Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Science Policy Around the Web – August 25, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Eric Cheng, Ph.D.

Photo source: pixabay.com

Climate Change

New U.S. climate rules target methane leaks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new measures to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. These new measures will mainly target industrial sources which will include the capturing of natural gas from hydraulically fractured oil wells, as well as limiting emissions from new and modified pneumatic pumps and other equipment used at natural gas transmission compression stations.

Methane, the main component of natural gas, has been found to be 80 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide when measured over a 20-year period. Preventing the escape of methane from gas fields and pipelines is predicted to have a measurable affect on reducing gases which contribute to global warming by reducing the equivalent of 7.7 to 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. In addition, reduction in carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is estimated to have a net climate benefit of $120 to $150 million in 2025.

Critics of the new proposals argue that there is already a “strong economic incentive to capture and utilize methane” and “that producers have already made deep cuts in methane emissions through voluntary measures and best practices.” U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R–OK), chair of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement believes that these new measures are “not only unnecessary, but another example of the [Obama] administration’s punitive expansion of their war on fossil fuels.” The EPA will take comments on the proposals for 60 days after they are published in the Federal Register. (Eli Kintisch, ScienceInsider)

Infectious Diseases

Tackle Nepal’s typhoid problem now

Nepal continues to struggle to rebuild their infrastructure stemming from the two earthquakes in April and May of 2015. This damage to the country’s infrastructure has disrupted the water resources of up to 1.3 million people as well as sanitation support for up to 1.7 million. In addition to the disruption to water and sewage systems, thousands still live in temporary shelters and camps. All these issues along with the current monsoon season has lead to an increase in typhoid outbreaks which can easily lead to an epidemic in the hardest hit areas such as the Sindhupalchowk and Gorkha districts of Nepal.

Typhoid fever, a potentially fatal multisystemic illness caused by Salmonella enterica, can be treated with antibiotics. However, Salmonella enterica strains resistant to antibiotics such as fluoroquinolones and azithromycin are emerging. Currently, prevention of infection is key to tackling the typhoid problem. Clean water and sanitation is still the best way to prevent typhoid, but it will take decades for Nepal to repair and build the necessary infrastructure to pre-earthquake levels. Typhoid can also be prevented through vaccination. However, the Nepalese government does not have sufficient funds to vaccinate millions of people using the vaccine recommended by the WHO.

There are cheaper vaccines that Nepali health officials can deploy that are not pre-qualified by the WHO, and it is unclear why they have not yet done so. What is known is that buying and delivering enough doses will almost certainty require outside financial support for Nepal. This support could come from institutions such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, based in Geneva, Switzerland, which is committed to increasing access to vaccination in poor countries, or support could come from the profits of pharmaceutical companies. (Buddha Basnyat, Nature: News & Comment)

Ethics in Research

Apparent ‘pay to cite’ offer sparks Internet outrage

This past June Cyagen, a contract research organization and cell culture product manufacturer, sent out an email entitled: “Cite us in your publication and earn $100 or more based on your journal’s impact factor!” Based on Cyagen’s formula: Voucher Value = (impact factor) * $100, a citation in Science magazine (impact factor = 30) could entitle the author to $3,000. It is only in recent days that this email promotion was picked up by Twitter and bloggers about the possible conflict of interest involved with participating in this promotion.

Upon more careful reading of the promotion, the deal is not what it appears at first glance. The reward is not cash, but store credit for a future purchase from the company. In addition, the citation Cyagen requires for the store credit is nothing more than a notation in the materials and methods section of the journal that a Cyagen product or service was used in that particular paper. This notation is something that is already required by most scientific journals in order assist in other researchers to be able to faithfully replicate a particular experiment. Some believe this promotion is akin to receiving “undisclosed funds in exchange for a citation.” While others such as a developmental biologist from the University of Amsterdam do not believe that this promotion would generate any conflict of interest because it does not appear any different “from any other discount you often get when buying lab equipment, antibodies, transgenic services.” (John Bohannon, ScienceInsider)

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

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 25, 2015 at 9:00 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: