Aiming high,but investing little

The French government has ambitious goals to make France a leading nation for synthetic biology research, but it still needs to put its money where its mouth is and provide the field with dedicated funding and other support.Synthetic biology is one of the most rapidly growing fields in the biological sciences and is attracting an increasing amount of public and private funding. France has also seen a slow but steady development of this field: the establishment of a national network of synthetic biologists in 2005, the first participation of a French team at the International Genetically Engineered Machine competition in 2007, the creation of a Master''s curriculum, an institute dedicated to synthetic and systems biology at the University of Évry-Val-d''Essonne-CNRS-Genopole in 2009–2010, and an increasing number of conferences and debates. However, scientists have driven the field with little dedicated financial support from the government.Yet the French government has a strong self-perception of its strengths and has set ambitious goals for synthetic biology. The public are told about a “new generation of products, industries and markets” that will derive from synthetic biology, and that research in the field will result in “a substantial jump for biotechnology” and an “industrial revolution”[1,2]. Indeed, France wants to compete with the USA, the UK, Germany and the rest of Europe and aims “for a world position of second or third”[1]. However, in contrast with the activities of its competitors, the French government has no specific scheme for funding or otherwise supporting synthetic biology[3]. Although we read that “France disposes of strong competences” and “all the assets needed”[2], one wonders how France will achieve its ambitious goals without dedicated budgets or detailed roadmaps to set up such institutions.In fact, France has been a straggler: whereas the UK and the USA have published several reports on synthetic biology since 2007, and have set up dedicated governing networks and research institutions, the governance of synthetic biology in France has only recently become an official matter. The National Research and Innovation Strategy (SNRI) only defined synthetic biology as a “priority” challenge in 2009 and created a working group in 2010 to assess the field''s developments, potentialities and challenges; the report was published in 2011[1].At the same time, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (OPECST) began a review of the field “to establish a worldwide state of the art and the position of our country in terms of training, research and technology transfer”. Its 2012 report entitled The Challenges of Synthetic Biology[2] assessed the main ethical, legal, economic and social challenges of the field. It made several recommendations for a “controlled” and “transparent” development of synthetic biology. This is not a surprise given that the development of genetically modified organisms and nuclear power in France has been heavily criticized for lack of transparency, and that the government prefers to avoid similar future controversies. Indeed, the French government seems more cautious today: making efforts to assess potential dangers and public opinion before actually supporting the science itself.Both reports stress the necessity of a “real” and “transparent” dialogue between science and society and call for “serene […] peaceful and constructive” public discussion. The proposed strategy has three aims: to establish an observatory, to create a permanent forum for discussion and to broaden the debate to include citizens[4]. An Observatory for Synthetic Biology was set up in January 2012 to collect information, mobilize actors, follow debates, analyse the various positions and organize a public forum. Let us hope that this observatory—unlike so many other structures—will have a tangible and durable influence on policy-making, public opinion and scientific practice.Many structural and organizational challenges persist, as neither the National Agency for Research nor the National Centre for Scientific Research have defined the field as a funding priority and public–private partnerships are rare in France. Moreover, strict boundaries between academic disciplines impede interdisciplinary work, and synthetic biology is often included in larger research programmes rather than supported as a research field in itself. Although both the SNRI and the OPECST reports make recommendations for future developments—including setting up funding policies and platforms—it is not clear whether these will materialize, or when, where and what size of investments will be made.France has ambitious goals for synthetic biology, but it remains to be seen whether the government is willing to put ‘meat to the bones'' in terms of financial and institutional support. If not, these goals might come to be seen as unrealistic and downgraded or they will be replaced with another vision that sees synthetic biology as something that only needs discussion and deliberation but no further investment. One thing is already certain: the future development of synthetic biology in France is a political issue.     

Elixirs of death

Substandard and fake drugs are increasingly threatening lives in both the developed and developing world, but governments and industry are struggling to improve the situation.When people take medicine, they assume that it will make them better. However many patients cannot trust their drugs to be effective or even safe. Fake or substandard medicine is a major public health problem and it seems to be growing. More than 200 heart patients died in Pakistan in 2012 after taking a contaminated drug against hypertension [1]. In 2006, cough syrup that contained diethylene glycol as a cheap substitute for pharmaceutical-grade glycerin was distributed in Panama, causing the death of at least 219 people [2,3]. However, the problem is not restricted to developing countries. In 2012, more than 500 patients came down with fungal meningitis and several dozens died after receiving contaminated steroid injections from a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts [4]. The same year, a fake version of the anti-cancer drug Avastin, which contained no active ingredient, was sold in the USA. The drug seemed to have entered the country through Turkey, Switzerland, Denmark and the UK [5].…many patients cannot trust their drugs to be effective or even safeThe extent of the problem is not really known, as companies and governments do not always report incidents [6]. However, the information that is available is alarming enough, especially in developing countries. One study found that 20% of antihypertensive drugs collected from pharmacies in Rwanda were substandard [7]. Similarly, in a survey of anti-malaria drugs in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, 20–42% were found to be either of poor quality or outright fake [8], whilst 56% of amoxicillin capsules sampled in different Arab countries did not meet the US Pharmacopeia requirements [9].Developing countries are particularly susceptible to substandard and fake medicine. Regulatory authorities do not have the means or human resources to oversee drug manufacturing and distribution. A country plagued by civil war or famine might have more pressing problems—including shortages of medicine in the first place. The drug supply chain is confusingly complex with medicines passing through many different hands before they reach the patient, which creates many possible entry points for illegitimate products. Many people in developing countries live in rural areas with no local pharmacy, and anyway have little money and no health insurance. Instead, they buy cheap medicine from street vendors at the market or on the bus (Fig 1; [2,10,11]). “People do not have the money to buy medicine at a reasonable price. But quality comes at a price. A reasonable margin is required to pay for a quality control system,” explained Hans Hogerzeil, Professor of Global Health at Groningen University in the Netherlands. In some countries, falsifying medicine has developed into a major business. The low risk of being detected combined with relatively low penalties has turned falsifying medicine into the “perfect crime” [2].Open in a separate windowFigure 1Women sell smuggled, counterfeit medicine on the Adjame market in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, in 2007. Fraudulent street medecine sales rose by 15–25% in the past two years in Ivory Coast.Issouf Sanogo/AFP Photo/Getty Images.There are two main categories of illegitimate drugs. ‘Substandard'' medicines might result from poor-quality ingredients, production errors and incorrect storage. ‘Falsified'' medicine is made with clear criminal intent. It might be manufactured outside the regulatory system, perhaps in an illegitimate production shack that blends chalk with other ingredients and presses it into pills [10]. Whilst falsified medicines do not typically contain any active ingredients, substandard medicine might contain subtherapeutic amounts. This is particularly problematic when it comes to anti-infectious drugs, as it facilitates the emergence and spread of drug resistance [12]. A sad example is the emergence of artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium strains at the Thai–Cambodia border [8] and the Thai–Myanmar border [13], and increasing multidrug-resistant tuberculosis might also be attributed to substandard medication [11].Many people in developing countries live in rural areas with no local pharmacy, and anyway have little money and no health insuranceEven if a country effectively prosecutes falsified and substandard medicine within its borders, it is still vulnerable to fakes and low-quality drugs produced elsewhere where regulations are more lax. To address this problem, international initiatives are urgently required [10,14,15], but there is no internationally binding law to combat counterfeit and substandard medicine. Although drug companies, governments and NGOs are interested in good-quality medicines, the different parties seem to have difficulties coming to terms with how to proceed. What has held up progress is a conflation of health issues and economic interests: innovator companies and high-income countries have been accused of pushing for the enforcement of intellectual property regulations under the guise of protecting quality of medicine [14,16].The concern that intellectual property (IP) interests threaten public health dates back to the ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement'' of the World Trade Organization (WTO), adopted in 1994, to establish global protection of intellectual property rights, including patents for pharmaceuticals. The TRIPS Agreement had devastating consequences during the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome epidemic, as it blocked patients in developing countries from access to affordable medicine. Although it includes flexibility, such as the possibility for governments to grant compulsory licenses to manufacture or import a generic version of a patented drug, it has not always been clear how these can be used by countries [14,16,17].In response to public concerns over the public health consequences of TRIPS, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health was adopted at the WTO''s Ministerial Conference in 2001. It reaffirmed the right of countries to use TRIPS flexibilities and confirmed the primacy of public health over the enforcement of IP rights. Although things have changed for the better, the Doha Declaration did not solve all the problems associated with IP protection and public health. For example, anti-counterfeit legislation, encouraged by multi-national pharmaceutical industries and the EU, threatened to impede the availability of generic medicines in East Africa [14,16,18]. In 2008–2009, European customs authorities seized shipments of legitimate generic medicines in transit from India to other developing countries because they infringed European IP laws [14,16,17]. “We''re left with decisions being taken based on patents and trademarks that should be taken based on health,” commented Roger Bate, a global health expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, USA. “The health community is shooting themselves in the foot.”Conflating health care and IP issues are reflected in the unclear use of the term ‘counterfeit'' [2,14]. “Since the 1990s the World Health Organization (WHO) has used the term ‘counterfeit'' in the sense we now use ‘falsified'',” explained Hogerzeil. “The confusion started in 1995 with the TRIPS agreement, through which the term ‘counterfeit'' got the very narrow meaning of trademark infringement.” As a consequence, an Indian generic, for example, which is legal in some countries but not in others, could be labelled as ‘counterfeit''—and thus acquire the negative connotation of bad quality. “The counterfeit discussion was very much used as a way to block the market of generics and to put them in a bad light,” Hogerzeil concluded.The rifts between the stakeholders have become so deep during the course of these discussions that progress is difficult to achieve. “India is not at all interested in any international regulation. And, unfortunately, it wouldn''t make much sense to do anything without them,” Hogerzeil explained. Indeed, India is a core player: not only does it have a large generics industry, but also the country seems to be, together with China, the biggest source of fake medical products [19,20]. The fact that India is so reluctant to react is tragically ironic, as this stance hampers the growth of its own generic companies like Ranbaxy, Cipla or Piramal. “I certainly don''t believe that Indian generics would lose market share if there was stronger action on public health,” Bate said. Indeed, stricter regulations and control systems would be advantageous, because they would keep fakers at bay. The Indian generic industry is a common target for fakers, because their products are broadly distributed. “The most likely example of a counterfeit product I have come across in emerging markets is a counterfeit Indian generic,” Bate said. Such fakes can damage a company''s reputation and have a negative impact on its revenues when customers stop buying the product.The WHO has had a key role in attempting to draft international regulations that would contain the spread of falsified and substandard medicine. It took a lead in 2006 with the launch of the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT). But IMPACT was not a success. Concerns were raised over the influence of multi-national drug companies and the possibility that issues on quality of medicines were conflated with the attempts to enforce stronger IP measures [17]. The WHO distanced itself from IMPACT after 2010. For example, it no longer hosts IMPACT''s secretariat at its headquarters in Geneva [2].‘Substandard'' medicines might result from poor quality ingredients, production errors and incorrect storage. ‘Falsified'' medicine is made with clear criminal intentIn 2010, the WHO''s member states established a working group to further investigate how to proceed, which led to the establishment of a new “Member State mechanism on substandard/spurious/falsely labelled/falsified/counterfeit medical products” (http://www.who.int/medicines/services/counterfeit/en/index.html). However, according to a publication by Amir Attaran from the University of Ottawa, Canada, and international colleagues, the working group “still cannot agree how to define the various poor-quality medicines, much less settle on any concrete actions” [14]. The paper''s authors demand more action and propose a binding legal framework: a treaty. “Until we have stronger public health law, I don''t think that we are going to resolve this problem,” Bate, who is one of the authors of the paper, said.Similarly, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to convene a consensus committee on understanding the global public health implications of falsified and substandard pharmaceuticals [2]. Whilst others have called for a treaty, the IOM report calls on the World Health Assembly—the governing body of the WHO—to develop a code of practice such as a “voluntary soft law” that countries can sign to express their will to do better. “At the moment, there is not yet enough political interest in a treaty. A code of conduct may be more realistic,” Hogerzeil, who is also on the IOM committee, commented. Efforts to work towards a treaty should nonetheless be pursued, Bate insisted: “The IOM is right in that we are not ready to sign a treaty yet, but that does not mean you don''t start negotiating one.”Whilst a treaty might take some time, there are several ideas from the IOM report and elsewhere that could already be put into action to deal with this global health threat [10,12,14,15,19]. Any attempts to safeguard medicines need to address both falsified and substandard medicines, but the counter-measures are different [14]. Falsifying medicine is, by definition, a criminal act. To counteract fakers, action needs to be taken to ensure that the appropriate legal authorities deal with criminals. Substandard medicine, on the other hand, arises when mistakes are made in genuine manufacturing companies. Such mistakes can be reduced by helping companies do better and by improving quality control of drug regulatory authorities.Manufacturing pharmaceuticals is a difficult and costly business that requires clean water, high-quality chemicals, expensive equipment, technical expertise and distribution networks. Large and multi-national companies benefit from economies of scale to cope with these problems. But smaller companies often struggle and compromise in quality [2,21]. “India has 20–40 big companies and perhaps nearly 20,000 small ones. To me, it seems impossible for them to produce at good quality, if they remain so small,” Hogerzeil explained. “And only by being strict, can you force them to combine and to become bigger industries that can afford good-quality assurance systems.” Clamping down on drug quality will therefore lead to a consolidation of the industry, which is an essential step. “If you look at Europe and the US, there were hundreds of drug companies—now there are dozens. And if you look at the situation in India and China today, there are thousands and that will have to come down to dozens as well,” Bate explained.…innovator companies and high-income countries have been accused of pushing for the enforcement of intellectual property regulations under the guise of protecting […] medicineIn addition to consolidating the market by applying stricter rules, the IOM has also suggested measures for supporting companies that observe best practices [2]. For example, the IOM proposes that the International Finance Corporation and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which promote private-sector development to reduce poverty, should create separate investment vehicles for pharmaceutical manufacturers who want to upgrade to international standards. Another suggestion is to harmonize market registration of pharmaceutical products, which would ease the regulatory burden for generic producers in developing countries and improve the efficiency of regulatory agencies.Once the medicine leaves the manufacturer, controlling distribution systems becomes another major challenge in combatting falsified and substandard medicine. Global drug supply chains have grown increasingly complicated; drugs cross borders, are sold back and forth between wholesalers and distributers, and are often repackaged. Still, there is a main difference between developing and developed countries. In the latter case, relatively few companies dominate the market, whereas in poorer nations, the distribution system is often fragmented and uncontrolled with parallel schemes, too few pharmacies, even fewer pharmacists and many unlicensed medical vendors. Every transaction creates an opportunity for falsified or substandard medicine to enter the market [2,10,19]. More streamlined and transparent supply chains and stricter licensing requirements would be crucial to improve drug quality. “And we can start in the US,” Hogerzeil commented.…India is a core player: not only does it have a large generics industry, but the country also seems to be, together with China, the biggest source of fake medical productsDistribution could be improved at different levels, starting with the import of medicine. “There are states in the USA where the regulation for medicine importation is very lax. Anyone can import; private clinics can buy medicine from Lebanon or elsewhere and fly them in,” Hogerzeil explained. The next level would be better control over the distribution system within the country. The IOM suggests that state boards should license wholesalers and distributors that meet the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy accreditation standards. “Everybody dealing with medicine has to be licensed,” Hogerzeil said. “And there should be a paper trail of who buys what from whom. That way you close the entry points for illegal drugs and prevent that falsified medicines enter the legal supply chain.” The last level would be a track-and-trace system to identify authentic drugs [2]. Every single package of medicine should be identifiable through an individual marker, such as a 3D bar code. Once it is sold, it is ticked off in a central database, so the marker cannot be reused.According to Hogerzeil, equivalent measures at these different levels should be established in every country. “I don''t believe in double standards”, he said. “Don''t say to Uganda: ‘you can''t do that''. Rather, indicate to them what a cost-effective system in the West looks like and help them, and give them the time, to create something in that direction that is feasible in their situation.”Nigeria, for instance, has demonstrated that with enough political will, it is possible to reduce the proliferation of falsified and substandard medicine. Nigeria had been a major source for falsified products, but things changed in 2001, when Dora Akunyili was appointed Director General of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. Akunyili has a personal motivation for fighting falsified drugs: her sister Vivian, a diabetic patient, lost her life to fake insulin in 1988. Akunyili strengthened import controls, campaigned for public awareness, clamped down on counterfeit operations and pushed for harsher punishments [10,19]. Paul Orhii, Akunyili''s successor, is committed to continuing her work [10]. Although there are no exact figures, various surveys indicate that the rate of bad-quality medicine has dropped considerably in Nigeria [10].China is also addressing its drug-quality problems. In a highly publicized event, the former head of China''s State Food and Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, was executed in 2007 after he was found guilty of accepting bribes to approve untested medicine. Since then, China''s fight against falsified medicine has continued. As a result of heightened enforcement, the number of drug companies in China dwindled from 5,000 in 2004 to about 3,500 this year [2]. Moreover, in July 2012, more than 1,900 suspects were arrested for the sale of fake or counterfeit drugs.Quality comes at a price, however. It is expensive to produce high-quality medicine, and it is expensive to control the production and distribution of drugs. Many low- and middle-income countries might not have the resources to tackle the problem and might not see quality of medicine as a priority. But they should, and affluent countries should help. Not only because health is a human right, but also for economic reasons. A great deal of time and money is invested into testing the safety and efficacy of medicine during drug development, and these resources are wasted when drugs do not reach patients. Falsified and substandard medicines are a financial burden to health systems and the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens might make invaluable medications useless. Investing in the safety of medicine is therefore a humane and an economic imperative.     

