I am disappointed in my university — do better

I met Catherine Verfaillie several years ago. She was very nice. I was visiting her lab with a couple of students, and she found the time to give us all a personal tour and to discuss her recent experiments. Unfortunately, she must not have had the time to carefully vet her published data.

Years after questions were raised about their integrity, two of the University of Minnesota’s highest-profile scientific discoveries have been retracted in one week — one that offered hope over the therapeutic potential of stem cells and another that offered a promising path toward treating Alzheimer’s disease.

The studies are more than a decade old and superseded by other discoveries in their fields. But the retractions of the Alzheimer’s paper on Monday and the stem cell paper on June 17 are setbacks for an institution that is fighting to move up the U.S. rankings in academic reputation and federal research dollars.

Both studies were published in the prestigious journal Nature and collectively have been cited nearly 7,000 times. Researchers worldwide were using these papers to support their work years after they had been disputed.

I was familiar with the stem cell work and had even discussed it in my classes, years ago. I haven’t brought them up in a while, and I guess I won’t ever again.

Dr. Catherine Verfaillie and colleagues in 2002 reported that they coaxed mesenchymal stem cells from adult bone marrow into growing numerous other cell types and tissues in the body. Only stem cells from early-stage human embryos had shown such regenerative potential at that time, and they were controversial because they were derived from aborted fetuses or leftover embryos from infertility treatments. President George W. Bush had banned federal funding for embryonic research, fueling a search for alternative stem cell sources.

Dr. Karen Ashe and colleagues similarly gained global attention in 2006 when they found a molecular target that appeared influential in the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, which remains incurable and a leading source of dementia and death in America’s aging population. Mice mimicking that molecule, amyloid beta star 56, showed worse memory loss based on their ability to navigate a maze. Ashe theorized that a drug targeting that molecule could help people overcome or slow Alzheimer’s debilitating effects.

As often seems to be the case, these bad papers were a consequence of manipulating data and images.

Verfaillie and colleagues corrected the Nature paper in 2007, which contained an image of cellular activity in mice that appeared identical to an image in a different paper that supposedly came from different mice. The U then launched an investigation over complaints of image duplications or manipulations in more of Verfaillie’s papers.

It eventually cleared her of misconduct, but blamed her for inadequate training and oversight and claimed that a junior researcher had falsified data in a similar study published in the journal Blood. That article was retracted in 2009.

Concerns resurfaced in 2019 over the Nature stem cell paper when Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist-turned-research detective, found more examples of image duplication.

Jesus. How does this happen in a non-pathological lab situation? When I was publishing papers, every figure and table went through multiple review sessions — we presented the work in lab meetings, and in meetings of scientific societies, and we had to discuss the provenance of every image. If we lacked some critical image, we wouldn’t be told to go through the old files and find something that looks like what we wanted to see, we had to go back in the lab and repeat the experiment and get good quality images. I once spent a year doing practically nothing but repeating transmission EM preps trying to find a particular synapse, and couldn’t…so we ended up dropping the claim, and if anybody asked about it, I’d just say it must be a rare contact and that we couldn’t verify it.

Republishing images, unless it was for a review paper and was properly credited, was unthinkable. As for the Alzheimer paper…

Bik also turned out to be a key critic of Ashe’s Alzheimer’s discoveries, raising concerns about images in her Nature paper and several related studies. Much of the blame so far has fallen on co-author Sylvain Lesne, a U neuroscientist who was responsible for the published images. Lesne did not reply to a request for comment, but authorized the university to disclose that it completed its internal investigation into the Nature paper without finding any evidence of misconduct. Reviews of other publications from Lesne’s lab are ongoing.

That just tells me that the University of Minnesota’s internal investigation was more of a whitewash. Faked or duplicated images ought to be a tremendous great red flag, complete with klaxons and arc lights, and there is no excuse for being that lazy/sloppy/incompetent, especially when the article is going into a prestigious journal that will get you a lot of attention.

Watch out for the abuse of language

Whoa, this video invokes a lot of familiar tropes that I see in cults and other religions, and things like Amazon and Qanon.

Watch it to learn the dangerous tactics conspiracy theorists and religions use to recruit members. These include long-windedness, loaded language (us vs them dichotomies), thought-terminating cliches (that’s why I hate “agree to disagree”) and lots and lots of jargon. I’ve noticed that creationists are masters of the latter — so much of what they do is invoke words and phrases like “irreducible complexity” and “no transitional fossils” and it’s empty, meaningless noise, but it triggers automatic affirmations from the devotees.

