RE: [tips] Bloor street bridge suicide study
Hi I wonder if bridge-jumping suicides are an example of impulsive suicides? What are the odds one is walking across the Bloor bridge perhaps to get to the fine Greek restaurants on the Danforth, and suddenly has an urge to kill one's self and jumps? Isn't it much more likely that one goes there for the express purpose of committing suicide? And given other options, one could go elsewhere to commit the act. Presumably suicides can be separated into impulsive and reflective ... only former should show the effect referred to by Scott, although even there the impulse could occur in the presence of any number of means, making the prediction a challenge. I hate to raise a controversial issue, but would this study have relevance to gun control arguments, suicide-prevention being one of the arguments for tighter control? Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> "Lilienfeld, Scott O" 15-Jul-10 1:23 AM >>> Hi Chris - Alas, you may well be exactly right, but the finding runs counter to most received wisdom in the suicide field (again, see Joiner's recent book, "Myths about Suicide," which is quite unambiguous on this point), which proposes that erecting barriers on bridges results in a overall decrease in suicide, not merely a decrease at the targeted location (because most suicides are ostensibly committed following an activation of short-term impulses). There was also a good article on this issue in the New Yorker a few years ago in reference to the erecting of barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge. As I understand it, most of that earlier research did not find evidence for "displacement effects" - offsetting increases in suicide at other bridges or other high-risk locations following the erection of suicide barriers. For what it's worth, I found Stephen Black's original message quite clear. Scott From: Christopher D. Green [chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:13 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Bloor street bridge suicide study It seemed obvious to me when they erected this expensive eyesore (to great public fanfare) that it would change nothing. People wanting to commit suicide would simply go somewhere else. Sadly, it seems I was exactly right. Sigh. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == sbl...@ubishops.ca wrote: There's a grim but interesting study of suicide rates on the Bloor Viaduct in Toronto before and after the placement of a suicide prevention barrier. Lots of statistics to crunch. Full text of the article available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/341/jul06_1/c2884 As is characteristic of natural experiments, the results do not lead to any conclusion with confidence. Don't miss the thoughtful commentary contributed by Isaac Sakinofsky as a rapid response at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/341/jul06_1/c2884#238506 ) Sinyor, M. and Levitt, A. (2010). Effect of a barrier at Bloor Street Viaduct on suicide rates in Toronto: natural experiment. BMJ 2010;341:c2884 Stephen Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0da&n=T&l=tips&o=3580or send a blank email to leave-3580-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: slil...@emory.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=3587 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-3587-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=3588 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or
Re: [tips] Bloor street bridge suicide study
On 15 Jul 2010 at 15:59, Mike Palij wrote:
>
> Since Stephen hasn't bothered to explain what his point(s)
> were, we're left to speculating and playing mindreaders.
I wasn't planning on replying to this, but an interesting
hypothesis unexpectedly popped up. I've been away from my
computer as much as I've been at it lately, and the messages
have been piling up. I always think I have time for a short note
on something of interest, but I forget that it may well generate a
bunch of replies which need more time which I don't have (yes,
even in retirement).
My caution on the natural experiment was based on my
assumption that the weakness of this quasi-experimental
before-after design is well-known, and it's accepted as clearly
inferior to a true randomized study. And I did refer to Sakinofsky
as providing specific points of concern.
So why did Mike take a shot at me for lack of clarity? I think it
may be because in an earlier post of his ("Can computers help
education?" July 11, he uncritically mentioned the use of natural
experiments. Perhaps he thought my later comment was
intended to take a dig at him, and this was tit for tat. I did not
intend this, as I have only just now discovered his earlier post
mentioning natural experiments.
Notwithstanding, I have to say that I too have noticed that he
often puts an unnecessary unpleasant edge to his posts
directed at individuals rather than issues. Maybe he could work
on that.
