Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Growing Need for More Clinical Trials in Pediatrics

leave a comment »

By: Erin Turbitt, PhD

Source: Flickr by Claudia Seidensticker via Creative Commons

      There have been substantial advances in biomedical research in recent decades in the US, yet children have not benefited through improvements in health and well-being to the same degree as adults. An illustrative example is that many drugs used to treat children have not been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Comparatively, many more drugs have been approved for use in adult populations. As a result, some drugs are prescribed to pediatric patients outside the specifications for which they have been approved for use, referred to as ‘off-label’ prescribing. For example, some drugs approved for Alzheimer’s Disease are used to treat Autism in children. The drug donepezil used to treat dementia in Alzheimer’s patients is used to improve sleep quality in children with Autism. Another example is the use of the pain medication paracetamol in premature infants in the absence of the knowledge on the effects among this population. While decisions about off-label prescribing are usually informed by scientific evidence and professional judgement, there may be associated harms. There is growing recognition that children are not ‘little adults’ and their developing brains and bodies may react differently to those of fully developed adults. While doses for children are often calculated by scaling from adult dosing after adjusting for body weight, the stage of development of the child also affects responses to drugs. Babies have difficulties breaking down drugs due to the immaturity of the kidneys and liver, whereas toddlers are able to more effectively breakdown drugs.

The FDA requires data about drug safety and efficacy in children before issuing approvals for the use of drugs in pediatric populations. The best way to produce this evidence is through clinical drug trials. Historically, the use of children in research has been ethically fraught, with some of the early examples from vaccine trials, such as the development of the smallpox vaccine in the 1790s. Edward Jenner, who developed the smallpox vaccine, has famously been reported to have tested the vaccine on several young children including his own without consent from the children’s families. Over the next few centuries, many researchers would test new treatments including drugs and surgical procedures on institutionalized children. It was not until the early 20th century that these practices were criticized and debate began over the ethical use of children in research. Today, in general, the ethical guidance for inclusion of children in research specifies that individuals unable to exercise informed consent (including minors) are permitted to participate in research providing informed consent is gained from their parent or legal guardian. In addition to a guardian’s informed consent, assent (‘affirmative agreement’) of the child is also required where appropriate. Furthermore, research protocols involving children must be subject to rigorous evaluation by Institutional Review Boards to allow researchers to conduct their research.

Contributing to the lack of evidence of the effects of drugs in children is that fewer clinical trials are conducted in children than adults. One study reports that from 2005-2010, there were 10x fewer trials registered in the US for children compared to trials registered for adults. Recognizing the need to increase the number of pediatric clinical trials, the FDA introduced incentives to encourage the study of interventions in pediatric populations: the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). The BPCA delays approval of competing generic drugs by six months and encourages NIH to prioritize pediatric clinical trials for drugs that require further evidence in children. The PREA requires more companies to have pediatric-focused drugs assessed in children. Combined, these initiatives have resulted in benefits such as improving the labeling of over 600 drugs to include pediatric safety information, such as approved use and dosing information. Noteworthy examples include two asthma medications, four influenza vaccines, six medications for seizure disorders and two products for treating migraines. However, downsides to these incentives have also been reported. Pediatricians have voiced concern over the increasing cost of some these drugs developed specifically for children, which have involved minimal innovation. For example, approval of liquid formulations of a drug used to treat heart problems in children has resulted in this formulation costing 700 times more than the tablet equivalent.

A further aspect that must be considered when conducting pediatric clinical trials is the large dropout rates of participants, and difficulty recruiting adequate numbers of children (especially for trials including rare disease populations) sometimes leading to discontinuation of trials. A recent report indicates that 19% of trials were discontinued early from 2008-2010 with an estimated 8,369 children enrolled in these trials that were never completed. While some trials are discontinued for safety reasons or efficacy findings that suggest changes in standard of care, many (37%) are discontinued due to poor patient accrual. There is insufficient research on the factors influencing parental decision-making for entering their child to a clinical trial and research into this area may lead to improvements in patient recruitment for these trials. This research must include or be informed by members of the community, such as parents of children deciding whether to enroll their child in a clinical trial, and disease advocacy groups. The FDA has an initiative to support the inclusion of community members in the drug development process. Through the Patient-Focused Drug Development initiative, patient perspectives are sought of the benefit-risk assessment process. For example, patients are asked to comment on what worries them the most about their condition, what they would consider to be meaningful improvement, and how they would weigh potential benefits of treatments with common side-effects. This initiative involves public meetings held from 2013-2017 focused on over 20 disease areas. While the majority of the diseases selected more commonly affect adults than children, some child-specific disease areas are included. For example, on May 4, 2017 public meeting was held on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Autism. The meeting included discussions from a panel of caregivers about the significant health effects and daily impacts of autism and current approaches to treatment.

