Finger regeneration draws concern

Evolutionary adaptations have led to fascinating traits in certain groups of organisms, many that we wish to make applicable to humans. In the animal kingdom, some members of the phylum Echinoderms, like sea stars, are able to regenerate body parts that have been separated either voluntarily or by a predator. A sea star can grow a lost arm readily after detaching it from its body to either escape a predator or rid itself of a damaged limb. A similar trait has also evolved in certain snakes and lizards, now capable of readily regenerating their tails after losing them, a trait called “caudal autotomy.”

These phenomena fascinate scientists who wonder whether we can apply the basic principles of “regeneration” to humans. For people who have lost limbs, parts of their fingers or organs, or whose skin is severely damaged, regenerative medicine could completely change their lives. And some have already found a way to regenerate severed human body parts.

Take Lee Spievack, a Cincinnati hobby-store salesman, for example. Spievack says that he successfully grew back a portion of his middle finger that was sliced off by a model airplane propeller in an accident in August 2005.

“I pointed to [the model airplane],” Spievack recently recalled, “and said, ‘You need to get rid of this engine, it’s too dangerous.’ And I put my finger through the prop.”

The removed portion of his finger could not be found, so the emergency room doctor bandaged his hand and suggested a skin graft. Fortunately, Spievack’s brother is the founder of regenerative medicine company entitled ACell Inc. and a former Harvard surgeon. Dr. Alan Spievack gave his brother a powder created from pig bladder extracts used to help horses regrow ligaments. The powder, comprised of collagen and a few other substances, contains no pig cells, according to ACell scientific advisor Dr. Stephen Badylak, also a regeneration expert at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Spievack had already employed this powder on another man who had cut his fingertip off in an accident one year prior to Lee Spievack’s model plane incident. That man’s fingertip was successfully regenerated over four to six weeks, according to the doctor.

Naturally, scientists remain skeptical of this magical substance. While they do not deny that the tip of Lee Spievack’s finger has regrown, they believe it occurred naturally. “It appears to regenerate because new skin grows over the end of the finger—that’s a normal recovery,” Simon Kay, professor of hand surgery at the University of Leeds, told the BBC. “It can be utterly surprising how well it repairs after what appears to be a ghastly injury but it’s what you might expect from the most peripheral part of the body.”

Admittedly, it is difficult to understand what the powder does to signal the initiation of regeneration. But the very fact that we know little about the basic principles of regeneration, an established trait that has evolved multiple times in many groups of organisms, may represent our incomplete knowledge of the scientific practice. Studying this powder, whether it has contributed to the cause of the regeneration or not, may offer researchers a new perspective on regeneration. That, combined with studying existing traits in animals capable of this evolved talent, could lead to greater research advancements.

Emotion: enemy of science or friend of reason?

Does emotion belong in science? This simple question is one that many scientists would answer with a simple “no.” Emotion clouds rational thought, and should be avoided in favor of untainted observation of facts. When observing natural phenomenon of any type, the observer’s bias could colour the outcome, portraying an unrealistic picture of what was observed. In a quest for objective truth, emotion appears to be the enemy.

Many types of science are deeply tangled with emotion due to their subject matter. Dr. Harvey Armstrong, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at U of T, studies childhood sexual abuse. He sees no problem with incorporating emotion into his scientific research. “Human beings… are run by the limbic system,” he says, relaying insight into the difficulty of separating our feelings from any human endeavor (the limbic system is the neural network that supports emotion and behaviour).

Dr. Armstrong also believes that there is a total lack of emotion in the “hard” sciences. “All of the engineers I’ve run into are emotionally blind and deaf,” he noted fervently. While some level of disinterest is necessary for basic research, it is important to remember whom your findings will ultimately affect. “Who cares [about the age of the Earth]? If you’re likely to be shot on your street because people have not done appropriate things with kids and families, that’s rather more important,” Dr. Armstrong added.

