A CRISPR response to pandemics?: Exploring the ethics of genetically engineering the human immune system

Ethical challenges should be addressed before gene editing is made available to improve the immune response against emerging viruses. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, Genetics, Gene Therapy & Genetic Disease, Immunology

In 1881, Louis Pasteur proved the “germ theory of disease”, namely that microorganisms are responsible for causing a range of diseases. Following Pasteur’s and Robert Koch’s groundbreaking work on pathogens, further research during the 20^th century elucidated how the immune system fends off disease‐causing microorganisms from a molecular perspective.The COVID‐19 pandemic has again focused scientific and public attention on immunology not the least owing to the race of employing vaccines to halt the spread of the virus. Although most countries have now started vaccination programs to immunize a large part of the world''s population, the process will take time, vaccines may not be available to everyone, and a number of unresolved issues remain including the potential contagiousness of vaccinated individuals and the duration of protection (Polack et al, 2020).It would therefore be extremely helpful from a public health perspective—and indeed lifesaving for those with elevated risk of developing severe course of the disease—if we could boost the human immune system by other means to better fight off SARS‐CoV‐2 and possibly other viruses. Recent studies showing that some individuals may be less susceptible to contract severe COVID‐19 depending on their genetic status support such visions (COVID‐19 Host Genetics Initiative, 2020). This could eventually inspire research projects on gene therapy with the aim of generally enhancing immunity against viral infections.

It would therefore be extremely helpful from a public health perspective […] if we could boost the human immune system by other means to better fight off SARS‐CoV‐2 …

The idea of genetically enhancing the human immune response is not new and spread from academic circles to policymakers and the general public even before the pandemic, when He Jiankui announced in November 2018 the birth of genetically edited twins who, he claimed, were resistant to HIV. The public outcry was massive, not only because He violated standards of methodological rigor and research ethics, but also because of fundamental doubts about the wisdom and legitimacy of human germline manipulation (Schleidgen et al, 2020).Somatic gene therapy has been met with a less categorical rejection, but it has also been confronted with skepticism when major setbacks or untoward events occurred, such as the death of Jesse Gelsinger during an early clinical trial for gene therapy in 1999. Nonetheless, given the drastic impact the current pandemic has on so many lives, there may be a motivation to put concerns aside. In fact, even if we managed to get rid of COVID‐19 owing to vaccines—or at least to keep its infectiousness and mortality low—another virus will appear sooner or later; an improved resistance to viral pathogens—including coronaviruses—would be an important asset.Interventions to boost the immune system could in fact make use of either germline gene editing, as has been the case of the Chinese twins, or through somatic gene editing. The first requires time and only the next generation would potentially benefit while the latter could be immediately applied and theoretically used to deal with the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic.

Interventions to boost the immune system could in fact make use of either germline gene editing, as has been the case of the Chinese twins, or through somatic gene editing.

     

Nadeshiko revisited: The situation of women in Japanese research and the measures taken to increase their representation

The Japanese government has enacted measures to increase the representation of women in research; the situation is improving but there is still much to do. Subject Categories: S&S: Careers & Training, S&S: History & Philosophy of Science, S&S: Ethics

Japanese parents are understandably proud that their 15‐year‐old boys and girls do equally well in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In 2018, Japanese girls ranked second and third in Science and Mathematics, respectively, among the 40 participating countries, and Japanese boys ranked first in both subjects (https://data.oecd.org/japan.htm). However, Japanese boys and girls face different expectations and take different career paths as they grow up. In this commentary, we discuss how this affects the situation of female scientists in Japan. We start with the proportion of women in academic research and describe the problems they currently face. We underscore the tremendous measures developed and administered by the Japanese government to increase the participation and proportion of women in research. Finally, we mention an emerging grassroots initiative that is currently being implemented. We suggest that female empowerment may be one of the most promising strategies to improve the situation of women in the Japanese scientific community.     

When we increase diversity in academia,we all win

Increasing diversity in academia is not just a matter of fairness but also improves science. It is up to individual scientists and research organisations to support underrepresented minorities. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, S&S: Ethics

