Another shot in the arm for Wall Street

Who should be first in line for vaccinations during a major influenza epidemic?

The indispensable, frontline workers, of course – physicians, paramedics and other health care providers, for sure, and police, firefighters and other safety officials.

And, it turns out, Wall Street banking firms.

Banks and other financial companies were given “a private allocation” of the vaccine, according to a post on the Washington political Web site, The Hill. This, notes The Hill’s Brent Budowsky, “while many kids, hospitals and pregnant women cannot get enough of the swine flu vaccine.”

The Guardian in the UK reports that Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley employees were among the first New Yorkers to get the H1N1 vaccine. The newspaper says U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd was “stunned” when he found out and penned a protest letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

“Vaccines should go to people who need them most, not people who happen to work on Wall Street,” Dodd said.

No kidding.

New York Health Department officials said the bankers were among the first to get the vaccine because they were among the first to apply. The Health Department is encouraging companies to distribute the vaccines at work sites.

The investment companies only received a percentage of the doses they requested. But I know first hand of hospitals that have been unable to offer their employees – people who are exposed to sick patients every day – H1N1 vaccines because there weren’t enough to go around.

At best, public officials are persuing grossly misguided policy by lumping hospitals and clinics in with private companies that have nothing whatsoever to do with alleviating public suffering during a health care crisis.

At worst, they are creating a public relations debacle at a time when investment banks are already scorned by Americans for playing fast and loose with the economy, then making the taxpayers pick up the tab for their bad bets.

As The Hill’s Budowsky says, the policy “does not do well on the smell test,” whatever the motivation.

Repair work is under way. Morgan Stanley gave its allotment of 1,000 doses to area hospitals, according to Bloomberg. And the White House reiterated that no matter where the vaccines were administered, only high risk people would get them.

Of course, at private companies that’s based on the “honor system,” according to public health officials. Interesting choice of words, isn’t it?

 

‘Baby’ bites back

And now for a look at one of the hottest issues raging in America today: The Baby Einstein controversy.

The Walt Disney Company began offering refunds in September to parents who didn’t think their kids got the best intellectual bang for their buck with their series of videos intended to stimulate young minds.

Baby Einstein, for the uninitiated, offers an array of products for several age groups. For example, you can buy a “Baby Bach” DVD for $6.99. “Introduce your little one to Bach in a creative way,” says the promotional copy for the item, which contains “Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D.”

You can take a detailed look at all of the company’s products online, and judge for yourself how beneficial they may or may not be.

Now along comes Susan Linn, co-founder and director of The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. She’s also a psychologist at Harvard Medical School. As she points out, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no videos for children younger than 2.

On Oct. 23, the CCFC issued a news release headlined: “CCFC Victory: Disney Offers Parents Refunds on Baby Einstein Videos.”

It went on to say: “In an important development in the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s ongoing efforts to stop companies from marketing screen media as educational for babies, the Baby Einstein Company, a Walt Disney company, is offering a refund to anyone who purchased a Baby Einstein video in the past five years.”

This occurred after the organization filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Baby Einstein “for making unsubstantiated claims that their videos were educational for babies.”

This is where the plot thickens, because Baby Einstein claims the FTC failed to act on the complaint. However, the company began offering refunds shortly after that.

“There is no credible evidence that any screen media is educational for children under two,” Linn maintains. “So we are pleased by this offer.”

But now Baby Einstein has bitten back, with its own explanation of the legal and marketing battle that has been taking place this fall. “Baby Einstein Sets the Record Straight on Refund,” says the notice on the top of the company’s home page.

“For the past several years, Baby Einstein has been under attack… unfortunately we can not be silent any longer.”

Baby Einstein does not mince words. Baby Einstein General Manager Susan McLain refers to Linn’s “latest stunt” and her “obvious dislike for Baby Einstein,” which has “now turned into a sensational, headline-grabbing publicity campaign that seeks to twist and spin a simple, customer satisfaction action into a false admission of guilt.”

The company insists it never claimed its products were educational, and that the FTC took no action on the CCFC complaint.

The message seems fairly clear: Don’t mess with Baby Einstein.

For those wondering about the true value of videos for babies, see this analysis by Lucia French, a developmental psychologist at the University of Rochester.

French says young children get most of their language skills by interacting with parents.

 

Re-examining the health insurance model

Should health insurance be treated like traditional insurance, where consumers who pose the greatest risk for making a claim pay the highest premiums? That, essentially, is one of the major questions before the country these days.

The National Women’s Law Center has weighed in with their take on it. Absolutely not, they said.

The organization exposed what is really the heart of the matter in its new campaign, which they have chosen to call: “Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition.” They’re even selling T-shirts with the slogan.

