Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘science funding

Science Policy Around the Web – August 4, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

20170804_Linkpost_1

source: pixabay

CTE Research

National Football League Backs out of Funding Brain Research

A new study released this week added more fuel to the fire surrounding the health problems associated with playing contact sports, most notably American football. The study found signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in the brains of 110 out of 111 former National Football League (NFL) players. Repetitive head trauma is thought to cause CTE, which can result in behavioral and mood disorders and cognitive impairment. Football players donated their brains to the Concussion Legacy Foundation so that scientists could evaluate the impact of playing contact sports on their brains. Currently CTE is only diagnosed post-mortem, so developing effective diagnoses and treatments for living patients would benefit NFL players, soldiers and others at risk of head trauma.

Advancing the science to benefit these groups in theory should serve in the NFL’s interest, however the initial damaging reports demonstrating the dangers their players face didn’t sit well. In 2012 the NFL pledged $30 million to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for brain research, however the partnership is set to expire this year with about half the money unspent. A 2016 New York Times article revealed some unsettling interactions between the NFL and NIH, when a congressional study found that the NFL tried to direct their funding away from research performed by certain scientists. The NIH was set to award a $17 million grant to Dr. Robert Stern at Boston University to study the link between repeated concussions and CTE, however representatives from the NFL attempted to discredit Dr. Stern’s work. The NIH chose to fund Dr. Stern’s highly ranked proposal, and reserve the NFL’s money for future research. It seems now that future research funded by the NFL and distributed by the NIH is unlikely to happen.

Eliminating conflicts of interest is important for research to remain unbiased and evidence based. Concussion research conducted by the NFL or clinical trials performed by pharmaceutical companies can produce bias results. There is a need for the NIH and FDA to act as fair and unbiased grant reviewers and funding distributors. Even among players at the NFL there is a spectrum of how people feel about the dangers of playing football, best exemplified by the following quotes:

“We live and breathe it and this is what we’re so passionate about. Literally, I would — if I had a perfect place to die, I would die on the field.” – Jamal Adams Jet’s Rookie

“I hope All these young cats that are willing to die for the game of football find a higher purpose in life. Look football is great but I ain’t dying for this sh*t. Lol.” – Martellus Bennett Green Bay Packers Tight End (Twitter)

(Laurel Wamsley, NPR)

 

Human Genetic Engineering

No Super-Babies Yet

The United States has had a long history with avoiding research using stem cells. Since in vitro fertilization (IVF) became possible in the 1970’s we have been debating the ethics of using human stem cells and embryos for research. During George Bush’s tenure as president, stem cell research was explicitly un-fundable with public tax dollars (i.e. from NIH). As scientists found new ways to create stem cells without fetal tissue and Barack Obama’s presidency began, the US finally embraced stem cell research. However, researchers are still not permitted to use public funding to create and destroy human embryos – they can only use already fertilized embryos donated by patients from IVF clinics. If the research is privately funded, then researchers can both make and dispose of human embryos.

This little history lesson sets the stage for a discovery made in America and published this week in Nature, where researchers in Oregon (with collaborators in South Korea and China) were able to use gene editing to remove a heart defect-causing gene in human embryos. This technique is called CRISPR-Cas9, which uses prokaryotic (bacterial) DNA to target desired genes to be deleted or replaced and has already been used to edit embryos (human, other vertebrates, invertebrates and plants) with mixed results. There are reports of both off-target mutations (editing occurring in the wrong place) or mosaic embryos, meaning some cells are edited while others are not. What sets this new paper apart from the pack is the researchers inserted the CRISPR-Cas9 complex at the same time as the sperm, thus the editing began at fertilization. The inserted Cas9 protein was degraded too quickly to be effective at producing off-target mutations, and since the editing happened at conception only one out of 58 embryos was a mosaic. In contrast, waiting as little as 18 hours after fertilization to edit the embryo resulted in 13 out of 54 mosaic embryos.

For those worried about the production of designer babies, this study alleviates some of these concerns as well. Although researchers in this study provided a synthetic DNA template for the CRISPR-Cas9 system to rewrite the faulty gene, the cells ended up using the healthy mother’s DNA strands. This means scientists aren’t yet able to create babies to specifications, just strongly favor the existing but healthier parental gene to be passed on to the offspring. There are obvious ethics issues involved in creating human embryos and destroying them in the name of scientific discovery. However, getting rid of fatal diseases by gene editing could be music to the ears of parents who long to have children of their own but don’t want to risk having children affected with lethal conditions. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have launched the Human Gene-Editing Initiative to tangle with these issues as they arrive to policy forums.

