Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Science Policy Around the Web – February 6, 2015

with one comment

By: Courtney Pinard, Ph.D

photo credit: via photopin (license)


U.S. lawmakers want more humane treatment of laboratory animals after an exposé published in The New York Times last month reported numerous cases of maltreatment, suffering, and death of cows, pigs, and other livestock at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, a federally-funded research center in Nebraska. The Times interviewed two dozen current and former center employees, and reviewed thousands of pages of internal records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Scientists at this research center are trying to re-engineer the farm animal to produce more offspring, yield more meat and cost less to raise. As a result of these experiments, 10 million piglets are crushed by their mothers each year, lambs are dying at staggering rates due to sickness, neglect or predation, and cows produced from twinning experiments are born deformed. A key question is: How could the U.S. Agriculture Department fund projects, which cause such massive death and suffering of farm animals? The answer lies in the lack of oversight and incentive for the industry to make a profit. According to the Times examination of 850 of the center’s experimental protocols, most approvals were made by six or fewer staff members of the center and frequently included the lead researchers for the experiment. In addition to a lack of unbiased review committee members, the Agriculture Department does not review experiments proposed by the center. The AWARE Act would expand the Animal Welfare Act to include farm animals and would require closer monitoring and more inspections. (David Grimm, Science Insider; Michael Moss, The New York Times)


Climate Change

This weekend, NASA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) will finally launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Launching more than a decade later than originally planned, the goal of DSCOVR is to provide more accurate data about solar storms and to monitor the planet’s radiation balance. Solar storms strongly influence the local space weather in the Earth’s vicinity and present radiation hazards to spacecraft and astronauts. For scientists interested in Earth’s climate change, however, the more important aspect of the satellite is the National Institute of Standards Advanced Radiometer, which will measure radiation balance – the radiation we receive from our sun minus the radiation we reflect back into space. According to NASA, the earth’s radiative equilibrium changes with natural forces such as volcano eruptions and manmade forces such as air pollution and greenhouse gases. In an article published last year about the launch, NASA’s chief Earth scientist, Ghassem Asrar was confident that the science data from this satellite will be a major breakthrough for Earth science. (Craig Mellow, Air & Space Magazine; David Shultz, Science Insider; Joe Palca, NPR)


NIH – Study Bias

A new lung research survey concludes that fewer than 5% of lung disease studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over the past 2 decades have included participants from racial or ethnic minorities. The study published last month in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, led by physician-scientist Esteban Burchard of the University of California, San Francisco, examined 58,160 respiratory disease studies and found that 4.4% reported that minorities made up 25% or more of the study population. University of Illinois, Chicago, pulmonologist Patricia Finn is concerned about the findings: “The findings are disturbing given that lung diseases disproportionately impact underrepresented minorities”. Concerns from experts about minority representation in clinical research are not new. In 1993, Congress ordered the NIH to recruit more minorities into federally-funded studies. The NIH officials say that the new survey may not fully capture the many efforts made in this regard because not all studies have published results. This conversation about study design begs the question: Why is it so important to look at racial or ethnic groups in clinical studies? One reason is that genetic factors can be linked to condition severity. For example, African American children are 4 times as likely to die of asthma than non-Hispanic white children possibly, in part, because of ancestry. One genetic mutation linked to asthma severity was about 40% more common in African-Americans. A second reason for clinician-scientists to be aware of the importance of health disparities is that the effectiveness of treatments may vary by race or ethnicity. The asthma medication albuterol, for example, is less likely to work in Puerto Ricans and African Americans. Hopefully, it will not take another 20 years before there are major efforts to increase implementation of inclusive studies. (Lindsay Konkel, Science Insider)


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


Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 6, 2015 at 9:13 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Right here is the right webpage for anyone who would like to
    find out about this topic. You understand so much its almost hard
    to argue with you (not that I actually would want
    to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on a topic that’s been discussed for many years.
    Excellent stuff, just excellent!

    go to website

    February 20, 2015 at 7:06 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: