New Scientist has a brief new online article that poses the question as it builds from an article in a journal titled Astrobiology. The abstract is below for the Astrobiology article that summarizes an experiment testing the hypothesis. ( I love to scuba dive with my two daughters but I'll bet these fissures are too deep for us to do any on-site investigation.)
Abstract
We report the results of our efforts to study the effects of seismic shaking on simulated biofilms within serpentinite fissures. A colloidal solution consisting of recipient bacterial cells (Pseudomonas sp. or Bacillus subtilis), donor plasmid DNA encoded for antibiotic resistance, and chrysotile (an acicular clay mineral that forms in crevices of serpentinite layers) were placed onto an elastic body made from gellan gum, which acted as the biofilm matrix. Silica beads, as rock analogues (i.e., chemically inert mechanical serpentinite), were placed on the gellan surface, which was coated with the colloidal solution. A rolling vibration similar to vibrations generated by earthquakes was applied, and the silica beads moved randomly across the surface of the gellan. This resulted in the recipient cells' acquiring plasmid DNA and thus becoming genetically transformed to demonstrate marked antibiotic resistance. Neither Pseudomonas sp. nor B. subtilis were transformed by plasmid DNA when chrysotile was substituted for by kaolinite or bentonite in the colloidal solution. Tough gellan (1.0%) promoted the introduction of plasmid DNA into Pseudomonas sp., but soft gellan (0.3%) had no such effect. Genetic transformation of bacteria on the surface of gellan by exposure to exogenous plasmid DNA required seismic shaking and exposure to the acicular clay mineral chrysotile. These experimental results suggest that bacterial genetic exchange readily occurs when biofilms that form in crevices of serpentinite are exposed to seismic shaking. Seismic activity may be a key factor in bacterial evolution along with the formation of biofilms within crevices of serpentinite. Key Words: Biofilm—Chrysotile—Evolution—Pseudomonas sp.—Seismic shaking. Astrobiology 9, xxx–xxx
Friday, May 1, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Manville/Travelers Issues Takes on Added Importance with Expected Chrysler Chapter 11 Petiiton
The importance of the Manville/Travelers scope of jurisdiction issues will be going up if Chrysler proceeds with the expected Chapter 11 petition.
During oral argument, Justice Roberts asked, hypothetically, if the bankruptcy court could enjoin car accident claims against Travelers if such a deal were made as part of settlement of insurance coverage issues. Other justices raised questions about whether claimants would be entitled to notice before their claims are enjoined. In Chrysler, scope of injunction and notice issues could be significant, especially if assets are quickly sold off, leaving a theoretically finite set of assets to pay whatever future claims may be brought against Chrysler. It's too early to spend much time on the all the possibilities, but here are a couple of examples:
May the bankruptcy court enjoin state law tort or contract claims against Chrysler entities not in bankruptcy, if there are any? Would it matter if the injunction is part of a settlement of claims between Chrysler entities?
May the bankruptcy court enjoin state law tort claims against suppliers to Chrysler of allegedly defective products ? What about an injunction in favor of insurers of parts suppliers to Chrysler?
To which current or potential future claimants should notice be given regarding the bankruptcy or the apparently impending asset sale ?
During oral argument, Justice Roberts asked, hypothetically, if the bankruptcy court could enjoin car accident claims against Travelers if such a deal were made as part of settlement of insurance coverage issues. Other justices raised questions about whether claimants would be entitled to notice before their claims are enjoined. In Chrysler, scope of injunction and notice issues could be significant, especially if assets are quickly sold off, leaving a theoretically finite set of assets to pay whatever future claims may be brought against Chrysler. It's too early to spend much time on the all the possibilities, but here are a couple of examples:
May the bankruptcy court enjoin state law tort or contract claims against Chrysler entities not in bankruptcy, if there are any? Would it matter if the injunction is part of a settlement of claims between Chrysler entities?
May the bankruptcy court enjoin state law tort claims against suppliers to Chrysler of allegedly defective products ? What about an injunction in favor of insurers of parts suppliers to Chrysler?
