Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘science diplomacy

Science Policy Around the Web – June 16, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

Source: pixabay

Science and Politics

Politics in Science – It’s Not Just the U.S.!

Romania is a country in eastern Europe that joined the European Union (EU) in 2007. Scientists there are few and far between; research spending only accounts for 0.49% of GDP, the lowest in Europe (the US spent 2.7% in 2016). After joining the EU, Romanian researchers were encouraged to apply for European merit-based grants and sit on international review boards such as the National Research Council and the National Council of Ethics. It seemed that research was making slow but steady progress, but the new administration elected this year has shaken things up in all facets of government, including scientific research.

The new research minister, Serban Valeca, removed the international members appointed to government councils that oversee research funding, ethics, innovation and science policy, and replaced them with city council members, government-loyal union members, researchers from second tier Romanian institutes and even a surgeon being investigated for embezzlement. Grant review panels have been shuffled to remove international scientists and replace them with domestic researchers, but only if they have a certificate saying their university approves of their participation. These changes mark a departure from welcoming international input into Romanian proceedings and a movement towards scientific isolation.

To combat these changes, Romanian scientists have formed an organization, Ad Astra, which calls on researchers to boycott grant evaluations. Combined with the shuffling, the councils have been suspended for 3 months, which delays funding and puts already under-funded researchers in peril. The European University Association calls the policies deeply concerning, and although the current president may disagree with the research minister’s handling of the situation, his political ties ensure he won’t hold much sway over how this plays out. A computer scientist at the University Politehnica in Bucharest, Costin Raiciu, is concerned that the policies will affect talented researchers who have returned to Romania and says, “Without [merit-based] funding, people would either give up research altogether or move out of the country”. This is an all too familiar scenario in which it is apparent that policy and science must cooperate to produce ideal outcomes. (Alexandra Nistoroiu, ScienceInsider)

Mental Health

Clinical Trials Down, Basic Research Up at NIMH

Mental health is a notoriously tricky field. The development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the 1950s has historically been a way to diagnose patients with mental health issues, and then give appropriate treatment. This has proved to be an imprecise treatment strategy, because within a category of diagnosis there is a broad spectrum of behaviors, and underlying this behavior there may be multiple causes. The NIH’s Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) seeks to characterize 1,000,000 people by behavior, genetics, environment, and physiology. Researchers from the NIMH will send questionnaires evaluating behavior to detect mood and reward responses for this group of people. When this mental health evaluation is combined with information about their genetics, lifestyle and environment, scientists can characterize mental health disorders more specifically.

Many clinician researchers are upset by the steep decline in clinical trial research funded by NIMH, which has become higher profile with director Joshua Gordon’s arrival in 2016. NIMH seeks to route funding to study mental disorders using a basic research approach before spending time and money on costly clinical trials which too often lead to inconclusive or disappointing results. In 2011 NIMH launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which encourages research proposals to include a hunt for the mechanism underlying mental health studies. Since the initial call to include a RDoC perspective in grant applications, the incidence of RDoC appearing in funded applications has increased while mention of the DSM has decreased. Other buzzwords that are present in funded grants include biomarker, circuit, target and mechanism.

These data represent a shift in how funding decisions will proceed in mental health but may have broader reaching implications for other areas of research. In a blog post Dr. Gordon writes, “the idea that RDoC will facilitate rapid, robust and reproducible neurobiological explanations for psychopathology (as observed within and across DSM disorders) represents a hypothesis”. It remains to be seen if RDoC is an effective metric to evaluate successful grants. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)

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

Sickle Cell Disease in Sub-Saharan Africa: Using Science Diplomacy to Promote Global Health

leave a comment »

By: Steven Brooks, PhD

         Science diplomacy is an important conduit through which nations can cooperate with each other to help address issues of common concern. Establishing international collaborations based on scientific research and resource sharing can be a valuable tool to promote advances in global health and to help foster research communities in developing nations. In 2001, Nelson Mandela proposed a model for building and advancing a network of institutions investing in Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET) across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to enhance economic diversification, promote job growth, and improve living conditions for peoples across the region. Since then, significant strides have been made by many international organizations, including the World Health Organization, World Bank, and United Nations, to invest in SET institutions and researchers across SSA. Much work is still needed, however, to address the significant global health disparities affecting SSA. According to the United Nations Development Programme, life expectancy in SSA is on average only 46 years. Among the largest contributory factors to this gap is HIV/AIDS, but non-communicable diseases and genetic conditions such as Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) contribute as well. SCD in particular offers a stark geographic contrast in disease outcome: in the United States, childhood mortality (up to age 18) from SCD is below 10%, while in SSA the early childhood mortality rate is 50-90% by age 5. This drastic difference in childhood mortality from SCD raises an important question- why is the difference in mortality rates so large, and what can be done to eliminate it?

SCD represents a significant public health success in the United States. From the early 1970s, average life expectancy of people with SCD has substantially increased from 14 years of age to over 40 years, and childhood mortality rates have continued to decline. These vast improvements in SCD mortality in the US are attributable to improvements in screening and early diagnosis, as well as surveillance for early childhood infections and prophylactic treatments.  Availability of therapies like hydroxyurea and access to blood transfusions have also contributed to reducing childhood mortality, while several currently ongoing clinical trials in the US are testing the use of bone marrow transplantation as a curative procedure for patients with severe complications of SCD. While the best practices for diagnosing and treating SCD are well-established in developed nations, lack of global implementation has meant that these advances in treatment have had very limited effect on reducing mortality and improving quality of life in developing nations. More than 85% of all new SCD cases occur in SSA, with over 240,000 infants with SCD born in SSA annually (compared to less than 2,000 in the US). Many nations in SSA do not have the resources or personnel to implement protocols for screening and diagnosis, and many children are born outside of hospitals. As a result, most children born with SCD in SSA will go undiagnosed, and therefore untreated, leading to devastatingly high rates of early childhood mortality for children with SCD.

The disparity in health outcomes between children born with SCD in developed nations and developing nations in SSA should be addressed through science diplomacy. An opportunity exists for diplomatic cooperation between scientists and health officials from the US and their counterparts in SSA to build infrastructure and train researchers and healthcare professionals to diagnose, treat, and innovate new solutions for SCD. The crucial first steps towards improving outcomes in SCD – parental and newborn screening, early childhood nutrition standards, parental and community education, and anti-bacterial and anti-viral vaccinations and prophylaxis – are achievable through diplomatic efforts and collaboration with governmental health agencies across SSA. Proof of this concept has been demonstrated in Bamako, Mali, with the success of the CRLD (The Center for Sickle Cell Disease Research and Control), a SCD-specific treatment and research center that reflects an effort of the government of Mali, with funding and medical resources provided by the Foundation Pierre Fabre. The CRLD utilizes modern diagnostic techniques to screen for SCD. It also provides immunizations, hospitalizations, and access to preventive medicine, and provides education and outreach to patients and to the larger community. Historically, the infant mortality rate from SCD in Mali was estimated to be 50% by age 5. Since the opening of the CRLD in 2005, only 81 of the over 6,000 patients enrolled at CRLD have died, a mortality rate for this cohort that is comparable to rates in the US and UK. The CRLD also has modern laboratories that conduct research, with over 20 academic papers published from the CRLD so far. The ongoing success of the CRLD is proof that investment in, and collaboration with, governments and medical professionals in Africa can lead to equitable health outcomes in SCD. Similar investments by the US government and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), possibly through intramural research programs, and in cooperation with health-focused private foundations, could lead to similar success stories in communities across SSA.

The NIH supports and facilitates collaborations in global health research through the NIH Fogarty International Center (FIC), which currently sponsors projects in 20 countries across SSA. NIH has also invested intramural resources into collaborations in SSA to combat Malaria. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) trains and sponsors investigators to independently conduct research in Mali (NIAID’s Mali ICER (International Centers of Excellence in Research)). Despite its significant history of investment in SSA, the NIH offers almost no international support for research related to SCD. The NIH FIC only currently funds one project related to SCD, preventing pediatric stroke in Nigerian Children. The Division of Intramural Research at the NIH is currently home to robust basic science and clinical-translational research on SCD. Intramural researchers can and should collaborate with clinicians and scientists from SSA who will lead the effort to combat SCD in their home nations. More broadly, the NIH could spearhead an initiative to bring together stakeholders from the US government, health ministries from nations in SSA, and private foundations that support efforts to reduce or eradicate global disease, to begin establishing a network of laboratory and clinical facilities for testing and treatment, as well as to train clinicians and researchers from SSA in diagnostic and research techniques specific to SCD, and to design and disseminate educational resources for increasing communal knowledge regarding SCD across SSA.

In addition to significantly improving SCD mortality and health outcomes in SSA, these efforts of science diplomacy will have substantial benefits in the US as well. The US is home to a sizeable, and growing population of people living with SCD. As life expectancy continues to increase, new challenges will arise for effectively treating serious complications associated with SCD, such as renal disease, stroke, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathy, and pulmonary hypertension. By collaborating with researchers and healthcare leaders studying large populations of people with SCD in SSA, the NIH will foster innovation and generate new insights about SCD that are uniquely informed by the data and perspectives of African scientists and populations. The NIH and the US government can establish a mutually beneficial program of treatment, education, and research that will enable developing nations to treat their patients with the same methods available in the US. Investing in 21st century methods of diagnosis and treatment, as well as contributing funding, training, and infrastructure to clinicians and researchers in SSA, can strengthen diplomatic relationships between governmental leaders and scientists alike and lead to lasting collaborations that strengthens research and innovation into new treatments for SCD.

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

March 3, 2017 at 9:21 am

Science Policy Around the Web – October 18, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Agila Somasundaram, PhD

Source: WHO

Global Health

Why is the news about TB so bad?

The Global Tuberculosis Report released recently by the World Health Organization (WHO) reveals that the Tuberculosis (TB) epidemic is larger than previously estimated. TB has generally been considered a disease of the past, but the new report estimates that around 10.4 million people were infected in 2015, 480,000 of the new cases being multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). TB claimed on average more than 34,000 lives a week, exceeding the death toll by Ebola. 60 % of the new cases were seen in India, Indonesia, China, Nigeria, Pakistan and South Africa.

TB is especially difficult to combat in the developing world, for many reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to accurately estimate the number of TB cases. For example, WHO estimates that about half of the TB cases in India are not reported to health authorities. In parts of Central Africa, the lack of resources to carry out large-scale surveys results in insufficient data on the epidemic. Secondly, crowded living conditions and poor nutrition make people more susceptible to the disease. TB is also financially draining on the families of those infected, resulting in poor treatment. Thirdly, new drugs (Bedaquiline, Delamanid) that have been developed to treat MDR-TB are being used very cautiously to avoid the development of drug-resistance and side effects. And last, current efforts to cure TB are focused on symptomatic cases, and not pre-symptomatic or early stage cases.

The WHO report states, “Global actions and investments fall far short of those needed to end the global TB epidemic.” Dr. Margaret Chan, Director General of WHO said, “We face an uphill battle to reach the global targets for tuberculosis. There must be a massive scale-up of efforts, or countries will continue to run behind this deadly epidemic…” (Rina Shaikh-Lesko, NPR)

Science Diplomacy

U.S. and Cuban biomedical researchers are free to collaborate

The United States reconciled with Cuba in 2014, and has been removing several sanctions since then. Along with ease of trade and travel between the two countries, scientists from the two nations can now collaborate more easily with each other. Earlier, scientists in the US had to go through a “a very involved and detailed process” with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to get a license to conduct research with Cuban scientists, and these licenses typically lasted only a year or two. Also, what kinds of collaborations were permissible was unclear under the old rules.

Both the US and Cuban scientists welcome the new move. Dr. Pedro Valdés-Sosa, research director at the Cuban Neuroscience Center in Havana said on his visit to the US, “…Everywhere I went there were concrete ideas for collaborations that would benefit the people of both countries. These new measures pave the way for cooperation.” Also, Cuban scientists can now receive research funding from the US government, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can review drugs developed in Cuba, and FDA-approved drugs can be imported from Cuba and sold in the US. Dr. Thomas Schwaab of Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York wonders whether Cuban scientists who have ongoing collaborations with scientists in other parts of the world would welcome working with the US, given that they were shunned for so long. But the Cuban scientists “are very proud of what they’ve achieved,” says Dr. Schwaab. (Richard Stone, Science)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 18, 2016 at 9:00 am

Science Diplomacy Between the US and Cuba

with one comment

By: Steven Witte, B.Sc.

Photo source: pixabay.com

Located less than 90 miles apart, Cuba and the United States share many of the same environmental and public health challenges. Invasive species such as lionfish, African catfish, and marabou are threatening native species. Oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico poses a potential risk for an environmental disaster, and tourism is threatening coral reefs and other important ecosystems. And recently, the Zika virus and chikungunya have been spreading throughout the Caribbean. It is predicted the viruses may make their way to Cuba and eventually even parts of the United States. By working together, these two countries could develop better strategies to solve these problems. But cooperation between the US and Cuba has been extremely difficult for several decades because of strained relations between the two nations.

In the past, American and Cuban scientists have successfully collaborated together. In the mid-nineteenth century, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, established ties with two Cuban institutions in Havana: the Economic Society of Friends of the Country, and the Royal Academy of Medical, Physical, and Natural Sciences. Soon after, Jesse Lazear and Carlos Finlay, scientists from the USA and Cuba, respectively, collaboratively made crucial discoveries concerning the transmission of yellow fever, leading to effective preventive measures. During the Cold War, however, diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba were severed. Further, embargoes were put in place preventing trade between the countries. As a result, Cuba could no longer receive funding or equipment from the United States, except in very specific circumstances. It also became difficult for American scientists to travel to Cuba for meetings, thus affecting scientific relationships.

Re-establishing scientific collaborations with Cuba would benefit both the US and Cuba in a number of ways. Vaccines or drugs are currently unavailable for Zika and Chikungunya viruses, and the best option is to closely monitor the spread of these diseases. Sharing data with Cuba, which already has observation programs in place, would help identify outbreaks and develop responses. The Cuban biotechnology industry has many products that could be used by Americans – for example, Cuba is an important producer of vaccines, exporting them to many other countries. More recently, a company in Cuba has developed a drug for treating severe diabetic foot ulcers, which can prevent the need for amputations. Other companies have products to prevent or treat many diseases that impact U.S agriculture and cattle, such as a vaccine for serious tick infestations. Cuba would benefit from scientific expertise in America, as well as funding and equipment that could be provided, as many of the research institutions in Cuba currently operate on small budgets. Allowing Cuban scientists to attend conferences in America would provide a healthy exchange of knowledge and expertise.

Over the past several decades, many attempts have been made to re-establish scientific relationships with Cuba. During President Jimmy Carter’s administration, the National Science Foundation (NSF) considered establishing links with Cuban research institutions and tried to finance joint research projects, but these goals were never realized. More recently, the Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has made several visits to Cuba to promote scientific cooperation. In 2014, the AAAS and the Cuban Academy of Sciences signed a historic agreement in which both organizations agreed to work together on four scientific areas: infectious diseases, cancer, antimicrobial resistance, and neuroscience. Following this agreement, Cuban and American scientists met in Washington, DC, and discussed plans to create further agreements on collaborations for ocean science research and conservation. In 2015, President Barack Obama’s administration re-established diplomatic ties with Cuba. Although this is beneficial for fostering scientific relationships, many barriers still remain. The trade embargo is still in effect, for example, and it is still difficult for scientists to travel to Cuba. However, progress has been made. The United States has enacted policy to allow Cubans to get educational grants and scholarships. And scientific equipment can now be donated to Cuba, unless it has potential military applications.

Going forward, several ideas have been proposed to foster scientific relationships between Cuba and the United States. High-level governmental agreements could go a long way in enabling scientific collaboration. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that work internationally in partnership with governments to try and solve global problems could also catalyze shared scientific programs. For example, the Clinton Climate Initiative has partnered with the governments of several island nations and helped them reduce their dependence on fossil fuels by using renewable energy. Others have suggested that the United States shut down its Naval base in Guantánamo Bay, and re-purpose the facilities as a marine research institution and peace park.

Regardless of the form it takes, cooperation between scientists in Cuba and the United States could benefit both countries as they address emerging environmental, public health, and biomedical problems. In addition, cooperation through science could pave the way to peaceful cooperation in other arenas between both countries, as they re-establish connections following several decades of unfavorable relations.

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 18, 2016 at 9:00 am

Posted in Essays

Tagged with ,

Broadening the Debate: Societal Discussions on Human Genetic Editing

leave a comment »

By: Courtney Pinard, Ph.D.

Licensed via Creative Commons

In one of the most impressive feats of synthetic biology so far, researchers have harnessed the ability of bacteria to fight and destroy viruses, and have been able to precisely and cheaply edit genetic code using a genetic technology called clustered, regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated endonuclease protein 9 (Cas9). CRISPR has been used to find and detect mutations related to some of the world’s most deadly diseases, such as HIV and malaria. Although CRISPR holds great promise for treating disease, it raises numerous bioethical concerns, which were sparked by the first report of deliberate editing of the DNA of human embryos by Chinese researchers. Previous blog posts have described scientific discussion surrounding the promise of CRISPR. At least three scientific research papers per day are published using this technique, and biotech companies have already begun to invest in CRISPR to modify disease-related genes. However, the use of CRISPR, or any genetic editing technology, to permanently alter the genome of human embryos is an issue of concern to a much broader range of stakeholders, including clinicians, policymakers, international governments, advocacy groups, and the public at large. As CRISPR moves us forward into the realm of the newly possible, the larger global, social and policy implications deserve thorough consideration and discussion. Policies on human genetic editing should encourage extensive international cooperation, and require clear communication between scientists and the rest of society.

There is no question that CRISPR has the potential to help cure disease, both indirectly and directly. CRISPR won the Science Breakthrough of the Year for 2015, in part, for the creation of a “gene drive” designed to reprogram mosquito genomes to eliminate malaria. Using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, investigators at the Universities of California (UC) have engineered transgenic Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes to carry an anti-malaria parasite effector gene. This genetic tool could help wipe out the malaria pathogen within a targeted mosquito population, by spreading the dominant malaria-resistant gene in 99.5% of progeny. The gene snipping precision of CRISPR can also treat certain genetic diseases directly, such as certain cancers, and sickle cell disease. CRISPR can even be used to cut HIV out of the human genome, and prevent subsequent HIV infection.

There are limitations of CRISPR, which include the possibility of off-target genetic alterations, and unintended consequences of on-target alterations. For example, the embryos used in the Chinese study described above, were non-viable, less than 50% were edited, and some embryos started to divide before the edits were complete. Within a single embryo, some cells were edited, while other cells were not. In addition, researchers found lack of specificity; the target gene was inserted into DNA at the wrong locus. Little is known about the physiology of cells and tissues that have undergone genome editing, and there is evidence that complete loss of a gene could lead to compensatory adaptation in cells over time.

Another issue of concern is that CRISPR could lead scientists down the road to eugenics. On May 14th 2015, Stanford’s Center for Law and the Biosciences and Stanford’s Phi Beta Kappa Chapter co-hosted a panel discussion on editing the human germline genome, entitled Human Germline Modification: Medicine, Science, Ethics, and Law. Panelist Marcy Darnovsky, from the Center for Genetics and Society, called human germline modification a society-altering technology because of “the potential for a genetics arms race within and between countries, and a future world in which affluent parents purchase the latest upgrades for their offspring.” Because of its potential for dual use, genetic editing was recently declared a weapon of mass destruction.

In response to ethical concerns, the co-inventor of CRISPR, Dr. Jennifer Doudna, called for a self-imposed temporary moratorium on the use of CRISPR on germline cells. Eighteen scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, agreed on the moratorium. Policy recommendations were published in the journal Science. In addition to a moratorium, recommendations include continuing research on the strengths and weaknesses of CRISPR, educating young researchers about these, and holding international meetings with all interested stakeholders to discuss progress and reach agreements on dual use. Not all scientists support such recommendations. Physician and science policy expert Henry Miller disagrees on a moratorium, and argues that it is unfair to restrict the development of CRISPR in germline gene therapy because we would be denying families cures to monstrous genetic diseases.

So far, the ethical debate has been mostly among scientists and academics. In her article published last December in The Hill Congress Blog, Darnovsky asks: “Where are the thought leaders who focus, for example, on environmental protection, disability rights, reproductive rights and justice, racial justice, labor, or children’s welfare?” More of these voices will be heard as social and policy implications catch up with the science.

In early February, the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine held an information-gathering meeting to determine how American public attitudes and decision making intersect with the potential for developing therapeutics using human genetic editing technologies. The Committee’s report on recommendations and public opinion is expected later this year. One future recommendation may be to require Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of genetic editing technology as a part of medical device regulation. Up until recently, the FDA has been slow to approve gene therapy products. Given the fast pace of CRISPR technology development, guidelines on dual use, as determined by recommendations from the National Academies, should be published before the end of the year. So far, U.S. guidelines call for strong discouragement of any attempts at genome modification of reproductive cells for clinical application in humans, until the social, environmental, and ethical implications are broadly discussed among scientific and governmental organizations.

International guidelines on the alteration of human embryos are absolutely necessary to help regulate genetic editing worldwide. According to a News Feature in Nature, many countries, including Japan, India, and China, have no enforceable rules on germline modification. Four laboratories in China, for example, continue to use CRISPR in non-viable human embryonic modification. Societal concerns about designer babies are not new. In the early 2000s, a Council of Europe Treaty on Human Rights and Biomedicine declared human genetic modification off-limits. However, the U.K. now allows the testing of CRISPR on human embryos.

In a global sense, employing tacit science diplomacy to developments in synthetic biology may mitigate unethical use of CRISPR. Tacit science diplomacy is diplomacy that uses honesty, fairness, objectivity, reliability, skepticism, accountability, and openness as common norms of behavior to accomplish scientific goals that benefit all of humanity. The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) is a federal advisory committee that addresses issues related to biosecurity and dual use research at the request of the United States Government. Although NSABB only acts in the U.S., the committee has the capacity to use tacit science diplomacy by providing guidance on CRISPR dual use concerns to both American citizen and foreign national scientists working in the U.S.

Under tacit science diplomacy, scientific studies misusing CRISPR would be condemned in the literature, in government agencies, and in diplomatic venues. Tacit science diplomacy was used when the Indonesian government refused to give the World Health Organization (WHO) samples of the bird flu virus, which temporarily prevented vaccine development. After five years of international negotiations on this issue, a preparedness framework was established that encouraged member states to share vaccines and technologies. A similar preparedness framework could be developed for genetic editing technology.

Institutional oversight and bioethical training for the responsible use of genetic editing technology are necessary, but not sufficient on their own. Tacit science diplomacy can help scientists working in the U.S. and abroad develop shared norms. Promoting international health advocacy and science policy discussions on this topic among scientists, government agencies, industry, advocacy groups, and the public will be instrumental in preventing unintended consequences and dual use of genetic editing technology. 

Written by sciencepolicyforall

March 9, 2016 at 9:01 am

Science Policy Around the Web – August 4, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Elisavet Serti, Ph.D.

“photo credit:CDC Global Health via photopin cc

Global health

Ebola vaccine is ‘potential game-changer’

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently published vaccine trial results in the Lancet and characterized the VSV-EBOV vaccine as a potential “game-changer” in the fight against the Ebola disease. The “remarkable” results that show that the vaccinated participants of the study were subsequently 100% protected against the virus. The vaccine contains a fragment of the Ebola virus on a VSV viral vector in order to train the immune system to recognize Ebola and build “immune memory” against the deadly virus. The trial was based on “ring” strategy, based on that used in smallpox eradication in the 1970s, to test the vaccine’s effectiveness. “The premise is that by vaccinating all people who have come into contact with an infected person you create a protective ‘ring’ and stop the virus from spreading further,” said John-Arne Rottingen of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which had been involved in implementing the trial. This means that when a patient was identified as Ebola-positive, his friends, neighbors and family were vaccinated to create a “protective ring” of immunization. One hundred patients were identified in the trial between April and July and then close contacts were either vaccinated immediately, or three weeks later. In the 2,014 close contacts who were vaccinated immediately there were no subsequent cases of Ebola. In those vaccinated later there were 16 cases, according to the results published in the Lancet medical journal. As a result of these observations, the researchers decided to immediately vaccinate the close contacts of Ebola patients in Guinea, including children based on the safety assessments for this vaccine. Marie-Paule Kieny, an assistant director general at the WHO told BBC News: “It is certainly promising. We have seen that where rings have been vaccinated, the transmission has stopped. (…) When there is a new outbreak this vaccine will be put to use to stop the outbreak as soon as possible to not have the terrible disaster we have now.” (James Gallagher, BBC News)

Science in International Policy

Bridging the Chasm: Why Science and Technology Must Become Priorities for Diplomacy and International Policy

An interesting perspective was recently published by Daryl Copeland in the “Science and Diplomacy”, a quarterly publication from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Center for Science and Diplomacy. Mankind is currently faced with several profound global challenges, such as widespread epidemics and climate change, that require expertise and cooperation on a global scale. The main message of this article was that it is necessary for diplomacy and international policy to incorporate science and technology in order to address the world’s most important problems, such as those affecting the future of our planet. According to Copeland, “science diplomacy is relevant, effective, and potentially transformative. It can play a key role in responding to some of the most elemental challenges facing the international community.” He urged for increased resources, training and prioritization of science diplomacy by governments and international policy organizations. Scientists should be trained properly by policy institutions in order to be understood by the public and the borders of science should broaden in the consulting sector. The scientific culture of evidence-based decision making should be implemented in public administration as it encourages “openness and transparency (through the publication of research findings), merit (through peer review), and civic values and citizen empowerment (…) Science offers a methodology and approach that produces the closest thing we have to proof and truth.” (Daryl Copeland, Science and Diplomacy, AAAS)

Childhood screening

Although the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued guidelines that recommend ongoing surveillance and screening for autism at 18 and 24 months regardless of whether a child show signs of the disorder, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force needs more evidence to support it. The independent scientific panel recommends testing only if a young child shows signs of an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). ASD is a group of developmental disabilities that can cause significant social, communication and behavioral challenges. About one in 68 U.S. children have an autism spectrum disorder, according to estimates from CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network. It occurs in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups and it is almost 5 times more common among boys (1 in 42) than among girls (1 in 189). According to “Autism Speaks”, an organization that stresses the importance of ASD early diagnosis and intervention, the “red flags” that a parent should look for include no big smiles or other joyful expression by 6 months, no sharing of smiles or sounds by nine months, no babbling by 12 months, no words by 16 months, no meaningful, two word phrases by 24 months, or any loss of speech, babbling or social skills at any age of a toddler’s life. The task force review, which began in 2013, found significant research gaps regarding the benefits and harms of screening all children for ASD, said Grossman, who is also a pediatrician in Seattle. “We need more evidence and we think that evidence is achievable,” Grossman said. On the other hand, Dr. Susan Levy, chair of the AAP’s autism subcommittee and a developmental and behavioral pediatrician at the Children’s Hospitals of Philadelphia, said her concern is that the task force’s statement will lead people to question the benefit of screening. Early identification allows for early intervention, which is known to result in better outcomes for children, she said. (Andrew M. Seaman, Reuters)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 4, 2015 at 10:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – May 8, 2014

leave a comment »

By: Kaitlyn Morabito

By pakorn, published on 27 March 2014 Stock Photo - image ID: 100251584  Via www.freedigitalphotos.net

By pakorn, published on 27 March 2014
Stock Photo – image ID: 100251584
Via http://www.freedigitalphotos.net

Our weekly linkpost, bringing you interesting and informative links on science policy issues buzzing about the internet.

Soaring MERS cases in Saudi Arabia Raise Alarms – A spike in the number of new MERS virus cases, over 200 in April alone, in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates has raised concerns amid scientists, the ECDC, and the WHO.   Among the fears is that the virus has mutated to enhance human-to-human transmission potentially leading to a pandemic, although there is no evidence to support this supposition. Other reasons for the surge may be increased testing, increased birth rate of camels, poor hospital hygiene or a combination of these possibilities. Scientists, including Christian Drosten of University of Bonn in Germany, are sequencing viral genomes from outbreaks, and the data seems to support recurrent camel-to-human transmission. Further understanding of the route of transmission is needed to control circulation between camels and humans. (Kai Kupferschmidt)

Science Diplomacy Visit to Cuba Produces Historic Agreement – Despite a frosty relationship between their governments, US and Cuban scientists and policy makers recently met at the Cuban Academy of Sciences in Havana, Cuba to strengthen scientific collaboration between the countries. Undeterred by periods of economic hardship, Cuba currently has a strong biotechnology industry especially in regards to infectious disease. The American group, lead by AAAS, along with Cuban scientists penned an agreement focused on cancer, antibiotic resistance, emerging infectious disease, and brain disorders as areas in which collaborations could flourish. This memorandum is just one step in continuing to grow the partnership between the US and Cuba in science and there remains significant obstacles to success. (Kathy Wren)

Climate Change Assessment Paints Stark Picture of Potential Damage – The Obama administration released the Third National Climate Assessment on Tuesday, which evaluates the local impact of and the influence of humans on climate change. The congress-mandated quadrennial report concludes that there has been an uptick in the number of extreme weather events as well as the severity of these events. The report uses scientific data to refute many aspects of climate change deniers’ arguments regarding the role of man in causing climate change.   The impact on specific US regions are outlined including increased heavy precipitation in the Northeast and Midwest leading to flooding. The Southwest, on the other hand, will likely see more heat leading to drought and wild fires. This report bolsters efforts by the Obama administration to actively focus on mitigating climate change. (Neela Banerjee & Kathleen Hennessey)

 

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 8, 2014 at 9:10 pm