A Yale University senior named Aliza Shvarts ignited the blogosphere with outrage yesterday, April 17, when the Yale student newspaper announced that Shvarts had artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" over the past nine months and then periodically induced "miscarriages," all toward the goal of developing a "performance art" project in the School of Art at Yale. But there may be students on my campus who perform a similar type of "art" every week without much fuss.

It may all come down to the meaning of words.

Oprah Winfrey introduced the so-called "first pregnant man" to viewers of her April 3rd show this past week. Thomas Beatie appeared, six months pregnant, with his wife Nancy and his obstetrician, Dr. Kimberly James (by satellite hookup). You can see the complete show here. But many viewers thought the whole thing was blown out of proportion because Thomas was born with a perfectly normal uterus.

At the end of my first column on the issue, I said I would post another piece discussing the actual science of male pregnancy.

Is it really possible today? The answer, as I abstract from my 1997 book, Remaking Eden, is "almost certainly yes, but . . ."

As many have undoubtedly heard, Oprah Winfrey introduced "the first pregnant man" to viewers of her April 3rd show this past week. Thomas Beatie appeared, six months pregnant, with his wife Nancy and his obstetrician, Dr. Kimberly James (by satellite hookup). You can see the complete show here, including a video clip with an ultrasound recording of the fetal heartbeat.

So what's going on here? Well, Thomas was born in a female body and named Tracy, but Tracy always self-identified as a male. As an adult, Tracy decided to undergo a biological "sex change" by having female breast tissue entirely removed, and by taking daily doses of testosterone, which produced a manly body and a scraggly beard. Thomas met Nancy, and five years ago, they became legally married as "husband and wife," in the state of Oregon. Then Thomas and Nancy decided they wanted to have children. The problem was that Nancy had previously undergone a hysterectomy to remove a diseased uterus; Thomas, meanwhile, still had his intact. So, he stopped taking testosterone, which allowed him to undergo ovulation, and then used artificial insemination (through his intact vagina) to get pregnant.

Homeopathic medicine was the creation of a single person, Samuel Hahnemann, who graduated from a German medical school in 1779 and practiced the "healing arts" until 1843, first in Germany and then in Paris.  The theoretical underpinning of Hahnemann's new approach to health and vitality is that a healthy human being is inhabited by an integrated spirit or vital force.  In Hahnemann's words, "The vital force that animates the healthy body, rules with unbounded sway, and  retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation . . .

Before the 18th century, scientists and non-scientists alike assumed that the material substance of living organisms was fundamentally different from that of non-living things -- organisms and their products were considered organic by definition, while non-living things were mineral or inorganic. 

With the invention of chemistry in the late 18th century, scientists uncovered the incoherence of the traditional distinction: all material substances are constructed from the same set of chemical elements.  Today we understand that the special properties of living organic matter emerge from the interactions of a large variety of large molecules built mostly with atoms of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Chemists now use the word organic to describe all complex, carbon-based molecules—whether or not they are actually products of an organism or products of laboratory synthesis.  But many educated people in Western countries think that only some crops and cows are organic, while all others are not.  How can one simple word -- organic -- have such different meanings?

CORRECTION:  Charles Margulis -- who works with the so-called Center for Food Safety, an organic food lobbying group -- has called my attention to the fact that 200 people were made seriously ill (rather than dead) from eating manure-contaminated fresh spinach last fall. Only three people actually died.  My apologies for the unintentional error.  "Proper composting" of manure is supposed to kill off the trillions of bacteria that are naturally present in the fresh stuff (otherwise known as "poop" in the language used by my son).  But something went wrong at some point in the practices used by the Missions Organics farm, and the poop seemed to end up everywhere.  Synthetic fertilizer does not contain bacteria of any kind -- period.  So synthetic fertilizer cannot cause food poisoining - no need to worry if it's been processed properly.  (Bacterial contamination can occur at later stages of the food making process.)

I've been traveling across eastern Europe and off the blogosphere for the past week, but this news item caught my attention, as it was relevant to my previous post on the problems with "organic food."

Scientists working at Novocell, Inc. in San Diego, CA have reported a stunning advance in the race to move embryonic stem cells from the province of basic scientific research into the arena of clinical trials for patients suffering from diabetes. Type I diabetes results from the degeneration of specialized cells in the pancreas (called beta-cells) that produce the hormone insulin. In healthy individuals, a rise in blood sugar after a meal induces beta-cells to secrete insulin, which enables other cells to absorb and utilize the sugar as fuel; when blood sugar levels drop, insulin production is turned down. In diabetics, insulin regulation fails. Currently, patients suffering from this disease have no choice but to constantly monitor blood sugar levels and take insulin shots when those levels rise.

 On December 28, the Food and Drug Administration issued a draft report stating that "meat and milk from clones of adult cattle, pigs and goats, and their offspring, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals."   In modern-day America, however, the FDA is not allowed to base its decisions concerning public safety simply on the basis of scientific knowledge.  It must listen to the way people feel -- rationally or not -- about its finding.  And so, the FDA explained, 

Blurring boundaries

High up on the bluffs overlooking the Pacific Ocean in southern California, strange animals scurry about in their cages. They eat, drink, copulate and occasionally try to run away from human hands that enter their confined quarters. If you didn't know better, you would think they were ordinary mice. But these particular animals contain a hidden component not present in their naturally conceived cousins. Inside their brains are living human neurons that help them to see, hear and think.

Challenging Nature is the title of my new column here on Scientific Blogging as well as the title of my new book. Since the idea of challenging nature may seem heretical to some, I will provide a brief explanation here of both the rationale for my argument and the opposition it faces. 

The word "nature" and its cognate "natural" are typically imagined as metaphors for what is good and right in the world -- natural things are God's creations, not to be tampered with unduly by humankind. In opposition stand the unnatural, artificial, and synthetic -- the imagined profane creations of human intellect that despoil the world. Advertisers are well aware of the subliminal effects that these potent words have on people. 

Food items, in particular, are routinely promoted as "all-natural," and "without any artificial flavors, colors, or preservatives."

What is so remarkable is how disconnected this world-view is from reality. In the fall of 2006, 204 Americans became seriously ill after eating freshly packaged spinach contaminated with a toxic bacteria found "naturally" in cow and pig manure. Ironically, the company that grew the tainted spinach was named "Natural Selection Foods."