Stephen
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University
e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
---
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3609
or send a blank email to
leave-3609-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Bloor street bridge suicide study
Ken, Writing in a mind-numbingly dull and dry style is every bit as much a rhetorical strategy as writing in an interesting one. Writing well doesn't prevent one from reasoning well too. Only those who have trouble distinguishing between the two would object to one doing both. Since none of us here have that problem, perhaps we should all strive to do both. :-) Best, Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == Ken Steele wrote: > Lilienfeld, Scott O wrote: >> Hi All ..out of town right now but will send along some info over the >> weekend or early next week at the latest, In the meantime, I'd like to >> voice a concern. I find the tone of some of your postings, Mike, to be >> needlessly snarky and obnoxious. What gives? Is there any reason why >> you can't merely disagree with others without finding some gratuitous >> way of putting them down? >> >> Apologies to listserv members for being grumpy about this, but the >> older I get the more I tire of less than respectful discourse...Scott >> Sent from my iPhone >> > > Of course, I can not speak for Mike P but I will leap in with a > comment at this point. > > We all know the formula for writing an empirical research report. > They can be pretty dusty and most of us try to sneak in at least one > interesting turn of phrase. When we are freed of those strictures and > are writing commentaries (or blogs or ms. reviews or other such > pieces) then the temptation is to go for the literary. > > I was once asked to write a commentary and I passed on a preliminary > version to a mentor. His single written comment was "you have > committed the sin of being literary." I was stunned after all my work > on catchy phrases but after some thought realized that he was > correct. I had been reaching for felicitous phrases to impress my > audience when I should have been concentrating on the logic of my > argument. > > The issue with TIPS is that we don't have crusty editors to chop away > adjectives, adverbs, and other sparklies which sound good to my ears > but may sound extreme to others. > > Ken > > PS - "felicitous phrases" ... "sparklies" (too literary; it's a > disease, my friends) ... "my friends" (someone get a red pen, for the > love of Ford) ... "love of Ford" (please update your literary > references to the current century and then cross them out) ... > > > > --- > Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. steel...@appstate.edu > Professor > Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu > Appalachian State University > Boone, NC 28608 > USA > --- > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0da&n=T&l=tips&o=3607 > > > or send a blank email to > leave-3607-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3608 or send a blank email to leave-3608-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Bloor street bridge suicide study
Lilienfeld, Scott O wrote: Hi All ..out of town right now but will send along some info over the weekend or early next week at the latest, In the meantime, I'd like to voice a concern. I find the tone of some of your postings, Mike, to be needlessly snarky and obnoxious. What gives? Is there any reason why you can't merely disagree with others without finding some gratuitous way of putting them down? Apologies to listserv members for being grumpy about this, but the older I get the more I tire of less than respectful discourse...Scott Sent from my iPhone Of course, I can not speak for Mike P but I will leap in with a comment at this point. We all know the formula for writing an empirical research report. They can be pretty dusty and most of us try to sneak in at least one interesting turn of phrase. When we are freed of those strictures and are writing commentaries (or blogs or ms. reviews or other such pieces) then the temptation is to go for the literary. I was once asked to write a commentary and I passed on a preliminary version to a mentor. His single written comment was "you have committed the sin of being literary." I was stunned after all my work on catchy phrases but after some thought realized that he was correct. I had been reaching for felicitous phrases to impress my audience when I should have been concentrating on the logic of my argument. The issue with TIPS is that we don't have crusty editors to chop away adjectives, adverbs, and other sparklies which sound good to my ears but may sound extreme to others. Ken PS - "felicitous phrases" ... "sparklies" (too literary; it's a disease, my friends) ... "my friends" (someone get a red pen, for the love of Ford) ... "love of Ford" (please update your literary references to the current century and then cross them out) ... --- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. steel...@appstate.edu Professor Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3607 or send a blank email to leave-3607-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away
