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

I Am Biotech, the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s (BIO) outreach program is trying to promote the use of social media to spread the word about the importance of biotechnology and how it has changed the world for many individuals.

BioCrowd was invited to contribute to the social media section of the website. Like us, I Am Biotech believes that social media has an important role in promoting a better public understanding of biotechnology and other aspects of the life sciences industry.

Please check us out and learn more about the value of becoming a member of the BioCrowd by clicking here.

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Surfing!!!!!!!!!!!

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

William Shakespeare wrote: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." While Shakespeare apparently believed that names aren’t important, David Anderegg, a professor of psychology at Bennington College in Vermont feels otherwise. He contends that the mere mention of the words geek or nerd tend to perpetuate a stereotype. “The words are damaging, much like racial epithets and should be avoided” he said in a recent New York Times interview. He suggests that while the words are often used interchangeably, the connotations are a bit different. In today’s lexicon, the word geek usually suggests a person with special expertise, e.g., a computer geek, whereas the word nerd suggests social ineptness. Nevertheless, he contends that neither is perceived as a “cool” moniker.

Anderegg further asserts that in the US, math, science and computer science are courses that younger people too often associates with nerds and geeks. He adds that the negative connotations of these words are taking a toll on the US workforce. And, he may be right! Fewer college-aged Americans are majoring in science and engineering and US competitiveness in math and science has been steadily declining for the past 20 years or more. According to Dr. Anderegg the best way to combat these trends is to attempt to eliminate the words geeks and nerds from the American lexicon and “banish them to the linguistic dustbin.” To that end his most recent book, “Nerds: Who They Are and Why We need More of Them” may be a step in the right direction to convince young Americans that more engineers and scientists will be required for the US to remain competitive in today’s rapidly changing global economy. 

Not surprisingly, I think that science, engineering and technology are pretty cool and mistakenly get a bad rap because of the way in which science and math are taught at the primary and secondary educational levels. Put simply, many of the teachers’ currently teaching math and science don’t have sufficient breadth or depth to teach the subjects that they are asked to teach! One way to begin to change this is to convince some very hip, newly minted PhDs (you know who you are) that pursuing careers as high school biology and biotechnology teachers is—despite assertions to the contrary—a pretty cool thing to do! Call me crazy but I think this is what it is going to take to reinvigorate America’s competitiveness in science and technology! After all, nerds will be nerds, geeks will be geeks and scientists will be scientists....not that there is anything wrong with that!

Hat tip to David Anderegg!

Until next time....

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

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

Alan Alda, a well known actor and science enthusiast, is doing his share to improve the science literacy of Americans. His was the host of the Science Frontiers (which ran for 15 seasons on PBS until it was cancelled in 2005) and more recently the host of Wired Science which failed to catch on and was also canceled. Alda’s approach to science education is asking questions that nonscientists could understand while throwing in a bit of humor as well. In a recent interview he stressed that he always tries to “keep it a conversation.” Sometimes, he added, scientists and researchers would “lapse into lecture mode, and I’d have to bring them back into a conversation. This isn’t surprising because many scientists are unfamiliar or lack the necessary training to engage in conversational science. For the most part, scientists are trained didactically and exchange information via formal traditional channels which include: seminars, oral and written presentations at scientific meetings and congresses and publication of research findings in peer reviewed journals. In other words, science education has historically resembled a one way conversation rather than a dialog. Unfortunately, web 2.0 and social media is all about conversations and one way conversations are becoming less acceptable, even in science circles! To that end, Alda just finished teaching a six-week course of workshops at Stony Brook University on Long Island instructing scientists how to use improvisational acting techniques to express themselves more clearly. “The idea is you can’t really communicate ideas unless you know what’s going on in the other person’s mind,” he said. 

Despite many incredible scientific advances in the past decade, the science gap in America continues to widen. Science is becoming increasingly complex and fewer Americans are capable of understanding it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon scientists to begin to understand that they have a critical role to play in improving the public understanding of science. This responsibility can no longer be relegated to primary and secondary school teachers nor should nonscientists like Alda,Ira Flato of NPR’s Science Friday, Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad of RadioLab (a great show), be expected to carry the banner and lead the charge! 

Interestingly, while listening to this week’s Science Friday, I learned of educational initiatives being sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundations that are aimed at bringing more science into the entertainment fields. While this is an important first step, it may be too little; too late. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve it: scientists need to step out of their comfort zones and learn how to better communicate and interact with the lay public. To that end, by way of a sport’s analogy “we scientists control our own destiny” We can choose to collectively learn how to better inform the American public about what we do and how we do it or allow the science literacy gap to ultimately become a chasm in the 21^st century.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Learning and Listening!!!!!!

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

Earlier this week, Mark Senak who writes the EyeonFDA blog, offered his insights and analysis of pharma’s relationship with Twitter. Today, he tackled YouTube and Pharma. While YouTube has been around a lot longer than Twitter, pharma’s use (with the exception of Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis and Tibotec) of the popular video-sharing site has been extremely limited despite the ability of the entity that posts the video to eliminate or regulate the ability of users to leave and share comments after viewing it. 

I suspect that the industry’s reluctance to use YouTube may be related to the lack of regulatory guidance for this medium. Nevertheless, I don’t completely understand why drug makers have chosen not to use the widely popular video site to increase patient awareness about certain medical conditions or to promote patient wellness. These types of videos would likely be appreciated by the public and quite possibly help to repair tarnished image of the pharmaceutical industry held by many consumers and stakeholders.

Hat tip to Mark!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Viewing!!!!!

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

Late last week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved GlaxoSmithKline’s cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix for use in girls and women ages 10 to 25 and also approved Gardasil —Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine previously approved in 2006 for use in girls and women—for boys and men ages 9 to 26. For those of you who may not know, over 99% of human cervical cancers are caused by infections with cancer-causing strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV) which also causes venereal warts. Vaccination with Cervarix protects against cervical cancer by inducing immunity against HPV 16 and 18 (which cause most cervical cancers in developed nations) whereas Gardasil affords protection against HPV 16 and 18 as well as HPV 6 and 11, strains that cause venereal warts (which don’t lead to cancer).

Despite FDA’s approval to vaccinate boys with Gardasil to prevent HPV infections, the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)— which guides national policy on use of vaccines—decided yesterday to recommend the use of the vaccine in girls and women but didn’t fully endorse its use in males. Typically, ACIP recommendations are adopted by professional medical associations and set the standards of practice for physicians. Also, its recommendations play a major role in determining whether or not insurers and third party payors will reimburse patients who are vaccinated. The new recommendations mean, in effect, that physicians and clinics may now administer the vaccine at their discretion to boys and men ages 9 to 26, but they are not expected to offer it. In contrast, vaccination of girls and women ages 10 to 25 will be strongly recommended, readily available and reimbursable. This means that parents may consider the vaccine as an option for their sons, but some health insurers may choose not to cover the shots—an option which is sure to severely limit the numbers of boys and men who are vaccinated with Gardasil.

The ACIP committee decided not to include Gardasil immunization for boys and men on its recommended list because several members, most notably a medical economist, questioned whether vaccinating boys would be cost effective in the long run. At the heart of the debate was whether or not it was appropriate and cost-effective to vaccinate boys for a problem (venereal warts) that can be embarrassing and uncomfortable but is not life-threatening. For those of you who may not know, Gardasil immunization is expensive and requires a series of three injections that cost $130 each ($390 total).  Cervarix, which also requires a series of three injections, is planned to be offered for $385.

Last year in the United States, about 37 percent of girls ages 13 to 17 started the Gardasil vaccine series, a national immunization survey showed, and about half of them completed it. Not a great track record for a vaccine demonstrated to prevent cervical cancer and dramatically reduce the transmission of venereal warts. Nevertheless, yesterday’s decision to recommend vaccination for girls and women but not boys and men makes no sense to me from a public health perspective and it almost smacks of gender bias. Let me explain.

Like all other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HPV is transmitted from men to women and visa versa. Based on years of epidemiological studies, the only effective way to reduce the overall incidence of STDs is to implement strategies that prevent infections in both females and males. While boys and men can’t develop cervical cancer, they do contract venereal warts and perhaps, more importantly, can serve as carriers or reservoirs of HPV infection in the population. In other words, infected males (who may or may not show symptoms of HPV infection) still possess the potential to transmit it to sexually-active, unvaccinated girls and women. Consequently, while the incidence of HPV infections may begin to decrease among women after immunization, it will never be completely eliminated and the possibility of developing cervical cancer will continue to be a public health concern.