The perceived separation of emotion and science in the physical sciences may not even truly exist. As soon as you step out of a laboratory (and usually before that), human emotion begins to infect lives. Many of the so-called “hard” sciences are afflicted with personal involvement as soon as they are applied to the real world. Nuclear physics as an academic discipline may not be an expressive activity, but as soon as its concepts are applied to nuclear energy or weapons, passions rise in a hurry. Dr. Ray Carlberg, Professor of Astronomy at U of T, commented “I don’t accept that the physical sciences…are not emotional.” Carlberg noted that all scientists are passionate about their work; otherwise, why spend long hours on tedious experiments?

Ideally, there would be a smooth transition from unbiased scientific observation to its caring, principled application. Still, this uneasy relationship between emotion and science will remain as long as scientists continue to ask questions.

Water safety under the bridge: fed judge

The call for an investigation into drinking water experiments in Wiarton, Ontario has fizzled, after a federal judge ruled in favour of the research-granting council NSERC. Former U of T grad student Christopher Radziminski, backed by CFS, had called on NSERC to launch an inquiry into the Wiarton study.

Radziminski is a former U of T grad student who received a research scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. His Master’s thesis found that the chemical “chlorine dioxide could be used to effectively treat water only if used in quantities that violate the American EPA’s safety standards.”

But U of T prof Robert Andrews, Radziminski’s supervisor, used his research to publish claims that the chemical was safe in two scientific journals. Under contract with ERCO Worldwide (previously Sterling Pulp Chemicals Ltd.), Andrews tested a newly patented chlorine dioxide generator on the water supply of Wiarton, Ontario—without the town’s knowledge or consent—in the summer of 2000.

Residents’ complaints of strange odours in drinking water and spots on their laundry were logged with the Ontario Clean Water Agency and in several daily newspapers, yet Andrews and Georges Ranger, a patent-holder for the chemical being tested, called the experiment a success. “No customer taste and odor complaints were reported during the study period,” reads an article on the Wiarton study published in the Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science.

After U of T refused to investigate, Radziminski called on NSERC, the research-granting council, to launch an inquiry into the Wiarton case. When appeals to the NSERC failed, the Canadian Federation of Students backed Radziminski and filed an application with the federal court, contesting NSERC’s decision.

In April, Justice O’Keefe ruled that NSERC did not act improperly: while the council provides funding to universities for research and can order investigations into experiments which it has financially supported, it did not directly fund the Wiarton study and thus did not have authority to order an investigation.

Bad Movie Makes Good

When I call Michael Stephenson for an interview about Troll 2, the 1990 film in which he made his screen debut at age ten, the first thing he asks me is, “Have you seen the movie?” When I say yes, he responds, “Okay…should I apologize now?”

Troll 2 is a bad movie, and one whose sheer horribleness has been transformed into an underground cult phenomenon. Stephenson stars as little Joshua Waits, the youngest member of an all-American family who has moved to the town of Nilbog (spell it backwards). Things become complicated when cannibal monsters and goblins begin to attack. Little people in unconvincing costumes play the goblins, and there is a heavy reliance, I’m afraid, on green ooze, which doesn’t usually spell Oscar nomination. Incidentally, you may wonder why I haven’t mentioned any trolls. This is because the movie contains only goblins. The original title was Goblins, but the name change is the least of their problems.

Troll 2 contains just about everything you could ask for in a cheesy movie. The acting and dialogue are weak (sample: “They’re eating her! And they’re going to eat me! Oh my GAAAAWWWD!”), the special effects are inept, and certain scenes are so misguided they achieve a certain surrealistic brilliance (Joshua discovers that goblins have poisoned his family’s food and he needs to find a way to prevent them from eating it. He unzips his fly, and…) But what benefit can rational criticism serve when faced with such a strange movie? It’s good, campy fun.

On May 31 at the Bloor Cinema, Toronto audiences will have a chance to attend Canada’s first theatrical screening of Troll 2. Organized by Rue Morgue and Toronto After Dark, cast members Michael Stephenson and George Hardy will be in attendance. And yes, you too will have a chance to ask them what they were thinking.

Fortunately, I was able to ask Stephenson this exact question. Troll 2 was an Italian production, produced by legendary schlockmeister Joe D’Amato (who created such classics as Cave Dwellers, Porno Holocaust, and Caligula: The Untold Story) and directed by Claudio Fragasso under the brilliant pseudonym Drake Floyd. Of the audition process, Stephenson says, “I just remember Claudio, the director, just kind of in this smoke, and he’s chattering in Italian to all the other crew members. And then Claudio kneeled down in front of me and said, ‘Okay, Michael, we improvise’—y’know, in broken English—and he started saying things like, ‘Pretend there’s a scary spider on your face! Pretend you’re in haunted house!’ And I just screamed and had fun and made a lot of faces.”

“My dad, he’s kinda conservative, and he started reading the script, and got halfway through it and said, ‘Man, Michael, this is a weird movie. Are you sure you want to do this?’ And of course, I was all for it, and so they thought at the time, ‘Well, maybe movie magic will intervene here and the script won’t be as bad as we think it is.’”

The shoot, as in most low-budget horror films, was rushed and chaotic. “Claudio’s got a lot of heart. He’s very, very passionate, but very intense, and on the set everybody was kind of afraid of him, because he was just always yelling. Like, one take and it was always like, ‘Move on! You’re too slow! Move on! FASTER! QUICKER! FASTER!’ You know, always yelling. Nobody knew what was going on, there was constant confusion, there were actors off to the side going through their lines together saying, ‘But, this doesn’t make sense; should we change this?’”

“As a ten-year-old, I got paid not very much at all,” says Stephenson. “But I got paid to show up on set and make faces and scream and run from midgets in potato sacks and ride a skateboard, and it was a lot of fun.”

Released in Europe in 1990, the film was dumped unceremoniously to video in North America. For years Stephenson was “horribly embarrassed” by his inexperienced performance. “I just thought, ‘I’m going to die and be remembered as the guy who pees all over his family dinner!’”

But in recent years, as fan mail has built up and curators invite him for Q&A’s, Stephenson began to reevaluate his opinion of ‘the Citizen Kane of bad movies.’ “You see things on people’s MySpace pages under favourite movies like, The Shawshank Redemption and Crash and Troll 2.” In addition to touring with the film, Stephenson is directing a documentary about the production called Best Worst Movie, scheduled for release sometime this year.

Despite being slammed as ‘so-bad-it’s-good,’ Troll 2 has played to packed houses, and Stephenson himself has consistently received kind words. But if making fun of bad movies is traditionally a mean-spirited activity, how can Troll 2’s fan base be so affectionate? Maybe it’s because unlike a big-studio bomb, Troll 2 is not really an insult to either our culture or our wallets—it’s harmless stuff. Viewers tend to like whatever makes them laugh, no matter how intentional or unintentional the guffaws become.

Last year, Stephenson contacted Claudio Fragasso to tell him about Troll 2’s ironic popularity. “There was this long pause, and then finally he said, ‘Why now, after 18 years, they finally decide they like my movie?!’”

Troll 2 plays at the Bloor Cinema (506 Bloor St. W.) on Saturday May 31 at 9:30 p.m.

Film Fest Heats Up

With over 170 films screened over ten days in April, Hot Docs is the largest documentary film festival in North America. While it may not have the celebrity-gawking star power of September’s Toronto International Film Festival, Hot Docs makes up for it with an abundance of thought-provoking films tackling everything from human interest stories to insects getting it on.

ALL TOGETHER NOW

A behind-the-scenes examination of the $180 million Beatles extravaganza Love, All Together Now depicts the two surviving Beatles with awed reverence. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is pitched at the same superficial level. Though competent and fast-paced, director Adrian Wills never delves into the inner-workings of the production, nor does he examine the reasons behind the band’s enduring appeal. All Together Now is more puffery than documentary, yet almost worth the price of admission for several nifty candid shots of the Beatles and their hangers on: Paul and Ringo seated together during the show mouthing their own lyrics; Yoko Ono in mid-hissy fit; and George Martin offhandedly miming the cello during “She’s Leaving Home,” among others.

Rating: VVv

GREEN PORNO

Dressed in a variety of bug costumes while posing in front of tacky, brightly coloured backdrops, Isabella Rossellini describes the mating habits of various insects. This series of shorts has inspired snickers over the sexual subject matter, but Rossellini (who also directs) presents the material with a rather charming, childlike sense of awe at both nature and the mechanics of sex.