The Great Red Spot controversy

Apparently, Jupiter’s red spot may be transient and repetitive, coming and going.

Sánchez-Lavega et al. concluded that the current Red Spot is probably not the same as that observed by Cassini and others in the 17th century. They argue that the Permanent Spot had faded by the start of the 18th century, and a new spot formed in the 19th century—the one we observe today, making it more than 190 years old.

Others remain unconvinced of that conclusion, such as astronomer Scott Bolton of the Southwest Research Institute in Texas. “What I think we may be seeing is not so much that the storm went away and then a new one came in almost the same place,” he told New Scientist. “It would be a very big coincidence to have it occur at the same exact latitude, or even a similar latitude. It could be that what we’re really watching is the evolution of the storm.”

Comparison between the Permanent Spot and the current Great Red Spot. (a) December 1690. (b) January 1691. (c) January 19, 1672. (d) August 10, 2023.

It would be such a bummer to plan a vacation to Jupiter and have a major tourist attraction evaporate, so NASA better get right on this mystery and give me a firm schedule for Red Spot fluctuations.

Hatred can be so oblivious to itself

Beth Bourne is an administrator at the UC Davis’ Institute of Transportation Studies. She is also the president of her local Moms for Liberty chapter. She took off to Hawai’i for vacation, and discovered that the native people have a tradition she does not like at all.

Māhū (‘in the middle’) in Native Hawaiian and Tahitian cultures are third gender people with traditional spiritual and social roles within the culture, similar to Tongan fakaleiti and Samoan fa’afafine. Historically, the term māhū referred to people assigned male at birth (AMAB), but in modern usage, māhū can refer to a variety of genders and sexual orientations.

According to present-day māhū kumu hula Kaua’i Iki:

Māhū were particularly respected as teachers, usually of hula dance and chant. In pre-contact times māhū performed the roles of goddesses in hula dances that took place in temples which were off-limits to women. Māhū were also valued as the keepers of cultural traditions, such as the passing down of genealogies. Traditionally parents would ask māhū to name their children.

The hotel she was staying at was hosting a māhū luncheon. In public, no less. They were relaxing in the lobby! Well, now how can a conservative white American deal with that? By tantrums, hysterical accusations, demanding to see the hotel manager, and calling for the police, of course.

What shocks me is that Beth Bourne herself recorded her ridiculous melt-down and proudly posted it on Twitter for all to see. She put on a spectacle of intolerance, hatred, and stupidity, while the māhū sat quietly, calmly, gracefully, and responded politely, and she thought we’d all see how awful drag queens are by posting it? Weird. The police came, and escorted Bourne off the hotel premises, and UC Davis issued a rebuke, and she still thought this was a good idea? I’m much more impressed with Marina Del Rey’s response.

I think it’s telling that this video stirred up strong emotions in many viewers. There was prior dialog from her ahead of what I filmed and ultimately she was taken off the property by the @honolulupd. I would like to say a huge THANK U again to the @alohilaniresort for your care and concerns during and after, to all of us…. those within witness – guest or staff – many extended compassion of which Im very very grateful.
To give some context – a few of us were on the hotel property to film a video for an upcoming pageant, playing roles as hotel staff in drag. This woman saw us filming and came to a slow burn and then she popped off. Her rant went on and on – possibly with the attempt to get a riled angered response. She didn’t get one. In this video – you see my perspective. In her video – u will see three drag queens surrounded by staff and guests – just sitting down.
Im not here to figure her out, incite hate against her, or call her names —— Im here to remind you, many meet worse daily, the ugliness of this happens without regard to where, why, how etc….Even in the lobby of your hotel.
Love more on those beside you. Love on those who are turned away by their own….and thank u to everyone who has sent messages of concern and care. we are all okay. A little shook & saddened but grateful to the people we were in the company of and everyone who reached out. and still keeping faith in humanity.🤙🏼

Do I need to buy a gun?

I’ve never owned a gun. I’ve never wanted one, and am actively repelled by the idea of having one in the house. I think my wife is even more opposed to the idea.

But we have this presidential debate coming up this week, and I’m not optimistic about the outcome. I’m not concerned that Trump might triumph, but that it won’t matter. We know that Trump and his campaign are making pre-emptive excuses, against a backdrop of fanatical Trump cultists who will announce him either the winner (no matter what) or if he’s beaten, that the game was rigged or Biden cheated or that Satan fooled everyone. There will be no resolution. It’s going to be a trial run for the big event in November, a mere 5 months from now.

