Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Science Policy Around the Web – September 23, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

Source: pixabay

Biomedical Research

BRAIN Initiative might get a global boost

While politicians met at the UN General Assembly in New York this week, another meeting of a more scientific variety was going on nearby at Rockefeller University. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) hosted a meeting to organize neuroscientists from across the globe to develop new ideas to organize their field of research. The US BRAIN initiative was launched in 2013 as an effort to study key issues in neuroscience, such as how the brain connects and functions at the cellular and systems levels. Worldwide, other countries have similar initiatives in place or in planning, thus NSF wanted to get a feel of how data and resources could be shared between scientists regardless of country. For example, Japan and China are investing heavily in primate research, while America and Europe tend to shy away from these organisms, but put more focus on basic research and clinical applications.

One problem that neuroscientists encounter as they compare research findings is differences in data acquisition and processing, with each lab having their own in-house protocols and analyses. A global repository of data with access to super computers and/or powerful microscopes for all could be a boon for how neuroscience research of the future is performed. Other researchers voiced concerns over the possibility that a global project would re-direct funds from local and national sources. This new neuroscience “club” could also create yet another economic hurdle for developing nations’ scientists to overcome.

Politicians at the UN General Assembly voiced their support for an International Brain Initiative, and were met by cautious enthusiasm from neuroscientists. Time will tell if a truly global approach to neuroscience materializes, but political and financial support for neuroscience research makes this an exciting time to be a scientist. (Sara Reardon, Nature)

2016 Presidential Elections

How do the candidates stack up on science?

With the first presidential debate scheduled for Monday, September 26, our nation continues a heated election season with two powerful candidates. Although science is generally low on the priority list for the voting public, it remains an integral part of how our educated nation works. Research influences broad issues in public policy, and policy influences how science gets funded and moves forward.

The candidates have some points of agreement and points of contention for various scientific topics. For example, both Trump and Clinton support NASA and space exploration, although Trump is more eager for a private sector endeavor. Both Trump and Clinton support vaccines in children, with Trump having some reservations, but for other issues of public health such as funding for biomedical research, Clinton has clear proposals for increasing funding, while Trump seems more skeptical than supportive of funding NIH.

Neither candidate has voiced strong opinions on the use of genetically modified foods. However, Clinton does support food labeling, citing a “right to know”, while the Republican Party opposes making labels mandatory. In addition, neither candidate has made a clear statement about gun research; while Clinton has proposed many changes to gun control, Trump supports a right to carry at the national level. Improving Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education is a topic about which Clinton is passionate, while Trump’s stance is less clear. He maintains that education should be on a locally managed level, which means geography would impact the availability of quality STEM programs.

The strongest point of contention is regarding climate change, where Clinton proposes creating clean energy jobs and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, while Trump considers climate change a hoax and vowed to use American-produced natural gas and oil and reverse the EPA’s moratorium on new coal mining permits.

Overall the candidates have said little regarding these top scientific issues, but based on what they have said in the past, there are certain issues they agree on, while others are divisive in both politics and for the general public. (Science News Staff, ScienceNews)

Biomedical Training

It’s postdoc appreciation week!

In 2009 the US House of Representatives officially declared a week of appreciation for the forces which move scientific research: the postdoc. Postdoctoral fellows/researchers (postdocs) are research scientists who have completed a PhD and continue their training under a more established principle investigator in order to expand their research experience and launch their careers. The National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) pioneered the celebrations in 2010, giving postdocs perks such as career fairs, ice cream socials, and free tickets to local events. Although some of these perks may seem superficial, the larger goal of this week is to bring attention to the plight of these mid-career scientists.