In truth, though, insurance companies charge increased premiums for more than just pre-existing conditions. It’s all about statistics, not a vendetta against any certain sex or age group. It’s the same reason that older people pay a higher premium for health insurance – they simply use more services.

“The most expensive purchase in auto (insurance) is the young, invincible male; they are the risk-takers,” Rebecca Weiss, director of government affairs for Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado, told The Denver Post. “For some reason, auto insurance doesn’t seem as inflammatory to people as health insurance.

“Shouldn’t health insurance premiums be based on some degree on how many medical services you receive so that everyone is paying according to what they are using?”

The issue is individual policy sales – not group policies. Women, particularly those under 40, pay up from 10 percent to 59 percent more than men the same age, according to a Post survey. Naturally, the biggest factor is child birth. A vaginal birth with no complications averages $7,500, while a Caesarian section costs $13,200.

Eleven states now bar discrimination based on gender, and more legislatures are considering that option. So, they’ve already decided that health insurance should be treated differently than other kinds of insurance. The question is whether this will be addressed in federal legislation working its way through Congress – assuming a bill ever emerges.

But nationally, the problem is getting worse, not better, according to the Women’s Law Center: 95 percent of plans in the individual insurance market practice gender rating this year compared to 93 percent a year ago.

The effect of it is to discourage women from having children, or expanding their family.

For those opposed to health insurance reform I would ask: Is this really what you want? I suspect a lot of them would say no.

But then they would be forced to admit that the model itself needs a fundamental overhaul. The devil really is in the details, isn’t it?

 

Caution: genetically challenged driver

Here’s a study that explains a lot: Almost a third of all drivers in the U.S. have a gene that may predispose them to bad driving habits.

A neuroscientist at the University of California – Irvine says drivers with the gene performed 20 percent worse on a driving test, and fell 30 percent short on a second go around.

About 30 percent of Americans have the gene, according to Steven Cramer, who studies brain repair after stroke and brain remodeling.

This gene controls a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which supports communication between brain cells during physical activities. In people who have a certain variant of the gene, a smaller portion of their brain is stimulated when they’re involved in a particular task.

So Cramer and his colleagues decided to compare people with and without this variant on a driving simulator.

Graduate student Stephanie McHughen explains: “We wanted to study motor behavior, something more complex than finger-tapping. Driving seemed like a good choice because it has a learning curve and it’s something most people know how to do.”

Twenty-nine drivers took test – 22 without the gene and seven with it. They all repeated the test four days later, with the results described above.

Even Cramer wasn’t actually expecting that kind of gap. “Behavior derives from dozens and dozens of neurophysiologic events, so it’s somewhat surprising this exercise bore fruit,” he said.

* * * * * * *

My post on the clown cell phone study struck a chord with readers. Several people told their own stories on Reddit.com. I found one particularly interesting:

“One time when my call got picked up, I was on a red light. Somehow my brain interpreted the pick-up as a green light. Almost caused a disaster. Turn the damn thing off ever since while driving, it’s worse than being drunk.”

Makes sense. You’re at a red light and punch in a number on the phone, totally focused on making the call. Someone picks up. The traffic light says stop – but your brain says go-go-go!

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wwworks/2750711244/

 

The biology behind the John McCain smackdown

Politics is a many splendored thing. There’s more than one thread woven into a political position. Family background, personal experience, income, a person’s profession – these all influence where we stand on the issues.

But once you’ve chosen your side, politics becomes suspiciously like that other great American pastime: sports.

A study at Duke University suggests that hormone levels fluctuate among male voters, depending on who wins and who loses. It’s apparently the same biological jolt men get after being pumped up for a big football game, only to see their team blow a touchdown lead in the final seconds.

Duke researchers used saliva tests to check male and female testosterone levels the night of the 2008 election. In groups of volunteers, they measured them as the poles closed and then again after the results were in. Women produce far less testosterone, and their levels were not affected.

But Duke found that hormone levels plunged among male voters who were suffering from the John McCain loss. There were stable readings among male Obama voters – even though an evening reduction is normal – leading researchers to conclude that the male Obama voters actually ended up with higher than expected testosterone levels.

“Voters participate in elections both directly by casting their ballots, and vicariously because they don’t personally win or lose the election,” says Duke post-doctoral researcher Steven Stanton, who is the first author on a paper published October 22 in PLOS. “This makes democratic political elections highly unique dominance contests.”

In a follow-up questionnaire, McCain voters – and backers of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr – said they felt more unhappy, submissive, unpleasant and controlled than the Obama voters.

“This is a pretty powerful result,” says neuroscientist Kevin LaBar. “Voters are physiologically affected by having their candidate win or lose an election.”

The study raises another issue. How much reasoned debate can actually take place in the final weeks of an election if both sides are so emotionally tied to their “teams?” No wonder contests often deteriorate into a barrage of bitter personal attacks.

