Snake Banishment Bias

The New York Times article, Snake Owners See Furry Bias in Invasive Species Proposal caught my eye today because I love snakes. I know that it is a little unusual for a girl to love snakes, typically snakes induce a lot of frightened yelping. But, I have always found them awkwardly beautiful.

Normal and Albino Snake. Source: Wikimedia Commons

According to the article the US Fish and Wildlife Service is cracking down on snake ownership due to the increased prevalence of invasive snakes in various ecosystems. Boas, Anacondas, and Pythons are among the types of snakes included in the crack down, but they are popular as pets. Pet snakes become problematic when they escape or get released into the wild and prey on local species.

Opponents to legislation to restrict the sale of snakes say that there should be a distinction between snakes that can't thrive in the wild (suffering from albinism, or in unsuitable climates) versus snakes that are likely to become invasive.

Snake enthusiasts are opposed to legislation that would restrict the sale of snakes on the grounds that there could be a significant loss of revenue for breeders. Because the animals are pets, restrictions would also bring up the issue of whether the government should be able to dictate what type of pets people keep.

Split in Sudan

A few weeks ago I read Dave Eggers' What is the What about the civil war in Sudan. When I posted about it, I said that one of the main things that struck me about the book was the complexity of the conflict in that part of Africa - politically, socially, and economically.

I wanted to do a short follow up post, because right now all eyes (or at least those with an interest in foreign affairs) have turned to southern Sudan, where polling is going on to see if the people that live in the south want to form an independent country, breaking Sudan into separate North and South countries.

According to the BBC, there is no doubt that the people of the south will choose independence, but the poll will only have merit if 60% of the regions 3.8 million residents turn out to participate in the poll. Right now the focus is on getting people to the polls in an orderly fashion, and so far there have been no incidents.

One issue to watch as southern Sudan makes its stride toward independence is territory boarders. Sudan does have areas that are rich in oil, that the North doesn't want to lose to the South. If the South claims areas that the North wants, there could be a fresh outburst of violence in Sudan.

The BBC has a great interactive map that you can check out for more information, or for a visual representation of how the northern and southern regions differ by ethnicity, infant mortality, water and sanitation, education, food insecurity, and the location of oil fields.

NIDA pledges $10 million to develop addiction treatments

Here is another article that I wrote for J800 last semester (in September 2010) that wasn't timely once I had edited it, and I couldn't get it picked up anywhere. But for those of you interested in research funding, this is an interesting look at basic vs. preclinical and clinical research. 

NIDA has announced the four winners of the first funding award specifically designed to support research to create a viable human treatment for cocaine or nicotine addiction.

There is the patch, the pills, the gum, and even going cold turkey, but for some nicotine addicts, nothing seems to stop the urge to reach for a cigarette. Instead of feeling dejected, people suffering from addictions can now pin their hopes for quitting on the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA.)

NIDA, a member of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), recently announced the four winners of a funding initiative for research that develops addiction treatments for human application. The initiative seeks to produce new addiction treatments by providing more government-based funding for the development of pharmaceutical treatments.

“Usually pharmaceutical companies support potential drugs,” said Jia Bei Wang, a pharmacology researcher at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and winner of the new award. “But I don’t think these companies are interested in addiction because it’s not profitable, so drugs for addiction are very much in need of government support.”

The new NIDA award will provide a combined total of $10 million to develop ways to counteract cocaine and nicotine dependency. The initiative hopes to create viable human treatments at the end of five years.

“I think that this is something very new,” said Wang. “As a researcher I have gone through a lot of grant applications, and this is the first of its kind that I have tried, that is not a mechanism for basic research but that is a drug development grant.”

According to Wang, the majority of federal funding for research is for basic research, projects that evaluate scientific questions without a definite sense of the outcome. The NIDA Avant-Garde Award for Innovative Medication Development is different because it is focused on pre-clinical and clinical research, projects that are outcome driven and based on extensive basic research.

“I think NIDA realizes there is a gap between basic research and clinical outcomes, and the research that bridges that gap is very important,” said Wang. “A lot of progress is made in the basic sciences, but on the clinical side we still don’t have any useful drugs [for cocaine addiction].”

Why is a clinical-only grant needed?

Every year the government spends billions on scientific research. According to the NIH Office of Budget, in fiscal year 2010 NIDA dedicated just $118,546 million to their pharmaceutical development department out of a total budget of $1.06 billion. According to Wang, by pledging an additional $10 million specifically for pharmaceutical development NIDA is finally stepping up to the plate to help find new addiction treatments.

“There isn’t a lot of interest from industry, but NIDA is the public health institute and they have a responsibility to develop treatments for these diseases for the people, and I think this grant came out of recognizing that need,” said Wang. 

Ivan Montoya, deputy director of NIDA’s division of pharmacotherapies and medical consequences of drug abuse will oversee the Innovative Medication Development award. According to Montoya, this funding is part of a NIH push to support innovative research, while addressing the risk involved in providing government support for drug development projects. 

“If [a research proposal] is very innovative it carries more risk, but it has to guarantee that results will be obtained after the five-year period,” said Montoya. “It is critical that the background science is successful, otherwise NIDA won’t give funds to someone that the committee doesn’t think has a good idea. It has to be supported by a good future for results.”

Creating the Innovative Medication Development award addresses the lack of interest from the pharmaceutical companies, but also satisfies NIDA’s need for confidence in the projects they fund. According to Montoya, to this end, the four winners of the award will be monitored for the duration of the grant, and required to provide progress updates about how they spend the money. NIDA hopes keeping tabs on the researchers will push the winning ideas toward the complete development of new therapies.

Potential abounds, but what about results?

According to William (Stephen) Brimijoin, a researcher in molecular pharmacology and experimental therapeutics at the Mayo Clinic, and a winner of the award, a government focus on human application is vital to making progress on addiction treatment.

According to Brimijoin, NIDA should be commended for selecting promising clinical research projects and cultivating them for human applications. “If some of these projects do result in a useful therapeutic agent we should all celebrate,” said Brimijoin. “Right now we just don’t know which projects will go all the way to real human applications.”

Vaccine Autism Research Fraud

For over a decade, controversy has raged about whether or not vaccinating children causes them to develop autism. British doctor Andrew Wakefield published a study in 1998 that claimed there was a solid link between the MMR Vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella) and autism in children. The study induced panic among parents world wide who refused to have their children vaccinated.

Measles Virus. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Since Wakefield's original study 12 years ago, 14 independent studies have found absolutely no link between the vaccine and autism. Yet, to this day parents still refuse to have their children vaccinated. This has led to a surge in the numbers of measles, mumps, and rubella cases.

Last year the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Lancet, issued a full retraction of Wakefield's study and he was stripped of his medical license in England. Now, the BMJ has published the results of an investigation into Wakefield, calling him a fraud. The investigation led the BMJ to conclude that Wakefield was not only unethical in his research, he also fabricated data.

Essentially, the guy made stuff up, he scared parents and confused them about what was the best course of action to care for their children, and ultimately numerous children became seriously ill with preventable diseases. This is infuriating. It makes me mad that even with all the precautions and restrictions we impose (peer review, for one) bullshit research still manages to get published in a reputable journal causing people to panic.

This case is pretty notable for the way that the belief of a link between vaccines and autism has persisted, even though the medical community considers the theory completely debunked. I hope that the media will step up and disseminate the (relatively) new idea that there is no link to help combat the misinformation that has already become so widespread.