Recently postdocs have been an increasingly vocal part of the research community, as their numbers swell and job prospects appear bleak. Under the organization of the NPA, postdocs have won increases in stipend (pay) levels dictated by the NIH. The NPA has also provided recommendations, information and guidance to the White House and other policy branches of the government. Their goals are to enhance postdoctoral training experiences and opportunities for postdocs in academic and government research settings. The US is placing more focus on getting students to study Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, however biomedical PhDs are being produced at an unsustainable rate for academia, government and industry to employ. By celebrating postdoc appreciation week, the focus is briefly shifted to the other end of the pipeline, where conditions must improve if more people are to be inspired to join at the entry point.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 23, 2016 at 3:29 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – September 20, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Valerie Miller, PhD

Source: Flickr, under Creative Commons

Public Health

How More Kids Could Avoid the Dentist’s Drill

Earlier this summer, the question of whether or not to floss has gotten a lot of attention. As it turns out, there is not much evidence to support the idea that flossing can prevent cavities. Yet, for children, the use of dental sealants, which protect molars from plaque and decay, has been shown to reduce the risk of cavity formation by over 75 percent. According to guidelines from the American Dental Association (ADA) and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, sealants can be used not only to prevent the start of tooth decay, but can also stop the progression of early decay that has already begun. An analysis of nine randomized control trials demonstrated that for each 1,000 sealants placed, 207 cavities would likely be prevented.

Despite overwhelming evidence that dental sealants can prevent tooth decay and cavities, sealants remain underused in children, with the CDC reporting that, in 2011-2012, only 41 percent of children between the ages of 6 and 12 had at least one dental sealant placed on a permanent tooth. This data also showed that 21 percent of kids between the ages of 6 and 12, and 58 percent of adolescents ages 12 to 19, experienced cavities in permanent teeth, demonstrating the underuse of dental sealants. Most concerning, of the kids in the 6- to 12-year age range, 44 percent of kids without dental insurance coverage were found to have untreated decay, indicating that kids in a population who don’t get regular dental care would likely benefit the most from the use of dental sealants. One way to reach more children is through the use of school-based programs, in which dental hygienists provide sealants in schools to at-risk students. Such programs have been shown to result in 50 percent fewer cavities in the following four years in students who received sealants, compared to students who did not get them.

Although the use of dental sealants is highly recommended by the ADA, concern has been raised because some sealant materials contain a small amount of bisphenol A (BPA), which has estrogenic properties. However, a 2010 study recommended the use of dental sealants while minimizing exposure by rinsing the mouth out after placement. In addition, despite ADA research and guidelines, a survey of dentists in 2011 found that 40 percent felt that sealing early tooth decay was not good practice, believing that decay may continue underneath the sealant. While it can be hard to change the mindset of getting rid of decay with a drill and filling, 24 percent of dentists reported that they didn’t currently seal early tooth decay lesions, but they would be willing to consider it. Thus, parents may have to ask for sealants for their children in order to receive them. (Katherine Hobson, FiveThirtyEight)

Cancer Treatment Guidelines

Prostate Cancer Treatment Doesn’t Save More Lives than Active Surveillance

In recent years, a number of concerns regarding prostate cancer screening have been raised by doctors, as screening may lead to so-called “over-treatment” of prostate cancer, increasing the risk of adverse effects while doing little to save lives. A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has shed light on this issue by demonstrating that 10-year outcomes following surgery, radiotherapy or “active surveillance,” which involves regular testing and monitoring of cancer progression while forgoing therapy, were nearly identical. In each case, the rate of death due to prostate cancer was around 1 percent. These results may help men who are reluctant to pursue treatment, which comes with adverse side effects including sexual and urinary dysfunction.

