Interview with a Philosopher

After having discussed the possible relationship between Science and Philosophy in the last blog entry, we asked a professional philosopher about his opinion. Prof. Peter Kuegler teaches at the Leopold-Franzens-University in Innsbruck, Austria. He is specialized in epistemology, logics, metaphysics, the philosophy of mind and philosophy of science. Prof. Kuegler is author of a number of books and very much appreciated as a teacher who can convey difficult problems in a clear and comprehensible way.

Prof. Kuegler, how do you see the relationship between science and philosophy these days, both as it is and as it should be?

Today many philosophers try to stay very close to science. They give interpretations of scientific research and apply scientific results to philosophical problems. This holds, for example, for the philosophy of mind and brain science, where some philosophers even engage in empirical research projects. On the other hand, there are philosophers who do not notice science at all; some deal with it only superficially or, even worse, in an incompetent way. Science has a very bad standing in some philosophical schools. There are those who think that science is wrong or incomplete, because it does not acknowledge God and the soul; others think that science is just one way of seeing the world among others, on a par with, say, art, astrology and religion. Of course, it also depends on which branch of philosophy you are working in. As a political philosopher you need not know much about brain science, but you will be expected to have knowledge of the social sciences. I think more work should be done in the field between the two extremes of blind adoration and equally blind ignorance or rejection of science. Philosophy certainly goes beyond science, but it cannot dispense with it completely. For me, there is no doubt that science can give us more, and more reliable, knowledge about the world, including human beings, than any other branch of culture.

Can philosophy, in your opinion, complement science beyond mere methodological considerations?

Yes, this is one of its principal duties. However, I don´t think that philosophy can complement science in such a way that it provides definite answers to questions that cannot be answered by science. Philosophy must deal with those questions, of course, but the best it can do is sketch possible answers. This is why Bertrand Russell called philosophy “the science of the possible”. He thought that a question that is conclusively answered is no philosophical question anymore; it turns into a scientific one. For example, philosophers of previous centuries wondered how human memory works; they asked whether the mind is like an empty sheet of paper at birth, or whether it contains “innate ideas”. Modern biology and brain science tell us much more about these problems than any philosophy of the past. In another, non-Russellian sense, philosophy is the science of the possible because it envisages possible ways of living. For example, philosophers analyze the concept of justice and make suggestions as to how a just society would look like and how it could be brought about. They ponder the place of science and technology in society and how their harmful consequences could be diminished in the future. Ethics helps to shape our decisions about values and matters of life and death. Here, again, we face a cooperation of science and philosophy. Biology describes the life of the embryo, how it develops and what properties it has at which stages. But whether an embryo at a particular stage is a being that has the right not to be aborted is a different question that belongs to ethics. Philosophers tell the public how concepts like “person” could be understood, what it means that an embryo has a certain “right”, and so on. It is not up to them to decide these issues, but what philosophers can say about the good and the bad is usually better founded than the statements coming from religion or politics.

Is there such as thing as progress in philosophy, as this is clearly the case in science?

Well, some philosophers doubt that this is “clearly” the case in science; but I am with you. As to philosophy, that depends on how you measure progress. I think you can look at the issue from three sides. First, history shows that philosophy discusses the same problems over and over again without coming to a definite conclusion. The way the problems are posed changes as the cultural conditions change; there are shifts in terminology, rhetorical style and theoretical fashion, but the continuity between philosophical problems of different historical periods is quite obvious. Philosophers of the 17th century had strange ideas about how the soul as the bearer of consciousness is related to the body. Today the soul is out of fashion, we know that consciousness is produced by brain processes – but how? Something seems to be missing still, and again there are some strange theories. Second, as I have indicated before, philosophical problems tend to become scientific problems; entire fields of philosophy, like cosmology and psychology, have turned into empirical science. We could measure the amount of progress in philosophy by its role as a medium in which new problems, concepts and scientific research fields grow. Third, although it is true that the philosophy of today is haunted by age-old problems, we learn more and more about these problems, and we are able to state our theories in more sophisticated ways. There is still a lot of disagreement; for any philosophical issue you will find at least two eminent philosophers with different opinions. But we know more about our disagreements; we know why we disagree and how we  disagree, and that it is possible to look at any issue from more angles than philosophers of the past have expected. This is particularly obvious in ethics. This creation of plurality is also a kind of progress. I should add a fourth point: philosophy is the only rational enterprise that deals with things that we cannot know or cannot even talk about. What I like most of philosophy is that it delineates the limits of understanding.

