I'm Featured in the 136th edition of Carnival of the Godless!

The latest edition of Carnival of the Godless can be found at The Barefoot Bum. My submission dealt with theistic vs. secular morality and why I feel secular moralities are superior.

Thank you for accepting my submission...again! :- )

I'm Featured in the 136th edition of Carnival of the Godless!

Well-Being, Atheism, and Religion

It is often argued that a benefit of religion is the physical and mental well being of its adherents, therefore, religion is good and no one should argue for its disappearance. Yes, religion often does some good things, though as I've always argued, religion is responsible for far more bad and immoral things than good and that shouldn't be forgotten. The simple fact is that religion is not needed to lead a perfectly happy and fulfilling life and there are many studies to back that up. The fact is that nontheists simply make use of other means to ease their stress and hardships. Many theists pray and go to church for comfort. Many nontheists gather with friends and family for guidance, but also realize the fact that there is no magic man in the sky to ease ones' problems. With the following studies I hope to shed light on issues related to the emotional well-being of atheists, compared to theists, such as tolerance, open-mindedness, happiness, etc.

There are several studies that have sought to determine which group (whether theists or atheists) is most tolerant of others. One such study was conducted throughout the years 1973-1985, and published in 1988, which showed that "disaffiliation from religious dominations contributed to greater political liberalism", [1] and a 1968 study of 1,500 freshmen at thirty-seven American colleges showed that the individuals who supported more liberal ideas (such as a welfare state, organized labor, social change towards greater equality) the nonreligious and Jews [2] scored highest, while Protestants scored the lowest. [3] In addition, a 1950 study of ethnocentrism and anti-Semitism showed that respondents having no religious affiliation had much lower levels of prejudice. The authors of the study summed up their findings as such:

"[I]t appears that those who reject religion have less ethnocentrism tha[n] those who seem to accept it." [4] (A likely typo has been corrected by me)

Many studies have also confirmed that those who are more religious are less tolerant of deviates. Since the 1940's the results have continuously shown that people who scored high on the "religionism" factor had more punitive attitudes towards criminals, homosexuals, and unmarried mothers. Overall, it's been shown that those who are more religious are more intolerant, the irreligious and Jews, more tolerant. [5]

As far as atheists having a good state of mind, a study in 1995 showed that "the non-religious are psychologically healthier than religious individuals and [...] this may be related to 'a sense of personal competence and control, self-acceptance and self-actualization, and perhaps open-mindedness and flexibility.'" [6]

Another study done by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer in 2002 analyzed answers from several hundred atheists and theists United States and Canada and examined a number of personality traits and beliefs. [7]

Such things Hunsberger and Altemeyer compared were issues of dogmatism, ethnocentrism, and zealotry, among others. As far as dogmatism, on a scale with the lowest score being 20; the highest, 180. The American atheists sampled scored an 88, while the Canadian atheists scored a 65. While these numbers look somewhat bad for the atheists sampled, the fundamentalist christians scored a total of 126. Of course the researchers also caution that the American atheists' high test scores were likely do to the average ages of the atheists sampled. To quote the researchers:

"Why did the American atheists score as high as they did? We have to cut them some slack here because they have celebrated about a dozen more birthdays than the Manitoba [Canadian] parents. So items such as 'Someday I will probably realize my present ideas about the BIG issues are wrong,' 'I am a long way from reaching final conclusions about the central issues in life,' and 'Twenty years from now, some of my opinions about the important things in life will probably have changed' probably mean something a little different to a person who is sixty than they do to one who is forty-eight." [8]

Regarding zealotry, the researchers asked three questions to each group of theists and atheists. The first, if a teen would come to you about advice on religion, what would you say to him or her? Of the two American atheist groups 62% (San Francisco atheists) and 63% (Alabama/Idaho atheists) would have "said something to the troubled teen that would have promoted apostasy." While 86% the Canadian atheists would simply tell the teen to do some searching and then decide what to believe themselves. [9]

The atheists were then asked whether or not they would want the teen to end up becoming an atheist, either through the atheists' influence or their personal search. 53% of the San Francisco atheists, as well as 48% of the Alabama and Idaho atheists answered "yes" they would like to see the teen choose their way of thinking. However, regarding the question of whether or not they would attempt to lead the teen in the direction of their own beliefs 42% of the San Francisco atheists and 38% of the Alabama/Idaho atheists answered yes. Only 16% of the Canadian atheists said yes to the same question. [10]

However, when the theists were asked the same question, 88% said they would tell the teen they were wrong and should become more religious, while only 12% said they would advice the teen to "search and decide."