While it is encouraging that the number of pediatric trials are increasing, ultimately leading to improved treatments and outcomes for children, there remain many challenges ahead for pediatric drug research. Future research in this area must explore parental decision-making and experiences, which can inform of the motivations and risk tolerances of parents considering entering their child to a clinical trial and potentially improve trial recruitment rates. This research can also contribute to ensuring that clinical trials are ethically conducted; adequately balancing the need for more research with the potential for harms to pediatric research participants.

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 24, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – May 24, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Joel Adu-Brimpong, BS

Source: Flickr by Selena N. B. H. via Creative Commons

Scientific Publishing

Fake It Until You’re Caught?

The beauty of the scientific enterprise is that it is, eventually, self-correcting. Thus, occasionally, a scientific paper may be retracted from a journal based on new revelations or due to reports of ethical breaches. Tumor Biology, a peer-reviewed, open access journal disseminating experimental and clinical cancer research, however, seems to have set a record for the number of retracted papers at once. In a single notice, in April, Tumor Biology retracted 107 articles; yes, one hundred and seven!

Springer, the former publisher of Tumor Biology, reported that the retracted papers were due to a compromised peer review process. Like other journals, Tumor Biology allows the submission of preferred reviewer information (name and email address) when submitting a manuscript. In the case of the retracted papers, “the reviewers were either made up, or had the names of real scientists but false email addresses.” Unsurprisingly, the manuscripts sent to the fake reviewers consistently received positive reviews, bolstering the likelihood of publication.

Springer, of course, is not the first and only major publisher to uncover issues in its peer-review process leading to mass retractions. A 2016 paper reveals similar issues from other major publishers including SAGE, BioMed Central and Elsevier. These breaches are particularly worrisome as some of the retracted manuscripts date back to the beginning of the decade. This means that studies floating around in other journals may have built on knowledge reported by the retracted studies. As if this was not enough, Springer has also come under scrutiny for individuals listed on Tumor Biology’s editorial board, several of whom appear to have no association with the journal and/or in at least one case, have been deceased for several years.

These discoveries are particularly disturbing and are percolating at a time when biomedical research spending is increasingly being scrutinized. Richard Harris, the award-winning NPR journalist, in his recent book Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions (2017), highlights major areas in biomedical research that produce wastes, such as studies that may incite researchers, and even whole fields, to follow a phantom lead. In the meantime, it does appear that journals are taking measures to ensure that these breaches are minimized, if not prevented entirely. (Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup, ScienceInsider)

Research Funding

Fighting On All Fronts: Republican Senators Advocate for DOE’s Research Funding

Republican senators are, again, urging President Trump to rethink potential budget cuts to research programs; this time to the Department of Energy (DOE). On Thursday, May 18, 2017, six top senate republicans, including well-known congresspersons Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), drafted a letter to the President reminding him of the importance of government-sponsored research. In the letter, they re-echo, “Government-sponsored research is one of the most important investments our country can make to encourage innovation, unleash our free enterprise system to create good-paying jobs, and ensure American competitiveness in a global economy.” They go on, “It’s hard to think of an important technological advancement since World War II that has not involved at least some form of government-sponsored research.”

If it seems like we’ve been down this road before, it’s because we have. Earlier this year, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), on the House Appropriations and Budget Committee, and his colleagues signaled disagreement with proposed budget cuts to the NIH and CDC in President Trump’s fiscal blueprint. The Republican congressman reiterated the importance of agencies like the NIH and CDC in conducting crucial biomedical research and leading public health efforts that protect Americans from diseases. The strong commitment to advancing biomedical research and the health of the American people led to an omnibus agreement that repudiated President Trumps proposed cuts, increasing NIH funding by $2 billion for the 2017 cycle.