Although survival outcomes were nearly identical in all three groups studied, there were some differences noted between each group. For example, patients in the active surveillance group were found to have twice as much cancer progression, including metastasis to bone and lymph nodes, when compared with patients in either the surgery or radiotherapy group. While increased cancer progression did not necessarily lead to higher risk of death, nearly 55 percent of men in the active surveillance group chose to pursue surgery or radiotherapy after their cancers progressed. The results suggested that active surveillance is a safe choice, when taking into account various factors such as disease progression and aggressiveness, age, and overall health. For example, for men who are older and are suffering from other health issues, immediate action might not be necessary if diagnosed with prostate cancer, as these patients are more likely to die from other causes before dying from prostate cancer. Yet, for younger men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer when they are otherwise healthy, the choice to pursue treatment or active surveillance may be more difficult, due to the side effects from treatment, as well as the potential consequences and increased need for aggressive treatment if the cancer progresses. In any case, the results of this study will provide more information to help each patient make an informed decision regarding their treatment. (Alice Park, Time)

Sports Policy

Sorry Redskins Fans: Native American Mascots Increase Racial Bias

A debate that has perpetuated within the American sports world is the use of Native American mascots to represent sports teams. Proponents of Native American mascots argue that these symbols respectfully honor Native American history, while opponents believe that such mascots perpetuate negative stereotypes against Native American peoples. At the center of the debate is the Washington Redskins football team, which has faced numerous protests and lawsuits over the use of “Redskins” as a team name. Team officials have used the results of a recent Washington Post survey, which found that 9 out of 10 Native Americans don’t take offense to the use of “Redskins” to represent the team, as evidence that a change isn’t needed. However, polls and studies such as this ignore the possibility that the use of Native American imagery may affect how others perceive Native Americans, potentially reinforcing stereotypes.

Recently published research has provided evidence that Native American imagery could induce implicit bias. Study participants were unaware that their viewpoints regarding Native Americans were being affected by the images they were shown. These results led researchers to conduct a “real-world” study, which examined if there were differences in attitudes towards Native Americans when comparing participants from cities that host teams with Native American mascots, to participants from cities with neutral sports mascots. The study found that residents of cities with Native American mascots were more likely to associate Native Americans with warlike traits, thus demonstrating that incidental exposure to such representations can influence perceptions regarding actual members of a certain group, and cause the active promotion of stereotypes within the general population. (Justin Angle, The Washington Post)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 20, 2016 at 10:04 am

Science Policy Around the Web – September 16, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Sterling Payne, B.Sc.

Energy change inventory, 1971-2010 License: Creative Commons

Global Warming

Oceans are absorbing almost all of the globe’s excess heat

Climate change is a massive point of interest in public health. As trapped energy in the atmosphere continues to warm the earth, global ice sheets are diminishing, average temperatures are rising, and weather patterns are becoming more erratic. These changes can both directly and indirectly affect public health in a negative way.

A recent report published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) states that global ocean surface temperatures have steadily increased in the past century. The massive increase in surface temperature stems from oceans absorbing almost 90% of excess heat that is trapped in the atmosphere due to accumulation of greenhouse gases. Warming oceans lead to the melting of ice and increases in global sea levels, as well as changes in lifestyle of marine species, if not driving them to complete extinction. For example, ice sheets used by polar bears for breeding and hunting are available for less time each year, effectively shortening the time in which the species can be most productive.

The IUCN report adds to a seemingly endless pile of evidence that points to human-induced climate change as a very real thing. In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, it will be interesting to see how each candidate addresses science, and to what degree of significance they assign human-induced climate change. In the interim, here are some helpful tips for reducing your carbon footprint! (Tim Wallace, The New York Times)

Antibiotic Resistance

Use antibiotics wisely

“Neosporin” is the first thing that comes to my mind whenever I get a small cut or abrasion. Sporting the antibiotics neomycin, bacitracin, and polymyxin B, the tiny yellow tube is a breath of relief when trying to prevent an infection. However, after applying my gel-like defense, my thoughts almost always jump to the topic of antibiotic resistance. The quick doubling time of many bacterial species, paired with heavy use of antibiotics, gives rise to antibiotic-resistant strains that are no longer affected by humans’ number-one go-to. As Peter Jørgensen and others state in a Nature comment piece, killing all bacteria is not an option, because our bodies also rely on the microbiome to function properly. Antibiotics don’t recognize the healthy bacteria from the harmful, and when they’re used, simply kill everything.