Prof. Kuegler, thank you very much for this interview!

 

Science and Philosophy

Why do I like science? Because I want to learn something about the world and myself! Why do I like philosophy? Because I want to learn something about the world and myself! “All men by nature desire to know” is the first sentence in Aristotle’s legendary and influential “Metaphysics”! He didn’t start it like “Man seeks for survival and therefore needs to know something about his environment and himself” or “Man seeks for reproduction and therefore needs to know the means by which he can increase his chances to do so”. No, he starts by simply stating that man enjoys and finds happiness in seeking knowledge. He finds proof in this notion by notifying the enjoyment of pure sense data (“An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves”) but man doesn’t stop with senses, he goes on speculating, he tries to find patterns in nature and eventually, he comes up with ideas and hypotheses about the world that surrounds him. This is where everything starts and this is what the Western world shaped, we simply want to find out what is going on in this world!
So how do Science and philosophy differ? After all, according to what I just said, they don’t seem to have different goals, they both want to “know”. Well, I guess there was a time when philosophy was science and science was philosophy. Let’s not forget that Newton, for example, called his revolutionary work about gravitation “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica”, “The mathematical principles of natural philosophy”. Or take Kepler whose work was entitled “Harmonice mundis”. That doesn’t sound strictly scientific to me, it implies a notion of the world that is harmonic like a piece of music and indeed, Kepler was deeply fascinated by the thought that the world follows a music-like harmony, a thought which has first been brought up by the infamous mystic-philosophical circle of Pythagoreans. What does that tells us? That science is grounded in philosophy and since philosophy, in its origins, is built on highly speculative grounds which later became known as “metaphysics” that everything is grounded on speculation, even, and in particular, modern day science! That’s just natural, we have to start somewhere and the earliest philosophers -in the classical sense (I am talking about the ionic natural philosophers)- started their journey on grounds that were built upon mythological fundaments. They questioned these fundaments but you can never completely destroy them, otherwise you lose the grip. So, in general, the point at which a philosopher starts to question things is always grounded in normal life. He or she starts asking something like “How come that everything is in a process but that there’s still some stability?” or “What is it that makes one statement true and another false?” or “What is reality?” or “Why is there something rather than nothing?” or “What happens with me when I’m dead?” or “What acts are just?” or “Do I have a free will?” and so on! You can see, there are a broad range of questions. This is philosophy: Questioning things and being surprised and amazed! And what is science? Science is nothing else than giving a set of answers to particular questions that arose in the process of philosophical reasoning! But if you follow the line back to its origins, it all started in questioning normal day life. And all its underlying assumptions (the conditions that make science possible in the first place) are, eventually, speculative! Like what? For example, that nature can be grasped with reason due to its law-like behavior, that there are fundamental objects, that there is causality and so forth! These are all things that can easily be questioned! For instance: we can know a few things about nature by using our reasoning but nature itself is not reasonable at all! Why is it that we are born, live for a couple of years (in astronomical relations not even a milli-second), suffer, enjoy and eventually die? Is there a “reason” for that? Additionally, reason is a trait of our minds and projecting this trait into nature tastes dangerously like anthropomorphism. Further, what do we mean when we talk about objects or substances (by the way, the concept of “substances” was introduced by Aristotle)? Is an atom more substantial than an organic individual (is the concept “Mario”, for example, less real than the atoms he is made of)? Is there really causality or is it not that all we can detect is a mere process of events that follows a certain pattern and that’s it (famously brought into discussion by David Hume)? These questions remain unanswered within science and most of the time, we are not even aware that they are left unanswered! We just assume that objects do exist, that there is causality and that we can grasp the world with our reason! Undoubtedly, these assumptions have been very successful but success is not necessarily a sign for truth, if anything, it is a weak indication that we are on the right track. But simply following these assumptions without questioning them keeps us from seeing all the mysteries that remain! And this is where philosophy is helping us to look over the edges of our little black boxes (so, unlike what Stephen Hawking claims, philosophy is not dead, on the contrary, it’s alive and its very core and essence is to be alive amongst humans!) because this is what philosophy always does, it questions our fundaments and thereby opens our minds for the world’s wealth, variety, mystery and strangeness. This way, we will be able not only to produce and work on hypotheses to get a functional understanding of the world and ourselves (which is mainly what scientists do) but we will also be able to let the world come to us, to look at it with different eyes. After all, that’s what the greek word “theorià” means: “to look”!
So let me summarize: while science helps us to understand the world in a certain framework, philosophy helps us to see this framework, it therefore broadens our view of the world. It helps to destroy our conceptual limitations and, this way, not only conveys tolerance but understanding! Hopefully, we will then be able what Aristotle tried to achieve: to be happy simply by seeing!