There has been a large body of research on diversity in the workplace—in both academic and non‐academic settings—that highlights the benefits of an inclusive workplace. This is perhaps most clearly visible in industry where the rewards are immediate: A study by McKinsey showed that companies with a more diverse workforce perform better financially and by substantial margins, compared to their respective national industry medians (https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters#).It is easy to measure success in financial terms, but since there is no similar binary metric for research performance (https://sfdora.org), it is harder to quantify the rewards of workplace diversity in academic research. However, research shows that diversity actually provides research groups with a competitive edge in other quantifiable terms, such as citation counts (Powell, 2018), and the scientific process obviously benefits from diversity in perspectives. Bringing together individuals with different ways of thinking will allow us to solve more challenging scientific problems and lead to better decision‐making and leadership. Conversely, there is a direct cost to bias in recruitment, tenure, and promotion processes. When such processes are affected by bias—whether explicit or implicit—the whole organization is losing by not tapping into the wider range of skills and assets that could otherwise have been brought to the workplace. Promoting diversity in academia is therefore not simply an issue of equity, which in itself is a sufficient reason, but also a very practical question: how do we create a better work environment for our organization, both in terms of collegiality and in terms of performance?Notwithstanding the fact that there is now substantial awareness of the importance of diversity and that significant work is being invested into addressing the issue, the statistics do not look good. Despite a substantial improvement at the undergraduate and graduate student levels in the EU, women remain significantly underrepresented in research at the more senior levels (Directorate‐General for Research and Innovation European Commission, 2019). In addition, the lion’s share of diversity efforts, at least in Sweden where I work, is frequently focused on gender. Gender is clearly important, but other diversity axes with problematic biases deserve the same attention. As one example, while statistics on ethnic diversity is readily available for US Universities (Davis & Fry, 2019), this information is much harder to find in Europe. While there is an increased awareness of diversity at the student level, this does not necessarily translate into initiatives to support faculty diversity (Aragon & Hoskins, 2017). There are examples of progress and concrete actions on these fronts, including the Athena Swan Charter (https://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/), the more recent Race Equality Charter (https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/charters/race-equality-charter), and the EMBO journals that regularly analyze their decisions for gender bias. However, progress remains frustratingly slow. In 2019, the World Economic Forum suggested that, at the current rate of progress, the global gender gap will take 108 years to close (https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2018). I worry that it may take even longer for other diversity axes since these receive far less attention.It is clear that there is a problem, but what can we do to address it? Perhaps one of the single most important contributions we can make as faculty is to address the implicit (subconscious) biases we all carry. Implicit bias will manifest itself in many ways: gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or disability, just to mention a few. These are the easily identifiable ones, but implicit bias also extends to, for example, professional titles (seniority level), institutional affiliation and even nationality. These partialities affect our decision‐making—for example, in recruitment, tenure, promotion, and evaluation committees—and how we interact with each other.The “Matilda effect” (Rossiter, 1993), which refers to the diminishment of the value of contributions made by female researchers, is now well recognized, and it is not unique to gender (Ross, 2014). When we diminish the contributions of our colleagues, it affects how we evaluate them in competitive scenarios, and whether we put them forward for grants, prizes, recruitment, tenure, and so on. In the hypercompetitive environment that is academia today, even small and subtle injuries can tremendously amplify their negative impact on success, given the current reward system that appears to favor “fighters” over “collaborators”. Consciously working to correct for this, stepping back to rethink our first assessment, is imperative.Women and other minorities also frequently suffer from imposter syndrome, which can impact self‐confidence and make members of these groups less likely to self‐promote in the pursuit of prestigious funding, awards, and competitive career opportunities. This effect is further amplified by a globally mobile academic workforce who, when moving to new cultural contexts (whether locally or internationally), can be unaware of the unwritten rules that guide a department’s work environment and decision‐making processes. Here, mentoring can play a tremendous role in reducing barriers to success; however, for such mentorship to be productive, mentors need to be aware of the specific challenges faced by minorities in academia, as well as their own implicit biases (Hinton et al, 2020).Other areas where we, as individual academics, can contribute to a more diverse work environment include meeting cultures and decision‐making. Making sure that the members of decision‐making bodies have diverse composition so that a variety of views are represented is an important first step. One complication to bear in mind though is that implicit biases are not limited to individuals outside the group: A new UN report shows that almost 90% of people—both men and women—carry biases against women, which in turn is what contributes to the glass‐ceiling effect (United Nations Development Program, 2020). However, equally important is inclusiveness in the meeting culture. Studies from the business world show that even high‐powered women often struggle to speak up and be heard at meetings, and the onus for solving this is often passed back onto themselves. The same holds true for other minority groups, and in an academic setting, it extends to seminars and conferences. The next time you plan a meeting, think about the setting and layout. Who gets to talk? Why? Is the distribution of time given to participants representative of the composition of the meeting participants? If not, why not?As a final example of personal action, we can take: language matters (Ås, 1978). Even without malicious intent, there can be a big gap between what we say and mean, and how it comes across to the recipient. Some examples of this are given by Harrison and Tanner (Harrison & Tanner, 2018), who discuss microagressions in an academic setting and the underlying message one might be unintentionally sending. Microaggressions, when built up over a long period of time, and coming from different people, can significantly impact someone’s confidence and sense of self‐worth. Taking a step back and thinking about why we choose the language, we do is a vital part of creating an inclusive work environment.Addressing diversity challenges in academia is a highly complex multi‐faceted topic that is impossible to do justice in a short opinion piece. This is, therefore, just a small set of examples: By paying attention to our own biases and thinking carefully about how we interact with those around us, both in terms of the language we use and the working environments we create, we can personally contribute to improving both recruitment and retention of a diverse academic workforce. In addition, it is crucial to break the culture of silence and to speak up when we see others committing micro‐ or not so microaggressions or otherwise contributing to a hostile environment. There is a substantial amount of work that needs to be done, at both the individual and organization levels, before we have a truly inclusive academic environment. However, this is not a reason to not do it, and if each of us contributes, we can accelerate this change to a better and more equitable future, while all winning from the benefits of diversity.     

Strength is in engagement: The rise of an online scientific community during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Many scientists, confined to home office by COVID‐19, have been gathering in online communities, which could become viable alternatives to physical meetings and conferences. Subject Categories: S&S: Careers & Training, Methods & Resources, S&S: Ethics

As COVID‐19 has brought work and travel to a grinding halt, scientists explored new ways to connect with each other. For the gene regulation community, this started with a Tweet that quickly expanded into the “Fragile Nucleosome” online forum, a popular seminar series, and many intimate discussions connecting scientists all over the world. More than 2,500 people from over 45 countries have attended our seminars so far and our forum currently has ~ 1,000 members who have kick‐started discussion groups and mentorship opportunities. Here we discuss our experience with setting up the Fragile Nucleosome seminars and online discussion forum, and present the tools to enable others to do the same.Too often, we forget the importance of social interactions in science. Indeed, many creative ideas originated from impromptu and fortuitous encounters with peers, in passing, over lunch, or during a conference coffee break. Now, the ongoing COVID‐19 crisis means prolonged isolation, odd working hours, and less social interactions for most scientists confined to home. This motivated us to create the “Fragile Nucleosome” virtual community for our colleagues in the chromatin and gene regulation field.