The double-edge nature of antibiotics paired with growing levels of drug-resistant bacteria makes for a public health issue of paramount importance, one that will be addressed at the UN high-level meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance on September 21, 2016. Jørgensen and others feel that this meeting absolutely needs to address the positive roles of bacteria and the microbiome, and how they are helpful to human survival. The authors propose various strategies for maintaining the resilience of the human microbiome to resistance, such as holding agricultural companies accountable and lessening their use of antibiotics for animal growth, educating the public on antibiotic uses and how resistance develops, and strengthening collaboration between global organizations. All-in-all, the world needs to recognize the impact of bacteria, both positive and negative, on humans and the world we live in. For a visual, informative view on resistance development, watch this video showcasing an experiment conducted by individuals at the Harvard Medical School and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. (Peter S. Jørgensen et.al., Nature Comments)

Public Health

No driver? Bring it on. How Pittsburgh became Uber’s testing ground

I am hard-pressed to think of a situation that defines “science policy” more than the self-driving car trials being conducted by Uber in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On Wednesday, September 14, 2016, Uber rolled out a fleet of around 100 autonomous vehicles to pick up passengers and transport them throughout the city. Though autonomous, each vehicle will have a driver to take control if need be, as well as an engineer to monitor the self-driving system. Despite human additions, the job of getting riders from point A to point B will mostly be up to the vehicle itself. Will Knight, senior editor for the MIT Technology Review, stated the following about his self-driving Uber trip: “I mostly felt pretty safe. However, several times the person behind the wheel needed to take control: once so the car didn’t become stuck behind a truck, and once to avoid another vehicle making a sudden turn”. It will be interesting to see how other riders react, knowing that for the most part, the car is driving without any human input.

Transportation is a large matter of public health. Regardless of the method (bus, train, personal car, etc.), the safety of the people being transported is the highest priority. With the recent death of driver using a Tesla in autopilot mode, I expect the public to be healthily hesitant regarding the deployment/testing of self-driving vehicles. Some Pittsburgh residents feel exactly this way about the current Uber trials. As autonomous transportation moves forward, safety will be at the forefront of all efforts. For some, this means taking the human out of the equation completely. With no shortage of personal vehicles on the road today, autonomous vehicles need to have benefits, and safety absolutely needs to be one of them. (Cecilia Kang, The New York Times)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 16, 2016 at 9:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – September 13, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Daniël P. Melters, PhD

Giraffe by Muhammad Mahdi Karim through Wikimedia

Conservation Policy

There are four species of giraffe – right?

Recent work published in Current Biology by Axel Janke’s group at Göthe University in Frankfurt, Germany looked at seven genes to determine the genetic relationship between different giraffe found throughout Africa. Previously, giraffes had been grouped in sub-genera based on their coating pattern, but the study of genetic relationships showed that over the last 1 to 2 million years, four distinct groups of giraffes have evolved. The authors argue that their findings represent four distinct giraffe species.

This finding has profound implications for our understanding of African bio-geography and subsequently conservation policy, especially after the latest report that states that in the last two decades 10% of earth’s wilderness has been destroyed. But using genetic data to guide conservation policy is a poorly developed area in part because of our limited understanding of how genetic variation can tell us if two groups of animals are indeed two distinct species. Genetic analysis showed that the forest and savannah elephant are indeed distinct from each other, but they can form hybrids if they do meet. To prevent conservation limbo, the International Union of Conservation of Nature still considers the African elephant as a single species. With regards to the giraffe study, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote a critical note on his blog in response to Janke’s article and subsequent media coverage. In short, the geographical dispersion of giraffes limits the potential for hybrids to be formed; yet zoo giraffes can form hybrids without much trouble. (Chris Woolston, Nature News)

US Cancer Moonshot Initiative

Blue Ribbon Report lays out wishlist for moonshot against cancer

Vice-president Joe Biden proposed a moonshot to cure cancer last year after his son died from brain cancer. In the last State of the Union, President Obama vowed to accelerate 10 years worth of scientific advances in five years. To create a framework, a blue ribbon panel of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) consulted 150 experts and reviewed more than 1600 suggestions from researchers and the public. This culminated in a list of 10 recommendations.