Listening to public concerns about human life extension

The public view of life-extension technologies is more nuanced than expected and researchers must engage in discussions if they hope to promote awareness and acceptanceThere is increasing research and commercial interest in the development of novel interventions that might be able to extend human life expectancy by decelerating the ageing process. In this context, there is unabated interest in the life-extending effects of caloric restriction in mammals, and there are great hopes for drugs that could slow human ageing by mimicking its effects (Fontana et al, 2010). The multinational pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, for example, acquired Sirtris Pharmaceuticals in 2008, ostensibly for their portfolio of drugs targeting ‘diseases of ageing''. More recently, the immunosuppressant drug rapamycin has been shown to extend maximum lifespan in mice (Harrison et al, 2009). Such findings have stoked the kind of enthusiasm that has become common in media reports of life-extension and anti-ageing research, with claims that rapamycin might be “the cure for all that ails” (Hasty, 2009), or that it is an “anti-aging drug [that] could be used today” (Blagosklonny, 2007).Given the academic, commercial and media interest in prolonging human lifespan—a centuries-old dream of humanity—it is interesting to gauge what the public thinks about the possibility of living longer, healthier lives, and to ask whether they would be willing to buy and use drugs that slow the ageing process. Surveys that have addressed these questions, have given some rather surprising results, contrary to the expectations of many researchers in the field. They have also highlighted that although human life extension (HLE) and ageing are topics with enormous implications for society and individuals, scientists have not communicated efficiently with the public about their research and its possible applications.Given the academic, commercial and media interest in prolonging human lifespan […] it is interesting to gauge what the public thinks about the possibility of living longer, healthier lives…Proponents and opponents of HLE often assume that public attitudes towards ageing interventions will be strongly for or against, but until now, there has been little empirical evidence with which to test these assumptions (Lucke & Hall, 2005). We recently surveyed members of the public in Australia and found a variety of opinions, including some ambivalence towards the development and use of drugs that could slow ageing and increase lifespan. Our findings suggest that many members of the public anticipate both positive and negative outcomes from this work (Partridge 2009a, b, 2010; Underwood et al, 2009).In a community survey of public attitudes towards HLE we found that around two-thirds of a sample of 605 Australian adults supported research with the potential to increase the maximum human lifespan by slowing ageing (Partridge et al, 2010). However, only one-third expressed an interest in using an anti-ageing pill if it were developed. Half of the respondents were not interested in personally using such a pill and around one in ten were undecided.Some proponents of HLE anticipate their research being impeded by strong public antipathy (Miller, 2002, 2009). Richard Miller has claimed that opposition to the development of anti-ageing interventions often exists because of an “irrational public predisposition” to think that increased lifespans will only lead to elongation of infirmity. He has called this “gerontologiphobia”—a shared feeling among laypeople that while research to cure age-related diseases such as dementia is laudable, research that aims to intervene in ageing is a “public menace” (Miller, 2002).We found broad support for the amelioration of age-related diseases and for technologies that might preserve quality of life, but scepticism about a major promise of HLE—that it will delay the onset of age-related diseases and extend an individual''s healthy lifespan. From the people we interviewed, the most commonly cited potential negative personal outcome of HLE was that it would extend the number of years a person spent with chronic illnesses and poor quality of life (Partridge et al, 2009a). Although some members of the public envisioned more years spent in good health, almost 40% of participants were concerned that a drug to slow ageing would do more harm than good to them personally; another 13% were unsure about the benefits and costs (Partridge et al, 2010).…it might be that advocates of HLE have failed to persuade the public on this issueIt would be unwise to label such concerns as irrational, when it might be that advocates of HLE have failed to persuade the public on this issue. Have HLE researchers explained what they have discovered about ageing and what it means? Perhaps the public see the claims that have been made about HLE as ‘too good to be true‘.Results of surveys of biogerontologists suggest that they are either unaware or dismissive of public concerns about HLE. They often ignore them, dismiss them as “far-fetched”, or feel no responsibility “to respond” (Settersten Jr et al, 2008). Given this attitude, it is perhaps not surprising that the public are sceptical of their claims.Scientists are not always clear about the outcomes of their work, biogerontologists included. Although the life-extending effects of interventions in animal models are invoked as arguments for supporting anti-ageing research, it is not certain that these interventions will also extend healthy lifespans in humans. Miller (2009) reassuringly claims that the available evidence consistently suggests that quality of life is maintained in laboratory animals with extended lifespans, but he acknowledges that the evidence is “sparse” and urges more research on the topic (Miller, 2009). In the light of such ambiguity, researchers need to respond to public concerns in ways that reflect the available evidence and the potential of their work, without becoming apostles for technologies that have not yet been developed. An anti-ageing drug that extends lifespan without maintaining quality of life is clearly undesirable, but the public needs to be persuaded that such an outcome can be avoided.The public is also concerned about the possible adverse side effects of anti-ageing drugs. Many people were bemused when they discovered that members of the Caloric Restriction Society experienced a loss of libido and loss of muscle mass as a result of adhering to a low-calorie diet to extend their longevity—for many people, such side effects would not be worth the promise of some extra years of life. Adverse side effects are acknowledged as a considerable potential challenge to the development of an effective life-extending drug in humans (Fontana et al, 2010). If researchers do not discuss these possible effects, then a curious public might draw their own conclusions.Adverse side effects are acknowledged as a considerable potential challenge to the development of an effective life-extending drug in humansSome HLE advocates seem eager to tout potential anti-ageing drugs as being free from adverse side effects. For example, Blagosklonny (2007) has argued that rapamycin could be used to prevent age-related diseases in humans because it is “a non-toxic, well tolerated drug that is suitable for everyday oral administration” with its major “side-effects” being anti-tumour, bone-protecting, and mimicking caloric restriction effects. By contrast, Kaeberlein & Kennedy (2009) have advised the public against using the drug because of its immunosuppressive effects.Aubrey de Grey has called for scientists to provide more optimistic timescales for HLE on several occasions. He claims that public opposition to interventions in ageing is based on “extraordinarily transparently flawed opinions” that HLE would be unethical and unsustainable (de Grey, 2004). In his view, public opposition is driven by scepticism about whether HLE will be possible, and that concerns about extending infirmity, injustice or social harms are simply excuses to justify people''s belief that ageing is ‘not so bad'' (de Grey, 2007). He argues that this “pro-ageing trance” can only be broken by persuading the public that HLE technologies are just around the corner.Contrary to de Grey''s expectations of public pessimism, 75% of our survey participants thought that HLE technologies were likely to be developed in the near future. Furthermore, concerns about the personal, social and ethical implications of ageing interventions and HLE were not confined to those who believed that HLE is not feasible (Partridge et al, 2010).Juengst et al (2003) have rightly pointed out that any interventions that slow ageing and substantially increase human longevity might generate more social, economic, political, legal, ethical and public health issues than any other technological advance in biomedicine. Our survey supports this idea; the major ethical concerns raised by members of the public reflect the many and diverse issues that are discussed in the bioethics literature (Partridge et al, 2009b; Partridge & Hall, 2007).When pressed, even enthusiasts admit that a drastic extension of human life might be a mixed blessing. A recent review by researchers at the US National Institute on Aging pointed to several economic and social challenges that arise from longevity extension (Sierra et al, 2009). Perry (2004) suggests that the ability to slow ageing will cause “profound changes” and a “firestorm of controversy”. Even de Grey (2005) concedes that the development of an effective way to slow ageing will cause “mayhem” and “absolute pandemonium”. If even the advocates of anti-ageing and HLE anticipate widespread societal disruption, the public is right to express concerns about the prospect of these things becoming reality. It is accordingly unfair to dismiss public concerns about the social and ethical implications as “irrational”, “inane” or “breathtakingly stupid” (de Grey, 2004).The breadth of the possible implications of HLE reinforces the need for more discussion about the funding of such research and management of its outcomes ( Juengst et al, 2003). Biogerontologists need to take public concerns more seriously if they hope to foster support for their work. If there are misperceptions about the likely outcomes of intervention in ageing, then biogerontologists need to better explain their research to the public and discuss how their concerns will be addressed. It is not enough to hope that a breakthrough in human ageing research will automatically assuage public concerns about the effects of HLE on quality of life, overpopulation, economic sustainability, the environment and inequities in access to such technologies. The trajectories of other controversial research areas—such as human embryonic stem cell research and assisted reproductive technologies (Deech & Smajdor, 2007)—have shown that “listening to public concerns on research and responding appropriately” is a more effective way of fostering support than arrogant dismissal of public concerns (Anon, 2009).Biogerontologists need to take public concerns more seriously if they hope to foster support for their work? Open in a separate windowBrad PartridgeOpen in a separate windowJayne LuckeOpen in a separate windowWayne Hall     

Nothing but the truth

Many scientists blame the media for sensationalising scientific findings, but new research suggests that things can go awry at all levels, from the scientific report to the press officer to the journalist.Everything gives you cancer, at least if you believe what you read in the news or see on TV. Fortunately, everything also cures cancer, from red wine to silver nanoparticles. Of course the truth lies somewhere in between, and scientists might point out that these claims are at worst dangerous sensationalism and at best misjudged journalism. These kinds of media story, which inflate the risks and benefits of research, have led to a mistrust of the press among some scientists. But are journalists solely at fault when science reporting goes wrong, as many scientists believe [1]? New research suggests it is time to lay to rest the myth that the press alone is to blame. The truth is far more nuanced and science reporting can go wrong at many stages, from the researchers to the press officers to the diverse producers of news.Many science communication researchers suggest that science in the media is not as distorted as scientists believe, although they do admit that science reporting tends to under-represent risks and over-emphasize benefits [2]. “I think there is a lot less of this [misreported science] than some scientists presume. I actually think that there is a bit of laziness in the narrative around science and the media,” said Fiona Fox, Director of the UK Science Media Centre (London, UK), an independent press office that serves as a liaison between scientists and journalists. “My bottom line is that, certainly in the UK, a vast majority of journalists report science accurately in a measured way, and it''s certainly not a terrible story. Having said that, lots of things do go wrong for a number of reasons.”Fox said that the centre sees everything from fantastic press releases to those that completely misrepresent and sensationalize scientific findings. They have applauded news stories that beautifully reported the caveats and limitations of a particular scientific study, but they have also cringed as a radio talk show pitted a massive and influential body of research against a single non-scientist sceptic.“You ask, is it the press releases, is it the universities, is it the journalists? The truth is that it''s all three,” Fox said. “But even admitting that is admitting more complexity. So anyone who says that scientists and university press officers deliver perfectly accurate science and the media misrepresent it […] that really is not the whole story.”Scientists and scientific institutions today invest more time and effort into communicating with the media than they did a decade ago, especially given the modern emphasis on communicating scientific results to the public [3]. Today, there are considerable pressures on scientists to reach out and even ‘sell their work'' to public relations officers and journalists. “For every story that a journalist has hyped and sensationalized, there will be another example of that coming directly from a press release that we [scientists] hyped and sensationalized,” Fox said. “And for every time that that was a science press officer, there will also be a science press officer who will tell you, ‘I did a much more nuanced press release, but the academic wanted me to over claim for it''.”Although science public relations has helped to put scientific issues on the public agenda, there are also dangers inherent in the process of translation from original research to press release to media story. Previous research in the area of science communication has focused on conflicting scientific and media values, and the effects of science media on audiences. However, studies have raised awareness of the role of press releases in distorting information from the lab bench to published news [4].In a 2011 study of genetic research claims made in press releases and mainstream print media, science communication researcher Jean Brechman, who works at the US advertising and marketing research firm Gallup & Robinson, found evidence that scientific knowledge gets distorted as it is “filtered and translated for mass communication” with “slippages and inconsistencies” occurring along the way, such that the end message does not accurately represent the original science [4]. Although Brechman and colleagues found a concerning point of distortion in the transition between press release and news article, they also observed a misrepresentation of the original science in a significant portion of the press releases themselves.In a previous study, Brechman and his colleagues had also concluded that “errors commonly attributed to science journalists, such as lack of qualifying details and use of oversimplified language, originate in press releases.” Even more worrisome, as Fox told a Nature commentary author in 2009, public relations departments are increasingly filling the need of the media for quick content [5].Fox believes that a common characteristic of misrepresented science in press releases and the media is the over-claiming of preliminary studies. As such, the growing prevalence of rapid, short-format publications that publicize early results might be exacerbating the problem. Research has also revealed that over-emphasis on the beneficial effects of experimental medical treatments seen in press releases and news coverage, often called ‘spin'', can stem from bias in the abstract of the original scientific article itself [6]. Such findings warrant a closer examination of the language used in scientific articles and abstracts, as the wording and ‘spin'' of conclusions drawn by researchers in their peer-reviewed publications might have significant impacts on subsequent media coverage.Of course, some stories about scientific discoveries are just not easy to tell owing to their complexity. They are “messy, complicated, open to interpretation and ripe for misreporting,” as Fox wrote in a post on her blog On Science and the Media (fionafox.blogspot.com). They do not fit the single-page blog post or the short press release. Some scientific experiments and the peer-reviewed articles and media stories that flow from them are inherently full of caveats, contexts and conflicting results and cannot be communicated in a short format [7].In a 2012 issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, Marco Bertamini at the University of Liverpool (UK) and Marcus R. Munafo at the University of Bristol (UK) suggested that a shift toward “bite-size” publications in areas of science such as psychology might be promoting more single-study models of research, fewer efforts to replicate initial findings, curtailed detailing of previous relevant work and bias toward “false alarm” or false-positive results [7]. The authors pointed out that larger, multi-experiment studies are typically published in longer papers with larger sample sizes and tend to be more accurate. They also suggested that this culture of brief, single-study reports based on small data sets will lead to the contamination of the scientific literature with false-positive findings. Unfortunately, false science far more easily enters the literature than leaves it [8].One famous example is that of Andrew Wakefield, whose 1998 publication in The Lancet claimed to link autism with the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination. It took years of work by many scientists, and the aid of an exposé by British investigative reporter Brian Deer, to finally force retraction of the paper. However, significant damage had already been done and many parents continue to avoid immunizing their children out of fear. Deer claims that scientific journals were a large part of the problem: “[D]uring the many years in which I investigated the MMR vaccine controversy, the worst and most inexcusable reporting on the subject, apart from the original Wakefield claims in the Lancet, was published in Nature and republished in Scientific American,” he said. “There is an enormous amount of hypocrisy among those who accuse the media of misreporting science.”What factors are promoting this shift to bite-size science? One is certainly the increasing pressure and competition to publish many papers in high-impact journals, which prefer short articles with new, ground-breaking findings.“Bibliometrics is playing a larger role in academia in deciding who gets a job and who gets promoted,” Bertamini said. “In general, if things are measured by citations, there is pressure to publish as much and as often as possible, and also to focus on what is surprising; thus, we can see how this may lead to an inflation in the number of papers but also an increase in publication bias.”Bertamini points to the real possibility that measured effects emerging from a group of small samples can be much larger than the real effect in the total population. “This variability is bad enough, but it is even worse when you consider that what is more likely to be written up and accepted for publication are exactly the larger differences,” he explained.Alongside the endless pressure to publish, the nature of the peer-reviewed publication process itself prioritizes exciting and statistically impressive results. Fluke scientific discoveries and surprising results are often considered newsworthy, even if they end up being false-positives. The bite-size article aggravates this problem in what Bertamini fears is a growing similarity between academic writing and media reporting: “The general media, including blogs and newspapers, will of course focus on what is curious, funny, controversial, and so on. Academic papers must not do the same, and the quality control system is there to prevent that.”The real danger is that, with more than one million scientific papers published every year, journalists can tend to rely on only a few influential journals such as Science and Nature for science news [3]. Although the influence and reliability of these prestigious journals is well established, the risk that journalists and other media producers might be propagating the exciting yet preliminary results published in their pages is undeniable.Fox has personal experience of the consequences of hype surrounding surprising but preliminary science. Her sister has chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), a debilitating medical condition with no known test or cure. When Science published an article in 2009 linking CFS with a viral agent, Fox was naturally both curious and sceptical [9]. “I thought even if I knew that this was an incredibly significant finding, the fact that nobody had ever found a biological link before also meant that it would have to be replicated before patients could get excited,” Fox explained. “And of course what happened was all the UK journalists were desperate to splash it on the front page because it was so surprising and so significant and could completely revolutionize the approach to CFS, the treatment and potential cure.”Fox observed that while some journalists placed the caveats of the study deep within their stories, others left them out completely. “I gather in the USA it was massive, it was front page news and patients were going online to try and find a test for this particular virus. But in the end, nobody could replicate it, literally nobody. A Dutch group tried, Imperial College London, lots of groups, but nobody could replicate it. And in the end, the paper has been withdrawn from Science.”For Fox, the fact that the paper was withdrawn, incidentally due to a finding of contamination in the samples, was less interesting than the way that the paper was reported by journalists. “We would want any journal press officer to literally in the first paragraph be highlighting the fact that this was such a surprising result that it shouldn''t be splashed on the front page,” she said. Of course to the journalist, waiting for the study to be replicated is anathema in a culture that values exciting and new findings. “To the scientific community, the fact that it is surprising and new means that we should calm down and wait until it is proved,” Fox warned.So, the media must also take its share of the blame when it comes to distorting science news. Indeed, research analysing science coverage in the media has shown that stories tend to exaggerate preliminary findings, use sensationalist terms, avoid complex issues, fail to mention financial conflicts of interest, ignore statistical limitations and transform inherent uncertainties into controversy [3,10].One concerning development within journalism is the ‘balanced treatment'' of controversial science, also called ‘false balance'' by many science communicators. This balanced treatment has helped supporters of pseudoscientific notions gain equal ground with scientific experts in media stories on issues such as climate change and biotechnology [11].“Almost every time the issue of creationism or intelligent design comes up, many newspapers and other media feel that they need to present ‘both sides'', even though one is clearly nonsensical, and indeed harmful to public education,” commented Massimo Pigliucci, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk [12].Fox also criticizes false balance on issues such as global climate change. “On that one you can''t blame the scientific community, you can''t blame science press officers,” she said. “That is a real clashing of values. One of the values that most journalists have bred into them is about balance and impartiality, balancing the views of one person with an opponent when it''s controversial. So on issues like climate change, where there is a big controversy, their instinct as a journalist will be to make sure that if they have a climate scientist on the radio or on TV or quoted in the newspaper, they pick up the phone and make sure that they have a climate skeptic.” However, balanced viewpoints should not threaten years of rigorous scientific research embodied in a peer-reviewed publication. “We are not saying generally that we [scientists] want special treatment from journalists,” Fox said, “but we are saying that this whole principle of balance, which applies quite well in politics, doesn''t cross over to science…”Bertamini believes the situation could be made worse if publication standards are relaxed in favour of promoting a more public and open review process. “If today you were to research the issue of human contribution to global warming you would find a consensus in the scientific literature. Yet you would find no such consensus in the general media. In part this is due to the existence of powerful and well-funded lobbies that fill the media with unfounded skepticism. Now imagine if these lobbies had more access to publish their views in the scientific literature, maybe in the form of post publication feedback. This would be a dangerous consequence of blurring the line that separates scientific writing and the broader media.”In an age in which the way science is presented in the news can have significant impacts for audiences, especially when it comes to health news, what can science communicators and journalists do to keep audiences reading without having to distort, hype, trivialize, dramatize or otherwise misrepresent science?Pigliucci believes that many different sources—press releases, blogs, newspapers and investigative science journalism pieces—can cross-check reported science and challenge its accuracy, if necessary. “There are examples of bloggers pointing out technical problems with published scientific papers,” Pigliucci said. “Unfortunately, as we all know, the game can be played the other way around too, with plenty of bloggers, ‘twitterers'' and others actually obfuscating and muddling things even more.” Pigliucci hopes to see a cultural change take place in science reporting, one that emphasizes “more reflective shouting, less shouting of talking points,” he said.Fox believes that journalists still need to cover scientific developments more responsibly, especially given that scientists are increasingly reaching out to press officers and the public. Journalists can inform, intrigue and entertain whilst maintaining accurate representations of the original science, but need to understand that preliminary results must be replicated and validated before being splashed on the front page. They should also strive to interview experts who do not have financial ties or competing interests in the research, and they should put scientific stories in the context of a broader process of nonlinear discovery. According to Pigliucci, journalists can and should be educating themselves on the research process and the science of logical conclusion-making, giving themselves the tools to provide critical and investigative coverage when needed. At the same time, scientists should undertake proper media training so that they are comfortable communicating their work to journalists or press officers.“I don''t think there is any fundamental flaw in how we communicate science, but there is a systemic flaw in the sense that we simply do not educate people about logical fallacies and cognitive biases,” Pigliucci said, advising that scientists and communicators alike should be intimately familiar with the subjects of philosophy and psychology. “As for bunk science, it has always been with us, and it probably always will be, because human beings are naturally prone to all sorts of biases and fallacious reasoning. As Carl Sagan once put it, science (and reason) is like a candle in the dark. It needs constant protection and a lot of thankless work to keep it alive.”     

