July 21, 2019
  • 8:57 am Its Time to Believe Older Adults Too
  • 5:55 am Scientists collate evidence for mismatch between past evolutionary adaptation and modern lives
  • 5:43 am Ways to stay safe while camping and hiking
  • 5:16 am Two researchers win highest US honor
  • 5:03 am Amid funding dispute Senate biomedical innovation effort teeters ahead

first_imgTweetShare404Share33Email437 SharesIn a stunning move that has crystalized a culturally historic moment, Time magazine named its 2017 Person of the Year to be “The Silence Breakers,” courageous women and men who finally feel empowered enough to speak out about sexual harassment, a scourge that pervades every industry and corner of society. It’s way past time.Of course, it’s easy to say this and to ask what took so long for our culture to reach this tipping point. Yet the answer is startlingly simple: People are finally believing the victims’ stories. That’s no small milestone, especially since those who have experienced sexual harassment have been trying to make their cases for millennia and have either been ignored, discredited, intimidated, persecuted, or otherwise silenced. Not now. No more.Hopefully this turn of events will now precipitate similar tipping points for those who experience racism, ethnic/religious persecution, ableism, homophobia, and ageism. Harassers of any kind should be held accountable for their actions, whether seemingly innocuous (they never are) or downright violent.As we are learning through victims’ accounts, there’s a spectrum of abuse regarding harassment. Some people are forced to endure hearing demeaning jokes, being unfairly stereotyped, or depicted as lacking a sense of humor, while others are denied opportunities for career advancement or are violently assaulted. All of their stories need to be heard –– and believed.Which brings me to another social scourge: ageism. Just as we are encouraged to believe those who report experiences of sexual harassment, so, too, should we believe older adults who report elder harassment in any of its forms. Ageism, too, is a spectrum of abuse, one that can be illustrated by a three-tiered pyramid:The bottom tier consists of the beliefs, attitudes, and everyday behaviors that form the foundation of ageism. Making older adults the subjects of ageist jokes; speaking to or about them as if they are feeble or children (also known as “elderspeak”); creating a sense of fear about older adults using up the world’s resources; blaming them as solely responsible if they are poor, sick, uneducated, or unemployed; failing to acknowledge their existence (let alone their viability); assuming that all old people think, act, and believe in the same way; and recasting social safety nets in politically negative terms –– these are destructive impulses without which none of the other forms of ageism would exist.The next higher tier comprises the social, political, and economic impacts of ageism upon older adults in their communities, workplaces, and healthcare settings. For example AARP reports that of the 1 in 5 American workers ages 55 and older, 64% have seen or experienced workplace discrimination. In addition, a sobering 2015 article published in the American Society on Aging’s journal Generations outlines the many forms medical ageism, while a study published in the same year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine reports that “One out of five adults over the age of 50 years experiences discrimination in healthcare settings.” Either they are under-treated (what I call the “Why bother?” syndrome) or they are over-treated (the “Keep them alive at all costs” syndrome). These examples, and many others from all sectors of society, illustrate the pervasive nature of harassment that older adults experience.The highest tier contains the most direct and personal extremes of harassment. Like sexual abuse, these experiences are traumatic and often go underreported by victims because of the fear of not being believed and/or of a resulting retaliation for speaking out. Often an older adult’s complaints may be dismissed as the ravings of an incompetent mind –– thus adding personal degradation to the process.All of this is to say that harassment in any form, toward any person, and for any reason should not be justified or tolerated. It should be stopped and the harasser held accountable. Equally important, the victim should be given a safe environment in which to report it and an opportunity to be believed. That should be the first step toward obliterating this destructive behavior.In the words of Justice Louis D. Brandeis, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Time magazine has taken a historic step toward shining a light on sexual harassment by giving its victims a platform upon which to stand and speak. Since every one of us is aging and will most likely experience ageism at some time in our lives, let’s construct a platform of our own on which to stand and call out harassers. And let’s always make room for others to join us on that platform to tell their stories … and to be believed.Related PostsLet’s Be Gero-Guerrillas for ChangeI would like to see all of us embrace a militant approach toward abolishing ageism and its three insidious forms: discrimination, neglect, and abuse.It’s Time To “hiv” the Talk With Older AdultsIt’s time for a new sexual revolution for the Post War Generation — one where a real conversation about HIV/AIDS can start.Ageism . . . Not Just for Grown-upsSitting in a local coffee shop, I recently overheard a couple of women talking about ageism and the havoc it wreaks on older people. But then, almost in the same breath, the focus of the conversation shifted to teenagers today.TweetShare404Share33Email437 SharesTags: Ageism elder abuse elderspeaklast_img read more

READ MORE

first_img Source:http://www.fv-berlin.de/news/the-dark-side-of-our-genes-2013-healthy-ageing-in-modern-times May 21 2018The transition to modernity – largely driven by the Industrial Revolution – provided us with easier access to food and clean water, with antibiotics, vaccines, and modern medicine. Yet modernity did not just bring fewer infectious diseases and longer life: it also created an environment radically different from the one we evolved in. Genes helpful in our evolutionary past may now predispose us to chronic disease – such as cardiovascular diseases and cancer – in old ages. In a paper published in the journal Nature Reviews Genetics an international team of five scientists collate the evidence for this mismatch between past evolutionary adaptation and our modern lives. They also ask whether natural selection linked to modernization might reduce globally the burden of some chronic diseases.Over the last four centuries human ecology, life styles and life histories have dramatically changed. The transition to modernity also altered the major causes of human death. Infectious diseases prevalent in childhood have given way to chronic diseases associated with aging. Naturally – as all of us must die – if some causes of death decrease others must increase in proportion. However, the increasing differences between the circumstances our genes have adapted to and our new environment also plays an important role.Aging is, in part, caused by the combined effect of many genes that are beneficial when young, but have adverse effects at older ages. Genes can influence a variety of traits and can also express themselves differently as we age (pleiotropy). The term antagonistic pleiotropy describes genes that can carry both beneficial and detrimental effects. Somewhat counter-intuitively evolution by natural selection can lead to antagonistic pleiotropy spreading in populations: The benefits received when young can outweigh the evolutionary disadvantages in old age. Some variants of the gene BRCA1 are, for example, beneficial to fertility. However, women who carry one of such variants of BRCA1 will – more likely than not – develop breast cancer by the age of 90.”Angelina Jolie’s decision to opt for a preventive double mastectomy instead of risking breast cancer was based on her carrying a high-risk BRCA1 variant,” Virpi Lummaa, professor at the University of Turku in Finland, explains. “This gene variant hasn’t been eliminated by natural selection in the past, precisely because it also has a great benefit for female fertility. Nowadays, the situation is much worse. Due to our much lower fertility levels and longer lifespans the early benefits of such genes no longer play out.””It is clear that some mutations that benefit fertility have been favored by natural selection despite heavy costs in old age. It seems likely that these genes have contributed to the rise in chronic disease in modern societies, but it’s still uncertain if these genes are the main cause of that increase or just a minor contributing factor,” says Jacob Moorad, from the University of Edinburgh.Related StoriesCoffee, sugary drinks, or alcohol? It’s in your genes.Gene modulation goes wireless hacking the “boss gene”Nanoparticles used to deliver CRISPR gene editing tools into the cellIn contrast, the evolutionary impact of contemporary life on human health is difficult to establish: evolutionary change often requires many generations to leave an unambiguous trace in our genome. The review found “suggestive but not yet overwhelming” evidence that natural selection, the engine of evolution, is changing course in our modern times. Several studies in pre- and post-industrial populations point, for example, to a selection toward an extended fertility period in women.”We have to be cautious here, though,” says Stephen Stearns, professor at Yale University in the USA. “Changes in human biology are driven by two non-exclusive processes. The environment directly impacts how our genes are expressed: Bad nutrition in childhood can cause, for example, stunted growth. But the environment also shapes natural selection. Natural selection can make some genes more – and others less – frequent in the population over time: Lactose-intolerance in adults, for example. It’s tempting to point to natural selection when we observe a particular change. However, particularly when the changes occurred recently, it is more likely that gene expression has changed, rather than that the genes themselves have adapted to a new environment.””Future studies and methodological development can help us clarify the extent to which chronic disease and genetic expression are linked and whether natural selection begins to counteract the increased burden of chronic disease. It is absolutely essential to establish large multigenerational cohort studies to create clear evidence”, explains Stephen Corbett, Director of the Centre for Population Health at the Western Sydney Local Health District in Australia.Alexandre Courtiol, scientist at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) in Berlin Germany, and co-author of this study adds: “Yes, genes are guilty but waiting for natural selection to adapt our great-great-great-grandchildren to our modern environment is inefficient. It may also not work since the modern environment changes at very high pace. The more rational response to the increase in chronic disease is to change our social environment and our lifestyles in ways that better suit us. We all know the recipe: sleep more, eat less junk, be regularly active and pollute less. True, this is difficult to implement but hopefully not impossible.”last_img read more