To which current or potential future claimants should notice be given regarding the bankruptcy or the apparently impending asset sale ?
Scottish Judge Declines to Stay Plaques Legislation and Provides Preliminary Comments on the Merits
Here is the link to the full text of the first ruling in the insurer's lawsuit seeking a declaration to invalidate to the Scottish pleural plaques legislation.
In the opinion, the trial judge (Lord Glennie) exercised his discretion not to grant the insurer's motion to stop the legislation from taking effect. In reaching that decision, the court considered various factors and somewhat assessed the merit of the insurers' two overall challenges. First, the insurers argue that the law is outside the "legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament on the grounds of its incompatibility with certain Convention rights. They rely in particular upon Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto (Protection of property). The petitioners also mount a challenge to the Act on grounds of irrationality, or Wednesbury unreasonableness, and arbitrariness."
In weighing the merits, the trial judge offered the following preliminary and summary assessment of the insurers' arguments:
"It is sufficient that I say that, in my opinion, the petitioners have demonstrated a prima facie case that both Articles 6 and Article 1 of the First Protocol are engaged in that the Act does appear to me to remove from the courts and determine in a manner adverse to the petitioners a critical question arising in all pleural plaque cases, namely whether the claimants in any such case have suffered damage so as to make the negligent exposure to asbestos actionable. Unless and until the Act comes into force, each of the cases currently sisted, at least insofar as it is based upon the existence of pleural plaques and not on other injury or damage, will fail, because at common law negligence is not actionable without proof of damage. If and when the Act comes into force, that line of defence will be removed. The pursuers in such cases will still, of course, have to prove other aspects of their case, such as negligent exposure to asbestos and quantum, but they will no longer have to prove, or attempt to prove, that the pleural plaques themselves constitute damage so as to make the negligence actionable. Mr Dewar submitted that it was always within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to alter the Scottish law of delict. I accept this. Insofar as the Act has prospective effect, this is a powerful point. But in so far as it has retrospective effect, the force of that submission is much reduced, since the Act retrospectively removes from the defenders in existing cases, and in new cases based upon exposure before the Act comes into force, a line of defence upon which they could legitimately expect to succeed. That brings Article 6 into play, or at least arguably so. Mr Dewar also argued, under reference to Article 1 of the First Protocol, that an immunity to a claim could not be a "possession"; however, it seems to me that if a certain claim is a possession (see Maurice v. France (2006) 42 EHRR 885 at paras.63-66), there is at least a good arguable case that a certain defence must fall into the same category.
[13] I have more difficulty with the petitioners' contention that the policy of the Act does not reflect any legitimate public or general interest. It is well-established that the courts will afford the legislature a wide margin of appreciation or, as it is put in the domestic context, will concede to the legislature a discretionary area of judgment in determining what is in the public or general interest: see e.g. Adams v. Scottish Ministers 2004 SC 665 at para.[27], per the Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill). The issue will always involve a detailed examination of the facts. I was initially attracted to the simple proposition underlying the Dean of Faculty's submissions, which emphasised the fact that the Act sought to compensate, at enormous expense to insurers, a narrowly defined class of persons who, although having been exposed to asbestos, had as yet suffered no illness or injury meriting compensation. But Mr Dewar explained that the Act seeks to compensate those in respect of whom it can be established, because of the presence of pleural plaques, that asbestos fibres has penetrated the lungs and the pleura. This seems to me to carry some conviction. While it appears to be true, on the available evidence, that such persons have suffered no physical injury or incapacity, they are more likely than others to suffer from anxiety that their exposure to asbestos dust, having caused penetration of asbestos fibres to the lungs and pleura (as evidenced by the existence of the plaques), will go on to cause an asbestos-related disease; and there is a risk, in such cases, that the penetration of asbestos fibres to the lungs and pleura will in fact cause such a disease. In those circumstances, the Scottish Parliament has taken the view that they ought to be entitled to claim compensation, if not for any present physical disability, then at least for that anxiety and the risk of the condition worsening. The arguments will no doubt be more fully developed at the first hearing. Whilst on a fact sensitive issue of this sort I cannot dismiss the petitioners' case as unarguable, and I therefore must hold that they have demonstrated a prima facie case, it does not seem to me on the arguments advanced so far that it is a prima facie case which should be regarded as particularly strong."