The letter by Senator Alexander and colleagues was drafted following reports suggesting that the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy could face a reduction in funding of up to 70 percent for the 2018 fiscal cycle.  In a separate follow-up analysis, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee reported on the growth and importance of clean energy jobs and its contribution to the economy. Cuts to the DOE’s research programs could have profound impact on not only millions of jobs but also America’s ability to stay competitive in the global economy as it shifts towards renewable energy and resources. (Geof Koss, ScienceInsider)

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

How Easy is it to Access Health Care in the US?

with 2 comments

By: Rachel F Smallwood, PhD

Source: pixabay

         Access to health care has been a concern as long as there has been health care, and it is one of the hot-button issues of health care policy debates. The recent repeal of the Affordable Care Act and passing of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in the House of Representatives has again brought this debate front and center. The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the first iteration of the AHCA indicated that it would result in 24 million less people having health insurance by 2026. It would also place more of the financial burden on people making less than $50,000 per year. However, substantial changes were made to parts of the bill before it passed in the House, and there will likely be more if it is to be passed in the Senate. There is much debate and dissension on what level of access to health care should be provided by the government and whether health care is a right versus a privilege. In addition to that debate, there are other facets of the United States’ health care system that need examination and work to ensure access to health care.

There are many reasons a person may not have access to health care – not having health insurance is just one. To measure access to health care, one must first define it. Is there some quality standard that must be met for treatment to be considered health care? How do we determine whether one person’s health care is equivalent to another’s? With health care measures that range from necessary, recommended but not dire, to completely elective, even these differences can be difficult to quantify. Most institutions collecting data on health care use a working definition like that set by the Institute of Medicine in 1993: access to health care means a person is able to use health care services in a timely manner to achieve positive health outcomes. This implies that a person can enter the health care system, physically get to a place where they can receive health care, and find physicians whom they trust and who can provide the needed services.

Indeed, there are differing opinions on what constitutes “access”, and this heterogeneity is further compounded by the multiple barriers to access. For example, with the recent AHCA proposal, many representatives spoke about separating the concepts of health care coverage and health care access, while others believe that the two are not separable. There are at least four factors that limit a person’s access to healthcare. The first barrier is the availability of health services; if the necessary health care is not provided within reasonable traveling distance of a person seeking services, none of the other factors matter. The other three factors are personal barriers such as a person’s perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about their own health and health care, organizational barriers such as referrals, waiting lists, and wait times, and financial barriers such as inability to afford insurance, copays, costs beyond deductibles, and lost wages.

The current policy in the United States is the Affordable Care Act, put into place under the Obama administration. One of the most contentious points of the law is its requirement that every person have health care coverage or pay a penalty. A 2015 survey released by the National Center for Health Statistics indicated a substantial drop in the percentage of the US population without insurance over the previous few years. There was a slight increase in the percentage of people with a usual place to go for health care (i.e. a primary care provider or clinic for regular check-ups), and a decrease in the number of people who failed to obtain needed health care due to cost, but simply requiring everyone to purchase health insurance did not induce a commensurate rise in people gaining access to health care, in accordance with the steps and measures discussed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Additionally, there have been substantial increases in premiums, which means that those consumers still have a significant financial barrier to health care.

The numbers and policies referenced above address the country as a whole, but statistics vary widely across regions of the United States. US News ranked states on their access to health care using six metrics: child wellness and dental visits, adult wellness and dental visits, health insurance enrollment, and health care affordability. Some examples of the ranges seen between states in these measures are that 20% of adults do not have regular checkups in the highest ranked states, while around 40% do not have regular checkups in the lowest ranked states. In the highest ranked state for affordability, the fraction of people who needed to see a doctor but could not because of cost was around 7%, while in the lowest ranked state this percentage was just under 20%. While some of this is due to the differing demographics and living conditions from state to state, the discretion and freedom that states have in applying health care laws also factor in.

When comparing to other similar (high-income) nations, the United States falls short on access to health care. Although the Affordable Care Act improved access to health insurance, the US is still lagging when it comes to its residents receiving actual care. This is partially due to fewer physicians practicing general medicine in the US. In 2013, the US ranked below all other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, except for Greece, for the density of general practitioners per 1,000 people. A related measure showed that the US also had a lower percentage of physicians choosing general practitioner/primary care as their specialty than all other 35 countries. These countries are all World Bank-categorized high-income countries except for Mexico and Turkey, which are upper middle-income (and had better stats than the US). This disparity has been noted in the US and is driven by many factors including physician salaries, patient loads, and medical education emphasis (or lack thereof) on primary care. This shortage also disproportionately affects rural areas, likely contributing to some of the state-to-state variability noted above.

The United States is struggling when compared with similar nations to provide health care access to its citizens. The reasons for this struggle are multifaceted, including access to health insurance, financial barriers, and lack of primary care physicians. The political tensions and opposing principles held by individuals can also be barriers to working toward a more accessible health care system. We should be focused on developing a health care system where all can reasonably obtain health insurance, where health care costs are not prohibitively expensive, and medical education should emphasize the importance of primary care in our nation’s health and communicate the need for practitioners in under-served areas. Shedding light on these areas for improvement will allow people to work together to address our weaknesses and create a system that improves and sustains the health of our nation.

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 19, 2017 at 10:16 am

Science Policy Around the Web – May 16, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Sarah L Hawes, PhD

Source: pixabay

Preventative Medicine

Fresh Foods a Day Keep Disease and Deficit Away

If you have recently shopped for health insurance, you likely encountered incentives for self-maintenance, such as discounted gym membership, or reimbursement for a jogging stroller. These incentives are motivated by the enormous ticket price of failing health. The CDC estimates that over $500 billion is spent annually on direct medical expenses to treat chronic diseases, which can be prevented or postponed through lifestyle practices – including heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

The Geisinger health care system reports encouraging results from the first year of a lifestyle-modification program called Fresh Foods Pharmacy, piloted in central Pennsylvania. This program provides patients with Type 2 diabetes nutrition counselling, hands-on classes in healthy cooking techniques, and a weekly prescription for five days’ worth of fresh food – fillable for free at a hospital based “food pharmacy.” This means patients are not just advised to eat better; they are comprehensively enabled to eat better.

David Feinberg, president and CEO of Geisinger, reports that all 180 participants in the pilot group have made substantial improvements in their health, including reductions in blood pressure and body weight, and that many have seen a several-point reduction in a blood marker used to diagnose and monitor their disease, called A1C. A1C reduction means that blood sugar levels are being better controlled, which also means fewer costly diabetic complications for patients down the line. Feinberg calls the program “life changing,” adding that participants “won’t go blind; [they] won’t have kidney disease, amputations.”

Many Fresh Foods Pharmacy participants are low-income, so there is powerful financial incentive to ‘follow doctors’ orders’ and eat the free, healthy food. But what does supplying a person with nutritional counsel and weekly fresh foods cost?

Geisinger spends approximately $1,000 per year on each Fresh Foods Pharmacy patient. Meanwhile, a mere one-point drop in A1C levels saves Geisinger roughly $8,000 per year. Feinberg says that many participants trimmed about 3 points off their A1C level in the first year, saving roughly $24,000 on a $1,000 investment. “It’s a really good value” says Feinberg, who is already working to expand the program to additional sites.

Improved patient health and medical cost-cutting in the first year of this program are independently exciting. In addition, the value of engendering better patient health through comprehensive dietary support is very likely to extend beyond patient and provider. Patients who are enabled to engage in healthful food preparation will share a healthier diet and food-culture with their families, enhancing program benefits in as-yet unmeasured dimensions. (Allison Aubrey, NPR)

Research Funding

Climate Science Policy Lessons from Down Under

Pretend for a moment that everyone firmly believes that climate change is real, and is a real threat. Is this enough to safeguard basic climate science research? Recent events in Australia give us our answer – no.

Australia is the most active contributor to climate science in the Southern Hemisphere. As such, Australian researchers provide a truly international service. Public appreciation of this fact, together with public activism, recently saved funding for Australian climate science.