While the ACIP’s understanding of the transmission of STDs is tragically flawed, its willingness to publicly disclose cost effectiveness as a reason to not endorse HPV vaccination for males is even more egregious! The agency’s decision begs the question: Which is more costly; 10,000 American women developing cervical cancer each year (and countless others going for unnecessary cervical biopsies because of “bad” Pap smears) or a heads up to insurance companies that they ought to cover the costs of male HPV immunizations? 

The ACIP’s reluctance to recommend male HPV vaccination based on economic and health care cost concerns rather than on public health implications is yet another example of how broken the US healthcare system is and how drastically it needs to be reformed. Allowing 3,700 women to die each year in the US from cervical cancer when there is a safe and effective way to prevent these deaths is, in my opinion, unconscionable!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

I have refrained from commenting on healthcare reform until now because there wasn’t much I could add to the debate. That said, while reading an article in a local paper on bacterial antibiotic resistance and how to minimize it, the author—an infectious disease doc—offered a telling statistic that identified the root problem with our current healthcare system. According to the article, 65% of the time, physicians will prescribe antibiotics to patients suffering from upper respiratory tract infections who demand them, whether or not they are warranted. In marked contrast, 12% of patients with upper respiratory tract infections who don’t ask for antibiotics receive antibiotic prescriptions. The bottom line: physicians give patients the drugs and treatment they demand because they are afraid of losing them as customers knowing full well the patients will go to another physician who will give them what they want! After all, physicians are in business and to stay in business they need to make enough money to cover their overhead and make a profit. However, over prescribing antibiotics is one of the main reasons why we are in the midst of an epidemic of infections caused by multiple drug resistant bacteria. In my opinion, business outcomes should never supersede or trump medical or public health outcomes.

Don’t get me wrong, I am an entrepreneur and believe that people with good ideas ought to be rewarded for their efforts and make as much money as they can. However, in my opinion, for profit business practices and healthcare haven’t historically worked well for the American healthcare system. Removing profit incentives from healthcare would be an important first step to begin to repair our broken healthcare system. Can anybody say public option?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Support the Public Option!!!!

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

I came across a recent post on Adage.com entitled “Pharma Drops Search Advertising After FDA Warning” that revealed that paid search ads by pharmaceutical companies dropped a 84% between March 26 of this year and the end of June. As you may recall, March 26 was when 14 companies received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that they had violated marketing guidelines for search ad advertising. The letters stated that sponsored-link advertisements for specific drugs were misleading due to the exclusion of risk information associated with the use of the drug -- even though the regulatory agency's guidelines are for print and broadcast, not online or social media. Pharma companies that believed they were in compliance with the unwritten "one-click rule"— taking the consumer from the ad to a site that offered fair balance and the risk information by clicking on the ad. What? Did I read that correctly; the words “unwritten and FDA” in the same sentence? This is very surprising since anybody who has worked with the agency is well aware of the “if it isn’t written it didn’t happen” principle. But I digress....

The post went on to say that pharmaceutical companies are “fearful of running afoul” of the agency again. Say what? The words “pharma and fearful” used in the same sentence? The point that I am trying to make is that pharma chose to keep things vague about web-based advertising to see how far they can push the envelope with FDA instead of taking the proverbial “bull by the horns” and directly asking FDA for guidance on web 2.0 technologies and their uses. Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest if companies took a more active role to help craft new rules on the use of new media technologies rather then rely on and wait for FDA to do it for them? While the old “cat and mouse” game worked for old media, it is no longer tenable when it comes to Web 2.0 and related technologies.

The FDA is holding public hearings next month to begin the process of establishing internet advertising guidelines and the use of social media in the life science industry. This offers drug and devices companies an opportunity to show FDA that they no longer want to be part of the problem but part of the solution.  I have always subscribed to the notion that “you don’t get if you don’t ask!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Surfing (on the Internet that is)

blog comments powered by Disqus

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

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

The 2009 Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) is currently taking place in San Francisco. For those of you who may not know ICAAC, is an annual meeting mainly attended by infectious disease physicians and researchers where the latest and most cutting edge research on infectious agents is reported. Things must have been a little slow at this year’s meeting (except for H1N1 of course) which led the newswires to pick up a story about the isolation of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus  (MRSA) at public beaches in Washington State. While MRSA infections are certainly a public health concern, particularly among infants, older adults and immunocompromised individuals finding MRSA at public beaches isn’t particularly surprising nor newsworthy.