The academic birth rate. Production and reproduction of the research work force, and its effect on innovation and research misconduct

Universities have been churning out PhD students to reap financial and other rewards for training biomedical scientists. This deluge of cheap labour has created unhealthy competition, which encourages scientific misconduct.Most developed nations invest a considerable amount of public money in scientific research for a variety of reasons: most importantly because research is regarded as a motor for economic progress and development, and to train a research workforce for both academia and industry. Not surprisingly, governments are occasionally confronted with questions about whether the money invested in research is appropriate and whether taxpayers are getting the maximum value for their investments.…questions about the size and composition of the research workforce have historically been driven by concerns that the system produces an insufficient number of scientistsThe training and maintenance of the research workforce is a large component of these investments. Yet discussions in the USA about the appropriate size of this workforce have typically been contentious, owing to an apparent lack of reliable data to tell us whether the system yields academic ‘reproduction rates'' that are above, below or at replacement levels. In the USA, questions about the size and composition of the research workforce have historically been driven by concerns that the system produces an insufficient number of scientists. As Donald Kennedy, then Editor-in-Chief of Science, noted several years ago, leaders in prestigious academic institutions have repeatedly rung alarm bells about shortages in the science workforce. Less often does one see questions raised about whether too many scientists are being produced or concerns about unintended consequences that may result from such overproduction. Yet recognizing that resources are finite, it seems reasonable to ask what level of competition for resources is productive, and at what level does competition become counter-productive.Finding a proper balance between the size of the research workforce and the resources available to sustain it has other important implications. Unhealthy competition—too many people clamouring for too little money and too few desirable positions—creates its own problems, most notably research misconduct and lower-quality, less innovative research. If an increasing number of scientists are scrambling for jobs and resources, some might begin to cut corners in order to gain a competitive edge. Moreover, many in the science community worry that every publicized case of research misconduct could jeopardize those resources, if politicians and taxpayers become unwilling to invest in a research system that seems to be riddled with fraud and misconduct.The biomedical research enterprise in the USA provides a useful context in which to examine the level of competition for resources among academic scientists. My thesis is that the system of publicly funded research in the USA as it is currently configured supports a feedback system of institutional incentives that generate excessive competition for resources in biomedical research. These institutional incentives encourage universities to overproduce graduate students and postdoctoral scientists, who are both trainees and a cheap source of skilled labour for research while in training. However, once they have completed their training, they become competitors for money and positions, thereby exacerbating competitive pressures.Questions raised about whether too many scientists are being produced or concerns about the unintended consequences of such overproduction are less commonThe resulting scarcity of resources, partly through its effect on peer review, leads to a shunting of resources away from both younger researchers and the most innovative ideas, which undermines the effectiveness of the research enterprise as a whole. Faced with an increasing number of grant applications and the consequent decrease in the percentage of projects that can be funded, reviewers tend to ‘play it safe'' and favour projects that have a higher likelihood of yielding results, even if the research is conservative in the sense that it does not explore new questions. Resource scarcity can also introduce unwanted randomness to the process of determining which research gets funded. A large group of scientists, led by a cancer biologist, has recently mounted a campaign against a change in a policy of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to allow only one resubmission of an unfunded grant proposal (Wadman, 2011). The core of their argument is that peer reviewers are likely able to distinguish the top 20% of research applications from the rest, but that within that top 20%, distinguishing the top 5% or 10% means asking peer reviewers for a level of precision that is simply not possible. With funding levels in many NIH institutes now within that 5–10% range, the argument is that reviewers are being forced to choose at random which excellent applications do and do not get funding. In addition to the inefficiency of overproduction and excessive competition in terms of their costs to society and opportunity costs to individuals, these institutional incentives might undermine the integrity and quality of science, and reduce the likelihood of breakthroughs.My colleagues and I have expressed such concerns about workforce dynamics and related issues in several publications (Martinson, 2007; Martinson et al, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010). Early on, we observed that, “missing from current analyses of scientific integrity is a consideration of the wider research environment, including institutional and systemic structures” (Martinson et al, 2005). Our more recent publications have been more specific about the institutional and systemic structures concerned. It seems that at least a few important leaders in science share these concerns.In April 2009, the NIH, through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), issued a request for applications (RFA) calling for proposals to develop computational models of the research workforce (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-GM-10-003.html). Although such an initiative might be premature given the current level of knowledge, the rationale behind the RFA seems irrefutable: “there is a need to […] pursue a systems-based approach to the study of scientific workforce dynamics.” Roughly four decades after the NIH appeared on the scene, this is, to my knowledge, the first official, public recognition that the biomedical workforce tends not to conform nicely to market forces of supply and demand, despite the fact that others have previously made such arguments.Early last year, Francis Collins, Director of the NIH, published a PolicyForum article in Science, voicing many of the concerns I have expressed about specific influences that have led to growth rates in the science workforce that are undermining the effectiveness of research in general, and biomedical research in particular. He notes the increasing stress in the biomedical research community after the end of the NIH “budget doubling” between 1998 and 2003, and the likelihood of further disruptions when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funding ends in 2011. Arguing that innovation is crucial to the future success of biomedical research, he notes the tendency towards conservatism of the NIH peer-review process, and how this worsens in fiscally tight times. Collins further highlights the ageing of the NIH workforce—as grants increasingly go to older scientists—and the increasing time that researchers are spending in itinerant and low-paid postdoctoral positions as they stack up in a holding pattern, waiting for faculty positions that may or may not materialize. Having noted these challenging trends, and echoing the central concerns of a 2007 Nature commentary (Martinson, 2007), he concludes that “…it is time for NIH to develop better models to guide decisions about the optimum size and nature of the US workforce for biomedical research. A related issue that needs attention, though it will be controversial, is whether institutional incentives in the current system that encourage faculty to obtain up to 100% of their salary from grants are the best way to encourage productivity.”Similarly, Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of Science, writing about incentives for innovation, notes that the US biomedical research enterprise includes more than 100,000 graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. He observes that “only a select few will go on to become independent research scientists in academia”, and argues that “assuming that the system supporting this career path works well, these will be the individuals with the most talent and interest in such an endeavor” (Alberts, 2009).His editorial is not concerned with what happens to the remaining majority, but argues that even among the select few who manage to succeed, the funding process for biomedical research “forces them to avoid risk-taking and innovation”. The primary culprit, in his estimation, is the conservatism of the traditional peer-review system for federal grants, which values “research projects that are almost certain to ‘work''”. He continues, “the innovation that is essential for keeping science exciting and productive is replaced by […] research that has little chance of producing the breakthroughs needed to improve human health.”If an increasing number of scientists are scrambling for jobs and resources, some might begin to cut corners in order to gain a competitive edgeAlthough I believe his assessment of the symptoms is correct, I think he has misdiagnosed the cause, in part because he has failed to identify which influence he is concerned with from the network of influences in biomedical research. To contextualize the influences of concern to Alberts, we must consider the remaining majority of doctorally trained individuals so easily dismissed in his editorial, and further examine what drives the dynamics of the biomedical research workforce.Labour economists might argue that market forces will always balance the number of individuals with doctorates with the number of appropriate jobs for them in the long term. Such arguments would ignore, however, the typical information asymmetry between incoming graduate students, whose knowledge about their eventual job opportunities and career options is by definition far more limited than that of those who run the training programmes. They would also ignore the fact that universities are generally not confronted with the externalities resulting from overproduction of PhDs, and have positive financial incentives that encourage overproduction. During the past 40 years, NIH ‘extramural'' funding has become crucial for graduate student training, faculty salaries and university overheads. For their part, universities have embraced NIH extramural funding as a primary revenue source that, for a time, allowed them to implement a business model based on the interconnected assumptions that, as one of the primary ‘outputs'' or ‘products'' of the university, more doctorally trained individuals are always better than fewer, and because these individuals are an excellent source of cheap, skilled labour during their training, they help to contain the real costs of faculty research.“…the current system has succeeded in maximizing the amount of research […] it has also degraded the quality of graduate training and led to an overproduction of PhDs…”However, it has also made universities increasingly dependent on NIH funding. As recently documented by the economist Paula Stephan, most faculty growth in graduate school programmes during the past decade has occurred in medical colleges, with the majority—more than 70%—in non-tenure-track positions. Arguably, this represents a shift of risk away from universities and onto their faculty. Despite perennial cries of concern about shortages in the research workforce (Butz et al, 2003; Kennedy et al, 2004; National Academy of Sciences et al, 2005) a number of commentators have recently expressed concerns that the current system of academic research might be overbuilt (Cech, 2005; Heinig et al, 2007; Martinson, 2007; Stephan, 2007). Some explicitly connect this to structural arrangements between the universities and NIH funding (Cech, 2005; Collins, 2007; Martinson, 2007; Stephan, 2007).In 1995, David Korn pointed out what he saw as some problematic aspects of the business model employed by Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the USA during the past few decades (Korn, 1995). He noted the reliance of AMCs on the relatively low-cost, but highly skilled labour represented by postdoctoral fellows, graduate students and others—who quickly start to compete with their own professors and mentors for resources. Having identified the economic dependence of the AMCs on these inexpensive labour pools, he noted additional problems with the graduate training programmes themselves. “These programs are […] imbued with a value system that clearly indicates to all participants that true success is only marked by the attainment of a faculty position in a high-profile research institution and the coveted status of principal investigator on NIH grants.” Pointing to “more than 10 years of severe supply/demand imbalance in NIH funds”, Korn concluded that, “considering the generative nature of each faculty mentor, this enterprise could only sustain itself in an inflationary environment, in which the society''s investment in biomedical research and clinical care was continuously and sharply expanding.” From 1994 to 2003, total funding for biomedical research in the USA increased at an annual rate of 7.8%, after adjustment for inflation. The comparable rate of growth between 2003 and 2007 was 3.4% (Dorsey et al, 2010). These observations resonate with the now classic observation by Derek J. de Solla Price, from more than 30 years before, that growth in science frequently follows an exponential pattern that cannot continue indefinitely; the enterprise must eventually come to a plateau (de Solla Price, 1963).In May 2009, echoing some of Korn''s observations, Nobel laureate Roald Hoffmann caused a stir in the US science community when he argued for a “de-coupling” of the dual roles of graduate students as trainees and cheap labour (Hoffmann, 2009). His suggestion was to cease supporting graduate students with faculty research grants, and to use the money instead to create competitive awards for which graduate students could apply, making them more similar to free agents. During the ensuing discussion, Shirley Tilghman, president of Princeton University, argued that “although the current system has succeeded in maximizing the amount of research performed […] it has also degraded the quality of graduate training and led to an overproduction of PhDs in some areas. Unhitching training from research grants would be a much-needed form of professional ‘birth control''” (Mervis, 2009).The greying of the NIH research workforce is another important driver of workforce dynamics, and it is integrally linked to the fate of young scientistsAlthough the issue of what I will call the ‘academic birth rate'' is the central concern of this analysis, the ‘academic end-of-life'' also warrants some attention. The greying of the NIH research workforce is another important driver of workforce dynamics, and it is integrally linked to the fate of young scientists. A 2008 news item in Science quoted then 70-year-old Robert Wells, a molecular geneticist at Texas A&M University, “‘if I and other old birds continue to land the grants, the [young scientists] are not going to get them.” He worries that the budget will not be able to support “the 100 people ‘I''ve trained […] to replace me''” (Kaiser, 2008). While his claim of 100 trainees might be astonishing, it might be more astonishing that his was the outlying perspective. The majority of senior scientists interviewed for that article voiced intentions to keep doing science—and going after NIH grants—until someone forced them to stop or they died.Some have looked at the current situation with concern, primarily because of the threats it poses to the financial and academic viability of universities (Korn, 1995; Heinig et al, 2007; Korn & Heinig, 2007), although most of those who express such concerns have been distinctly reticent to acknowledge the role of universities in creating and maintaining the situation. Others have expressed concerns about the differential impact of extreme competition and meagre job prospects on the recruitment, development and career survival of young and aspiring scientists (Freeman et al, 2001; Kennedy et al, 2004; Martinson et al, 2006; Anderson et al, 2007a; Martinson, 2007; Stephan, 2007). There seems to be little disagreement, however, that the system has generated excessively high competition for federal research funding, and that this threatens to undermine the very innovation and production of knowledge that is its raison d''etre.The production of knowledge in science, particularly of the ‘revolutionary'' variety, is generally not a linear input–output process with predictable returns on investment, clear timelines and high levels of certainty (Lane, 2009). On the contrary, it is arguable that “revolutionary science is a high risk and long-term endeavour which usually fails” (Charlton & Andras, 2008). Predicting where, when and by whom breakthroughs in understanding will be produced has proven to be an extremely difficult task. In the face of such uncertainty, and denying the realities of finite resources, some have argued that the best bet is to maximize the number of scientists, using that logic to justify a steady-state production of new PhDs, regardless of whether the labour market is sending signals of increasing or decreasing demand for that supply. Only recently have we begun to explore the effects of the current arrangement on the process of knowledge production, and on innovation in particular (Charlton & Andras, 2008; Kolata, 2009).…most of those who express such concerns have been reticent to acknowledge the role of universities themselves in creating and maintaining the situationBruce Alberts, in the above-mentioned editorial, points to several initiatives launched by the NIH that aim to get a larger share of NIH funding into the hands of young scientists with particularly innovative ideas. These include the “New Innovator Award,” the “Pioneer Award” and the “Transformational R01 Awards”. The proportion of NIH funding dedicated to these awards, however, amounts to “only 0.27% of the NIH budget” (Alberts, 2009). Such a small proportion of the NIH budget does not seem likely to generate a large amount of more innovative science. Moreover, to the extent that such initiatives actually succeed in enticing more young investigators to become dependent on NIH funds, any benefit these efforts have in terms of innovation may be offset by further increases in competition for resources that will come when these new ‘innovators'' reach the end of this specialty funding and add to the rank and file of those scrapping for funds through the standard mechanisms.Our studies on research integrity have been mostly oriented towards understanding how the influences within which academic scientists work might affect their behaviour, and thus the quality of the science they produce (Anderson et al, 2007a, 2007b; Martinson et al, 2009, 2010). My colleagues and I have focused on whether biomedical researchers perceive fairness in the various exchange relationships within their work systems. I am persuaded by the argument that expectations of fairness in exchange relationships have been hard-wired into us through evolution (Crockett et al, 2008; Hsu et al, 2008; Izuma et al, 2008; Pennisi, 2009), with the advent of modern markets being a primary manifestation of this. Thus, violations of these expectations strike me as potentially corrupting influences. Such violations might be prime motivators for ill will, possibly engendering bad-faith behaviour among those who perceive themselves to have been slighted, and therefore increasing the risk of research misconduct. They might also corrupt the enterprise by signalling to talented young people that biomedical research is an inhospitable environment in which to develop a career, possibly chasing away some of the most talented individuals, and encouraging a selection of characteristics that might not lead to optimal effectiveness, in terms of scientific innovation and productivity (Charlton, 2009).To the extent that we have an ecology with steep competition that is fraught with high risks of career failure for young scientists after they incur large costs of time, effort and sometimes financial resources to obtain a doctoral degree, why would we expect them to take on the additional, substantial risks involved in doing truly innovative science and asking risky research questions? And why, in such a cut-throat setting, would we not anticipate an increase in corner-cutting, and a corrosion of good scientific practice, collegiality, mentoring and sociability? Would we not also expect a reduction in high-risk, innovative science, and a reversion to a more career-safe type of ‘normal'' science? Would this not reduce the effectiveness of the institution of biomedical research? I do not claim to know the conditions needed to maximize the production of research that is novel, innovative and conducted with integrity. I am fairly certain, however, that putting scientists in tenuous positions in which their careers and livelihoods would be put at risk by pursuing truly revolutionary research is one way to insure against it.     

It's life, but just as we know it

A consensus definition of life remains elusiveIn July this year, the Phoenix Lander robot—launched by NASA in 2007 as part of the Phoenix mission to Mars—provided the first irrefutable proof that water exists on the Red Planet. “We''ve seen evidence for this water ice before in observations by the Mars Odyssey orbiter and in disappearing chunks observed by Phoenix […], but this is the first time Martian water has been touched and tasted,” commented lead scientist William Boynton from the University of Arizona, USA (NASA, 2008). The robot''s discovery of water in a scooped-up soil sample increases the probability that there is, or was, life on Mars.Meanwhile, the Darwin project, under development by the European Space Agency (ESA; Paris, France; www.esa.int/science/darwin), envisages a flotilla of four or five free-flying spacecraft to search for the chemical signatures of life in 25 to 50 planetary systems. Yet, in the vastness of space, to paraphrase the British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington (1822–1944), life might be not only stranger than we imagine, but also stranger than we can imagine. The limits of our current definitions of life raise the possibility that we would not be able to recognize an extra-terrestrial organism.Back on Earth, molecular biologists—whether deliberately or not—are empirically tackling the question of what is life. Researchers at the J Craig Venter Institute (Rockville, MD, USA), for example, have synthesized an artificial bacterial genome (Gibson et al, 2008). Others have worked on ‘minimal cells'' with the aim of synthesizing a ‘bioreactor'' that contains the minimum of components necessary to be self-sustaining, reproduce and evolve. Some biologists regard these features as the hallmarks of life (Luisi, 2007). However, to decide who is first in the ‘race to create life'' requires a consensus definition of life itself. “A definition of the precise boundary between complex chemistry and life will be critical in deciding which group has succeeded in what might be regarded by the public as the world''s first theology practical,” commented Jamie Davies, Professor of Experimental Anatomy at the University of Edinburgh, UK.For most biologists, defining life is a fascinating, fundamental, but largely academic question. It is, however, crucial for exobiologists looking for extra-terrestrial life on Mars, Jupiter''s moon Europa, Saturn''s moon Titan and on planets outside our solar system.In their search for life, exobiologists base their working hypothesis on the only example to hand: life on Earth. “At the moment, we can only assume that life elsewhere is based on the same principles as on Earth,” said Malcolm Fridlund, Secretary for the Exo-Planet Roadmap Advisory Team at the ESA''s European Space Research and Technology Centre (Noordwijk, The Netherlands). “We should, however, always remember that the universe is a peculiar place and try to interpret unexpected results in terms of new physics and chemistry.”The ESA''s Darwin mission will, therefore, search for life-related gases such as carbon dioxide, water, methane and ozone in the atmospheres of other planets. On Earth, the emergence of life altered the balance of atmospheric gases: living organisms produced all of the Earth'' oxygen, which now accounts for one-fifth of the atmosphere. “If all life on Earth was extinguished, the oxygen in our atmosphere would disappear in less than 4 million years, which is a very short time as planets go—the Earth is 4.5 billion years old,” Fridlund said. He added that organisms present in the early phases of life on Earth produced methane, which alters atmospheric composition compared with a planet devoid of life.Although the Darwin project will use a pragmatic and specific definition of life, biologists, philosophers and science-fiction authors have devised numerous other definitions—none of which are entirely satisfactory. Some are based on basic physiological characteristics: a living organism must feed, grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli and reproduce. Others invoke metabolic definitions that define a living organism as having a distinct boundary—such as a membrane—which facilitates interaction with the environment and transfers the raw materials needed to maintain its structure (Wharton, 2002). The minimal cell project, for example, defines cellular life as “the capability to display a concert of three main properties: self-maintenance (metabolism), reproduction and evolution. When these three properties are simultaneously present, we will have a full fledged cellular life” (Luisi, 2007). These concepts regard life as an emergent phenomenon arising from the interaction of non-living chemical components.Cryptobiosis—hidden life, also known as anabiosis—and bacterial endospores challenge the physiological and metabolic elements of these definitions (Wharton, 2002). When the environment changes, certain organisms are able to undergo cryptobiosis—a state in which their metabolic activity either ceases reversibly or is barely discernible. Cryptobiosis allows the larvae of the African fly Polypedilum vanderplanki to survive desiccation for up to 17 years and temperatures ranging from −270 °C (liquid helium) to 106 °C (Watanabe et al, 2002). It also allows the cysts of the brine shrimp Artemia to survive desiccation, ultraviolet radiation, extremes of temperature (Wharton, 2002) and even toyshops, which sell the cysts as ‘sea monkeys''. Organisms in a cryptobiotic state show characteristics that vary markedly from what we normally consider to be life, although they are certainly not dead. “[C]ryptobiosis is a unique state of biological organization”, commented James Clegg, from the Bodega Marine Laboratory at the University of California (Davies, CA, USA), in an article in 2001 (Clegg, 2001). Bacterial endospores, which are the “hardiest known form of life on Earth” (Nicholson et al, 2000), are able to withstand almost any environment—perhaps even interplanetary space. Microbiologists isolated endospores of strict thermophiles from cold lake sediments and revived spores from samples some 100,000 years old (Nicholson et al, 2000).…life might be not only stranger than we imagine, but also stranger than we can imagineAnother problem with the definitions of life is that these can expand beyond biology. The minimal cell project, for example, in common with most modern definitions of life, encompass the ability to undergo Darwinian evolution (Wharton, 2002). “To be considered alive, the organism needs to be able to undergo extensive genetic modification through natural selection,” said Professor Paul Freemont from Imperial College London, UK, whose research interests encompass synthetic biology. But the virtual ‘organisms'' in computer simulations such as the Game of Life (www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife) and Tierra (http://life.ou.edu/tierra) also exhibit life-like characteristics, including growth, death and evolution—similar to robots and other artifical systems that attempt to mimic life (Guruprasad & Sekar, 2006). “At the moment, we have some problems differentiating these approaches from something biologists consider [to be] alive,” Fridlund commented.…to decide who is first in the ‘race to create life'' requires a consensus definition of lifeBoth the genetic code and all computer-programming languages are means of communicating large quantities of codified information, which adds another element to a comprehensive definition of life. Guenther Witzany, an Austrian philosopher, has developed a “theory of communicative nature” that, he claims, differentiates biotic and abiotic life. “Life is distinguished from non-living matter by language and communication,” Witzany said. According to his theory, RNA and DNA use a ‘molecular syntax'' to make sense of the genetic code in a manner similar to language. This paragraph, for example, could contain the same words in a random order; it would be meaningless without syntactic and semantic rules. “The RNA/DNA language follows syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules which are absent in [a] random-like mixture of nucleic acids,” Witzany explained.Yet, successful communication requires both a speaker using the rules and a listener who is aware of and can understand the syntax and semantics. For example, cells, tissues, organs and organisms communicate with each other to coordinate and organize their activities; in other words, they exchange signals that contain meaning. Noradrenaline binding to a β-adrenergic receptor in the bronchi communicates a signal that says ‘dilate''. “If communication processes are deformed, destroyed or otherwise incorrectly mediated, both coordination and organisation of cellular life is damaged or disturbed, which can lead to disease,” Witzany added. “Cellular life also interprets abiotic environmental circumstances—such as the availability of nutrients, temperature and so on—to generate appropriate behaviour.”Nonetheless, even definitions of life that include all the elements mentioned so far might still be incomplete. “One can make a very complex definition that covers life on the Earth, but what if we find life elsewhere and it is different? My opinion, shared by many, is that we don''t have a clue of how life arose on Earth, even if there are some hypotheses,” Fridlund said. “This underlies many of our problems defining life. Since we do not have a good minimum definition of life, it is hard or impossible to find out how life arose without observing the process. Nevertheless, I''m an optimist who believes the universe is understandable with some hard work and I think we will understand these issues one day.”Both synthetic biology and research on organisms that live in extreme conditions allow biologists to explore biological boundaries, which might help them to reach a consensual minimum definition of life, and understand how it arose and evolved. Life is certainly able to flourish in some remarkably hostile environments. Thermus aquaticus, for example, is metabolically optimal in the springs of Yellowstone National Park at temperatures between 75 °C and 80 °C. Another extremophile, Deinococcus radiodurans, has evolved a highly efficient biphasic system to repair radiation-induced DNA breaks (Misra et al, 2006) and, as Fridlund noted, “is remarkably resistant to gamma radiation and even lives in the cooling ponds of nuclear reactors.”In turn, synthetic biology allows for a detailed examination of the elements that define life, including the minimum set of genes required to create a living organism. Researchers at the J Craig Venter Institute, for example, have synthesized a 582,970-base-pair Mycoplasma genitalium genome containing all the genes of the wild-type bacteria, except one that they disrupted to block pathogenicity and allow for selection. ‘Watermarks'' at intergenic sites that tolerate transposon insertions identify the synthetic genome, which would otherwise be indistinguishable from the wild type (Gibson et al, 2008).Yet, as Pier Luigi Luisi from the University of Roma in Italy remarked, even M. genitalium is relatively complex. “The question is whether such complexity is necessary for cellular life, or whether, instead, cellular life could, in principle, also be possible with a much lower number of molecular components”, he said. After all, life probably did not start with cells that already contained thousands of genes (Luisi, 2007).…researchers will continue their attempts to create life in the test tube—it is, after all, one of the greatest scientific challengesTo investigate further the minimum number of genes required for life, researchers are using minimal cell models: synthetic genomes that can be included in liposomes, which themselves show some life-like characteristics. Certain lipid vesicles are able to grow, divide and grow again, and can include polymerase enzymes to synthesize RNA from external substrates as well as functional translation apparatuses, including ribosomes (Deamer, 2005).However, the requirement that an organism be subject to natural selection to be considered alive could prove to be a major hurdle for current attempts to create life. As Freemont commented: “Synthetic biologists could include the components that go into a cell and create an organism [that is] indistinguishable from one that evolved naturally and that can replicate […] We are beginning to get to grips with what makes the cell work. Including an element that undergoes natural selection is proving more intractable.”John Dupré, Professor of Philosophy of Science and Director of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Genomics in Society at the University of Exeter, UK, commented that synthetic biologists still approach the construction of a minimal organism with certain preconceptions. “All synthetic biology research assumes certain things about life and what it is, and any claims to have ‘confirmed'' certain intuitions—such as life is not a vital principle—aren''t really adding empirical evidence for those intuitions. Anyone with the opposite intuition may simply refuse to admit that the objects in question are living,” he said. “To the extent that synthetic biology is able to draw a clear line between life and non-life, this is only possible in relation to defining concepts brought to the research. For example, synthetic biologists may be able to determine the number of genes required for minimal function. Nevertheless, ‘what counts as life'' is unaffected by minimal genomics.”Partly because of these preconceptions, Dan Nicholson, a former molecular biologist now working at the ESRC Centre, commented that synthetic biology adds little to the understanding of life already gained from molecular biology and biochemistry. Nevertheless, he said, synthetic biology might allow us to go boldly into the realms of biological possibility where evolution has not gone before.An engineered synthetic organism could, for example, express novel amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids or vesicular forms. A synthetic organism could use pyranosyl-RNA, which produces a stronger and more selective pairing system than the natural existent furanosyl-RNA (Bolli et al, 1997). Furthermore, the synthesis of proteins that do not exist in nature—so-called never-born proteins—could help scientists to understand why evolutionary pressures only selected certain structures.As Luisi remarked, the ratio between the number of theoretically possible proteins containing 100 amino acids and the real number present in nature is close to the ratio between the space of the universe and the space of a single hydrogen atom, or the ratio between all the sand in the Sahara Desert and a single grain. Exploring never-born proteins could, therefore, allow synthetic biologists to determine whether particular physical, structural, catalytic, thermodynamic and other properties maximized the evolutionary fitness of natural proteins, or whether the current protein repertoire is predominately the result of chance (Luisi, 2007).In the final analysis, as with all science, deep understanding is more important than labelling with words.“Synthetic biology also could conceivably help overcome the ‘n = 1 problem''—namely, that we base biological theorising on terrestrial life only,” Nicholson said. “In this way, synthetic biology could contribute to the development of a more general, broader understanding of what life is and how it might be defined.”No matter the uncertainties, researchers will continue their attempts to create life in the test tube—it is, after all, one of the greatest scientific challenges. Whether or not they succeed will depend partly on the definition of life that they use, though in any case, the research should yield numerous insights that are beneficial to biologists generally. “The process of creating a living system from chemical components will undoubtedly offer many rich insights into biology,” Davies concluded. “However, the definition will, I fear, reflect politics more than biology. Any definition will, therefore, be subject to a lot of inter-lab political pressure. Definitions are also important for bioethical legislation and, as a result, reflect larger politics more than biology. In the final analysis, as with all science, deep understanding is more important than labelling with words.”     

Measuring the societal impact of research. Research is less and less assessed on scientific impact alone-we should aim to quantify the increasingly important contributions of science to society