In 2015, Dr. Larry R. Marshall was appointed to lead Australia’s national scientific agency (CSIRO). Dr. Marshall planned to champion initiatives motivated by his faith in climate science. He wanted to develop technologies to respond to inescapable climate change, and to mitigate damage through reduced emissions. Paradoxically he proposed to fund these by laying off droves of basic climate researchers.

Dr. John A. Church was a climate scientist at CSIRO, having published highly regarded studies indicating accelerated sea level rise paralleling greenhouse gas emission. On catching wind of Marshall’s plan, Church reached out to his contacts in the media and wrote an open letter to Marshall in defense of basic science. Public marches, hearings, and protests from thousands of international scientists ensued.

Ultimately, the rally of public voices instigated by Dr. Church and others like him was effective. Far fewer layoffs occurred than were initially slated to occur. Dr. Church was among those let go by CSIRO, but was rapidly recruited by the University of New South Wales to continue his climate research.

Bear in mind that Dr. Marshall was no climate change denier. He showed great willingness to use scientific findings to guide policy, which is admirable. He addressed an Australian Senate committee saying that the climate “absolutely is changing,” and “we have to do something about it.” In a recent interview, he summarized his reasons for wanting to lay off scientists saying this: “Unfortunately, with a finite funding envelope, you’ve got to make choices where you fund.”

Australia’s example shows us that even in a political environment with great faith in science, reverence for basic research is a separate issue, and merits independent attention and protection. Staying abreast of science policy matters. And for those of us who believe there is no shortage of natural complexity, and no end to the fruitful pursuit of knowledge, it pays to speak out in defense of basic research. (Justin Gillis, The New York Times)


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

How GMOs Could Help with Sustainable Food Production

with one comment

By: Agnes Donko, PhD

World Population estimates from 1800 to 2100

           The world population has exceeded 7.5 billion and by 2050 it is expected to reach 9.7 billion. The challenge of feeding this ever-growing population is exacerbated by global warming, which may lead to more frequent droughts or the melting of Arctic sea and Greenland ice. The year 2016 was the warmest ever recorded, with the average temperature 1.1 °C above the pre-industrial period, and 0.06 °C above the previous record set in 2015. According to the United Nations, the world faces the largest humanitarian crisis in East-Africa since the foundation of the organization in 1945, particularly in Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. In these countries, 20 million people face starvation and famine this year because of drought and regional political instability.

How could genetically modified organisms (GMO) help?

The two main GMO strategies  are the herbicide-tolerant (HT) and insect-resistant crops. HT crops were developed to help crops survive application of specific herbicides (glyphosate) that would otherwise destroy the crop along with the targeted weeds. Insect-resistant crops contain a gene from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that encodes for a protein that is toxic to specific insects, thus protecting the plant. Insect-resistant crops can reduce pesticide use, which decreases the ecological footprint of cultivation in two ways – first by reducing insecticide use, which in turn will reduce the environmental impact of insecticide production, and second by reducing the fuel usage and carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) emission, by fewer spraying rounds and reduced tillage. Thus, adoption of GM technology by African nations and other populous countries like India could help with sustainable agriculture that can ameliorate the burden of changing climate and growing populations.

In developed nations, especially in the US, GM technology has been widely used since the mid-1990s, mainly in four crops: canola, maize, cotton and soybean. GM crops account for 93 percent of cotton, 94 percent of soybean and 92 percent of corn acreage in the US in 2016. Although the appearance of weed resistance to glyphosate increased herbicide usage, in 2015 the global insecticide savings from using herbicide-tolerant maize and cotton were 7.8 million kg (84% decrease) and 19.3 million kg (53% decrease), respectively, when compared with pesticide usage expected with conventional crops. Globally these savings resulted in more than 2.8 million kg of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to taking 1.25 million cars off the road for one year.

Another way in which GM crops can help sustainable food production is by reducing food wastage in developed nations. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that one-third of all food produced for human consumption in the world (around 1.3 billion tons) is lost or wasted each year, which includes 45% of all fruits. For example, when an apple is bruised, an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase initiates the degradation of polyphenols that turns the apple’s flesh brown. But nobody wants to buy brown apples, so the bruised apples are simply trashed. In Arctic apples, the level of the enzyme is reduced by gene silencing, thereby preventing browning. The Arctic Apple obtained USDA approval in 2015, and is expected to reach the market in 2017.