In the opinion, the trial judge (Lord Glennie) exercised his discretion not to grant the insurer's motion to stop the legislation from taking effect. In reaching that decision, the court considered various factors and somewhat assessed the merit of the insurers' two overall challenges. First, the insurers argue that the law is outside the "legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament on the grounds of its incompatibility with certain Convention rights. They rely in particular upon Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto (Protection of property). The petitioners also mount a challenge to the Act on grounds of irrationality, or Wednesbury unreasonableness, and arbitrariness."
In weighing the merits, the trial judge offered the following preliminary and summary assessment of the insurers' arguments:
"It is sufficient that I say that, in my opinion, the petitioners have demonstrated a prima facie case that both Articles 6 and Article 1 of the First Protocol are engaged in that the Act does appear to me to remove from the courts and determine in a manner adverse to the petitioners a critical question arising in all pleural plaque cases, namely whether the claimants in any such case have suffered damage so as to make the negligent exposure to asbestos actionable. Unless and until the Act comes into force, each of the cases currently sisted, at least insofar as it is based upon the existence of pleural plaques and not on other injury or damage, will fail, because at common law negligence is not actionable without proof of damage. If and when the Act comes into force, that line of defence will be removed. The pursuers in such cases will still, of course, have to prove other aspects of their case, such as negligent exposure to asbestos and quantum, but they will no longer have to prove, or attempt to prove, that the pleural plaques themselves constitute damage so as to make the negligence actionable. Mr Dewar submitted that it was always within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to alter the Scottish law of delict. I accept this. Insofar as the Act has prospective effect, this is a powerful point. But in so far as it has retrospective effect, the force of that submission is much reduced, since the Act retrospectively removes from the defenders in existing cases, and in new cases based upon exposure before the Act comes into force, a line of defence upon which they could legitimately expect to succeed. That brings Article 6 into play, or at least arguably so. Mr Dewar also argued, under reference to Article 1 of the First Protocol, that an immunity to a claim could not be a "possession"; however, it seems to me that if a certain claim is a possession (see Maurice v. France (2006) 42 EHRR 885 at paras.63-66), there is at least a good arguable case that a certain defence must fall into the same category.
[13] I have more difficulty with the petitioners' contention that the policy of the Act does not reflect any legitimate public or general interest. It is well-established that the courts will afford the legislature a wide margin of appreciation or, as it is put in the domestic context, will concede to the legislature a discretionary area of judgment in determining what is in the public or general interest: see e.g. Adams v. Scottish Ministers 2004 SC 665 at para.[27], per the Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill). The issue will always involve a detailed examination of the facts. I was initially attracted to the simple proposition underlying the Dean of Faculty's submissions, which emphasised the fact that the Act sought to compensate, at enormous expense to insurers, a narrowly defined class of persons who, although having been exposed to asbestos, had as yet suffered no illness or injury meriting compensation. But Mr Dewar explained that the Act seeks to compensate those in respect of whom it can be established, because of the presence of pleural plaques, that asbestos fibres has penetrated the lungs and the pleura. This seems to me to carry some conviction. While it appears to be true, on the available evidence, that such persons have suffered no physical injury or incapacity, they are more likely than others to suffer from anxiety that their exposure to asbestos dust, having caused penetration of asbestos fibres to the lungs and pleura (as evidenced by the existence of the plaques), will go on to cause an asbestos-related disease; and there is a risk, in such cases, that the penetration of asbestos fibres to the lungs and pleura will in fact cause such a disease. In those circumstances, the Scottish Parliament has taken the view that they ought to be entitled to claim compensation, if not for any present physical disability, then at least for that anxiety and the risk of the condition worsening. The arguments will no doubt be more fully developed at the first hearing. Whilst on a fact sensitive issue of this sort I cannot dismiss the petitioners' case as unarguable, and I therefore must hold that they have demonstrated a prima facie case, it does not seem to me on the arguments advanced so far that it is a prima facie case which should be regarded as particularly strong."
