Chloé Sharrocks

A British engineer has devloped a microchip which has the potential to change the lives of paraplegics with its Blue-tooth style technology.

Reported in The Telegraph today, Dr Sprately, has created a chip which can be implanted onto the brain’s surface and controlled by thought alone.

Paraplegics may have lost the ability to move their limbs, but electronic impulses are still produced by their brain when they try and move.  This new microchip is able to capture the electronic impulses and transmit them wirelessly to a receiver housed in a simple computer potentially allowing paraplegics to control a range of simple devices.

The technology was developed by Sprately whilst he was studying for a PhD at Birmingham University and according to The Telegraph article, it is hoped that “paraplegics, amputees or those with motor neurone disease, such as Stephen Hawking, could be able to operate light switches, PCs and even cars by the power of thought alone.”

Microchips similar to these could be implanted in the brains of paraplegic patients - Image courtesy of David Henry

The chips can be implanted in the brain using minimally-invasive surgery and pick up signals from the brain’s motor cortex capturing the paralysed patient’s ‘thought’ as they imagine to use their limbs.

Dr Sprately now works for specialist engineering company 42 Technology, who are based in Cambridgshire, and was awarded the MediMaton prize by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

Scientists have found a molecule that intensifies allergic reactions which could mean they can reduce the risk of children suffering serious allergic reactions to food such as peanuts.

The team of researchers from Glasgow University have also created a biological agent which they hope can reduce allergy symptoms.

Their work,published in the Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) journal, could dramatically reduce the number of fatal cases of anaphylactic shock, or severe allergic reaction, across the world.

Many different things can cause allergic reactions.  Common food which can cause problems include peanuts, tree nuts, sesame, fish, shellfish, dairy products and eggs.  People can also suffer allergies to wasp or bee stings, rubber, penicillin and many other drugs or injections.  The symptoms sufferers may experience include generalised flushing, skin reactions and breathing difficulties.  In severe cases cardiac arrest and death can occur, which is why researchers are battling to learn how to prevent allergies.

In the UK alone 500,000 people are thought to have an acute food allergy and we have the highest prevalence of allergies in Europe.  Allergic reactions are treated with adrenaline and those thought to be at risk of a severe reaction are prescribed pre-loaded adrenaline injection kits, often known as EpiPens.

This latest research is a world-first.  The team, led by Dr Alirio Melendez and Professor Eddy Liew, found that the novel cytokine (immune hormone), IL-33, plays a significant role in the development of anaphylaxis.

By studying patients who had experienced anaphylaxis during surgery they were able to discover that IL-33 was involved in the anaphylactic shock and has allowed the scientists to discover how to intervene to reduce the severity of the reaction.

Dr Melendez said: “An anaphylactic shock prompts a massive inflammatory reaction which often is so severe that it constricts breathing. In our study we found that the severity of the shock is linked to the IL-33 molecule, which acts as an amplifier to the inflammatory reaction. This can lead to a fatal constriction of the airway and, ultimately, death.”

The scientists then went on to develop a mouse model which shows that by blocking the IL-33 molecule reduces the severity of an anaphylactic shock.  They are now continuing their study and are going to be investigating in more depth allergic reactions specific to food, venoms and medicinal drugs.

Photo by Christian Gidlöf, courtesy of Wikipedia

Cola soft drinks may soon carry health warnings on their packaging if doctor’s warnings are listened to.

A report in the International Journal of Clinical Practice suggests that excessive drinking of cola drinks can lead to profound muscle paralysis.  This news comes after an Australian ostrich farmer required emergency treatment for lung paralysis after consuming between 4 and 10 litres of cola a day and a pregnant woman complained of tiredness, appetite loss and persistent vomiting after drinking as much as 3 litres of cola daily for six years.  Tests showed that she was suffering an irregular heartbeat.

Scientists now believe that cola soft drinks cause potassium levels in the blood to fall dangerously low, leading to hypokalaemia.  Caffeine-free cola fans should not rest on their laurels either.  Dr Moses Elisaf from the University of Ioannina in Greece, and author of the research paper, warned that caffeine-free cola products could also cause hypokalaemia because of the fructose they contain can cause diarrhoea.