In 2015, the FDA approved the first GMO food for animal consumption, a genetically modified Atlantic salmon called AquAdvantage. Conventional salmon farming has terrible effects on the environment. However, AquAdvantage contains a growth hormone regulating transgene, which allows for accelerated growth rates, thus decreasing the farming time from 3 years to 16-18 months. This would dramatically reduce the ecological footprint of fish farming, leading to more sustainable food production. Even though FDA did not find any difference in the nutritional profile between AquAdvantage and its natural counterpart, AquAdvantage will not hit the U.S. market any time soon, because the FDA banned import and sale until the exact guidelines on how this product should be labelled are published.

This FDA action was initiated by bill S. 764 that was signed by former president Barack Obama in 2016. Bill S. 764 requires food companies to disclose GMOs without necessarily using a GMO text label on packaging. They may choose to label GM ingredients with a symbol or a QRC (quick response code) that, when scanned by a smartphone, will lead the consumer to a website with more information on the product. But this requires the consumer to have both a smartphone and access to the internet. The bill also has ‘lax standards and broad definition’. For instance, if the majority of a product contains meat, but some other less significant ingredient is produced from GM crops, then it need not be labelled. Oil extracted from GM soybean, or starch purified from GM corn are exempt from labeling, because they were only derived from GM sources, but no longer contain any genetic material in them. Contrarily, in the European Union (EU), regulations require that the phrase “genetically modified” or “produced from genetically modified [name of the organism]” must appear clearly next to the ingredient list. If the food is not packaged, the same phrase must be on the food display or next to it. The EU also unequivocally determines the level of GMO (below 0.9 %) in conventional food or feed that is exempt from labelling.

Despite its controversial guidelines for GMO labeling, bill S. 764 could end the long-fought battle of Just Label It campaign. The bill was a huge step toward the right to know, which will let individuals decide if they want to consume GM foods or not. GMOs can significantly support sustainable food production and reduce the destructive environmental impact of humanity, but only if we let it.

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 12, 2017 at 5:13 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – May 12, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Liu-Ya Tang, PhD

Source: pixabay


Basic Scholarship in Biosafety Is Critically Needed

While a significant amount of money funds primary research in life sciences, the portion allotted in biosafety assessment is almost neglected, which can be detrimental to biomedical research. In a recent paper in mSphere, an open-access journal published by the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the authors reported the status of practicing biosafety in U.S. labs and pointed out the urgent need for funding in this field.

They identified human errors as the dominant component of laboratory biosafety risk, but there was limited data to support a quantitative analysis of human failure rates. Publicly available risk assessments were only focused on mechanical failure rates. They also found that historical biosafety incident data is not adequate, and incidents reporting systems are not sufficiently standardized. So the same mistakes could likely happen in multiple labs. In contrast, other industries, such as the power and transportation industries, have been investing heavily in maintaining safety records and have benefited from doing so. The authors cite an example from the airline industry to address the importance of incident reporting system. After a flight crash outside Washington’s Dulles airport in 1974, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) created a no-fault system of reporting aviation incidents and mistakes. FAA has maintained this system ever since, which has helped reduce accident rates by two-thirds compared to that in the early 1970s.

Even though funding for biosafety assessment is much less than that in other industries, the consequences of a potential infectious disease outbreak can be much bigger than any other accidents. Therefore, such funding is urgently needed for three aspects: “(i) development of a national incident reporting system, (ii) primary research programs focused on human reliability assessments, equipment failures, and decontamination efficiencies, and (iii) sharing of best practices.” Investing in biosafety and biorisk management will help enhance laboratory safety practices and improve work performance of our research enterprise in the long run. (Ryan Ritterson and Rocco Casagrande, mSphere)

Human Stem-Cell Research

Attitudes Towards Stem-Cell Research in Europe, Canada and the United States

Human embryonic stem-cell research has caused many political and public debates over moral concerns while providing benefits to human health. In science policy making, public opinion has great impact. To investigate factors that affect international public opinion towards stem-cell research, Allum N. and colleagues analyzed representative sample surveys in Europe and North America, fielded in 2005, when it was a highly contested issue.

