Category: Public Perceptions

The Skinny On Sunscreen: Understanding the Regulations

Government Regulations, My Personal Life, Public Perceptions

I haven’t always loved sitting out in the sun, and I’ve been a very reluctant convert to the beach. But I’ve slowly come around to loving the time I get to spend relaxing in the sunshine with a good book. Particularly this summer after the long winter where I would go days without even venturing outside I’m loving the warm weather. But I’m also the kind of person that turns lobster red after more than a few minutes of soaking in the sun’s rays.

Being so fair comes at a cost, and I’m in the dermatologist’s office almost every six months. I would say I’m pretty vigilant about getting my moles checked and watching out for any signs of skin cancer.  I’ve had maybe a dozen moles removed, many of which had to be re-done after coming back with questionable test results. Being so aware of the risks that I’m taking when I step out in the sun has made me the self-proclaimed queen of sunscreen. My friends love their SPF 4, and mock me and my SPF 55 quite a lot – but aside from choosing the high numbers, I’ve realized that I don’t actually know all that much about sunscreen.

Ocean City, MD on my summer vacation!

New regulations released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month, explain a lot about what sunscreen can, and even more important what it can not do. Sunscreen regulations in the US hadn’t been updated in more than 30 years, so we were long overdue for an overhaul. Starting next year, sunscreens will be broken into two categories, those that protect against skin cancer and those that don’t. My friends with their SPF 4… they aren’t getting any protection against skin cancer with an SPF that low. The new regulations will also require companies to cut out advertising and claims that promote longer durability (waterproof of sweatproof) or that make inflated claims about their ability to protect users from sun damage.

According to this article in Scientific American, the new regulations (if they are followed accurately) have the potential to reduce skin cancer rates in the US. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is responsible for 90% of non-melanoma skin cancers, which affect one out of every five Americans. UV radiation is also responsible for 65% of melanoma, which kills approximately 8,700 people a year. Skin cancer is such a prevalent problem, but will the new regulations actually make a difference?

I think as long as people know what to look for, they’ll be able to choose the right sunscreen. The FDA’s new regulations really focus on how sunscreen products are labelled, and I think that they will make it easier for people to make the right choices. The thing to look for on sunscreen bottles is “broad spectrum”. Under the new rules the only products that can claim to be broad spectrum will protect against both UVA and UVB rays. Sunscreen that can not be called broad spectrum, or that has an SPF lower than 15 will have to carry a warning label that says explicitly that it does not protect against skin cancer or premature skin aging from skin cancer.

Both UVA and UVB rays can cause long term skin damage, but UVB rays are the main culprit when it comes to that lobster red sunburn. SPF is a reflection of a sunscreens’ ability to protect against UVB rays which is really just a reflection of sunburn protection. Currently, lotions that only protect against UVB rays can have a very high SPF, but that doesn’t mean they are any better at protecting you from skin cancer because the UVA rays are still not being blocked. Under the new regulations it will be much clearer what really protects you against both UVA and UVB rays.

More of the beach in Ocean City, MD

Under the new regulations, sunscreen manufacturers will be required to be more specific with their claims. For instance the term sunblock, won’t be allowed because there is NO sunscreen that can block the sun’s rays completely. There is also NO sunscreen that stays completely on the body when exposed to water, so none of them are waterproof or sweatproof.

The other big news in the FDA’s sunscreen regulations? My SPF 55 is no better than SPF 50. In fact, any number higher than 50 is just making a trumped up claim. So that SPF 100 is not actually doing more for you than lower numbered sunscreens. This is because there is no evidence that suggests that SPF’s higher than 50 actually protect people more. But that doesn’t mean that all SPF’s are the same. Different SPF’s protect you in the sun for different amounts of time. So say I start to burn after 10 minutes with no sunscreen, and I put on SPF 15, the time it takes me to burn will be extended by a 15, so I’ll have 150 minutes before I turn into a tomato.

After getting several bad sunburns while wearing sunscreen, I became aware of the need to re-apply. Even if you don’t go in water, the chemical components in sunscreen break down over time and lose their efficiency. Putting on sunscreen at the beginning of the day just doesn’t cut it. So, under the new regulations, the FDA recommends re-applying sunscreen every two hours, and after going in the water or toweling off.

Basically the new regulations make it easier to enjoy a day in the sun without the painful sunburn and dangerous skin damage that can go hand in hand with summer vacations by making it easier to choose an effective sunscreen. The things to look for? Broad spectrum, between SPF 15 and 50, and that all sunscreens have to be re-applied every two hours. If you keep these things in mind you can greatly reduce your risk of dangerous skin cancers.

Sunscreen regulations were greatly in need of a revision, and I for one (speaking for the fair people of the word) am very glad to finally know exactly what I need to do to protect myself in the sun.