… the ongoing COVID‐19 crisis means prolonged isolation, odd working hours and less social interactions for most scientists confined to home.

While the need to address the void created by the COVID‐19 pandemic triggered our actions, a large part of the international community already has had limited access to research networks in our field. Our initiative offered new opportunities though, in particular for those who have not benefited from extensive networks, showing how virtual communities can address disparities in accessibility. This should not be a stop‐gap measure during the pandemic: Once we come out from our isolation, we still need to address the drawbacks of in‐person scientific conferences/seminars, such as economic disparities, travel inaccessibility, and overlapping family responsibilities (Sarabipour, 2020). Our virtual community offers some solutions to the standing challenges (Levine & Rathmell, 2020), and we hope our commentary can help start conversations about the advantages of virtual communities in a post‐pandemic world.

… once we come out from our isolation we still need to address the drawbacks of in‐person scientific conferences/seminars, such as economic disparities, travel inaccessibility and overlapping family responsibilities…

     

Reply to Bronstein and Vinogradov

The response by the author. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, S&S: Ethics

I thank Michael Bronstein and Sophia Vinogradov for their interest and comments. I would like to respond to a few of their points.First, I agree with the authors that empirical studies should be conducted to validate any approaches to prevent the spread of misinformation before their implementation. Nonetheless, I think that the ideas I have proposed may be worth further discussion and inspire empirical studies to test their effectiveness.Second, the authors warn that informing about the imperfections of scientific research may undermine trust in science and scientists, which could result in higher vulnerability to online health misinformation (Roozenbeek et al, 2020; Bronstein & Vinogradov, 2021). I believe that transparency about limitations and problems in research does not necessarily have to diminish trust in science and scientists. On the contrary, as Veit et al put it, “such honesty… is a prerequisite for maintaining a trusting relationship between medical institutions (and practitioners) and the public” (Veit et al, 2021). Importantly, to give an honest picture of scientific research, information about its limitations should be put in adequate context. In particular, the public also should be aware that “good science” is being done by many researchers; we do have solid evidence of effectiveness of many medical interventions; and efforts are being taken to address the problems related to quality of research.Third, Bronstein and Vinogradov suggest that false and dangerous information should be censored. I agree with the authors that “[c]ensorship can prevent individuals from being exposed to false and potentially dangerous ideas” (Bronstein & Vinogradov, 2021). I also recognize that some information is false beyond any doubt and its spread may be harmful. What I am concerned about are, among others, the challenges related to defining what is dangerous and false information and limiting censorship only to this kind of information. For example, on what sources should decisions to censor be based and who should make such decisions? Anyone, whether an individual or an organization, with a responsibility to censor information will likely not only be prone to mistakes, but also to abuses of power to foster their interests. Do the benefits we want to achieve by censorship outweigh the potential risks?Fourth, we need rigorous empirical studies examining the actual impact of medical misinformation. What exactly are the harms we try to protect against and what is their scale? This information is necessary to choose proportionte and effective measures to reduce the harms. Bronstein and Vinogradov give an example of a harm which may be caused by misinformation—an increase in methanol poisoning in Iran. Yet, as noticed by the authors, misinformation is not the sole factor in this case; there are also cultural and other contexts (Arasteh et al, 2020; Bronstein & Vinogradov, 2021). Importantly, the methods of studies exploring the effects of misinformation should be carefully elaborated, especially when study participants are asked to self‐report. A recent study suggests that some claims about the prevalence of dangerous behaviors, such as drinking bleach, which may have been caused by misinformation are largely exaggerated due to the presence of problematic respondents in surveys (preprint: Litman et al, 2021).Last but not least, I would like to call attention to the importance of how veracity of information is determined in empirical studies on misinformation. For example, in a study of Roozenbeek et al, cited by Bronstein and Vinogradov, the World Health Organization (WHO) was used as reliable source of information, which raises questions. For instance, Roozenbeek et al (2020) used a statement “the coronavirus was bioengineered in a military lab in Wuhan” as an example of false information, relying on the judgment of the WHO found on its “mythbusters” website (Roozenbeek et al, 2020). Yet, is there a solid evidence to claim that this statement is false? At present, at least some scientists declare that we cannot rule out that the virus was genetically manipulated in a laboratory (Relman, 2020; Segreto & Deigin, 2020). Interestingly, the WHO also no longer excludes such a possibility and has launched an investigation on this issue (https://www.who.int/health‐topics/coronavirus/origins‐of‐the‐virus, https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel‐coronavirus‐2019/media‐resources/science‐in‐5/episode‐21‐‐‐covid‐19‐‐‐origins‐of‐the‐sars‐cov‐2‐virus); the information about the laboratory origin of the virus being false is no longer present on the WHO “mythbusters” website (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel‐coronavirus‐2019/advice‐for‐public/myth‐busters). Against this backdrop, some results of the study by Roozenbeek et al (2020) seem misleading. In particular, the perception of the reliability of the statement about bioengineered virus by study participants in Roozenbeek et al (2020) does not reflect the susceptibility to misinformation, as intended by the researchers, but rather how the respondents perceive reliability of uncertain information.I hope that discussion and research on these and related issues will continue.     