READ MORE

first_img Source:https://news.psu.edu/story/528701/2018/07/18/campus-life/medical-minute-staying-safe-while-camping-and-hiking Jul 19 2018When the weather heats up, many nature lovers head to a national park or forest for a summertime hiking or camping trip. A little preparation and an understanding of safety can go a long way to avoid potential pitfalls that come with enjoying Mother Nature. Appropriate packing and clothing, along with knowledge of possible issues, can prevent difficulties with insects, weather and illness.Be Prepared “‘Be prepared’ is the Boy Scout motto, and it is one of the best ways to avoid pitfalls and make the most of any hiking or camping trip,” said Dr. Jonathan Adams, a family medicine physician with Penn State Health Medical Group – Park Avenue in State College.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges hikers and campers to check the weather report before leaving for their trip to help them pack properly for the forecast. In addition, they should learn about security at the campsite and hiking location, and make sure family and friends are aware of their plans.According to Adams, foodborne illness is more common when spending time in the outdoors, most often occurring when food is inappropriately stored.”Packing food safely can minimize foodborne disease and keep everyone happy,” he said. Adams recommends packing each item in a tight, waterproof container, preferably in an insulated cooler, and also suggests keeping raw foods separate from cooked items and store at appropriate temperatures.Clean water also should be readily available for cooking and drinking. It can be carried on the trip, or by using any number of water purifying methods, such as boiling, chlorine tablets or specialized filtration.In preparation, hikers and campers should know what to do when toilets are not available, as well as be sure to bring supplies that include a first aid kit, compass or GPS, map, flashlight, blankets, batteries, food, water, clothes and medications. Most importantly, they should know who to contact at the camp or trail to report issues that may come up.Bugs-;Control the PestsInsects are a common pest that can plague people outdoors during the summer months. Mosquitoes, ticks and stinging insects are the most common offenders and can carry infectious diseases, such as West Nile virus and Lyme disease.Related StoriesLight at last: why do more women develop Alzheimer’s disease?Chronic inflammation removes motivation by reducing dopamine in the brainUsing Light Scattering to Characterize Protein-Nucleic Acid InteractionsDr. Christopher Heron, a family medicine physician with Penn State Health Medical Group – Park Avenue in State College, urges everyone to wear appropriate clothing to help prevent bites and stings.”Long sleeve shirts and pants can help keep insects from biting. Light-colored clothing helps to spot ticks,” he said.Use an EPA-registered insect repellent for a safe and effective way to avoid bugs, as well.”DEET, picaridin and lemon eucalyptus oil are a few of the readily available agents that tell bugs to head somewhere else,” Heron said. “Treat clothes with permethrin 0.05 percent to help keep ticks and other bugs at bay.”Checking for and removing ticks regularly and thoroughly after any outdoor activity helps drastically reduce the risk of Lyme disease.Temperature-related illnessAccording to the CDC, campers and hikers should also bring adequate bedding and clothing to stay warm and help prevent hypothermia during cool nights. Use a plastic ground cloth under your tent to help keep you dry.To help prevent heat-related illness during hot days, drink plenty of alcohol-free and sugar-free fluids, and don’t wait until you’re thirsty to drink. Wear layers of light-weight, light-colored and loose-fitting clothing, and rest often in shady areas.Finally, Adams and Heron urge hikers to remember sun protection. They recommend staying out of the sun at the brightest time of the day, wearing appropriate clothing for the activities planned, and using a sunscreen of at least SPF 15 to protect skin, especially on the nose and ears.”Whether the day is overcast or sunny, UV rays can cause skin cell inflammation, which can result in sunburn in the short-term and increased risk for skin cancer with repeated exposures,” Heron said. “Avoiding exposure is the easiest way to prevent UV inflammation.”​last_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgTwo prominent researchers have won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor bestowed by the United States.Physicist Mildred Dresselhaus and economist Robert Solow are among 19 winners announced today by President Barack Obama. The list also includes the late dancer Alvin Ailey, news anchor Tom Brokaw, actress Meryl Streep, and musician Stevie Wonder.Dresselhaus “is one of the most prominent physicists, materials scientists, and electrical engineers of her generation,” according to a White House statement. “A professor of physics and electrical engineering at [the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)], she is best known for deepening our understanding of condensed matter systems and the atomic properties of carbon, which has contributed to major advances in electronics and materials research.” Dresselhaus, who also held senior administrative positions at the Department of Energy, recently chatted with Science for its Working Life column. Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)center_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Solow “is one of the most widely respected economists of the past sixty years,” according to the White House statement. “His research in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s transformed the field, laying the groundwork for much of modern economics.  He continues to influence policy makers, demonstrating how smart investments, especially in new technology, can build broad-based prosperity, and he continues to actively participate in contemporary debates about inequality and economic growth.  He is a Nobel laureate, winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1987.” Solow is a professor emeritus at MIT.The awards will be presented at the White House on 24 November.last_img read more

READ MORE

first_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe The massive biomedical innovation bill that breezed through the U.S. House of Representatives last summer is moving through the Senate, albeit on much weaker tailwinds. In the first of three scheduled hearings, the Senate’s health committee today approved an initial set of bipartisan proposals aimed at speeding the discovery and development of new medical treatments. Lawmakers hope the bills can be combined into a companion to the House bill, known as 21st Century Cures.This piecemeal approach, which Senate health committee chair Lamar Alexander (R–TN) laid out last month, signaled partisan tensions over certain proposals in 21st Century Cures, notably an $8.75 billion boost for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over 5 years, which in the House proposal would consist of dedicated mandatory funding, not subject to the annual budget appropriations process and budget caps. (The House bill proposes selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to create the needed revenue.)Alexander has been resistant to that approach, together with Republican colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee. Today he indicated that the NIH windfall isn’t off the table, and that he is personally “willing to consider using mandatory funds” to support five priority areas: President Obama’s precision medicine initiative, the recently announced cancer moonshot, the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies initiative, a system of grants for “big ideas” across NIH institutes, and support for young investigators. (Those first three programs are also priorities in President Obama’s 2017 budget request released today.) But he noted that any proposal would need to find that funding by reducing existing mandatory spending elsewhere. And because many Republicans on the committee are resistant to mandatory funding, Alexander said he will reserve the question of how to pay for an NIH increase for the debate on the full Senate floor. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Emailcenter_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Instead, the committee today approved seven less controversial measures, including a bill to create a “Next Generation of Researchers Initiative” within the NIH Office of the Director to promote early-career researchers—also a priority in the House bill—and another to ease regulatory requirements for drugs targeting rare genetic diseases by allowing their sponsors to rely on data from previous submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).Those baby steps are encouraging to some. “There was a lot of holding of breath on the outside—are they actually going to start to put some stuff out?” says Margaret Anderson, executive director of FasterCures, a think tank in Washington, D.C. “Now that that’s happening, I think there’s a sense of momentum … and I get the sense that the committee’s not done putting forward bills.”But some Democratic committee members are unwilling to save for later the issue of mandatory funding for NIH and FDA. “A handful of smaller targeted changes like we’re voting on today won’t get us where we need to be,” Elizabeth Warren (D–MA), told the committee today. She accused Republican lawmakers of diverting the conversation from research funding and trying to loosen FDA’s requirements for drugmakers at the expense of patient safety. “If Republicans are determined to gut [FDA] under the guise of improving it, then get ready for a fight on this,” said Warren, who pledged not to support any more “so-called ‘innovation’ legislation” until the committee reached a bipartisan agreement that includes guaranteed NIH funding.Richard Burr (R–NC) heaped on the pessimism. “There’s not going to be an innovation bill,” he said. “I plan to write one, but I doubt there’s one that can get out of this committee.”Despite the dark clouds, a preliminary agenda for the panel’s 9 March hearing includes discussion about “bipartisan legislation to modernize [FDA] and [NIH],” including ways to support both precision medicine and the cancer moonshot.last_img read more