On the second question asked, whether or not they would try to convince the teen to adopt their beliefs, 96% of the theists answered yes, and 98% said they would try to lead the teen in that direction. [11]

Clearly, when it comes to proselytizing, the theists are way ahead of the atheists.

The next question asked, one that is often a talking point regarding Richard Dawkins and what he labels "child abuse", was whether or not the atheist and theist parents would want to raise their child in a religious environment and encourage their children to share the parents' religious beliefs.

56% of the San Francisco atheists, and 44% of the Alabama/Idaho atheists reported that they would want their children to make up their own mind regarding religion. 86% of the Canadian atheists reported that they would want their children to make up their own minds. However, nearly all the fundamentalist christians (94%) said they would or have made a strong effort in passing their beliefs on to their children. [12]

This next question is also one that is often discussed, as many theists often foolishly accuse atheists of wishing their "godless" beliefs foisted upon children in public schools. [13]

The question asked was the following:

"Suppose a law were passed requiring strenuous teaching in public schools against belief in God and religion. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught that belief in God is unsupported by logic and science, and that traditional religions are based on unreliable scriptures and outdated principals. All children would eventually be encouraged to become atheists or agnostics. How would you react to such a law?"

The answers available were:

1) I think it would be a bad law. No particular religious beliefs should be taught in a public school.

2) I think it would be a good law. These particular beliefs should be taught in public schools.

78% of the San Francisco atheists and 68% of the Alabama/Idaho atheists said this would be a bad law; all of the Canadian atheists were against this law.

However, with the theists, the numbers flipped (surprise, surprise!) when asked the above question, only reversed:

"Suppose a law were passed requiring the strenuous teaching of religion in public schools. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught to believe in God, pray together in school several times each day, memorize the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Bible, learn the principles of Christian morality, and eventually be encouraged to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. How would you react to such a law?"

84% of the theists questioned thought that the above law would be a good one. [14]

An interesting question they posed to the atheists was whether or not they had secret doubts about their non-belief. They found that only 4% admitted to having "secret doubts", while 92% said that they do not have any doubts and fully believe their public stand. While, in a previous study the authors did they found that one-third of the religious questioners admitted to having doubts. [15]

I find this aspect of the study very interesting. Very often atheism is defined by theists (ie. wrongly) as a delusion; as a belief there is no god, or a denial of such a being. Clearly, if anyone is in denial it is the theists when they are truly honest. No wonder the extreme hostility from so many theists when their beliefs are questioned (ie. the countless books attacking Richard Dawkins and his book The God Delusion). Whether or not they are conscious of it, all these theists must have some serious doubts and feel the need to lash out in anger when atheists point out the many flaws in their attempts at rationalizing their absurd beliefs.

Next, the authors discuss the issue of authoritarianism, [16] in which on the RWA (Right-Wing Authoritarianism) scale, the atheists scored a very low 51 (well on the unauthoritarian side of the neutral point of 100), while the theists scored a 135. [17]

Finally, I will cite the authors' chart summarizing the findings regarding low RWA's. [18]

Compared to others, persons who score on the low end of the RWA scale are significantly more likely to:

1. Condemn unfair and illegal abuses of power by government authorities.
2. Distrust leaders who are untrustworthy.
3. Defend constitutional guarantees of liberty, such as the Bill of Rights.
4. Punish the crime when sentencing criminals; administer justice fairly, regardless of who the criminal is.
5. Hold authorities who commit crimes and people who attack minorities responsible for their actions.
6. Not rely on physical punishment as a way to correct behavior.
7. Resist government pressure to help persecute target groups.
8. Be understanding of those who have made mistakes and suffered.
9. Have well-integrated, non compartmental minds.
10. Avoid using double standards in their judgments.
11. Not be hypocrites.
12. Be unprejudiced toward racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
13. Accept homosexuals as people like anyone else and condemn "gay bashing."
14. Support feminism.
15. Be less conforming to the opinions of others, and not be a yea-sayer, nor believe strongly in group cohesiveness and "group loyalty."
16. Be aware of themselves. Realize their personal failings and be open to feedback about such failings.
17. Not trust someone merely because he tells them what they want to hear.
18. Not feel the world is a dangerous place nor be self-righteous.
19. Be non dogmatic and non zealous.
20. Support "liberal" or "left-wing" political parties and movements.

