

In one particular type of arthritis, which mainly affects young men, the vertebrae slowly fuse together until there is no movement of the spine.  Ironically this fusion makes the spine weaker, not stronger, because forces on it cannot be distributed properly.  Also the arthritis makes the bone more brittle, so fractures are far more likely to happen.  It’s been known by many names, bamboo back being one of the most common because the spinal column looks like bamboo.  These days ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is its common name.  A progressive degenerative disease related to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) - the main type of arthritis I have - and like RA, AS is a auto-immune disease.  That is, the person’s own immune system doesn’t recognise the body’s own tissue and attacks it.  In AS, the immune system attacks the fluid in the degenerating discs and the facets of the vertebra.  In RA, the immune system also attacks the bone in the synovial fluid in, for example, the fingers.  The fluid acts as lubricant and prevents bone rubbing on bone.  In my case, the poly arthritic nature of my RA affects my fingers, wrists, and my spine.  Probably my ankles too, but I don’t worry so much about them, particularly my right ankle as I can’t feel it, and my lower right leg and foot are supported by a high tech device that stops my foot from drooping and the ankle from twisting.  On flat, solid, grippy surfaces I can walk without the aid of my walking stick.  It’s an amazing feeling to be able to do that, I can’t begin to describe how much better I feel within myself to walk without aid or fear.

So, where to now?  Pain management still goes on, as does hydrotherapy and physiotherapy and, of course, consultations and prescriptions.  More importantly, Dave has referred me on to a neurologist.  The point being?  There are other issues besides walking strangely or pain.  Somewhere higher up, near or in the thoracic vertebrae, is causing a few problems.  It’s not painful, unlike my lumbar, but it needs to be looked at.  If surgery can be avoided, I don’t mind.  If not, then I know I can trust Dave to make the right decisions after another consultation.  Of course it’s great not being in a position where a decision must be made now, that my spinal column is so unstable that intervention must happen now.  I’ve been through that before, the emergency, the temporary stabilisation, the operation, and the ongoing rehabilitation.  It’s not something I would wish on anyone.

For now I’m not sure how to feel about the idea of my spine slowly crushing my spinal cord.  It’s not a surprise to me in a strange sort of way.  I’ve already started on my “bucket list.”  Today I opened a special savings account with the goal of saving enough money to travel to Beijing then travel to catch one of the Trans-Siberian trains through Novosibirsk, onto Moscow, stay a few days, then catch the Red Arrow to St Petersburg.  Why?  To do it before I can’t.

I’m not saying that being a paraplegic would stop me from doing what I want to do, but I want to be able to do it while my legs have some function left.  In some ways when my back broke, it may have been better to have lost my legs (which I did until the operation) and not have the debilitating chronic pain that I have now - a case of being able to fool most people much of the time and a few people none of the time.  Those who have met me probably think I’m a pain in the arse, or perhaps a little too jolly.  Those who know me understand that if I stopped and thought even a little about how much it hurts physically and emotionally, I would seize up like Tin Man in the rain.

There is another driving force.  Every day I’m at Royal Perth Hospital, Shenton Park Campus where rehabilitation is the focus, I see young and old who have lost limbs, who are para/quadriplegic and are rebuilding their lives.  Some are at the beginning of their journey, some are nearing the point in their lives where they are truly independent for the first time in their life.

If the prospect of death focuses the mind, then the prospect of losing independence toughens the resolve.  My resolve has never been tougher.  This is a war I cannot win, but I can, and will, win many battles along the way.

It’s a conspiracy.

You know what?  Climate science is a conspiracy.  A conspiracy by scientists who have everything to gain by getting the truth out there before we are neck deep in acidic sea water.

On the other hand, far right-wing conservatives such as Lord Christopher Monckton have nothing to gain by asking people for a considerable sum of money to see a short power-point presentation showing lovely pictures of Greenland, all photoshopped to show vineyards and happy Vikings herding cows on lush grassy pastures.  Or the Houses of Parliament underwater with the caption “So what?”  How could Lord Monckton be gaining anything by showing a power-point presentation that cost bugger all to make and asking people to buy his books not allowing any questioning of his authority at all?  Besides, he’s preaching to the converted.  Oh, but he’s already rich, being landed gentry and peer of the realm, so any money he makes doesn’t mean anything. It’s all for paying the cause.

Also he doesn’t debate those silly scientists who insist climate change and oceanic acidification is real because the idiots only confuse and upset his audience.  Bless him.  He’s all above board that chap.

I need to work on my sarcasm; I don’t think I’ve been subtle enough.