S. aureus is an opportunistic pathogen that isn't particularly virulent and is incapable of causing disease unless it is accidentally introduced into a wound, surgical incision or similar environment. In humans, the bacterium colonizes mainly the nasal passages, but it may be regularly found in most other anatomical locales, including the skin, oral cavity and gastrointestinal tract. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that over 70% of people transiently carry S. aureus in their nasal passages at one time or another in their lives. This means that S. aureus is very common and ubiquitous in human populations. Consequently, I wasn’t surprised when I learned that Seattle researchers had isolated S. aureus at public beaches in Washington State. Nor was I shocked to learn that some of the isolates were MRSA strains!  After all, the incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus has been steadily increasing in the US and elsewhere for the past 20 years. And, healthy people who carry MRSA (and regularly shed it from their bodies) do like to go to beach and lay in the sand when the weather is warm. That said, I would have flabbergasted if the researchers didn't isolate MRSA from the beach sand samples that they surveyed. As an aside, I want to let my readers know that I isolated S. aureus from a soil sample while an undergraduate microbiology  major at Cornell University. Finally, while some MRSA infections can be fatal, those that are diagnosed correctly and early are usually easy to eliminate with conventional antibiotic regimens.

Because the work mentioned in the ICAAC press release hasn’t been published, it is  difficult to evaluate the results and implications of the study's findings.  Nevertheless, I don’t think it was prudent for the scientists who conducted the research to issue a press release about finding MRSA at public beaches—especially when the American public is already jittery about infectious agents like H1N1. If the authors’ intent was to make a big splash (pun intended) by mentioning the “dreaded MRSA” in their press release, they were successful—the story is all over the news. However, in my opinion, we are obliged as scientists to accurately inform the lay public about important scientific and public health issues—not play into its worse fears and misconceptions about them.

Until next time...

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

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

The Public Library of Science (PLOS) announced that it has launched a new website called PLOS Currents that is intended to serve as a vehicle for the rapid publication of scientific research and new ideas and themes. Not surprisingly, the first theme for PLOS Currents is influenza. On his Virology blog, Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd cofounder and prominent virologist, discusses why PLOS Currents is important and timely for scientist actively engaged in influenza research and vaccine development.  

The opening of PLoS Currents: Influenza was announced by Harold Varmus, Chairman and Co-Founder of PLoS. He wrote about the reasons for starting this website at The Official Google Blog:

The key goal of PLoS Currents is to accelerate scientific discovery by allowing researchers to share their latest findings and ideas immediately with the world’s scientific and medical communities. Google Knol’s features for community interaction, comment and discussion will enable commentary and conversations to develop around these findings. Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

Contributions that will be welcome at PLoS Currents: Influenza include research into influenza virology, genetics, immunity, structural biology, genomics, epidemiology, modeling, evolution, policy and control. The manuscripts will not be subject to peer-review, but unsuitable submissions will be screened out by a board of expert moderators. This policy will enable rapid publication of research.

The path to publishing original scientific research is often long and tortuous.  A manuscript describing the findings is prepared and submitted to a scientific journal (such as Nature, Cell, Journal of Virology). The manuscript is assigned to two or three expert reviewers, generally scientists involved in the same area of research. If their reviews are favorable, the paper is published. Usually additional experiments are called for, which may require additional time to complete. Many months to a year may pass before the paper is published, although some manuscripts (e.g. those on 2009 pandemic influenza) may be expedited. The point is that PLoS Currents: Influenza will allow everyone – including non-scientists – to read about research soon after the authors have prepared the paper.

PLoS Currents: Influenza is a terrific idea, and I welcome this venture with great enthusiasm. I hope that PLoS Currents will grow to include other areas of science. But Varmus warns:

Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

During peer review of submitted manuscripts, new experiments may be suggested that change some of the conclusions of the research. Hence, the papers that appear in PLoS Currents: Influenza may be different from final versions that are published elsewhere.

I wonder how other scientific journals will react to submissions of manuscripts that have appeared in PLoS Currents. Many journals do not accept manuscripts that have already appeared elsewhere. For example, the instructions to authors for the Journal of Virology state:

By submission of a manuscript to the journal, the authors guarantee that they have the authority to publish the work and that the manuscript, or one with substantially the same content, was not published previously, is not being considered or published elsewhere, and was not rejected on scientific grounds by another ASM journal.

It’s time for scientific journals to change this policy, and allow for preliminary publication at sites such as PLoS Currents.

Rapid and open-access publication will drive research forward and help inform and educate the public about science.

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

The appearance of the Swine Flu aka H1N1 last spring not only created a worldwide panic, it demonstrated to Albert Osterhaus, head of virology at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands how uninformed the lay public was about viral outbreaks, epidemiology and public health. This prompted Dr. Osterhaus and his colleagues to create a free, online video game called the “The Great Flu” which challenges players to control a new viral pandemic.

As the virus has spread worldwide, countries have tried different methods to slow it down and pharmaceutical companies are now racing to produce a swine flu vaccine (sound familiar?). To fight the emerging outbreak, players use public health measures including setting up surveillance systems, stockpiling antivirals and vaccines, and closing schools and airports. Players also have a limited budget and are warned that "your actions to control the virus cost money, so keep an eye on it." In other words, while the goal is to control the pandemic, there may not be sufficient funds and resources to accomplish those goals!

A running tally of the numbers of people infected and those who have died are displayed above the budget. Newspaper stories about the deadly virus and the global response to it — like riots breaking out worldwide — pop up to help players monitor the outbreak and plan their next moves. Messages from governments mirror the difficulties faced by international agencies like WHO that are responsible for containing worldwide epidemics. For example, when players set up costly surveillance systems, sometimes participating governments will send a message "we will comply with your directions...but we must inform you that the political support for this action is low in this region. Therefore, the effectiveness of the system to control the outbreak may differ from your expectations."

The goal of the game is make the lay public aware of the difficulties that public health officials encounter during pandemics and the tight rope they sometimes must walk to insure that the virus is contained and doesn’t continue to spread. To test your skill level at controlling pandemics, you can choose different viruses (which range from easy to difficult to manage) at the beginning of the game.

I think “The Great Flu” is a great way to educate the public about infectious diseases and epidemiology and have fun at the same time. If you are interested in more sinister online swine flu games check this out.  Who said learning science has to be tedious and dull?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Virus Hunting!!!!!

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

Several weeks ago, I blogged about a growing need to improve the American public’s perception and understanding of the life sciences if the US wants to remain competitive in science and technology. Much to my delight, there was an article this Sunday’s NY Times entitled “Microbes R Us” which explores the evolutionary relationship with bacteria and humans. It was written by Dr. Olivia Judson an evolutionary biologist and author of “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex,” which was made into a three part television program.

While the evolutionary relationship between bacteria and humans isn’t as titillating as the biology of sex, the article sheds light on the importance of bacteria and how genetic changes in bacteria that normally inhabit the human intestinal track can have a positive impact on human nutrition and health. Many lay people believe that bacteria are “bad” because certain species can cause serious and potentially life threatening diseases. However, the benefits, advantages and uses of bacteria e.g., to make food, antibiotics and other medicines, far outweigh their negative impact on society. 

Articles like the one written by Ms. Judson, offer the public unqique insights into  the amazing and often fascinating world of microbiology. I hope that a few aspiring young scientists read the article and tell all their friends about it!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Reading!!!!!!

• 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

A quick perusal of the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak of 2009 would lead many to conclude that this outbreak has the potential to rival or surpass the 1918 flu pandemic—widely regarded as the worst influenza outbreak in history. While the emergence of a new H1N1 swine flu variant is significant note worthy— and has possible public health implications— the unrelenting, often scientifically-inaccurate media coverage did little to quell the fear and anxiety of many Americans.  Once again, the media—rather than physicians, public health officials and influenza experts—“got out in front of the story” and managed to create enough panic, fear and anxiety, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 2003 SARS pandemic. It wasn't until last Friday, when the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Dr. Peter Palese—a leading scientific expert on influenza A infections— did a clearer picture emerge about the severity and public health implications of the current swine flu pandemic.