The genomic medicine

A section of DNA; the sequence of the plate-li...

Image via Wikipedia

Hi guys,

check this video out. The general scientific director of National Human Genome Research Institute is showing how to purify DNA from Strawberry by using everyday household items. It is absolutely a fantastic idea that clarifies also the basic chemical principle of the DNA. After all purifying DNA is not so complicate!

Dr. Erik D. Green started his pioneering studies for whole genome analysis during his post-doc at the Washington University School of Medicine genetics department. His complete biography can be found here. Dr. Green has recently published a very interesting review on the achievement of scientific community in the field of genomic with the title: “Charting a course for genomic medicine from base to bedside”. He summarizes 5 principal achievements: understanding the structure of the genome, understanding the biology of the genome, understanding the biology of the disease, advancing the science of medicine and finally improving the effectiveness of health care (by the 2020!). Very interesting review full of very usefull link. Enjoy the reading.

Find the mistake in the evolution of man

BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place at the ...

Image via Wikipedia

Hi dudes,

Last week I was watching a BBC documentary on the evolution of human being and… incredible, in this BBC documentary there is a quite big mistake!!! Who can find it?


As we wrote in our mission we didn’t want to make a classical divulgation blog because often when we try to make think too easier we make them wrong. And here is an example. A little clue? Take the chance to read about the Neo-Darwinists and how they improved our comprehension of evolution (it is particular relevant in the last part of the documentary).

Good luck and give it to try!!!

Unnatural Obsessions

A farewell post.

Natalie Angier -a nonfiction writer and a science journalist for the New York Times– wrote a 1988 book published with the title “Natural Obsession”, chronicling the one year-period spent by the author in two of the most prominent laboratories involved at that time in the rat-race research which was aimed at discovering the first cancer-causing and/or cancer suppressing gene (these labs were those of Robert A. Weinberg at MIT and of Michael Wigler at CSHL). In particular, the title of the book refers to the words of a third famous scientist –David Baltimore– who admitted during an interview to Angier that perhaps the most important characteristic a scientist should be endowed with is the natural obsession he carries towards his research subject. Well, although I appreciate the intrinsic truth of this –still- I never became really convinced of its necessity. Doing research requires an incredible amount of energy and time, it’s a full-time job, an all-accomplished (hopefully) lifelong experience (we need lifelong dedication to penetrate a subject from all the needed point of view). But I feel that whenever it becomes obsessive it immediately looses its beautiful essence. It becomes an excuse, a pretext – it looses its virginity. I fear this is particularly true in our business-driven world, where scientific discoveries often pave the way to economical investments. So –in my present opinion- scientific obsession is rather un-natural and obliterates the genuine intuition that brings to knowledge.

 

Thinking that a different science is possible and that this kind of science is deeply and harmoniously connected to a rich and interesting life, I would like to wish to Mario –leading editor of educeX- and Stefania –his wife and a researcher herself- my best wishes and an extraordinary big “Good Luck” for their imminent post-docs. My friends, this is gonna be another incredible adventure: Don’t forget that –in spite of all- the most important thing is having fun! Better than mine, the words of Joseph E. Murray describes the beauty of a life in science:

“My only wish would be to have ten more lives to live on this planet. If that were possible, I’d spend one lifetime each in embryology, genetics, physics, astronomy and geology. The other lifetimes would be as a pianist, backwoodsman, tennis player, or writer for the National Geographic. If anyone has bothered to read this far, you would note that I still have one future lifetime unaccounted for. That is because I’d like to keep open the option for another lifetime as a surgeon-scientist.” [Excerpt from JEM autobiographical sketch for the Nobel Prize website – link: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1990/murray.html%5D

The chimpanzee war

colonisation de l'Europe par Homo sapiens

Image via Wikipedia

Hi Dudes!