READ MORE

first_img EVARISTO SA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES Dengue may bring out the worst in Zika Zika’s surface protein—the primary target of antibodies—looks extremely similar to those on dengue and West Nile virus, members of the same flavivirus family. Test tube studies with dengue have already suggested the resemblance can cause problems. Last year, a team led by Gavin Screaton of Imperial College London found that Zika virus is far more likely to infect human cells if researchers first spike them with dengue antibodies. A month later, Davide Corti of Humabs BioMed in Bellinzona, Switzerland, and co-workers confirmed the in vitro finding. But they did not see the effect when they gave monoclonal dengue antibodies to live mice and then infected them with Zika.The Mount Sinai investigators took a second look for ADE in mice. Mice normally resist the Zika virus, so the team used animals engineered with a crippled version of an immune gene that naturally would protect them from Zika. When infected with the virus, these mice become seriously ill, with symptoms ranging from weight loss and listlessness to fever, paralysis, and death. The team found that when they first gave the mice plasma from humans who had developed antibodies against either dengue or West Nile during natural infections, the illness was much worse. Mice primed with dengue antibodies had levels of Zika virus 10 times higher than those in control animals, and a higher risk of death. Antibodies to West Nile, which is more distantly related to Zika, had similar but weaker effects.The findings are “convincing,” Corti says. “This fits nicely with the concept raised by Screaton that Zika virus in this context could be considered as a fifth serotype of dengue.”The mice that received dengue or West Nile antibodies also had higher levels of Zika virus in their testes and spinal cords than control animals did. “It looks like because of ADE, the virus is able to breach into areas that normally are relatively protected,” says virologist Jean Lim, one of the authors of the study. That could increase human cases of sexual transmission of Zika, she and her colleagues suggest. The presence of increased virus in mouse spinal cords might also help explain two central nervous system maladies linked to Zika: microcephaly in babies and Guillain-Barré in adults.Stephen Thomas, an infectious disease specialist at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, doubts that this mouse study reflects what happens in humans. He conducted one of three monkey studies last year—two are on the internet but none has been published—that failed to find ADE in animals infected first with dengue or yellow fever (another flavivirus) and then Zika. The monkey model has its own limitations: Monkeys don’t develop severe disease when infected with different serotypes of dengue virus, which clearly happens in humans. But Thomas also questions the epidemiological arguments for ADE in people. “Zika has been transmitting in places for a long time where there’s been dengue, and we have not seen what we’ve seen in South America,” he says.Still, even the possibility that ADE might worsen Zika in humans implies to Lim and co-authors that scientists should “exert great caution” in developing flavivirus vaccines because they might set people up for enhanced disease if they later become infected by a closely related flavivirus. And it adds to the urgency of further studies of Zika, says Lim, “to see whether this actually happens in humans.” By Jon CohenMar. 30, 2017 , 2:00 PM Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)center_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Brazilian soldiers last year led a battle against Zika in a door-to-door campaign about how to control mosquitoes that carry the disease. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Close relatives have complicated relationships with each other even in the viral world. A new mouse study shows that if the animals have antibodies from dengue or West Nile virus, it sets them up for more severe disease from their close cousin, Zika virus.If such “antibody-dependent enhancement” (ADE) also takes place in people, it could have helped fuel Zika’s recent explosion in Brazil, where more than 90% of people in some communities have been infected with dengue. ADE could also complicate the development of vaccines for West Nile, dengue, and Zika. And with the onset of spring reigniting local transmission of Zika last week in the continental United States—where West Nile is widespread—ADE could give epidemiologists a new window into transmission and disease patterns.Findings in mice, of course, often only apply to mice, as the researchers, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, acknowledge. But they note in their paper, published online this week in Science, that ADE is already known to worsen some dengue infections in people. Four distinct human serotypes of dengue sicken humans, and an initial infection with one typically causes only mild disease. Yet serious trouble can occur when a person is subsequently infected with a different serotype. In that case, antibodies from the first infection can attach to the virus in one place and to cells in another. Instead of blocking infection, the matching antibodies actually promote it—leading to higher viral levels and a life-threatening hemorrhagic disease.last_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgKenya’s Dennis Kimetto running in the 2013 Tokyo Marathon. *Update, 8 May, 12:21 p.m.: On Saturday, Kenyan runner Eliud Kipchoge came closer to breaking the 2-hour marathon barrier than any person in history, racing 42.2 kilometers in just 2 hours and 24 seconds. The feat—more than 2 minutes faster than fellow Kenyan Dennis Kimetto’s record-setting run at the 2014 Berlin Marathon—capped years of work by scientists in Nike’s Breaking2 project, an effort to engineer runners and racetracks to blow through the elusive barrier. Still up for debate is whether Kipchoge’s performance will be recognized by the body that ratifies marathon times, the International Association of Athletics Federations. While they deliberate, find out what researchers are doing to engineer the perfect runner, as detailed in this story below, originally published online 3 March.The 4-minute mile, Tony Hawk’s 900, Babe Ruth’s home run record: The statistical calculus of sport contains barriers that once seemed to be iron but proved to be glass. Will the same hold true of the 2-hour marathon? Scientists and engineers in a group called Sub2 have been pushing toward the goal for years now, and in the past few months, major players like Nike and Adidas have announced projects aimed at bringing down the barrier. But running 42 kilometers in 120 minutes remains elusive.So what will it take to push athletes over the hump? Science interviewed marathon experts to learn what makes this challenge so difficult, and whether we’re truly nearing a watershed moment for the sport.How much faster do we need to get?Kenya’s Dennis Kimetto holds the world record for the marathon at 2:02:57. Two other runners, Kenenisa Bekele and Eliud Kipchoge, have recorded times below 2:03:10. Shaving 3 minutes off those times amounts to roughly a 2.5% performance improvement. Although that might not seems astronomical to the casual runner, Ross Tucker, a sports scientist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, points out that professional marathon runners are far from casual. “That magnitude (2.5%) of improvement in performance at the elite level is absolutely enormous.” Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Email By David ShultzMay. 8, 2017 , 12:15 PM To get faster, the runner must either become more powerful or more efficient, or the course must become easier.How do we make the runner more powerful?The main measurement of a runner’s power is VO2 max: the maximum volume of oxygen per unit of body weight that the athlete can use in a minute. Elite marathon runners tend to use about 80% of maximum during a race. Average people can increase their VO2 max by training at high intensity over sustained time periods, but the ceiling for VO2 max is determined primarily by genetics, and there isn’t much that can be done to raise it without turning to performance enhancing drugs.Blood doping, especially with erythropoietin, can increase VO2 max by artificially inflating hemoglobin levels, but the practice is illegal in marathon running, and all the groups claim they’re commited to cleaning up the sport of running. That means runners will probably have to become more efficient instead of more powerful. Aflo Co. Ltd./Alamy Stock Photo What will it take to break the 2-hour marathon? How do we make the runner more efficient?Running is filled with inefficiency. Only about 45% of the power generated by our legs actually pushes us forward; the rest is dissipated as the foot strikes the ground. One way to improve a runner’s efficiency is to return more of that energy to the legs with every stride, perhaps with some sort of spring-loaded footwear. “Nike has applied for a patent recently for springs in shoes,” says Tucker, “and I think that’s what they’re gonna do.”At the Dubai Marathon in the United Arab Emirates at the end of January, Bekele ran with a new prototype Nike shoe that insiders, including Tucker, thought may have contained just such a new spring technology based on its thicker midsole. But Bekele fell early in the race and did not finish.Last Friday, Adidas introduced a new shoe—the Adizero Sub2—that doesn’t rely on springs but uses a special kind of foam the company claims is 1% more efficient than other footwear. This “Boost” technology has been around for a few years now, but the new Sub2 shoe is 150 grams lighter, which Adidas thinks could be worth another 1%. Kenya’s Wilson Kipsang snagged first place at the Tokyo Marathon last weekend (yet still fell nearly 4 minutes short of the 2-hour barrier) in the new Adidas shoes and set the record for the fastest marathon ever run on Japanese soil.Still, Peter Weyand, a biomechanist at Sub2, doesn’t think springy shoes are going to be the answer for breaking the barrier. “I would say that there’s a long, long history of trying to put springs in shoes that has had either a minimal benefit or none at all,” he says. “That’s not an easy trick.”The Sub2 project is focusing on improving physiological performance rather than footwear, says Yannis Pitsiladis, the founder of the Sub2 group and a researcher at the University of Brighton in the United Kingdom. He thinks the marathon performance is far from optimized, noting that many elite East African runners do not make use of new technologies like fitness trackers or perfectly optimized training and diet schedules. He points to hydration as an area neglected in the sport until now, but like spokespeople for other projects, he’s cagey about the specifics. Ultimately, he says that it won’t be one major advance, but many small ones across multiple areas of science that bring the 2-hour barrier down.How can we make the course easier?An all-downhill course in ideal weather—preferably a stiff tailwind—might do it. Running below sea level could also help, because oxygen concentration increases as altitude decreases, making breathing more efficient. Pacers could run part of the course at a sub–2-hour pace, allowing the racer to cut air resistance by running in their wake. “That might be worth 1% or 2%,” Tucker says.The downside of such measures is that the International Association of Athletics Federations might not certify a record-setting run. In their pledge to break the 2-hour barrier sometime this year, Nike admitted that their time would not be record eligible. Tucker and the Sub2 group suspect that the company plans to manipulate the course and conditions in their favor. Nike did not respond to a request for comment.Is this a realistic goal for the near future?Performance jumps of about 2% are not unprecedented in modern sports. Usain Bolt has brought the record for the men’s 100-meter sprint down from 9.74 seconds to 9.58 (1.7%), for instance. But Tucker points out that there has already been a 2% increase in marathon performance over 15 years. “We’ve already seen 2 minutes taken off it, and now we want to see another 2.5 minutes or 3 minutes taken off?” Tucker says. “We want to do a double Usain Bolt on the marathon record?”Still, Pitsiladis is optimistic. If all goes well and his team can secure enough funding, he thinks that it can break the 2-hour barrier by 2020 without relying on spring shoes or other gimmicks. “Whatever we do, we will be guided very much by what will be a record that will be ratified,” he says. “I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be done.”last_img read more

READ MORE

first_img Modern concrete—used in everything from roads to buildings to bridges—can break down in as few as 50 years. But more than a thousand years after the western Roman Empire crumbled to dust, its concrete structures are still standing. Now, scientists have finally figured out why: a special ingredient that makes the cement grow stronger—not weaker—over time. Scientists began their search with an ancient recipe for mortar, laid down by Roman engineer Marcus Vitruvius in 30 B.C.E. It called for a concoction of volcanic ash, lime, and seawater, mixed together with volcanic rocks and spread into wooden molds that were then immersed in more sea water. History contains many references to the durability of Roman concrete, including this cryptic note written in 79 B.C.E., describing concrete exposed to seawater as: “a single stone mass, impregnable to the waves and everyday stronger.” What did it mean? To find out, the researchers studied drilled cores of a Roman harbor from Pozzuoli Bay near Naples, Italy. When they analyzed it, they found that the seawater had dissolved components of the volcanic ash, allowing new binding minerals to grow. Within a decade, a very rare hydrothermal mineral called aluminum tobermorite (Al-tobermorite) had formed in the concrete. Al-tobermorite, long known to give Roman concrete its strength, can be made in the lab, but it’s very difficult to incorporate it in concrete. But the researchers found that when seawater percolates through a cement matrix, it reacts with volcanic ash and crystals to form Al-tobermorite and a porous mineral called phillipsite, they write today in American Mineralogist. So will you be seeing stronger piers and breakwaters anytime soon? Because both minerals take centuries to strengthen concrete, modern scientists are still working on recreating a modern version of Roman cement.*Update, 5 July, 12:30 p.m.: A previous version of this story said the Roman Empire fell “thousands of years ago.” It has been updated to say “the western Roman Empire” fell “more than a thousand years ago.” Why modern mortar crumbles, but Roman concrete lasts millennia By Zahra AhmadJul. 3, 2017 , 1:00 PMlast_img read more

