Welcome to the latest edition of PRIM&R’s “Science Times synthesis”! We welcome you to join us in reading the latest batch of New York Times “Science Times” articles. Any favorites? Any comments? We’d love to know what you think about these updates. And take heart—only 37 days ‘til spring!

February 1, 2011

Medical detectives find their first new disease: Doctors at the NIH are working on solving unanswered questions about a new disease.

What’s a little swine flu outbreak among friends?: A study finds that kids who catch the swine flu are more likely to contract it from friends than classmates.

Pneumonia DNA morphs to dodge vaccines: Learn how a single strand of pneumonia has grown over the past 30 years.

Childhood: obesity and school lunches: Researchers say another factor in childhood obesity may be school lunches.

February 8, 2011

Social scientist sees bias within: Does Psychology attract a more liberal population?

On evolution, biology teachers stray from lesson plan: A recent study finds that 28% of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe evolution.

The matriarch of modern cancer genetics: Read an interview with Janet Davison Rowley, a premiere researcher in modern cancer genetics.

Drugmakers’ fever for the power of RNA interference has cooled: The development of new drugs using RNA interference may not be as promising as once thought.

Lymph node study shakes pillar of breast cancer care: A new study shows that a routine procedure in breast cancer care may not be necessary.

Leave a Reply

One thought on ““Science Times” synthesis

  1. Jinnayah

    The "lymph node" study was definitely my favorite last week, for both personal and scientific reasons.

    My aunt is a breast cancer survivor, now nearly 12 years post-diagnosis. Her disease was high-risk and required VERY aggressive treatment–surgical, chemo, and radiation (RT). She did have lymphadenectomy and does suffer from lymphedema, but she's still a dynamo as always.

    Scientifically, I loved this study as an example of how science *changes*. It's not that lymphadenectomy does NOT remove metastases that could be troublesome, but just that other elements of the now-standard of care treatment remove those metastases (in some cases) just as well. The standard of care changed, so each element should be re-evaluated for its *current* contribution.

    Way cool.