• The New York Times advises us to approach the Thanksgiving meal “the way a CEO might.” Uhh, not even sure where to start on that one.

• Some good news this holiday: Cancer diagnoses are on the decline.

• The newest in medical technology: A barcode chip that tests your blood for disease.

• The latest in climate change research: A shrimp on a treadmill. Seriously.

• You know it’s bad out there when gaming companies are seeing their stock take a hit.

• And to top it off, the financial crisis hits Google. It’s official: No one is immune.

• Sketchy study finds that more people believe in aliens and ghosts than God. Or perhaps they just think God is an alien?

• And here’s a fun idea in the obesity era: health waivers for Thanksgiving dinner guests. More casserole, anyone?

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

WALTER WILLETT
Epidemiologist and nutrition expert

Support more research on alternative, sustainable energy sources, transportation, and food production. In the long run, this is crucial for the quality of life of Americans.

Commit more research funding to translation of existing knowledge into practice. We know what should be done to prevent most of the major diseases that burden our population, but we often don’t know how to do this most effectively or efficiently.

For example, we know that our children need to be more physically active and eat more fruits and vegetables, but we don’t the most effective ways to translate this knowledge into behavior.

Restore funding for research. This has been declining in recent years in terms of real dollars, at a time when the rest of the world is ramping up their research investment. Science is one of the few areas where the U.S. has had world leadership, and we are at risk of losing this.

We know that DNA isn’t necessarily the master of your future. We also know that obesity is gobbling its way through the U.S. population, and is linked to genetics. So it follows that while it ups your chances considerably, having a genetic predisposition for obesity doesn’t automatically mean you’re sentenced to a life of excessive weight, diabetes, heart disease, social discrimination, the list goes on.

And now, to prove it, researchers have compiled a handy data set to show us just how the “fat gene” can be overcome. Evadnie Rampersaud, the study’s lead author, examined DNA samples of 704 healthy Amish adults, most of them middle-aged, around half of them overweight, and about a quarter obese. She divided the group based on physical activity levels, with the most active group burning about 900 more calories a day—the equivalent of about three to four hours of moderately intensive physical activity, like brisk walking— than the most sluggish group.

To the surprise of just about no one, she found that people with certain variations of the FTO gene were more likely to be overweight. However, she also discovered something that should bring hope to any dieter:

Being genetically predisposed to obesity “had no effect on those with above average physical activity scores.”

So there you have it! Genes can be overcome! Though we should be careful not take this type of conclusion too far—we don’t want the “Conquer your genes!” logic to start being applied in places where it shouldn’t be.

We decided to take a break from the creative environmental fables springing forth in Minneapolis to hit yet another field where fact and fabrication have been scarily intertwined: autism and vaccines. The anti-vax celebrity movement is going strong—now they can add Lance Armstrong to their ranks—and more parents are jumping on the “screw public health, we don’t want autistic kids” bandwagon.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is already seeing a measles spike, while Canada is reporting a mumps epidemic and the U.K. is bracing itself for a possible measles outbreak. All while the actual research continues to show that there is absolutely no link between vaccines and autism, Crohn’s disease, colitis, asthma, teenage pregnancy, incurable foot odor, etc.

A stock anti-vax response to these facts? “So what? Who says the measles are so bad?”

Well, doctors, that’s who. As ABC News reports, the anti-vax movement isn’t just leaving an isolated number of unvaccinated children vulnerable—it’s putting entire regions in danger:

“When more than 10 percent of a community opts out of vaccinations, it leaves the entire community at risk because germs have a greater chance of causing an epidemic,” said Dr. Ari Brown, an Austin, Texas, pediatrician who represents the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The issue at hand is “herd immunity,” which works as a buffer: If enough people in a community are vaccinated, they protect those with weaker immune systems, or those whose vaccinations didn’t take, from catching the disease. The CDC estimates that some diseases, like mumps, can’t generally take hold in a population where as few as 75 percent of the people are vaccinated. But other, more virulent diseases, such as measles or the increasingly common whooping cough, need collective immunity of up to 94 percent to avoid infection.