The global financial crisis has changed how nations and agencies prioritize research investment. There has been a push towards science with expected benefits for society, yet devising reliable tools to predict and measure the social impact of research remains a major challenge.Even before the Second World War, governments had begun to invest public funds into scientific research with the expectation that military, economic, medical and other benefits would ensue. This trend continued during the war and throughout the Cold War period, with increasing levels of public money being invested in science. Nuclear physics was the main benefactor, but other fields were also supported as their military or commercial potential became apparent. Moreover, research came to be seen as a valuable enterprise in and of itself, given the value of the knowledge generated, even if advances in understanding could not be applied immediately. Vannevar Bush, science advisor to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Second World War, established the inherent value of basic research in his report to the President, Science, the endless frontier, and it has become the underlying rationale for public support and funding of science.However, the growth of scientific research during the past decades has outpaced the public resources available to fund it. This has led to a problem for funding agencies and politicians: how can limited resources be most efficiently and effectively distributed among researchers and research projects? This challenge—to identify promising research—spawned both the development of measures to assess the quality of scientific research itself, and to determine the societal impact of research. Although the first set of measures have been relatively successful and are widely used to determine the quality of journals, research projects and research groups, it has been much harder to develop reliable and meaningful measures to assess the societal impact of research. The impact of applied research, such as drug development, IT or engineering, is obvious but the benefits of basic research are less so, harder to assess and have been under increasing scrutiny since the 1990s [1]. In fact, there is no direct link between the scientific quality of a research project and its societal value. As Paul Nightingale and Alister Scott of the University of Sussex''s Science and Technology Policy Research centre have pointed out: “research that is highly cited or published in top journals may be good for the academic discipline but not for society” [2]. Moreover, it might take years, or even decades, until a particular body of knowledge yields new products or services that affect society. By way of example, in an editorial on the topic in the British Medical Journal, editor Richard Smith cites the original research into apoptosis as work that is of high quality, but that has had “no measurable impact on health” [3]. He contrasts this with, for example, research into “the cost effectiveness of different incontinence pads”, which is certainly not seen as high value by the scientific community, but which has had an immediate and important societal impact.…the growth of scientific research during the past decades has outpaced the public resources available to fund itThe problem actually begins with defining the ‘societal impact of research''. A series of different concepts has been introduced: ‘third-stream activities'' [4], ‘societal benefits'' or ‘societal quality'' [5], ‘usefulness'' [6], ‘public values'' [7], ‘knowledge transfer'' [8] and ‘societal relevance'' [9, 10]. Yet, each of these concepts is ultimately concerned with measuring the social, cultural, environmental and economic returns from publicly funded research, be they products or ideas.In this context, ‘societal benefits'' refers to the contribution of research to the social capital of a nation, in stimulating new approaches to social issues, or in informing public debate and policy-making. ‘Cultural benefits'' are those that add to the cultural capital of a nation, for example, by giving insight into how we relate to other societies and cultures, by providing a better understanding of our history and by contributing to cultural preservation and enrichment. ‘Environmental benefits'' benefit the natural capital of a nation, by reducing waste and pollution, and by increasing natural preserves or biodiversity. Finally, ‘economic benefits'' increase the economic capital of a nation by enhancing its skills base and by improving its productivity [11].Given the variability and the complexity of evaluating the societal impact of research, Barend van der Meulen at the Rathenau Institute for research and debate on science and technology in the Netherlands, and Arie Rip at the School of Management and Governance of the University of Twente, the Netherlands, have noted that “it is not clear how to evaluate societal quality, especially for basic and strategic research” [5]. There is no accepted framework with adequate datasets comparable to,for example, Thomson Reuters'' Web of Science, which enables the calculation of bibliometric values such as the h index [12] or journal impact factor [13]. There are also no criteria or methods that can be applied to the evaluation of societal impact, whilst conventional research and development (R&D) indicators have given little insight, with the exception of patent data. In fact, in many studies, the societal impact of research has been postulated rather than demonstrated [14]. For Benoît Godin at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (INRS) in Quebec, Canada, and co-author Christian Doré, “systematic measurements and indicators [of the] impact on the social, cultural, political, and organizational dimensions are almost totally absent from the literature” [15]. Furthermore, they note, most research in this field is primarily concerned with economic impact.A presentation by Ben Martin from the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, UK, cites four common problems that arise in the context of societal impact measurements [16]. The first is the causality problem—it is not clear which impact can be attributed to which cause. The second is the attribution problem, which arises because impact can be diffuse or complex and contingent, and it is not clear what should be attributed to research or to other inputs. The third is the internationality problem that arises as a result of the international nature of R&D and innovation, which makes attribution virtually impossible. Finally, the timescale problem arises because the premature measurement of impact might result in policies that emphasize research that yields only short-term benefits, ignoring potential long-term impact.…in many studies, the societal impact of research has been postulated rather than demonstratedIn addition, there are four other problems. First, it is hard to find experts to assess societal impact that is based on peer evaluation. As Robert Frodeman and James Britt Holbrook at the University of North Texas, USA, have noted, “[s]cientists generally dislike impacts considerations” and evaluating research in terms of its societal impact “takes scientists beyond the bounds of their disciplinary expertise” [10]. Second, given that the scientific work of an engineer has a different impact than the work of a sociologist or historian, it will hardly be possible to have a single assessment mechanism [4, 17]. Third, societal impact measurement should take into account that there is not just one model of a successful research institution. As such, assessment should be adapted to the institution''s specific strengths in teaching and research, the cultural context in which it exists and national standards. Finally, the societal impact of research is not always going to be desirable or positive. For example, Les Rymer, graduate education policy advisor to the Australian Group of Eight (Go8) network of university vice-chancellors, noted in a report for the Go8 that, “environmental research that leads to the closure of a fishery might have an immediate negative economic impact, even though in the much longer term it will preserve a resource that might again become available for use. The fishing industry and conservationists might have very different views as to the nature of the initial impact—some of which may depend on their view about the excellence of the research and its disinterested nature” [18].Unlike scientific impact measurement, for which there are numerous established methods that are continually refined, research into societal impact is still in the early stages: there is no distinct community with its own series of conferences, journals or awards for special accomplishments. Even so, governments already conduct budget-relevant measurements, or plan to do so. The best-known national evaluation system is the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which has evaluated research in the UK since the 1980s. Efforts are under way to set up the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which is set to replace the RAE in 2014 “to support the desire of modern research policy for promoting problem-solving research” [21]. In order to develop the new arrangements for the assessment and funding of research in the REF, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) commissioned RAND Europe to review approaches for evaluating the impact of research [20]. The recommendation from this consultation is that impact should be measured in a quantifiable way, and expert panels should review narrative evidence in case studies supported by appropriate indicators [19,21].…premature measurement of impact might result in policies that emphasize research that yields only short-term benefits, ignoring potential long-term impactMany of the studies that have carried out societal impact measurement chose to do so on the basis of case studies. Although this method is labour-intensive and a craft rather than a quantitative activity, it seems to be the best way of measuring the complex phenomenon that is societal impact. The HEFCE stipulates that “case studies may include any social, economic or cultural impact or benefit beyond academia that has taken place during the assessment period, and was underpinned by excellent research produced by the submitting institution within a given timeframe” [22]. Claire Donovan at Brunel University, London, UK, considers the preference for a case-study approach in the REF to be “the ‘state of the art'' [for providing] the necessary evidence-base for increased financial support of university research across all fields” [23]. According to Finn Hansson from the Department of Leadership, Policy and Philosophy at the Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, and co-author Erik Ernø-Kjølhede, the new REF is “a clear political signal that the traditional model for assessing research quality based on a discipline-oriented Mode 1 perception of research, first and foremost in the form of publication in international journals, was no longer considered sufficient by the policy-makers” [19]. ‘Mode 1'' describes research governed by the academic interests of a specific community, whereas ‘Mode 2'' is characterized by collaboration—both within the scientific realm and with other stakeholders—transdisciplinarity and basic research that is being conducted in the context of application [19].The new REF will also entail changes in budget allocations. The evaluation of a research unit for the purpose of allocations will determine 20% of the societal influence dimension [19]. The final REF guidance contains lists of examples for different types of societal impact [24].Societal impact is much harder to measure than scientific impact, and there are probably no indicators that can be used across all disciplines and institutions for collation in databases [17]. Societal impact often takes many years to become apparent, and “[t]he routes through which research can influence individual behaviour or inform social policy are often very diffuse” [18].Yet, the practitioners of societal impact measurement should not conduct this exercise alone; scientists should also take part. According to Steve Hanney at Brunel University, an expert in assessing payback or impacts from health research, and his co-authors, many scientists see societal impact measurement as a threat to their scientific freedom and often reject it [25]. If the allocation of funds is increasingly oriented towards societal impact issues, it challenges the long-standing reward system in science whereby scientists receive credits—not only citations and prizes but also funds—for their contributions to scientific advancement. However, given that societal impact measurement is already important for various national evaluations—and other countries will follow probably—scientists should become more concerned with this aspect of their research. In fact, scientists are often unaware that their research has a societal impact. “The case study at BRASS [Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society] uncovered activities that were previously ‘under the radar'', that is, researchers have been involved in activities they realised now can be characterized as productive interactions” [26] between them and societal stakeholders. It is probable that research in many fields already has a direct societal impact, or induces productive interactions, but that it is not yet perceived as such by the scientists conducting the work.…research into societal impact is still in the early stages: there is no distinct community with its own series of conferences, journals or awards for special accomplishmentsThe involvement of scientists is also necessary in the development of mechanisms to collect accurate and comparable data [27]. Researchers in a particular discipline will be able to identify appropriate indicators to measure the impact of their kind of work. If the approach to establishing measurements is not sufficiently broad in scope, there is a danger that readily available indicators will be used for evaluations, even if they do not adequately measure societal impact [16]. There is also a risk that scientists might base their research projects and grant applications on readily available and ultimately misleading indicators. As Hansson and Ernø-Kjølhede point out, “the obvious danger is that researchers and universities intensify their efforts to participate in activities that can be directly documented rather than activities that are harder to document but in reality may be more useful to society” [19]. Numerous studies have documented that scientists already base their activities on the criteria and indicators that are applied in evaluations [19, 28, 29].Until reliable and robust methods to assess impact are developed, it makes sense to use expert panels to qualitatively assess the societal relevance of research in the first instance. Rymer has noted that, “just as peer review can be useful in assessing the quality of academic work in an academic context, expert panels with relevant experience in different areas of potential impact can be useful in assessing the difference that research has made” [18].Whether scientists like it or not, the societal impact of their research is an increasingly important factor in attracting the public funding and support of basic researchWhether scientists like it or not, the societal impact of their research is an increasingly important factor in attracting public funding and support of basic research. This has always been the case, but new research into measures that can assess the societal impact of research would provide better qualitative and quantitative data on which funding agencies and politicians could base decisions. At the same time, such measurement should not come at the expense of basic, blue-sky research, given that it is and will remain near-impossible to predict the impact of certain research projects years or decades down the line.     

When life gets physical

Does the spin of an electron allow birds to see the Earth''s magnetic field? Andrea Rinaldi investigates the influence of quantum events in the biological world.The subatomic world is nothing like the world that biologists study. Physicists have struggled for almost a century to understand the wave–particle duality of matter and energy, but many questions remain unanswered. That biological systems ultimately obey the rules of quantum mechanics might be self-evident, but the idea that those rules are the very basis of certain biological functions has needed 80 years of thought, research and development for evidence to begin to emerge (Sidebar A).

Sidebar A | Putting things in their place

Although Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961) is often credited as the ‘father'' of quantum biology, owing to the publication of his famous 1944 book, What is Life?, the full picture is more complex. While other researchers were already moving towards these concepts in the 1920s, the German theoretical physicist Pascual Jordan (1902–1980) was actually one of the first to attempt to reconcile biological phenomena with the quantum revolution that Jordan himself, working with Max Born and Werner Heisenberg, largely ignited. “Pascual Jordan was one of many scientists at the time who were exploring biophysics in innovative ways. In some cases, his ideas have proven to be speculative or even fantastical. In others, however, his ideas have proven to be really ahead of their time,” explained Richard Beyler, a science historian at Portland State University, USA, who analysed Jordan''s contribution to the rise of quantum biology (Beyler, 1996). “I think this applies to Jordan''s work in quantum biology as well.”Beyler also remarked that some of the well-known figures of molecular biology''s past—Max Delbrück is a notable example—entered into their studies at least in part as a response or rejoinder to Jordan''s work. “Schrödinger''s book can also be read, on some level, as an indirect response to Jordan,” Beyler said.Jordan was certainly a complex personality and his case is rendered more complicated by the fact that he explicitly hitched his already speculative scientific theories to various right-wing political philosophies. “During the Nazi regime, for example, he promoted the notion that quantum biology served as evidence for the naturalness of dictatorship and the prospective death of liberal democracy,” Beyler commented. “After 1945, Jordan became a staunch Cold Warrior and saw in quantum biology a challenge to philosophical and political materialism. Needless to say, not all of his scientific colleagues appreciated these propagandistic endeavors.”Pascual Jordan [pictured above] and the dawn of quantum biology. From 1932, Jordan started to outline the new field''s background in a series of essays that were published in journals such as Naturwissenschaften. An exposition of quantum biology is also encountered in his book Die Physik und das Geheimnis des organischen Lebens, published in 1941. Photo courtesy of Luca Turin.Until very recently, it was not even possible to investigate whether quantum phenomena such as coherence and entanglement could play a significant role in the function of living organisms. As such, researchers were largely limited to computer simulations and theoretical experiments to explain their observations (see A quantum leap in biology, www.emboreports.org). Recently, however, quantum biologists have been making inroads into developing methodology to measure the degree of quantum entanglement in light-harvesting systems. Their breakthrough has turned once ephemeral theories into solid evidence, and has sparked the beginning of an entirely new discipline.How widespread is the direct relevance of quantum effects in nature is hard to say and many scientists suspect that there are only a few cases in which quantum mechanics have a crucial role. However, interest in the field is growing and researchers are looking for more examples of quantum-dependent biological systems. In a way, quantum biology can be viewed as a natural evolution of biophysics, moving from the classical to the quantum, from the atomic to the subatomic. Yet the discipline might prove to be an even more intimate and further-reaching marriage that could provide a deeper understanding of things such as protein energetics and dynamics, and all biological processes where electrons flow.Recently […] quantum biologists have been making inroads into developing methodology to measure the degree of quantum entanglement in light-harvesting systemsAmong the biological systems in which quantum effects are believed to have a crucial role is magnetoreception, although the nature of the receptors and the underlying biophysical mechanisms remain unknown. The possibility that organisms use a ferromagnetic material (magnetite) in some cases has received some confirmation, but support is growing for the explanation lying in a chemical detection mechanism with quantum mechanical properties. This explanation posits a chemical compass based on the light-triggered production of a radical pair—a pair of molecules each with an unpaired electron—the spins of which are entangled. If the products of the radical pair system are spin-dependent, then a magnetic field—like the geomagnetic one—that affects the direction of spin will alter the reaction products. The idea is that these reaction products affect the sensitivity of light sensors in the eye, thus allowing organisms to ‘see'' magnetic fields.The research comes from a team led by Thorsten Ritz at the University of California Irvine, USA, and other groups, who have suggested that the radical pair reaction takes place in the molecule cryptochrome. Cryptochromes are flavoprotein photoreceptors first identified in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, in which they play key roles in growth and development. More recently, cryptochromes have been found to have a role in the circadian clock of fruit flies (Ritz et al, 2010) and are known to be present in migratory birds. Intriguingly, magnetic fields have been shown to have an effect on both Arabidopsis seedlings, which respond as though they have been exposed to higher levels of blue light, and Drosophila, in which the period length of the clock is lengthened, mimicking the effect of increased blue light signal intensity on cryptochromes (Ahmad et al, 2007; Yoshii et al, 2009).“The study of quantum effects in biological systems is a rapidly broadening field of research in which intriguing phenomena are yet to be uncovered and understood”Direct evidence that cryptochrome is the avian magnetic compass is currently lacking, but the molecule does have some features that make its candidacy possible. In a recent review (Ritz et al, 2010), Ritz and colleagues discussed the mechanism by which cryptochrome might form radical pairs. They argued that “Cryptochromes are bound to a light-absorbing flavin cofactor (FAD) which can exist in three interconvertable [sic] redox forms: (FAD, FADH^•, FADH⁻),” and that the redox state of FAD is light-dependent. As such, both the oxidation and reduction of the flavin have radical species as intermediates. “Therefore both forward and reverse reactions may involve the formation of radical pairs” (Ritz et al, 2010). Although speculative, the idea is that a magnetic field could alter the spin of the free electrons in the radical pairs resulting in altered photoreceptor responses that could be perceived by the organism. “Given the relatively short time from the first suggestion of cryptochrome as a magnetoreceptor in 2000, the amount of studies from different fields supporting the photo-magnetoreceptor and cryptochrome hypotheses […] is promising,” the authors concluded. “It suggests that we may be only one step away from a true smoking gun revealing the long-sought after molecular nature of receptors underlying the 6^th sense and thus the solution of a great outstanding riddle of sensory biology.”Research into quantum effects in biology took off in 2007 with groundbreaking experiments from Graham Fleming''s group at the University of California, Berkeley, USA. Fleming''s team were able to develop tools that allowed them to excite the photosynthetic apparatus of the green sulphur bacterium Chlorobium tepidum with short laser pulses to demonstrate that wave-like energy transfer takes place through quantum coherence (Engel et al, 2007). Shortly after, Martin Plenio''s group at Ulm University in Germany and Alán Aspuru-Guzik''s team at Harvard University in the USA simultaneously provided evidence that it is a subtle interplay between quantum coherence and environmental noise that optimizes the performance of biological systems such as the photosynthetic machinery, adding further interest to the field (Plenio & Huelga, 2008; Rebentrost et al, 2009). “The recent Quantum Effects in Biological Systems (QuEBS) 2011 meeting in Ulm saw an increasing number of biological systems added to the group of biological processes in which quantum effects are suspected to play a crucial role,” commented Plenio, one of the workshop organizers; he mentioned the examples of avian magnetoreception and the role of phonon-assisted tunnelling to explain the function of the sense of smell (see below). “The study of quantum effects in biological systems is a rapidly broadening field of research in which intriguing phenomena are yet to be uncovered and understood,” he concluded.“The area of quantum effects in biology is very exciting because it is pushing the limits of quantum physics to a new scale,” Yasser Omar from the Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal commented. ”[W]e are finding that quantum coherence plays a significant role in the function of systems that we previously thought would be too large, too hot—working at physiological temperatures—and too complex to depend on quantum effects.”Another growing focus of quantum biologists is the sense of smell and odorant recognition. Mainstream researchers have always favoured a ‘lock-and-key'' mechanism to explain how organisms detect and distinguish different smells. In this case, the identification of odorant molecules relies on their specific shape to activate receptors on the surface of sensory neurons in the nasal epithelium. However, a small group of ‘heretics'' think that the smell of a molecule is actually determined by intramolecular vibrations, rather than by its shape. This, they say, explains why the shape theory has so far failed to explain why different molecules can have similar odours, while similar molecules can have dissimilar odours. It also goes some way to explaining how humans can manage with fewer than 400 smell receptors.…determining whether quantum effects have a role in odorant recognition has involved assessing the physical violations of such a mechanism […] and finding that, given certain biological parameters, there are noneA recent study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA has now provided new grist for the mill for ‘vibrationists''. Researchers from the Biomedical Sciences Research Center “Alexander Fleming”, Vari, Greece—where the experiments were performed—and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA, collaborated to replace hydrogen with deuterium in odorants such as acetophenone and 1-octanol, and asked whether Drosophila flies could distinguish the two isotopes, which are identically shaped but vibrate differently (Franco et al, 2011). Not only were the flies able to discriminate between the isotopic odorants, but when trained to discriminate against the normal or deuterated isotopes of a compound, they could also selectively avoid the corresponding isotope of a different odorant. The findings are inconsistent with a shape-only model for smell, the authors concluded, and suggest that flies can ‘smell molecular vibrations''.“The ability to detect heavy isotopes in a molecule by smell is a good test of shape and vibration theories: shape says it should be impossible, vibration says it should be doable,” explained Luca Turin from MIT, one of the study''s authors. Turin is a major proponent of the vibration theory and suggests that the transduction of molecular vibrations into receptor activation could be mediated by inelastic electron tunnelling (Fig 1; see also The scent of life, www.emboreports.org). “The results so far had been inconclusive and complicated by possible contamination of the test odorants with impurities,” Turin said. “Our work deals with impurities in a novel way, by asking flies whether the presence of deuterium isotope confers a common smell character to odorants, much in the way that the presence of -SH in a molecule makes it smell ‘sulphuraceous'', regardless of impurities. The flies'' answer seems to be ‘yes''.”Open in a separate windowFigure 1Diagram of a vibration-sensing receptor using an inelastic electron tunnelling mechanism. An odorant—here benzaldehyde—is depicted bound to a protein receptor that includes an electron donor site at the top left to which an electron—blue sphere—is bound. The electron can tunnel to an acceptor site at the bottom right while losing energy (vertical arrow) by exciting one or more vibrational modes of the benzaldehyde. When the electron reaches the acceptor, the signal is transduced via a G-protein mechanism, and the olfactory stimulus is triggered. Credit: Luca Turin.One of the study''s Greek co-authors, Efthimios Skoulakis, suggested that flies are better suited than humans at doing this experiment for a couple of reasons. “[The flies] seem to have better acuity than humans and they cannot anticipate the task they will be required to complete (as humans would), thus reducing bias in the outcome,” he said. “Drosophila does not need to detect deuterium per se to survive and be reproductively successful, so it is likely that detection of the vibrational difference between such a compound and its normal counterpart reflects a general property of olfactory systems.”The question of whether quantum mechanics really plays a non-trivial role in biology is still hotly debated by physicists and biologists alikeJennifer Brookes, a physicist at University College London, UK, explained that recent advances in determining whether quantum effects have a role in odorant recognition has involved assessing the physical violations of such a mechanism in the first instance, and finding that, given certain biological parameters, there are none. “The point being that if nature uses something like the quantized vibrations of molecules to ‘measure'' a smell then the idea is not—mathematically, physically and biologically—as eccentric as it at first seems,” she said. Moreover, there is the possibility that quantum mechanics could play a much broader role in biology than simply underpinning the sense of smell. “Odorants are not the only small molecules that interact unpredictably with large proteins; steroid hormones, anaesthetics and neurotransmitters, to name a few, are examples of ligands that interact specifically with special receptors to produce important biological processes,” Brookes wrote in a recent essay (Brookes, 2010).The question of whether quantum mechanics really plays a non-trivial role in biology is still hotly debated by physicists and biologists alike. “[A] non-trivial quantum effect in biology is one that would convince a biologist that they needed to take an advanced quantum mechanics course and learn about Hilbert space and operators etc., so that they could understand the effect,” argued theoretical quantum physicists Howard Wiseman and Jens Eisert in their contribution to the book Quantum Aspects of Life (Wiseman & Eisert, 2008). In their rational challenge to the general enthusiasm for a quantum revolution in biology, Wiseman and Eisert point out that a number of “exotic” and “implausible” quantum effects—including a quantum life principle, quantum computing in the brain, quantum computing in genetics, and quantum consciousness—have been suggested and warn researchers to be cautious of “ideas that are more appealing at first sight than they are realistic” (Wiseman & Eisert, 2008).“One could easily expect many more new exciting ideas and discoveries to emerge from the intersection of two major areas such as quantum physics and biology”Keeping this warning in mind, the view of life from a quantum perspective can still provide a deeper insight into the mechanisms that allow living organisms to thrive without succumbing to the increasing entropy of their environment. But does quantum biology have practical applications? “The investigation of the role of quantum physics in biology is fascinating because it could help explain why evolution has favoured some biological designs, as well as inspire us to develop more efficient artificial devices,” Omar said. The most often quoted examples of such devices are solar collectors that would use efficient energy transport mechanisms inspired by the quantum proficiency of natural light-harvesting systems, and quantum computing. But there is much more ahead. In 2010, the Pentagon''s cutting-edge research branch, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, USA), launched a solicitation for innovative proposals in the area of quantum effects in a biological environment. “Proposed research should establish beyond any doubt that manifestly quantum effects occur in biology, and demonstrate through simulation proof-of-concept experiments that devices that exploit these effects could be developed into biomimetic sensors,” states the synopsis (DARPA, 2010). This programme will thus look explicitly at photosynthesis, magnetic field sensing and odour detection to lay the foundations for novel sensor technologies for military applications.Clearly a number of civil needs could also be fulfilled by quantum-based biosensors. Take, for example, the much sought-after ‘electronic nose'' that could replace the use of dogs to find drugs or explosives, or could assess food quality and safety. Such a device could even be used to detect cancer, as suggested by a recent publication from a Swedish team of researchers who reported that ovarian carcinomas emit a different array of volatile signals to normal tissue (Horvath et al, 2010). “Our goal is to be able to screen blood samples from apparently healthy women and so detect ovarian cancer at an early stage when it can still be cured,” said the study''s leading author György Horvath in a press release (University of Gothenburg, 2010).Despite its already long incubation time, quantum biology is still in its infancy but with an intriguing adolescence ahead. “A new wave of scientists are finding that quantum physics has the appropriate language and methods to solve many problems in biology, observing phenomena from a different point of view and developing new concepts. The next important steps are experimental verification/falsification,” Brookes said. “One could easily expect many more new exciting ideas and discoveries to emerge from the intersection of two major areas such as quantum physics and biology,” Omar concluded.     

In the womb's shadow. The theory of prenatal programming as the fetal origin of various adult diseases is increasingly supported by a wealth of evidence

How does the womb determine the future? Scientists have begun to uncover how environmental and maternal factors influence our long-term health prospects.About two decades ago, David Barker, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Southampton, UK, proposed a hypothesis that malnutrition during pregnancy and resultant low birth weight increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease in adulthood. “The womb may be more important than the home,” remarked Barker in a note about his theory (Barker, 1990). “The old model of adult degenerative disease was based on the interaction between genes and an adverse environment in adult life. The new model that is developing will include programming by the environment in fetal and infant life.”This new idea about the influence of the environment during prenatal development on adult disease risk comes with a better understanding of epigenetic processes…The ‘Barker theory'' has been increasingly accepted and been expanded to other diseases, prominently diabetes and obesity, but also osteoporosis and allergies. “In the last few years, the evidence [of an extended] range of potential disease phenotypes with a prenatal developmental component to risk […] has become much stronger,” said Peter Gluckman at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. “We also need to give greater attention to the growing evidence of prenatal and early postnatal effects on cognitive and non-cognitive functional development and to variation in life history patterns.” Similarly, Michael Symonds and colleagues from the University Hospital at Nottingham, UK, wrote: “These critical periods occur at times when fetal development is plastic; in other words, when the fetus is experiencing rapid cell proliferation making it sensitive to environmental challenges” (Symonds et al, 2009).This new idea about the influence of the environment during prenatal development on adult disease risk comes with a better understanding of epigenetic processes—the biological mechanisms that explain how in utero experiences could translate into phenotypic variation and disease susceptibility within, or over several, generations (Gluckman et al, 2009; Fig 1). “I think it has been the combination of good empirical data (experimental and clinical), the appearance of epigenetic data to provide molecular mechanisms and a sound theoretical framework (based on evolutionary biology) that has allowed this field to mature,” said Gluckman. “Having said that, I think it is only as more human molecular data (epigenetic) emerges that this will happen.”Open in a separate windowFigure 1Environmental sensitivity of the epigenome throughout life. Adapted from Gluckman et al (2009), with permission.Epidemiological data in support of the Barker theory have come from investigations of the effects of the ‘Dutch famine''. Between November 1944 and May 1945, the western part of The Netherlands suffered a severe food shortage, owing to the ravages of the Second World War. In large cities such as Utrecht, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague, the average individual daily rations were as low as 400–800 kcal. In 1994, a large study involving hundreds of people born between November 1943 and February 1947 in a major hospital in Amsterdam was initiated to assess whether and to what extent the famine had prenatally affected the health of the subjects in later life. The Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study (www.hongerwinter.nl) found a strong link between malnutrition and under-nutrition in utero and cardiovascular disease and diabetes in later life, as well as increased susceptibility to pulmonary diseases, altered coagulation, higher incidence of breast cancer and other diseases, although some of these links were only found in a few cases.More recently, a group led by Bastiaan Heijmans at the Leiden University Medical Centre in The Netherlands and Columbia University (New York, USA) conducted epigenetic studies of individuals who had been exposed to the Dutch famine during gestation. They analysed the level of DNA methylation at several candidate loci in the cohort and found decreased methylation of the imprinted insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2) gene—a key factor in human growth and development—compared with the unexposed, same-sex siblings of the cohort (Heijmans et al, 2008). Further studies have identified another six genes implicated in growth, metabolic and cardiovascular phenotypes that show altered methylation statuses associated with prenatal exposure to famine (Heijmans et al, 2009). The overall conclusion from this work is that exposure to certain conditions in the womb can lead to epigenetic marks that can persist throughout life. “It is remarkable to realize that history can leave an imprint on our DNA that is visible up to six decades later. The current challenge is to scale up such studies to the genome,” said Heijmans. His team is now using high-throughput sequencing to see whether there are genomic regions that are more susceptible to prenatal environmental influences. “Genome-scale data may also allow us to observe the hypothesized accumulation of epigenetic changes in specific biological processes, perhaps as a sign of adaptive responses,” he said.Epigenetic modification of genes involved in key regulatory pathways is central to the mechanisms of nutritional programming of disease, but other factors also seem to have a role including altered cell number or cell type, precocious activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, increased local glucocorticoid and endocrine sensitivity, impaired mitochondrial function and reduced oxidative capacity. “The particular type of mechanism invoked seems to vary between tissues according to the duration and timing of the nutritional intervention through pregnancy and/or lactation,” commented Symonds et al (2009).“If we just focus on metabolic, cardiovascular and body compositional outcome, I think the data is now overwhelming that there is an important life-long early developmental contribution. The emergent data would suggest that the underpinning epigenetic processes are likely to be at least as important as genetic variation in contributing to disease risk,” commented Gluckman. His research in animal models has shown that epigenetic changes are potentially reversible in mammals through intervention during development, when the growing organism still has sufficient plasticity (Gluckman et al, 2007). For instance, the neonatal administration of leptin has a bidirectional effect on gene expression and the epigenetic status of key genes involved in metabolic regulation in adult rats; an effect that is dependent on prenatal nutrition and unaffected by post-weaning nutrition (normal compared with high-fat diet). In rats that were manipulated in utero by maternal under-nutrition and fed a hypercaloric diet after weaning, leptin treatment normalized adiposity and hepatic gene expression of proteins that are central to lipid metabolism and glucose homeostasis. “The experimental data showing that programming is reversible is a critical proof of concept. I think there is still confusion as to the role of catch-up growth—its effect may be dependent on its timing and this may have implications for infant nutrition,” Gluckman said.The Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study […] found a strong link between malnutrition and under-nutrition in utero and cardiovascular disease and diabetes in later life…Central to this view of the link between the developing fetus and its later risk of metabolic disease is the idea of ‘developmental mismatch''. The fetus is programmed, largely through epigenetic changes, to match its environment. However, if the environment in childhood and adult life differs sharply from that during prenatal and early postnatal development, ill adaptation can occur and bring disease in its wake (Gluckman & Hanson, 2006). Poor nutrition during fetal development, for example, would lead the organism to expect a hostile future environment, adversely affecting its ability to cope with a richer environment. “Developmental factors do not cause disease in this context, rather they create a situation where the individual becomes more (or less) sensitive in an obesogenic postnatal environment,” said Gluckman. “The experimental and early clinical data point to both central and peripheral effects and this may explain why lifestyle intervention is so hard in some individuals.”Yet there is another nutrition-related pathway that goes beyond mismatch. According to a recent, large population-based study published in The Lancet, maternal weight gain during pregnancy increases birth weight independently of genetic factors, which increases the long-term risk of obesity-related disease in offspring (Ludwig & Currie, 2010). To reduce or eliminate potential confounds such as genetics, sociodemographic factors or other individual characteristics, the researchers examined the association between maternal weight gain—as a measure of over-nutrition during pregnancy—and birth weight using State-based birth registry data in Michigan and New Jersey, allowing them to compare outcomes from several pregnancies in the same mother. “During pregnancy, insulin resistance develops in the mother to shunt vital nutrients to the growing fetus. Excessive weight or weight gain during pregnancy exaggerates this normal process by further increasing insulin resistance and possibly also by affecting other maternal hormones that regulate placental nutrient transporters. The resulting high rate of nutrient transfer stimulates fetal insulin secretion, overgrowth, and increased adiposity,” the authors speculated (Ludwig & Currie, 2010).It could be that epigenetic malprogramming is also involved in these cases. The group of Andreas Plagemann at the Charitè–University Medicine in Berlin, Germany, analysed acquired alterations of DNA methylation patterns of the hypothalamic insulin receptor promoter (IRP) in neonatally overfed rats. They found that altered nutrition during the critical developmental period of perinatal life induced IRP hypermethylation in a seemingly glucose-dependent manner. This revealed an epigenetic mechanism that could affect the function of a promoter that codes for a receptor involved in the life-long regulation of food intake, body weight and metabolism (Plagemann et al, 2010). “In parallel with the general ‘diabesity'' epidemics, diabetes during pregnancy and overweight in pregnant women meanwhile reach dramatic prevalences. Consequently, mean birth weight and frequencies of ‘fat babies'' rise,” said Plagemann. “Taking together epidemiological, clinical and experimental observations, it seems obvious that fetal hyperinsulinism induced by maternal hyperglycaemia/overweight has ‘functionally teratogenic'' significance for a permanently increased disposition to obesity, diabetes, the metabolic syndrome, and subsequent cardiovascular diseases in the offspring” (Fig 2).Open in a separate windowFigure 2Pathogenetic framework, mechanisms and consequences of perinatal malprogramming, showing the etiological significance of perinatal overfeeding and hyperinsulinism for excess weight gain, obesity, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases in later life. Credit: Andreas Plagemann.Added to the mix is the ‘endocrine-disruptor hypothesis'', one nuance of which proposes that prenatal—as well as postnatal—exposure to environmental chemicals contributes to adipogenesis and the development of obesity by interfering with homeostatic mechanisms that control weight. Several environmental pollutants, nutritional components and pharmaceuticals have been suggested to have ‘obesogenic'' properties—the best known are tributyltin, bisphenol and phthalates (Grün & Blumberg, 2009). “While one cannot presently estimate the degree to which obesogen exposure contributes to the observed increases in obesity, the main conclusion to be drawn from research in our laboratory is that obesogens exist and that prenatal obesogen exposure can predispose an exposed individual to become fatter, later in life,” said Bruce Blumberg at the University of California at Irvine, USA, who is also credited with coining the term ‘obesogen''. “The existence of such chemicals was not even suspected as recently as seven years ago when we began this research.”Several environmental pollutants, nutritional components and pharmaceuticals have been suggested to have ‘obesogenic'' properties…It is clear that diet and exercise are important contributors to the body weight of an individual. However, weight maintenance is not as simple as balancing a ‘caloric checkbook'', or fewer people would be obese, Blumberg commented. Early nutrition and chemical exposure could alter the metabolic set-point of an individual, making their subsequent fight against weight gain more difficult. “We do not currently know how many chemicals are obesogenic or the entire spectrum of mechanisms through which obesogens act,” Blumberg said. “Our data suggest that prenatal obesogen exposure alters the fate of a type of stem cells in the body to favour the development of fat cells at the expense of other cell types (such as bone). In turn, this is likely to increase one''s weight with time.”Obesogen exposure in utero and/or during the first stages of postnatal growth could therefore predispose a child to obesity by influencing all aspects of adipose tissue growth, starting from multipotent stem cells and ending with mature adipocytes (Janesick & Blumberg, 2011). “Epigenetics may also allow us to have a clearer view of the role of xenobiotics, such as bisphenol A, where traditional teratogenetic approaches to analysis seem inappropriate,” Gluckman said. “I expect the potential for either direct or indirect epigenetic inheritance will get much focus in human studies over the next few years.”The impact of the mother''s emotional state during pregnancy on the child''s behaviour and cognitive development of the child is also fertile ground for research. “It has been known from over 50 years of research in animals that stress during pregnancy can have long-term effects on the behavioural and cognitive outcome for the offspring. Over the last ten years many studies, including our own, have shown that the same is true in humans,” said Vivette Glover, a leading expert in the field from Imperial College (London, UK). “If the mother is stressed or anxious while she is pregnant, her child is more likely to have a range of problems such as symptoms of anxiety or depression, [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] ADHD or conduct disorder, and to be slower at learning, even after allowing for postnatal influences.” Most children are not affected, but if the anxiety level of the mother is in the top 15% of the general population, the risk of her child having these problems increases from about 5% to 10%, Glover explained.Early nutrition and chemical exposure could alter the metabolic set-point of an individual, making their subsequent fight against weight gain more difficultFocusing on the mechanisms that underlie this, Glover''s team has shown that the cognitive development of the child is slower if the fetus is exposed to higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol in the womb (Bergman et al, 2010). Cortisol in fetal circulation is a combination of that produced endogenously by the fetus and that derived from the mother, through the placenta. Glover''s hypothesis is that the placenta might have a key role as a programming vector: if the mother is stressed and more anxious, the placenta becomes a less effective barrier and allows more cortisol to pass from the mother to the fetus (O''Donnell et al, 2009). “Our most recent research has studied how these prenatal effects can be altered by the later quality of the mothering, and we have found that the effects can be exacerbated if the child is insecure and buffered if the child is securely attached to the mother. So the effects are not all over at birth. There are both prenatal and postnatal effects,” Glover said. “There are large public health implications of all this. If we, as a society, cared better for the emotional wellbeing of our pregnant women we would also improve the behavioural, emotional and cognitive outcome for the next generation,” she concluded (Sidebar A).A more integrated view of the developmental ontogeny of a human from embryo to adult is needed…