So today 12 February 2011 we want to celebrate the 202° birthday of the genius of Darwin. For this Special day our blog participate to the Carnival of Biodiversity, an initiative promoted by Livio Leoni, Marco Ferrari, Lisa Signorile.  Today all the blogs attending this initiative will publish a post dealing about evolution with the title: “Biodiversity and adaptation: the constant competition for food and space”. All the post, including ours, will be listed with a review on the blog Leucophaea (Marco Ferrari) at  this page. So enjoy the reading!

The chimpanzee war

Competition between species, between members of the same species and, as Richard Dawkins would say, between genes, is one of the major “driving forces” of evolution. Individuals developing a new feature (due to random mutation) with competitive advantages for survival and reproduction will pass this information on to the offspring and, as such, a small evolutionary step occurs. The competition can be on different levels: competition for food, for female, for space and in the case of Homo sapiens sapiens also for money and power. In the so called “superior animals” (name refers to their elevated structural complexity) adaptation does not only include physical but also behavioral adaptation. Behavior plays an important role in the game for survival. An example would be fear that pups usually show which protects them from being seen and caught by predators. Furthermore, altruism that parents show for their offspring is important for survival. On the other end of the spectrum there is aggression: within the same species, aggressive behavior may be important when fighting for a female or for food. In this perspective, the history of the Homo sapiens sapiens is full of violence and the more aggressions are organized the more deadly and devastating the final outcome is: holocaust and global war. However, anthropologist Christopher Boehm hypothesizes that the identification and suppression of intra-species violence provided the basis for a human moral system and human behavior which gives man a competitive advantage (Boem, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 7, Numbers 1-2, 2000, pp. 79-101 and Boehm Harvard University Press,1999, “Hierarchy in the forest: the evolution of egalitarian behavior.”). This hypothesis is supported by human-chimpanzee comparative studies by Richard W. Wrangham, Michael L. Wilson and Martin N. Muller (Primates, 2006) in which they explored the behavior of chimpanzees with particular emphasis on the rate of intra-species aggression between members of the same or different communities. They calculated that Chimpanzees have a rate of aggression similar to the first hunter-gatherer societies but a 2/3 folds higher aggression when compared with modern humans. These data partially support Boehms hypothesis: the reduction of violence between members of the   same species allows community to form and be in competitive advantages respect single individuals. Although humans show a reduced aggression between members of the same species, they are able of coalitional aggression to other groups for the survival of their own group: this is what we call war. Do our closest relatives make “war”? A 10 years study in the Ngogo  Kibale National Park, Uganda (where the Homo sapiens sapiens is involved in a intra-species inter-ethnic devastating war) by the naturalists John C. Mitani, David P. Watts, and Sylvia J. Amsler ( Current biology, Volume 20, Issue 12, 2010) showed that Chimpanzees are able to make lethal coalitional attacks on members of other groups for years (like battles) to finally occupy the region of the other groups (they basically win the “war”). Although the reasons for this kind of war are not entirely understood: “It is not sure whether the “coalitional attacks by Ngogo males may lead to new females joining their community” but all the evidences suggest that “By acquiring new territory through lethal coalitionaal attacks, male chimpanzees improve the feeding success of individuals in their own community, which in turn can lead to increased female reproduction”. From an evolutionary point of view this is particularly relevant.”

Although aggression within the same group is a competitive disadvantage  for the formation of a community (which, in general, represents a competitive evolutionary advantage for many “superior animals” such as wolves, penguins, but also for insects like ants and bees) inter-group aggression seems to be a common competitive evolutionary trait human beings and chimpanzees have in common.

In conclusion, these data suggest that aggression is something destructive and creative at the same time, creative when it is addressed externally (against other groups, other species etc.), destructive when it is infiltrates a community. Of course , externally directed aggression is destructive for the others and internal aggression is creative for a new group taking over the power but from the point of view of an organism-like community, this conclusion should be right, albeit very general.

The treatments of Crohn’s disease

struktura infliximabu

Image via Wikipedia

The treatment of Crohn’s disease is depending on the specific symptoms and clinical history of each patient. In addition the use of some drugs is still controversial. However, it is possible to outline a general scheme of action (also called algorithm) for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. The treatment is organized in two steps: 1) Induction of remission; 2) Maintenance of remission. Below I will quickly describe some drugs used and their target. Using as reference the paper of Dr. Baumart and Dr. Sandborn published on Lancet, I will also mention some of the new therapies that are tested in Clinical trial.