Context matters: On the road to responsible biosafety technologies in synthetic biology

Biosafety is a major challenge for developing for synthetic organisms. An early focus on application and their context could assist with the design of appropriate genetic safeguards. Subject Categories: Synthetic Biology & Biotechnology, S&S: Economics & Business

One of the goals of synthetic biology is the development of robust chassis cells for their application in medicine, agriculture, and the food, chemical and environmental industries. These cells can be streamlined by removing undesirable features and can be augmented with desirable functionalities to design an optimized organism. In a direct analogy with a car chassis, they provide the frame for different modules or “plug‐in” regulatory networks, metabolic pathways, or safety elements. In an effort to ensure a safe microbial chassis upfront, safety measures are implemented as genetic safeguards to limit risks such as unwanted cellular proliferation or horizontal gene transfer. Examples of this technology include complex genetic circuits, sophisticated metabolic dependencies (auxotrophies), and altered genomes (Schmidt & de Lorenzo, 2016; Asin‐Garcia et al, 2020). Much like seat belts or airbags in cars, these built‐in measures increase the safety of the chassis and of any organisms derived from it. Indeed, when it comes to safety, synthetic biology can still learn from a century‐old technology such as cars about the significance of context for the development of biosafety technologies.Every car today has seat belts installed by default. Yet, seat belts were not always a standard component; in fact, they were not even designed for cars to begin with. The original 2‐point belts were first used in aviation and only slowly introduced for motorized vehicles. Only after some redesign, the now‐common 3‐point car seat belts would become the life‐saving equipment that they are today. A proper understanding of the context of their application was therefore one of the crucial factors for their success and wide adoption. Context matters: It provides meaning for and defines what a technological application is best suited for. What was true for seat belts may be also true for biosafety technologies such as genetic safeguards.

… when it comes to safety, synthetic biology can still learn from a century‐old technology such as cars about the significance of context for the development of biosafety technologies.

Society has a much higher awareness of technology’s risks compared to the early days of cars. Society today requires that technological risks are anticipated and assessed before an innovation or its applications are widely deployed. In addition, society increasingly demands that research and innovation take into account societal needs and values. This has led to, among others, the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI; von Schomberg, 2013) concept that has become prominent in European science policy. In a nutshell, RRI requires that innovative products and processes align with societal needs, expectations, and values in consultation with stakeholders. RRI and similar frameworks suggest that synthetic biology must anticipate and respond not only to risks, but also to societal views that frame its evaluation and risk assessment.     

Biology lessons in times of COVID: The pandemic has forced educators to teach and instruct online with varying success and challenges

Since COVID‐19 hit last year, lecturers and professors have been exploring digital and other tools to teach and instruct their students. Subject Categories: S&S: Careers & Training, Methods & Resources

As Director of the Digital Pedagogy Lab at the University of Colorado in Denver, USA, Michael Sean Morris’ work took on new significance as the COVID‐19 pandemic hit campuses around the world. “What happened with the pandemic was a lot of people who weren''t accustomed to teaching online, or dealing with distance learning, or remote learning in any way, shape, or form, really tried to create a live classroom situation on their screen, mostly using Zoom or other similar technologies”, Morris said. “With technology now, we can do things which make us feel closer. So, we can do a Zoom; there can be synchronous chat in technologies like Slack, or discussion forums or what‐have‐you to make you feel like you''re closer, to make you feel like you''re sort of together at the same time. But the majority of online learning actually has been asynchronous, it''s been everyone coming in when they can and doing their work when they can”.Educators have been divided over the use of online learning. But this changed when a deadly pandemic forced everyone from kindergarten to university into digital spaces. Luckily, many digital tools, such as Zoom, Slack, Blackboard Collaborate, or WhatsApp, were available to enable the migration. Nonetheless, teachers, lecturers, and professors struggle to educate their students with knowledge and the hands‐on training that is paramount for teaching biology.

… teachers, lecturers and professors struggle to educate their students with knowledge and the hands‐on training that is paramount for teaching biology.

     

Biosafety in DIY‐bio laboratories: from hype to policy: Discussions about regulating DIY biology tend to ignore the extent of self‐regulation and oversight of DIY laboratories

Policymakers should treat DIY‐biology laboratories as legitimate parts of the scientific enterprise and pay attention to the role of community norms. Subject Categories: Synthetic Biology & Biotechnology, S&S: Economics & Business, S&S: Ethics

DIY biology – very broadly construed as the practice of biological experiments outside of traditional research environments such as universities, research institutes or companies – has, during the past decade, gained much prominence. This increased attention has raised a number of questions about biosafety and biosecurity, both in the media and by policy makers who are concerned about safety and security lapses in “garage biology”. There are a number of challenges here though when it comes to policies to regulate DIY biology. For a start, the term itself escapes easy definition: synonyms or related terms abound, including garage biotechnology, bio‐hacking, self‐modification/grinding, citizen science, bio‐tinkering, bio‐punk, even transhumanism. Some accounts even use ‘DIY‐bio’ interchangeably with synthetic biology, even though these terms refer to different emerging trends in biology. Some of these terms are more charged than others but each carries its own connotations with regard to practice, norms and legality. As such, conversations about the risk, safety and regulation of DIY‐bio can be fraught.

Synonyms or related terms abound, including garage biotechnology, bio‐hacking, self‐modification/grinding, citizen science, bio‐tinkering, bio‐punk, even transhumanism.