Another study done by Gary Leak and Brandy Randall in 1995 and published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion "found that those who score high on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale have several tendencies. They are likely 'to aggress against unpopular or unconventional groups, feel morally superior and self-righteous,' and 'possess a mean-spiritedness that is coupled with vindictiveness.' They often take 'secret pleasure' when others experience misfortune and appear prejudiced toward out-groups.'" [19] This certainly sounds like several theists I've run into in the past. It has been continuously demonstrated that those who are fundamentalists are most likely to possess authoritarian personalities.

The following information also shows how religion is not a necessity for moral behavior. In 1934, Abraham Franzblau found a negative correlation between acceptance of religious beliefs and three different measures of honesty. As religiosity increased, honesty decreased.

In 1950, Murray Ross conducted a survey among 2,000 associates of the YMCA and discovered that agnostics and atheists were more likely to express their willingness to aid the poor than those who rated themselves as deeply religious.

In 1969, sociologists Travis Hirschi and Rodney Stark reported no difference in the self-reported likelihood to commit crimes between children who attended church regularly and those who did not.

In 1975, Ronald Smith, Gregory Wheeler, and Edward Diener discovered that college-aged students in religious schools were no less likely to cheat on a test than their atheist and agnostic counterparts in nonreligious schools.

The July/August 2007 issue of the Annals of Family Medicine published the results of a study conducted by researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital that religious doctors were no more likely (and even slightly less likely) to employ their craft among underserved patients than were physicians with no religious affiliation. Specifically, Farr Curlin, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and his colleagues surveyed 1,820 practicing physicians from all specialties: 31% of physicians who were more religious practiced medicine among the underserved, compared to 35% of atheist, agnostic, and nonreligious doctors. Religiosity was measured by religious service attendance and self-reported "intrinsic religiosity" questions that measured the extent to which individuals embrace their religion as the "master motive that guides and gives meaning to their life." Curlin noted his own response to the data:

"This came as both a surprise and a disappointment. The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures all urge physicians to care for the poor, and the great majority of religious physicians describe their practice of medicine as a calling. Yet we found that religious physicians were not more likely to report practice among the underserved than their secular colleagues.'" [20]

Also, according to the 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report, European and other countries (such as Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Japan, Iceland, etc.) are the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and are also the most charitable in terms of the percentage of their wealth they spend on welfare programs and for aid to the developing world. [21]

Finally, while there are many studies that do provide some evidence as to the health benefits of religion, such as less anxiety about death, [22] lower rates of tobacco and alcohol use, and depression, [23] there are about as many negative effects as well.

There are many studies, and many cases, showing that the devoutly religious often do not believe in modern medicine and other life-saving treatments. The spread of AIDS due to many religious doctrines prohibiting contraception (especially in Africa), prohibitions on stem-cell research, wherein lies potential cures for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, etc. (though that theat is largely gone now thanks to the president Obama's administration, though who knows what the future holds if the religious get their way again...). Due to some religious denominations it is against their beliefs to get abortions, which if a pregnancy gone wrong occurs it can sometimes kill the mother if she doesn't believe in the sometimes life-saving operation. There is also ample research suggesting that a percentage of religious individuals practice out-of-hospital, non-physician attended birthing without any form of prenatal care. [24]

For example, a religious group called Faith Assembly has no medical or prenatal care and in Indiana zero percent of the Faith Assembly subjects had at least one prenatal visit compared to 99 percent for the non-Faith Assembly women. Perinatal mortality was three times greater and maternal mortality was almost 100 times greater in Faith Assembly women compared to non-Faith Assembly women. [25]

Christian Scientists who rarely consult doctors is another example. Age-adjusted death rates were significantly higher (p = .003) in Christian Science women than non-Christian Science women. [26]

I've done my best to find a variety of studies proving how religion is not needed to live a happy life and be a well adjusted and healthy individual. In fact, as was seen throughout many of these studies religion can have a negative impact on society and well-being. While this paper outlines many years worth of research there is much more one can examine. [27] I suggest the reader, if it interests him or her, to seek out these other sources.



1. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press, 2007; 303

2. Most Jews are some of the most secular of religious individuals, which would explain the similar study results.

According to a 2003 Harris Poll, "Only 16 percent of Jews go to synagogue once a month or more often"; and regarding belief in God: "Protestants (90 percent) are more likely than Roman Catholics (79 percent) and much more likely than Jews (48 percent) to believe in God. Religious affiliation here includes many people raised as members of a religion or religious group, regardless of what they practice or believe now." - Explaining Jews, Part II: Why Are Most Jews Secular?, By: Dennis Prager - accessed 3-15-10

3. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press, 2007; 303

4. Ibid. 304

5. Ibid. 305

6. Ibid. 306

7. Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers, by Bruce E. Hunsberger & Bob Altemeyer, Prometheus Books, 2006; 23-33

8. Ibid.; 62

9. Ibid.; 70

10. Ibid..; 70-71

11. Ibid.; 71

12. Ibid.; 72-73

13. Indoctrination by Our Public Schools, by Jerry Bergman; accessed 2-11-10

14. Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers; 73-74

15. Ibid.; 90-93

16. Right-Wing Authoritarianism is defined as the covariation of three kinds of attitudes: authoritarian submission (to established authorities), authoritarian aggression (against anyone the authorities target), and conventionalism (adhering to the social conventions thought to be endorsed by society and the established authorities).

17. Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers; 97

18. Ibid.; 110

19. The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America, Edited by Kimberly Blaker, New Boston Books, Inc., 2003; 38

20. Arizona Atheist's refutation of David Aikman's book The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

21. Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, Alfred A. Knopf, 2006; 43-46

22. Many reports make this claim, though it seems this isn't always true, as Phil Zuckerman found out when conducting interviews for his book Society Without God in Scandinavia. He interviewed a woman named Anne who is a hospice nurse and she reported that the christians have the most fear of death; fear of whether or not they will go to heaven or hell, and thinking about their life; had they done anything wrong and feeling guilty (pg. 46).

23. Did Man Create God? Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain?, by David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 2008; 604-611

24. Ibid.; 599

25. Ibid.; 599

26. Ibid.; 599

27. Two examples are: Phil Zuckerman's Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment, published by New York University Press, 2008

Zuckerman also wrote a paper titled Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions (2009) which is much more detailed in refuting the oft used claim that religion is a necessary component to a happy society and well-being.

Well-Being, Atheism, and Religion

Morality Research Sheds Light on the Origins of Religion

From Science Daily, here is an interesting piece on recent research by Marc Hauser and others.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010) — The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate among scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences on February 8 brings a new understanding to this long-standing discussion by exploring the fascinating link between morality and religion.

There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which are ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively with humans, are ultimately based in the brain. However, there are many unanswered questions about how and why these behaviors originated and how they may have been shaped during evolution.

"Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, while others propose that religion emerged as a by-product of pre-existing cognitive capacities," explains study co-author Dr. Ilkka Pyysiainen from the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Although there is some support for both, these alternative proposals have been difficult to investigate.

Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, used a fresh perspective based in experimental moral psychology to review these two competing theories. "We were interested in making use of this perspective because religion is linked to morality in different ways," says Dr. Hauser. "For some, there is no morality without religion, while others see religion as merely one way of expressing one's moral intuitions."

Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.

"This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen. "However, although it appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating and stabilizing cooperation between groups."

Perhaps this may help to explain the complex association between morality and religion. "It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing moral intuitions. Although, as we discuss in our paper, this link is not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a fundamental threat to our moral existence," concludes Dr. Hauser.

Cell Press (2010, February 9). Morality research sheds light on the origins of religion. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/02/100208123625.htm

Morality Research Sheds Light on the Origins of Religion

The Power of Science, Part 7

I have just read some exciting news about scientists using stem cells to grow bone in the lab. Why am I so excited? For those who have not read several of my earliest posts I have explained a few times that I am an amputee, and have been since about the age of five. Of course that hasn't stopped me from getting a black belt in martial arts, weight training, and other physical activities that I enjoy. But I am still very excited that we are finally progressing to the point that we can create bone, and perhaps later entire leg bones, veins, arteries, etc. to replace my lost leg (and countless other individuals as well!). If I live that long (hopefully it won't take another 40-50 years to accomplish) that would be an amazing experience.

Anyway, here is the article and video from the February 16th issue of NewScientist.com:

Healing touch: the key to regenerating bodies
16 February 2010 by Bob Holmes

YOU started life as a single cell. Now you are made of many trillions. There are more cells in your body than there are stars in the galaxy. Every day billions of these cells are replaced. And if you hurt yourself, billions more cells spring up to repair broken blood vessels and make new skin, muscle or even bone.