Wisconsin’s Place in the History of Animal Research

Book Review, Good Writing, Grad School, Public Perceptions, Science History, Zoology, ,

I decided to apply to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the recommendation of my undergraduate advisor. I honestly wasn’t thrilled with the idea of coming to the midwest. I had never really considered what the cheese state was like before I applied – as a strictly east coast girl it was so far removed from everything in my life I couldn’t even imagine living here. But, when the college admission chips fell where they did, it was obvious to me that UW Madison was the clear first choice for grad school.

That being said, when I arrived in Wisconsin nearly nine months ago, I knew very little about the history of the University I was attending. I knew that UW-Madison was home to an amazing amount of scientific research, but I had no idea how rich the tradition of scientific inquiry really was. I quickly became aware of the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) and notorious, and immensely important, psychology researcher Harry Harlow.

Those who follow this blog regularly know that I have written a lot of posts this semester inspired by my zoology class on human and animal behavior. It is this class that really got me motivated to learn more about animal research, and in particular UW-Madison’s role in animal research. That brought me to two books, both written by Deborah Blum a professor in the journalism school here at UW.

272686-LIn 1992 Blum won the Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles on the ethical dilemmas posed by primate research. She turned this into the 1994 book The Monkey Wars. I was enthralled by the history of primate research in the United States, and am ashamed to admit how little I knew prior to reading the book. The story of Edward Taub, the Silver Spring Monkeys (named after the site of the lab in Maryland,) and the rise of PETA in 1981 had me riveted. The condensed version of that story is that PETA founder Alex Pacheco volunteered undercover in the lab of Taub, who was conducting neurological experiments on monkeys (severing the nerves to control a limb and then coaxing nerve regeneration.) The monkeys were held in filthy conditions – but there was no legal standard for research animal care at the time. Pacheco took photographs (some admittedly staged) and went to the police to have Taub arrested (which he was – for animal cruelty.)

The majority of events described in the book take place long before I was even born, and I suppose thats why I felt so removed from them. I didn’t realize I was taking the idea that animals have rights for granted until I learned about the history of animal research in this country. I knew that people are cruel to animals, but I was blissfully oblivious to the cruelty that was standard in research labs in the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s. After finishing Monkey Wars, my blissful respect for science felt somewhat dingy – and I needed more information.

The book I picked up next, to explore the history of animal research and in particular its role in Wisconsin, was Blum’s 2002 biography of Harry Harlow, Love at Goon Park. I don’t think I had ever heard the name Harry Harlow before moving to Wisconsin – yet his work is something that I reap the benefits of in my daily life. Harlow is both famous and infamous for his “mother love” and “pit of despair” (a catchy term for depression) studies. His research used rhesus macaque babies to show that children need love and social interaction – particularly touch – to function and develop normally, and that being isolated can be the cause of a complete psychological breakdown.

The reason Harlow is so controversial is that the way he studied depression and isolation from one’s mother was to psychologically “break” baby monkeys. These were horrible studies. The monkeys were taken away from their mothers and given a variety of fake substitutes to see which the babies would cling to most (warm, cloth, animated mother was the winning surrogate but cold metal mother caused psychological damage to her babies.) For the depression studies the babies were put in isolation cages for 3-6 months at a time, with no interaction at all. The monkeys suffered tremendously. The concept of love as a necessity needed to be proven, to move parental nurturing into the mainstream. But the question remains if it needed to be proven in that way.

Considering that I was surprised by just how awful the United States history of animal research is, you can imagine how shocking I found it that studies were needed to prove that mothers should hug their children. But then again, as Blum so poignantly points out, the scientific standard at the time was to isolate children for health reasons (limit the spread of bacteria & disease.) What seems so obvious to me – that animals should be well taken care of, that children should be hugged – were really revolutions within the scientific community. Looking back we can say how ridiculous it is that such assertions needed to be scientifically proven, but then again think about where we might be if these ideas had never been generally accepted.

This semester has really driven home for me just how much I owe to animals. The idea that my mom would have been condemned as a bad mother for hugging me when I cried were it not for Harry Harlow and his baby rhesus macaques makes me very appreciative of the role of animals in research. I remember so vividly crying on my Mom’s shoulder at maybe 4 or 5 years old. I remember the silky salmon colored blouse she was wearing. I remember staining it mercilessly with my tears, but I don’t know why I was crying. I do know that all I wanted was to be held, and have my hair stroked and be comforted. I can’t imagine my parents keeping me at arm’s length.

We owe a lot to the animals who started the social movement that changed the way people parented, and the researcher who brought it all to light for making society take notice; and I had no idea about either before coming to Wisconsin. While I do my fair share of whining about being in the cheese state, my experiences here have opened my mind to a lot of new concepts – particularly with regard to the role animals play in society and how we as humans should regard them.