Rating: VVVV

AT THE DEATH HOUSE DOOR

The latest from Peter Gilbert and Steve James, whose film Hoop Dreams remains one of the most acclaimed documentaries of all time. At the Death House Door packs a similar emotional wallop, profiling Carroll Pickett, a prison chaplain who presided over the executions of nearly 100 prisoners. Gilbert and James devote special attention to Carlos De Luna, who was executed on murder charges despite growing evidence that put his guilt into question. A powerful anti-death penalty statement done quietly.

Rating: VVVVv

GARBAGE! THE REVOLUTION STARTS AT HOME

What begins as a gimmicky documentary turns into a feverish rant over 76 rushed minutes. Aping the style of Super Size Me, director Andrew Nisker enlists his friends, the McDonald family, to store all of their garbage in their garage for three months. During this time, Nisker travels across the continent to see the effects of pollution on our environment. While the McDonalds’ plight is fitfully entertaining, Nisker haphazardly tackles too many topics. Some of his segments work (do most consumer goods really need so much packaging?), but others misfire: it’s unfortunate, for example, that the community around a garbage dump has seen property values nosedive, but doesn’t Nisker realize this is an inevitability? As his checklist of offenders rises, the film feels less like a cry for a revolution than a caterwaul of hopelessness.

Rating: VV

VIRTUAL JFK: VIETNAM IF KENNEDY HAD LIVED

The title is a misnomer: Virtual JFK is actually a fairly standard retelling of political events during the Vietnam War, and the war’s escalation during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Still, it’s all compelling material that will undoubtedly make for prime viewing on the History Channel. Particularly fascinating is the abundance of footage from Kennedy’s press conferences, where he appears witty and charismatic, and the coda on LBJ is sympathetic to his crises of conscience without excusing his mistakes.

Rating: VVV

AIR INDIA 182

Directed by Sturla Gunnarsson (Beowulf & Grendel), Air India 182 intersperses staged re-enactments of the notorious 1985 terrorist attack with interviews of airport personnel, victims’ families, and others involved in the bombing and its investigation. While the re-enactments are created with the same level of realism as United 93, Gunnarsson has difficulty maintaining a consistent visual style (some scenes are shaky-cam, others feature intimate close-ups and smooth establishing shots). Worse, these sequences clash with the stylized interview segments, turning what should be a harrowing and emotional work into a cold and distanced one.

Rating: VV

S&M: SHORT AND MALE

The plight of the short-in-stature man is chronicled through this tongue-in-cheek documentary, which highlights examples of the discrimination they face. Howard Goldberg’s film is occasionally funny and even shocking (a long section deals with painful procedures that can increase height by several inches), and it brings to light some interesting facts (every additional inch in a man’s height can translate to thousands in salary). But Goldberg needs a better editor: his transitions from comic to dramatic scenes are abrupt and jarring, and his set pieces are edited together arbitrarily with little sense of flow or momentum. S&M peaks around its midpoint, and grows increasingly tiresome from then on.

Rating: VVv

Insite incites

Health Minister Tony Clement recently announced plans to provide $111 million for provincial drug treatment programs, with a new set of national advertisements warning families of the (gasp!) horrors of drug use. Unfortunately, none of this money is going towards safe injection sites like Vancouver’s Insite. Unless some of that fantastic funding comes floating their way (alongside the federal government’s guarantee that they will still be drug law-exempt), Insite’s doors will close on June 30, leaving many an addict stranded in the West Coast rain.

The idea that closing Insite will actually help to reduce drug use is ridiculous. Drug users are still going to use, whether there is a safe, clean, legal place for them to do it or not. This obvious fact apparently isn’t—at least, not to Tony Clement. He keeps arguing for “more research,” but over 22 independent studies have been conducted, with almost all providing overwhelmingly favourable reviews of the site. Clement’s concerns have nothing to do with research. They are about ideology, and the Conservatives’ drive to follow the American stance on the drug problem (no matter how misguided its lead is).