This news has got me thinking.  In a world where health and safety is a significant issue and people have tried suing McDonald’s for making them obese, will most food and drink products one day have to carry health warnings akin to those on cigarette’s packaging?  Will chocolate one day say: “Warning, may cause tooth decay and obesity”, packets of nuts say warn that they “May cause allergies” and alcohol (in addition to its current advice) be labelled with notices that it “Can cause irresponsible behaviour, crazy dancing, addiction and in some cases death”?

I’m all for pointing out the truely harmful effects that cigarettes can cause, but am worried that the current prevalence of the ’suing culture’ could lead to rather obsessive labelling.  The point regarding cigarettes is that even a limited amount of smoking can cause severe harm, whereas the occaisional can of Coke or chocolate bar (as a treat) is unlikely to kill anyone.

As a keen horse-rider, I’ve always advocated that riding is good for your health and fitness, but now it seems research carried out on horses could have real impact on the world of injured sportsmen and women.

Researchers at Cambridge have discovered that a revolutionary stem cell treatment for equine tendon injuries could have some impact on human injuries.

VetCell Bioscience in Cambridge carried out tests on more than 1,500 horses with tendon problems and found that half of them were less likely to re-injure themselves over a three-year period.  Traditional treatments, involving box rest, icing and anti-inflammatory drugs were not found to be as effective.

The stem cells used in the treatment come directly from the patient themselves and do not carry the same controversy as those generated from embryos.  Millions of the patient’s stem cells are injected directly into the injured tendon or ligament to aid the body’s natural healing process.

If human trials in 2011 are found to be successful, the development could mean that footballers and other athletes will be able to come back to full fitness more quickly following injury.  David Mountford, chief operating officer of VetCell Bioscience in Cambridge also hopes that “the treatment could alleviate or cure long-term tendon injuries in older human patients, such as prolonged shoulder injuries.”

Professor Nicola Maffulli, a sports medicine and orthopaedic consultant believes it is inspiring that clinical veterinary science is providing novel approaches for human medicine.  She told Horse & Hound:

“We normally see the translation happening the other way around.  I am very excited to be involved in the human studies and hope that the results will herald a new era in the treatment of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries.  At present the management of human tendinopathy [tendon injury] is more an art than a science but this approach could potentially reverse that situation.”

New research carried out by Imperial College in conjunction with GlaxoSmithKline has revealed that Schizophrenia could be caused by faulty signalling in the brain.

In the largest study ever conducted, researchers looked at brain samples donated by people with the condition and identified 49 genes that work differently in brains belonging to schizophrenia sufferers, according to new research published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

Current theories behind schizophrenia believe that it could be a result of the brain producing too much of the chemical dopamine (since drugs that block dopamine are an effective treatment for the condition), or that the protective myelin sheath which surrounds nerve cells is damaged in sufferers of the disease.  However, this new study found that the genes for both dopamine and myelin appear to be acting normally in schizophrenia patients and seem to suggest that the disease instead involves abnormalities in the way cells communicate with each other.

Image of a commonly prescribed schizophrenic medication, courtesy of Wikipedia (user: housed)

The disease affects around one in every 100 people and although sufferers experience little physical effect on the brain, they can have a range of symptoms from hallucinations to lack of motivation and impaired social functioning.  Better understanding of how the disease affects patients could lead to improved treatments and earlier diagnosis of the condition.

Professor Jackie de Belleroche, from Imperial College and an author of the paper has said:

“The first step towards better treatment for schizophrenia is to really understand what is going on, to find out what genes are involved and what they are doing.  Our new study has narrowed the search for potential targets for treatment.”

Good news for hayfever sufferers – Japanese scientists have started using “Pollen-Robos” to measure the pollen count.

Originally created in 2006, the Pollen-Robos are balloon-like spheres developed to warn Japanese residents of high levels of pollen capable of triggering hayfever attacks.  The 30centimetre robots, weighing about a kilo, ‘breathe in’ the same volume of air as a person and monitor pollen amount, temperature, air pressure and humidity to Weathernews for its online pollen alert map.

The Pollen-Robos can be hung outside sufferers’ homes and it’s luminous “eyes” cycle through five different colours depending on the area’s pollen count warning the residents of the area’s pollen count and how badly their symptoms might affect them that particular day allowing them to plan their treatment accordingly.  According to Mainichi Daily News (3rd Feb 2009)

“If the airborne pollen count exceeds 300 in a single day, the robot’s eyes will turn purple. The entire face of the robot also appears to be different colors depending on what angle it’s at.”