According to Dr. Palese, there are several reasons why people and public health officials ought to be optimistic about the current pandemic:

• In 1976 there was a an outbreak of an H1N1 swine virus in Fort Dix, New Jersey, which showed human to human transmission but did not go on to become a highly virulent pandemic strain
• The presently circulating swine virus is most likely not more virulent than the other seasonal strains we have experienced over the last several years
• The current swine virus lacks an important molecular signature (the protein PB1-F2) which was present in the 1918 virus and in the highly lethal H5N1 chicken viruses.  If this virulence marker is necessary for an influenza virus to become highly pathogenic in humans or in chickens, then the current swine virus doesn’t have what it takes to become a major killer
• Since people have been exposed to H1N1 viruses over many decades, we likely have some cross-reactive immunity against the swine H1N1 virus. While it may not be sufficient to prevent becoming ill, it may very well dampen the impact of the virus on mortality.  I would postulate that by virtue of this “herd immunity” even a 1918-like H1N1 virus could never have the horrific effect it had in the past.  The most likely outcome is that the current swine virus will become another (fourth) strain of regular seasonal influenza

The landscape of vaccines and anti-influenza drugs has dramatically improved over what it was just a few years ago. Based on what we know of the structure and sequence of the swine virus, these FDA-approved drugs and FDA-licensed vaccines (modified to include the swine strain) would be highly effective against this new virus.  Also, present technologies as well as manufacturing capacities will allow us to make sufficient quantities of a swine virus vaccine for the winter 2009-10 influenza season in the US.

In other words, there is reason for concern but no need to panic beyond typical public health precautions that are taken during “normal” influenza outbreaks.

Dr. Vincent Racaniello, a viral disease expert who writes the Virology Blog, reported that as of Monday there have been laboratory confirmed cases of H1N1 infections in 30 US states with a total of 226 cases and one death in Texas. Globally, 20 countries had reported 985 cases of infection. The highest numbers are in Mexico, with 590 cases and 25 deaths. While there have been 26 deaths to date, the severity of the infection appears to be waning and person-to-person transmission appears to be low.

Unfortunately, there has been some fallout from the news media’s oft times “over the top” coverage of the pandemic. Many US hospital emergency rooms (most notably in Texas and California) have been overwhelmed and overburdened by visits from people who think they may have swine flu. Also, while some schools and daycare center closures were warranted, others may not have been. Finally, and perhaps most important, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the lay public's understanding of infectious agents and the outbreaks that they cause is grossly deficient and must be improved. 

We live in a world where viral pandemics, food poisoning outbreaks and infections caused by multiple-antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming commonplace. While vaccines, antivirals and antibiotics can afford some protection against many viral and bacterial disease, the best way to fight infectious diseases is to understand what causes them, how they are spread and what public health measures can be implemented to prevent or control their transmission. Until the world becomes better educated about infectious diseases, we will continue to be overly-dependent on the news media during future outbreaks and epidemics.

Until next time....

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

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

Do you lie awake a night overwhelmed by the possibility of another infectious disease outbreak? Well, if you want to get a good night’s sleep, I highly recommend that you take a look at a brief history of American epidemics that was published in this past Sunday’s New York Times. According to the article, history shows that the number of American epidemics has been relatively small. In fact, the author suggests that there were only nine major epidemics in the US since 1892. 

While there were several major outbreaks in the early to mid 1900s (Spanish flu, 1918; smallpox, 1947 and polio, 1952), the US has been relatively unscathed in recent years—with the possible exception of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and possibly the herpes and HPV epidemics. This is because of America’s outstanding infectious diseases surveillance networks, its comprehensive vaccination programs and modern medical and hospital infrastructures.

However, no matter how vigilant we are, there is no way to prevent infectious disease outbreaks unless the pathogens that cause the diseases are eradicated from the planet as was the case for the smallpox virus. That said, the best way to manage infectious disease epidemics is to be prepared for all contingencies.  In my opinion, the recent swine flu outbreak—this was its second appearance, the first taking place in 1976—was a practice run. And I think the world did “pretty, pretty good” as Larry David, my former NYC softball teammate and co-creator of Seinfeld would say!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Mention the word “scientist” to most people and they will likely conjure up an image of a socially-inept, nerdy individual who cannot talk to “normal everyday folks” because they are either “too smart” or out of touch with the “real world.” I have been fighting that stereotype for as long as I can remember. I believe that, along the way, I have convinced a few people otherwise and hope that they have learned that “one size does not fit for all scientists”—or any other professional group for that matter. The public perception of scientists was improving until George W Bush, an inveterate anti-science and anti-intellectual advocate became President in 2001. I hope that America’s attitude toward science (and scientists) will change over the next four years as President Obama tries to “restore science to its rightful place.” Nevertheless, I felt compelled to write this post after reading a New York Times review of a television drama called “Breaking Bad” (AMC, Sundays, 10 EDT) which, in my opinion, reinforces the negative stereotypes of scientists held by many members of the lay public.