(Heidi Ledford, Nature News)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 4, 2017 at 3:31 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – June 13, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Nivedita Sengupta, PhD

By Mikael Häggström, used with permission. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Stem Cell Therapy

Texas on Track to Become First State to Explicitly Back Stem Cell Therapies

On 30th May, Texas passed a bill  authorizing unapproved stem cell therapies, making Texas the first state to openly recognize experimental treatments. The bill will make the use of unapproved stem cell therapies legal for patients and is currently awaiting the approval of Governor Greg Abbott, who already supports the measure. Experimental stem cell therapies for terminal and chronic conditions have struggled for years to gain support without much success. Until now, no state has provided legal validation for these kind of therapies and the current stem cell procedures are mostly done under strict regulations.

Amendments were added to the bill, which require that the treatments be delivered by doctors with the approval of an institutional review board, which deals with human research. It will also add another amendment that will allow patients to have authority to sue in case the treatments go wrong. Many scientists and advocates opposed the measure stating that unapproved stem cell therapies can be harmful rather than beneficial. They state that though the amendments add protection to the patients, there are a few aspects of the bill that make them uncomfortable. Two other bills focused on patient access to experimental therapies, also known as “right-to-try” policies, failed to pass in the Texas Senate. (Andrew Joseph, STATNews)

Research Funding

NIH Scraps Plans for Cap on Research Grants

US National Institutes of Health (NIH) decided to drop the controversial proposal of capping the number of grants that an investigator can have at a time. The initial capping attempt was suggested to gather funds for younger researchers by NIH in May. The proposal was based on studies that suggested that a lab’s productivity decreases once it holds too many grants. Younger scientists often face more difficulties in obtaining NIH RO1 grants compared to their older more experienced colleagues. As a result, many researchers applauded the NIH’s effort to provide more funding for younger scientists. Yet the capping proposal received major adverse response from the scientific community stating that the NIH’s interpretation of the productivity study data does not apply to all labs, especially to the collaborative lab groups with four or five R01s that are more productive than labs with only one. Researchers also complained that the proposed point-based scoring system will also make collaborations difficult thus hampering productivity in the long run.

NIH director Dr. Francis Collins stated that the original idea was still a work in progress and NIH is going to put a hold on it. Instead of the cap, on 8th June, NIH announced the creation of the special fund, the Next Generation Researchers Initiative (NGRI), starting with US$210 for funding young researchers. The initiative will focus on investigators with less than 10 years of experience as NIH- funded principal investigators, and on high score grant proposals that were rejected because of lack of money. The initiative will grow up to $1.1 billion over the next five years. According to NIH principal deputy director Larry Tabak, NIH will immediately start creating an inventory of investigators who meet these criteria and expects that this approach will allow more than 2,000 additional R01 grants to be funded to younger scientists compared to the cap-based plan, which would have supported only 1600 awards. Nonetheless, the current proposal is still going to generate controversy as it will affect the older researchers because of NIH’s diversion of funding. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 13, 2017 at 7:08 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – May 24, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Joel Adu-Brimpong, BS

Source: Flickr by Selena N. B. H. via Creative Commons

Scientific Publishing

Fake It Until You’re Caught?

The beauty of the scientific enterprise is that it is, eventually, self-correcting. Thus, occasionally, a scientific paper may be retracted from a journal based on new revelations or due to reports of ethical breaches. Tumor Biology, a peer-reviewed, open access journal disseminating experimental and clinical cancer research, however, seems to have set a record for the number of retracted papers at once. In a single notice, in April, Tumor Biology retracted 107 articles; yes, one hundred and seven!

Springer, the former publisher of Tumor Biology, reported that the retracted papers were due to a compromised peer review process. Like other journals, Tumor Biology allows the submission of preferred reviewer information (name and email address) when submitting a manuscript. In the case of the retracted papers, “the reviewers were either made up, or had the names of real scientists but false email addresses.” Unsurprisingly, the manuscripts sent to the fake reviewers consistently received positive reviews, bolstering the likelihood of publication.

Springer, of course, is not the first and only major publisher to uncover issues in its peer-review process leading to mass retractions. A 2016 paper reveals similar issues from other major publishers including SAGE, BioMed Central and Elsevier. These breaches are particularly worrisome as some of the retracted manuscripts date back to the beginning of the decade. This means that studies floating around in other journals may have built on knowledge reported by the retracted studies. As if this was not enough, Springer has also come under scrutiny for individuals listed on Tumor Biology’s editorial board, several of whom appear to have no association with the journal and/or in at least one case, have been deceased for several years.

These discoveries are particularly disturbing and are percolating at a time when biomedical research spending is increasingly being scrutinized. Richard Harris, the award-winning NPR journalist, in his recent book Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions (2017), highlights major areas in biomedical research that produce wastes, such as studies that may incite researchers, and even whole fields, to follow a phantom lead. In the meantime, it does appear that journals are taking measures to ensure that these breaches are minimized, if not prevented entirely. (Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup, ScienceInsider)

Research Funding

Fighting On All Fronts: Republican Senators Advocate for DOE’s Research Funding

Republican senators are, again, urging President Trump to rethink potential budget cuts to research programs; this time to the Department of Energy (DOE). On Thursday, May 18, 2017, six top senate republicans, including well-known congresspersons Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), drafted a letter to the President reminding him of the importance of government-sponsored research. In the letter, they re-echo, “Government-sponsored research is one of the most important investments our country can make to encourage innovation, unleash our free enterprise system to create good-paying jobs, and ensure American competitiveness in a global economy.” They go on, “It’s hard to think of an important technological advancement since World War II that has not involved at least some form of government-sponsored research.”

If it seems like we’ve been down this road before, it’s because we have. Earlier this year, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), on the House Appropriations and Budget Committee, and his colleagues signaled disagreement with proposed budget cuts to the NIH and CDC in President Trump’s fiscal blueprint. The Republican congressman reiterated the importance of agencies like the NIH and CDC in conducting crucial biomedical research and leading public health efforts that protect Americans from diseases. The strong commitment to advancing biomedical research and the health of the American people led to an omnibus agreement that repudiated President Trumps proposed cuts, increasing NIH funding by $2 billion for the 2017 cycle.

The letter by Senator Alexander and colleagues was drafted following reports suggesting that the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy could face a reduction in funding of up to 70 percent for the 2018 fiscal cycle.  In a separate follow-up analysis, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee reported on the growth and importance of clean energy jobs and its contribution to the economy. Cuts to the DOE’s research programs could have profound impact on not only millions of jobs but also America’s ability to stay competitive in the global economy as it shifts towards renewable energy and resources. (Geof Koss, ScienceInsider)

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

Science Policy Around the Web – May 16, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Sarah L Hawes, PhD

Source: pixabay

Preventative Medicine

Fresh Foods a Day Keep Disease and Deficit Away

If you have recently shopped for health insurance, you likely encountered incentives for self-maintenance, such as discounted gym membership, or reimbursement for a jogging stroller. These incentives are motivated by the enormous ticket price of failing health. The CDC estimates that over $500 billion is spent annually on direct medical expenses to treat chronic diseases, which can be prevented or postponed through lifestyle practices – including heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

The Geisinger health care system reports encouraging results from the first year of a lifestyle-modification program called Fresh Foods Pharmacy, piloted in central Pennsylvania. This program provides patients with Type 2 diabetes nutrition counselling, hands-on classes in healthy cooking techniques, and a weekly prescription for five days’ worth of fresh food – fillable for free at a hospital based “food pharmacy.” This means patients are not just advised to eat better; they are comprehensively enabled to eat better.

David Feinberg, president and CEO of Geisinger, reports that all 180 participants in the pilot group have made substantial improvements in their health, including reductions in blood pressure and body weight, and that many have seen a several-point reduction in a blood marker used to diagnose and monitor their disease, called A1C. A1C reduction means that blood sugar levels are being better controlled, which also means fewer costly diabetic complications for patients down the line. Feinberg calls the program “life changing,” adding that participants “won’t go blind; [they] won’t have kidney disease, amputations.”

Many Fresh Foods Pharmacy participants are low-income, so there is powerful financial incentive to ‘follow doctors’ orders’ and eat the free, healthy food. But what does supplying a person with nutritional counsel and weekly fresh foods cost?

Geisinger spends approximately $1,000 per year on each Fresh Foods Pharmacy patient. Meanwhile, a mere one-point drop in A1C levels saves Geisinger roughly $8,000 per year. Feinberg says that many participants trimmed about 3 points off their A1C level in the first year, saving roughly $24,000 on a $1,000 investment. “It’s a really good value” says Feinberg, who is already working to expand the program to additional sites.

Improved patient health and medical cost-cutting in the first year of this program are independently exciting. In addition, the value of engendering better patient health through comprehensive dietary support is very likely to extend beyond patient and provider. Patients who are enabled to engage in healthful food preparation will share a healthier diet and food-culture with their families, enhancing program benefits in as-yet unmeasured dimensions. (Allison Aubrey, NPR)

Research Funding

Climate Science Policy Lessons from Down Under

Pretend for a moment that everyone firmly believes that climate change is real, and is a real threat. Is this enough to safeguard basic climate science research? Recent events in Australia give us our answer – no.

Australia is the most active contributor to climate science in the Southern Hemisphere. As such, Australian researchers provide a truly international service. Public appreciation of this fact, together with public activism, recently saved funding for Australian climate science.

In 2015, Dr. Larry R. Marshall was appointed to lead Australia’s national scientific agency (CSIRO). Dr. Marshall planned to champion initiatives motivated by his faith in climate science. He wanted to develop technologies to respond to inescapable climate change, and to mitigate damage through reduced emissions. Paradoxically he proposed to fund these by laying off droves of basic climate researchers.

Dr. John A. Church was a climate scientist at CSIRO, having published highly regarded studies indicating accelerated sea level rise paralleling greenhouse gas emission. On catching wind of Marshall’s plan, Church reached out to his contacts in the media and wrote an open letter to Marshall in defense of basic science. Public marches, hearings, and protests from thousands of international scientists ensued.

Ultimately, the rally of public voices instigated by Dr. Church and others like him was effective. Far fewer layoffs occurred than were initially slated to occur. Dr. Church was among those let go by CSIRO, but was rapidly recruited by the University of New South Wales to continue his climate research.

Bear in mind that Dr. Marshall was no climate change denier. He showed great willingness to use scientific findings to guide policy, which is admirable. He addressed an Australian Senate committee saying that the climate “absolutely is changing,” and “we have to do something about it.” In a recent interview, he summarized his reasons for wanting to lay off scientists saying this: “Unfortunately, with a finite funding envelope, you’ve got to make choices where you fund.”

Australia’s example shows us that even in a political environment with great faith in science, reverence for basic research is a separate issue, and merits independent attention and protection. Staying abreast of science policy matters. And for those of us who believe there is no shortage of natural complexity, and no end to the fruitful pursuit of knowledge, it pays to speak out in defense of basic research. (Justin Gillis, The New York Times)

 

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

Science Policy Around the Web – May 5, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Thaddeus Davenport, PhD

Healthcare Policy

House Passes Bill to Repeal and Replace the Affordable Care Act

Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear reported for the New York Times yesterday that Republicans in the US House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that would undo a number of central elements of the Affordable Care Act. Only six weeks ago, House Republicans failed to gather enough support to even vote on the first version of this bill, which was predicted to eliminate insurance coverage for twenty-four million Americans over the next decade. Since that time, Republican lawmakers have modified the so-called American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill to appeal to the more conservative members of the House – including provisions that would limit federal support of the Medicaid program, allow states to opt out of requiring that insurance cover services like maternity and emergency care, and also enable states to apply for waivers that would let insurance companies charge higher premiums for some individuals with pre-existing conditions. Like the first version, the bill that passed the House on Thursday does away with the ‘individual mandate’, which imposes a tax on people who can afford to buy insurance but do not – an aspect of the Affordable Care Act that was relatively unpopular but critical to ensure sustainability of the insurance markets. It also replaces government-subsidized insurance plans with tax credits between $2,000 and $4,000, depending on age. Other provisions in the bill would stop federal funding to Planned Parenthood for one year as well as eliminate taxes on high-income individuals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies that helped to fund the Affordable Care Act. Yesterday, 217 Republicans voted in favor of the revised AHCA bill that will certainly  not provide healthcare insurance for everyone, without waiting for a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill’s impact on the federal deficit or on the American people. These representatives’ haste reveals that they care little about how the AHCA will actually affect their constituents’ lives, and Democrats are counting on voters remembering this in upcoming elections. (Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear, The New York Times)

Science Funding

NIH Funding Changes to Support More Early Career Investigators

The NIH budget has gradually declined over the last fourteen years, from $40 billion in 2003 to about $32 billion in 2017. Given that a proposed budget from the Trump administration for fiscal year 2018 would further cut funding for NIH by $5.8 billion, it is unlikely that funding for the NIH will increase dramatically in the coming years. To address these budget limitations, and in an attempt to do more with less, Jocelyn Kaiser reported for ScienceInsider this week that the National Institutes of Health will impose a cap on the number of grants awarded to investigators. In an open letter announcing the decision, NIH director, Francis Collins, writes that 40% of NIH funding is concentrated in the hands of 10% of NIH-funded investigators. He notes that this is not inherently problematic, except that many studies indicate that there are diminishing scientific returns on each additional dollar that is granted to any individual investigator. Under the new guidelines, investigators will be limited to a maximum of three R01-equivalent grants in order to support approximately 1,600 more grants to early career and mid-level researchers, who have been particularly affected by the declining NIH budget. While it is difficult to quantify scientific impact, the NIH decision is admirable for its intent to support diversity and efficiency in funding research. (Jocelyn Kaiser, ScienceInsider)

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

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)

Vaccination

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

Obesity

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)

Autism

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