Sidebar A | Focus on fetal life to help the next generation

“The global burden of death, disability, and loss of human capital as a result of impaired fetal development is huge and affects both developed and developing countries,” concludes a recent World Health Organization technical consultation (WHO, 2006). It advocates moving away from a focus on birth weight to embrace more factors to ensure an optimal environment for the fetus, to maximize its potential for a healthy life. As our knowledge of developmental biology expands, there is progressively greater awareness that events early in human development can have effects in later stages of life, and even inter-generational consequences in terms of non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes.Calling for a radical change in medical attitudes—which they say are responsible for not giving enough credit to “the concept that environmental factors acting early in life (usually in fetal life) have profound effects on vulnerability to disease later in life”—Peter Gluckman, Mark Hanson and Murray Mitchell have recently proposed several prevention and intervention initiatives that could reduce the burden of chronic disease in the next generation (Gluckman et al., 2010). These include limitation of adolescent pregnancy, possibly delaying the age of first pregnancy until four years after menarche; promotion of a healthy diet and lifestyle among women becoming pregnant to avoid the long-term effects of both excessive and deficient maternal nutrition, smoking, or drug and alcohol abuse; and encouraging breastfeeding for optimal growth, resistance to infection, cardiovascular health and neurocognitive development. Clearly, such actions would face a mix of educational, political and social issues, depending on the geographical or cultural area.“None of these solutions seems sophisticated, although it may have taken the recent insights into underlying developmental epigenetic mechanisms to emphasize them. But, when viewed in terms of their potential impact, especially in developing societies and in lower socioeconomic groups in developed countries, it is clear that their importance has been underestimated” (Gluckman et al., 2010).A more integrated view of the developmental ontogeny of a human from embryo to adult is needed, grounded by appreciation of the fact that the developmental trajectory of the fetus is influenced by factors such as maternal nutrition, body composition and maternal age (Fig 3). This must not be limited to the offspring of gestational diabetics and obese mothers. “While these are more extreme influences on the fetus and will lead to immediate consequences (blurring the boundary between what is physiological and pathophysiological), I think the most important observations and conceptual advances will emerge from understanding the long-term implications and underpinning mechanisms of relatively normal early development still having plastic consequences,” Gluckman said. “Thus, what seem to be unremarkable pregnancies still have important influences on the destiny of the offspring.” Though this might be easy to say, the regulatory mechanisms that underlie the complex journey of development await further clarification.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Leonardo Da Vinci: Studies of the fetus in the womb, circa 1510–1513. In Da Vinci''s words, referring to his treatise on anatomy, for which these drawings were made: “This work must begin with the conception of man, and describe the nature of the womb and how the fetus lives in it, up to what stage it resides there, and in what way it quickens into life and feeds. Also its growth and what interval there is between one stage of growth and another. What it is that forces it out from the body of the mother, and for what reasons it sometimes comes out of the mother''s womb before the due time” (Dunn, 1997).     

Consider the octopus

Being attacked by an octopus gives the opportunity to marvel at how convergent evolution created similar organs and senses in cephalopod and man.It is a scene that would do justice to a horror movie: body clamped against the diver''s mask, one tentacle deftly turning off the oxygen supply while others tug relentlessly at the connecting hoses. Despairingly, the diver looks at the octopus and, across an immense phylogenetic gulf, camera eye meets camera eye. If the struggling diver is a biologist he might take some consolation that the glances exchanged depend on a classic example of convergent evolution.Overwhelmingly, however, the octopus is an encounter with the alien: no hands, but tentacles that can untie surgical silk and clamp with innumerable suckers. Its bulbous body houses an enormous brain, but more than half of the nervous system lies in remote ganglia. Across the body flicker the coruscating patterns of the chromatophores, sometimes freezing the animal into an almost exact replica of the sea-floor, or alternatively transforming itself into a facsimile of the banded sea-snake. Science fiction collides with scientific fact. Are the octopus and its relatives not the best thing we have for a proxy alien? Step a little closer.The octopus and related cephalopods might seem to exemplify the ‘other'', but when it comes to reinventing the evolutionary wheel they are dab hands. In addition to those camera eyes, some squid have the reverse arrangement, whereby transparent portals in the body pour bioluminescent light into the inky oceans. Other sensory convergences include a lateral line system, a good approximation of the semicircular canals and superb oculomotor reflexes. The independent evolution of giant axons and a blood–brain barrier are complemented by an impressive list of anatomical convergences. These include cartilage, a closed circulatory system with elastic arteries, a swim-bladder, respiratory proteins (haemocyanin), the famous ink and even a fair stab at a penis.So, in many ways, cephalopods are honorary fish, but as Andrew Packard (1972) made clear there are still “limits of convergence”. This point is robustly echoed by Ronald O''Dor & Dale Webber (1986) whose paper carries a corresponding subtitle “why squid aren''t fish”. Quite so, but again, step a little closer. Concealed in the body plan are convergences that point to some far more interesting evolutionary principles. Consider those writhing arms. ‘One for all, and eight for all''; in principle all are equipotent, but some are evidently employed for one task and others for another (Byrne et al, 2006). This is exemplified by octopuses that stroll bipedally across the lagoon floor. Yet more remarkable are muscular contractions that move in either direction and collide to define pseudo-joints: a rubbery tentacle is transformed into a limb, complete with ‘wrist'' and ‘elbow''. This led Germán Sumbre and colleagues (2005) not only to identify what to some is an apparently surprising functional convergence, but also to suggest that, in the context of any articulated limb, this could be “the optimal design”.Much is also made of the obvious differences in locomotion: myotomal sinuosity compared with jet propulsion in the squid. In the former, the locomotory efficiency depends crucially on the oxidative red muscle and the larger bulk of white muscle. Red muscle is used in routine swimming, whereas the white one springs into action in times of urgent need, and then repays the oxygen debt in just the same way as when the jogger collapses on the park bench and gasps “lactic acid, lactic acid”. The squid''s mantle muscle holds another surprise. The muscle types are directly analogous to the red and white muscle of fish, with corresponding mitochondrial content and glycolytic activity (Mommsen et al,1981).But if squid are honorary fish, somewhere, surely, the convergences must break down. Well, let''s consider the cephalopod kidney. They are excretory, but do not resemble that of any vertebrate. However, they show something curious: with few exceptions, the kidneys are infested with tiny symbionts, but from two entirely unrelated groups (Furuya et al, 2004). One are the dicyemid mesozoans, which earn the trophy for metazoan simplification, being composed of only about 50 cells. They have abandoned all organs including a nervous system, but intriguingly still employ Pax6. The other group are ciliates and belong to the otherwise obscure chromidinids. Consider this evolutionary conundrum: the only place on the planet where these dicyemids and chromidinids can be found is in places awash with cephalopod urine. Long dismissed as parasitic, they are probably vital to kidney function, and I suspect this is the cephalopods'' smart way of constructing a high-performance kidney.So specific, so precise, so strange is this convergence that I am forcibly reminded of Ramón y Cajal''s (1937) contemplation of the insect eye as “a machine so subtilely devised and so perfectly adapted to an end as the visual apparatus” that it provoked him to continue “I must not conceal the fact that […] I for the first time felt my faith in Darwinism […] weakened, being amazed and confounded by the supreme constructive ingenuity”. So too with the cephalopod kidney, haunted as it is by this symbiotic inevitability.But if you really want to feel the hairs pricking on your neck, consider the brain of the octopus (Young et al, 1963). Lobate and of quite different construction to the vertebrates, nevertheless once again the similarities emerge not least between its vertical lobe and our hippocampus. Within these neural recesses, consciousness has flickered into existence and, by a separate evolutionary route, the Universe is becoming self-aware.     

What doesn't kill you makes you dumber. Strengthening the link between infectious disease, intelligence and personality

A causal link between childhood exposure to disease and the development of intelligence would have major implications for public health and international development programmes.The idea that infectious disease during childhood affects the developing brain to impact intelligence has been around for decades. Recent evidence from more rigorous studies, which have controlled carefully for other factors such as nutrition and education, has strengthened the case. If these new epidemiological and molecular studies really do confirm a clear link between childhood infection and intelligence, the consequences for health policy and development assistance could be profound. The results could mandate an increased focus not only on eradicating or controlling infectious diseases, but also on reducing their impact on children in the absence of cures or vaccines.If these … studies do show a clear link between childhood infection and intelligence, the consequences for health policy and development assistance could be profoundYet, even in the light of new evidence, it is hard to unravel causes from effects, and the debate continues over which diseases are most responsible, along with the precise physiological and molecular mechanisms involved. There is no shortage of theories to explain why infectious disease seems to have so profound an effect on intelligence, and, as a result, on the intellectual and economic performance of whole nations or regions. The stage is set for more studies to drill down into neurological and cognitive mechanisms: to explain why the prevalence of infectious disease is a reliable predictor of intelligence at the population level; to differentiate between the impact of various pathogens; and to identify the evolutionary rationale of these links. There is also mounting evidence that some parasites can alter their host''s personality through mechanisms evolved to modify their host''s behaviour to their own advantage, which could explain environmental risk factors for mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.After a few intermittent references earlier last century, the US economist Andrew Kamarck made the first attempt to link infectious disease with a nation''s performance during the 1970s [1]. Kamarck identified the interplay of three factors—temperature, humidity and infectious diseases—on the economic performance of nations through their impact on vitality and intellectual attainment.Somewhat surprisingly, both economists and biologists neglected Kamarck''s findings that link infectious disease and either intelligence or performance at a population level for another three decades. Eventually, Christopher Eppig and colleagues at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, USA, published a seminal paper in 2010, which reported a strong correlation between the prevalence of infectious disease in a country and intelligence as measured by supposedly culturally independent IQ tests [2]. In the past, other environmental factors, such as average temperature, have been shown to affect intelligence, but in Eppig''s study, infectious disease seems to trump these. The country with the highest average IQ of all, Singapore, is hot and humid, but has the world''s lowest rates of infectious disease largely because of excellent healthcare.The Eppig study also offers a plausible explanation for the so-called Flynn Effect, named after the political scientist James Flynn who described and promoted the apparent sustained and significant increase in average intelligence in many developed nations during the past half-century or more [3]. “Our research suggests that infectious disease may be the most important factor influencing IQ,” Eppig confirmed. “Infectious disease has the strongest correlation with average IQ, and the largest independent contribution when other factors are controlled.” The researchers found that the correlation between average IQ and infectious disease at the cross-national level is between −0.76 and −0.82; 0 would equate to no correlation and −1 would be total correlation. The results indicate a high degree of correlation, and, just as importantly, the study determined that the probability of this correlation having occurred by chance was incredibly low.…both economists and biologists neglected Kamarck''s findings that link infectious disease and either intelligence or performance at a population level for another three decadesThe intelligence scores were largely taken from an earlier study conducted by UK psychologist Richard Lynn and Finnish political scientist Jaan Mikk, which analysed IQ scores from 113 countries [4], and the data on infectious diseases were provided by the World Health Organization. Given that both sets of data were openly available, it was easy for other groups to perform their own analyses to either corroborate or refute Eppig''s findings. Chris Hassall and colleagues at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, have done just such a follow up to identify or eliminate any statistical artefacts that might weaken or cast doubt on the findings [5]. One of the significant possible artefacts for which Hassall controlled is a phenomenon known as autocorrelation, which is the tendency for two sets of data to seem to be linked just because they have similar spatial patterns of variation. “Having reanalysed the data, I am fairly convinced that there is a strong correlation between the health impacts of parasites and IQ,” Hassall confirmed. In fact, Eppig himself suggested that Hassall''s results were stronger than his own. “They found that, when controlling for spatial autocorrelation, infectious disease was an even better predictor of average national IQ than our own analysis had found,” he commented.Meanwhile, Eppig has published another study analysing the correlation between disease and intelligence within a single country [6]. He chose the USA because there is good data available for individual states, with sufficient variation across the country as a whole to provide the necessary range of data. This study was conducted partly in response to criticism of the first one on the grounds that national differences in culture and education might not have been fully filtered out. By studying just one country with a significant degree of cultural and educational harmony, Eppig hoped to provide an even more convincing case for the link between infectious disease and IQ.According to Michael Woodley, who has been studying the link between infectious disease and intelligence at the University of Surrey, UK, the correlation found in the US study is not as strong, but is still significant. “They found a weaker set of relationships, but infectious disease was still a potent predictor of cross state variance in IQ,” Woodley said, but added that these studies beg the question of cause and effect. “The question is, have they found evidence that infectious disease has a causal influence on IQ, or is it the case that cross national patterns of IQ affect disease ecology?” he explained. The suggestion is that intelligence itself can affect the prevalence of disease. “My cautious take is that it''s a bit of both.”Hassall conceded that his and the other studies have only identified a correlation between infectious disease and intelligence, albeit a strong one, and not a causal link. But he added that there were plausible underlying physiological explanations for the link, although as yet there is no definitive proof for any.“We can only speculate about the possible causal links,” agreed Joachim Kurtz, a group leader whose lab works on animal evolutionary ecology at the Westfälische Wilhelms–Universität Münster in Germany. “There are at least two non-exclusive possibilities: firstly, given that the brain needs a lot of energy, the energetic costs of parasitic infection and immune defense may provide a mechanistic explanation for the correlation […] a second, slightly frightening and more direct possibility is that parasite manipulation might make hosts stupid.”The first possibility could be caused by the need to reroute energy from the brain to repair tissue damaged by parasites, or by energy lost through malnutrition as a result of diarrhoea, vomiting, or diminished absorption through the digestive tract. It could also result from the parasite accessing cellular or macromolecular resources at the expense of the developing brain, or by the energy cost of maintaining a heightened immune response. All these factors might decrease the energy and nutrients available to the developing brain and cause reduced cognitive capability.The second possibility cited by Kurtz might involve direct damage to, or alteration of, neurological mechanisms, perhaps deliberately engineered by the parasite for its advantage. The case of rabies is an extreme example of an infection in which the parasite, a virus infecting nerve cells and causing acute encephalitis, changes its host''s behaviour to increase the chance of its spreading, in this case causing the host to bite others and spread the virus through saliva.But there is growing evidence that parasites causing chronic infections can alter behaviour in more subtle ways to increase the chance of transmissionBut there is growing evidence that parasites causing chronic infections can alter behaviour in more subtle ways to increase the chance of transmission. Kurtz cited the case of the protozoa Toxoplasma gondii, referring to a recent paper by Czech parasitologist Jaroslav Flegr from Charles University, Prague, which found that infection can trigger various psychiatric and neurological diseases, including schizophrenia, in people with genetic predispositions [7].“Dozens of studies published in the past 20 years clearly show that toxoplasmosis is responsible for a large number of cases of schizophrenia,” Flegr noted. “Recent results, some of them published by our group, show that toxoplasmosis-associated schizophrenia has more severe clinical symptoms than other kinds of schizophrenia.” Such symptoms were associated with noticeable changes in brain morphology and included impaired reaction times as well as personality changes, Flegr added. Together, these changes were found to increase the risk not just of suicide but also accidental injury or death [8,9]. Adding these factors together, Flegr estimated that latent toxoplasmosis is indirectly responsible for more than one million deaths per year, which would make it the world''s second most dangerous protozoan parasite after malaria, albeit indirectly killing its victims.In the case of T. gondii the same ‘chicken and egg'' question arises of whether infection causes the psychiatric disorders, or whether psychiatric disorders make infection more likely. According to Flegr, there is molecular evidence to support the hypothesis that infection causes psychiatric disorders. “It has been known for a long time that toxoplasmosis increases the concentration of dopamine in the infected brain,” he said. “In 2009 it was shown that the genome of Toxoplasma contains genes for two rate-limiting enzymes for synthesis of dopamine in the brain tissue [10]. Another study then demonstrated that large amounts of this neurotransmitter are synthesized in cysts of Toxoplasma in the brains of infected laboratory animals [11].”There has been growing evidence that such disruption in dopamine production does increase the risk of developing schizophrenia [12]. Flegr speculated that this manipulation of the host''s neurotransmitter production, primarily an increase in dopamine combined with a decrease in serotonin, has its roots in animal evolution. “At least some of the changes are most probably results of manipulative activity of the parasite aimed at increasing efficiency of transmission from an intermediate animal to definitive host by predation,” he explained. “Some are probably just side effects of chronic disease.”…Flegr estimated that latent toxoplasmosis is indirectly responsible for more than one million deaths per year […] the world''s second most dangerous protozoan parasite…Although infection by T. gondii is particularly common in Africa and South America, Flegr noted that it also has a high incidence in cooler and drier regions, being associated with the consumption of raw vegetables and raw meat. The latter factor perhaps explains its high prevalence in France and Germany, where 40–50% of the population are infected, compared with less than 20% in the UK and USA. These are large figures nonetheless, so the recent findings highlight the urgency of further research to understand the genetic risk factors that predispose infected individuals to neurological illness.“…our hypothesis predicts that the infections that cause the greatest amount of energy to be diverted away from the brain will have the largest detrimental effect…”When it comes to the less clearly defined issue of intelligence, researchers are just beginning to identify candidate genes in the host. Among the best known is microcephalin, a gene known to regulate brain size, but the precise role of which in intelligence has yet to be explained. However Heiner Rindermann from the Institute of Psychology at Chemnitz, Germany, has found evidence that high levels of microcephalin within a population seem to be associated with low levels of disease and higher intelligence [13]. “Microcephalin does not predict IQ at the individual level, but it does at ecological scales,” Rindermann said. The reason the operation of microcephalin can only be seen at the population level, he explained, is that it does not provide any physiological protection against disease but does make people more sensitive to dirt and more likely to indulge in hygienic behaviour, which affects all people in the vicinity.“The role of infectious disease burdens as the principal mediator of this ecological relationship suggests that populations exhibiting high levels of microcephalin were better able to cope with historical disease burdens,” Rindermann reasoned. “We believe that microcephalin might have encoded for disgust sensitivity, hence more sensitive populations transitioning out of the hunter-gatherer mode of subsistence and into the agrarian one could have carried on growing such that the frequency of IQ-enhancing mutations could have increased via runaway gene-culture co-evolution.”This three-way link between microcephalin, disease and intelligence remains speculative, but the overall association between infectious parasites and broad cognitive behaviour is increasingly well established. It is not yet clear, though, which diseases are the main culprits, with a few exceptions such as T. gondii for psychotic disorders. Differentiating between the different pathogens is one of the main targets for research in the field, according to Eppig. “We have not done empirical work on this question yet, although we have a project in the works, but our hypothesis predicts that the infections that cause the greatest amount of energy to be diverted away from the brain will have the largest detrimental effect,” he said. “This means that long-term, chronic, infections are more likely to have a greater detrimental effect on the brain than short-term infections. In particular, we predict that parasites causing diarrheal diseases, malaria and tuberculosis, to name a few, will have the largest effect.”However, Woodley commented there is evidence that sexually transmitted diseases rather than diseases of the intestinal or respiratory tracts have the largest impact on intelligence. But these diseases are often chronic, although Woodley suggested that the correlation could simply result from people with higher IQs being less likely to catch them.All this research paints an increasingly detailed picture of how infectious diseases and the development of intelligence are linked; but there is clearly much more to be done to unravel the underlying mechanisms. The evidence already accumulated indicates that continuing efforts to eradicate disease in the developing world should be increased. However, as Hassall pointed out, the societal case for doing that stands on its own and does not need to be associated with intelligence.     

To hype, or not to(o) hype. Communication of science is often tarnished by sensationalization, for which both scientists and the media are responsible

Scientists and journalists try to engage the public with exciting stories, but who is guilty of overselling research and what are the consequences?Scientists love to hate the media for distorting science or getting the facts wrong. Even as they do so, they court publicity for their latest findings, which can bring a slew of media attention and public interest. Getting your research into the national press can result in great boons in terms of political and financial support. Conversely, when scientific discoveries turn out to be wrong, or to have been hyped, the negative press can have a damaging effect on careers and, perhaps more importantly, the image of science itself. Walking the line between ‘selling'' a story and ‘hyping'' it far beyond the evidence is no easy task. Professional science communicators work carefully with scientists and journalists to ensure that the messages from research are translated for the public accurately and appropriately. But when things do go wrong, is it always the fault of journalists, or are scientists and those they employ to communicate sometimes equally to blame?Walking the line between ‘selling'' a story and ‘hyping'' it far beyond the evidence is no easy taskHyping in science has existed since the dawn of research itself. When scientists relied on the money of wealthy benefactors with little expertise to fund their research, the temptation to claim that they could turn lead into gold, or that they could discover the secret of eternal life, must have been huge. In the modern era, hyping of research tends to make less exuberant claims, but it is no less damaging and no less deceitful, even if sometimes unintentionally so. A few recent cases have brought this problem to the surface again.The most frenzied of these was the report in Science last year that a newly isolated bacterial strain could replace phosphate with arsenate in cellular constituents such as nucleic acids and proteins [1]. The study, led by NASA astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, showed that a new strain of the Halomonadaceae family of halofilic proteobacteria, isolated from the alkaline and hypersaline Mono Lake in California (Fig 1), could not only survive in arsenic-rich conditions, such as those found in its original environment, but even thrive by using arsenic entirely in place of phosphorus. “The definition of life has just expanded. As we pursue our efforts to seek signs of life in the solar system, we have to think more broadly, more diversely and consider life as we do not know it,” commented Ed Weiler, NASA''s associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at the agency''s Headquarters in Washington, in the original press release [2].Open in a separate windowFigure 1Sunrise at Mono Lake. Mono Lake, located in eastern California, is bounded to the west by the Sierra Nevada mountains. This ancient alkaline lake is known for unusual tufa (limestone) formations rising from the water''s surface (shown here), as well as for its hypersalinity and high concentrations of arsenic. See Wolfe-Simon et al [1]. Credit: Henry Bortman.The accompanying “search for life beyond Earth” and “alternative biochemistry makeup” hints contained in the same release were lapped up by the media, which covered the breakthrough with headlines such as “Arsenic-loving bacteria may help in hunt for alien life” (BBC News), “Arsenic-based bacteria point to new life forms” (New Scientist), “Arsenic-feeding bacteria find expands traditional notions of life” (CNN). However, it did not take long for criticism to manifest, with many scientists openly questioning whether background levels of phosphorus could have fuelled the bacteria''s growth in the cultures, whether arsenate compounds are even stable in aqueous solution, and whether the tests the authors used to prove that arsenic atoms were replacing phosphorus ones in key biomolecules were accurate. The backlash was so bitter that Science published the concerns of several research groups commenting on the technical shortcomings of the study and went so far as to change its original press release for reporters, adding a warning note that reads “Clarification: this paper describes a bacterium that substitutes arsenic for a small percentage of its phosphorus, rather than living entirely off arsenic.”Microbiologists Simon Silver and Le T. Phung, from the University of Illinois, Chicago, USA, were heavily critical of the study, voicing their concern in one of the journals of the Federation of European Microbiological Societies, FEMS Microbiology Letters. “The recent online report in Science […] either (1) wonderfully expands our imaginations as to how living cells might function […] or (2) is just the newest example of how scientist-authors can walk off the plank in their imaginations when interpreting their results, how peer reviewers (if there were any) simply missed their responsibilities and how a press release from the publisher of Science can result in irresponsible publicity in the New York Times and on television. We suggest the latter alternative is the case, and that this report should have been stopped at each of several stages” [3]. Meanwhile, Wolfe-Simon is looking for another chance to prove she was right about the arsenic-loving bug, and Silver and colleagues have completed the bacterium''s genome shotgun sequencing and found 3,400 genes in its 3.5 million bases (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/wgs/?val=AHBC01).“I can only comment that it would probably be best if one had avoided a flurry of press conferences and speculative extrapolations. The discovery, if true, would be similarly impressive without any hype in the press releases,” commented John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine in the USA. “I also think that this is the kind of discovery that can definitely wait for a validation by several independent teams before stirring the world. It is not the type of research finding that one cannot wait to trumpet as if thousands and millions of people were to die if they did not know about it,” he explained. “If validated, it may be material for a Nobel prize, but if not, then the claims would backfire on the credibility of science in the public view.”Another instructive example of science hyping was sparked by a recent report of fossil teeth, dating to between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago, which were unearthed in the Qesem Cave near Tel Aviv by Israeli and Spanish scientists [4]. Although the teeth cannot yet be conclusively ascribed to Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, or any other species of hominid, the media coverage and the original press release from Tel Aviv University stretched the relevance of the story—and the evidence—proclaiming that the finding demonstrates humans lived in Israel 400,000 years ago, which should force scientists to rewrite human history. Were such evidence of modern humans in the Middle East so long ago confirmed, it would indeed clash with the prevailing view of human origin in Africa some 200,000 years ago and the dispersal from the cradle continent that began about 70,000 years ago. But, as freelance science writer Brian Switek has pointed out, “The identity of the Qesem Cave humans cannot be conclusively determined. All the grandiose statements about their relevance to the origin of our species reach beyond what the actual fossil material will allow” [5].An example of sensationalist coverage? “It has long been believed that modern man emerged from the continent of Africa 200,000 years ago. Now Tel Aviv University archaeologists have uncovered evidence that Homo sapiens roamed the land now called Israel as early as 400,000 years ago—the earliest evidence for the existence of modern man anywhere in the world,” reads a press release from the New York-based organization, American Friends of Tel Aviv University [6].“The extent of hype depends on how people interpret facts and evidence, and their intent in the claims they are making. Hype in science can range from ‘no hype'', where predictions of scientific futures are 100% fact based, to complete exaggeration based on no facts or evidence,” commented Zubin Master, a researcher in science ethics at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. “Intention also plays a role in hype and the prediction of scientific futures, as making extravagant claims, for example in an attempt to secure funds, could be tantamount to lying.”Are scientists more and more often indulging in creative speculation when interpreting their results, just to get extraordinary media coverage of their discoveries? Is science journalism progressively shifting towards hyping stories to attract readers?“The vast majority of scientific work can wait for some independent validation before its importance is trumpeted to the wider public. Over-interpretation of results is common and as scientists we are continuously under pressure to show that we make big discoveries,” commented Ioannidis. “However, probably our role [as scientists] is more important in making sure that we provide balanced views of evidence and in identifying how we can question more rigorously the validity of our own discoveries.”“The vast majority of scientific work can wait for some independent validation before its importance is trumpeted to the wider public”Stephanie Suhr, who is involved in the management of the European XFEL—a facility being built in Germany to generate intense X-ray flashes for use in many disciplines—notes in her introduction to a series of essays on the ethics of science journalism that, “Arguably, there may also be an increasing temptation for scientists to hype their research and ‘hit the headlines''” [7]. In her analysis, Suhr quotes at least one instance—the discovery in 2009 of the Darwinius masillae fossil, presented as the missing link in human evolution [8]—in which the release of a ‘breakthrough'' scientific publication seems to have been coordinated with simultaneous documentaries and press releases, resulting in what can be considered a study case for science hyping [7].Although there is nothing wrong in principle with a broad communication strategy aimed at the rapid dissemination of a scientific discovery, some caveats exist. “[This] strategy […] might be better applied to a scientific subject or body of research. When applied to a single study, there [is] a far greater likelihood of engaging in unmerited hype with the risk of diminishing public trust or at least numbing the audience to claims of ‘startling new discoveries'',” wrote science communication expert Matthew Nisbet in his Age of Engagement blog (bigthink.com/blogs/age-of-engagement) about how media communication was managed in the Darwinius affair. “[A]ctivating the various channels and audiences was the right strategy but the language and metaphor used strayed into the realm of hype,” Nisbet, who is an Associate Professor in the School of Communication at American University, Washington DC, USA, commented in his post [9]. “We are ethically bound to think carefully about how to go beyond the very small audience that follows traditional science coverage and think systematically about how to reach a wider, more diverse audience via multiple media platforms. But in engaging with these new media platforms and audiences, we are also ethically bound to avoid hype and maintain accuracy and context” [9].But the blame for science hype cannot be laid solely at the feet of scientists and press officers. Journalists must take their fair share of reproach. “As news online comes faster and faster, there is an enormous temptation for media outlets and journalists to quickly publish topics that will grab the readers'' attention, sometimes at the cost of accuracy,” Suhr wrote [7]. Of course, the media landscape is extremely varied, as science blogger and writer Bora Zivkovic pointed out. “There is no unified thing called ‘Media''. There are wonderful specialized science writers out there, and there are beat reporters who occasionally get assigned a science story as one of several they have to file every day,” he explained. “There are careful reporters, and there are those who tend to hype. There are media outlets that value accuracy above everything else; others that put beauty of language above all else; and there are outlets that value speed, sexy headlines and ad revenue above all.”…the blame for science hype cannot be laid solely at the feet of scientists and press officers. Journalists must take their fair share of reproachOne notable example of media-sourced hype comes from J. Craig Venter''s announcement in the spring of 2010 of the first self-replicating bacterial cell controlled by a synthetic genome (Fig 2). A major media buzz ensued, over-emphasizing and somewhat distorting an anyway remarkable scientific achievement. Press coverage ranged from the extremes of announcing ‘artificial life'' to saying that Venter was playing God, adding to cultural and bioethical tension the warning that synthetic organisms could be turned into biological weapons or cause environmental disasters.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Schematic depicting the assembly of a synthetic Mycoplasma mycoides genome in yeast. For details of the construction of the genome, please see the original article. From Gibson et al [13] Science 329, 52–56. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.“The notion that scientists might some day create life is a fraught meme in Western culture. One mustn''t mess with such things, we are told, because the creation of life is the province of gods, monsters, and practitioners of the dark arts. Thus, any hint that science may be on the verge of putting the power of creation into the hands of mere mortals elicits a certain discomfort, even if the hint amounts to no more than distorted gossip,” remarked Rob Carlson, who writes on the future role of biology as a human technology, about the public reaction and the media frenzy that arose from the news [10].Yet the media can also behave responsibly when faced with extravagant claims in press releases. Fiona Fox, Chief Executive of the Science Media Centre in the UK, details such an example in her blog, On Science and the Media (fionafox.blogspot.com). The Science Media Centre''s role is to facilitate communication between scientists and the press, so they often receive calls from journalists asking to be put in touch with an expert. In this case, the journalist asked for an expert to comment on a story about silver being more effective against cancer than chemotherapy. A wild claim; yet, as Fox points out in her blog, the hype came directly from the institution''s press office: “Under the heading ‘A silver bullet to beat cancer?'' the top line of the press release stated that ‘Lab tests have shown that it (silver) is as effective as the leading chemotherapy drug—and may have far fewer side effects.'' Far from including any caveats or cautionary notes up front, the press office even included an introductory note claiming that the study ‘has confirmed the quack claim that silver has cancer-killing properties''” [11]. Fox praises the majority of the UK national press that concluded that this was not a big story to cover, pointing out that, “We''ve now got to the stage where not only do the best science journalists have to fight the perverse news values of their news editors but also to try to read between the lines of overhyped press releases to get to the truth of what a scientific study is really claiming.”…the concern is that hype inflates public expectations, resulting in a loss of trust in a given technology or research avenue if promises are not kept; however, the premise is not fully provenYet, is hype detrimental to science? In many instances, the concern is that hype inflates public expectations, resulting in a loss of trust in a given technology or research avenue if promises are not kept; however, the premise is not fully proven (Sidebar A). “There is no empirical evidence to suggest that unmet promises due to hype in biotechnology, and possibly other scientific fields, will lead to a loss of public trust and, potentially, a loss of public support for science. Thus, arguments made on hype and public trust must be nuanced to reflect this understanding,” Master pointed out.

Sidebar A | Up and down the hype cycle

​AlthoughAlthough hype is usually considered a negative and largely unwanted aspect of scientific and technological communication, it cannot be denied that emphasizing, at least initially, the benefits of a given technology can further its development and use. From this point of view, hype can be seen as a normal stage of technological development, within certain limits. The maturity, adoption and application of specific technologies apparently follow a common trend pattern, described by the information technology company, Gartner, Inc., as the ‘hype cycle''. The idea is based on the observation that, after an initial trigger phase, novel technologies pass through a peak of over-excitement (or hype), often followed by a subsequent general disenchantment, before eventually coming under the spotlight again and reaching a stable plateau of productivity. Thus, hype cycles “[h]ighlight overhyped areas against those that are high impact, estimate how long technologies and trends will take to reach maturity, and help organizations decide when to adopt” (www.gartner.com).“Science is a human endeavour and as such it is inevitably shaped by our subjective responses. Scientists are not immune to these same reactions and it might be valuable to evaluate the visibility of different scientific concepts or technologies using the hype cycle,” commented Pedro Beltrao, a cellular biologist at the University of California San Francisco, USA, who runs the Public Rambling blog (pbeltrao.blogspot.com) about bioinformatics science and technology. The exercise of placing technologies in the context of the hype cycle can help us to distinguish between their real productive value and our subjective level of excitement, Beltrao explained. “As an example, I have tried to place a few concepts and technologies related to systems biology along the cycle''s axis of visibility and maturity [see illustration]. Using this, one could suggest that technologies like gene-expression arrays or mass-spectrometry have reached a stable productivity level, while the potential of concepts like personalized medicine or genome-wide association studies (GWAS) might be currently over-valued.”Together with bioethicist colleague David Resnik, Master has recently highlighted the need for empirical research that examines the relationships between hype, public trust, and public enthusiasm and/or support [12]. Their argument proposes that studies on the effect of hype on public trust can be undertaken by using both quantitative and qualitative methods: “Research can be designed to measure hype through a variety of sources including websites, blogs, movies, billboards, magazines, scientific publications, and press releases,” the authors write. “Semi-structured interviews with several specific stakeholders including genetics researchers, media representatives, patient advocates, other academic researchers (that is, ethicists, lawyers, and social scientists), physicians, ethics review board members, patients with genetic diseases, government spokespersons, and politicians could be performed. Also, members of the general public would be interviewed” [12]. They also point out that such an approach to estimate hype and its effect on public enthusiasm and support should carefully define the public under study, as different publics might have different expectations of scientific research, and will therefore have different baseline levels of trust.Increased awareness of the underlying risks of over-hyping research should help to balance the scientific facts with speculation on the enticing truths and possibilities they revealUltimately, exaggerating, hyping or outright lying is rarely a good thing. Hyping science is detrimental to various degrees to all science communication stakeholders—scientists, institutions, journalists, writers, newspapers and the public. It is important that scientists take responsibility for their share of the hyping done and do not automatically blame the media for making things up or getting things wrong. Such discipline in science communication is increasingly important as science searches for answers to the challenges of this century. Increased awareness of the underlying risks of over-hyping research should help to balance the scientific facts with speculation on the enticing truths and possibilities they reveal. The real challenge lies in favouring such an evolved approach to science communication in the face of a rolling 24-hour news cycle, tight science budgets and the uncontrolled and uncontrollable world of the Internet.? Open in a separate windowThe hype cycle for the life sciences. Pedro Beltrao''s view of the excitement–disappointment–maturation cycle of bioscience-related technologies and/or ideas. GWAS: genome-wide association studies. Credit: Pedro Beltrao.