My first job out of college as a reporter, I got called into the managing editor’s office. I’d mostly covered education, but he wanted me on the local congressional race. I said fine, but I’d never covered politics before.

“Easy,” he said. “Just cover it like sports.”

That election turned into a real horse race.

 

Clown study no laughing matter

As I reported on October 6, President Obama issued an executive order prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving. But that won’t cause much of a ripple in the vast sea of cell phone users focused on inane communication at the expense of public safety.

It seems some people believe that staying in your lane, stopping at red lights, and not running over pedestrians is secondary to making sure your teenager takes a package of chicken thighs out of the freezer.

Now here’s further evidence that cell phone use isolates people from society in other ways as well – it wraps them up in their own little cocoon of one-on-one communication, practically oblivious to what’s going on around them.

Ira Hyman, a professor of psychology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, put a clown on a unicycle and asked him to ride around campus. He then analyzed the reactions of students to find out who noticed the clown and who didn’t.

He found out that only 25 percent of students talking on their cell had noticed the clown, while more than half of students listening to iPods saw him. About 70 percent of those walking in pairs and chatting with friends took note of the unusual scene.

“If people experience so much difficulty performing the task of walking when on a cell phone, just think of what this means when put into the context of driving safety,” Hyman says. “People should not drive while talking on a cell phone.

“Cell phone use causes people to be oblivious to their surroundings while engaged in even a simple task such as walking. Cell phone users walk more slowly, change directions and weave more often and fail to notice interesting and novel objects.

“The effect appears to be caused by the distraction of a cell phone conversation, because people walking in pairs did not display the same range of problems.”

Details of the study will appear in the December issue of Applied Cognitive Psychology.

For more information and statistics on texting and driving, see my May 21 post, Sir, have you been texting tonight?

Photo: Western Washington University

 

Happiness and the final frontier

Who says you have to be well grounded? Astronauts are just about the happiest people on … or OFF … the planet, a psychiatrist says.

And it’s not just because they’ve achieved a lifelong dream, although that could be part of the reason why they’re so upbeat. There are actually a number of different psychological factors at work, says Nick Kanas, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco.

“In spite of the pressure and dangers they face in their work, they are having a ball,” says Kanas, who has done numerous psychological projects for the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA).

He was interviewed in last Friday’s Psychiatric News about his interest in the psychological aspects of space travel. His current topic: isolation. NASA needs information on human reaction to isolation as it plans a manned trip to Mars, now on the drawing board for the 2030s.

Obviously, astronauts feel isolated in the International Space Station, but what would happen if they were on the surface of the Red Planet – and it took 44 minutes for each communication to reach Earth? What happens when the lack of immediate feedback eliminates the possibility of conversation as we know it?

Kanas, a longtime space enthusiast, has spent decades studying issues like distress and group cohesion among astronauts and Arctic explorers.

He’s also a sci-fi buff, by the way.

Now, about astronauts’ exceptional happiness: Kanas found through research that people in Mission Control are happier than Americans as a whole – but not as happy as the astronauts in the program.

One reason is that NASA tends to pick the fittest candidates for space travel. That means being physically fit, but also mentally well adjusted. A common thread that runs through the psychological makeup of astronauts is that they see the world in a positive light.

But the third factor makes the most sense to me: Looking at the Earth from space, you get an overall view of its beauty – minus the problems. It may trigger a philosophical reaction that encourages space travelers to think about the greater good.

“in some cases, when they returned, it affected their desire to improve things and get involved in helping other people,” Kanas says.

Space travel in the past has been inspirational. It’s another good reason to look forward to a rebirth of manned projects.

 

Is chronic fatigue caused by a virus?

There was a time when chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was thought to have its roots in mental illness. Previous studies have shown that depression more often precedes the onset of CFS, rather than follows it.

But when it hits, it hits hard. CFS can lead to fatigue, memory loss, and problems concentrating. It can also cause muscle and joint pain, headaches and soar throats.

These days, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still officially refers to CFS as a result of other underlying illnesses, rather than a diagnosis in and of itself.

But now a new study has identified a virus that may actually cause the problem, which affects as many as 4 million Americans who tend to be women age 40 and up. Worldwide, there may be 17 million cases.

If you check the current CDC Web site, you’ll find the official position is that 40 percent actually are suffering from undiagnosed diabetes, thyroid condition or substance abuse. But since the CDC acknowledges that only half of CFS sufferers see a doctor, that’s obviously an estimate.

The new study, published in last week’s issue of the journal Science, contends that a virus known as XMRV – xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus – may be responsible, not only for CFS but for other illnesses as well, such as prostate cancer. It’s a retrovirus, in the same class as that which causes AIDS.

Researchers say they found the infectious virus in 68 of 101 CFS patients they studied – or 67 percent. On follow-up, they found that 98 percent of 300 CFS patients had the virus.

