science Archives - Humanosphere

science

Bird flu flap resolved, sort of |

Flickr, gainesp2003

The scientific community, in the end, agreed to publish controversial bird flu virus studies despite the arguments of those who favored keeping the research secret because of the risk some might use it to make a super bad virus.

At stake in this cockfight, as I wrote earlier, was the fundamental principle in science of open and transparent exchange of information pitted against the desire to reduce risk and the hypothetical threat of misuse.

The decision to publish is big news today and variously characterized:

New York Times Bird Flu Paper is Published After Debate

LA Times (via Herald) Scientists explain how they created easily spread virus

Wall Street Journal Study shows bird flu virus’ pandemic potential

Chronicle Higher Ed Study points the way how to stop, not start, pandemic

Yeah, I think that last headline should be the primary take-away here. The real risk here is that the H5N1 bird flu virus will naturally mutate into a form that is easily spread to humans (Note: Contrary to some news reports, the research virus is still not that easily spread in mammals).

Keeping important research secret because of possible misuse also poses a risk — it hamstrings the scientific community’s ability to make progress based on the work of others. The whole point of publication is to share knowledge. Below is an op-ed in Nature by a bio-weapons expert that makes the case for why publishing these studies was the right decision.

Nature Do Not Censor Science in the Name of Security. Says author Tim Trevan:

“Almost all biological knowledge can be either misused or applied for good…. Censorship of the H5N1 papers would not have kept the genie in the bottle. Suppressing such papers or limiting access to their findings might even encourage proliferation by drawing attention to the risks and by provoking those researchers denied access to the results to seek to replicate them.”

FILED UNDER: Health, Science, bird flu, science

February 15, 2012 | 11:32 AM | By Tom Paulson |

Bird flu cockfight: Secrecy vs Science |

Flickr, 4BlueEyes

There’s a heated scientific debate going on right now between those who fear the terrorist use of chickens versus those who fear the slippery slope of secrecy in science.

Starting on Thursday, a blue-ribbon panel of invited experts will meet behind closed doors at the World Health Organization to discuss whether or not two controversial experiments done on the avian influenza (bird flu) virus H5N1 should be published.

Chickens are right now the primary means by which bird flu gets transmitted. The concern is that terrorists will use it against humans.

“Biology has never done this before,” said Dr. Samuel Miller, head of the NIH’s Northwest Regional Center for BioDefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases in Seattle.

This could be a critical moment for the biological sciences, Miller said, which has — like most of science — operated according to the fundamental tenet of the free exchange of information, transparency of methods and open, public debate as to the findings.

UW
Samuel Miller, director UW Center on Biodefense

“What we are talking about here is really a fundamental change, about basically classifying a portion of biological research,” he said. Much of the physics community was forced into secrecy during World War II, Miller said, but nothing like this has ever been done for biology.

“I think it’s going to be difficult to get consensus on this,” he said.

The debate stems from two teams of researchers which, reportedly, have made the bird flu virus more easy to transmit in mammals. The virus in nature rarely infects humans but when it does can be very deadly. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Science, bird flu, influenza, science, World Health Organization

February 15, 2012 | 11:29 AM | By Tom Paulson |

Timeline on the bird flu virus research debate |

One of Humanosphere’s contributors and a leading global health blogger, Jaclyn Schiff, has prepared this excellent — and beautiful — timeline of news reports on the H5N1 research debate:

FILED UNDER: Science, bird flu, Jaclyn Schiff, meda, science

February 7, 2012 | 12:51 PM | By Tom Paulson |

Five reasons not to panic about the bird flu experiments |

Flickr, hugovk

News analysis

The scientific community is in serious kerfuffle right now about whether or not to publish the details of certain bird flu virus experiments.

Angry words are flying back and forth between experts – much like the proverbial behavior of chickens with their heads cut off.

One commentator for Scientific American has even suggested banning all such research.

It’s all a bit much, and probably not good for science or for our global health. I would like to offer five reasons not to panic, but first the background:

The fear among some experts is that terrorists could repeat the experiments, in which genetically altered bird flu viruses, H5N1, were made more easy to transmit in mammals, presumably also in humans.

Based on this, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity has suggested censoring some of the research — redacting key portions of it. A few weeks ago, the scientific community agreed to a temporary moratorium on this research while the issues got hashed out.

There are persuasive arguments on both sides of this debate weighing the goal of reducing risk vs. the need for open exchange of knowledge.

But in some ways it’s not a fair fight. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Science, bird flu, Jon Cohen, Laurie Garrett, science, Scientific American, virus

August 25, 2011 | 11:48 AM | By Tom Paulson |

Altered skeeter update: Infecting mosquitoes to fight dengue |

Flickr, Gustavo

The idea of altering mosquitoes to fight disease appears to be quite contagious.

It’s almost become a news category unto itself, with at least a story every month or so involving something like:

– Genetic modifications that causes infected skeeters to kill themselves or their disease cargo, or to cause infertility ….
– Fighting the bugs with fungus or seaweed or making them spermless or ….

Bacteria.

Scientists in Australia want to expand upon successful field tests indicating that infecting mosquitoes with a particular bacteria, known as Wolbachia, prevents the bugs from transmitting the dengue virus.

WHO

Dengue cases over time

Dengue, also known as dengue fever or “break-bone” fever, is exploding worldwide and so there are a number of efforts underway to stave off the epidemic, including finding a vaccine and, well, messing with mosquitoes.