The authors found that public attitudes towards stem-cell research has been affected by government decisions, especially in the U.S. During the Bush administration, federal funding only allowed the use of a small number of existing cell lines in stem-cell research. These limitations were removed by an Executive Order from President Barack Obama that expanded NIH support for human stem-cell research. In response to government guidance, public support for stem-cell research in the U.S. rose from 40 percent in 2002 to around 65 percent in 2010. About 65 percent of Europeans and Canadians supported human stem-cell research on the condition that it is tightly regulated. The other influential factor is religion. The authors showed that in all the regions examined, approval for stem-cell research decreased with increasing religious commitment. This pattern was more pronounced in the U.S. and Canada than in Europe. But interestingly, half of even the most religious public supported stem-cell research, which indicated that perhaps the benefits of stem-cell research are being more appreciated. Overall, the majority of people in the surveyed areas hold positive attitudes towards human stem-cell research. (Nick Allum et al, PLOS ONE)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 12, 2017 at 11:07 am

Science Policy Around the Web – May 9, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

By Robert A. Rohde (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons


Please Pass the Crickets!

Most people know that eating beef is bad for the environment. A new study from the University of Edinburgh and Scotland’s rural college quantifies the impact human carnivores could have if we switched half of our current meat intake to insects such as crickets and mealworms. Cattle require huge swaths of pasture and produce enormous amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane. Methane is released during normal digestive processes, and methane and other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide are released from manure.

The idea of switching from a plate of steak to a bowl of mealworms may be too much for most Westerners, so what’s the human meat lover to do? Luckily, the study suggested that switching harmful beef for chicken or imitation meat (such as tofu) can yield large environmental benefits, because poultry and soy plants both require less land and produce less greenhouse gasses than cattle. The study also concluded that “meat in a dish”, or lab grown meat, was not more sustainable than chicken or eggs.

Although meat might not be replaced by insects any time soon for humans, we can still begin to incorporate insects into the farming discussion. Currently cattle raised for human consumption are fed diets of hay, soy, grain and other surprising items. These cattle need high levels of protein, which is one reason why mad cow disease became so prevalent – uneaten parts of cows were fed to other cows, which made them sick. Insects could help solve the protein gap for cattle, which was supported by a general survey of farmers, agricultural stakeholders and the public in Belgium.

Our eating practices affect the environment; moving towards a sustainable agricultural system is a commendable goal. Every person can decide for themselves how far they’re willing to go along the food chain to achieve a smaller carbon footprint. (ScienceDaily)

Vision Loss

Letting the Blind See Again

Vision loss is devastating – vision is the most relied upon source of sensory input for humans.  This can occur from an accident or genetic/physiological disorders. Retinitis pigmentosa causes a degeneration of the retina, and affects about 100,000 people in the US. Currently there is no cure, but clinical trials are exploring treatments to slow the process using gene therapy, dietary changes, or other drugs.

A new synthetic, soft tissue retina has been invented by a graduate student at Oxford University.  This artificial retina is biodegradable and uses synthetic but biological tissues to mimic the human retina.  The material composition is less likely to trigger an adverse reaction in the body and are less invasive than current retina transplants made of hard metal materials. Restrepo-Schild developed a bilayer of water droplets which respond to light with electrical impulses. The signals translate to cells at the back of the eye just like healthy retinal cells should. The new retina prototype has yet to be tested in animals to see if it translates well to humans.

Another way to restore vision is gaining traction: xenotransplants (transplants from animals to humans). Just last year a Chinese boy’s vision was restored after a corneal transplant from a pig. Pigs are good candidates for human transplantation because they are anatomically and physiologically similar, and they are ethically more desirable sources than non-human primates. Although pigs are not immunologically similar to humans, the eye transplants are unlikely to be rejected by the recipient because this part of the body is immune-privileged.

Restoring vision is an important and admirable task. Scientists and clinicians have multiple avenues to explore to help people regain their sight. (ScienceDaily)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 9, 2017 at 9:43 am