Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Last week, I took a group of Seattle researchers to task about issuing a press release about isolating methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from sand samples taken from public beaches in Washington State. Their findings were neither remarkable nor news worthy and likely did more harm than good. Sadly, another article about MRSA—designed to alarm rather than inform and educate the American public—appeared in today’s Science section of the NY Times.

The article, “Ties to Pets Has Germ Jumping To and Fro” in which the word “germ” appeared several times, reports on the possible transmission of MRSA between humans and their pets, most notably dogs and cats. Much of the article focuses on the “strong link between animal to human transmission,” offers several frightening examples of serious zoonotic cases that have been recently reported and suggests that cats are eight times more likely than other pets to transmit MRSA to their owners. After reading the first part of the article, readers would rightfully believe that we are in the midst of a massive zoonotic MRSA epidemic with family pets at its epicenter.  However, on the second page of the article the author mentions an epidemiological survey study conducted by Dr. J. Scott Weese, a veterinarian from the University of Guelph in Ontario Canada which showed  that only “two to three percent of pets carry MRSA on their fur or skin or in their saliva.” Further, the study suggests that healthy animals that are transiently colonized by MRSA eliminate them “in a manner of weeks.” Compare the 2 to 3 per cent carrier rate in pets with an almost 70% human carriage rate of MRSA. While I am a PhD-trained infectious disease microbiologist, I don’t think it requires a PhD to quickly realize that pets really aren’t a major source or cause of MRSA infections for humans. That said, raising awareness among veterinarians about MRSA might aid in the development of appropriate disease surveillance, diagnostic testing, andinfection control to lessen the impact of MRSA on smallanimals.

I have no doubt that many people will look at and possibly treat their pets differently after reading the Times article. Further, many will unnecessarily spend money to have their pets tested for the presence or absence of MRSA. While informing the American public that pets (like humans) might unknowingly transmit MRSA is a good thing, turning the rare transmission of MRSA from animals to humans into a major epidemiological brou-ha-ha is misleading, scientifically disingenuous and reckless. Good journalism should inform and educate, not alarm and frighten people by presenting misleading and wrong-headed information. 

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good petting your pets (it will do more good than harm)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A survey involving 2000 members of the public and 2500 scientists conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) revealed that almost two-thirds of Americans hold scientists and engineers (and their contributions to society) in high regard. However, in marked contrast, 85% of the scientists surveyed said that public ignorance of science was a major problem. And, not surprisingly a majority of the scientists surveyed feel that American media coverage of science is “fair or poor.”

While the reasons for this disconnect in opinions aren’t readily apparent, perhaps some insights into the public’s understanding of scientific concepts like evolution and climate might be informative. For example, almost 35% of Americans believe that “humans existed in their current form since the beginning of time” whereas only 2% of scientists hold this belief. Further, only about 50 percent of Americans agree that humans are behind climate change and a whopping11 percent believe that there isn’t global warming at all. These beliefs trouble many scientists because there is no credible scientific evidence to refute the theory of evolution and there is incontrovertible data which shows that humans are a major contributor to global warming. So, what’s the deal with Americans?

There is little doubt that American science education is lacking. For the most part, this deficiency has been blamed on poorly trained and uninformed primary and secondary school science teachers. While this may be partly true, scientists and engineers also bear much of the responsibility.  According to the report, only 3 percent of the scientists surveyed said that they “often” spoke to reporters and the media. In other words, a majority of scientists don’t feel that it’s important to engage the public in fundamental discussion about evolution and climate change.  A facile and convenient way for scientists to eschew any responsibility for the problem is to label the American public as “ignorant about science” and not do anything about it. If scientists truly want to improve the public understanding of science, it will be necessary to roll up our sleeves and do some work to better inform and educate them!  New social media tools like blogs, videos, podcasts and social networking sites like BioCrowd represent ideal vehicles to begin to make headway against this vexing problem! 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How many of you read the printed ingredients and nutrition fact boxes found on packaged foods to help you decide which of two similar products you ought to buy? What if the same concept was applied to direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads? Do you think that it would be easier to determine which of two similar medications may be best for you? Well, researchers at Dartmouth Medical School think so! And, they are urging the US Food and Drug administration to adopt a similar concept for all DTC advertising.

Based on results from two randomized, clinical studies, the Dartmouth team proposed that numerical tables that quantify the benefits of a drug (compared with placebo) and also the odds of developing certain side effects should be included on DTC advertisements including television, print and web-based ads. In those studies, patients were shown drug ads that did and did not include a fact box. Participants looked at ads (with and without fact boxes) for two similar prescription heartburn medications and two widely prescribed cardiovascular drugs. The trial using the heartburn medications was designed to evaluate consumer decision-making about drugs that are used to treat symptoms whereas the cardiovascular medications trial was used to evaluate decision-making about the use of preventative medications that reduce the risk of future events, e.g., heartache or stroke.

Overall, the researchers said, the addition of facts boxes to prescription drug ads allowed consumers to make better decisions about the choices of drugs for their symptoms and were better informed about the benefits of drugs that could be used for prevention. For example, when asked which drug they would choose for heartburn 68 percent of those who had seen ads with facts boxes picked what the researchers referred to as "the superior drug," as compared with 31 percent of those who had seen ads without facts boxes. Also, about 80 percent of the facts-box group, as compared with 38 percent from the non-fact-box group, knew that both drugs had similar side effects. After looking at cardiovascular drug ads with or without fact-boxes, 72 percent of those who saw ads with facts boxes correctly described the risk reduction associated with both drugs whereas only 9% of non-fact-box participants were able to do this.

DTC advertising is big business—last year the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $4.8 billion on television and print ads alone. While DTC advertising is known to influence prescription drug sales, it is also somewhat controversial suggested Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine "Direct-to-consumer drug advertising is controversial in medical circles, largely out of concern that drug companies will talk patients into preferences not in their best interest, "But I often encounter the opposite problem in my patients. After hearing the litany of potential side effects of a drug, they absolutely refuse to take it," Katz said. Nevertheless, he and the Dartmouth researchers agree that better-informed patients make better drug choices.

Drs. Woloshin and Schwartz, leaders of the Dartmouth team, are scheduled to present their findings tomorrow to an FDA advisory panel on “risk communication.” The panel is tasked with examining how best to provide consumers with data about prescription drugs using printed matter. 

Adding fact-boxes to print, television or web-based ads won’t substantially increase the cost of creating and producing them. Also, rather than hurt prescription drug sales—what most pharmaceutical companies are worried about—the new approach may be good for the industry. According to Robert Ehrlich, who heads DTC Perspectives, a company that specializes in pharmaceutical marketing, “If there is high benefit and low risk, doctors will prescribe more of the drugs. If there is low benefit and high risks than the drug should probably not be on the market,” said Ehrlich.

Stay tuned for updates.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link