READ MORE

first_img ULI DECK/PICTURE-ALLIANCE/DPA/AP IMAGES Bruno Latour, a veteran of the ‘science wars,’ has a new mission Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Email There was some juvenile enthusiasm in my style. “There was some juvenile enthusiasm in my style,” Latour says.  Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Q: How did you get involved in this second science war?A: It happened in 2009 at a cocktail party. A famous climate scientist came up to me and said: “Can you help us? We are being attacked unfairly.” Claude Allègre, a French scientist and former minister of education, was running a very efficient ideological campaign against climate science.It symbolized a turnaround. People who had never really understood what we as science studies scholars were doing suddenly realized they needed us. They were not equipped, intellectually, politically, and philosophically, to resist the attack of colleagues accusing them of being nothing more than a lobby.Q: How do you explain the rise of antiscientific thinking and “alternative facts”?A: To have common facts, you need a common reality. This needs to be instituted in church, classes, decent journalism, peer review. … It is not about posttruth, it is about the fact that large groups of people are living in a different world with different realities, where the climate is not changing.The second science war has at least freed us of the idea that science and technology can be separated from policy. I have always argued that they can’t be. Science has never been immune to political bias. On issues with huge policy implications, you cannot produce unbiased data. That does not mean you cannot produce good science, but scientists should explicitly state their interests, their values, and what sort of proof will make them change their mind.Q: How should scientists wage this new war?A: We will have to regain some of the authority of science. That is the complete opposite from where we started doing science studies. Now, scientists have to win back respect. But the solution is the same: You need to present science as science in action. I agree that’s risky, because we make the uncertainties and controversies explicit.The Australian public ethics professor Clive Hamilton has proposed another line of defense named “strategic essentialism”—stating that the science is indisputable for strategic reasons. This sounds reasonable, but in the long run we need a more realistic image of scientific knowledge. Also, given the state of the dispute and the current lack of confidence, we can’t just go back and state that climate change is “just a fact.”Q: Isn’t it?A: No, science is more complex and messy than to understand how the climate works. It is an illusion of certainty to state that we fully understand it, a remnant of the ideal of science.Q: But climate change doubters use the uncertainty strategically, too.A: That is true. But the uncertainty is no legitimate reason to block or postpone policy. And certainly, it is no reason to defund the research. That is the real crime: defunding research which might produce unwelcome results. By the way, calling it “skepticism” is an abuse of the term.Q: What are your postretirement plans?A: I have fewer things to take care of, but I will continue my work. I am again working on something like Laboratory Life—a combination of lab and field work in an area called the “critical zone,” the study of Earth’s outer skin. I will be observing geochemists, biochemists, and geopoliticians, and will talk to many different researchers, using a Lovelockian approach, assuming that Earth functions as a self-regulating system. And yes—I think that describing this work in detail will contribute to the rebuilding of trust in science. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) The heated debate that followed, known as the “science wars,” lasted for many years. In later writings, Latour acknowledged that the criticism of science had created a basis for antiscientific thinking and had paved the way in particular for the denial of climate change, now his main topic. Today, he hopes to help rebuild confidence in science.ScienceInsider spoke with Latour in his apartment here in the French capital. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.Q: How do you look back at the “science wars”?A: Nothing that happened during the ’90s deserves the name “war.” It was a dispute, caused by social scientists studying how science is done and being critical of this process. Our analyses triggered a reaction of people with an idealistic and unsustainable view of science who thought they were under attack. Some of the critique was indeed ridiculous, and I was associated with that postmodern relativist stuff, I was put into that crowd by others. I certainly was not antiscience, although I must admit it felt good to put scientists down a little. There was some juvenile enthusiasm in my style.We’re in a totally different situation now. We are indeed at war. This war is run by a mix of big corporations and some scientists who deny climate change. They have a strong interest in the issue and a large influence on the population. Bruno Latour PARIS—French sociologist of science Bruno Latour, 70, has long been a thorn in the side of science. But in the age of “alternative facts,” he’s coming to its defense.Latour, who retired last month from his official duties at Sciences Po, a university for the social sciences here, shot to fame with the 1979 book Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, written with U.K. sociologist Steve Woolgar. To research it, Latour spent 2 years at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California, acting as an anthropologist observing scientists at work. In 1987, Latour elaborated on his thinking in the textbook Science in Action.Central to Latour’s work is the notion that facts are constructed by communities of scientists, and that there is no distinction between the social and technical elements of science. Latour received praise for his approach and insights, but his relativist and “social-constructivist” views triggered a backlash as well. In their 1994 book Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science, biologist Paul Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt accused Latour and other sociologists of discrediting their profession and jeopardizing trust in science. By Jop de VriezeOct. 10, 2017 , 4:55 PMlast_img read more