Breaking Bad centers on a former Caltech chemistry genius named Walt, who failed to live up to the legend of his graduate school days. At 50, he is teaching high school chemistry in Albuquerque, NM. Although he contributed to work of a Nobel-winning team, the teaching job in New Mexico is inexplicably the best that he can get. To make matters worse, his best friend at Cal Tech has amassed a fortune (based largely on Walt’s graduate school work) and is married to Walt’s beautiful ex-wife. Walt learns  after attending a lavish party thrown by his friend, that most of his graduate school classmates (unlike him) are famous world class scientists who live in big homes and make enough money to purchase guitars that previously belonged to Eric Clapton. On top of his devastating psychic and emotional pain, Walt is also suffering from stage 3A lung cancer—even though he never smoked! To save his life, Walt partners with one of his former high school students in the crystal methamphetamine business. Walt’s chemical genius allows him to synthesize the meth from scratch—unlike his scientifically-challenged competitors who must extract the starting materials from over the counter cold remedies—earning him the reputation as one of the best meth ‘cookers” in the US. Walt uses the drug money to pay for his chemotherapy to stay alive and care for 15 year old son with cerebral palsy.  

While the show sounds intriguing, and by all accounts is well acted and provides a glimpse into the lives of people struggling with chronic illness and unrealized career aspirations, it sends the wrong messages to the American public about scientists, their motivations and their lives. First, it portrays Walt’s classmates as wealthy, elitist dilettantes who live lavish lives and don’t think twice about flaunting their status and power as world class scientists. Aside from Craig Venter and several other high profile scientists who are sometimes featured on 60 Minutes, I don’t think that there are many scientists who enjoy the luxurious and opulent lifestyles depicted in Breaking Bad. To the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of us are struggling, like others, to make ends meet to put food on the table. And, perhaps more importantly, I don’t think that money, fame and fortune induced most of us to become scientists in the first place. Portraying scientists as ego-maniacal, thoughtless, self-absorbed dilettantes sends the wrong message to an American public that is already suspicious and distrustful of science.

Second, Walt’ colleagues view him as a “failed scientist” who, despite his brilliance, has been humiliated and reduced to teaching chemistry (at a low wage) to high school students. Listen to an exchange between Walt and his oncologist “I am an extremely overqualified high school chemistry teacher. When I can work I make $43,700 per year. I have watched all of my colleagues and friends surpass me in every way imaginable....” Unfortunately, Walt’s view of himself—as a lowly, underpaid high school chemistry teacher —is consistent with the attitudes of many academicians who feel that teaching is far less important or valuable than laboratory research. In my previous life as a medical school faculty member, it wasn’t uncommon to see a prominent researcher cringe or shake his/her head in disbelief at the mere mention of a teaching career by a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. I contend that we ought to encourage (and not dissuade) some of our best and brightest students to pursue teaching instead of research careers. Further, academic researchers must begin to recognize that PhDs who choose to pursue careers in teaching are not less competent or failed scientists—they are simply individuals who want to teach! Given the 20-year long decline in American science and technology preparedness, the scientific community can no longer afford to continue to exclusively promote research over careers in teaching and education.