Scheme of Action for Crohn’s Disease treatment.

1) Induction of remission: is achieved by the use of medications that reduce the inflammation, the main manifestation of the diseases.

  • The 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA), such as Sulfasalazine, are often used as a first-line therapy for intermediate/moderate disease. Sulfasalazine successfully interferes with the synthesis of eicosanoids (local mediators of inflammation which are responsible for the warmth, swelling, dolor and redness typical of inflamed area) and some local pro-inflammatory cytokines. Sulfasalazine does not act systematically (reducing in this way its toxicity) but as a pro-drugs: when ingested it is not active in the stomach but it is broken down by the bacterial flora in the colon into 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and sulfapyridine, which then inhibit the enzymes like cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase reducing the production of eicosanoids and prostaglandins.
  • The corticosteroids, such as budesonide and prednisone, are used for first-line therapy for more severe disease. The corticosteroids can act by blocking cell mediated immunity: they inhibit the intracellular signaling (activation of NFkB) which promotes production of pro-inflammatory molecules such as IL-2 and INFg. Corticosteroids also inhibit synthesis of eicosanoids by blocking phospholipase A2 through the promotion of lipocorting 1 expression (for more detail check this NEJM paper). The potent therapeutic effect is followed by adverse side effects: the strong immune-suppression induced may allow opportunistic infections, osteoporosis, diabetes, skin fragility and others.  Although budesonide is less potent as immune-suppression agent than prednisone, it has much less adverse side effect because its action is not systemic. This is due to its rapid hepatic conversion to well-tolerated metabolites and its strong affinity for corticosteroid receptor (for more details check Greenberg et al.).
  • The tumour necrosis factor (TNFa) inhibitors, such as the Infliximab, have been shown to be very effective in treating moderate/severe pathology. Infliximab is a chimeric-antibody (murine and human antibody) that irreversibly binds and blocks the TNFa, a cytokines involved in the inflammation process. Due to the presence of murine sequences in Infliximab that may induce rejection, a fully human antibody is used instead: Adalimumab.
  • Surgery is usually used to treat Crohn’s disease complications such as fistulae, strictures, bowel obstruction or intense inflammation. The surgery aim to remove the inflamed part of the intestine.

2) Induction of remission: although many of the previous listed medicaments can be used, the one with less adverse side-effect are normally preferred. Budesonide is normally used instead of prednisone because it doesn’t affect bone density (and cause osteoporosis). Infliximab or Adalimumab, can be used when the disease is particularly severe.

The most common therapy uses Mercaptopurine immune suppressive drugs such as azathioprine. The azathioprine is a pro-drug that is activated in the body and converted into purine analogue (adenine and guanine) blocking DNA synthesis. Fast growing cells such as white blood cells during an inflammation, are particularly sensible to that inhibition. It has got few adverse side effects in the short time but in a long term it has been shown to be a carcinogen.

The algorithm of Crohn’s disease medical menagement (from Baumgart and Sandborn, Lancet)

Investigated treatments for Crohn’s disease

The medications used in clinic (listed above) are not always specific for Crohn’s disease. Corticosteroid, for example, can be used to induce a generalized immune-suppression for many different diseases as they act systemically. But the ability to act so strongly and so systematically, make them responsible for many adverse side effects. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new therapies that specifically target the tissues where the inflammation goes on. Below I report a list of experimental drugs that are being tested in clinical trial to determine their efficacy and possible toxicity (taken from Baumgart and Sandborn, Lancet):

David Attenborough and the Tree of Life

Hi guys! Here I would like to highlight a very interesting interview to David Attenborough broadcasted by Nature Video. David Attenborough produced documentary films for BBC on natural history, giving an incredible description of most of natural diversity on the planet. In this interview he describes Darwin theory giving also his interpretation of the theory aware of the most recent discoveries. Very interesting and easy to follow. Enjoy!!!

The causes of Crohn’s disease

Schematic of NOD2/CARD15 gene.

Image via Wikipedia

The Causes of Crohn’s disease are still unknown. However, statistical studies (that do not give causative explanations but only strong suggestions) indicate that Crohn’s disease may be caused by both genetic and environmental factors (in other words a genetic predisposition may enhance the effects of an environmental factor). Today, I don’t want to just list the causes but I want also try to explain the scientific method used to achieve this knowledge.