READ MORE

first_img JAPAN—The first thing that went through Alison Avenell’s head when she heard Yoshihiro Sato had died was that it might be a trick. It was March 2017, and in the previous years, Avenell, a clinical nutritionist at the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom, had spent thousands of hours combing through Sato’s papers, together with three colleagues in New Zealand. They had discovered that Sato, a bone researcher at a hospital in southern Japan, had fabricated data for dozens of clinical trials published in international journals. “With so much going on, so much fabrication, you just wonder if it’s convenient for the person to go and hide,” Avenell says.Her second thought was that Sato might have killed himself. “We have no indication that he committed suicide, but it concerns us,” Avenell said when I met her at her office in late 2017. Three years earlier, Japanese stem cell scientist Yoshiki Sasai had hanged himself in the stairwell of the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe after he was caught up in a stem cell scandal. “We were aware of the culture in Japan and the dishonor something like this could bring,” Avenell said.It was one more mystery in a deeply unsettling case. patients was cited as evidence behind 2008 U.S. College of Physicians treatment guidelines. Given the number of papers he published, he must have spent a very large amount of time on them. I don’t understand what his gain was. … There must have been some reason to do it. A 2006 paper on hip 10 Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe (GRAPHIC) J. YOU/SCIENCE; (DATA) F. STEWART, A. AVENELL, A. GREY, G. GAMBLE, AND M. BOLLAND; WEB OF SCIENCE 1980 Changed the outcome 2002 1998 2006 2010 2014 2018 Number of citations by year Included in systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or treatment guidelines Did not change the outcome Satoh—whose name, confusingly, is sometimes spelled Sato—did not respond to Science’s emails. In a short letter to Grey, Hirosaki University Vice President Chizuko Kohri wrote last November that the university had asked “three outside experts” to investigate after the Neurology paper was published. The committee investigated 38 papers, Kohri wrote. Of these, Sato had already retracted seven and wanted to retract another seven. The committee “concluded that there was research misconduct in these 14 papers,” Kohri wrote, but that Sato alone was responsible. According to Japanese press reports, Satoh maintains that he only corrected the English in the papers. As a sign of contrition, he gave up 10% of his salary for 3 months.Sato’s most important collaborator, however, was Jun Iwamoto. A board member of the Osteoporosis Society of Japan, Iwamoto was a senior lecturer at Keio University in Tokyo—one of the country’s most prestigious—until 2017, when his contract wasn’t renewed in the wake of the Sato affair. He and Sato collaborated for more than a decade and published more than 130 papers together, including 25 of the 33 clinical trials.A panel at Keio University has been investigating Iwamoto’s clinical trials. Iwamoto told the panel that he first contacted Sato in 1998, when Iwamoto was working at the New York University Winthrop Hospital in Mineola. In 2002 they started to put each other’s name on every paper they authored. Still, Iwamoto claims he was unaware of Sato’s practice. “We talked to Dr. Iwamoto and in most of the papers which Dr. Sato published, which included Dr. Iwamoto’s name, Dr. Iwamoto did not know that his name was included,” says cancer researcher Hideyuki Saya, who heads the investigation. The panel was “very shocked” by this, Saya says. At the same time, he says, “For Dr. Iwamoto it was an honor to put his name on Dr. Sato’s [papers] even though he did not know much about the content.”Although considered highly irregular today, such “gift authorships” were common in the recent past, Saya argues. A 2014 study in the International Journal of Japanese Sociology found they are particularly common in Japan. “We speculate that most natural science researchers in Japan may be either confused about or struggle with the situation where the strict global criteria conflict with specific local cultures that often condone gift and ghost authorships,” the researchers wrote.Saya says the seven trials listing Iwamoto as the first author appear not to be fabricated. Data for the first four of those no longer exist, but Iwamoto can’t be faulted for that, says Saya, because under rules at the time they were conducted, he had to save the data for only 5 years. Iwamoto did provide data for three more recent trials. “That data, it seems, was really collected,” Saya says.But Avenell and her colleagues say they have uncovered many problems in trials on which Iwamoto was a first author as well. For instance, two of them, which tested a drug named alendronate, seem to include the same group of 25 patients, as indicated by their average age, height, serum calcium, and numerous other characteristics, but the two papers give different recruitment dates and inclusion criteria, and some of the outcome data differ. Saya chalks problems in the papers up to “immaturity.” “We do not think there is fabrication,” he says.Iwamoto now works at another hospital, Saya says. “He has a very nice reputation.” When I mention that I would like to talk to him, he suggests I should not. “He is very exhausted,” he says. “Better not to contact him at this moment.” Otherwise “the same thing” might happen that happened with Sato.”What happened with Sato?” I ask. “People say he committed suicide over this,” Saya says. But he doesn’t know whether that’s true.V: EnigmaSato’s fraudulent work has propelled him to No. 6 on Retraction Watch’s list of researchers who have racked up the most retractions. At the top is Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, with 183 retractions; his frequent co-author Yuhji Saitoh, also from Japan, is at 10th place, while Japanese endocrinologist Shigeaki Kato is No. 8. Iwamoto is at No. 9. That means half of the top 10 are Japanese researchers. Yet only about 5% of published research comes from Japan. What explains the number of prolific Japanese fraudsters?Michiie Sakamoto, who is leading another investigation at Keio University, into Iwamoto’s studies in animals, says it has to do with respect. “In Japan, we don’t usually doubt a professor,” he says. “We basically believe people. We think we don’t need strict rules to watch them carefully.” As a result, researchers faking their results may be exposed only after they have racked up many publications.Outside researchers may also be less likely to question anomalous results from Japan. Several early critics of Sato’s work say they thought at first that his unusual results might be due to something uniquely Japanese. One case in point: In 2003, Sato published a study on data from 40 patients with a very rare affliction named neuroleptic malignant syndrome, collected over 3 years. In a letter to the journal, a U.K. neurologist said he and his colleagues “could only recall two such cases in living memory”—but instead of casting doubt on the study, they said it was interesting that the syndrome seemed so prevalent in Japan. 1990 Journals don’t really like going back to investigate when things go wrong. …They complain that it’s time-consuming and laborious and difficult. fractures in Parkinson’s Trial published Number of patients 628 84 Retracted Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Other scientists cited a 2005 paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association to help justify five new trials. 32 Sato’s fraud was one of the biggest in scientific history. The impact of his fabricated reports—many of them on how to reduce the risk of bone fractures—rippled far and wide. Meta-analyses that included his trials came to the wrong conclusion; professional societies based medical guidelines on his papers. To follow up on studies they did not know were faked, researchers carried out new trials that enrolled thousands of real patients. Exposing Sato’s lies and correcting the literature had been a bruising struggle for Avenell and her colleagues.Yet they could not understand why Sato faked so many studies, or how he got away with it for so long. They puzzled over the role of his co-authors, some of whom had their names on dozens of his papers. (“Do we honestly believe they knew nothing at all about what was going on?” Avenell asked.) They wondered whether other doctors at his hospital read Sato’s work—and whether the Japanese scientific community ever questioned how he managed to publish more than 200 papers, many of them ambitious studies that would have taken most researchers years to complete.The tools of science that the group had used—analyzing studies, calculating statistics, writing papers—could reveal fraud. But they could not expose the personal and cultural factors that drove it, or assess its emotional toll. So I set off on a quest that would eventually lead me to the Mitate Hospital in Tagawa, a small town on the island of Kyushu, where Sato had worked in the last 13 years of his life.I: SuspicionAvenell’s own quest began in 2006, when she was combing through dozens of papers for a review evaluating whether vitamin D reduces the risk of bone fractures. In two papers by Sato, she stumbled on a weird coincidence. They described different trials—one in stroke victims, the other in Parkinson’s disease patients—but the control and study groups in both studies had the exact same mean body mass index. Looking further, she quickly found several other anomalies. She decided not to include Sato’s studies in her analysis.She wasn’t the first to notice something was off. In a 2005 Neurology paper, Sato claimed that a drug named risedronate reduces the risk of hip fractures in women who have had a stroke by a stunning 86%. In a polite letter to the journal, three researchers from the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom noted that the study was “potentially of great importance,” but marveled that the authors had managed to recruit 374 patients in just 4 months. SARA GIRONI CARNEVALE Not retracted Unclear whether outcome changed Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country 20 Retracted 20 0 2000 Michiie Sakamoto, Keio University 10 Total scientific output Clinical trials 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 Number of patients 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Mark Bolland, University of Auckland Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him 0 10 20 30 20 Number of papers By Kai KupferschmidtAug. 17, 2018 , 9:15 AM Bolland extracted the baseline characteristics from the 33 clinical trials Sato had published at the time, more than 500 variables all in all, and calculated their p-values. More than half were above 0.8, he found. “That just shouldn’t happen,” he says. “The randomized groups were incredibly similar.” There was just one plausible explanation, he says: Sato had fabricated data for both groups and had made them more similar than they would ever be in real life.The team felt it had a damning indictment. “I thought: ‘This is so convincing. Everybody is going to believe this,’” Avenell says. Still, “It needed detailed statistical refereeing, and it needed to be published by a journal so that other affected journals would take note,” she adds. So they wrote their accusation as a scientific paper. All they had to do was publish it and wait for researchers, journals, and institutions to react, investigate, and retract. Or so they thought.III: AccusationIn March 2013, the team submitted the manuscript to The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the highest profile journal Sato had published in, and one it felt might have the resources for an in-depth investigation. After reviewing the evidence, JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner told the team the editors would ask Sato and, if necessary, his institution to respond.Two years later, in April 2015, JAMA told the researchers the hospital had not responded, and it would publish an “expression of concern”—a short note to flag Sato’s JAMA paper as suspicious. It would not publish the whistleblowers’ paper, however; if the team had concerns about other papers, it should contact the journals that had published them, Bauchner said.The four researchers were shocked. “To find out after waiting 2 years that in fact nothing much had really happened and, other than an expression of concern, was going to happen in JAMA, was quite frustrating,” Bolland says. (Bauchner declined to answer Science’s questions about the case.)Next, the paper was rejected by JAMA Internal Medicine, which had also published Sato’s work. The Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, a highly rated journal in the osteoporosis field, said it would investigate Sato’s papers, but would not publish the manuscript either. The editors of Trials, which had not published Sato’s work, said it would not be appropriate to get involved.Bolland became demoralized. The other three persuaded him not to give up. “If you ever embark on something like this, make sure you have a good support team,” he says now. Avenell, too, was sometimes despondent. Whereas the other three researchers at least saw each other in Auckland, she was on her own, frustrated, in the dreary, gray town of Aberdeen. Sometimes, she says, she would just sit in a corner of her open floor plan office and cry. In Japan, we don’t usually doubt a professor. We basically believe people. We think we don’t need strict rules to watch them carefully. A far-reaching fraud A team of four researchers has worked since 2012 to expose scientific misconduct by Japanese bone researcher Yoshihiro Sato, who published more than 200 papers before he died in 2016. The team has focused on Sato’s 33 clinical trials, together involving 5894 patients. Ripple effects The 12 trials Sato published in high-impact journals have been widely cited. Many were included in meta- analyses, sometimes changing the outcomes, or were translated into treatment guidelines. Other researchers used Sato’s fake data as part of the rationale for launching new clinical studies. 10 Used as (partial) rationale for a new trial Then, in June 2015, came a small success: The Journal of Bone and Mineral Research retracted one of the 33 trials the team had analyzed. A few other journals followed suit in the months after. But some seemed irritated by the group’s persistence. “It is apparent that the responses to the JAMA investigation by Dr. Sato and his institution have been either inadequate or not forthcoming,” Grey wrote to Bauchner in December 2015. “At what point will JAMA consider more decisive action, such as retraction?” “We will consider your opinion about how you think it best we should conduct the investigation,” Bauchner responded. “We often hear from people how they think we should perform our responsibilities as editors.”In what Bolland calls “really just the last throw of the dice,” that same month the group submitted the paper to Neurology, where Sato had published three papers about bone fractures in patients with neurological disease. When it was accepted 8 months later, Avenell cried again. “I’m not one usually given to showing such emotion, especially when all I have is a computer screen and emails to look at,” she says.”Journals don’t really like going back to investigate when things go wrong,” Grey concludes. “They complain that it’s time-consuming and laborious and difficult.” (It is all of that, says Avenell, “and no one ever thanks you for it.”) The group says investigations of this scale should not be handled by journals or institutions; it has suggested a levy on journals to fund an independent investigative body.By the time Neurology published the investigation in December 2016, 10 of the 33 trials had been retracted, all but one by journals the team had contacted. Three months later, Avenell received an email from an editor with troubling news. Sato was dead.IV: RipplesWhen scientists die, their published papers live on—even if they’re based on lies. Downloaded in seconds from anywhere in the world, fake results continue to steal other scientists’ time, influencing their choice of which research avenues to follow and which trials to design and seek ethical approval for.Today, 21 of Sato’s 33 trials have been retracted by the journals or Sato himself; Avenell has crossed them off a list taped next to her computer with a red marker. But now the team is following the ripples that the studies caused, focusing, for the time being, on a dozen papers published in the journals with the highest impact factors. Together, these studies reported results for 3182 participants. They have been referenced more than 1000 times, and 23 systematic reviews or meta-analyses have included one or more of the 12 trials.One meta-analysis, which found drugs called bisphosphonates to be highly effective in preventing hip fractures in elderly patients with stroke or Parkinson’s, is based entirely on eight trials from Sato, as he was the only one to study the issue. A key conclusion in another meta-analysis rests only on Sato’s four studies on bone mineral density in Alzheimer’s patients. Two other meta-analyses would probably come to different conclusions if Sato’s trials were removed, Avenell says. One of those, a review showing that vitamin K helps prevent fractures, was the basis of 2011 Japanese guidelines that recommend the supplement for people at risk.The fake trials led to further, real research. Eight trials referenced at least one of Sato’s fabricated papers in explaining the rationale for the trial. Researchers in the Netherlands, for instance, launched a huge study in 2008 to determine whether B vitamins could help prevent hip fractures. Two previous studies found they didn’t, but Sato had observed “a large protective effect” in elderly women. “Given the conflicting results and low generalizability to the general older population, further investigation is needed,” the Dutch researchers wrote to explain their thinking. The 2-year study in 2919 elderly people found no effect of the vitamins.The fraud has also drawn attention to the two co-authors whose names appear on Sato’s papers most often. One is Kei Satoh, president of Hirosaki University, in a small town at the northern tip of Japan’s main island, Honshu. Sato worked at Hirosaki University, where he collaborated with Satoh, until 2003; even after he left for Mitate Hospital, 1600 kilometers to the southwest, he and Satoh remained frequent co-authors, including on 13 of the 33 clinical trials. Andrew Grey, University of Auckland 0 Two years later, a letter in what was then the Archives of Internal Medicine was less polite. A study of male stroke patients published by Sato had managed to enroll 280 patients in just 2 months; another one, of women with Alzheimer’s disease, recruited a staggering 500 in an equally short period. Sato claimed to have diagnosed all of the Alzheimer’s patients himself and done follow-up assessments of all 780 patients every 4 weeks for 18 months. Both studies had very few dropouts, and both showed risedronate, again, to be a resounding success. “We are deeply concerned whether the data provided by Sato et al are valid,” Jutta Halbekath of Arznei-Telegramm, a Berlin-based bulletin about the drug industry, and her co-authors wrote. Sato apologized in a published response and claimed the study had been conducted at three hospitals, not one. “The authors did not describe this fact, the reason being that these hospitals were reluctant to have their names in the article,” he wrote. He didn’t name the other hospitals or explain why they wanted to remain anonymous. The journal apparently accepted the explanation.The letter’s authors also spotted a troubling pattern. In addition to the two papers in the Archives of Internal Medicine, they found 11 further studies by Sato, published elsewhere, that tested whether sunlight, vitamin D, vitamin K, folate, and other drugs could reduce the risk of hip fractures. All but two reported “extremely large effects with significant results,” they noted. But the Archives of Internal Medicine didn’t want to point fingers at other journals. “You may allude to your concern that other papers have similar concerns,” its editors warned Halbekath, “but we cannot allow you to mention those other papers by journal name.”By now, several researchers had raised red flags and waved them for everyone to see—and then everybody moved on. “The trail just went cold,” Avenell says.II: EvidenceMark Bolland had never heard of Sato when Avenell first mentioned him in late 2012. She and Bolland, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, have never met in person, but they joined forces to write meta-analyses on calcium supplements in 2008, together with Andrew Grey and Greg Gamble, both also at the University of Auckland. One topic the quartet discussed frequently was why meta-analyses on the same topic sometimes reach different conclusions. Avenell mentioned Sato’s studies and noted that the effects they reported were so strong that they might swing meta-analyses if they were included.Intrigued, Bolland looked up the papers. He, too, was stunned by the large cohorts, the low number of dropouts, and the big effects of almost any treatment tested. “There is nothing that I can think of that produces a 70% to 80% reduction in hip fractures, yet Sato was able to do it consistently in all his trials,” he says.To follow up on his suspicions, Bolland turned to statistics. When scientists compare a treatment and a control group, they usually report “baseline characteristics” for each—things like age, weight, and sex, or, in osteoporosis studies, bone density and calcium intake. From these values, scientists can calculate p-values that are a measure of the similarity of two groups for a given characteristic; the closer to one the value is, the more the groups resemble each other. Because the groups are randomly selected, the p-values should normally be “equally distributed”; the value for age or weight is just as likely to be between 0 and 0.1 as between 0.9 and 1.0, for example. But none of that explains why Sato decided to embark on his fraud—and nobody seems to be able to shed much light on that question. “Given the number of papers he published, he must have spent a very large amount of time on them,” Bolland says. “I don’t understand what his gain was. … There must have been some reason to do it.” The Keio University panel is just as puzzled. “We discussed this a lot in the committee,” Saya says. It might have been like a hobby, he suggests. A thrill. Saya uses the word “otaku,” a Japanese term often applied to people who read manga obsessively.I thought I might find more clarity at the place where Sato perpetrated the fraud.Mitate Hospital is not known for its scientific excellence. Except for one 2006 paper on schizophrenia, its entire research output over the past 20 years was produced by Sato.The hospital is a sprawling complex of beige buildings set against green hills. I walk up to the reception. It’s quiet, no patients in sight. The receptionist does not understand me and asks me to write down what I want to say. “I am a journalist,” I write. “I would like to talk to the director about Yoshihiro Sato.”Her eyes widen as she reads the name and she calls a nurse who speaks English. The nurse calls the director. “He does not want to talk to you,” she says after she hangs up. We stand awkwardly next to each at the reception desk, both embarrassed. It is clear that everybody wants me to leave.As I walk back to the bus stop I look back at the hospital. It is an unlikely place for an unlikely story. What did people here think about the research superstar in their midst? What do they remember about the man?The effects of Sato’s fraud are still rippling out: citations, retractions, investigations. But the place at the epicenter of the disaster reveals nothing. Mitate Hospital squats silently in the midday sun.VI: EpilogueHours before I leave Japan, I meet Iwamoto’s lawyer, Satoshi Ogawa. We sit in the lobby of my Tokyo hotel, our words echoing from the bare walls and the marble floor. Ogawa says Iwamoto agreed to our conversation because he wants me to understand his point of view. “From his perspective, he is a victim.” Avenell’s team, says Ogawa, is now giving Iwamoto’s papers a level of scrutiny that is unfair and is causing his client a great deal of distress.Ogawa says Sato wrote a detailed account of his interactions with Iwamoto a year before he died. He shows me an English version of the document, signed by Sato and witnessed by Ogawa and a notary. “I strongly requested Mr. Iwamoto to include my name as an author on the articles for which Mr. Iwamoto was the lead author,” Sato wrote. “I also started including Mr. Iwamoto’s name in the articles for which I myself was the lead author.”The letter does not mention fraud, however. “I couldn’t force him to confess,” Ogawa says. “I think he had a mental illness.” His emails were not logical, he says. “To tell the truth, I predicted that he would commit suicide.”Suicide. Is he sure that’s what happened?”I received the information from the lawyer of Mr. Sato,” Ogawa says. Sato also left a note, he says, and he paraphrases it: “I am very sorry for Mr. Iwamoto. I decided to commit suicide.”When I call Avenell after my return from Japan and tell her what I have learned, there is stunned silence at first. “That’s what we were dreading,” she says. “That’s horrible, really horrible.” Exposing the misconduct was important, she says. “Could we have done it without Sato committing suicide? So that he felt less guilty? I just don’t know.”Later she follows up with an email, still astonished at “how such a small piece of data analysis a long time ago can end up with someone dying.” As a clinician and a researcher, Avenell wrote, she knows her work can eventually make the difference between life and death. “But seldom is the connection between a clinician and another human being’s death so obvious.”*Correction, 22 August, 2 p.m.: This story has been updated to correct the time between when Avenell received news of Sato’s death and the publication of a paper in Neurology. 2010 0 2015last_img read more

READ MORE

first_img Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) By Frankie SchembriSep. 6, 2018 , 5:25 PM Researchers surveyed 2042 players before and after the game and found that participants’ knowledge of climate change causes and impacts increased, as did their sense of urgency in fighting it; some 81% said that their desire to learn and do more about climate change had increased, the team reported last week in PLOS ONE. The trend was consistent across the 39 games held in North and South America, Europe, and Africa.The results also suggest the game can reach people who aren’t usually advocates for climate action, say scientists, such as Americans who vocally oppose government regulation of free markets. The researchers say this demonstrates the simulation’s potential to motivate people to stand up for the climate regardless of factors like nationality, age, education, and even political leanings.But could it be enough to stop the planet from warming by at least 2°C before century’s end? More players are needed, say scientists, and enthusiasm for the game needs to move into the real world. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe When petulant children refuse to do their homework, enterprising parents have a solution: Turn it into a game. Now, scientists are taking a page from the books of creative parents to tackle an even more difficult challenge—climate change.With average global temperatures predicted to rise at least 2°C globally by 2100, one team of scientists wanted to figure out what would be the most effective way to spur the public into action. Until now, most large-scale efforts have been directed at public information campaigns, based on the theory that clear, frequent warnings about the dangers of climate change—and its causes—might spur people to action. But scientists thought approaches enabling people to learn through experience and experimentation might do a better job.So, they asked thousands of people around the globe to participate in a role-playing game called World Climate, which forces players to save the world from climate change as delegates to a United Nations conference. The ”delegates” get immediate feedback: Their decisions are fed into a climate policy computer model called C-ROADS, which tells them the likely impact of their choices on public health, economic prosperity, and safety from natural disasters. Climate Interactive/Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA) Scientists hope to spark action on climate change—by turning it into a gamelast_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgIt’s all the rage for white folks to fake being Native American. Sen. Elizabeth Warren might the most famous one but two contractors in Missouri have certainly set a record. They reportedly raked in $300 million by lying about their background.See Also: Lifetime Blames R Kelly For Gun Threats That Stopped Premiere Of Docuseries About Women Accusing The SingerThe Los Angeles Times reports Bill Buell, the owner of Premier Demolition Inc., received over $300,000 from the city of St. Louis, Missouri. Buell just said he was Native American even though his “ancestors are identified as white in census and other government records. And his claim to being a Native American rests on his membership in a self-described Cherokee group that is not recognized as a legitimate tribe.” Also On News One: Here is the form Elizabeth Warren filled out for the State Bar of Texas claiming American Indian heritage. pic.twitter.com/VwHifS7BCL— Amy Gardner (@AmyEGardner) February 6, 2019 Warren did apologize, saying, “I can’t go back. But I am sorry for furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted,” she told the Post.Back in October, Warren released a DNA test to try to prove she was part Native American after Trump claimed she was lying about her heritage. The test, which was conducted by a Stanford University professor, showed that Warren has a Native American ancestor going back six to 10 generations, which means she is somewhere between 1/32nd and 1/1,024th American Indian.Native American journalist Simon Moya-Smith blasted Warren, writing on CNN.com, “Warren claims now to have Native American heritage. And her claim to having such heritage — versus a claim of actually being Native — feels sneaky to me. Where has she been on these many issues that plague our communities? Although the results from her DNA test are new, her identity claims here aren’t. Why has she ignored us for so long? Why only now come around? This latest disclosure lets her save face without having responsibilities to the Native community she’s claiming to share heritage with. Furthermore, name me one nation or tribe that claims her. None do.”Well said, Simon Moya-Smith.SEE ALSO:All The Ways Cops Are Still Trying To Cover Up LaQuan McDonald’s ExecutionOutrageous! Figurines Of White Cherub Crushing Head Of Black Angel Removed From Dollar StoreMeet Jogger Joe, The Man Who Took Racist Cue From BBQ Becky In Tossing Homeless Man’s Clothes AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to MoreAddThisMoreShare to EmailEmailEmail A$AP Rocky Being In A Swedish Prison Will Not Stop Her From Going To The Country That Showed Her ‘So Much Love’ However, this is one example of many, the Los Angeles Times investigation found, “Since 2000, the federal government and authorities in 18 states, including California, have awarded more than $300 million under minority contracting programs to companies whose owners made unsubstantiated claims of being Native American.”Basically, the government loves to give money to people who do not “look” like minorities but claim they are. Rocky Miller, a state lawmaker in Missouri and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, the largest of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes, said, “It’s infuriating. They’re enriching themselves based on a nonexistent recognition.”Rebecca Nagle, a community organizer and citizen of the Cherokee Nation, also added, “It’s taking those resources not just from our community, but from all communities of color. It’s really problematic.”As of now, there appears to be no punishment for these companies, they have been stripped of their Native American “status.” Reportedly, the Small Business Administration will conduct a thorough investigation of their records.In case you forgot, The Washington Post obtained Warren’s registration card for the State Bar of Texas back in 1986, which clearly shows she lied by identifying as an “American Indian” — even though she denied every outwardly saying she was Native American. See below:center_img Gov. Cuomo Slams Mayor Bill De Blasio For The Eric Garner Case But He Also Failed The Family More By NewsOne Staff 20 Tweets Dragging Roseanne Barr To A White Privilege Hell Meghan McCain Whines That She Can’t Attack llhan Omar Because Trump Is Too Racist 2020 Presidential Candidates , Elizabeth Warren , Native American last_img read more