One recommendation that stands out is the push for clinical trials for immunotherapy, a promising approach to harness the bodies’ own immune system to fight against the disease. Another recommendation is the creation of a new national network that would allow patients across the country to have their tumors genetically profiled and included in the new database. This latter recommendation overlaps with another health initiative that recently came out of the White House, the Personalized Medicine Initiative.

This leaves one question unanswered: will Congress fund the moonshot. So far lawmakers have not included money in the draft-spending bill and inclusion in another bill remains uncertain. With the release of this Blue Ribbon Report, the NCI NCAB hopes it will implore Congress to fund the moonshot. Nevertheless, co-chair Dinah Singer suggests that even without new funding, NCI could begin funding some projects in the report on a small scale. (Jocelyn Kaiser, Science Insider)

Drug Policy

Public libraries frequently used for drug use

Libraries are an ideal location for studying and reading, with its public access, quiet corners, and minimal interaction with other people. An unforeseen consequence is that people who abuse heroin are using public libraries more and more.

The problem of heroin and painkiller resulting in overdoses is a growing epidemic. This was further exemplified by a recent controversial picture, made public by Ohio’s East Liverpool police, that has made world wide head lines, as it depicted two adults unconscious as a result of a heroin overdose and their 4-year old son in the backseat. Public libraries are especially exposed because everyone can walk in freely and linger around if they please. No transaction or interaction is required. As a result, public libraries are turning to strategies to limit their space being used for drug-abuse. The American Library Association encourages libraries to get training on interacting with special populations, such as drug users and the homeless. In addition, librarians are partnering with the police and social workers. Altogether, the role of a librarian now includes that of a mix of first responders and social workers. (Kantelo Franko, Stat News)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 13, 2016 at 9:06 am

Science Policy Around the Web – September 9, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Thaddeus Davenport, PhD

Source: pixabay

Biotechnology

DNA Data Storage

In a recent Nature News article, Andy Extance described the growing need for novel data storage methods and materials. It is estimated that between 2013 and 2020 there will be a tenfold increase in digital information, requiring 44 trillion gigabytes of storage. This is a number that is difficult to comprehend, but it’s magnitude and the rapid rate of digital data growth are put in context by a second, more shocking, estimate: if the expansion of digital information continues at the forecasted rates the amount of data requiring storage in 2040 will require “10 to 100 times the expected supply of microchip-grade silicon.” For this reason, researchers have begun considering alternative data storage materials including DNA, which is able to store information at an impressive density; it is estimated that 1 kg of DNA would be sufficient to store the world’s digital archives. DNA is also stable – while there is data loss from hard disks after less than ten years of storage, Nick Goldman, a researcher pioneering DNA data storage at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI), notes that in 2013, researchers successfully read the genome of a horse that had been trapped in permafrost for 700,000 years. But there are a number of hurdles that must be overcome before we are able to stream our favorite show out of a test tube. These hurdles include: 1) it is slow to read and (especially) to write DNA sequences, 2) DNA synthesis is error prone, 3) DNA synthesis is currently expensive and 4) it is difficult to specifically access desired information stored within DNA. There have been exciting advances over the last few years from researchers at EBI, Harvard, the University of Washington, and Microsoft that begin to address these problems. This year, researchers at Microsoft and the University of Washington reported successfully storing and retrieving 200 megabytes of data in DNA. This is a far throw from the 44 trillion gigabytes of storage we will require in 2020, but progress in science is non-linear and the need for alternative storage media will motivate the growth of this exciting field. (Andy Extance, Nature News)

Environment

Oklahoma Shuts Down Wastewater Injection Wells Following Earthquake

There is a significant amount of wastewater that is released in the process of extracting oil and gas from traditional and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) wells. One way to dispose of this wastewater is to inject it deep into the earth’s crust. As oil production has increased within the continental United States within the last few years, wastewater injection has increased in stride. Recent evidence suggests that wastewater injection into rock formations alters pre-existing stresses within faults, in some cases leading to slippage that results in an earthquake. A recent article by Niraj Chokshi and Henry Fountain for the New York Times reported that on September 3rd, Oklahoma experienced a 5.6-magnitude earthquake – tying the state’s previous record for its most severe earthquake set in 2011. In response, Oklahoma government officials ordered the shutdown of three dozen wastewater injection wells in the area most affected by the earthquake. The quake comes amid an impressive increase in earthquake frequency for the state. In 2009, there were only three earthquakes of magnitude 3 or greater, but in 2015, this number increased to over 900. To address this increase, state officials ordered a reduction in wastewater injection last year with the hope of decreasing earthquake activity. To date in 2016 there have been over 400 earthquakes of magnitude 3 or greater in Oklahoma. While it is widely accepted that oil and gas production and the associated wastewater injection have set off a number of earthquakes in Oklahoma and other states, it remains unclear if last Saturday’s earthquake was the result of this activity. In the future, additional monitoring of injection wells will provide valuable data to inform decisions on the placement and operation of wastewater injection wells. (Niraj Chokshi and Henry Fountain, New York Times)

Health

Early Support for Amyloid Plaques as the Causative Agent of Alzheimer’s Disease

As humans are living longer, Alzheimer’s disease is becoming an increasingly significant public health problem. The prevailing hypothesis is that aggregation of proteins such as amyloid-β (Aβ) into larger “plaques” leads to Alzheimer’s disease, but there is still no direct evidence to demonstrate that Aβ plaques cause Alzheimer’s disease. In a Nature News & Views article this week, Eric M. Reiman, summarizes the results of an article published in the same journal, which showed that a human antibody, called aducanumab, was able to reduce Aβ plaques in a dose-dependent manner in a small, 12-month placebo-controlled human trial. Though other Aβ-targeting therapies have successfully reduced Aβ aggregates, the most tantalizing result of this study comes from early exploratory analysis of the trial data, which suggested – based on a study population that is too small to make definitive conclusions – that higher doses of aducanumab and larger reductions in Aβ plaques were associated with slower cognitive decline. Before accepting the hypothesis that Aβ plaques cause Alzheimer’s disease, it will be critical to repeat the experiment in larger clinical trials appropriately powered to measure the impact of antibody treatment and plaque reduction on cognitive decline. The study authors also noticed that high doses of antibody were sometimes associated with the inflammation within the brain, causing them to limit the maximum antibody dose tested. Overall, these are exciting results, which, if confirmed in larger clinical trials, would provide much-needed clarity about the mechanism of Alzheimer’s disease and inform future treatments. (Eric M. Reiman, Nature News & Views)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 9, 2016 at 9:20 am

Science Policy Around the Web – September 6, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Amy Kullas, PhD

Vaccines

Parents remain apprehensive of vaccine safety and efficacy

In a recent survey published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, an alarming percentage of parents are refusing or delaying important vaccines. This percentage continues to increase because “parents believe they are unnecessary”. This phenomenon has directly resulted in outbreaks of measles and mumps in the United States, and polio in Syria.

The misguided “anti-vaccination movement” began with a paper published by Andrew Wakefield in The Lancet in 1998. The authors alleged that eight children (out of a very small sample size of 12) developed autism shortly after receiving the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The impact of this now-retracted paper still ripples through the scientific community and beyond, to within the general public in the United States.