Here are a number of good stories on the latest strategy aimed at fighting disease by messing with mosquitoes:

NPR: Better you than me: Scientists sicken mosquitoes to stop dengue

WashPost: Field tests show bacterial oddball may be a dengue destroyer

Nature News: Bacterium offers way to control dengue fever

Guardian: Injecting mosquitoes with bacteria could stop dengue fever

Few of the news reports go into much detail scrutinizing the potential adverse side-effects, whether to humans, the environment or the skeeters, but that’s routine for news stories based on early stage scientific studies.

The bacterium, Wolbachia, is a common insect infector and is widely regarded as fairly benign if not downright beneficial. Still, you never know when you fool with Mother Nature — which is why we do phased scientific testing.

Another problem with any intervention is evolution, aka resistance. Bugs have a way of finding ways around things that get in their way. Still, the scientists say, if this approach can work for a decade or so we will do much to hold the dengue explosion at bay.

I’ll be writing more later about the dengue vaccine research, which is perhaps less exciting than manipulating skeeters but perhaps more feasible.

FILED UNDER: Science, dengue, mosquitoes, science

July 26, 2011 | 9:00 AM | By Tom Paulson |

Two views on East Africa crisis: Famine is a crime; famine is bad science |

As the United Nations and the international community ramps up to airlift food and supplies into East Africa, mostly for starving Somali refugees, two perspectives on this crisis seemed especially interesting to me.

In Foreign Policy, Charles Kenny contends that, in this day and age, allowing a famine to occur is basically a crime against humanity:

For all its horror, starvation is also one of the simpler forms of mortality to prevent — it just takes food. Drought, poor roads, poverty — all are contributing factors to the risk of famine, but sustenance in the hands of the hungry is a pretty foolproof solution.

As a result, famine deaths in the modern world are almost always the result of deliberate acts on the part of governing authorities. That is why widespread starvation is a crime against humanity and the leaders who abet it should be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

That might sound a little melodramatic, but read his argument. Compelling stuff.

On a different line of thought, David Dickson, editor of the Science and Development Network, contends that the UN, Western powers and aid organizations could have been well-prepared for this crisis — if they had paid any attention to the scientific evidence reported by weather and drought prediction experts.

Dickson writes:

Earlier this week, the UN declared the drought in southern Somalia had become so bad that it could be officially declared a famine — the first time the word had been applied to this region in almost 20 years.

The news came as little surprise to agencies that had been monitoring the lack of rainfall over the past year, which is partly linked to the La Niña event in the Pacific Ocean. They had predicted that a widescale shortage of food was highly likely to occur.

FILED UNDER: Basics, Justice, Charles Kenny, David Dickson, famine, human rights, science, Somalia

June 30, 2011 | 1:00 PM | By Tom Paulson |

Science is growing in Africa |

Nature

The British journal Nature has published an excellent series called “Science in Africa” which examines the growth of the research and development community across the continent. An excerpt:

The forecast for science in Africa has brightened over the past decade. After enduring civil wars and economic crises, many countries have entered a period of rapid growth and leaders are starting to see science and technology as the keys to progress. In 2006, members of the African Union endorsed a target for each nation to spend 1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on research and development (R&D).

South Africa, Uganda and Malawi appear to be investing the most in trying to expand their scientific and technology base. Nigeria, as the publications map below shows, is way ahead of other nations in terms of publishing its scientific findings and reports.

Nature

Says Nature:

Africa’s most populous nation wants to catapult itself into the world’s top 20 economies by 2020. And science and technology is a central part of the strategy. Nigeria’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, has a PhD in zoology, and in the first few weeks after being elected he approved a US$5-million grant to the Nigerian Academy of Science to support its work.

The series goes on to examine the widely varying growth of R&D in different African nations and the reasons for this. It’s a lengthy series but interesting — and provides a nice counterpoint to the stereotypical view of Africa as a place where nothing ever gets better and science is a foreign concept.

FILED UNDER: Science, Africa, science

May 5, 2011 | 10:26 AM | By Tom Paulson |

Does doing “research” aimed at helping Africa hurt it? |

Laura Freschi at AidWatch has posted a link to an interesting talk given by a Ugandan academic and raised a question with respect to African scientific research in her post “African Universities: Creating True Researchers or ‘Native Informers’ to NGOs?

There’s a lot of discussion out there today about how to create “sustainable” health system improvements in many African nations with regard to preventing disease and providing health care — as opposed to just flying in Western do-gooders to come in with a campaign targeted at combating a single illness or fixing a specific problem.

The same problem exists with respect to efforts aimed at building up Africa’s scientific research base.

Freschi’s post is based on a recent speech given by a Ugandan academic, Mahmood Mamdani, which you should read for a more in-depth and on-the-ground perspective.

Mamdani claims Western NGOs like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which he singles out for its approach to malaria research) have been pushing African universities to adopt a “consultancy culture” focused on supporting mostly market-driven initiatives rather than creating a truly independent academic culture:

Today, the market-driven model is dominant in African universities. The consultancy culture it has nurtured has had negative consequences for postgraduate education and research. Consultants presume that research is all about finding answers to problems defined by a client. They think of research as finding answers, not as formulating a problem.

I question Mamdani’s singular focus on the Gates Foundation, and am not sure I agree with what he says is wrong with its malaria research strategy, but I think he and Freschi raise some very important issues and concerns here.

On a related note, Seth Berkley (outgoing AIDS vaccine champion CEO at IAVI and incoming CEO for children’s vaccine at GAVI) makes the case in SciDev.net for how boosting African R&D can assist in the fight against poverty.