READ MORE

first_img Thorny devils grow giant legs to pin rivals PROVIDENCE—True to their name, stick insects are famous for their spindly legs and lithe brown or green bodies that let them blend in with their environments. Males are typically much smaller than females. But tree lobsters—which include New Guinea’s thorny devil (Eurycantha calcarata) and the Lord Howe Island stick insect (Dryococelus australis)—are a glaring exception. Giant, cigar-size males sport thick hind legs tipped with powerful spines. Now, researchers know why these tree lobsters bulk up: to make sure they get their gal.Female tree lobsters can reproduce all on their own, so some researchers have proposed that males evolved their powerful legs to grab and hold unwilling mates. Others assume they use them to fight off predators. Still others wonder whether the legs are the equivalent of an elk’s rack—a weapon for fending off rivals.Researchers studying thorny devils in Papua New Guinea soon found that males and females are at equal risk of being attacked and eaten, meaning male-only bulking would make no sense. Video evidence of sexual encounters revealed females did not resist male advances, putting a nail in the coffin of the “unwilling partner” theory. But the females’ appetite for sex—they quickly mate multiple times with multiple males—suggests the rivalry theory could explain the males’ need to be big and strong, the researchers reported here this week at the joint meeting of the American Society of Naturalists, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Systematic Biologists. Romain Boisseau By Elizabeth PennisiJun. 25, 2019 , 4:30 PM Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Unlike their slimmer cousins, tree lobsters spend their days crowded into tree cavities. Females emerge after dark and hang out on the tree trunk for about an hour before heading out to hunt for food. It’s during this cocktail hour that males have their best chance to mate. So, they come out even earlier and jockey for position, sometimes fighting for the best spot. The bigger males wrap a hindleg around smaller rivals, convincing them to move on, the researchers report. And having that extra bulk really makes a difference: The bullies mate twice as often as their less macho peers.last_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgEveryday fashion took a surprising turn in the 1970s, combining the freedom of the Summer of Love spawned in the 1960s with a more daring sense of individual style and flashing colors. Derived from the “do it yourself” attitude of the hippie counter-culture which opposed corporate clothing brands, the fashion of the 1970s embraced eccentricity and exploded in a palette of psychedelic long-sleeved shirts, bell-bottom jeans, mini-skirts, and platform boots. As a reaction to this surge of new and provocative clothing items, Vogue famously proclaimed ―”There are no rules in the fashion game now”.With the development of different music genres, came the distinct accessories and clothes of various groups ― the glitter and satin of the disco fans, together with the not-always-so-practical platform shoes;  the ragged and provocative punk culture of the late seventies which largely included items made of leather, together with the glam-rock gender-bending androgynous styles of the likes of David Bowie, The New York Dolls and other popular artists of the era.Fashionable coupleGirl at Piccadilly Circus. Photo by JaneArt CC By SA 4.0Man wearing a Disco Sucks T-shirt. Photo by Rich Lionheart CC BY SA 3.0New York, 1970. Photo by Phillip Capper CC By 2.0Taken sometime in 1973Well dressed couple, Michigan Avenue, Chicago, circa July 1975.Windbreakers Parachute and Hockey by Alla Levashova. Photo by Tatyana Konstantinovna Oskolkova CC BY SA 4.0A lot going on in this picture – sideburns should make a come back.1970s fashion. Photo by Phillip Capper CC By 2.01973 Photo by Fortepan CC By Sa 3.0College students 1970s. Photo by Ed Uthman CC BY SA 2.0Famous 70s fashion designer with Twiggy hairstyleFamous 70s fashion designer with Twiggy hairstyleA sunny Easter Sunday 1971 in Central Park, NYC. Photo by Robert Schediwy CC BY-SA 3.0Chinatown 1970s. Photo by Yves le bail CC BY-SA 4.0Chinatown. Photo by Yves le bail CC BY-SA 4.0Photo by Daviderenne2 -CC BY 3.07th August 1972: Wendy Sutcliffe aged 19 years in full biker gear at a Wembley pop festival, London. (Photo by Evening Standard/Getty Images)LOS ANGELES – DECEMBER 28: A woman and two men taking a break from roller skating on December 28, 1979 in Venice Beach, CA. (Photo by Waring Abbott/Getty Images)Photo by Lucile Rhodes CC BY SA 3.0Two girls pose in front of a wall of graffiti in Lynch Park in Brooklyn, N.Y., in June 1974.Apart from introducing a more libertine approach to sexuality, 1970s fashion was all about being tight on top and loose on the bottom, which gave way to the incredible fad of bell-bottom jeans, worn by men and women alike.On the other hand, carefully chosen items and accessories belonging to the bygone era of the 1940s and the 1950s sparked interest among young people due to its vintage value.Materials like denim, suede, and leather came to wide use, while fashion brands across America rushed to conform to the new fashion trends dictated by the youth. Soon stores were overwhelmed with such items, giving space to fresh designs and new people who soon became iconic figures of the industry.Read another story from us: Vintage Fashion – 1950s Teenage Girls with their Doo Wop DressesVivienne Westwood, Halston and Yves Saint-Laurent ― to name a few ― gave way to mass-produced and widely available fashion which flooded the streets during the wild seventies. In the mid-seventies the style became more casual, introducing a wide array of cardigans, sweaters, unisex scarves, sandals and loafers.In order to experience the era more vividly, we offer you a selection of  photos, all illustrating the flamboyance and casual charm of 1970s fashion styles.Nikola Budanovic is a freelance journalist who has worked for various media outlets such as Vice, War History Online,The Vintage News, Taste of Cinema,etc. He mostly deals with subjects such as military history and history in general, literature and film.last_img read more

READ MORE

first_img By Linda Kor HOLBROOK — During the Aug. 14 meeting of the Holbrook City Council, the matter of a contract with Apache Railway was addressed. The city utilizes a timber crossing of the railroad thatSubscribe or log in to read the rest of this content. Bottom Ad August 21, 2018 Railroad crossing concerns councillast_img