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
President Obama Reacts Quickly to Blog Entry on Cancer, Policy & Money (Humor Intended)
Monday's post noted that the war on cancer is going slowly, at best. Little did I know that by the end of the day, President Obama would respond during a speech to the National Academy of Sciences by announcing a doubling of the budget for cancer research !!
Ok, ok, so the reality is that his speech was planned long before the blog post went up. But, it was still great to read the following excerpt from a White House post on the speech, and to read the following excerpt from his speech to the National Academy of Sciences:
Excerpt from Post: " Given the nature of the challenges the country faces in global economic competitiveness, energy, and health, the President will call for the U.S. to surpass its record investment in research and development, set in 1964 at the height of the space race, exceeding three percent of GDP. This goal would be met with both public and private investment."
Excerpt from Speech to the National Academy: "And that’s why my administration is committed to increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health, including $6 billion to support cancer research — part of a sustained, multi-year plan to double cancer research in our country."
That's great. In my opinion, it's still not enough money for cancer and other diseases when one considers the just under 600,000 US lives lost to cancer each year, and the hundreds of thousands of lives lost annually to other dread diseases. It is, however, great to see science becoming a national priority after so many years of neglect, if not antipathy.
The speech is well worth reading in full.
Ok, ok, so the reality is that his speech was planned long before the blog post went up. But, it was still great to read the following excerpt from a White House post on the speech, and to read the following excerpt from his speech to the National Academy of Sciences:
Excerpt from Post: " Given the nature of the challenges the country faces in global economic competitiveness, energy, and health, the President will call for the U.S. to surpass its record investment in research and development, set in 1964 at the height of the space race, exceeding three percent of GDP. This goal would be met with both public and private investment."
Excerpt from Speech to the National Academy: "And that’s why my administration is committed to increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health, including $6 billion to support cancer research — part of a sustained, multi-year plan to double cancer research in our country."
That's great. In my opinion, it's still not enough money for cancer and other diseases when one considers the just under 600,000 US lives lost to cancer each year, and the hundreds of thousands of lives lost annually to other dread diseases. It is, however, great to see science becoming a national priority after so many years of neglect, if not antipathy.
The speech is well worth reading in full.
W.R. Grace Judge Lashes Prosecutors Who Admit They 'Dropped the Ball" - Judge Dismisses Some Charges and Ponders a Mistrial
The New York Times continues to describe the events in the W.R. Grace trial, with the most recent article being one by Kirk Johnson that is located here. The opening two paragraphs are set out below to whet your appetite for more facts - the entire article should be read.
April 28, 2009
Judge in Asbestos Case Angrily Lectures Prosecutors
By KIRK JOHNSON
MISSOULA, Mont. — A chastened team of prosecutors stood here on Monday before a clearly angry federal judge in the criminal trial over asbestos contamination in the small town of Libby, Mont., and in soft voices, trying to salvage their threatened case, said they were sorry.
“The truth of the matter is that we just dropped the ball,” said Tim Racicot, an assistant United States attorney, standing before Judge Donald W. Molloy at a hearing in Federal District Court in the trial of W. R. Grace, the big chemical products company, and five of its executives, who are charged with multiple felonies in connection with their operation of a vermiculite mine in Libby.
Lawyers for Grace asked last week for the charges to be thrown out after two months of testimony. They accused prosecutors of repeatedly violating court orders to turn over evidence favorable to the defense and of putting on the stand a star witness whose credibility, they said, has since been shattered by information about his character, motivation and relationship with the prosecutors that the jury never heard about.
Caveat/Disclaimer: In the mid-to-late 1990s, I was part of a team of lawyers who represented W.R. Grace in asbestos litigation. My personal opinion is that the prosecution always has been a travesty because it ignored the facts and science regarding the Libby, Montana zonolite mining facility purchased by Grace after the facility had been in operation for many years.