Various right-wingers have been gleefully predicting civil war for years now. The mob still claims that Trump actually won. We had a practice insurrection on January 6th a few years ago. Imagine if Trump loses a second time — the fury of aggrieved MAGA assholes will flare up all across the country. I live in the middle of red rural America, part of a liberal university that will focus their hate, I can picture the seething rage that will rise up.

Even worse is if Trump somehow wins. He is already announcing the suspension of the rule of law and purges…and we know that education and teaching will be targeted. He loves the uneducated! I don’t want to even think about his attitude towards atheists, and how we’d be such an easy sacrifice for him to make.

So I’ve been thinking about defending myself. I might nail a few doors shut in October to make the house a little less vulnerable. I’ve got a great big picture window in the living room, will I need to board it up like a hurricane is on the way? Should I get a handgun? Or would it be more likely to be turned against us? I could probably fortify the basement fairly easily, since it has only one entrance…but that could turn it into a trap.

You can tell I’m not optimistic about the coming Fall. Maybe what I should do is pack everything up and move to Norway…or maybe Canada.

Honesty is no way to get rich

The Museum of Atlantis is opening! Take the AI-guided tour of empty rooms and missing evidence and a well-stocked gift shop.

I was a bit disappointed, though. At one point they show a gallery of promoters of the myth, featuring Graham Hancock and Edgar Cayce and Madame Blavatsky, and you’d think they’d have learned. When there’s no evidence, just make it all up! Don’t show empty rooms, fill ’em up with dioramas and animatronics and cheap mannequins and wall signs! Learn from the modern master, Ken Ham.

I’m still reluctantly impressed at the Ark Park’s brilliant strategy of filling empty rooms with empty crates and announcing that the animals were inside.

The Museum of Atlantis could be a fabulous money-maker, all you need is imagination and a gullible public…and the US has the latter in great overwhelming masses.

‘Rawdogging’?

No, just no. I know that language evolves, but sometimes it degenerates in confusing ways. Would you believe “rawdogging” has acquired a new meaning? I know what it used to mean, but now it’s something very different, entirely harmless, and actually rather effete.

A 26-year-old Londoner named West (who asked to use only his first name) went viral in May when he posted about his decision to forgo any entertainment and pass a seven-hour trip watching the flight map. “Anyone else bareback flights?” he asked in the caption.

The concept—referred to in a vivid and perhaps unfortunate parlance as “rawdogging,” “flying raw,” and “bareback”—resonated with many in the comments on West’s TikTok page, @WestWasHere. “Yup, from London to Miami this week…pure bareback no food or water,” one wrote. “I swear barebacking flights make it go quicker,” another added.

“I’ve got DMs on Instagram like, ‘Bro, you need to teach us how to bareback flights,’” West tells GQ.

This has got to be a joke. You need to be taught how to sit quietly doing nothing on a flight?

But West and others have also come to see rawdogging flights as a kind of challenge, like the Tough Mudder or No Nut November, the goal being to see how fully participants can deprive themselves of creature comforts, up to and including free snack and drinks and even bathroom visits. A true rawdogger takes no indulgences.

Wait…I usually take the cheapest flight I can get, with few entertainment options, and since the pandemic I don’t take my mask off for the entire flight. I’m a rawdogger now? I thought I just wanted to avoid catching a disease.

It begins. Again.

I’ve been away this weekend. I walked back into the lab a short while ago, and here’s what I found.

A Parasteatoda egg sac had hatched out.

A second Parasteatoda egg sac hatched.

And another black widow produced a third egg sac.

Ooof. I know what I’m doing tomorrow.

The real mission

I lied. We weren’t on a spider-hunting trip this weekend. We were visiting our granddaughter and delivering a bicycle. She took to it enthusiastically, and was pedaling all over her neighborhood with us chasing after.

“We” meaning the crotchety, rickety old grandparents, because Iliana’s mom is still recovering. Skatje has some titanium screws holding her tibia together and her patella is somehow secured in position, and there’s an awesome long vertical scar over her shin, so she can’t keep up. We contributed by bringing her daughter a rapid transport device and turning her loose. She was busy biking all over their apartment when we didn’t take her outside and point her at a sidewalk. I know, grandparents are just the worst.

Then we had to make the long drive back home — 7 hours each way! — and I got my usual reward. I got to stand around awkwardly while Grandma got all the hugs and sad farewells, because I’m the homely, repulsive, off-putting, superfluous male, the danger-even-if-not-a-stranger guy. At least I get to console myself with spiders.

Iliana was a natural, though. She’s going to bicycling across country to visit us (or at least, grandma) someday. When she’s 18, she said. She’s 5½ right now, she explained, so she can’t go that far, yet.