Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘science funding

Science Policy Around the Web – April 21, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Rachel F Smallwood, PhD

Source: pixabay

Scientific Awareness

Earth Day and the March for Science

This Saturday, April 22, is Earth Day and the day scientists have chosen to hold demonstrations in the name of science. The March for Science primary demonstration will be held in Washington, D.C., with over 500 satellite events in other locations around the world. According to their website, the goal of the marches, rallies, and teach-ins is to “defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments.” In a time where there has been increasing disregard and disdain for sound scientific research, scientists and science enthusiasts are passionate about raising awareness of the importance of scientific research and the funding and support of that research. Many scientists are also hoping to clear up commonly held stereotypes and allow people to see the diversity in scientific careers and that careers can be collaborative, interesting, and enjoyable.

There are those, however, who disagree that these demonstrations and events are the way to bolster funding and awareness. The March for Science professes to be non-partisan, but there are some who see it as a chance to protest against President Trump and his controversial views and statements on various scientific matters. Those who oppose the march feel that there could be unintended consequences for speaking out against a political figure or party, and many believe science should remain objective and not politicized in general. There are many supporters of the march who agree that science should remain politically unbiased but are further motivated to march given the recent budget proposals that would significantly cut funding to the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Not surprisingly, there will also be scientists working at the March for Science. Sociologists from the University of Maryland will be conducting surveys of march attendees. Their goal is to learn more about the people who protest in support of science: their motivations, work backgrounds, and political activism levels. They hope to better understand our current political culture and attitudes about science, as well as see what kind of impact these demonstrations have in the future. (Adam Frank, NPR)


California Vaccination Rate Hits New High after Tougher Immunization Law

Following an outbreak of measles in Disneyland in late 2014, California passed a law that abolished the right for parents to refuse to have their children vaccinated based on personal beliefs. The students enrolling in kindergarten for the 2016-2017 academic year were the first that this law applied to. Comparing this year to the previous, vaccination rates increased from 92.8 percent to 95.6 percent, making this California’s highest year for vaccination rates since the new set of requirements was instated fifteen years ago. This rate is considered high enough to prevent measles transmission which, after being eliminated in 2000, has reemerged as a risk due to an increase in parents exempting their children from receiving vaccinations because of personal beliefs.

California still has a number of at-risk students and residents, however. These requirements have only been in place for the current school year, meaning older class years still have many students whose parents opted to not vaccinate them based on personal beliefs. There are even more unvaccinated adults who were already through school before the current set of requirements. California is still being vigilant to protect the unvaccinated. An unvaccinated high school student in Laguna Beach contracted measles earlier this month, and the school quickly moved to identify other unvaccinated students in the school and bar them from returning until it could be assured that transmission would not occur. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide a recommended schedule for vaccination of children (and adolescents and adults) who have no health contraindications. To provide the maximum resistance to measles, a highly contagious disease, the CDC recommends vaccinating between 12-15 months and again between 4-6 years of age. It will likely take some time before the long-term effect of the new law can be observed. (Lena H. Sun, The Washington Post)

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

Science Policy Around the Web – February 21, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Rachel Smallwood, PhD


Should We Treat Obesity Like a Contagious Disease?

Researchers are modeling obesity from a public health perspective as a contagious disease. There are many factors associated with obesity, including genetics, low levels of physical activity, and high caloric intake. An earlier study examined the effects of different social factors on an individual’s risk of being obese; it found that people with obese friends and family were at an increased risk for obesity, and this trend was influenced by how close the relationships were.

In this model of the prevalence of obesity, the researchers included a factor to represent obesity as a “social contagion”, reflecting those previous findings and indicating a potential increased risk and increased prevalence due to transmission from one person to another. This mechanism is assumed to be related to people adopting the behaviors of those close to them; notably, activity levels and type and quantity of food consumed. The model predicts obesity rates in populations with terms associated with the genetic contribution to obesity, the mother’s non-genetic contribution to her offspring, and the prevalence of obesity. Essentially, the more obese individuals there are in a society, the more likely it is for someone to know and interact with an obese person.

The models indicate that obesity prevalence plateaus around 35-40% without an intervention. The model is still fairly primitive, but the researchers hope that in future it could provide insight into the effects of potential interventions. For example, is it better to target an intervention to individuals who are already obese, or should the reach of the intervention be more broad and target the population as a whole? When the models reach a level of complexity comparable to the existing factors for obesity, they can be a powerful tool in preventing and addressing the epidemic. (Kelly Servick, Science Magazine)


Brain Scans Spot Early Signs of Autism in High-Risk Babies

A study recently published in Nature showed that alterations in brain development in children who go on to be diagnosed with autism precede behavioral symptoms. High-risk infants’ brains were scanned with MRI at 6, 12, and 24 months. It was determined that the infants who were subsequently diagnosed with autism had a faster rate of brain volume growth between 12 and 24 months. Additionally, between 6 and 12 months, these infants had a faster rate of growth in the surface area of folds on the brain, called the cortical surface.

Taking these findings, the research team used a machine learning approach called a deep-learning neural network to make a model to predict whether an infant would be diagnosed with autism based on their MRIs from 6 and 12 months. This model was tested in a larger set of infants, and the model correctly predicted 30 out of 37 infants who went on to be diagnosed (true positives), and it incorrectly predicted that 4 infants would be diagnosed with autism out of the 142 who were not later diagnosed (false positives). These results are much more robust than behavior-based predictions from this same age range.

More work needs to be done to replicate the results in a larger sample. Additionally, all of the participants were high-risk infants, meaning they had a sibling who was diagnosed with autism, so the results are not necessarily generalizable to the rest of the population. Further studies need to be done in the general population to determine if these same patterns are observable, but that would require an even larger sample due to the lower risk. However, the early detection of symptoms and prediction of diagnosis are potentially valuable tools, especially considering another recent publication showed that early intervention in children with autism affects the severity of symptoms years down the road. (Ewen Callaway, Nature News)

Science Funding

Ebola Funding Surge Hides Falling Investment in Other Neglected Diseases

Funding totals from 2015 reveal a trending decrease in funding for neglected diseases, excluding Ebola and other viral hemorrhagic fevers. Neglected diseases are diseases that primarily affect developing companies, thus providing little incentive for private research and development by commercial entities; the other diseases include malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. Given the recent surge of funding for Ebola research, the analysis firm, Policy Cures Research, decided to separate it from the other neglected diseases in its analysis to observe funding patterns independent from the epidemic that dominated the news and international concerns. Funding was tracked from private, public, and philanthropic sources.

The funding for Ebola research has primarily gone to development of a vaccine, and over a third of the funds were provided by industry. For the other diseases, the decline in overall funding is mostly represented by a decline in funding from public entities, primarily comprised of the governments of large, developed countries. Those countries accounted for 97% of the research funding for neglected diseases in 2015, so any significant change in that funding category would affect the overall funding amounts. However, there was also a slight decline in philanthropic funding. When including Ebola with the others, funding of neglected diseases was actually at its highest in the past ten years. It is not known whether money was funneled from the other diseases to Ebola research, or if this decline is indicative of less research spending in general. (Erin Ross, Nature News)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 21, 2017 at 10:03 am

Science Policy Around the Web – November 22, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Rachel Smallwood, PhD

Photo source: pixabay

Federal Research Funding

US R&D Spending at All-Time High, Federal Share Reaches Record Low

Recently released data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) showed trending increases in scientific research funding in the US across the past several years. Estimates of the total funding for 2015 put the value at an all-time high for research and development (R&D) funding for any country in a single year. In 2009, President Obama stated a goal to devote 3% of the USA’s gross domestic product (GDP) to research, and we have been making slow progress to that point; in 2015, 2.78% of the GDP went to research. Businesses accounted for the largest portion of overall scientific funding, contributing 69% of the funds. The second largest contributor was the federal government; however, it had the lowest percentage share of the total since the NSF started tracking funding in 1953, and the actual dollar amount contributed has been declining since 2011. Therefore, although the overall percentage of GDP going to research is increasing, that increase is driven by businesses, whereas the GDP percentage contributed by the federal government has dropped to almost 0.6%.

When taking a closer look at types of research, the federal government is the largest funding source for basic science research, covering 45% of the total. However, businesses make up the majority of the funding for applied research (52% in 2014) and experimental development (82% in 2014). This disproportionality in funding types combined with the decreases in federal research spending are concerning for the basic science field. There is more competition for less money, and this concern is compounded by uncertainty and questions about President-Elect Trump’s position on and plans for scientific funding. Aside from a couple of issues, primarily concerning climate change and the environment, he has said very little about science and research. Many scientists, institutions, and concerned citizens will be watching closely to see how science policy develops under Trump’s administration and its effects on federal spending and beyond. (Mike Henry, American Institute of Physics)

Biomedical Research

‘Minibrains’ Could Help Drug Discovery for Zika and for Alzheimer’s

A group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) is working on a promising tool for evaluating disease and drug effects in humans without actually using humans for the tests. ‘Minibrains’ are clusters of human cells that originated as skin cells, reprogrammed to an earlier stage of development, and then forced to differentiate into human neural cells. They mimic the human brain as far as cell types and connections, but will never be anywhere near as large as a human brain and can never learn or become conscious.

A presentation earlier this year at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference showcased the potential utility for minibrains. A large majority of drugs that are tested in animals fail when introduced in humans. Minibrains provide a way to test these drugs in human tissue at a much earlier stage – saving time, money, and animal testing – without risking harm to humans. Minibrains to test for biocompatibility can be made from skin cells of healthy humans, but skin cells from people with diseases or genetic traits can also be used to study disease effects.

A presentation at the Society for Neuroscience conference this month demonstrated one such disease – Zika. The minibrains’ growth is similar to fetal brain growth during early pregnancy. Using the minibrains, Dr. Hongjun Song’s team at JHU was able to see how the Zika virus affected the cells; the affected minibrains were much smaller than normal, a result that appears analogous to the microcephaly observed in infants whose mothers were infected with Zika during the first trimester.

Other presentations at the meeting showcased work from several research groups that are already using minibrains to study diseases and disorders including brain cancer, Down syndrome, and Rett syndrome, and plans are underway to utilize it in autism, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease. Though there might be a bit of an acceptance curve with the general public, minibrains potentially offer an avenue of testing that is a better representation of actual human cell behavior and response, is safer and more affordable, and reduces the need for animal testing. (Jon Hamilton, NPR)

Health Policy

A Twist on ‘Involuntary Commitment’: Some Heroin Users Request It

The opioid addiction epidemic has become a significant healthcare crisis in the United States. Just last week the US Surgeon General announced plans to target addiction and substance abuse. He also stated the desire for a change in perception of addiction – it is a medical condition rather than a moral or character flaw. Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control published guidelines that address opioid prescribing practices for chronic pain, strongly urging physicians to exhaust non-pharmacologic options before utilizing opioids. In response to the rising concern over prescription opioid abuse, steps have been taken to reduce prescriptions and access. This has resulted in many turning to heroin – which is usually a cheaper alternative anyway – to get their opioid fix.

One of the first steps in treatment and recovery for addiction and dependence is detoxing. However, opioids are highly addictive and many people struggle with the temptation to relapse. Additionally, many of the programs designed to help with the initial detox have long wait lists, are expensive, and may not be covered by insurance, further deterring those with addiction and dependence from getting the help they need. These factors have caused many to start turning to their states, asking to be voluntarily committed to a program on the basis that they are a danger to themselves or others because of their substance abuse. This is currently an option in 38 states. These programs can be held in either privately-run institutions or in state prisons. However, this practice is controversial because if the person’s insurance does not cover their stay, it falls to tax payers to foot the bill. While this is unpopular with some, advocates say the civil commitment laws are important options while there may be no other immediate ways for an individual to get help. (Karen Brown, NPR)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 22, 2016 at 9:00 am

How Much Neuroscience Funding is the Right Amount?

leave a comment »

By: Brian Russ, PhD

Source: pixabay

       Scientific funding can be a very tricky proposition. Unfortunately, there is a finite amount of money that is put towards science each funding cycle. This means that at any given time funding agencies need to decide where they believe their funds will be best spent. Every funding cycle, one can find different groups lamenting that their favorite topic is “being underfunded” while some other group is getting “too big a piece of the pie”. There is often no right answer to the question of how much is the right amount of funding to provide different topics, and the likelihood is that at the end of the day every group will feel that they are not getting the right amount of respect and funding.

This debate has come to the forefront recently in the fields of psychiatry and neuroscience with a change in the leadership at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). In September, Dr. Joshua Gordon became the new director of the NIMH. Dr. Gordon’s directorship of the NIMH comes after a 13-year period of leadership by Dr. Tom Insel. During the previous administration, there had been an increasing focus on funding neuroscience related work, often at the expense of purely behavioral work, such as cognitive behavioral therapies for psychiatry patients. It is important to point out that the NIMH’s definition of neuroscience research includes basic, translational, and clinical neuroscience research. This direction led to a new research framework for studying mental health disorders termed the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which has a very strong neuroscience component. The goal of RDoC is to provide a new framework in which researchers and clinicians can study and treat mental health disorders. The RDoC framework involves neuroscience components of brain circuits and physiology, and cognitive components of behavior and self-reports. The end goal is to provide a more comprehensive description of mental health disorders with the intention of developing cures and treatments. This push toward RDoC, and more neuroscience in general, has led to both praise and criticism of where the NIMH is directing its funding opportunities.

Recently, an opinion piece was published in the New York Times stating that the NIMH needs to reverse their push towards more neuroscience. Specifically, Dr. Markowitz, a research psychiatrist from Columbia University, believes that the NIMH has been funding neuroscience at the expense of clinical psychological research, in the absence of a brain oriented component. His argument is that in the current funding environment only 10% of the NIMH’s research budget is going towards clinical research. From the content of his article the research he is speaking of involves behavioral studies and interventions that contain no neuroscience component. Dr. Markowitz brings up many important points, and his main thesis that we cannot forget about behavioral interventions while pursuing the biological bases of clinical disorders is critical. For example, he makes the strong point that neuroscience research is unlikely to help solve the problem of suicide. And his final argument is for a “more balanced approach to funding clinical and neuroscience research.”

However, one can argue what that balance should actually look like. Is ten percent of the budget actually a small amount? And does that number include the multitude of basic neuroscience studies that are investigating the neural underpinning of a given disease? For example, based on the NIH reporter, schizophrenia research has been funded for approximately 250 million dollars for each of the last three years. A quick look at the total budget (32.3 billion in 2016, with ~25 billion going to research grants) suggests that that would be on the order of about 1% of the total NIH research budget. This is only one disease, and is being calculated from the whole NIH budget, not just from the NIMH budget. Only a portion of that funding is going towards clinical research, as Dr. Markowitz would define it, however the rest of that funding is going to research that will in all likelihood provide clinical benefits to patients down the road, in the form of new physiological targets or potentially new drugs.

So how can one make a determination about the correct of amount of funding that should go towards different mental health fields? Should 25% or 50% of the budget go towards clinical research? It seems that comparing the percent of money going to clinical research versus neuroscience is simply a bad comparison. Neuroscience is not one homogenous topic; it includes tens of, if not over a hundred, different fields. The various mental health fields fighting each other over funding doesn’t help anyone. Both neuroscience and clinical research need to be funded. It seems that the best way to divide the funding from NIMH would not be to specify what field gets priority but instead to fund the best grants regardless of whether there is a specific component involved. This would open the door to more clinical research while not requiring a shift in the priorities of the NIMH, whose mission is to understand and treat mental illnesses though both basic and clinical research. For instance, RDoC already contains both behavioral and self-report components. These components should be given as much priority as the other neuroscience components. If 10% of the budget is given to behavioral work, in this way, that would seem reasonable, possibly even greater than other areas might be getting.

On a final note, while we should always be looking internally at how we are funding different types of science, and if we, the public, are getting our money’s worth out of projects, it is also important for us to ensure that science funding as a whole is increasing. The current funding environment has been relatively static for years. We need, through advocacy and outreach, to get the public and government to provide more funding opportunities to the NIH. As the saying goes “a rising tide raises all boats”.

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 17, 2016 at 6:53 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – November 01, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Eric Cheng, PhD

Source: pixabay

Climate Change

Nations, fighting powerful refrigerant that warms planet, reach landmark deal

Over 170 nations agreed to limit the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), the key climate change-causing pollutants found in air conditioners and refrigerators. This deal reached in Kigali, Rwanda could help prevent a 0.9°F rise in temperature by the year 2100. Although the negotiations did not produce the same publicity as the climate change accord in Paris of last year, the outcome may have an equal or even greater impact on the efforts to slow the warming of our planet.

Adopting an ambitious amendment to phase down the use and production of HFCs is “likely the single most important step that we could take at this moment to limit the warming of our planet,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in Kigali, in remarks before the passage of the agreement. President Obama called the deal “an ambitious and far-reaching solution to this looming crisis.”

Total global HFC emissions are still far less significant contributors to climate change than the combined emission of other greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. However HFCs are thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide on a pound-per-pound basis, making them an obvious target for international efforts to combat climate change.

Many experts still believe that international efforts have moved too slowly as research continues to show significant effects and large scale of global warming. Scientists say 2016 will top last year as the hottest year on record with some months showing a temperature rise close to the 3.6°F benchmark. (Coral Davenport, New York Times)

Wildlife Conservation

Nations agree to establish world’s largest marine reserve in Antarctica

Twenty-four countries and the European Union agreed to establish the world’s largest marine sanctuary in Antarctica’s Ross Sea. This area is home to “50 per cent of ecotype-C killer whales (also known as the Ross Sea orca), 40 per cent of Adélie penguins, and 25 per cent of emperor penguins,” according to a statement from the United Nations Environment Programme.

“The significance of this is that most of the marine protected area is a no-take area,” acknowledged the State Department’s Evan Bloom, head of the U.S. delegation to the meeting. More than 600,000 square miles of the Ross Sea around Antarctica will be protected under the deal. This means that an area about the size of Alaska will be set aside as a no-take “general protection zone”.

No-take areas are zones set aside by authorities where any action that removes or extracts any resource is prohibited. These actions include fishing, hunting, logging, mining, drilling, shell collecting and archaeological digging. (Merrit Kennedy, NPR)

Science Funding

Budget cap would stifle Brazilian science, critics say

Brazil’s interim President Michel Temer proposed a constitutional amendment to limit public spending growth for up to 20 years as a solution to curb a rise in public debt. The proposal, known as PEC 241, would prohibit all three branches of Brazil’s government to raise yearly expenditures above the inflation rate. This would essentially freeze spending at current levels for two decades. The effect of the bill, if passed, would put Brazilian science in a budgetary straightjacket. “It will be a disaster,” says Luiz Davidovich, president of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences in Rio de Janeiro.

The 2016 federal budget for science, technology, and innovation was approximately $1.5 billion, the lowest in 10 years when corrected for inflation. (The National Institutes of Health in the United States currently has a budget of about $30 billion.) Agencies have been reducing scholarships and grants to adjust for the lack of funding. For example, the Brazilian Innovation Agency has slashed funding for national programs and is delaying payments on research grants. This has led to consequences such as finding money to pay for electricity bills. “There is no way we can survive another 20 years like this,” says Davidovich, who is also a physicist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

“Smart countries increase funding for science, technology, and innovation to get out of a crisis,” says Helena Nader, president of the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science in São Paulo. “We are doing the opposite.” (Herton Escobar, ScienceInsider)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 1, 2016 at 9:14 am

Science Policy Around the Web – June 17, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Eric Cheng, Ph.D.

Photo source:

Biomedical Research Funding

NIH gets $2 billion boost in Senate spending bill

The Senate approved a $2 billion dollar boost to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget for the 2017 fiscal year. This will increase the agency’s overall budget to $34 billion which represents a 6.2% increase from the previous year. This boost in funding represents an increase to NIH’s funding for the second year in a row after more than a decade of stagnate funding. NIH received an additional $2 billion last year.

The increase to NIH’s funding is the result of bipartisan negotiations between Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.) and Ranking Member Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

“Last year, for the first time in 12 years, we were able to have an increase in [funding to support] NIH research,” Blunt said at a subcommittee meeting to unveil the budget proposal. “We have worked hard to repeat that this year.” Adding that he hopes to establish a pattern of increases for health research funding, he further noted that “if you are going to have an annual pattern, year two is critical. So we’re proposing for the second year in a row we make a substantial commitment to NIH research.”

The bill will include $1.39 billion for Alzheimer’s disease research, a $100 million increase for Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative, an additional $100 million for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) brain-mapping project, and $50 million in new spending for a federal initiative to combat antimicrobial resistance. Not mentioned is the $670 million proposal for Vice President Joe Biden’s proposed moonshot to double progress against cancer. (Jocelyn Kaiser, ScienceInsider)

Federal Accountability

House sharpens oversight of new NSF facilities

The U.S. House of Representatives approved bill H.R. 5049 by a vote of 412 to nine which would direct the National Science Foundation (NSF) to audit its major multi-user research facilities. This bill was passed in response to the problems that have plagued NSF’s National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) under construction at dozens of sites across the country. Last December NSF fired the contractor, NEON Inc., citing a potential $80 million cost overrun and continued delays in completing the project.

The passage of the NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016 would direct the NSF to audit its major multi-user research facilities in order to prevent such cost overrun problems in the future. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that conducting these audits required by the legislation would cost about $2 million annually and $10 million over the 2017-2021 period. Specifically, the bill would require NSF to analyze how much every large research project would cost by the first year of the start of construction.

NSF officials remain concerned on how these changes in legislation would affect how audits are conducted and the use of management fees for a contractor. Such additional restrictions on management fees could potentially scare off some highly qualified would-be bidders for future projects. In addition, they believe that the proposed audits would not have caught the problems that NEON faced. (Jeffrey Mervis, ScienceInsider)

Infectious Diseases

Zika virus added to the FDA Priority Review Voucher Program Act

U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) supported emergency funding to help stem the spread of the Zika virus in the United States. Over $1 billion in emergency funds passed the Senate today on a bipartisan basis to help mitigate the spread of Zika and respond to outbreaks of the virus.

“The Zika virus is a real threat, and we need action to curtail its spread and encourage the development of treatments and a vaccine,” said Franken. “This emergency support will help fight back against the disease, and now, we need to work with the House of Representatives and with President Obama to make sure that the funding measure becomes law. This is far too important of an issue to ignore.”

The Centers for Disease Control has reported that over 150 pregnant women in the U.S. have been diagnosed with Zika virus, which can cause a range of birth defects including devastating neurological defects. There are currently no known treatments or vaccines for the disease. The funds will be used to control mosquitos that carry the Zika virus, raise awareness of Zika virus disease, provide education on how to reduce risk of becoming infected, and accelerate development of a vaccine. (Congressional Research Service)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 17, 2016 at 9:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – May 29, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Julia Shaw, Ph.D.

Pills prepared for H.I.V. patients in Thailand. Credit: Taylor Weidman/Getty Images

Global Health – Treatment for HIV

H.I.V. Treatment Should Start at Diagnosis, U.S. Health Officials Say

The Strategic Timing of Antiretroviral Treatment (Start) trial, the largest clinical trial evaluating the benefits of early antiretroviral treatment for HIV, was ended prematurely after interim analyses revealed a 53% reduction in AIDS-related death or illness in subjects who began taking antiretroviral drugs at diagnosis compared to those who started only after their CD4 T cell counts in blood dropped below 350 cells/ml or after succumbing to an AIDS-related event like infection with an opportunistic pathogen. Although the news is not a surprise to those working in the HIV field, according to the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, Dr. Anthony Fauci, for those who may have been exposed to the virus it is “another incentive to seek out testing and start therapy early, because you will benefit.” Additionally, those on a consistent regimen of anti-HIV drugs are over 90% less likely to infect others.

As of 2014, only 13 million out of an estimated 35 million infected with HIV were on antiretroviral treatment. Experts estimate identifying and treating all HIV positive individuals would cost at least three-times the amount currently donated through organizations like The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Aside from the cost of drugs, in the United States — where only 30% of those infected take antiviral drugs consistently — many still fear drug side-effects yet most modern formulations do not have the harsh side-effects of the earlier generation of drugs. When the study began in 2009, guidelines set forth by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended starting therapy when a patient’s CD4 count fell below 500. The World Health Organization suggested waiting until the count fell below 350. This study provides strong evidence that in terms of lives saved, earlier treatment is clearly effective. (Donald G. McNeil Jr., The New York Times)

The Environment – Clean Water

President Obama asserts power over small waterways

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers have finalized their proposal for the controversial “waters of the United States rule”, a rule designed to clarify which waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act. Past Supreme Court decisions have questioned whether small tributaries, streams, and wetlands were subject to the regulations of the Clean Water Act, prompting the construction of this new rule. Republicans and like-minded businesses fear excessive federal involvement and regulation of minor waterways, ditches and puddles. However Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, maintains the rule will “protect the streams and wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water . . . This rule will make it easier to identify protected waters and will make those protections consistent with the law as well as the latest peer-reviewed science.” McCarthy further contends the federal government’s jurisdiction would increase less than 3% and that the rule does not hamper agriculture or remove existing exemptions for farmers, ranchers, or foresters, frequently the most vocal opponents to the rule. Despite efforts in both the House and Senate to overturn the rule, President Obama stands firmly in support of the new regulations stating, “Too many of our waters have been left vulnerable to pollution.” (Timothy Cama, The Hill)

International Funding for the Sciences

Russian foundation tarred with ‘foreign’ label

Russia’s foreign agent law was enacted in 2012, targeting nongovernmental organizations concerned with human rights and free elections. The law forces burdensome reporting requirements and necessitates that any materials produced by the organization indicate that a foreign agent produced them. On Monday, the Russian government identified the Dynasty Foundation, a nonprofit based in Moscow and one of the country’s leading science foundations supporting science education and early-career scientists, as a “foreign agent.” The ruling was made despite a petition organized by 28 members of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) arguing that the foundation’s work is fully transparent and “has nothing to do with advocacy of foreign states’ interests.” Funding for the foundation is heavily dependent on its founder, Dmitry Zimin, a Russian telecom tycoon who regularly transfers funds, some $10 million per year since its inception in 2002, from his offshore accounts to the foundation. President Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, stated that if Dynasty “gets money from abroad, then it is a foreign agent” which is subject to the foreign agent law. In response, Zimin has threatened to stop funding the institution. A meeting of Dynasty officials set for June 8th will decide the foundation’s future. (Vladmir Pokrovsky, Science Insider)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 29, 2015 at 9:00 am