While admitting that they still haven’t found the smoking gun that links the virus directly to CFS, they note that only 3.7 percent of healthy subjects were carrying XMRV.

The particularly good news about the discovery is that CFS may actually be treatable with antiretroviral drugs. Plans to test the drugs – some that are used to treat HIV infection – are now on the drawing board.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bolshakov/2975747955/

 

Finger lickin’ good – but healthier than heck

Here’s a new diet plate that may be coming soon to your local fast food joint: chicken nuggets, large fry, fish fillet and – let’s go for it – a large chocolate shake.

Well, maybe not the chocolate shake. But a new fryer invented by a food scientist at Purdue University in Indiana can apparently make food taste like it’s been deep fried without a drop of extra oil.

Called a “radiant fryer,” it uses “wavelengths of radiant energy” to finish food that’s already been pre-fried, as most items are when they arrive at places like McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s. The inventor, Kevin Keener, says the fryer – it’s more like an oven, really – would cut 50 percent of the fat out of a fried product.

And, he says, it will taste identical to the fully fried food Americans have always found so irresistible.

The cooking method was demonstrated last week on the Purdue campus. Keener cooked hash browns and chicken patties using both the new oven and a traditional oil bath, then handed out samples to students.

“When you put the product from our oven next to one that’s been traditionally fried, you won’t be able to tell the difference,” Keener says.

Keener’s co-inventor is Brian Farkas, a food scientist at North Carolina State University. The prototype was built by Indiana-based Anderson Tool and Engineering Co.

Here’s a YouTube video of Keener talking about the process. And some video of the demonstration project, as well as what students had to say about it.

* * * *

While we’re on the subject of inventions, a Japanese company is marketing a business suit that reportedly protects the wearer from the H1N1 flu virus.

For $580, you get a “smart suit” that looks identical in every way to classy business apparel. The only difference is it has been treated with titanium dioxide, which in combination with light deals a death blow to the swine flu bug. Or so they say.

So you can go out, make your deal, shake hands on it, and go back home comforted by the knowledge that you won’t be infecting the wife, kids, dog – or even your Vietnamese pot-bellied pig.

The chemical that wards off the virus, incidentally, is the same one added to toothpaste. Sounds harmless enough, doesn’t it? Since they expect a busy season, Haruyama Trading Co. has produced 50,000 of these wonder suits so far.

My bet is that they catch on big on Wall Street this fall and winter. Finally … intelligent attire for the well-dressed germaphobe.

Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seandreilinger/777292601/; Haruyama Trading Co. release.

 

Psychologists wade into murky climate change waters

Can psychologists help get Americans charged up about battling climate change? That’s one of the questions asked at the recent American Psychological Association (APA) convention in Toronto.

It seems that a big majority of Americans (80 percent) profess to care about climate change, and the impact it may have on future generations. But when it comes to identifying problems that demand action, climate change is way, way down on the list.

The goal of psychologists, according to the October issue of the APA Monitor on Psychology, is to “weave behavioral research into environmental laws and regulations to make them more effective.”

When all is said and done, dirtying up the atmosphere with CO2 and other global warming emissions is a behavioral problem. So, how do you get people to change their habits?

Well, it seems people aren’t apt to alter their behavior without immediate rewards. So the answer should be no big surprise: Cash on the barrel head.

According to the APA, psychologists are “already working” to overcome psychological barriers to climate friendly practices. “For example, people are more likely to use energy-efficient appliances if they are provided with immediate energy-use feedback. Devices that show people how much energy and money they’re conserving can yield energy savings of 5 percent to 12 percent, according to research.”

Some may find it surprising that the APA would plunge into a controversial political topic. Actually, this is standard fare for the organization, which has debated several hot button issues recently, including the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo.

That’s a controversy that tore at the soul of the organization – when I attended the 2008 convention in Boston it was going full-throttle, with picketers and petitioners outside the convention center demanding that the APA halt its support of military interrogation methods at the prison camp. The topic remains a sore spot to this day.

Psychologists apparently feel that climate change is safer territory, something most members can support. Plus, why not carve out a role for behavioral science in an issue that promises to be big business in the future? No question that going green can bring in the green.

Still, U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, a clinical psychologist from Washington State who’s pressing for a role for psychologists in environmental legislation, told The Monitor that it’s been an uphill battle.

“We’re getting quite an extraordinary backlash from people who, on the one hand, have said that psychology has nothing to contribute because everybody knows what they’re supposed to do anyway, and then turn right around and have said that it’s tantamount to mind control propaganda.”

He added that psychology’s contribution will have to be “ruthlessly practical. We have to put forth things that are real with real numbers and real consequences.”

In other words, pocket book issues. Step aside, Dr. Phil.