Obviously, the Pollen-Robos are not going to help accurately warn all sufferers when their symptoms are going to be most severe, since different types of pollen affect different people in various ways.  However, this attractive robot is surely going to provide some useful data for the Japanese weather company as well as helping some hayfever sufferers.

Below is an image of the Pollen-Robos courtesy of National Geographic’s website:

The Pollen-Robos decided to help warn hayfever sufferers when their symptoms are likely to be most severe.

A new device has been developed by Imperial College, London and its spinout company DNA Electronics that is capable of testing patients to see if they will react badly to certain prescribed medications, such as anti-depressants and cholesterol controlling drugs.

The prototype device, known as SNP Dr (pronounced ’snip doctor’) works by analysing the DNA in saliva or cheek swab samples.  The process is so quick that it can be carried out by a GP before they prescribe the patient’s medicine without the cost of laboratory analysis.

The device works by analysing genetic variations called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) which are the parts of human DNA that control our individual responses to disease, bacteria, viruses, toxins or medication.

The researchers are also focusing on how the snip doctor device might be able to detect genetic sequences which control the speed of our metabolism, something else which can affect the body’s reaction to a medicine.  Slow metabolisms can make the drugs last longer in the body and therefore increase the risk of side effects, whilst someone with a fast metabolism is likely to process the medication to quickly for it to have any adverse effects.

Image Courtesy of Wikipedia, User:Sponge & uploaded by User:BesigedB

The NHS spends £460 million a year treating patients suffering adverse reactions to prescribed medications, with their symptoms ranging in severity from dizziness and nausea to even heart palpitations and unconsciousness. Although the device is still a prototype (about to begin clinical trials thanks to a newly formed partnership with the pharmaceutical company Pfizer), there is hope that not only will GPs be able to personalise a patient’s treatment but according to Dr Leila Shepherd, Chief Technology Officer of DNA Electronics,  the introduction of the SNP DR might enable new drugs to become readily available:

“At the moment, some cancer fighting drugs are deemed uneconomical because they only work for a certain subset of patients.  If doctors had a method of screening patients to see whether these drugs work, then suddenly these therapies would be more cost effective to use.”

As a keen horse-rider I have a special interest in a recent academic publication which claims that horse riding is more dangerous than taking the drug ecstasy.  Unfortunately, I can’t seem to gain access to the journal article, so my knowledge of the academic details behind the study are limited to that which has been covered in the mainstream press, but from what I have seen I can’t help but be concerned by what Professor David Nutt has to say.

In his article entitled “Equasy: An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms” published in the Jorunal of Pschopharmacology, Professor Nutt makes claims in the Daily Telegraph that “There is not much difference between horse riding and ecstasy” since he believes both ecstasy and ‘equasy’ (the term he uses to describe Equine Addiction Syndrome) addiction lead to people taking unnecessary risks and ultimately putting their lives in danger.  He goes onto say that:

“Making riding illegal would completely prevent all these harms and would be, in practice, very easy to do.”

According to the Telegraph article, Professor Nutt claims that Equine Addiction Syndrome has caused 10 deaths and more than 100 road traffic accidents a year (The Sunday Sun seems to come up with an even more alarming figure claiming that it leads to over 100 deaths a year!).  Furthermore in an opinon piece in the Daily Mail Professor Nutt is claimed to have said that “horseriding can lead to brain damage” – surely he means falls from a horse and not the riding itself, or does the addiction of horses result in severe brain impairment?

Personally, as a follower of all horse-related news I find these claims a little outlandish and the figures rather large, especially when you consider that in 2007 there were 4.3million riders in the UK – 100 deaths suddenly doesn’t seem very many (we’re looking at about 0.002%!).  As I said, I can’t access the academic paper surrounding Professor Nutt’s argument, but I must wonder whether his figures take into account those riders who are professionals and make a living from horse-riding (particularly jockeys and eventers who are known to suffer more accidents than those in other equestrian disciplines).