Given the increasing policy discussions about DIY‐bio, it is crucial to consider prevailing practice thoughtfully, and accurately. Key questions that researchers, policy makers and the public need to contemplate include the following: “How do different DIY‐bio spaces exist within regulatory frameworks, and enact cultures of (bio)safety?”, “How are these influenced by norms and governance structures?”, “If something is unregulated, must it follow that it is unsafe?” and “What about the reverse: does regulatory oversight necessarily lead to safer practice?”.The DIY‐bio movement emerged from the convergence of two trends in science and technology. The first one is synthetic biology, which can broadly be defined as a conception of genetic engineering as systematic, modular and programmable. While engineering living organisms is obviously a complex endeavour, synthetic biology has sought to re‐frame it by treating genetic components as inherently modular pieces to be assembled, through rational design processes, into complex but predictable systems. This has prompted many “LEGO” metaphors and a widespread sense of democratisation, making genetic engineering accessible not only to trained geneticists, but also to anyone with an “engineering mindset”.The second, much older, trend stems from hacker‐ and makerspaces, which are – usually not‐for‐profit – community organisations that enable groups of enthusiasts to share expensive or technically complex infrastructure, such as 3D printers or woodworking tools, for their projects. These provide a model of community‐led initiatives based on the sharing of infrastructure, equipment and knowledge. Underpinning these two trends is an economic aspect. Many of the tools of synthetic biology – notably DNA sequencing and synthesis – have seen a dramatic drop in cost, and much of the necessary physical apparatus is available for purchase, often second‐hand, through auction sites.DIY‐bio labs are often set‐up under widely varying management schemes. While some present themselves as community outreach labs focusing on amateur users, others cater specifically to semi‐ or professional members with advanced degrees in the biosciences. Other such spaces act as incubators for biotech startups with an explicitly entrepreneurial culture. Membership agreements, IP arrangements, fees, access and the types of project that are encouraged in each of these spaces can have a profound effect on the science being done.     

Discussions on the quality of antibodies are no reason to ban animal immunization

Debates about the source of antibodies and their use are confusing two different issues. A ban on life immunization would have no repercussions on the quality of antibodies. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, Methods & Resources, Chemical Biology

There is an ongoing debate on how antibodies are being generated, produced and used (Gray, 2020; Marx, 2020). Or rather, there are two debates, which are not necessarily related to each other. The first one concerns the quality of antibodies used in scientific research and the repercussions for the validity of results (Bradbury & Pluckthun, 2015). The second debate is about the use of animals to generate and produce antibodies. Although these are two different issues, we observe that the debates have become entangled with arguments for one topic incorrectly being used to motivate the other and vice versa. This is not helpful, and we should disentangle the knot.Polyclonal antibodies are being criticized because they suffer from cross‐reactivity, high background and batch‐to‐batch variation (Bradbury & Pluckthun, 2015). Monoclonal antibodies produced from hybridomas are criticized because they often lack specificity owing to genetic heterogeneity introduced during hybridoma generation that impairs the quality of the monoclonals (Bradbury et al, 2018). These are valid criticisms and producing antibodies in a recombinant manner will, indeed, help to improve quality and specificity. But a mediocre antibody will remain a mediocre antibody, no matter how it is produced. Recombinant methods will just produce a mediocre antibody more consistently.Getting a good antibody is not easy and much depends on the nature and complexity of the antigen. And low‐quality antibodies are often the result of poor screening, poor quality control, incomplete characterization and the lack of international standards. Nevertheless, the technologies to ensure good selection and to guarantee consistent quality are much more advanced than a decade ago, and scientists and antibody producers should implement these to deliver high‐quality antibodies. Whether antibodies are generated by animal immunization or from naïve or synthetic antibody libraries is less relevant; they can all be produced recombinantly, and screening and characterization are needed in all cases to determine quality, and if the antibody is fit for purpose.But criticisms on the quality of many antibodies and pleas for switching to recombinant production of antibodies cannot be mixed up with a call to ban animal immunization. The EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) recently published a recommendation to stop using animals for generating and producing antibodies for scientific, diagnostic and even therapeutic applications (EURL ECVAM, 2020). This recommendation is mainly supported by scientists who seem to be biased towards synthetic antibody technology for various reasons. Their main argument is that antibodies derived from naïve or synthetic libraries are a valid (and exclusive) alternative. But are they?One can certainly select antibodies from non‐immune libraries, and, depending on the antigen and the type of application, these antibodies can be fit for purpose. In fact, a few of such antibodies have made it to the market as therapeutics, Adalimumab (Humira®) being a well‐known example. But up to now, the vast majority of antibodies continues to come from animal immunization (Lu et al, 2020). And there is a good reason for that. It is generally possible to generate a few positive hits in a naïve/synthetic library; and the more diverse the library, the more hits one is likely to get. But many decades of experience with immunization of animals—especially when they are outbred—shows that they generate larger amounts of antibodies with superior properties. And the more complex your antigen is, the more the balance swings towards animal immunization if you want to have a guarantee for success.There are different factors at work here. First, the immune system of mammals has evolved over millions of years to efficiently produce excellent antibodies against a very diverse range of antigens. Second, presenting the antigen multiple times in its desired (native) conformation to the animal immune system exploits the natural maturation process to fine‐tune the immune response against particular qualities. Another factor is that in vivo maturation seems to select against negative properties such as self‐recognition and aggregation. It also helps to select for important properties that go beyond mere molecular recognition (Jain et al, 2017). In industrial parlance, antibodies from animal immunization are more “developable” and have favourable biophysical properties (Lonberg, 2005). Indeed, the failure rate for antibodies selected from naïve or synthetic libraries is significantly higher.Of course, the properties of synthetic antibodies selected from non‐immune libraries can be further matured in vitro, for example by light chain shuffling or targeted mutagenesis of the complementarity determining region (CDR). While this method has become more sophisticated over the years, it remains a very complex and iterative process without guarantee that it produces a high‐quality antibody.Antibodies are an ever more important tool in scientific research and a growing area in human and veterinary therapeutics. Major therapeutic breakthroughs in immunology and oncology in the past decades are based on antibodies (Lu et al, 2020). The vast majority of these therapeutic antibodies were derived from animals. An identical picture appears when you look at the antibodies in fast‐track development to combat the current COVID‐19 crisis: again, the vast majority are either derived from patients or from animal immunizations. The same holds true for antibodies that are used in diagnostics and epidemiologic studies for COVID‐19.It is for that reason that we need the tools and methods that guarantee antibodies of the highest quality and provide the best chance for success. The COVID‐19 pandemic is only one illustration of this need. If we block access to these tools, both scientific research and society at large will be negatively impacted. We therefore should not limit ourselves to naïve and synthetic libraries. Animal immunization remains an inevitable method that needs to stay. But we all agree that these immunizations must be performed under best practice to further reduce the harm to animals.     