Genetic Cause:

1)    To determine whether a disease has genetic causes the first thing to do is to statistically study the frequency of a disease first in a population (as shown in the previous post) and subsequently compare with the frequency in a specific family whose members show the pathology. If the frequency of the disease within the family members is higher than the average frequency of the general population, a genetic cause of the disease is highly probable (because the genetic errors are transmitted from parents to the offsprings).

Þ   As reported  by Satsangi and colleagues (see the paper here), statistical studies from clinical data show that 5-10% of Crohn’s disease patients have a first-degree relatives with the same pathology with a concordance for disease type (see previous post) of about 70-80%.  Therefore, the risk of developing Crohn’s disease for a person with a first-degree relative with the disease is about 15 times higher than the average risk in the population. Particularly important studies involve twins: a much higher correlation of Crohn’s disease is calculated in monozygotic twins (37%; twins with identical genome) than in dizygotic twins (7%; twins with non-identical genome).

2)    The second step is to find the gene or the genes responsible for the pathology that have been transmitted from parents to their children. One of the most common strategies used by scientist is the Genome Wide Scan to identify susceptibility loci (or region) in the Chromosomes. This approach consists in sequencing small regions (marker sequences such as micro-satellites, SNPs, RFLPs, etc…) throughout genome of all the members of an affected family in order to identify chromosomal loci transmitted with high frequency to the sick members of the family and with less frequency to the healthly members. The analysis of those frequencies using dedicated algorithms is called genetic linkage (for more technical information check here) and allow to find susceptibility loci where it is possible to identify and subsequently study several genes.

Þ   Using this approach, no single locus has been found but many susceptibility loci have been described on chromosomes 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16 and 19 (for references see Baumgart and Carding). This result implicates that Crohn’s disease is a polygenic disease making even more difficult the challenge to describe the causes. More detailed studies have linked specific genes to the diseases: Nod2/Card15 a pattern recognition receptor involved in immune response against microbes present in the intestinal tract and its mutations have been associated with Crohn’s disease in white population; Mhc (major hystocompatibility complex) receptor responsible for the presentation of intracellular proteins to lymphocytes.

3)    Once the responsible genes are identify by statistical analysis, the scientists start studying the function of the proteins (codify by the genes) within the cell and how its disruption may affect the cell and the immune-response as whole. The possible experiments to be performed are in such a big number (depending also from the function of the protein its-self) that it is not possible to list them all. However, some common approaches are often very informative. One example is the disruption of the homologue gene (gene with the same function in a different specie) in a mouse model called “knockout” that allows to subsequently study the phenotype of the animal and the molecular outcome.

Þ   Structural studies of NOD2 have shown that it consists of 3 domains: a CARD domain responsible for activation of a signaling protein NFkB, a NOD domain responsible for the oligomerisation of the protein and a Leucine-rich region responsible for bacterial recognition (typical example of the modular structure of the proteins).

Þ   The knockout mouse model for NOD2 do not fully fit the human Crohn’s disease (further suggesting the multi-factorial causes for this disease) but it gives important notions. The absence of a functional NOD2 alter normal signaling within the intestinal cells leading to abnormal activation of NFkB and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (which may be one cause of the chronic inflammation). It will be interesting also understand if and how a deregulation of NOD2 in intestinal cells may influence the activity of so called T helper 1 lymphocytes.

 

Environmental causes:

The evidences for environmental factors rely entirely on statistical analysis and therefore have to be intended only as suggestion of causes (for references see Baumgart and Carding).

The LIFE STYLE may be one of the major factors:

  • Smoking drastically aggravates the course of Crohn’s disease accelerating the need for surgical intervention.
  • Bacterial or viral infection may trigger an excessive immune-reaction
  • Excessive sanitation may reduce the exposure of children and adults to microbial and other environmental antigen limiting the fully maturation of mucosal immune system that subsequently may over-react to safe bacteria or antigen.
  • Stress seems to increase the incidence of relapse in patient with quiescent disease.
  • Diet may play a role although weak data are presented so far.

 

Many other studies will be required for a fully understanding of the molecular mechanism involved and the cells interaction. Remained tuned on E-ducereX to be updated!

 

A funny parody of a real lab problem!!!!

Hi guys!

Here is a very funny video to start your day with a smile!!!!  Scientists are really crazy, sometimes…