Even more amazing than the staggering number of cells, though, is the fact that, by and large, they all know what to do - whether to become skin or bone and so on. The question is, how?

"Cells don't have eyes or ears," says Dennis Discher, a biophysical engineer at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. "If you were blind and deaf, you'd get around by touch and smell. You'd feel a soft chair to sit on, a hard wall to avoid, or whether you're walking on carpet or concrete."

Until recently, the focus was all on "smell": that is, on how cells respond to chemical signals such as growth factors. Biologists thought of cells as automatons that blindly followed the orders they were given. In recent years, however, it has started to become clear that the sense of touch is vital as well, allowing cells to work out for themselves where they are and what they should be doing. Expose stem cells to flowing fluid, for instance, and they turn into blood vessels.

What is emerging is a far more dynamic picture of growth and development, with a great deal of interplay between cells, genes and our body's internal environment. This may explain why exercise and physical therapy are so important to health and healing - if cells don't get the right physical cues when you are recovering from an injury, for instance, they won't know what to do. It also helps explain how organisms evolve new shapes - the better cells become at sensing what they should do, the fewer genetic instructions they need to be given.

The latest findings are also good news for people who need replacement tissues and organs. If tissue engineers can just provide the right physical environment, it should make it easier to transform stem cells into specific tissues and create complex, three-dimensional organs that are as good as the real thing. And doctors are already experimenting with ways of using tactile cues to improve wound healing and regeneration.

Biologists have long suspected that mechanical forces may help shape development. "A hundred years ago, people looked at embryos and saw that it was an incredibly physical process," says Donald Ingber, head of Harvard University's Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering. "Then when biochemistry and molecular biology came in, the baby was thrown out with the bath water and everybody just focused on chemicals and genes."

While it was clear that physical forces do play a role - for example, astronauts living in zero gravity suffer bone loss - until recently there was no way to measure and experiment with the tiny forces experienced by individual cells. Only in the past few years, as equipment like atomic force microscopes has become more common, have biologists, physicists and tissue engineers begun to get to grips with how forces shape cells' behaviour.

One of the clearest examples comes from Discher and his colleagues, who used atomic force microscopy to measure the stiffness of a variety of tissues and gel pads. Then they grew human mesenchymal stem cells - the precursors of bone, muscle and many other tissue types - on the gels. In each case, the cells turned into the tissue that most closely matched the stiffness of the gel.

The softest gels, which were as flabby as brain tissue, gave rise to nerve cells. In contrast, gels that were 10 times stiffer - like muscle tissue - generated muscle cells, and yet stiffer gels gave rise to bone (Cell, vol 126, p 677). "What's surprising is not that there are tactile differences between one tissue and another," says Discher. After all, doctors rely on such differences every time they palpate your abdomen. "What's surprising is that cells feel that difference."

The details of how they do this are now emerging. Most cells other than blood cells live within a fibrous extracellular matrix. Each cell is linked to this matrix by proteins in its membrane called integrins, and the cell's internal protein skeleton is constantly tugging on these integrins to create a taut, tuned whole. "There's isometric tension that you don't see," says Ingber. In practice, this means changes in external tension - such as differences in the stiffness of the matrix, or the everyday stresses and strains of normal muscle movement - can be transmitted into the cell and ultimately to the nucleus, where they can direct the cell's eventual fate.

Since stem cells have yet to turn into specific cell types, biologists expected them to be extra sensitive to the environment, and this does indeed seem to be the case. Ning Wang, a bioengineer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, found that the embryonic stem cells of mice are much softer than other, more specialised cells. This softness means that tiny external forces can deform the cells and influence their development (Nature Materials, vol 9, p 82).

For instance, if stem cells are exposed to flowing fluid, they turn into the endothelial cells that line the inner surface of blood vessels. In fact, fluid flow - particularly pulses that mimic the effect of a beating heart - is proving crucial for growing replacement arteries in the laboratory. The rhythmic stress helps align the fibres of the developing artery, making them twice as strong, says Laura Niklason, a tissue engineer at Yale University. A biotech company Niklason founded, called Humacyte, has begun animal testing on arteries grown this way.

Surprisingly, pulsatile motion can help heal injuries in situ too. At Harvard, Ingber and his colleague Dennis Orgill are treating patients with difficult-to-heal wounds by implanting a small sponge in the wound and connecting this to a pump. The pump sucks the cells surrounding the wound in and out of the sponge's pores, distorting them by about 15 to 20 per cent - an almost ideal stimulus for inducing the cells to grow and form blood vessels and thus boost the healing process, says Ingber.

Meanwhile, tissue engineers are finding that they can grow far better bone and cartilage by mimicking the stresses that the tissues normally experience in the body. For instance, human cartilage grown in the lab is usually nowhere near as strong as the real thing. Recently, however, Clark Hung, a biomedical engineer at Columbia University in New York City, has grown cartilage that matches its natural counterpart strength for strength. The secret, he has found, is rhythmically squeezing the cartilage as it grows to mimic the stress of walking.

Hung says this is partly because the pressure helps to pump nutrients into cartilage, which has no blood vessels. But his experiments suggest that the loading alone also plays an important role. His team hopes the engineered cartilage will eventually be used to resurface arthritic human joints.

Even relatively mild stresses make a big difference. Attempts to grow replacement bone by placing stem cells in a culture chamber of the desired shape have not been very successful, with the cells often dying or producing only weak bone. But Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic, a biomedical engineer also at Columbia, has found that mimicking the internal flow of fluid that growing bones normally experience helps maximise strength. Last year, her team used this approach to successfully grow a replica of part of the temporomandibular joint in the jaw from human stem cells, producing a naturally shaped, fully viable bone after just five weeks.

"If you don't stimulate bone cells, they don't do much," says Vunjak-Novakovic. "But if you do, they wake up and start making bone at a higher rate."

There is still a long way to go, however. The replica bone lacks the thin layer of cartilage that lines the real bone, and it also lacks a blood supply, so it begins to starve as soon as it is removed from the culture chamber.

Again, though, the answer could be to provide the cells with the right physical cues. For example, Vunjak-Novakovic has used lasers to drill channels in the scaffolds used to grow heart muscle in the lab. When fluid begins flowing through these channels, endothelial cells move in to line the channels while muscle cells move away. "Each of the cells will find its own niche," she says. Her team is now testing to see whether stem cells will turn into endothelial cells in the channels and into muscle cells elsewhere. Early results suggest that they will.

Even small differences in forces can influence development. Christopher Chen of the University of Pennsylvania grew flat sheets of mesenchymal stem cells and exposed them to a mixture of growth factors for bone and marrow development. The cells on the edges of the sheets, which were exposed to the greatest stresses, turned into bone cells, while those in the middle turned into the fat cells found in marrow, as in real bone (Stem Cells, vol 26, p 2921).

If this kind of sorting-out according to physical forces is widespread in development, it could be very good news for tissue engineers. Instead of having to micromanage the process of producing a replacement organ, they need only to provide the right cues and let the cells do the rest.

Indeed, it makes a lot of sense for some developmental decisions to be "devolved" to cells. The growth of tissues like muscles, bone, skin and blood vessels has to be coordinated as our bodies develop and adapt to different activities and injuries. A rigid genetic programme could easily be derailed, whereas using tactile cues as guides allows tissues to adapt quickly as conditions change - for instance, carrying heavy loads will make our bones grow stronger.

This kind of plasticity may play a vital role in evolution as well as during the lifetime of individuals. When the ancestors of giraffes acquired mutations that made their necks longer, for instance, they did not have to evolve a whole new blueprint for making necks. Instead, the nerves, muscles and skin would have grown proportionately without needing further changes in instructions. The result of this plasticity is a developmental programme that is better able to cope with evolutionary changes, says Ingber.

There is, however, a drawback. When disease or injury changes the stiffness of a tissue, things can go awry. Some researchers suspect that tissue stiffening plays a role in multiple sclerosis, in which nerves lose their protective myelin sheath (Journal of Biology, vol 8, p 78). It may also play a role in some cancers (see "Lumps and bumps").

It could also explain why many tissues fail to heal perfectly after an injury. To prevent infection, the body needs to patch up wounds as quickly as possible. So it uses a form of collagen that is easier to assemble than the normal one. "It's a quick patch, things are sealed off and you go on - but it's not perfect regeneration," says Discher. The quick-fix collagen is stiffer than normal tissue, as anyone with a large scar will tell you.

After a heart attack, for example, the dead portion of the heart muscle scars over. Why, Discher wondered, don't heart muscle cells then replace the scar tissue? To find out, he and his colleagues grew embryonic heart cells on matrixes of differing stiffness. When the matrix was the same stiffness as healthy heart muscle, the cells grew normally and beat happily. But if the matrix was as stiff as scar tissue, the cells gradually stopped beating (Journal of Cell Science, vol 121, p 3794).