Numerous celebrities (Jim Carrey, Robert De Niro, Jenny McCarthy-just to name a few) and the Republican party nominee, Donald Trump, continue to fuel the anti-vaccine fire spreading through the United States. Trump has gone as far to say: “Autism has become an epidemic. Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.” Further, he said, “Just the other day, two years old, 2½ years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.” The ultimate result has been a “dangerous drop in MMR vaccinations” according to public health officials. Given Trump’s stance on vaccination and how the candidate has made vaccine policy into a political topic could have grave consequences on American youth for years to come.

Interestingly, there has been a change in reasoning as to why parents refuse vaccines for their children. In 2006, the number one reason cited was parental belief that vaccines caused autism. In 2013, this was no longer the popular belief; instead parents are stating vaccines are “unnecessary” and are failing to vaccinate their children. The “parental noncompliance” with the CDC’s recommended vaccination strategy continues to be “an increasing public health concern.” (Ariana Eunjung Cha, The Washington Post)

Zika and Insecticides

Millions of honeybees killed after insecticide spraying to combat Zika-carrying mosquitos

In an effort to annihilate Zika-carrying mosquitos in South Carolina, officials in Dorchester County approved an aerial spraying of Naled-a common insecticide. This decision ultimately led to millions of honeybees getting killed. The majority of the victims were from Flowertown Bee Farm and Supply. Co-owner, Juanita Stanley stated, “the farm looks like it’s been nuked.” The farm lost close to 50 hives which housed ~2.5 million bees.

Naled was approved for “mosquito control” in 1959. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that Naled “is not a risk for humans” and they “aren’t likely to breath or touch anything that has enough insecticide on it to harm them.” Unfortunately, Naled does not discriminate bees from mosquitos and efficiently kills them both. The EPA does recommend spraying the chemical between dusk and dawn, when bees are not typically foraging.

The county insists they gave residents plenty of notice prior to the spraying through a newspaper announcement and a Facebook posting. However, some residents suggest otherwise, stating “Had I known, I would have been camping on the steps doing whatever I had to do screaming, ‘No you can’t do this.’” The Dorchester county officials have issued a statement stating that they are “not pleased that so many bees were killed” and they have not offered to compensate the beekeepers for their losses. (Ben Guarino, The Washington Post)

Health

Bye-bye to antibacterial soaps

On the Friday before the holiday weekend, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its final ruling that will ban specific ingredients, such as triclosan and triclocarban, commonly used in antibacterial and antimicrobial soaps. Soap manufacturers will have an additional year to negotiate over less common ingredients, like benzalkonium chloride. Altogether, the FDA has taken a stance against 19 chemicals, which are used in almost half of soap products. Reasons behind the ban include: “are not generally recognized as safe and effective…and are misbranded.” To date, the manufacturers have not shown that these ingredients are safe for daily use as well as failed to demonstrate an increase in efficacy when compared with plain soap. Hand sanitizers and antiseptic products used in healthcare or the food industry are not affected by this ban.

In 2013, the FDA first issued a warning to the industry that unless it could provide substantial proof that compounds like triclosan and triclocarban were more beneficial than harmful, the chemicals would need to be removed. Triclosan is in more than 90% of the liquid soaps labeled as ‘antibacterial’ or ‘antimicrobial’. Triclosan disrupts the bacterial cell wall, breaking it open and ultimately killing the bacterium. However, this mechanism of killing occurs over a couple hours, much longer than it takes a person to wash his or her hands. Additionally, researchers found that triclosan can disturb hormone balance to interrupt the normal development of the reproductive system and metabolism in animals. Scientists warned that there could be similar effects in humans. Some of the large companies have been proactive and started removing the chemicals from their products. (Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 6, 2016 at 9:15 am

Science Policy Around the Web – August 26, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Leopold Kong, PhD

Adipose Tissue  Source: Wikipedia Commons, by Blausen.com staff, “Blausen Gallery 2014“.

Health Policy

Is there such a thing as ‘fat but fit’?