...I was up in Tobermory :-) with no internet so happily couldn't respond to Mike P's deeply insightful reply (lol). The funniest was the insights and understandings part, especially considering Mike P here: > Ah, irony! I love it when it comes so think one can cut it with a knife. > Quoting from the article: > Research results not consistent with your world view? Then you're > likely to believe science can't supply all the answers I suppose that Mike believes that the statement is obviously true--after all, it was in a popular article and he considers the article's conclusions so strong that they are worth quoting! ...Now there's an insightful soccer-science at its best. All in all, pretty funny. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3604 or send a blank email to leave-3604-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Bloor street bridge suicide study
Hi All ..out of town right now but will send along some info over the weekend or early next week at the latest, In the meantime, I'd like to voice a concern. I find the tone of some of your postings, Mike, to be needlessly snarky and obnoxious. What gives? Is there any reason why you can't merely disagree with others without finding some gratuitous way of putting them down? Apologies to listserv members for being grumpy about this, but the older I get the more I tire of less than respectful discourse...Scott Sent from my iPhone On Jul 15, 2010, at 4:02 PM, "Mike Palij" wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:55:39 -0700, Ken Steele wrote: >> I think one of Stephen's concerns was raised in the letter by >> Prof. Sakinofsky to the BMJ. > > Since Stephen hasn't bothered to explain what his point(s) > were, we're left to speculating and playing mindreaders. > As I tried to point out in my previous post, Stephen focused > on the number of suicides on Bloor St, not on the overall > number of suicides in Toronto. Consequently, the finding > of suicides going to zero on Bloor St might make one wonder > what was Stephen's point about the problem with "naturalistic > experimetns". As Sakinofsky says: > > |...the intent to erect anti-suicide barriers at the bridge was > |never to replace a comprehensive program, as the authors > |seem to imply, but merely to be one small cog in the whole > |wheel of comprehensive suicide prevention. > > So, did the barrier accomplish its immediate goal? Yes. > For reasons that are not clear in the article, some larger impact > was expected. Scott points out that there may be research > reported in Joiner's book "Myths About Suicide" that would > lead one to expect more general effects -- quoting Scott's post: > > |the finding runs counter to most received wisdom in the suicide > |field (again, see Joiner's recent book, "Myths about Suicide," which > |is quite unambiguous on this point), which proposes that erecting > |barriers on bridges results in a overall decrease in suicide, not > |merely a decrease at the targeted location (because most suicides > |are ostensibly committed following an activation of short-term > impulses). > > I have not read "Myths About Suicide" so I don't know what > research Scott is referrring to but in the article by Sinyor and > Levitt > there is the following sidebar on page 6, just before the reference > list: > > |WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC > | > |Evidence shows that barriers decrease or eliminate suicides at > bridges > |commonly used for suicide by jumping > | > |***No study has shown a statistical drop in overall rates of > suicide after > |the construction of a barrier on a bridge ** > | > |It is unclear whether barriers prevent suicides or simply result in > people > |substituting one bridge for another or attempting suicide by other > means > | > |WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS > | > |No suicides occurred at Bloor Street Viaduct in Toronto after the > construction > |of a barrier Suicide rates by jumping were unchanged owing to a > corresponding > |increase in jumps from other bridges and buildings in the area > | > |Therefore barriers may not decrease suicide rates when comparable > locations > |are available > > Now, I've used to highlight the relvenat text above about the > lack of > change in overall suicide rates after the construction of a barrier > on a bridge. > Scott seems to imply that this statement is false. I don't know if > Stpehen agrees > or disagrees with what was written in the article and/or Scott and/ > or some other > source. I think there is, however, some reason to ask what ther > hell are > people talking about. > >> Prof. Sakinofsky pointed out that bridge-jumping suicides >> did decrease (from 18 to 14) during that time period but >> the difference was not statistically significant. Since the N >> is so low, there is a concern about a lack of power in the >> comparison. In other words, the lack of significance may >> represent a Type II error. > > I saw this and noted it. I also wondered if there was a > randomization or permutation test might produce a significant > result. But this is somewhat besides the point (if one can hazard > what the point is). Sakinofsky says the following: > > |The authors point out that "no study of a suicide barrier has > |shown a statistically significant drop in overall suicide rates > |in the vicinity". This may be true for bridge barriers, because > |they protect only small numbers of people, > > So, Scott seems to be wrong on this point. I haven't any idea > what Stephen's opinion is on this point. However, Scott's point > appears to be supported by other (non-bridge) interventions: > > |but certainly it is untrue for suicide methods chosen by larger > |demographic groups. This was, for example, shown when Britain > |converted from coal gas to carbon monoxide-free natural gas in > |the late 1950s. Suicide rates between 1960-71 fell overall as a > |result but stayed down
Re: [tips] Bloor street bridge suicide study
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:55:39 -0700, Ken Steele wrote: >I think one of Stephen's concerns was raised in the letter by >Prof. Sakinofsky to the BMJ. Since Stephen hasn't bothered to explain what his point(s) were, we're left to speculating and playing mindreaders. As I tried to point out in my previous post, Stephen focused on the number of suicides on Bloor St, not on the overall number of suicides in Toronto. Consequently, the finding of suicides going to zero on Bloor St might make one wonder what was Stephen's point about the problem with "naturalistic experimetns". As Sakinofsky says: |...the intent to erect anti-suicide barriers at the bridge was |never to replace a comprehensive program, as the authors |seem to imply, but merely to be one small cog in the whole |wheel of comprehensive suicide prevention. So, did the barrier accomplish its immediate goal? Yes. For reasons that are not clear in the article, some larger impact was expected. Scott points out that there may be research reported in Joiner's book "Myths About Suicide" that would lead one to expect more general effects -- quoting Scott's post: |the finding runs counter to most received wisdom in the suicide |field (again, see Joiner's recent book, "Myths about Suicide," which |is quite unambiguous on this point), which proposes that erecting |barriers on bridges results in a overall decrease in suicide, not |merely a decrease at the targeted location (because most suicides |are ostensibly committed following an activation of short-term impulses). I have not read "Myths About Suicide" so I don't know what research Scott is referrring to but in the article by Sinyor and Levitt there is the following sidebar on page 6, just before the reference list: |WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC | |Evidence shows that barriers decrease or eliminate suicides at bridges |commonly used for suicide by jumping | |***No study has shown a statistical drop in overall rates of suicide after |the construction of a barrier on a bridge ** | |It is unclear whether barriers prevent suicides or simply result in people |substituting one bridge for another or attempting suicide by other means | |WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS | |No suicides occurred at Bloor Street Viaduct in Toronto after the construction |of a barrier Suicide rates by jumping were unchanged owing to a corresponding |increase in jumps from other bridges and buildings in the area | |Therefore barriers may not decrease suicide rates when comparable locations |are available Now, I've used to highlight the relvenat text above about the lack of change in overall suicide rates after the construction of a barrier on a bridge. Scott seems to imply that this statement is false. I don't know if Stpehen agrees or disagrees with what was written in the article and/or Scott and/or some other source. I think there is, however, some reason to ask what ther hell are people talking about. >Prof. Sakinofsky pointed out that bridge-jumping suicides >did decrease (from 18 to 14) during that time period but >the difference was not statistically significant. Since the N >is so low, there is a concern about a lack of power in the >comparison. In other words, the lack of significance may >represent a Type II error. I saw this and noted it. I also wondered if there was a randomization or permutation test might produce a significant result. But this is somewhat besides the point (if one can hazard what the point is). Sakinofsky says the following: |The authors point out that "no study of a suicide barrier has |shown a statistically significant drop in overall suicide rates |in the vicinity". This may be true for bridge barriers, because |they protect only small numbers of people, So, Scott seems to be wrong on this point. I haven't any idea what Stephen's opinion is on this point. However, Scott's point appears to be supported by other (non-bridge) interventions: |but certainly it is untrue for suicide methods chosen by larger |demographic groups. This was, for example, shown when Britain |converted from coal gas to carbon monoxide-free natural gas in |the late 1950s. Suicide rates between 1960-71 fell overall as a |result but stayed down only among the elderly demographic group |(where the time-honoured mode of suicide was putting one's head |in the gas oven). This prompted Norman Kreitman to speculate |that for some "it may be that the scenario of suicide specifies the |use of a particular method and that if this is not available actual |suicide is then less likely" (3). Perhaps there has been a lack of clarity in several instances. Perhaps some folks don't realize their lack of clarity until it has been pointed out. Perhaps some folks don't realize their lack of clairy even after it has been pointed out. In closing, giving the seriousness of the topic, I suggest the following website: http://babyanimalz.com/ -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu ---
