Posts Tagged ‘research’
Science Policy Around the Web, November 16, 2021
By Trisha Tucholski, PhD
OCD drug shows promise against COVID-19
Researchers reported that administering an antidepressant drug to patients with COVID-19 significantly reduced their risk of being hospitalized. The antidepressant fluvoxamine is commonly prescribed to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The randomized and controlled trial took place in Brazil and included 1500 unvaccinated participants, all of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and had at least one preexisting condition that put them at a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19. Half of the participants received the fluvoxamine within 7 days of the onset of symptoms and the other half received a placebo. The participants in the treatment group were found to be 32% less likely to be hospitalized. The risk for the trial participants who took fluvoxamine according to doctors’ instructions (at least 80% of the time) were 66% less likely to be hospitalized. One patient in the treatment group died, compared to 12 in the placebo groups. Aside from its use as an antidepressant and treatment for OCD, fluvoxamine has also been shown to have antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antiplatelet activity. Its mechanism of action for treating COVID-19 is not currently understood and the trial did not include vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections, but experts agree the results of the study are exciting because fluvoxamine is widely available and inexpensive.
(By Meredith Wadman, Science)
Science Policy Around the Web, November 11, 2021
By Anika V. Prabhu, PhD
USDA hands out funding for National Institute for Cellular Agriculture
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has granted Tufts University in Boston $10 million over five years to establish a National institute for Cellular Agriculture. Cellular agriculture is the production of animal-based products from cell culture rather than directly from animals and traditional farming. While this includes products such as dairy, eggs and leather, the major focus has remained on cultured or “lab-grown” meat.
Cellular agriculture is an expanding field internationally, particularly as a feasible solution to address the global demand for meat in an environmentally friendly manner. With the global population expected to reach 10 billion by 2050, total food and meat production must increase by 70% and 100%, respectively.
The existing US food production system faces many challenges in meeting food demands such as limited water and land, effects of extreme climate events on harvests, and significant wasting of food due to supply chain issues. The long-term goals of the project from Tufts University involve developing novel food production systems to help meet food demands and reduce environmental footprints.
In April this year, Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Rosa DeLauro had called on the government to increase funding into alternative protein research stating that “these technologies can play an important role in combatting climate change and adding resiliency to our food system”.
This grant is part of a larger $146 million investment from the USDA into sustainable agriculture research. This larger initiative is funding 15 different projects across the country to support and develop long-term improvements in agricultural practices and food supply to benefit conusmers, famers and the environment.
(New Food Magazine)
Science Policy Around the Web September 30th, 2021
By Anika V. Prabhu, PhD
How to stop ‘helicopter research colonization’
A recent paper in the journal PLOS Computational Biology is promoting ten rules to avoid ‘helicopter research’ – a practice where researchers from wealthier countries utilize collaborations, samples, and skills from researchers in countries with less STEM funding without appropriate acknowledgement.
Also known as ‘neo-colonial research’, the study argues that helicopter research often arises due to power imbalances. For example, researchers from high-impact STEM countries may often set the research agenda based on the priorities of their funding agencies, which typically dwarf the grant funding available in other countries. Subsequently, co-authorship is often not offered to their collaborators despite their essential contributions that may include project planning, knowledge of local biodiversity, and access to samples.
Briefly, the ten rules outlined in this study include:
- Establish “win-win” collaborations and equal partnerships
- Actively reach out to initiate collaborations [with underfunded international researchers]
- Establish collaborations that are synergistic
- Abide by local written and unwritten rules
- Recognize and embrace differences in working culture
- Instill non-colonial collaborative research practices early on
- Use local infrastructure
- Incorporate a capacity building component
- Be ethical and fair about publications and authorship
- Make your research available through local dissemination
Increasingly, research institutes, communities representing indigenous populations, and journals are recognizing and taking steps to avoid the unfair practices involved in helicopter research. For example, PLOS recently announced a new policy to improve transparency and inclusivity in studies performing global research. Potential authors can be asked to complete a questionnaire to identify and acknowledge contributions more accurately. As stated by Adriana Romero-Olivares – the senior author of this study – “Putting an end to helicopter research means that you’re also contributing to the strengthening of science in [underfunded countries]”.
(Helen Mendes, SciDev.Net)
Science Policy Around the Web February 2, 2021
By Andrew Wright, BSc
Court tosses Trump EPA’s ‘secret science’ rule
Following a rocky and uncertain start, a broad expansion, and strong pushback from the EPA’s science advisory office, the Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (STRS), also known as the ‘secret science’ rule, has met its end in federal court.
District Judge Brian Morris granted a motion by the EPA, now under the Biden administration, to vacate the rule in concordance with claims brought in the final days of the Trump administration by the Environmental Defense Fund. The ruling was largely procedural, noting that because the STRS was a substantive rule and not merely a procedural one, the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by publishing the rule immediately on January 6th, instead of after the requisite 30 days.
This regulatory shift, originally proposed in 2018 by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and then bolstered by his successor Andrew Wheeler, would have substantially reduced the EPA’s ability to use scientific studies to inform policy if their raw data was not made publicly available. The general public, public interest groups, and medical associations panned the proposal as a thinly veiled attempt at weakening the EPA’s capacity as a scientifically informed regulatory agency.
According to a dissent by outgoing director of the EPA science advisory office, Thomas Sinks, existing privacy laws would have necessarily invalidated a trove of scientific studies, such as the seminal ‘Six Cities Study’ in 1993 that demonstrated a link between air pollution and premature death.
A current EPA spokesperson said they were ‘pleased’ with the decision.
(The Hill, Rachel Frazin)
Science Policy Around the Web December 3, 2020
By Andrew M. Wright, BSc
E.P.A.’s Final Deregulatory Rush Runs into Open Staff Resistance
The final stage of the Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (STRS) rules, known colloquially as ‘secret science’ rules, is running into a barrier that may cause complications for its enactment in the next federal administration.
These rules, which the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) originally proposed in early 2018 under its previous administrator Scott Pruitt, would dismiss or give less weight to studies that do not release their raw data to the public. While the original secret science rules only applied to dose-response toxicity studies, the current version applies to all scientific studies used by the EPA and is retroactive. These expanded rules are seemingly crafted around the ‘Six Cities Study’ from Harvard in 1993 (and a similar study by the American Cancer Society in 1995) that demonstrated a link between air pollution and premature deaths, and that involved confidentiality agreements with the individuals studied. Under this new framework, air pollution regulations that rely on that study, or others like it, could be prevented from being implemented or could be reversed by EPA administrators and US courts.
While there has been enormous public opposition to these rules by the general public, public interest groups, and medical associations, there has more recently emerged internal criticism by the EPA’s science advisory office that is staffed by career scientists. In an official ‘dissenting scientific opinion,’ the director of the science advisory office, Thomas Sinks, stated that existing medical privacy regulation including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) would cause STRS rules to invalidate relevant scientific studies and ‘compromise the scientific integrity of our scientists, the validity of our rulemaking, and possibly the health of the American People.’ This could allow the next administration to more easily reverse the secret science rules after they are enacted in the upcoming months prior to inauguration.
(Lisa Friedman, New York Times)
Nature’s Open Access Deal
Science Policy Around the Web October 20, 2020
By Dorothy Butler, PhD
Nature family of journals inks first open-access deal with institution
Open access refers to free and open online access to academic information, most typically related to publications. Many journal articles and scientific publications require some type of subscription to be able to access the content of the article. One of the advantages of open-access publishing is that research articles and scientific findings are available to a wider audience, which increases the visibility and potentially the growth of scientific information.
A negotiation between the Nature family of journals and Max Planck Digital Library in Germany led to an arrangement that will allow researchers at institutions across Germany to publish an unlimited number of accepted open access articles. These articles will still have to go through the typical review process but will be immediately available to the public instead of just to those that have a subscription to the Nature group.
Each institution that decides to participate will pay a flat fee that reflects the cost of publishing each paper instead of the typical subscription fees. Often it is the authors that pay the fees for publishing open access articles, but in this deal, it will be the institutions instead. Researchers at the institutions will still have their normal “subscription” access to read the journals in the Nature family.
While this deal is a step in the right direction for proponents of expanding open access options, it is currently limited to those institutions in Germany who can pay the fee associated with this deal. As open access continues to grow, it will be necessary to consider researchers in developing countries or at institutions that cannot afford these fees.
(Jeffrey Brainard, Science)
The good, the bad or the ugly? – The relationship between the U.S. and China prior and during Covid-19
By Julia Lederhofer, PhD
From a trade war to an increasingly adversarial pandemic response, the U.S. and China find themselves in an increasingly strained diplomatic relationship. With every hurdle — either naturally arising or self-inflicted — both nations’ instinct is to blame the other. Can both countries leave their pride and nationalism behind and foster a spirit of cooperation, or is the world fated for another cold war?
Since the Maoist revolution and China’s embrace of communism in 1949, the two nations have pursued antithetical world orders. Ensuing diplomatic relations ranged from tense standoffs to a complex mix of antagonistic diplomacy, growing rivalry, and economic interdependence. After over half a century, the U.S.-China relationship has evolved into a normalized trade relation – punctuated by then president Bill Clinton signing the U.S.-China Relations Act in October 2000. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization. By 2010, China was the world’s second largest economy. It trailed only the US, and economic forecasts predicted even the unequaled American economy would be surpassed by 2027. Unsurprisingly, tensions between China and the West arose.
In 2012 the U.S., EU and Japan filed a request for consultations with China at the World Trade Organization because of their restrictions on exporting earth metals. They stated that China violated international trade norms. In the following years, then U.S. President Barack Obama and the Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed on establishing a new type of relationship for the U.S. and China. Their aim was to ease the U.S./China tense relationship by solving bilateral, regional and global issues in a friendly manner. In 2017, the U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross unveiled a ten-part agreement between Beijing and Washington, which contained the expansion of trade products like beef, poultry and electronic payments. However, the countries did not address other trade issues that were still unresolved from the Barack Obama era, like aluminum, steel or car parts. In 2018, President Donald Trump changed course from his predecessor by announcing extensive tariffs on Chinese imports, which lead to a U.S.-China Trade War escalation. Fast forward to May 2019, the Trump administration continued to sweep tariffs from 10 to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. China reciprocated by increasing tariffs on $60 billion worth of American goods. Days after the heated discussion, the Trump administration banned U.S. companies from using foreign-made telecommunications equipment, as they believe that they could threaten national security. Many think that this was a move to target Huawei. Moreover, Huawei was added to the foreign entity blacklist by the U.S. Commerce Department. Tensions between the U.S. and China continued, but early in January 2020, President Trump and the Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed the ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal agreement, a final breakthrough in the almost two year trade war between the two big fish. The deal lowered, amongst other things, some of the U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports and commits China to buying an additional $200 billion worth of American goods over the next two years. The years-long trade war that threatened the entire global economy finally had an end in sight. The positive undercurrent of two once again friendly superpowers, however, would be short lived. The world quickly entered a new economic, and health, crisis – the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Beginning in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019, the novel coronavirus quickly spread, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a global pandemic in March (11th, 2020). China and the U.S. were quick to blame each other as the pandemic worsened. China leveled the claim that the U.S. military brought the virus to China, while President Trump accused China of not reporting the “Chinese virus” earlier, therefore failing to prevent the pandemic. The Trump administration turned its ire towards the WHO. The Trump administration cut funding and alleged the international organization showed bias towards China. By April, the drama ventured into the absurd. The Trump administration reported that they have evidence that the Coronavirus was human made in a Chinese laboratory and purposely released. In response, Beijing published an article denying everything from claims that they under-reported case numbers, to allegations the virus spread from eating bats. In China’s eyes, they were merely the first to suffer from the virus. China portrays itself as a model in how to combat the virus and offers the world a source of medical equipment. Whether any of the political grandstanding by either side has convinced their own citizens, let alone the outside world, remains to be seen. Outside of their respective homelands both countries’ claims fall on deaf ears. The general consensus holds China responsible for mishandling the early stages of the outbreak, as well as outright denials, withholdings and cover-ups. The U.S.’s claim that the virus was produced in a lab has been repeatedly debunked, and the move to cut WHO funding has been met with widespread criticism.
The coronavirus has pushed the U.S.-China relationship, the most important world’s powerful economic relationship, to a precipice, with the ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal agreement dangling over the edge. The mudslinging over the origins of the coronavirus will not help and will only distract from the challenging health crisis, which is coupled with the biggest hit to the global economy since the Great Depression. Both China and the U.S. cannot risk any further destabilization of their economies and must look to rebuild trust. The first major test could come as early as December 2022. Under the Phase One agreement, China is committed to buying $200 billion additional goods and services on agriculture, energy and manufacturing. Due to the pandemic, China will almost certainly miss this target by December 2022. The U.S.’s response will dictate the future. Time will tell if both countries’ leaders are willing to end the blame game and begin to restore trust. The truth of the early days of the pandemic outbreak may never be known, but one can only hope that both political leaders will be able to forget their conflicts for the name of peace and prosperity for the whole world.
Science Policy Around the Web March 12th, 2020
By Ben Wolfson PhD
Fired cancer scientist says ‘good people are being crushed’ by overzealous probes into possible Chinese ties
Recent months have seen major developments in the FBI and NIH’s investigation into ties between U.S. research labs and China, with the highest profile case to date alleging that the head of the Harvard Chemistry Department misled Harvard, the DoD, and the NIH about his financial and scientific ties with China.
NIH has contacted over 60 institutions concerning funding received by 180 different researchers from China, leading to the ouster of multiple researchers accused of violating NIH rules. Of the 180 different investigations, 24 have progressed to criminal inquiries. These investigations have been prompted by congressional interest into whether China is taking advantage of the open American research system, resulting in what adds up to scientific and economic espionage.
One such researcher, Pearlie Epling-Burnette was instructed to resign alongside 5 other senior researchers by the Moffit Cancer Center. She believes that the NIH campaign has been overly zealous, and that scientists who have done nothing wrong are being ousted by research institutions afraid of crossing the NIH.