The Harper government has always taken an explicit anti-drug stance. In 2007, the Tories announced a $64 million program akin to a Canadian version of the American War on Drugs (and we all know how well that turned out). Sure, the number of arrests for possession in Canada has skyrocketed, but is this really a cause for celebration when a teen with a half-smoked blunt in his car ashtray is the primary target? Isn’t part of preventing drug use helping those who are already using?

The decision to keep or close Insite is crucial. The Conservatives are dragging their feet, because either move will cause them to lose support. Unfortunately, if the site closes, the people who pay are not the guys in Ottawa, but those addicts in Vancouver soon going through withdrawal.

Clement wants out of Insite, out of mind. Who needs safe injection sites when commercials remind us that drugs are bad? While the basic intent is right, the federal government’s execution is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Millions well spent

The City of Toronto plans to spend an extra $2.5 million this year and $4.9 million next year on the Streets to Homes program, assisting the homeless in finding places to live. The increased spending will go towards hiring social workers, and a new help phone line. Most city officials have agreed with the decision for expansion. Local business owners, who say that panhandlers often scare away business and bother customers, also favour the plan.

Opposition councillors argue that Toronto has many other problem areas that should take precedent over homelessness. While Toronto has an array of issues that all need financial fixes, consider the severity of this issue. How many pedestrians actually give a second thought to the panhandler at the corner of Bloor and Spadina? Those concerned often feel incapable of making a difference, reassured that panhandlers spend the money they receive on drugs or alcohol.

Not true! The vast majority of panhandlers —91 per cent—use the money they manage to collect for food. Three-quarters of those begging for spare change are also homeless and struggling to survive.

Homeless individuals who pose a risk to the general public are the exception. Those with mental health problems or addictions need more government attention. If they were not on the streets, they would be receiving the health care and support they require. Because they are homeless, they are ignored.

The city’s first approach to panhandling was to “get tough” and use the police force as a way to “clean up the streets.” However, ticketing the homeless was hardly effective. After all, someone who is trying to survive can hardly be expected to care about a slap on the wrist.

Toronto’s panhandling epidemic cannot be solved by treating the homeless like criminals simply because they bother us. Citizens need to examine what can be done to im-prove their quality of life. Law enforcement is not the answer. This is a social problem that requires a social solution. Spending more money to create a strengthened support network is an excellent first step in the right direction.

The Decoder

The Code of Student Conduct defines those “standards of student behaviour” and “provisions for student discipline” that the Governing Council considers essential to the functioning of the university, which have nothing to do with academic matters (for that, there’s a separate code). There is some overlap between the code and other university regulations: in cases relating to sexual harassment, residence, and athletics, for example. In areas such as these, if a student commits an offense, the hearing will likely go to the tribunal specifically set up for that matter, though the head of that division has the option to turn it over to a Code of Conduct hearing. The code, which came into effect in 2002, applies to all university divisions, including the federated colleges, and all students (“students” are defined as anyone doing academic work for which they will receive a grade, anyone registered in a course or program of study, everyone entitled to a T-card, and post-doctoral fellows).

Regardless of whether you’ve read the code, if it can be shown that you could be reasonably expected to know the rules, the rules apply. The code is not meant to shelter “nor add necessarily” to civic responsibilities. Of course, the Criminal Code still applies to students, but the Code of Conduct applies on top of that, in cases “in which criminal or civil proceedings have not been taken or would not adequately protect the University’s interests and responsibilities.” According to Section 7 of the code’s preface, “Nothing in this Code shall be construed to prohibit peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, lawful picketing, or to inhibit freedom of speech as defined in the University.” Yet one of the many offenses the code covers is that of “disruption.” You’re allowed to peacefully picket, and (thanks, guys!) you’re allowed to be quiet, “But noise that obstructs the conduct of a meeting or forcible blocking of access to an activity constitutes disruption.”

As it turns out, you’re not really allowed to peacefully picket outside a meeting either, if that picketing “substantially interfere[s] with the communication inside.” Needless to say, nothing in the Code of Student Conduct covers the Governing Council’s responsibilities towards students.