Re: [tips] Bloor street bridge suicide study
I think one of Stephen's concerns was raised in the letter by Prof. Sakinofsky to the BMJ. Prof. Sakinofsky pointed out that bridge-jumping suicides did decrease (from 18 to 14) during that time period but the difference was not statistically significant. Since the N is so low, there is a concern about a lack of power in the comparison. In other words, the lack of significance may represent a Type II error. Ken Mike Palij wrote: |before the barrier and none after the barrier (P<0.01). So, the barrier appears to have been effective in stopping suicides from the Bloor St bridge. Overall, the suicide rate in Toronto remained the same, indicating that people who wanted to commit suicide used different means to achieve that end. I'm not sure what it is that Stephen lacks confidence in but it does suggest that people might be a little more specific in their posts. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. steel...@appstate.edu Professor and Assistant Chairperson Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3600 or send a blank email to leave-3600-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Hypothetical: experimental procedure
You are about to conduct an experiment and despite all your efforts to achieve equivalence between the experimental and the control group,a couple of subjects come in drunk or stoned. What do you do? a) eject the drunk /stoned subjects from the experiment b) achieve equivance by making all subjects drunk/stoned c) revise your experiment to fit a randomized block design d) change to a matching design( One drunk/stoned control will have one drunk/stoned experimental partner). e) do the Jimmy Buffet " Why don't all get drunk and SKEW the results." But seriously ,are there situations where challenges to experimental procedure may arise and what corrective measures can be undertaken? How critical is the health status of volunteers to experimental procedure? Would you allow subjects who are on prescription marijuana medication to volunteer for your research? (better test for interaction,eh?) Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD Daytona Veach.Florida Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3599 or send a blank email to leave-3599-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] TIPSTER OF THE WEEK
GEORGE STEINBRENNER 'Winning is everything" Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3598 or send a blank email to leave-3598-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Frontiers review on confidence intervals vs significance testing
A new open-access peer-reviewed set of journals has opened its pages at http://www.frontiersin.org/aboutfrontiers/ Their bold slogan: "Frontiers reviews: Unbiased, fair, and real time". They go on: "The Frontiers journal series are a new approach to scientific publishing... driven by researchers for researchers, while serving the interests of the general public...Our research evaluation system is democratic and objective, and based on the reading activity of not only scientific communities, but that of the general public." There's much more, and it does sound impressive if close to the truth. I'm sure there must be an interesting story behind the founding of this initiative. Perhaps some on TIPS know more about it. Anyway, there's a paper fropm a group whose names I recognize as having done respectable work elsewhere just published there. The topic may interest some of our statistics and methodology mavens, if not TIPSters in general, to wit: Coulson M, Healey M, Fidler F and Cumming G (2010). Confidence intervals permit, but don't guarantee, better inference than statistical significance testing. Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement 1:26. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00026 See http://www.frontiersin.org/psychology/quantitativepsychologyand measurement/ or http://tinyurl.com/29a4xzn [Checked Wiki: It's there, and says founded as a non-profit Swiss foundation in 2009. Not much more, except for a list of journals, primarly neuroscience] (I sure hope this post passes the Palij test for clarity). Stephen Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3597 or send a blank email to leave-3597-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Bring your genes to Cal
"Incoming freshmen at the College of Letters and Science at the University of California Berkeley will be offered voluntary DNA tests to analyze genes that help control the body's responses to alcohol, dairy products and folic acid. Robert Siegel talks with Mark Schlissel, dean of biological science at the college, about the plan." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128519759 Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3596 or send a blank email to leave-3596-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