The Telegraph article also fails to discern whether the 100 road traffic accidents are as a result of negligance/error on the part of the rider/horse or instead the fault of the driver of the vehicle -  examples in the British Horse Society’s “New Inquiry into Road Safety” highlights one such incidence where an 18year old driver was arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and The Department of Transport also notes that “Riders are especially vulnerable to inconsiderate drivers”.  His comments that hunting leads to “gatherings of users that often are associated with these group engaging in violent conduct” could also lead to questions concerning his political allegiance.

But the purpose of this blog post is not to rant at the lack of understanding Professor Nutt seems to have of equestrianism (I could be accused of having a vested interest which is biasing my opinion).  Instead, the main concern I have is the controversial way he possesses a view (irrespective of the scientific backing that may or may not have) that conflicts with his public duty.  Professor Nutt is the chairman of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), an independent body which claims to:

“consider[s] any substance which is being or appears to be misused and of which is having or appears to be capable of having harmful effects sufficient to cause a social problem”

Their code of conduct states that members must:

“[observe] the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relation to the advice they provide”

and more specifically that:

“The Chair of the ACMD [ie. Professor Nutt] is appointed as an individual to fulfil the role of the Council, not as a representative of their particular profession, employer or interest group, and has a duty to act in the public interest.” (emphasis added)

How can an academic who is actively researching a topic which could be considered to be against the interest of the public, be allowed to Chair an independent organisation aimed at advising the government on the misuse of drugs?  Surely Professor Nutt is not claiming that all previous research on the harmful effects of ecstasy are incorrect?  Interestingly the Daily Mail article claims that:

“Professor Andy Parrott, of Swansea University, is the UK’s leading expert on ecstasy, having spent more than 14 years researching it. He says that nearly everything Professor Nutt has said about ecstasy is incorrect.”

“Nutt says there are ten deaths from ecstasy per year. Parrott says the real annual figure is 40-70 deaths.”

“Nutt says it is not addictive….Parrott says it causes compulsive and escalating use”

Not only does Professor Nutt disagree with other scientific research (and actively try to counteract it), but his association with “The Beckley Foundation” an organisation which is supposedly committed to legalise drugs, surely makes one questions his ability to function as the chair of the Home Office’s ACMD in a neutral role.

Professor Nutt has not only been accused of underplaying the effects of ecstasy but could be accused of suggesting to children that taking drugs is no more dangerous than (and therefore as acceptable as) partaking in various ‘dangerous sports’ (such as base-jumping, scubadiving and motorcross).  His comments down-playing the severity of drug abuse, must also feel sour for those people who have suffered the loss of a loved one due to ecstasy.  Furthermore, all of this comes shortly before the government make a judgement on whether to downgrade ecstasy to a Class B drug.  If Professor Nutt feels so strongly that society need to be aware of the risks they suffer on a daily basis, before judging whether taking drugs is bad, I feel he possibly should go one step further and make driving illegal since there are around 3000 road deaths per year in the UK (I’m ignoring percentages of deaths compared to the number of road users since that would appear to be the system Professor Nutt uses).

Interestingly, to finish, I should add that Professor Nutt is an academic at both Bristol University and Imperial College, London yet neither of these institutions have covered his latest publication in their press releases of research news from their institution – obviously they felt it lacked the necessary news values or was not a study they wished to associate themselves with.

At first glance the news that the University of Delaware are teaching babies to drive robots sounds like something from science fiction or from the year 2100!  In actual fact it is a project aimed at helping babies with mobility inpairment achieve infant development nearer their able-bodied peers.

Babies brain’s undergo rapid development during their infant years and much of this is achieved through exploring, learning and feeling and seeing the world around them, but much of this is achieved through movement throughout their environments.  However, infants with Down syndrome, cerebal palsy, autism and other disorders have mobility limitations that stop them from exploring the world in the same way that other babies can and this can have lasting effects on their brain’s development.  At the moment children with mobility difficulties are not given power assisted wheelchairs until they are at least 5 or 6 years old.

In an effort to provide these babies with a more normal life, two scientists at the University of Delaware have created kid-size robots that babies can drive in order to experience the world around them.  James Galloway, associate professor of physical therapy, and Sunil Agrawal, professor of mechanical engineering have created a tiny robot called UD1 which has sensors on it to determine where obstacles are in the surrounding environment – it allows babies to either bump into the obstacles or is capable of driving the infant around them. They hope that their next prototype, UD2, will build further on this technology to allow parents or other supervising adults to also control the robot.