So, in essence: Sure, your unvaccinated kid may live through the measles, or the mumps (though, as one doctor noted, cases in Canada have led to hospitalizations, deafness, meningitis, and sterility). But he’s also putting the other kids at risk.

As for the argument that children may suffer violent allergic reactions to vaccines? That one may soon kick the bucket entirely, now that a team of experts has discovered that with close monitoring and a few standard precautions, almost all children with known or suspected vaccine allergies (as determined by a pre-shots allergy test) can be safely immunized. One more reason to support scientific research.

Theories on fighting the obesity epidemic can be divided into two camps: punishing or restricting bad behavior (like oh, say, banning new fast food restaurants in poorer neighborhoods) and rewarding good behavior. So far, the bulk of what’s actually been done falls in the first category. Arguably, the most effective options would lie somewhere in the second.

Enter a new law enacted in Alabama, in which state employees who are obese or who have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or high glucose will have to pay $25 a month more in health insurance if they don’t lose weight and get healthy by 2010. True to form, the law punishes the chronically obese with financial penalties—exactly as it has punished smokers, who’ve been paying a $24 surcharge for their habit. The state isn’t leaving it all to the employees; state officials say they’ll offer programs such as Weight Watchers and gym discounts to help people drop pounds and avoid the penalty.

Alabama has the second highest obesity rate in the country—the big winner being its neighbor, Mississippi. The Sweet Home state employs over 37,000 people, meaning that statistically, around 12,000 of them are obese. While just about every health policy expert (and the majority of employees) will say that positive incentives are better motivators than punishments, the one thing we’re really lacking is hard data. Maybe a year or two of numbers from Alabama’s state employee roster could settle the debate once and for all—or at least give us a clue as to whether economic incentives are useful in the slightest.

In the midst of a food crisis, with grocery prices spiraling upwards across the globe, there’s nothing worse than hearing that every day, a massive amount of food gets tossed in the trash.

But since we’re not here to obscure reality as an excuse to make everyone feel better, here’s the truth: According to a new report by the Stockholm International Water Institute, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the International Water Management Institute, about half of all the food produced worldwide goes to waste. The report states that the amount of food we produce is more than enough to feed the world’s population, but between our inefficient (or nonexistent) distribution systems and our ridiculous practice of tossing out perfectly good food, a big chunk of humanity goes hungry while another eats itself into an epidemic.

More depressing highlights:

The U.S. throws away as much as 30 percent of its food, worth some $48.3 billion. And where do all those all-you-can-eat buffet leftovers go? Straight into landfills, where, adding insult to injury, they generate methane as they rot.

Meanwhile, in poorer countries, most uneaten food bites the big one before it has a chance to be consumed. An estimated 15 to 35 percent of food may be lost in the fields, while another 10 to15 percent is spoiled during processing, transport, and storage.

But the real problem isn’t even food—it’s water. The authors estimate that about half of the H2O used to produce all this food also goes to waste, since agriculture is the largest human use of water. As Treehugger points out, that’s ten trillion gallons of water wasted to produce that whopping $48 billion of uneaten food in the U.S.—enough to meet the needs of 500 million families.

So what can we do to put the kibosh on all this horrific waste? (And we use “horrific” as a euphemism here.) On the barest micro level, we can watch our individual consumption and be sure to minimize what we throw away. And there’s always room for ideas like this one.

• Are Olympic cheaters slipping through the cracks?

• Turns out it’s not just the uninsured who are getting screwed by medical bills: Those with insurance are under water as well.

• Dear presidential candidates: No matter which of you wins, you’ll be receiving a $9 billion bill for global warming. Please pay accordingly.

• Do degenerating brain cells make us hungrier (and thus fatter) as we age?

• “Pathological computer use“: The argument continues.

• More bad news for the South: Memphis has the highest infant mortality rate in the country.

The definition of addiction has been expanding all over the place, with rehab programs springing up for Internet addicts and class action lawsuits hinging on whether gambling falls under the addiction umbrella. Given the latest obesity studies proclaiming the eventual corpulence of everyone in America, it’s worth asking: Is overeating an addiction, and should it be treated like one?