April 28, 2009
Judge in Asbestos Case Angrily Lectures Prosecutors
By KIRK JOHNSON
MISSOULA, Mont. — A chastened team of prosecutors stood here on Monday before a clearly angry federal judge in the criminal trial over asbestos contamination in the small town of Libby, Mont., and in soft voices, trying to salvage their threatened case, said they were sorry.
“The truth of the matter is that we just dropped the ball,” said Tim Racicot, an assistant United States attorney, standing before Judge Donald W. Molloy at a hearing in Federal District Court in the trial of W. R. Grace, the big chemical products company, and five of its executives, who are charged with multiple felonies in connection with their operation of a vermiculite mine in Libby.
Lawyers for Grace asked last week for the charges to be thrown out after two months of testimony. They accused prosecutors of repeatedly violating court orders to turn over evidence favorable to the defense and of putting on the stand a star witness whose credibility, they said, has since been shattered by information about his character, motivation and relationship with the prosecutors that the jury never heard about.
Caveat/Disclaimer: In the mid-to-late 1990s, I was part of a team of lawyers who represented W.R. Grace in asbestos litigation. My personal opinion is that the prosecution always has been a travesty because it ignored the facts and science regarding the Libby, Montana zonolite mining facility purchased by Grace after the facility had been in operation for many years.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Cancer Deaths, Costs and Government Failure to Meaningfully Invest in the "War On Cancer"
The Friday April 24, 2009 New York Times included a thoroughly depressing article on cancer by long-time science writer Gina Kolata. The general point of the article is to document the lack of real progress on the "war on cancer."
The lack of progress is especially daunting when one considers some data on how much we spend on different wars. According to Ms. Kolata's her article, the National Cancer Institute has spent $ 105 billion on cancer since Richard Nixon announced the war on cancer in 1971. That's a paltry expenditure when one considers that 4% of Americans are cancer survivors, and detailed data showing lifetime cancer risks, such as the 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer, and 1 in 13 men will develop lung cancer. Risks of course translate into deaths. Slightly under 600,000 people in the US will die from cancer during 2008 according to detailed statistics from the American Cancer Society. That means that every two days, more people die of cancer than died on 9/11/01. Incredibly, since 2001, we've spent spent trillions of dollars to stop the risk of a few thousand more 9/11 type deaths, but since 1971, NCI could only muster about $ 5 billion per year for diseases that take hundreds of thousands of lives per year. In my book, that's insane when considered only in terms of the human agony inflicted by cancer.
The failure to solve disease problems becomes even more incredible when one looks at the costs inflicted by disease. On that topic, consider data from an an April 27, 2009, Business Insurance article by Joanne Wojcik. Her article reports on a significant recent study on health care costs of employers. Some quotes are below, but note especially two points. In terms of costs for hospitals and drugs, cancer is the leading cause of expense. But, even those costs are exceeded by 2 to 1 by indirect costs.
"For every dollar spent on medical costs and pharmaceuticals, there is $2.30 of health-related productivity losses due to absenteeism and presenteeism, according to the study. For certain conditions, such as anxiety, employers lose as much as
$20 in productivity for every dollar they spend on medical care and pharmaceuticals.The study, which researchers said is one of the largest to date on the subject, found that when medical and prescription drug costs are considered alone, the top five conditions driving employer health care costs are cancer, back/neck pain, coronary heart disease, chronic pain and high cholesterol.
However, when medical and drug costs and productivity losses are factored into the equation, the five costliest conditions for employers are depression, obesity, arthritis, back/neck pain and anxiety, researchers say."
BTW, this is not a lightweight study. Instead, according to Business Insurance:
"The study was conducted in two phases: The first phase used data collected between 2005 and 2006 from four employers with 57,000 employees. In the second
phase, between 2007 and 2008, researchers increased the number of employers to
10 and employees to 150,000 and investigated more subtle aspects of the relationship between the 25 targeted health problems and productivity. More than
1.1 million paid medical and pharmacy claims were included in the combined
analysis."
The article abstract is pasted below and also is available here. The same link may be used to purchase the article.
Health and Productivity as a Business Strategy: A Multiemployer Study.