Galloway, who initially had been reluctant to try robotics with babies, admits that no-one has tried getting babies to use robots before, but early experiments with 7month year old infancts have shown that they are capable of operating the simple joystick and hopes that even younger children with disabilities will be able to learn too.  He confessed that therapists and parents are frequently concerned about their infant’s safety with worries that a young child in a power wheelchair might be dangerous to themselves – they could for example crash into something or end up in the middle of the road in front of a car.

“This is, of course, understandable, and is the same fear that every parent with a newly walking infant faces. It is the solution to the safety problem that is the real barrier. The current clinical practice is to avoid power mobility until the child can follow adult commands,” Galloway said. “Your parents didn’t wait until you followed their every command before they let you walk – they held your hand, they required you to stay near them, and alerted you to obstacles in your way. This is the way infants learn real world navigation, and it is exactly these safety features that are being built into our mobile robot.”

Personally, I think this is a great example of how technology can be used to enhance people’s lives.  The story on the University of Delaware’s website goes into much more depth if you’re interested in learning more about how the technology works and the background behind the research.

Yesterday the results of a study into the effect Jamie Oliver’s “Feed Me Better” Campaign were released with some promising results and yet I haven’t seen it covered in any of the national press – surprising given it’s news values (the positive results and the celebrity status of Jamie Oliver) I would have thought it would have had editors jumping all over it!  If anyone has seen any prominent non-specialist articles on the subject please correct me!  The other good thing about this study was that it would appear to be quite scientifically robust – I managed to read abut 75% of the actual study and it seems like they cover the concerns of placebo effects thoroughly and try not to suggest that their results are more significant than they are.

Before I go into the results in any detail, I’ll just discuss the background of the paper.  For those not aware of Oliver’s antics back in 2004, along with Channel 4 he began a campaign to improve school meals available to pupils in Greenwich.  His aim was to transform the meals available from cheap food, high in saturated fat, sugar and salt into healthier but also appealling lunches for children.  By tackling the local authorities funding and also retraining the kitchen staff he managed to get most (if not all) schools in the London Borough to eventually transform their lunches.  His campaign soon became a national one with him frequently on news programs trying to convince more people to listen to what he had to say.  Oliver’s theory behind the scheme was that not only would the children be healthier, but that their concentration would improve and thus their academic achievement.

The study which has just been released analysed the key stage 2 results of more than 13,000 primary school children from Greenwich with 7 other London Boroughs and using a difference comparison (ie. looking at the changes from year to year in each Borough and then comparing with surrounding areas).  From this they ascertained that Greenwich pupils who sat exams in 2006-20007 (and thus on the new diet for at least 12months) had better results than the other control groups – 8% improvement in science and 6% in English (there was a less noticeable, but still an increase in Maths marks).

The Universirty of Essex carried out the study (rather than some governmental initiative or an organisation afflited with Oliver) and from reading most of the report it would appear it is quite scientific and a story worth covering.  The investigation allowed for a placebo effect that schools featured on the television programme might have improved exam results as a result of the publicity and media coverage (in fact the schools featured explicity saw a decrease in exam results!) and they also sensibly only looked at primary school children since these are less likely to be able to buy junk food before/after school.  When the results were considered they also allowed for the current upward trend in pass rates in school exams, so that they could eliminate this natural trend when considering the effect of the healthier food.  The researchers were also keen to point out the failures of the study – the fact that they couldn’t prove that the campaign specifically helped those children entitled to free school meals since they had no numerical data to suggest if students were takin gup their right to free meals.  Also, they expressed their concern that they couldn’t be certain that the children actually ate the food despite being offered it (no unhealthy or non-Jamie Oliver meals were available however) and that the study did not explicity look at the health aspects, only the exam results.  All of these are clearly pointed out in the study’s document and they deliver a compelling and mathematically sound argument that Jamie Oliver’s meals do seem to suggest a correlation between healthier school lunches and the (rapid) improvement in exam results.

It will be interesting to see if this is picked up on by any of the press in the next few days and if it is hyped up (without mentioning the slight limitations of the study).