Finally, the American public has long been suspicious and distrustful of science. In support of this, scientists are often portrayed in literature, movies and in the news as dark, and sometimes mad people who, when left unchecked, will unleash scientific “horrors” on the world.  I am old enough to remember the public fears about the secret bio-warfare programs in the Soviet Union and US during the cold war and more recently, the rumor that was circulating after the HIV/AIDS epidemic was disclosed, that the virus was created by the US government. The brouhaha that erupted over genetic engineering in the 1980s and continued suspicions surrounded genetically modified foods and human cloning are other examples of the public’s distrust of science. Sadly, the decision of the Breaking Bad’s creators to turn Walt, whose chemistry brilliance is unrivaled, into a crystal meth cooker perpetuates the myth about “evil misguided scientists” who are willing to jeopardize the safety of others for their own motives or self gain. The creators of Breaking Bad want us to believe that Walt is justified in turning to the dark side because his power hungry, egomaniacal, scientific colleagues have derailed his career and forced him to become an overqualified, underpaid chemistry teacher. In other words, he had no choice but to use his scientific talents to survive, and perhaps, more importantly, prove to his colleagues (and himself) that he truly is a gifted chemist and not a failed scientist.

Admittedly, while the plot line of Breaking Bad is a little over the top, it tends to reinforce the public’s negative perceptions of scientists and does little to assuage suspicions about the dark underside of modern science.  Like most other people, we scientists are human and have made our share of mistakes. Nevertheless, I think that we  must challenge ourselves to make an effort to educate the American public about who we are and what scientists do on a day to day basis.  If we fail to meet this challenge, I think that President Obama will continue to struggle to “restore science to its rightful place in America.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try public education-schools are hiring!)

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

News Day reported today that Wegmans Food Markets, a grocer with 72 locations in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland is giving away “free generic antibiotics” for customers (with a prescription). Wegmans joins a growing list of supermarkets pharmacies including Giant Food and Publix that are giving free generic antibiotics to its customers.

I first learned about the “free generic antibiotic give away offers” several weeks ago after reading a post on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Health Blog. I took the WSJ health blog to task for posting the story without editorial comment on the potentially dangerous practice of “hawking free antibiotics” to drive business at regional and nationwide grocery store pharmacies. Luckily, in today’s WSJ Health Blog post about the Wegmans program, the author (Sarah Rubenstein) did suggest that the practice may lead to unnecessary promotional  use of antibiotics.

As you all should know by now, we are in the midst of bacterial antibiotic-resistance epidemic. People are beginning to regularly die from bacterial infections that were easily treatable a decade ago. Ironically, we are slowly approaching the morbidity and mortality rates for bacterial infections that previously existed in the pre-penicillin era. Moreover, there are no new, orally bioavailable, broad spectrum antibiotics on the horizon. A lack of new antibiotics coupled with rapidly emerging resistance to extant ones is wreaking havoc on the healthcare system in both community and hospital settings.

The “free generic antibiotics” advertising and marketing programs concocted by Giant, Publix and Wegman’s are egregious examples of how a lack of or unwillingness to understand science poses a serious public health threat to all Americans. I have no doubt that the marketers who devised the give away programs have nary a clue about the relationship between antibiotic use and the emergence of antibiotic resistance strains of bacteria. Further, while physicians may be aware of increasing rates of antibiotic resistance, many are reluctant to not prescribe antibiotics to patients who request them. After all, these physicians are running a business and if they don’t write the script, the patient will take his/her business elsewhere. The potential public health implication of these free antibiotic programs begs the question: Why not give away generic ace inhibitors, generic statins or other generic medications whose profits margins are also negligible but don’t carry any public health risks?

Put simply, the promise of free generic antibiotics is a marketing strategy that is in my opinion, reckless, dangerous and may have serious public health implications in the future. Make no mistake about it, I am a capitalist but not when profits are placed before human lives.

Hat tip to the WSJ Health Blog

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try antibiotic drug discovery—we need new ones)

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

Vincent Racaniello, Professor of Microbiology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and co-founder of BioCrowd ,has created a weekly series called This Week In Virology (TWiV). Each week Professors  Racaniello and Dickson Despommier (another Columbia virologist) discuss the latest developments and public health concerns for a variety of viral diseases.

The weekly discussions are packaged as podcasts, posted on TWiV and Science Podcasters.org and can be downloaded from iTunes. Dr. Racaniello eventually wants to offer TWiV in a vcast format and use it to inform the public and teach students about viral diseases.

So far, Vincent and Dick have created nine TWIV podcasts. Some of viruses that they have discussed include: HIV, Polio, Lassa fever, Rabies, West Nile Virus and even video game viruses. The podcasts are interesting, informative and a good way to learn something about virology—something that may liven up your daily commute!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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