People like Lord Monckton are dangerous.  These people decide on a position before there is any substantive evidence one way or another.  But that’s why they are policy makers, or rather policy drivers; in this case Lord Monckton was an adviser to the very conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Now it’s important to stress that some fundamental elements of true science is scepticism and debate.  Science cannot exist without debating with colleagues about the theory, the experiment, and the results.  Similarly the scientist must be sceptical but intrigued about the subject.  Often results are at first counter intuitive, so without some sceptical reasoning, the risk is that the easier option of a false conclusion based on a false assumption is taken.

But Lord Monckton isn’t a scientist; he was a journalist, becoming one at a time when a university degree wasn’t required.  Yet because he did some university, it apparently gives him enough credentials to be authoritative on the subject of Climate Science.

Recently there has been a bit of a kerfuffle about leaked emails from the “custodians” of climate science research, the University of East Anglia. The leak occurred because of unauthorised access.  Hacking, theft, stealing, call it what you want.  A few emails came to light because of this illegal activity.  These two emails from a few scientists who specialise in Climate Science, seemed to disagree with what the UEA Climate Science Unit has being saying, and the International Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) as well.  But that is the nature of science; the method of collecting data should be debated.  Results should be argued.  The statistical analysis should be scrutinised and debated.

This is called Peer-Review.  If I have a theory, and then design an experiment to test the theory, then whatever the result may be (proving or disproving my theory), an independent experimenter should be able to replicate the results using the same method I did and come to the same conclusion.  And there should be debate on my experiment; is it an experiment that guaranteed to produce the results I predict? If so then somebody should put me in my place and say the experiment is flawed, and perhaps put up an alternative method for others to try.  Whatever I, or anyone else publishes, on the experiment it’s there to be critiqued at every step of the way.  It’s not a personal attack on me, or anyone else.  It’s simply being rigorous and thorough.

In the case of science when short time period experiments aren't practical (such as climate science), then there are other ways to collect data, formulate a model, and make predictions.  Yet the same methods of science hold true; the method of which data is collected, what it means, and how well the model stands up to scrutiny is all up for criticism and debate.

And this is the case with the UEA Climate Science Unit; 2 emails of dissent/criticism does not mean the science is wrong; it may be, but fact that other researchers have collected similar data and concluded with similar results does not mean there is a conspiracy, rather it means that the science is sound.  Not perfect, but sound, and there is healthy debate occurring with peers.

Again, take the IPCC.  They make predictions based on modelling, that is using statistical analysis based on data already collected.  The IPCC has been wrong with some forecasts.  Sometimes overly pessimistic, sometimes overly optimistic.  But why the outcry over being wrong over one prediction amongst literally hundreds that have been correct?

Every night news stations gather forecasts from private or government meteorological agencies.  We want to know what the weather is going to be tomorrow.  Currently we have expectations that the forecast be accurate for the next seven days.  Agencies like Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology provide forecasts for capital cities for 7 days and most major centres for 5 days.  Even places that city dwelling Australians have never heard of or can’t pronounce can have forecasts for 3 days.  There is nothing magical going on; the BoM is simply using modelling to arrive at a forecast.  Forecasters know the science and the limitations of the various models (yes, there is more than one model) and statistical analysis to write up or even amend a forecast.

The IPCC is no different apart from being a much larger, better funded international organisation.  So when hundreds of journalists, including Lord Monckton, quote the head of the IPCC, Professor Sir John Houghton, with “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen” it must be true, right?  Surely that ads weight to the argument that whether it be the UEA or the IPCC or even the politically independent Australian taxpayer funded CSIRO, climate change is all a scam; it’s all about shonky scientists trying to make a name for themselves or Big Business conspiring to make money playing the Carbon Trading Exchanges, or governments conspiring to create a new tax without calling it a tax. Surely.  Absolutely positively this must be the case even if it means conflicting hypotheses and illogical assumptions.

As it turns out, Prof. Sir John Houghton never made such a statement.  The journalists with London’s The Independent and the researchers with the ABC’s Media Watch found the truth; a grubby hack and professional oxygen thief by the name of Piers Ackerman, who writes a column in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, made up the oft quoted Sir John without any evidence that Sir John had ever said such a thing.

But it doesn’t matter to those that peddle the “we humans didn’t do it” or “it’s a conspiracy” message of their imaginary climate non-change.  Those who distrust science or are ignorant of the facts gladly line up to pay between AUD$50 and AUD$150 to listen to a message they want to hear; it’s alright, it’s not your fault and anyway they’re wrong and here’s the “evidence”.  It’s a new form of snake oil.  Make no mistake.  Not one speaker on the Climate Denial, or the Pro Status Quo as I prefer to call them, are true sceptics or real climate scientists.  Everyone from a geologist who believes the earth is less than 5,000 years old, Lord Monckton, a former employee of petroleum company, a pastor and a geologist who specialises in finding coal amongst others.  Not one climate scientist amongst them, and few versed in meteorology!  One former meteorologist who advises Lord Monckton has written a book opposing climate change, but refuses any portion of it to be peer reviewed.  All of them cherry pick data to suit themselves, use strawman arguments or simply misunderstand the raw data and make it fit what they already believe, i.e. relax people, it’s not us if there is any such thing as climate change.