COVID‐19 and the opportunities for research: The lockdowns’ impacts on wildlife,ecology and conservation biology,and the humanities

The ongoing lockdowns provide ideal conditions to study the relationship between wildlife and humans but among humans themselves. Subject Categories: Ecology, S&S: History & Philosophy of Science

Almost all research has been affected in some way or another by the COVID‐19 pandemic, at the very least by challenging collaboration and interaction. But some areas have been affected more than others. Ecology and conservation biology experience a real boon as ongoing lockdowns have presented unique opportunities to study the impact of human activities on animals and ecosystems. This has not just galvanised research but also promises to leave a legacy of networks and collaborations to explore means to reduce negative human impacts on biodiversity long after the pandemic has subsided. In the social sciences and humanities, however, the pandemic is raising fundamental questions about their ability to contribute meaningfully to inform policy and public health responses.

In the social sciences and humanities […] the pandemic is raising fundamental questions about their ability to contribute meaningfully to inform policy and public health responses.

     

USP26: a genetic risk factor for sperm X‐Y aneuploidy

Segregation of the largely non‐homologous X and Y sex chromosomes during male meiosis is not a trivial task, because their pairing, synapsis, and crossover formation are restricted to a tiny region of homology, the pseudoautosomal region. In humans, meiotic X‐Y missegregation can lead to 47, XXY offspring, also known as Klinefelter syndrome, but to what extent genetic factors predispose to paternal sex chromosome aneuploidy has remained elusive. In this issue, Liu et al (2021) provide evidence that deleterious mutations in the USP26 gene constitute one such factor.Subject Categories: Cell Cycle, Development & Differentiation, Molecular Biology of Disease

Analyses of Klinefelter syndrome patients and Usp26‐deficient mice have revealed a genetic influence on age‐dependent sex chromosome missegregation during male meiosis.