Hal Herzog, Animal Ethics & the Alien Problem

Book Review, Good Writing, Grad School, Public Perceptions, Zoology,

Last semester I read many more books (thus I did a lot more book reviews) than this semester which has mostly been devoted to academic research papers. But I do have two books that need reading for my zoology class on human and animal behavior with Patricia McConnell.

Some-We-Love-Some-We-Hate-Some-We-Eat-Herzog-Hal-9780061730863I finally finished the first of the two assigned books, Hal Herzog’s Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat – Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight About Animals. I’ve been reading Herzog’s book all semester, so my evaluation of it draws on a slightly disjointed memory but I think I can summarize his main point with two statements:

1. Most people choose not to (or don’t know enough to) think about their personal moral philosophy. Not thinking about how we feel about animals is what allows us to love puppies so much while we happily chow down on a Big Mac.
2. Those people who have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to discern their personal moral philosophy about animals either A. remain horribly conflicted or B. Choose a philosophy with regards to the treatment of animals that societal pressures make very difficult to implement (for example, all creatures are equal – if you save an iguana from a burning building instead of a human baby, society is not going to look kindly upon you regardless of your belief that the iguana and the baby are equals)

Herzog’s answer to his main question “why is it so hard to think straight about animals?” largely comes down to because you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.

The book tries hard to cover a variety of topics that impact the way we feel about animals, some obvious (factory farming, animals in research, hunting) and some less so (cockfights, dog shows, gender roles.) I don’t intend to go into his arguments for and against certain behaviors, but to give an example of the kind of analysis he provides I will share the anecdote from his chapter “The moral status of mice,” on the use of animals for biological research.

Herzog frames animal research this way: Think of Steven Spielberg’s 1982 classic film ET. Remember how close Elliott and ET became, and how heart wrenching it was to see ET go back to his home planet? Well, what if there was a disease destroying the alien’s on ET’s home planet, and the reason he really came to earth was to scout out organisms of lesser intelligence to test possible remedies on. Elliott’s intelligence was far less than ET’s. So how would you feel if at the end of the movie, ET kidnapped Elliott and took him back to his home planet to live the rest of his life as the subject of research. It would save millions of aliens. But ET still essentially destroys Elliott’s life. Not really a satisfactory ending, I’d say.

So if we don’t want ET to kidnap Elliot just because he is of lesser intelligence, then what do we do when humans are like ET and mice are like Elliot? Should we experiment on mice just because they are of lesser intelligence? Previous logic would lead us to say no, we should not experiment on the mice. But yet, I’m still in favor of animal research. Philosophically, I shouldn’t be. But there is something about experimenting on a member of my own species that I find morally reprehensible. It is the reason we don’t conduct experiments on people in coma’s or with mental retardation. But if you are always putting humans first, how can you still treat animals with respect and moral standing?

I’m not here to answer the questions thinking critically about animals pose. Herzog has 280 pages of highly intelligent, moving, and entertaining explanation, and he still doesn’t answer most of them. But he will get you thinking about your own behavior, why some animals matter to us more than others, and why humans think the way we do.

It is important for everyone: meat eaters, vegetarians, pet lovers, people who avoid animals, etc. to think about why they feel the way they do about animals. I was surprised by the conflicts in my own way of thinking, and sadly I now fall into column A – thinking critically, but still horribly confused. At least I’m thinking right?

Bronx Zoo Cobra Found On Twitter

My Personal Life, Public Perceptions, Science Policy

Last friday the Bronx Zoo (that would be in New York for those of you unaware) announced that it was missing an Egyptian Cobra (which is poisonous) from its reptile house. According to the zoo, the 20-inch snake is most likely in the vicinity of the building, which was immediately closed off and is being searched.

An Egyptian Cobra. Source: Wikimedia Commons

The missing snake was fodder for late night comics like David Letterman, and has made a media buzz. However, for the skeptics among us who don’t buy the zoo’s story that the snake didn’t escape into the public, there is now a Twitter account that is assuming to chronicle the snake’s adventures as it roams Manhattan. Proof that the snake’s more than 35,000 followers probably didn’t have a whole lot to do with themselves today…but entertaining nonetheless.

Update 3/30/11 – As of 4pm BronxZoosCobra has more than 150,000 followers on Twitter. Glad to see that people can have a sense of humor about something like this.

Update 3/31/11 – At 4pm today the Bronx Zoo announced that the Cobra, which was missing for seven days, was found in a section of the reptile house which was closed to the public. The snake was found coiled in a dark corner, and will “rest” for a few days before being returned to the exhibit.