U of M News Wire
December 6, 2007
U of M study finds gap in health and mortality rates between socioeconomic classes unchanged over the past 100 years
By Mark Cassutt
U of M News Wire
Over the past century, the United States has witnessed historic advances in public health and medicine that have contributed to improved health and a significant increase in life expectancy for all socioeconomic groups. But despite 100 years of historic advances, University of Minnesota sociologists have found that the health gap between classes has not changed.
Associate professor of sociology John Robert Warren and graduate student Elaine Hernandez found that the relative advantage in child mortality rates and health associated with social and economic advantage was about the same at the end of the 20th century as it was at the beginning of the 20th century. People with more money, more education and higher status jobs experience consistently better health and lower child mortality rates.
Using data from a range of sources including the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, the U.S. Census and the Current Population Survey, Warren and Hernandez analyzed socio-economic gradients-ratios or degree of differences between socio-economic classes in self-reported health and child mortality rates during the 20th century.
They measured social and economic advantage using three variables: Socioeconomic position with reference to educational achievement; self-reported relative socioeconomic standing both in adolescence and in adulthood; and head of household's occupation. Their health measures included child mortality rates and self-reports of overall health.
The researchers found that despite advances in nutrition, immunization and environmental factors, and even with a change in the types of diseases that have claimed lives over the past century, the relationship between socioeconomic position and health remained stable over the past century.
"Public health has improved dramatically in the United States since 1900 -- people from all socioeconomic groups are living longer and healthier," said Warren. "However, the relative advantage associated with wealth and education has persisted." Warren believes there's evidence to support the notion that reducing broader social, economic and political inequalities -- like reversing the historic trend toward greater income inequality in the United States -- might reduce disparities in health outcomes between social and economic groups.
The study will be published in the December 2007 issue of the American Sociological Association's Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
----------
Good news for stem cell research
Recent advances mean more weapons against intractable diseases, says University of Minnesota researcher Meri Firpo
By Deane Morrison
U of M News Wire
A breakthrough in stem cell research will give all stem cell researchers a new tool in their work, says University of Minnesota research Meri Firpo. Research teams at Kyoto University, Japan, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison had separately "reprogrammed" cells taken from human skin to become what appear to be embryonic stem cells (ESC's).
The advance broke a barrier to research on conditions like Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and type I diabetes. Led by Shinya Yamanaka in Japan and James Thomson in Wisconsin, the work gives Firpo and other stem cell researchers another tool to generate stem cells from large numbers of people suffering from such diseases and to study how they develop, which could well yield clues to designing cures.
Firpo, who came to the University in 2005, has developed many human embryonic stem cell lines. She is based in the University's Stem Cell Institute, which has a long history of advances in stem cell biology. And while she welcomed the latest news, she was not too surprised--the surprise had come at a conference in Vancouver early in 2006, when she heard Yamanaka describe essentially the same experiment with mice. His team had inserted just four genes into ordinary adult mouse skin cells, turning them into the apparent equivalent of ESC's.
"When Yamanaka spoke, jaws dropped," recalls Firpo. "We couldn't believe it was only four genes."
Behind the headlines
Last week’s press attention focused on the political and clinical fallout of Yamanaka and Thomson's work. On one hand, their technology lets researchers sidestep the ethical concerns and federal funding restrictions on ESC’s. But because both groups inserted genes by means that could lead to cancer or other cellular malfunctions, the method has a long way to go before it finds clinical applications.
Amongst all the euphoria and caveats, the immediate implications for research were nearly drowned out. But for scientists like Firpo, who has a major interest in using stem cells to defeat type I diabetes, the new method means that research material now rare and hard to come by will soon be plentiful.
“We can reprogram [patients’ skin cells as stem cells] and look at the development of the pancreas and the immune system and see if we can induce the regeneration of beta cells or prevent their destruction,” says Firpo.
Suppose, for example, a researcher has private funding--federal funding is prohibited--to derive new embryonic stem cell lines from human embryos discarded by in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. But if the researcher wants to generate and study a line of cells from an embryo destined to develop a certain disease, finding a source is a tall order.
“Many diseases, such as diabetes, have no genetic test,” Firpo explains. Therefore, there’s no way to identify which embryos may exhibit abnormal development that results in diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, or any number of other conditions.