Multilayered mechanisms have evolved to ensure successful X‐Y recombination, as a prerequisite for subsequent normal chromosome segregation. These include a distinct chromatin structure as well as specialized proteins on the pseudoautosomal region (Kauppi et al, 2011; Acquaviva et al, 2020). Even so, X‐Y recombination fails fairly often, especially in the face of even modest meiotic perturbations. It is perhaps not surprising then that X‐Y aneuploidy—but not autosomal aneuploidy—in sperm increases with age (Lowe et al, 2001; Arnedo et al, 2006), as does the risk of fathering sons with Klinefelter syndrome (De Souza & Morris, 2010).Klinefelter syndrome is one of the most common aneuploidies in liveborn individuals (Thomas & Hassold, 2003). While most human trisomies result from errors in maternal chromosome segregation, this is not the case for Klinefelter syndrome, where the extra X chromosome is equally likely to be of maternal or paternal origin (Thomas & Hassold, 2003; Arnedo et al, 2006). Little is known about genetic factors in humans that predispose to paternal XY aneuploidy, i.e., that increase the risk of fathering Klinefelter syndrome offspring. The general notion has been that paternally derived Klinefelter syndrome arises stochastically. However, fathers of Klinefelter syndrome patients have elevated rates of XY aneuploid sperm (Lowe et al, 2001; Arnedo et al, 2006), implying a persistent defect in spermatogenesis in these individuals rather than a one‐off meiotic error.To identify possible genetic factors contributing to Klinefelter syndrome risk, Liu et al (2021) performed whole‐exome sequencing in a discovery cohort of > 100 Klinefelter syndrome patients, followed by targeted sequencing in a much larger cohort of patients and controls, as well as Klinefelter syndrome family trios. The authors homed in on a mutational cluster (“mutated haplotype”) in ubiquitin‐specific protease 26 (USP26), a testis‐expressed gene located on the X chromosome. Effects of this gene’s loss of function (Usp26‐deficient mice) on spermatogenesis have recently been independently reported by several laboratories and ranged from no detectable fertility phenotype (Felipe‐Medina et al, 2019) to subfertility/sterility associated with both meiotic and spermiogenic defects (Sakai et al, 2019; Tian et al, 2019). With their Klinefelter syndrome cohort findings, Liu et al (2021) also turned to Usp26 null mice, paying particular attention to X‐Y chromosome behavior and—unlike earlier mouse studies—including older mice in their analyses. They found that Usp26‐deficient animals often failed to achieve stable pairing and synapsis of X‐Y chromosomes in spermatocytes, produced XY aneuploid sperm at an abnormally high frequency, and sometimes also sired XXY offspring. Importantly, these phenotypes only occurred at an advanced age: XY aneuploidy was seen in six‐month‐old, but not two‐month‐old Usp26‐deficient males. Moreover, levels of spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) proteins also reduced in six‐month‐old males. Thus, in older Usp26 null mice, the combination of less efficient X‐Y pairing and less stringent SAC‐mediated surveillance of faithful chromosome segregation allows for sperm aneuploidy, providing another example of SAC leakiness in males (see Lane & Kauppi, 2019 for discussion).Liu et al’s analyses shed some light on what molecular mechanisms may be responsible for the reduced efficiency of X‐Y pairing and synapsis in Usp26‐deficient spermatocytes. USP26 codes for a deubiquitinating enzyme that has several substrates in the testis. Because USP26 prevents degradation of these substrates, their levels should be downregulated in Usp26 null testes. Liu et al (2021) show that USP26 interacts with TEX11, a protein required for stable pairing and normal segregation of the X and Y chromosomes in mouse meiosis (Adelman & Petrini, 2008). USP26 can de‐ubiquitinate TEX11 in vitro, and in Usp26 null testes, TEX11 was almost undetectable. It is worth noting that USP26 has several other known substrates, including the androgen receptor (AR), and therefore, USP26 disruption likely contributes to compromised spermatogenesis via multiple mechanisms. For example, AR signaling‐dependent hormone levels are misregulated in Usp26 null mice (Tian et al, 2019).The sex chromosome phenotypes observed in Usp26 null mice predict that men with USP26 mutations may be fertile, but producing XY aneuploid sperm at an abnormally high frequency, and that spermatogenic defects should increase with age (Fig 1). These predictions were testable, because the mutated USP26 haplotype, present in 13% of Klinefelter syndrome patients, was reasonably common also in fertile men (7–10%). Indeed, sperm XY aneuploidy was substantially higher in fertile men with the mutated USP26 haplotype than in those without USP26 mutations. Some mutation carriers produced > 4% aneuploid sperm. Moreover, age‐dependent oligospermia was also found associated with the mutated USP26 haplotype.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Mutated USP26 as genetic risk factor for age‐dependent X‐Y defects in spermatogenesisMouse genetics demonstrate that deleterious USP26 mutations lead to less‐efficient X‐Y pairing and recombination with advancing age. Concomitant decrease of spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) protein levels leads to less‐efficient elimination of metaphase I spermatocytes that contain misaligned X and Y chromosomes. This allows for the formation of XY aneuploid sperm in older individuals and subsequently increased age‐dependent risk for fathering Klinefelter syndrome (KS) offspring, two correlates also observed in human USP26 mutation carriers. At the same time, oligospermia/subfertility also increases with advanced age in both Usp26‐deficient mice and USP26 mutation‐carrying men, tempering Klinefelter syndrome offspring risk but also decreasing fecundity.As indicated by its prevalence in the normal control population, the USP26 mutated haplotype is not selected against in the human population. With > 95% of sperm in USP26 mutation carriers having normal haploid chromosomal composition, the risk of producing (infertile) Klinefelter syndrome offspring remains modest, likely explaining why USP26 mutant alleles are not eliminated. Given that full Usp26 disruption barely affects fertility of male mice during their prime reproductive age (Felipe‐Medina et al, 2019; Tian et al, 2019; Liu et al, 2021), there is little reason to assume strong negative selection against USP26 variants in humans. USP26 as the first‐ever genetic risk factor predisposing to sperm X‐Y aneuploidy and paternal origin Klinefelter syndrome offspring in humans, as uncovered by Liu et al, may be just one of many. 90% of Liu et al’s Klinefelter syndrome cases were not associated with USP26 mutations. But even in the age of genomics, discovery of Klinefelter syndrome risk factors is not straightforward, since most sperm of risk mutation carriers will not be XY aneuploid and thus not give rise to Klinefelter syndrome offspring. In addition, as Usp26 null mice demonstrate, both genetic and non‐genetic modifiers impact on penetrance of the XY aneuploidy phenotype: Spermatogenesis in the absence of Usp26 was impaired in the DBA/2 but not the C57BL/6 mouse strain background (Sakai et al, 2019), and in older mice, there was substantial inter‐individual variation in the severity of the X‐Y defect (Liu et al, 2021). In human cohorts, genetic and non‐genetic modifiers are expected to blur the picture even more.Future identification of sex chromosome aneuploidy risk factors has human health implications beyond Klinefelter syndrome. Firstly, XXY incidence is not only relevant for Klinefelter syndrome livebirths—it also contributes to stillbirths and spontaneous abortions, at a 4‐fold higher rate than to livebirths (Thomas & Hassold, 2003). Secondly, persistent meiotic X‐Y defects can, over time, result in oligospermia and even infertility. Since the mean age of first‐time fathers is steadily rising and currently well over 30 years in many Western countries, age‐dependent spermatogenic defects will be of ever‐increasing clinical relevance.     

How many animals are used for SARS‐CoV‐2 research?: An overview on animal experimentation in pre‐clinical and basic research

Non‐technical summaries of research projects allow tracking the numbers and purpose of animal experiments related to SARS‐CoV2 research so as to provide greater transparency on animal use. Subject Categories: Economics, Law & Politics, Pharmacology & Drug Discovery, Science Policy & Publishing

The COVID‐19 pandemic has accelerated biomedical research and drug development to an unprecedented pace. Governments worldwide released emergency funding for biomedical research that allowed scientists to focus on COVID‐19 and related drug and vaccine development. As a result, a flood of scientific articles on SARS‐CoV‐2 and COVID‐19 was published since early 2020. More importantly though, within less than 2 years, scientists in academia and industry developed vaccines against the virus from scratch: Several vaccines have now received regulatory approval and are being mass produced to immunize the human population worldwide.This colossal success of science rests in large part on the shoulders of animals that were used in basic and pre‐clinical research and regulatory testing. Notwithstanding, animal experimentation has remained a highly controversial and heated topic between advocates for research and animal rights activists. During the past decades, European policymakers responded to the debate by enacting stricter regulations, which inevitably has increased the bureaucratic hurdles for experimentation on animals. Scientists have for long spoken out against this additional burden, arguing that both basic and translational researches to improve human health crucially relies on animal experimentation—as the COVID‐19 pandemic aptly demonstrated (Genzel et al, 2020).     