Nearly 70% of American adults are overweight or obese, raising their risk for health problems such as heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. However, about a third of obese individuals appear to have healthy levels of blood sugar and blood pressure. Whether these ‘fat but fit’ individuals are actually “fit” has been controversial. A recent study published in Cell Reports has sought to dissect differences in the fat cells of the ‘unfit’ obese versus the ‘fit’ obese using tools that probe the patterns of genes being turned on or off. Fat from non-overweight people were also examined in the study. Interestingly, fat of non-overweight individuals and obese individuals differed in over 200 genes, regardless of ‘fitness’. However, the fat of ‘fit’ versus ‘unfit’ obese individuals only differed in two genes. Dr. Mikael Rydén, the lead author of the study commented: “We think that adds fuel to the debate. It would imply that you are not protected from bad outcomes if you are a so-called fit and fat person.” The study also highlights the complexity of fat’s influence on health, and raises the possibility of ‘fat’ biopsies. For example, fat from normal weight individuals following an unhealthy lifestyle may have marked differences that are diagnostic of future obesity. With the rising cost of treating chronic diseases associated with being overweight, further studies are warranted. (Lindzi Wessel, Stat News)

Biomedical Research

Half of biomedical research studies don’t stand up to scrutiny

Reproducible results are at the heart of what makes science ‘science’. However, a large proportion of published biomedical research appears to be irreproducible. A shocking study by scientists at the biotechnology firm Amgen aiming to reproduce 53 “landmark” studies showed that only 6 them could be confirmed. The stakes are even higher when it comes to pre-clinical cancer research. In fact, they are $30 billion higher, according to a recent study, suggesting that only 50% of findings can be reproduced. Primary sources of irreproducibility can be traced to (1) poor study design, (2) instability and scarcity of biological reagents and reference materials, (3) unclear laboratory protocols, and (4) poor data analysis and reporting. A major stumbling block may be the present culture of science, which does not reward publishing replication studies, or negative results. Higher impact journals generally prioritize work that demonstrates something new and potentially groundbreaking or controversial. When winning grant money and academic posts hinges on impact factor, reproducibility suffers. However, with such high potential for wasting substantial funds on medically significant areas, radical changes in science policy towards publishing, peer review and science education is urgently needed. The recent reproducibility initiative aiming “to identify and reward high quality reproducible research via independent validation” may be a step in the right direction. However, a paradigm shift in scientists’ attitudes towards what constitutes important research might be necessary. (Ivan Orannsky, The Conversation)

Biotechnology

In CRISPR fight, co-inventor says Broad Institute misled patent office

The intellectual property dispute over the multibillion-dollar CRISPR gene editing technology has grown increasingly heated in the last months. With the FDA giving the go-ahead for the first U.S. clinical trial using CRISPR and with China beginning a clinical trial this month using this technology, the tension is high. On one side of the dispute is University of California’s Jennifer Doudna whose initial work established the gene-editing technology in a test tube. On the other side is Broad Institute’s Feng Zhang, who within one year made the technology work in cells and organisms, and therefore broadly applicable for biotechnology. Was Zhang’s contribution a substantial enough advance to warrant its own patents? Was Doudna’s work too theoretical and basic? This week, a potentially damning email that emerged from the legal filings of the dispute was made public. The email is from a former graduate student of Zhang’s, Shuailiang Lin, to Doudna. In addition to asking for a job, Lin wrote that Zhang was unable to make the technology work until the 2012 Doudna publication revealed the key conceptual advances. Lin adds: “I think a revolutionary technology like this […] should not be mis-patented. We did not work it out before seeing your paper, it’s really a pity. But I think we should be responsible for the truth. That’s science.” A spokesperson for the Broad Institute, Lee McGuire, suggested that Lin’s claims are false, and pointed out that Lin was in a rush to renew his visa, and had sent his explosive email to Doudna after being rejected for a new post at the Broad Institute. With CRISPR technology promising to change the face of biotechnology, the drama over its intellectual property continues to escalate. (Antonio Regalado, MIT Technology Review)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 26, 2016 at 9:00 am