There are dissenters, some of whom are on the IPCC panel and contribute to the reports.  I don’t have a problem with that because they are doing science, and aren’t being paid to do a power-point talk circuit in front of a paying group of people who want affirmations of “there is no human element to climate change, even if it does exist”, with the only motivations being money and anything, anything to prove the consensus of scientists on climate change wrong.

It’s an emotive issue, but it shouldn’t be.  The über greenies have been crying wolf for perhaps too long a time, so it can’t be about them.  So all that’s left is those who need the status quo, who need cheap coal, gas and oil.  But surely they don’t have a real voice; after all they don’t write letters to the editor every day…

Indeed they don’t.  They don’t have to.  After all, their PR companies can make the phone call or email the press release and the journalists will, by and large, write up the stories that are sympathetic to the big polluters.  They provide us with jobs, with electricity, with plastics, with everything we need and want from concrete to the latest gadget.  Don’t you see?  The government already over taxes them and now with governments fixated on this climate change thing your way of life is jeopardised.  Gosh and golly.  To cap it off, newspapers and magazines need paper, and they doesn’t come out of thin air…  So naturally the conservative media is biased against any climate change reporting; report only “bad” news sparingly, report the “good” - for the media and polluters - news repeatedly, and if you can’t find “good” news, make it up scary news that is unbelievable so that readers/watchers/listeners will later think “those scientists are on crack!”  Or do a Piers Ackerman and lie, telling the world that these climate scientists want to tell us really horrible things just so they are heard, and they don’t care about the truth.  Or even better - for the media and polluters - present one non-consensus view, qualified or not, against ten or more consensus views as balanced, objective journalism.

No wonder the public is confused, the non-consensus opinions are expressed in the media as fact, and any non-consensus science report is significantly distorted so that it appears that there is some kind of classroom brawl going on in the climate change field, that no-one agrees on anything.

Well, it has come to the point where the public isn’t so easily fooled or misled over these matters anymore.  They may not completely trust the scientists, but they trust them more than the media, fossil fuel companies and the dozens of Lord Monckton wannabes that are trying to make their fortunes by cashing in on the debate rather than contribute to it in an enlightened, positive way.

A shameless plug for Dr. Karl

This really is a passion of mine: If Dr. Karl didn't have a loving wife and kids, I'd ask him to marry me.  It, however, isn't going to happen.

The next best thing, as a lover of all things science, and as an atheist, is to shamelessly plug the good Doctor's latest endeavours: another book and a first for Karl, a real punk song mixing science and his vocals.

Visit his website http://drkarl.com/

In the meantime, enjoy this:

(I must confess I enjoy the line about the so-called Shroud of Turin.)

Speaking of science…

I’m one of many hundreds of thousands of people that suffer from poly rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, so I don’t ask for pity.  Just a little understanding will do.

Recently my liver has been more of a bitch than normal.  It’s has bee some years since I “passed” a LFT (liver function test), but it has become much worse.  Meaning from time to time I’m crooker than a mongrel dog, despite doing all the right things, like eating well, exercising and not drinking alcohol (a lapse of a glass of red or a beer twice a year isn’t going to be a problem, yet.)

So If I’m moody, or not up to my usual levels of levity, I blame my liver and my arthritis and what the disease and treatment is doing to my liver.  Thus, if I give you shit on Twitter, or you don’t receive any sympathy from me because your back hurts, forgive me in advance: it’s not that I don’t care, it’s that I don’t care at that particular moment as my back is more probably by far more insufferable than your slight twinge because you happened to be out partying hard the night before.

Nothing more shall be said of the subject.  Normal transmission shall resume.

Science and scientists aren’t trusted anymore

Science and scientists aren’t trusted much anymore. Nor are doctors or most professions which have to deal with science — except technology.  I'll get back to that.

I don't blame those that think what their GP says is a load of crap.  Or that a public think that a bunch of be-goggled, white lab coated boffins have to say on this, that or the other.  Or they'd rather get there informed opinion from a naturopath, psychic, astrologer or fraudster.  I don't blame them one little bit.

How did this yawning schismatic chasm of trust come about?

In a time before mine, whatever a man in a white coat said was true.  How could it be not, he’s wearing a white coat.