Even if embryos could be tested for future disease, a researcher would only be able to test the embryos that were produced by parents undergoing IVF. And for a rare disease like Huntington's, there may be few who both have the disease and choose to go through IVF, which is expensive. A lot of time and effort would be wasted in the search for cells that carry the seeds of the disease.
But with the new technology, Firpo can generate stem cells from donors who already have various diseases. Then she and her colleagues can study how the tissues affected by those diseases develop, comparing them to normal cells. The goal is to find abnormalities that suggest ways to cure or control the condition.
For example, in type I diabetes the patient's own immune system destroys the insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas. It may be possible to discover how that happens by generating stem cells from patients and coaxing them to form all the cells and tissues that play roles in the disease.
“We can reprogram [patients' skin cells as stem cells] and look at the development of the pancreas and the immune system and see if we can induce the regeneration of beta cells or prevent their destruction,” says Firpo. “It's not easy, but now we have tools that will allow us to begin that line of research.”
Firpo and her colleagues are also working to improve the technology of Yamanaka and Thomson. The two research groups each reprogrammed the skin cells with four genes (two of them were identical); but the Japanese group included a known cancer gene, and both groups ferried the genes into the cells with retroviruses, which also can cause cancer or other disruptions. Furthermore, neither group could control the location in the genome where the inserted genes landed. Random insertion of new genes into chromosomes could cause resident genes to malfunction.
“We will replicate the work on [the new method] to make it reversible so cells don't have permanent genetic alterations,” says Firpo.
While the new stem cell technology is being hailed as a brilliant solution to a thorny political problem, Firpo points out that it was only possible thanks to actual embryonic stem cells.
“This would never have happened without embryonic stem cells to compare to. They’ll always be the gold standard," she says. "We now have another tool for understanding reprogramming, and, if we can make [the reprogrammed cells] safe, for clinical purposes.
“With both [stem cells generated by the new method] and actual embryonic stem cells, we can move forward and bring in more scientists to the field. Ultimately, we will always have to have embryonic stem cells around.”
----------
Growing Concerns
A childrearing question-and-answer column with Dr. Martha Erickson of the University of Minnesota
This holiday season is a wonderful time of giving -- to family, friends, and hopefully even to others in need. Certainly it is in the holiday spirit to focus on the needs and desires of others and to give with love, joy and enthusiasm. But the spirit of the season is also reflected in the way we receive gifts.
Children, with their often-uncensored emotions, usually haven’t mastered the fine art of receiving gifts. In fact, I remember with chagrin the time when my son, then five years old, opened a gift from my mother and exclaimed unabashedly, “Oh no...I hate when people give me clothes!” My sweet mother, who thought Ryan would love that red striped shirt, looked like she didn’t know whether to laugh or cry! And Ryan, now almost 34 years old, still remembers vividly the lesson he got that day in graceful receiving!
Indeed most of us have received gifts that are the last thing we’d ever choose for ourselves. And it is inevitable that our children sometimes will face disappointment when those mysterious packages are finally opened. But to nurture in our children the true Christmas spirit, we need to guide them in looking beyond the gift.
We need to encourage them to focus on the intention of the giver. For example, we might say, “Grandma really looked hard to find something that she thought you would like. She loves you very much.” Whether the gift is fun or useful -- or none of the above -- consider its value, as a symbol of someone’s caring. For example, "When you wear that shirt, you can remember Grandma’s visit and how much fun you had with her.”
Of course your child’s gracefulness in receiving gifts starts with you. How do you respond when you receive a gift? What do you do with those treasures that may not be quite what you had in mind? How do you demonstrate for your child your true appreciation of the love and care that went into each gift you have received? I remember hearing in Sunday school as a child that it is more blessed to give than to receive. Surely there should be joy in the act of giving, whether or not we get an enthusiastic thank you in return. But the blessings of giving are multiplied when the receiver truly cherishes our act of giving. So, for those who care enough to give to you and your family during this holiday season, bless them with your deep and heartfelt gratitude for the love their gift represents. And, in so doing, help your children learn to do the same.
Dr. Erickson is a senior fellow and director of the Harris Programs in the Center for Early Childhood Education at the University of Minnesota
Want to hear more parenting advice?
Dr. Erickson and her daughter can be heard every Sunday, from 2 - 4 p.m., on “Good Enough Moms,” on FM107.1 radio in the Twin Cities or via Webcast at www.FM1071.com