Many of the accusations involve participation in China’s 1000 Talents program, which recruits top scientists from around the world to bring their expertise to Chinese research institutions. However Epling-Brunette asserts that while she applied for 1000 Talents, she was never accepted and never held any position in China. Importantly, neither Epling-Burnette nor other scientist ousted by Moffit have been accused of intellectual property theft or of violating NIH reporting rules.
In February, House Representatives Jame Raskin and Judy Chu launched an investigation into the NIH and FBI’s probes, questioning whether they were specifically targeting Chinese-American scientists as potential spies. However, others have pointed to the Moffit firings as evidence that this is not the case. It is clear that more transparency into the investigations is necessary to determine the full extent of Chinese scientific relationships.
(Jeffrey Mervis, Science)
Science Policy Around the Web January 31st, 2020
By Kellsye Fabian, MS, PhD
Acclaimed Harvard Scientist Is Arrested, Accused Of Lying About Ties To China
Dr. Charles Lieber, the chair of Harvard University’s Department of Chemisty and Chemical biology, was arrested and criminally charged on January 28, 2020 for making a false statement to federal investigators about his financial relationship with the Chinese government. The prominent nanoscience researcher is one of the highest-profile scientists to be caught up in a string of investigations on China’s alleged scheme to abuse the open and collaborative research environment in the US to their economic and military advantage.
According to a press release from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Dr. Lieber has received more than $15M in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD) since 2008. Recipients of federal grants are required to disclose financial conflicts of interest including financial support from foreign governments. In 2011, Dr. Lieber became a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT), and from 2012-2017 he was a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan. Through this program, he was entitled to a $50,000 monthly salary, $150,000 in annual living expenses and $1.5M to establish a second lab at WUT. Dr. Lieber’s work for WUT included “declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and PhD students, organizing international conferences, applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of WUT.”
The criminal complaint against Dr. Lieber alleges that he lied about his participation in the Thousands Talents Plan and his affiliation with WUT. In April 2018, he told DOD investigators that while he was aware of the Thousand Talents Plan, he was never asked to participate in it.
The Thousand Talents Plan is one China’s most prominent recruitment plans that aims to attract and employ high-level scientific talents from other countries to advance China’s scientific and economice development and national security. FBI investigations have shown that participants of China’s Thousand Talents Plan and other similar recruitment programs have often been incentivized to transfer research and proprietary information that they have generated or accessed in the United States to China. In some cases, this practice is in violation of US laws, including economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and grant fraud.
Harvard, which was unaware of Dr. Lieber’s participation in the Thousand Talents Plan, said that it is cooperating with federal authorites and initiating its own review of the alleged misconduct. Harvard placed Dr. Lieber on indefinite leave.
Separately, the DOJ has also charged two other researchers involved in Chinese economic espionage.
Yanqing Ye, a student at Boston University, was charged with lying on her visa application and failing to disclose that she was a lieutenant in China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). While studying in the Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering, Ye allegedly performed numerous assignments for PLA such as conducting research, assessing U.S. military websites and sending U.S. documents and information to China. Ye is currently in China.
Zaosong Zheng, a cancer researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, was arrested last month on charges of smuggling and making false statements. It is alleged that he stole 21 vials of biological research materials and was caught with the vials at the Boston Logan Airport on his way to China. Zheng stated that he intended to use the materials to conduct research in China in his own laboratory.
These three charges are part of the continuing crackdown on researchers working with the Chinese government.
(Bill Chappell, NPR)
Science Policy Around the Web October 11th, 2019
By Ben Wolfson PhD
Massive California power outage triggers chaos in science labs
On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, upwards of 600,000 California residents lost power when Pacific Gas & Electric, the state’s largest utility company, instituted rolling blackout. Due to high winds, PG&E worried that keeping power on could result in sparking and increased risk of wildfires.
PG&E has been found to be liable for approximately two dozen wildfires, including the deadly 2018 Camp Fire, and filed for bankruptcy in January of 2018 due to the lawsuits it faced. The weeks rolling blackouts were instituted in an attempt to prevent further wildfires. State Senator Jerry Hill (D-CA), stated that the decision to target such large numbers of people for blackouts demonstrated the serious risk of fire, but also showed that PG&E has so far failed to improve the safety of their power system.
In addition to affecting residential customers, the rolling blackouts have also thrown scientists and research labs into disarray as they struggle to protect valuable reagents and samples. Many labs have limited or no access to backup power, meaning items that must be refrigerated or frozen are at risk of being lost when they increase in temperature. In addition, tissue culture requires a stable environment maintained by a powered incubator, and laboratory animals need filtration and temperature control systems that may be shut off in light of power loss.
While California has always had high risks of wildfires, the warming climate has increased the chance and frequency of deadly fires. California’s annual burned area has increased 5-fold since 1972, and 7/10 of the most destructive fires have occurred in the last decade.
(Jeff Tollefson, Nature)
Science Policy For All 