The constant work of trying to flex the stiffer matrix wears the cells out, Discher thinks. "It's like pushing on a brick wall. Finally, they give up."

Discher believes the solution may lie in finding a way to soften the scar tissue so that heart cells can repopulate it. Several enzymes, such as matrix metalloproteinases and collagenases, might do the job, but overdoing it could be risky. "If you degrade the matrix too much, you lose the patch," he warns.

The stiffness of scar tissue may also prevent regeneration in nerve injury, because nerve cells prefer the softest of surroundings. "It might just be that the growing tip of the axon senses that there's a stiff wall ahead of it and doesn't grow through because of that," speculates Jochen Guck, a biophysicist at the University of Cambridge in the UK.

There is still a long way to go before we fully understand how cells sense and respond to the forces on them. But it is becoming clear that the touchy-feely approach could be the key to regenerating the body.

Lumps and bumps

Many tumours are stiffer than the tissues in which they form - after all, doctors often first detect many cancers of organs such as the breast and prostate by feeling a hard lump. Some researchers now suspect that this stiffness is not always just a consequence of the cancer. It may be a cause as well.

A team led by Paul Janmey, a biophysicist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, has found that the cycle of cell division in breast cells stops when they are grown on a soft gel, keeping them in a quiescent state (Current Biology, vol 19, p 1511). Anything that signals stiffness - even just touching a cell with a rigid probe - can be enough to start it dividing again.

Similarly, when Valerie Weaver, a cancer biologist at the University of California at San Francisco, and her team used chemicals to soften the extracellular matrix in which breast cells were growing in the lab they found the cells were less likely to become malignant (Cell, vol 139, p 891). If her findings are confirmed, they could explain why women with denser breast tissue are more likely to develop breast cancer.

Some researchers, too, have reported seeing tumours form around the scars from breast-implant surgery. "This needs to be looked at again," says Weaver. If the link is confirmed, it might be possible to block tumour growth by interfering with the way cells detect stiffness.

Bob Holmes is a consultant for New Scientist based in Edmonton, Canada






To read other posts about the findings of science regarding medical use, please click here.

The Power of Science, Part 7

Moral Sentiments in the Brain: Empathy as the basis for morality, by Paul J. Zak

At Psychology Today I found an excellent article and video explaining the biological basis for morality I wanted to share. Enjoy!





Moral Sentiments in the Brain:
Empathy as the basis for morality
Published on June 29, 2009
By Paul J. Zak

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is best known for the idea in his 1776 The Wealth of Nations that self-interested behavior leads to the best outcome for society as if through the working of an invisible hand. But Smith was an intellectual rock star before The Wealth of Nations. His 1759 book The Theory of Moral Sentiments catapulted him to fame by presenting what philosophers and theologians had always wanted: An explanation of good and evil.

Morality, Smith said, came from "fellow feeling" or our sympathy for others. We are, Smith argued, discomfited by seeing others in distress. This motivates us to engage in costly but socially beneficial acts like helping those in need. He called this the "healing consolation of mutual sympathy." You know this yourself: it is uncomfortable to see someone suffer physically or emotionally. And we ourselves suffer if our actions have led to another's suffering. Today we would call this empathy (a word coined in 1858 by German philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-1881) and therefore unavailable to Smith). We are undeniably emotionally connected to others. But why?

Recent research at the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies (CNS) has not only found that moral sentiments are real and measurable, but we have been able to manipulate these mechanisms in human brains to cause people to be moral in the lab. To understand how moral sentiments operate, I developed the Empathy-Generosity-Punishment (EGP) mathematical model. Based on principles in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, the model shows that empathy varies according to the distress one observes in others and this can motivate costly helping behaviors, including generosity with resources. The model predicts that generosity is more likely when we take another's perspective, and when our offer of help to another can be rejected as insufficient.

A body of evidence developed at CNS has demonstrated that the neuroactive hormone oxytocin is the brain basis for empathy and helps us understand another's emotional state. For example, a recent CNS study with graduate student Jorge Barraza found a direct relationship between oxytocin released in blood and the subjective experience of empathy when participants watched an emotionally charged video about a four year old boy with terminal brain cancer (see movie here). Those who were more empathically engaged were more generous when asked to share resources they controlled with a stranger in the lab. Infusing synthetic oxytocin into people caused them (relative to those given a placebo), to be 80% more generous towards a stranger.

While oxytocin amplifies the empathy response in the EGP model, studies at CNS have shown another hormone, testosterone inhibits empathy by blocking the action of oxytocin. When we administered synthetic testosterone to men, we made them less generous when they were asked to split money with a stranger. We also found that these "alpha males" were more likely to punish those who were ungenerous towards them (!). While oxytocin increases empathy, testosterone inhibits it, making men stingy and selfish. By changing participants' neurologic states using oxytocin and testosterone, we showed that we can directly cause them to be virtuous--in these studies, to be more generous.

So which Adam Smith is correct: unbridled self-interest or fellow-feeling? Just as individuals are not fully rational or irrational, neither are we purely other-regarding nor entirely self-interested. We can be both empathic and insensitive, and we constantly seek a balance between these two extremes in responding to different social, economic and institutional contexts we find ourselves in. As much as we say otherwise, our behavior is also influenced by the perceptions of others around us.

Our studies and the EGP model show that the brain circuit that produces moral behaviors depends critically on sufficient childhood nurturing, a stable the legal-political environment, and the social support we receive. Without these, moral behaviors recede. When these elements are present, morality is high and we have shown also shown that happiness increases. This is big news: oxytocin not only connects us to others by increasing our empathy, it also makes us happier! Read the original research here.

Adam Smith was right: we are moral creatures because we are empathic. Research at CNS reveals the science behind Smith's insights: we are virtuous because of the moral molecule, oxytocin. Adam Smith said it best, "Whatever appears to be the proper object of gratitude, appears to deserve reward; and that, in the same manner, whatever appears to be the proper object of resentment, appears to deserve punishment."


See Also:

Answering the New Atheism, by Scott Hahn & Benjamin Wiker: A Refutation

Altruism in Primates and Humans

Christian Apologists Just Don't Understand Morality, Parts 1 & 2

A Refutation of The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Addendum II - Slavery, The Bible, and Christianity

Moral Sentiments in the Brain: Empathy as the basis for morality, by Paul J. Zak

My Carnival of the Godless, No. 135 Submission

I've recently been submitting some of my work to the Carnival of the Godless and this I believe is my third submission. It's the review I wrote back in 2008 of David Aikman's Delusion of Disbelief. I like how Jack, from Homologous Legs, introduced my post:

"Phew, here we have an older post from Ken at Arizona Atheist – a HUGE review of David Aikman’s “The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness”. Wow, that’s insane. He read (and analysed) this anti-atheism book so you all don’t have to – I’d thank him for it, if I were you. So, leave a comment after you finish reading The Delusion of David Aikman: A Review of The Delusion of Disbelief."

If he thought my review of Aikman's book was huge (which is only about 40 pages), then I'm curious what he'd say about my two 100 + page reviews of Ray Comfort's The Evidence Bible and David Marshall's The Truth Behind the New Atheism.

My Carnival of the Godless, No. 135 Submission

The Science Knowledge Quiz: How Well Will You Do?

Recently I took the Pew Research Center's Science Knowledge Quiz and got 12 out of the 12 questions asked correct, which puts me in with the 10% of the population who were able to do the same. The quiz was part of the Pew Research Center's new study of science and its impact on society. You can currently view the entire report here.

How well did you do? Please post your scores below in the comments!

Simply for future reference:

The Science Knowledge Quiz: How Well Will You Do?

The Lucifer Effect - February 2010

It's that time of the month again! Even though it's going to be Valentines Day in two weeks I certainly wouldn't give any love to these cops, who abuse a man who is unable to defend himself, as he is handcuffed and punched in the face several times by this pig.




Here is yet another instance of a cop using a taser unnecessarily, which can have dire consequences.



Finally, here is another case of cops using their supposedly non-lethal weapons even after the man is clearly subdued.

The Lucifer Effect - February 2010

To Bay of Fundie: Thanks for the Kudos!

I wanted to write a quick thank you to Ron Britton, author of the Bay of Fundie blog, for recommending my arguments against god's existence, which was recently included in the latest Carnival of the Godless. Mr. Britton said of my post:

"There’s a bunch of stuff over there. I really liked 'Against the Gods: Arguments Against God’s Existence' by Ken at Arizona Atheist. It’s a long, thoughtful argument that refutes many of the arguments for God’s existence. Check it out."

To Bay of Fundie: Thanks for the Kudos!