The Dose Makes the Poison, Redux

I recently finished reading "The Poisoner's Handbook" by Deborah Blum. The stories of murder and corruption in Prohibition-era New York makes for an enthralling way to introduce the science of poisons to the masses. More importantly for me, however, is that this book is a journey into the beginnings of forensic toxicology and a testament to the increasing need for public health welfare (both then and now).

The protagonist is a public health crusader in the form of New York's first legitimate Chief Medical Examiner, Charles Norris. Norris also fought tirelessly against corrupt government bodies of the Tammany Hall era. Sadly, the same struggles are faced by scientists today: Science and scientists are constantly undermined in the public sphere by government officials trying to push their own agendas and pander to their corporate backers. Fear and emotion-based arguments (as opposed to fact-based) are used to discredit scientific work, most of which are made by those who are not at all qualified to comment on its validity. Most lawyers and politicians do not have the skills required to correctly critique scientific data, just like I, as a scientist, wouldn't be able to adequately critique other technical jobs, such as that of a surgeon or mechanic.

Regardless, by the end of the 1920's, forensic toxicology gained recognition as a validated science that proved useful in law enforcement. Additionally, certain chemicals started to be regulated and banned from use, thanks in large part to Norris and the work of his meticulous toxicologist, Alexander Gettler. In the wake of Walter White and Gale Boetticher, Gettler's type A personality and devotion to sound science is not only understood but admired. After all, Mr. White's fastidious adherence to protocol produces the best product out there; the same can be said for Gettler's exacting methods used to inform some of the earliest, canonical studies on carbon monoxide toxicity as well as levels of ethanol intoxication. Not only did it produce the best results, but his repeated testing reiterated the certainty behind his results-- a hard case to argue against when used as evidence in court or to push for policy change.

Walter White and Gale Boetticher, Breaking Bad, Season 4

Here are a couple notable take-away points from this deliciously informative novel that reads like a murder mystery:

1. Quit trying to poison people. Many failed to get away with it in the 1920's and today's modern instruments are exponentially more sensitive and accurate in identifying extraneous toxic substances in the body.

2. Regulation is important! Yes, government-sponsored, scientifically sound regulations that monitor and decipher levels of toxic substances in our food, consumer products, and environment. Without them, something like wood alcohol (aka methanol, methyl alcohol, CH3OH) would be an acceptable additive to drinking alcohol (ethyl alcohol). Of course, this is only a problem if you are averse to going blind or subjecting to an early, unpredictable death after having a few at the bar.

3. For those of us in Public Health: Don't give up. It's exhausting and you can't do it alone, but it is possible to influence policy change down the line. Engaging the public and informing them to the dangers of environmental chemicals is essential to any real change ever happening. So, when you have some time out of the lab (?), be sure to work on those communication skills.

The Air Up There: Taking the Fumes out of the Dreamliner

Check out my post on The Bill Nye Effect about Clem Furlong, an awesome researcher in Medical Genetics at the UW who does some interesting Toxicology field work with toxic fumes on airplanes.

While you're there, read some other postings on our blog!

Lather, rinse, repeat

It's amazing how much of wet lab research is mundane routine. In general, research is incredibly tedious and slow. And very often, you don't find something groundbreaking and revolutionary. I wish more people understood this. My father, for instance, repeatedly asks if I "discovered anything yet." This makes me feel like this:
I forgive him quickly because he doesn't really get it, and that's ok. But, you would think that 3+ years later, he would understand when I explain it to him for the 50 millionth time why it doesn't work like that. It would be nice for others to understand the nature of lab-based research and what goes in to a single experiment. For instance (and not all experiments are like this, it's usually discipline and project specific), ONE of my experiments on primary neurons [brain cells harvested from an animal, a rat in this case] takes me about 2 weeks from start to finish.  Or, the fact that hundreds of experiments need to be conducted in order to 'safely' (read: with as little uncertainty as possible) make a conclusion about anything.

Sadly, simply saying something is 'bad for you,' or causes problems for human health, is not satisfactory for government-implemented policy. Years and volumes of data indicating a problem are needed to combat the use of whatever it is (i.e. industrial use of certain chemicals, certain pesticides, etc). This usually results in going down rabbit holes to prove inane points of HOW exactly this thing is bad for you. Research funds and man-hours are wasted on experiments necessary to find the smallest amount of a chemical that will not cause adverse effects ("Acceptable Daily Intake" of certain food additives, supplements, or even pesticide residues on foods, for example). Instead of eliminating the contaminant, industry waits for more time to pass with these studies and new policies to pass before they're ever expected to change.

I think some of the most important things I've learned in this program are about the politics surrounding the policy and decision-making towards anything public- or environmental-health related. It's quite amazing how little priority either of those two things get in this (and most) country(-ies). I love learning, but many times,the more I know, the angrier/sadder/more frustrated I become. I find myself envying the oblivious and ignorant, which is an interesting conclusion to come to when striving for 'higher education.'