Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘health

Science Policy Around the Web October 8th, 2019

leave a comment »

By Mary Weston PhD

Image by Andreas Lischka from Pixabay 

A single tea bag can leak billions of pieces of microplastic into your brew

A recently published studyfrom McGill University shows that plastic teabags release billions of plastic micro- and nanoparticles into your tea. Researchers steeped plastic tea bags in 95°C (203°F) water for 5 minutes, finding that a single bag released approximately 11.6 billion microplastics and 3.1 billion nanoplastics. This concentration of plastic particles is thousands of times larger than any other reported food/drink item.

Although tea bags contain food-grade, FDA approved plastics, researchers know little about how plastics can degrade or leach toxic substances when heated above 40C (104F). Based on these new results, the study’s authors conclude that more research needs to be done to both determine how microparticles are released in our foods and the impact those substances have on human health.

To gain insight on the effect of plastic particle exposure, researchers grew water fleas, a common environmental toxicology model system, in the brewed solution, discovering they survived but had both behavioral and developmental abnormalities. While the plastic particle exposure levels these fleas experienced are far greater than what humans would be exposed to, it begs the question of what happens to humans with chronic low-dose exposure over time.

Microplastics are being detected everywhere, from the deepest parts of the ocean to regularly consumed bottled water, and their effect on human health have yet to be seen. One study suggests humans are consuming 5 grams of plastic a week, approximately the weight of a credit card.  However, In their first review of microplastics in tap and bottled water, the WHO asserts that microplastics “don’t appear to pose a health risk at current levels,” but also state that knowledge is limited and more research is needed to determine their impact on human health. 

(Rob Picheta, CNN)

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 8, 2019 at 3:53 pm

Science Policy Around the Web September 3rd, 2019

leave a comment »

By Ben Wolfson PhD

Image by Dimitris Vetsikas from Pixabay 

Biohackers are pirating a cheap version of a million-dollar gene therapy

This past weekend, the 4th annual Biohack the Planet, a conference for community scientists and biohackers, was held in Las Vegas. In addition to discussions concerning the future and goals of biohacking, a group of biohackers announced their efforts to develop a pirated version of the gene therapy Glybera, called Slybera.

First approved in Europe in 2012, Glybera is a gene therapy meant to treat the rare genetic disorder lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD). Glybera provided a “one-off” solution to LDLD by inducing a patients body to produce new copies of the missing protein. Approximately 1 in every million people suffer from LPLD, meaning that there existed an exceedingly small market for the drug. Moreover, upon its release it was deemed the world’s most expensive drug at approximately 1 million dollars per dose. Due to financial issues associated with this high cost, Glybera was withdrawn from market in 2017.

At Biohack the Planet, research leader Gabriel Licinia described the process of creating a prototype pirated version of Glybera, which he says cost less than $7,000 and was created in only 2 months. Licinia and his colleagues got the gene sequence used in Glybera from the original papers published describing it, and ordered the DNA from a commercial DNA synthesis company. They then inserted the DNA into a genetic construct capable of inducing mammalian cells to produce the LPL protein.

While Licinia demonstrated that this method works in cells, it would likely not have the same long lasting effects as Glybera, which uses viruses as carriers for the LDL gene, producing stable expression of the protein for a number of years.

The future of Slybera is uncertain, as there is currently no defined clinical path for products created by biohackers. However the team is taking steps to demonstrate their seriousness, including distributing their materials to fellow biohackers so they can attempt to replicate their studies.

(Alex Pearlman, MIT Technology Review

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 3, 2019 at 3:49 pm

Science Policy Around the Web August 26th, 2019

leave a comment »

By Silvia Preite PhD

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay 

NIH will soon share genetic data with those who participated in precision medicine study

In 2018 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the All of Us Research Program to collect multiple types of data from more than one million volunteers living in the United States. The aim of the program is to accelerate medical breakthroughs and promote human health on a large scale. All of Us is a key element of the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), with the long-term goal of integrating information on genetic composition, lifestyle and environment to reveal strategies for personalized prevention and treatment of a wide range of health conditions. 

Participants provide medical records along with genomic material, blood and urine samples. In addition, digital data recorded through smart phones and other electronic devices are stored to obtain extended pictures of the individual health status and life habits.

So far, about 200,000 Americans have joined the All of Us initiative. By late 2019-early 2020, 25,000 US citizens will get back their genomic information along with genetic counseling. On August 21 2019, the All of Us director Eric Dishman announced a new partnership with the California-based health technology company, Color Genomics to provide the counseling service. The genetic counseling services provided by Color Genomics will play a crucial role in communicating the genomic results to participants and their personal physicians, as well as helping them understand the implications for their health and families. These data will supply information on genetic variants that could predispose to certain diseases and influence responses to pharmacological treatments.

In particular, counseling will be given to those individuals who carry any genetic mutations that geneticists have linked to severe diseases – such as mutations in the BRCA gene associated with breast cancer.

This will be the first time that a government funded study will return genetic data to the participants on such a large scale. Another distinguished element of this study is the heterogeneity of the involved population. Up to now, half of the participants have been selected within ethnic and socio-economic groups that have been historically marginalized and under represented in research and clinical studies. Moreover, researchers could gain access to these open-source and anonymized data to investigate previously unknown genetic traits that influence human health and disease development, greatly broadening the availability and heterogeneity of data for these studies.

(Lev Facher, STAT News)

 

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 27, 2019 at 2:38 pm

How human health depends on biodiversity

leave a comment »

By: Lynda Truong

Image by V Perez from Pixabay 

By many measures, the Earth is facing its sixth mass extinction. The fifth mass extinction, a result of a meteorite approximately 10 km in diameter, wiped out the dinosaurs and an estimated 40-75% of species on Earth. This time around, the natural disaster that is threatening life on Earth is us.

In May, the United Nations released a preliminary report on the drastic risk to biodiversity (not to be confused with the recent report on the drastic consequences of climate change).  The assessment, which was compiled by the Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), draws on information from 15,000 scientific and government sources with contributions from 145 global experts. It projects that one million species face risk of extinction. Scientists have estimated that the historical base level rate of extinction is one per million species per year, and more recent studies suggest rates as low as 0.1 per million species per year. At the established base level rates, it would take one to ten million years to see the same magnitude of extinction the planet currently faces. This accelerated rate of extinction can be linked to a variety of man-made causes, including changes in land and sea use, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, and the introduction of invasive species. 

For some, that may not seem important. If humans are not on the endangered species list, why should it matter? As the IPBES Global Assessment indicates however, healthy ecosystems provide a variety of services, including improving air quality, purifying drinking water, and mitigating floods and erosions. The vast canopies of rainforests worldwide sequester 2.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. Plants and soil microbes found in wetlands can remove toxins from water, including explosive chemicals such as nitroglycerin and trinitrotoluene (TNT). Mangrove forests serve as an important buffer against ocean storm surges for those on land. Nature is a powerful resource, and declines in biodiversity have broad implications for global development and health. 

The importance of biodiversity on global health is immediately apparent in middle- and low-income countries, which rely heavily on natural remedies and seasonal harvests for health and nutrition. The loss of entire species of plants can eliminate valuable sources of traditional medicine for indigenous communities. Genetically diverse crops are more resilient to pest and disease, ensuring a stable food supply and bolstering food security. Beyond this, ecosystem disturbances also have complex implications for infectious disease, which are often endemic to developing nations. 

However, these effects are also seen in first world countries. A well cited example for the impact of biodiversity loss on infectious disease involves Lyme disease, which is endemic to parts of the United States. The white footed mouse is a common carrier of Lyme disease, and in areas with high densities of these mice, ticks are likely to feed on the mice and subsequently transmit the disease to humans. However, the presence of other mammals that the tick can feed on dilutes the disease reservoir, lowering the likelihood of an outbreak (commonly referred to as the “dilution effect”). While biodiversity has complicated effects on the spread of infectious diseases, drastic changes to ecosystems often provide a breeding ground for disease vectors and lead to increases in transmission.

In addition to the direct effects of declines in biodiversity have on global health, an often-neglected aspect of its importance for health is as a resource for biomedical science. The IPBES assessment reports that 70% of cancer drugs are natural or inspired by natural sources such as traditional medicines. This merely scratches the surface of the influence of nature on modern biomedical research. 

Much like the communities that rely on natural products as medicine, many drug compounds produced by pharmaceutical companies are derived from nature. Morphine has been one of the most revolutionary drug compounds in history, effectively treating both acute and chronic pain. The compound was originally isolated from the opium poppy, and its chemical structure has since been modified to reduce negative effects and improve potency. While the current opioid crisis in the United States has highlighted the importance of moderate use, morphine and its analogues are some of the most useful and reliable pain relievers in modern medicine. Similarly, aspirin has been regarded as a wonder drug for its analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and cardioprotective effects. Aspirin is a chemical analogue of salicylic acid, a compound originally isolated from willow tree bark. 

Beyond general pain relief, many naturally derived drugs have also been useful for disease treatment. Quinine, the first effective antimalarial drug, was extracted from the bark of cinchona trees, and quinine and its analogues are still used to treat malaria today. Penicillin, serendipitously discovered in a fungus, has been useful for treating bacterial infections and informing modern antibiotic development. These medicines and many more have been crucial to the advancement of human health, yet could have just as easily been lost to extinction.

On a more fundamental level, scientific research has benefited from many proteins isolated from nature. Thermophilic polymerases, isolated from a bacterium residing in hot springs, are now an essential component of polymerase chain reactions (PCR) – a common laboratory technique that amplifies segments of DNA. This method is critical in molecular biology labs for basic research, and forensic labs for criminal investigations.Fluorescent proteins, which have been isolated from jelly fish and sea anemone, revolutionized the field of molecular biology by allowing scientists to visualize dynamic cellular components in real time. More recently, CRISPR/Cas systems were discovered in bacteria and have been developed as a gene editing tool capable of easily and precisely modifying genetic sequences. These basic tools have vastly improved the scope of biomedical research, and all of them would have been close to impossible to develop without their natural sources.

In addition to medicines and tools, nature has often informed biomedical research. Denning bears are commonly studied for potential solutions to osteoporosis and renal disease. Their ability to enter a reduced metabolic state where they do not eat, drink, or defecate for months at a time provides valuable insight into how these biological processes may be adapted to benefit human disease and physiology. Even more interestingly, there are a few species of frogs that become nearly frozen solid in winter, and thaw fully recovered in spring. In this frozen state, much of the water in their body turns to ice, their heart stops beating, and they stop breathing. When temperatures rise, they thaw from the inside out and continue life as per usual. Crazy cryonics and immortality aside, the freeze/thaw cycles could inform improved preservation for organ transplants.

Nature is a much better experimentalist than any human, having had billions of years to refine its experiments through the process of evolution and natural selection. Depleting these living resources, which provide invaluable benefits to human health and ecosystems, lacks foresight and is dangerously reckless. The techno-optimist approach of ceaseless development in the blind belief that whatever problem humanity encounters can be solved with research and innovation neglects to account for the dependency of research and innovation on nature. Most biomedical scientists, most physicians, and much of the general public have probably devoted a minimal amount of consideration to the importance of biodiversity. But for the one million species currently at risk, and for the hundreds of million more yet to be discovered, it’s worth a thought.

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 7, 2019 at 9:51 am

How are we welcoming our next generation-The first 1000 golden days?

leave a comment »

By: Deepika Shrestha , Ph.D.

Source: Wikimedia

The most important period for a child’s development, especially for the brain and immune system, is the first 1000 days of life. The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DoHAD) hypothesis suggests that the roots of many complex diseases and behavioral risks originate very early – between the time window of pre-conception to early postnatal periods. Indeed, genetic, epigenetic and environmental evidence indicate that most adulthood health and disease risk have been coded during fetal development in the intrauterine environment, lending support for the DoHAD hypothesis

The increased prevalence of an obesogenic environment and rate of chronic diseases in mothers increases the risk of childhood obesity and future cardiometabolic risk in the offspring. Moreover, increased risks can be transgenerational within families. This is also the case for Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), and other mental and psychological disorders. Given that over 50% of all mothers are overweight or obese, there is a growing cause of concern about the quality of fetal growth and development. Further, recent statistics revealed a sobering picture of increased incidence of various maternity-related illnesses such as postpartum depression (CDC Reports: as high as 1 in 5 women) and maternal mortality (CDC MMR 2019 report: 700 deaths per year- out of which relatively 3 in 5 deaths preventable, 31.3% deaths occurred during pregnancy, 16.9% on the day of delivery, and 51.8% over 1 year of post-partum days) in the US. These numbers show that many women in the US are among the most vulnerable and need sufficient support from family, society and governmental policy. There have been successful campaigns to institute policies raising awareness of issues concerning fetus growth, development and maternal/infant nutrition in developing countries, such as Golden 1000 Days. The United States needs similar programs special focusing on maternal care, especially on the nutritional, psychological, mental and financial needs of pregnant mothers and women in reproductive age groups. 

Another program has also been put in place to improve nutrition in mothers and children. The Women, Infant and Child (WIC) program provides supplemental nutritional support to roughly 8 million low-income mothers and young children under 5 years of age. With approximately 6 billion USD of funding in 2016, the current WIC program is the result of an update in 2009 after rigorous review by the Institute of Medicine (IoM) to reflect the latest nutritional science as well as public health concerns. However, recent evidence indicates that food and nutrients supplements through the WIC program might not match the nutritional need of the participants as it fails to account for women’s prepregnancy obesity status, gestational weight gain, and gestational diabetes.  For instance, concentrated fruit juice may increase the risk of gestational diabetes risk and is not a healthy food option. This important policy needs fair re-evaluation based on the updated scientific evidence for nutritional needs.

Another point of concern for expecting mothers is the lack of psychological care. Mothers-to-be undergo extensive physiological and psychological changes during pregnancy. Therefore, this 1000-day window is a sensitive time period —a time where pregnant women require support and potential intervention. Recent data highlight increasing trends of maternity related illnesses, be it postpartum depression or maternal mortality. More importantly, in the US these issues disproportionately affect women of color or low socioeconomic status.  Alarmingly, 42% of mothers  are sole or primary earners and may lack adequate financial support from their spouse and family. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) act was put in place to protect pregnant women in the job place for 12 weeks after childbirth. However, the United States is one of the few countries in the world with almost no access to paid parental leave—only 14% of civilian workers have access to any amount of paid parental leave in 2016, a slight increase from 11% in 2010

Access to paid parental leave currently serves as elite benefits and is dependent upon company policy. The most generous policies afford 16 weeks for birth mother, 8 weeks for birth father, 8–16 weeks for adoptive parents (16 for primary, 8 for secondary) according to PL+US’s report. About 23% of mothers go to work within 10 days of giving birth and are disproportionately from low-income families.In addition to maternal paid leave, recent mothers often require considerable sick leave for the first year, and providing a flexible policy could be a steppingstone towards helping the psychological as well as physiological health of a child. Furthermore, it is no secret that inspected and reputable day care facilities takes a major chunk of the family income, and are unaffordable to many families.

In addition, there is also a need for Newborn Rights. Irrespective of socioeconomic status, each baby has inborn rights and deserve equal family bonding time and breast-feeding needs. Children born to poor maternal care during pregnancy and lactating period are at increased risk of having neurological problems, poor school achievement, early school dropout, low-skilled employment, and providing poor care to their own children, thus contributing to the intergenerational transmission of poverty and malnutrition. On the contrary, children who get good nutrition and care in their first 1000 days are ten times more likely to overcome life threatening childhood disease, have higher educational retention in schools and are likely to earn more than 21% in wages as adults and also to have healthier families on their own. Therefore, there is an unmet need for a stronger policy that invests in children and their families from the very beginning and helps each child to be a healthy and contributing member of the society in their adulthood. It takes a major process and significant effort to raise a child into a healthy adult who is mentally, spiritually and physically fit to keep going in a productive society.

Paid maternity leave and insurance coverage needs support from Government/Congress to mothers or family unit regardless of the beneficiary’s work status. Investing in this policy may cost taxpayer a small percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Products) but will have a huge return in the long run when Health is valued as development index. There is ample evidence to show that countries that fail to invest in the well-being of women and children in the first 1,000 days lose billions of dollars to lower economic productivity, health issues, societal inequality and higher health costs. This is a main point of concern given that the US is lagging far behind other developed nations in this human development index (HDI). Currently, there is a huge disparity of investment in the first 1000 days based on socioeconomic status, and there is a clear and unmet need for structural and policy intervention. Issues related to the maternity period such as nutritional aspect, mental health, and paid maternity (or paternity) leave should not be considered only a women’s issue. Therefore, more than ever, there is a heightened need for research resources to understand maternity health issues and also concrete plans to address these issues.

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 24, 2019 at 2:21 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – April 16, 2019

leave a comment »

By: Mary Weston, PhD

Source: Wikimedia

Astronaut twins study spots subtle genetic changes caused by space travel

In 2015, NASA began their Twins Study, where they evaluated the biological effects of one year of spaceflight on an astronaut by comparing him to his earthbound identical twin. One year after returning to earth, the majority of observed physiological changes from space reverted back to the astronaut’s original state, with only subtle genetic changes remaining. 

Spaceflight exposes the body to ionizing radiation and near-zero gravity, and the consequences of long-term exposure to these conditions are not known. On this mission, Scott Kelly spent 340 days in space from 2015-2016 (he has a lifetime total of 520 space days). His brother Mark, a retired astronaut who had previously spent 54 days in space over four space-shuttle missions, remained on earth and acted as a near identical biological control. The study involved only two people, so not all findings may be applicable to other astronauts, but NASA hopes to use the information to direct future astronaut health studies.

Teams of researchers gathered a wide array of genomic, molecular, physiological, and other data on the men before, during, and after the mission. They reported that Scott Kelly did display signs of stress from space travel, with changes seen in most areas measured. 

However, now researchers are finding that most of the changes Scott Kelly experienced from spaceflight have reverted back to their original state after 6 months of being back on earth. NASA argues that “the Twins Study demonstrated the resilience and robustness of how a human body can adapt to a multitude of changes induced by the spaceflight environment”.

One genetic change that did persist six months after Scott’s return was to his chromosomes. Parts of them inverted (flipped), which could lead to DNA damage, and is possibly due to the large amounts of space radiation. Further, researchers hypothesized that space flight would shorten telomers, important caps at the end of chromosomes, since they decrease with age and spaceflight is expected to stress the body similar to aging. However, a majority of his telomers lengthened while Scott Kelly was in space, while only few shortened. Those that lengthened returned to their normal state after about 48hrs on earth, but the shortened ones remained. 

Given the space community’s interest in increasingly ambitious space missions and plans to explore Mars, studies exploring the long-term health impacts of spaceflight will be extremely important for the future.

(Alexandra Witze, Nature


Abnormal Levels of a Protein Linked to C.T.E. Found in N.F.L. Players’ Brains, Study Shows

Last week, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that used experimental brain scans to compare the levels and distribution of tau, a protein linked to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), in retired NFL players and male controls who had never played football. They found that the NFL players had elevated levels of tau in areas where the protein had previously been detected postmortem. 

CTE is associated with repetitive hits to the head, like those encountered during contact/collision sports. Currently, pathologists can only posthumously diagnose CTE. This new study is the first to evaluate tau averages and overall patterns from a group of living former football players (26 men) with a control group (31 men). The project, led by Dr. Robert Stern of Boston University, used Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans to image the brain after exposure to a radiolabeled substrate that specifically binds tau. 

Both the study’s authors and outside experts emphasize that a CTE diagnostic test is still far from ready and would likely include other markers from blood and spinal fluid as well.  However, this study represents a preliminary, first step towards developing a clinical test to detect CTE in living players, which may also ultimately assist in identifying early disease signs and those with potential risk of developing CTE. 

The relationship between CTE symptoms and the role of tau, which occurs naturally in the brain, is not clear. The study found no correlation between the amount of abnormal tau and the severity of cognitive and mood problems in the players. However, these results are preliminary and the player sample size was small. Evaluation of larger sample size of football players is needed to continue to explore the role of tau and replicate the observed elevated levels found in this paper. 

(Ken Belson and Benedict Carey, New York Times


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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

April 17, 2019 at 9:34 am

Intellectual property theft and its effects on US-China trade relations

leave a comment »

By: Neetu Gulati, Ph.D.

Source:Wikimedia

China and the US are currently in the midst of a trade war that, if not resolved my March 1, 2019, will lead to another increase in tariffs by the US. This trade war, which started over the US accusing China of stealing intellectual property from American companies, has already affected the economy of the two countries and could have global effects. The US has evidence that information including biomedical research breakthroughs, technological advances, and food product formulations have been stolen. In response to these illicit trade practices, the US imposed tariffs on Chinese imports, leading to the beginning of the trade war.

So how did we get here? 2019 marks forty years of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, which officially began on January 1, 1979. Since relations began, the two countries have benefited from ongoing trade, and China has become the largest goods trading partner with the US. Bilateral economic relations have increased from $33 billion in 1992 to over $772 billion in goods and services in 2017.  Despite strong economic ties, relations between the two countries have come under strain in recent years. The US State Department has identified concerns over military conflict in the South China Sea, counter-intelligence and security issues, and the trade deficit, among other issues. These issues came to a head in April 2018 when President Donald J. Trump issued a statement that China had stolen America’s intellectual property and engaged in illegal trade practices. In response, the US imposed additional tariffs on approximately $50 billion worth of Chinese imports. China then countered with tariffs on US imports, and thus a trade war between the two countries began.

To understand how intellectual property, or IP, fits into the trade war, it is important to first understand what it is. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, IP “refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.” More simply, IP is something created or invented through human intellect, but not necessarily a tangible product. These products often have important scientific implications, as the umbrella of IP can cover genetically engineered crops, newly developed technologies and software, and new therapeutics, just to name a few. IP is legally protected through means such as patents, trademarks, and copyright, which allow people to gain recognition and financial benefits from their creations. These protections are country-specific, and the US Patent and Trademark Office gives guidance about protecting IP overseas, including in China. The process of transferring IP from the creator to another entity, often for distribution purposes, is known as technology transfer. This process is at the heart of the accusation of theft of American IP.

According to a seven-month long investigation done by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), China’s unreasonable technology transfer policies meant they did not live up to the commitments made when joining the World Trade Organization. The report found that Chinese laws require foreign companies to create joint ventures with domestic Chinese companies in order to sell goods within the country. The investigation by USTR found that “China’s regulatory authorities do not allow U.S. companies to make their own decisions about technology transfer and the assignment or licensing of intellectual property rights.  Instead, they continue to require or pressure foreign companies to transfer technology as a condition for securing investment or other approvals.” By pushing for technology transfer, these laws opened up American companies to theft of their IP. Stolen IP has included things like software code for a wind turbine, genetically modified corn seeds, the idea behind a robot named Tappy, and even the formulation for the chemical that makes Oreo filling white.

Beyond stealing information for goods entering China, it is also possible that Chinese workers in the United States may be stealing IP and sending it back to their home country. For example, a Chinese scientist known as ‘China’s Elon Musk’ was accused by his former research advisor of stealing research done at Duke University and replicating it in China for his own gain. A former assistant director of counterintelligence at the FBI suspects that the Chinese scientist was sent by the Chinese government intentionally to steal IP. This was not an isolated incident, either. According to a report from an advisory committee to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), research institutions in the US may have fallen victim to a small number of foreign researchers associated with China’s “Talents Recruitment Program,” which the National Intelligence Council identified as an effort to “to facilitate the legal and illicit transfer of US technology, intellectual property and know-how.” This comes mere months after the NIH announced that it had identified undisclosed financial conflicts between US researchers and foreign governments. Without giving details of specific countries, NIH Director Francis Collins reported to a Senate Committee hearing that “the robustness of the biomedical research enterprise is under constant threat.” Nevertheless, these threats should not hinder the research enterprise. During a hearing in April 2018, House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith remarked, “on the one hand, we must maintain the open and collaborative nature of academic research and development. On the other, we must protect our research and development from actors who seek to do us harm.”

The balance between research collaboration and theft is delicate. Information sharing is increasingly necessary as scientific pursuits become more interdisciplinary in nature, and can lead to more productivity in research. However, voluntary collaboration is different from unwilling or coerced transfer of ideas. The ability of US scientists and entrepreneurs to innovate and create new IP is an important driver of the American economy, and further allows for the ability to research new scientific pursuits. Not only does IP theft undermine the incentive and ability for Americans to innovate, it has had drastic negative effects on the American economy, with annual losses estimated to be between $225 billion and $600 billion according to a report put out by the IP Commission. These losses directly affect those who own and/or license IP, as well as those who are associated with these companies or individuals. This can then lead to downsizing or cutting jobs, further harming American science and technology industries. It is for this reason that the US responded so strongly against the evidence of IP theft.

In response to the accusations from the US, Chinese President Xi Jinping promised to resolve the “reasonable concerns” of the US regarding IP practices. The Chinese government announced punishments that could restrict Chinese companies from state funding support due to IP theft and at the G20 Summit in December 2018, the Presidents of the two nations agreed to a 90-day financial truce, which will end March 1, 2019. 

The two countries are currently working on a trade deal to end the escalating tariffs, which would lessen tensions between the world’s two largest economies. The US wants China to commit to buying more American goods and services, and to agree to end the practice of requiring American companies to give technology transfers in order to do business in China. Without hashing out details, China has agreed to increase imports of U.S. agriculture, energy, industrial products and services. Delegations from the two countries will meet again in mid-February in China to continue negotiating. Trump was optimistic that the two nations would be able to make a deal before the deadline, saying, “I believe that a lot of the biggest points are going to be agreed to by me and him.”  

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 7, 2019 at 9:39 pm