So far, research on obesity has followed pretty much the same line as research on gambling, Web surfing, and other compulsive behaviors: When the brains of an overeater, compulsive gambler, etc. are examined, their increases and reductions in dopamine receptors follow similar patterns to those in drug addicts.

Now, a new drug developed to treat drug addition has also been shown to cause rapid weight loss. Called vigabatrin, the drug is currently in the clinical test phase for cocaine and methamphetamine dependence.

After examining earlier evidence of a strong connection between obesity and cocaine addiction, researchers at Brookhaven Lab decided to test the drug’s effect on weight loss. Sure enough, when they administered it short-term to obese and regular-weight animals, the former lost up to 19 percent of their total weight, while the latter lost between 12 and 20 percent.

Certainly all these drug addiction/obesity links bolster the findings that obesity is tied to genetics. Still, classifying obesity as a form of addiction runs the risk of minimizing the cadre of other factors, from modern technology to socioeconomics, that have been shown to contribute to the current epidemic. Or maybe they’ve all joined together to form a perfect obesity storm. Either way, unless we take quick action, predictions that once sounded ridiculous may start to come true.

Well, so much for that whole “curb obesity by 2010” plan: The latest report from the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation says that obesity rates rose in 37 states in the past year, while not a single state saw a decrease. For 19 of the 37, this was their third straight year on the obesity rising list.

So which states were the fattest? The South has typically gotten slapped with the “most obese” label, and 2008 is no exception. Mississippi nabbed the top slot, with 31.7 percent of its adults qualifying as obese. West Virginia and Alabama were next, with obesity rates of 30.6 percent and 30.1 percent respectively. No surprise, Mississippi also had the highest rates of physical inactivity and hypertension, and tied for second highest in diabetes. Colorado was the only state in the union with an obesity rate of less than 20 percent—but is still higher than 15 percent, the government’s target for every state by 2010.

And what has the federal government been doing to help turn the tide of this ever-rising trend? The report mentions the following efforts (and shortcomings):

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture school meal program (which feeds 39 million kids a day) has yet to adopt the recommendations from the national 2005 Dietary Guidelines.
• In the past year, the USDA added fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to the list of grocery items in its Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for women, infants, and children—the first major change to the program since 1974.
• The House and Senate overrode Bush’s veto to pass the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which reauthorizes farm and nutrition programs for the next 5 years and includes an additional $10.36 billion over current spending levels for nutrition programs.

Whether Washington plans to back the banning of fast food joints remains to be seen.

• The Olympics are here! We may not miss a chance to knock China’s political regime, but we’re more than happy to make money on the games—and discuss the smog problem ad nauseum.

• Americans aren’t the only casualty of a shrinking federal budget: Facing lack of funds, the National Center for Atmospheric Research shut down a program focused on helping poor countries forecast and deal with droughts, floods, and other climate-related disasters.

• The latest in obesity research technology: virtual reality studies.

• Researchers have created ten different stem cell lines that can be used for research on diseases from Down’s syndrome to Parkinson’s. And any protesters can relax: They’re all adult stem cells.

• The ethanol/corn prices debate continues, with the EPA denying Texas governor Rick Perry’s request to temporarily suspend the law requiring that a minimum amount of ethanol be mixed into U.S. gasoline.

• And, in an astonishing case of Too Little Too Late, the Bush administration’s Climate Change Science Program has finally decided that human activity is indeed responsible for global warming. Just in case you were wondering.

Charles Courtemanche, an economics professor at the University of North Carolina, certainly thinks so. According to his latest research, a permanent one-dollar rise in gas prices is associated with a seven percent drop in overweight Americans and a nine percent drop in obesity rates—the equivalent of about four to five pounds (1.8 to 2.3 kilograms) in lost weight across the entire U.S. population. His analysis was based on gasoline prices in several states from 1984 to 2004, which he compared with each state’s average body weight and obesity rate.

Granted, these results seem to fly in the face of the obesity epidemic’s steady rise, which also began around twenty years ago—if gas prices were so steadily increasing and leading to weight loss, why were obesity levels simultaneously skyrocketing? Still, maybe some further data could bolster Courtemanche’s theory. While his paper was originally published in May of 2007 (when gas was at a “record high” of $3.22 a gallon), it was revised this summer—with gas prices already $1 a gallon higher. Perhaps incorporating the last four (crucial, unstable) years of data into his model could shed some light on whether his four-pounds-a-person theory is accurate. If so, we’re all going out for a burger.

Image: iStockPhoto 

• Is contraception the same thing as abortion? Apparently, the answer depends on whether you’re looking at it from a scientific or political perspective.

• After a frantic search, officials finally locate the source of the notorious salmonella-laden peppers—though not before over 250 people were sickened and two died. But did the FDA’s poor communication with states during the process reveal an even deeper management problem?

• The New York Times Magazine delves into the psychology and habits of Internet harassers.

• And, just in time, China relaxes some of its limitations on Internet access for journalists covering the Beijing Olympic games.

• And, in a bout of litigiousness put to good use, Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and New York City plan to sue the EPA to force the agency to start reducing pollution from ships, aircraft, and off-road vehicles.

And by 2048, they predict, every adult in America will be overweight or obese.

Ok, let’s take a step back. Obviously, these numbers aren’t the Absolute Truth—they represent linear projections based on specific data sets, and rely heavily on the continuation of certain trends that are likely to change in the future. A similar projection would be that smoking rates will hit absolute zero based on the recent and dramatic declines in smoking.

A likelier scenario is that, as National Bureau of Economic Research associate Christopher Ruhm calculated, obesity rates will rise to 40 percent for men and 43 percent for women by 2020, a much more modest rate of growth. As obesity expert Eric Finkelstein told DISCOVER, “long term projections are always guesses. In time, things change, including weight loss products and services, school food environment, [and] technology.” In fact, the latest NHANES data suggests that child obesity rates are leveling off, while adult obesity rates appear to be stabilizing.

All of which isn’t to say that obesity isn’t a widespread problem with negative consequences, both for Americans’ quality of life and their health-care dollars. But it may be wise to examine the numbers before we start declaring that six-sevenths of the American public will be overweight or obese within the next 22 years.

BusinessWeek reports that the company acquiesced to the change after threat of a lawsuit came from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit watchdog group that specializes in nutrition and food safety. But what about the FDA? Shouldn’t it be regulating misleading labeling of so-called “healthy” products?

It’s no secret that the food industry is notorious for slapping “healthy-sounding” labels on food that barely scrape by the minimum requirements, but so far the agency has done little to stamp out the practice. In 2006, it released a statement acknowledging that unqualified “whole grain” labels could be confusing to consumers and stating the following:

Manufacturers can make factual statements about whole grains on the label of their products, such as “10 grams of whole grains,” “½ ounce of whole grains,”… and “100% whole grain oatmeal”… provided that the statements are not false or misleading … and do not imply a particular level of the ingredient, i.e., “high” or “excellent source.”

So what was the food industry’s response? Use unqualified wording like “made with whole grains” to sidestep FDA guidelines.

Given the fact that despite a ramp-up in nutrition education for consumers, obesity rates are going nowhere but up, it might be worth the FDA’s time to consider cracking down on some of the innumerable gray areas in food packaging and advertising. Otherwise, Skittles won’t be the only candy on the shelf touting “All Natural Flavoring” and “Made from natural ingredients.”

Image: Flickr/agilitynut

• With all signs pointing to a tanking economy, it’s nice to know that one area can still rake in the dough: The video game industry.

• Will Wikipedia shut the doors on its self-governing open edit system?

• How do scientists love thee, Wall-E? Let us count the ways. Over at Slate, associate editor Daniel Engber scolds the film for its inaccuracies about obesity, while neuroscientist and Frontal Cortex blogger Jonah Lehrer discusses Pixar’s apparent hat-tip to Darwin.

• Still, Pixar may have a point: U.S. obesity levels continue to rise.

• Whither the salmonella-laden tomatoes? The FDA shifts its eye towards peppers.