Konnichiwa: Japanese scientists and their struggle to speak English: More research careers in Japan need less English

Japanese students’ seeming low proficiency of English is not caused by lack of efforts to internationalize, but rather changing career preferences. Subject Categories: S&S: Careers & Training, S&S: Economics & Business, S&S: Ethics

It seems every generation of academics complains about the poor skills of their incoming students: “They are lazy. Unprepared. Spoiled”. In fact, older people lamenting about the perceived faults and shortcomings of the next generation is probably as old as human civilization itself (Protzko & Schooler, 2019). Professors in Japan are no different in claiming that their students lack many skills, including a sufficient proficiency in speaking English.However, when the same observation is made by an outsider, such as the Chief Editor of this journal, it deserves more consideration. At a meeting of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan (MBSJ), Bernd Pulverer was struck by how effortlessly senior Japanese scientists engaged in discussions, whereas their junior colleagues appeared intimidated by the prospect of speaking aloud in English. The experience left the editor worried if there were a generation gap in communication skills that could hamper international collaborations.While English has long been a primary language for science, it has only recently become the primary language. Consider the Solvay Conference in 1927, epitomized by the photo of legendary scientists such as Einstein, Curie, and Bohr, which was a Babylonian debate. Even in the 1990s, the University of Toronto encouraged students in its mathematics program to study French, German, or Russian. Today, however, anyone aspiring to become a scientist is obliged to have a strong grasp of the English language, a point that is not lost on Japanese students.     

A method to the madness: Disentangling the individual forces that shape the rumen microbiome

The rumen microbiome ‐ a remarkable example of obligatory symbiosis with high ecological and social relevance Subject Categories: Digestive System, Ecology, Microbiology, Virology & Host Pathogen Interaction

Ruminants are intimately linked to mankind since their domestication some 8,000 years ago, and their close relationship may have well been one of the main drivers of human civilization (Diamond, 1997). Ruminants—cattle, sheep, goats, deer, gazelles, and so on—also embody the close link between solar energy transformed via photosynthesis and digestion into consumable products, such as meat, milk, leather, or wool, that have sustained humanity for millennia. Throughout this shared history, constant improvements through breeding, husbandry, and industrial livestock farming have greatly increased the production of milk, meat, and other animal‐based products.Ruminants, more so than any other mammalian group also represent the epitome of mammalian‐microbe symbiosis, as they rely completely on microbial fermentation to sustain their lives. In the rumen, the fermentative organ situated in the upper gastrointestinal tract resides a vast microbial community from all domains of life—bacteria, archaea, and eukarya—that turn indigestible plant feed into food for the animal. The rumen microbiome produces up to 70% of the energy the animal needs for growth and maintenance, and, from mankind''s perspective, for the production of food and other consumables.

Ruminants, more so than any other mammalian group, also represent the epitome of mammalian‐microbe symbiosis, as they rely completely on microbial fermentation to sustain their lives.

With growing understanding that these microorganisms are responsible for degrading plant material and supplying nutrients for the animals, a new research discipline emerged along with aspirations to improve the yield of livestock farming. While most research had understandably focused on production efficiency, it also showed that the rumen microbiome is intricately linked to many other phenotypes of the animal. This understanding comes at a time when we increasingly realize that mankind''s actions have a detrimental effect on the environment. The microbial fermentation in the rumen produces large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has been demonstrated to contribute to global climate change. We therefore need to consider both our increased demand for meat and milk products and aim to mitigate the negative environmental impact of intensive livestock farming. Modulating the microbial community to sustain or further increase productivity while decreasing methane emissions has indeed become a major goal for microbial ecologists studying the rumen microbiome and its interactions with the host animal. In this article, we discuss the driving forces that affect the establishment and composition of the rumen microbiome and its plasticity, and potential avenues for harnessing these forces for a more sustainable production of animal products.     

ELIXIR‐EXCELERATE: establishing Europe's data infrastructure for the life science research of the future

A new inter‐governmental research infrastructure, ELIXIR, aims to unify bioinformatics resources and life science data across Europe, thereby facilitating their mining and (re‐)use. Subject Categories: Computational Biology, Methods & Resources, S&S: Ethics

Creating knowledge by connecting and analysing large amounts of life science data is transforming our society, allowing us to start addressing major scientific and societal challenges, such as adaptation to climate change or pathogen outbreaks in an interconnected world. Modern biology is dependent on the generation, sharing and integrated analysis of digital data at scale. A deeper understanding of biological systems is now becoming possible thanks to breakthroughs in technologies that study life systematically at different scales, from molecules and single‐cell pathogens to complex animal or plant models and ecosystems as well as across temporal ranges spanning split‐second reactions to multi‐year clinical or agronomic trials, and beyond. The key to analyse and leverage this complex, fragmented and geographically dispersed life science data landscape is to ensure it is easy to find and reuse by researchers. This article comments on ELIXIR, an international organisation that brings together bioinformatics researchers and life science resources across Europe and integrates them into a single federated infrastructure.     

COVID‐19 and the gain of function debates: Improving biosafety measures requires a more precise definition of which experiments would raise safety concerns

The COVID‐19 pandemic has rekindled debates about gain‐of‐function experiments. This is an opportunity to clearly define safety risks and appropriate countermeasures. Subject Categories: Economics, Law & Politics, Microbiology, Virology & Host Pathogen Interaction, Science Policy & Publishing

The so‐called “gain of function” research has been recently debated in the context of viral research on coronaviruses and whether it is too risky to undertake such experiments. However, the meaning of “gain of function” or “GOF” in a science policy context has changed over time. The term was originally coined to describe two controversial research projects on H5N1 avian influenza virus and was later applied to specific experiments on coronavirus. Subsequent policies and discussions have attempted to define GOF in different ways, but no single definition has been widely accepted by the community. The fuzzy and imprecise nature of the term has led to misunderstandings and has hampered discussions on how to properly assess the benefit of such experiments and biosafety measures.

The fuzzy and imprecise nature of the term GOF has led to misunderstandings and has hampered discussions on how to properly assess the benefit of such experiments and biosafety measures