Fast Track Article Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 51(4):411-428, April 2009.Loeppke, Ronald MD, MPH; Taitel, Michael PhD; Haufle, Vince MPH; Parry, Thomas PhD; Kessler, Ronald C. PhD; Jinnett, Kimberly PhD
Abstract: Objective: To explore methodological refinements in measuring
health-related lost productivity and to assess the business implications of a
full-cost approach to managing health.
Methods: Health-related lost productivity was measured among 10 employers with a total of 51,648 employee respondents using the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire combined with 1,134,281 medical and pharmacy claims. Regression analyses were used to estimate the associations of health conditions with absenteeism and presenteeism using a range of models.
Results: Health-related productivity costs are significantly greater than medical and pharmacy costs alone (on average 2.3 to 1). Chronic conditions such as depression/anxiety, obesity, arthritis, and back/neck pain are especially important causes of productivity loss. Comorbidities have significant non-additive effects on both absenteeism and presenteeism.
Executives/Managers experience as much or more monetized productivity loss
from depression and back pain as Laborers/Operators. Testimonials are reported
from participating companies on how the study helped shape their corporate
health strategies.
Conclusions: A strong link exists between health and productivity. Integrating productivity data with health data can help employers develop effective workplace health human capital investment strategies. More research is needed to understand the impacts of comorbidity and to evaluate the cost effectiveness of health and productivity interventions from an employer perspective.
(C)2009The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
James Hardie Judge Did Not Believe the Directors
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Opinion/Judgment Regarding James Hardie and Its Private Asbestos Trust
The James Hardie opinion/judgment is available here. The link also was added to the prior post containing links to the charges and a helpful summary of the outcomes.
Asbestos and Criminal Law - Prosecution of W R Grace Officials Coming Unglued Due to Prosecutorial Misconduct ?
The New York Times ran a Saturday article detailing growing evidence of government misconduct in the criminal prosecution of WR Grace officials. Unlike most of the ongoing superficial stories about the trial, this article includes links to the judge's opinion excluding evidence proferred by the government, plus a brief from teh Grace side that details government misconduct. The article also includes references to the students and professors following the trial through a reasonably helpful blog.
The bottom line? As is so often the case when speaking about asbestos, the opponents of industry seek to ignore scientific lines drawn for many years between types of asbestos and how asbestos is defined. The science and lines deserve respect because, at the end of the day, good decisions have to be based on science.
Please do not take me as seeking to excuse everything done by industry or insurers. I certainly agree that officers of Johns-Mansville and some other companies took inexcusable actions. Some of their insurers also have much dirty laundry.
That said, distinctions between among asbestos fiber types are very real and their "toxicities" are different by orders of magnitude. For example, crocidolite fibers are usually viewed as 5oox more potent that chrysotile fibers in terms of causing mesothelioma.
Caveat/Disclaimer: In the mid-to-late 1990s, I was part of ateam of lawyers who represented W.R. Grace in asbestos litigation. My personal opinion is that the prosecution always has been a travesty because it ignored the facts and science regarding the Libby, Montana zonolite mining facility purchased by Grace after the facility had been in operation for many years.
The bottom line? As is so often the case when speaking about asbestos, the opponents of industry seek to ignore scientific lines drawn for many years between types of asbestos and how asbestos is defined. The science and lines deserve respect because, at the end of the day, good decisions have to be based on science.
Please do not take me as seeking to excuse everything done by industry or insurers. I certainly agree that officers of Johns-Mansville and some other companies took inexcusable actions. Some of their insurers also have much dirty laundry.
That said, distinctions between among asbestos fiber types are very real and their "toxicities" are different by orders of magnitude. For example, crocidolite fibers are usually viewed as 5oox more potent that chrysotile fibers in terms of causing mesothelioma.
Caveat/Disclaimer: In the mid-to-late 1990s, I was part of ateam of lawyers who represented W.R. Grace in asbestos litigation. My personal opinion is that the prosecution always has been a travesty because it ignored the facts and science regarding the Libby, Montana zonolite mining facility purchased by Grace after the facility had been in operation for many years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
