Universal Studios and Magic Kingdom

So awhile ago, I went to a scientific conference in Orlando. Since the conference hotel only had suites, it seemed only sensible to invite the family to come to use the suite. And since it was Orlando, it seemed only sensible for them to go to Disneyworld. After all, it had been ten-years since we had gone, long before ME was born and when JA was too small to really remember anything. So I pitched this idea, but JA didn't want to miss school. We talked more and I mentioned the new Harry Potter adventure that was also in Orlando, and that got her more interested. It turns out that the Harry Potter rides were part of Universal Studios, not Disney.

I didn't have time to really look at what was available for Universal Studio, but asked the girls and AM to do some investigating to see if this was worth going to. I wish I had taken this on myself. It turns out that most of the Universal Studio rides, and this includes the Harry Potter ones are of the roller coaster variety. Why that may be great for many teenagers and some younger kids, these are not the kinds of rides our two girls like at all.

JA and I went to the Harry Potter world first, while ME and AM went to the Dr. Suess world.

So the main ride in the Harry Potter world is one where you take a tour of the Hogswarts Castle as part of the pre-ride, and this was really the whole point of us coming to Universal Studios. Going through the castle was a lot of fun.
Then they loaded you on the ride. AM started screaming from the very beginning. I can't really say that the ride was a lot of fun even for me. I actually started getting nauseated in the middle of the ride, I can't really tell why, although everything seemed kind of out of focus. Anyway, it didn't turn out to be something that JA wanted to do again. I tried to talk here into going on the little family friendly roller coaster that was part of the Harry Potter world, but she absolutely refused. So mostly we walked around the little shops representing Hogsmeade. We of course were real shops selling real expensive touristy kind of things.

ME enjoyed the Dr. Seuss rides. There were about three of these. One that was an elevated train that went around the Dr. Seuss area, another that was the equivalent of the Dumbo the elephant ride at Disneyland, and the third that told the story of the Cat and the Hat.

We did find a few rides that JA was willing to go on. She liked the Jurassic Park river ride, even though it had a sharp water fall drop at the end, I think mostly because she didn't know that it would have the drop until we were already there, and then we went through it and she was alright, so she was okay with going again.

She also like the Popeye wild river ride, even though we got soaking wet, so we rode this again as well.

After that we pretty much just walked around and she kept saying that she didn't want to do this or that. What a waste of money going to Universal Studies was. I really wish we had gone to Animal Kingdom or one of the other Disney parks instead of Universal Studios.

The next day, AM, JA, and ME went to Magic Kingdom and I think had a lot more fun, although it was very, very crowded.  They stayed very late to see the fireworks show.

An Impressive Lame Duck Session

Congress just concluded one of the most impressive lame duck sessions in history.  Surprisingly, nearly every piece of major legislation that urgently needed to be passed was in fact passed, all with some measure of bipartisan support.  I am not exactly clear on how it was that the Democrats were finally able to get some Republicans to go from the party of no and footdraggers to responsible lawmakers who took some responsibility for the state of the nation, but it happened, and I'm glad. Two of these were our own Tennessee senators, who had been voted in as moderates, but had been acting like extremist over the past two years.  I would like to think the perhaps far left Democrats finally realized they would have to join ranks with moderates to be able to achieve anything before the Republicans took over and that outgoing moderate Republicans that had lost to TPers decided to make a statement, and those that remained realized that they would be held responsible for the state of the Union now, so that compromise happened, but I am not sure that really was the case.  Regardless, it suggests that the next two years may not be a complete stalemate, and I think that gives hope for what had looked to be a dark and gloomy time.

One ongoing worry for me will be the continued cutback in federal investment in science research.  Some of the new TPers have come in breathing fire about slashing research funding, which means that successful funding of research grants, already 60% lower than historical averages may go to 30% of the historical average.  Since the economic return on investment in research is conservatively estimated at 15:1, this is the typically short sighted penny-wise, pound foolish thinking that so frequently seems to be associated with this political group.  Of course, the major return on investment for the American people, and the world, from investment in biomedical research comes from our understanding of disease processes and finding effective treatments.  To those who have little understanding of science (and seem unwilling to invest time in understanding it or seem inherently suspicious of it because it doesn't fit with their ideology) progress seems remarkably slow.  But for anyone who realizes how little of many the important biological process we currently really understand, the progress is nothing sort of amazing.  It was only 60 years ago that we finally discovered the molecular mechanism behind an age-old mystery, how parents pass on their traits to their children.  In the 60 years since cracking the DNA code, we have made amazing strides in identifying the genes that lie behind many inherited diseases and understanding how these defects lead to disease.  This as eventually lead to a great many diagnostic tests, and in the case of some cancers, has directly led to treatments.  But finding ways to cure diseases caused by genetic defects is not an easy thing.  To date, direct attempts to fix the genetic defects have failed.  This is not necessarily surprising giving all that we have learned about how the cells in the body defend themselves from foreign invaders like viruses that are constantly trying to hijack the normal working of the cells to their own end by inserting their own DNA.  So it may well be that direct gene therapy will never work.  But there are many other potential "work arounds" that are being explored.  Most will fail, but I am confident based on historical results that some will eventually provide benefit.

A key to success in understanding disease is understanding the system.  For some systems, like metabolism, we might confidently say that we understand the bulk process reasonably well, sort of like a grainy black and white tv picture.  But its the little details (the high resolution color picture) that we will need to understand if we are to effectively go beyond our current treatment strategies.  So, for instance, we know how to lower cholesterol in persons with relatively modest elevations reasonably well, but that by itself does not prevent heart disease.  It reduces its risk, but it doesn't cure it.  The processes that lead to atherosclerosis turn out to be very complex and touch on a wide range of physiological response that are crucial to how our bodies respond to all the inputs and insults they have to deal with everyday.
For other processes, like memory and mental disease, I'm not sure we can even claim that we have a grainy black and white picture.  We have made dramatic and fundamental breakthroughs in the last twenty years, but not surprisingly, the biological processes that underlies our most important capability as humans, our ability to think, is really, really complicated.  So there are not going to be any magic bullets, and its going to take a lot of hard work to understand and to finally come up with some effective treatments for mental illness.  But I have dealt with enough people struggling with mental illness to say I think it is worth our investing in it.


So my overall point is this.  Maybe when you go to the voting booth, you might think twice about going with the easy choice of the candidate who promises that cutting federal spending (which includes investment in research) will make everyone's lives better.  Yes, paying taxes that will be used to invest in biomedical research will mean that you have to give up about $4 each year, so it involves some sacrifice.  And if you feel like the dark ages or even the 1980s were the high point of the human condition, that might be the appropriate choice, but we have real health problems in this world, that have real world consequences for a large part of humanity.  Our best hope for solving these problems is to invest in trying to understand them and to solve them, not to stand idly by and let others suffer while believing that it isn't our problem or our responsibility.