A Nazi Officer, Adolf Eichmann, said in his defence that he simply took orders.  “Why me?  Why not the local policemen, thousands of them?  They would have been shot if they refused…”

This prompted Stanley Milgram’s (in)famous 1961-1962 experiments, and 1963 paper “Behaviorial study of obedience.”  (Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67.)  Simply put, a very high percentage of people will do as they are told, despite seeing the results of what they are doing, when told by a person in authority.

Prior to this revelation, our societies believed in science.  Science had won the war, and now chemists were making stuff that killed bugs more efficiently and helped crops grow in impoverished soils.  More importantly in the US and Western Europe, science was in a struggle to win the Cold War.

By the time 1970s came along. Environmental Science was becoming respectable, and not some crazy hotchpotch of ideas.  Various chemicals that companies said were safe were, in fact, toxic — if not carcinogenic — to humans.  Names like organochlorines and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were the catchwords of unexplained tumours, animal deformities and deaths, and all-round general nastiness.

Big companies that were trusted brand names were now the enemy.

I don’t blame anyone for being even a little hysterical after finding out a chemical company knew that something it produced caused cancers or, worse, deaths.

What a bunch of irresponsible scientists!

Medical science seemed to be no different.  General Practitioners treated patients with indifference.  Often whatever was wrong with little Johnny was put down to a virus.  It didn’t matter what virus.  But these new-fangled antibiotics will help (which for viruses, of course, they don’t).

And like the subjects of Miligram’s experiments — doctors wore white lab coats after all — people were content with whatever diagnosis the doctor gave, and the prescription.  Besides, doctors were good people; they wanted to help humanity.

Yet as medical science progressed, General Practitioners didn’t, or wouldn’t. Residents were too busy and Consultants too set in their ways, or too busy teaching.  This didn’t apply to every practicing doctor, of course, but you get the idea.

By the mid 1960s, the younger generations were watching or reading about their Rock & Roll heros visiting mystics, gurus or other eastern teachers.  It seemed logical that western medicine was failing, while eastern medicine seemed to be more natural and had a history of thousands of years.

More “westerners” started putting their trust in eastern or alternative practices (even if some of these practices could be debunked very easily, or were nothing more than scams by unethical, greedy persons).  It just seemed more logical that if traditional Western Medicine couldn’t cure cancer, then anything that claimed to be natural and claimed cured cancer, then we’ve been fed lies by these people in the white coats and should do what the naturopath or homeopathist or herbalist or chiropractor says.  After all, it’s natural, right?  And natural must be better than something synthesised in a lab by someone in a white coat.

Well, no.

Whether it’s about a chemical that kills flies, or a pharmaceutical drug that stops epileptic seizures, it all comes from the same foundation of science; it’s not about proving something, it’s about trying to disprove it by controlled, precise experimentation. Any experiment must be repeatable — like a recipe — by other experimenters. Results must be tested and tested, and tested from all angles.  Other scientists must be free to debate it.

We lay peoples may not understand the jargon or the terminology.  But do we understand the jargon used by alternative medicine practitioners?

We don’t have to know how an iPod works in order to use it.  Or how solar cells and Albert Einstein are related.  We don’t need to know how the internet works to use it.  Or how Google searches the web, and so on.

Yet there isn’t a mass counter-culture against technologists.  Those goofy boffins that come up with really cute robots, or a better way to navigate in the car.  Even just a better way to communicate full stop.  The only difference between a medical researcher and a research engineer is the cuteness factor.  Research engineers don’t hurt anybody, they’re trying to make life more sustainable for humankind.

Well, not really.

Technology is neutral — until it’s utilised.  We all want ‘good’ technology but not ‘bad’ technology.  But the same technology that lets you navigate using your mobile phone (or cell phone) is the same technology that was designed for warfare.  The technology that has you gasping in awe at the brightly lit skies from fireworks is the same technology of ancient warfare; refined it’s the technology of today’s weapons designed to kill.  The technology that lets you cram thousands of songs onto your MP3 device is the same technology that governments and militaries around the world use to send secret messages; usually not pleasant ones.

So does that mean we should throw out our iPods, mobile phones, TVs, computers and stop this technical nightmare we are in?  No.  Just because a safety pin was invented by the same person that invented the semi-automatic rifle doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have babies; that’s absurd.

Today more chemicals are tested more rigorously than ever.  Over longer time-spans, and the ecological effects are a priority rather than a side-effect.

Medical researches have better understandings and better tools than ever before.  They aren’t blindly searching using the hit-or-miss techniques of the 1800s.  No, they are like a good detective following a lead.

General Practitioners, Residents, Specialists even Consultants wear more relaxed clothing.  They are better at communicating, better at diagnosing, and are constantly updating their skills as more understanding of a problem comes to hand.

As the last of the Nobel Prize functions come to a close, it’s wise to take another look at science with an open mind — after all, that’s what scientists do when they look at our world.