READ MORE

first_imgHeadquarters of the Wellcome Trust in London In win for open access, two major funders won’t cover publishing in hybrid journals By Erik StokstadNov. 5, 2018 , 4:00 AM Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Edward/Public Domain Plan S, the open-access (OA) initiative launched by the European Commission and Science Europe in September, has gained two major new members. The Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—two of the world’s largest private foundations that support research—announced today they are joining a consortium of 11 European funding agencies in requiring their funded research to be immediately free for all to read on publication.The two new partners add a lot of funding muscle to the effort to require scientists to publish their papers in journals that make their content free to the public, instead of charging subscriptions. The existing Plan S coalition partners, represented by Science Europe, collectively spend about $8.7 billion on research. Wellcome, based in London, funds about $1.3 billion of biomedical research per year, whereas the Seattle, Washington–based Gates Foundation spends more than $1.2 billion on global health R&D.The largest part of the policy change is that as of January 2020, Wellcome and Gates will no longer cover the cost of their grantees publishing in so-called hybrid OA journals, which have both subscription and free content. Most scientific journals now follow that hybrid business model, which allows authors to pay a fee if they want to make their articles OA. For the past decade, Wellcome has allowed its grantees to pay these fees, in part because it viewed them as a way to help publishers finance a switch in their business models to full OA. “We no longer believe it’s a transition,” says Robert Kiley, head of open research at Wellcome. “We’re looking to bring about a change where all research is open access.”center_img Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Wellcome will make two further changes that were already part of Gates Foundation OA policy: All articles must be made available under the Creative Commons attribution licence, to facilitate reuse of the content, and the research must be freely available immediately on publication. (Current Wellcome policy allows a publisher to keep an article behind a paywall for 6 months and is not comprehensive in requiring a creative commons license.)Authors funded by either foundation can comply by publishing in OA journals. Or, if they publish in a paywalled journal, they must simultaneously add their accepted manuscript to the open repositories PubMed Central (PMC) or Europe PMC (EPMC). Some so-called “green” OA journals permit this immediate archiving. But most top-tier journals such as Nature, Cell, and Science do not allow this until at least 6 months after publication. (If the research relates to a disease outbreak or other ongoing public health emergency, then authors must also post a preprint before peer review.) Although the Wellcome policy technically allows publication in hybrid journals—with the condition of immediate archiving in PMC or EPMC—the principles of Plan S specifically exclude hybrid journals. The new policies, also from Wellcome, differ from the Plan S principles with respect to article processing fees for OA journals. Plan S aspires to cap these fees at a certain amount, but Wellcome, noting that publishers vary in how much they enhance articles, plans to continue to pay whatever fees the foundation deems “reasonable.” (Gates is reviewing its policy on fees.)Robert-Jan Smits, OA envoy with the commission in Brussels and a prominent advocate of Plan S, said in a statement that by joining the effort, Gates and Wellcome “make an important contribution to the objective of Plan S to accelerate the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications.”*Clarification, 5 November, 2 p.m.: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Wellcome and Gates would bar their grantees from publishing in hybrid OA journals. This will in fact still be permitted, but neither foundation will cover the fees charged by these journals to make those articles OA. The policy notes an exception for certain hybrid journals until the end of 2021.last_img read more

READ MORE

first_img Advertising They’re not afraid Advertising “I couldn’t disagree more with these congresswomen’s views on immigration, socialism, national security and virtually every policy issue,” said Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa. “But they are entitled to their opinions, however misguided they may be.”Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who faces a potentially difficult reelection campaign next year, sought to dodge the debate over the president’s comments and focus on the differences between the parties. “The reality is I want to shift back to the issues and America they represent versus America that I want to see,” Tillis told reporters.The rapid approach of the 2020 campaign has drawn Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill closer as the lawmakers see their fate inextricably linked to the president, diminishing any possibility that they would break from Trump.And the spotlight put on the Democratic presidential candidates and the advocacy by some of them for eliminating private health insurance in favour of a government program, sweeping revisions in the tax code and the institution of liberal immigration policies have galvanized Republicans. Explained: Trump’s immigrant policy; what the ICE planned, and why Best Of Express At the same time, many Republicans find what they are attempting to label as the “far-left” stances of the four congresswomen who were the targets of Trump’s tirade to be the potential foundation of a sweeping critique of Democrats in 2020. In an appearance on Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called the four “a bunch of communists,” a step beyond the president, who said he was at the moment only willing to go so far as calling them “socialists.”Both the willingness of Republicans to attach extremist labels to Democrats and the Democratic assault against Trump as a racist and white supremacist presage a particularly bitter 2020 campaign.Even those lawmakers who took Trump to the task were careful to underscore their differences with the political and policy views of the House Democrats at the centre of the storm — Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, one of the few Republicans who has criticized Trump since he became president, told a Boston TV station that while the president might have gone too far, “I certainly feel that a number of these new members of Congress have views that are not consistent with my experience and not consistent with building a strong America.” Donald Trump and Democrats clash over President’s ‘racist’ tweets The lack of widespread Republican condemnation of President Donald Trump for his comments about four Democratic congresswomen of colour illustrated both the tightening stranglehold Trump has on his party and the belief of many Republicans that an attack on progressivism should, in fact, be a central element of the 2020 campaign.While a smattering of Republicans chastised Trump on Monday, most party leaders in the House and Senate and much of the rank and file remained quiet about the president’s weekend tweets directing dissenters to “go back” where they came from. He followed up on those comments Monday with harsh language directed at “people who hate America” — an inflammatory accusation to be levelled against elected members of the House.With Trump far more popular with Republican voters than incumbent Republican members of Congress, most are loath to cross the president and risk reprisals. The case of Rep. Justin Amash, the Michigan lawmaker who was forced to leave the party after he dared to suggest Trump should be impeached, serves as a cautionary tale. By New York Times |Washington | Published: July 16, 2019 1:44:06 pm Post Comment(s) Instead, Republicans worry that, even at a moment when the president is stirring division, a perceived slight or unwarranted criticism could lead Trump to throw them off, an outcome that could be ruinous to their political careers. NRC deadline approaching, families stranded in Assam floods stay home They see Trump, as outrageous and unpredictable as he might be, as far preferable to any of the Democrats.“I’m not going to vote for a socialist,” said Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, perhaps the most endangered Republican in the Senate, who has made clear he is firmly allied with the president.Republicans may cringe at some of Trump’s crude comments and insults. They may wince at his easily unmasked falsehoods. They may roll their eyes at his lack of understanding of government fundamentals. To many, his personality itself is off-putting. But he is now their guy.Despite occasional rifts, Republicans have in the main tried to ignore Trump’s nearly daily Twitter battles.Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, routinely refuses to engage when pressed about remarks by Trump that have electrified social media. Other Republicans say they do not see it as their job to be political pundits or to join with the media and Democrats in castigating Trump. They also believe that, in most cases, the firestorm lasts only so long and will be quickly followed by the next iteration, making it pointless to get caught up in the repeating cycle.Over the course of the administration, most Republicans have grown accustomed to Trump’s fiery outbursts and practised in how to avoid commenting on them. They find the president, a man who wields his cellphone like a weapon, to be almost always accessible, cajoling and complimenting lawmakers who appreciate the attention.They have also gained experience in how to diplomatically push back against the president and challenge his views when they differ — though usually in private to avoid inciting his ire.“My personal recipe for a productive relationship with the president is to work with him in public all I can,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “When we have disagreements, as we’ve had on tariffs and things like that, we talk in private, try not to embarrass him or ourselves. I’ve found that’s a good way to handle it.”Recognizing this pattern, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, accused Senate Republicans on Monday of cowardice. “It’s become frighteningly common for many of my Republican colleagues to let these moments sail by without saying even a word,” Schumer said. “Republican leadership — especially — rarely criticizes the president directly even in a situation like this that so clearly merits it.”Jeff Flake, the former Arizona Republican senator whose feud with Trump helped end his congressional career, said he sympathized with the desire of his former colleagues not to address every comment made by Trump. “But there are times when the president’s comments are so vile and offensive that it is incumbent on Republicans to respond and condemn,” he said on Twitter. “This is one of those times.”Those hoping for a wide rupture between the president and the more conventional Republican politicians on Capitol Hill say they have finally come to terms with the reality that no break is in the offing with the economy prospering, the election looming and the Trump administration so far avoiding a cataclysmic foreign policy blunder.“They have made their bed and are trying to sleep in it and hope they don’t have nightmares,” said William Kristol, the conservative Trump critic. “They don’t feel like they are paying a huge price.”Kristol said he once believed that the combination of the 2018 election results, the extended government shutdown and the departure of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis — a source of comfort for Republicans who feared Trump would do something rash with the military — might give congressional Republicans pause. But any deep distress that existed seems to have dissipated.“I am more pessimistic about the notion that the Republican Party will throw off Trump than I was a year ago,” he said. Advertising More Explained Explained: Kulbhushan Jadhav case file Explained: The Hague rules on Kulbhushan Jadhav today Donald Trump, Donald Trump tweet, congresswomen, congresswomen tweet, congresswomen tweet donald trump, Republicans on Donald trump tweet, world news, The New York Times, Indian Express “I couldn’t disagree more with these congresswomen’s views on immigration, socialism, national security and virtually every policy issue,” said Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa. (The New York Times: Gabriella Demczuk)Written by Carl Hulse Related News Karnataka: Supreme Court to rule today, says Speaker’s powers need relook last_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgRob Enderle has been an ECT News Network columnist since 2003. His areas of interest include AI, autonomous driving, drones, personal technology, emerging technology, regulation, litigation, M&E, and technology in politics. He has undergrad degrees in merchandising and manpower management, and an MBA in human resources, marketing and computer science. He is also a certified management accountant. Enderle currently is president and principal analyst of the Enderle Group. He formerly served as a senior research fellow at Giga Information Group and Forrester. Email Rob. When I last wrote about this product, I’d installed two cameras and was impressed that the batteries had lasted a couple weeks. Well, it’s been over a month, and I’m now up to 10 cameras. I’ve had to recharge only two batteries, both of which had more than half their battery life left even though they were in very high traffic areas, which suggests these puppies could last for months in low-traffic areas.We’ve caught stray dogs wondering in our yard, the gate left open and our dogs sneaking in and out of it, delivery people who have lied about deliveries, pet sitters who weren’t doing what they said they were doing, and a herd of deer wandering in to munch on our newly planted flowers. This system is AWESOME! Wrapping Up Apple’s Secret War on Customers There were two paths that United could have taken to move employees to another location without causing an uproar. One was to increase the voucher amount offered to passengers to a point where it was cheaper to charter a plane to move the employees, or simply to have in place what many non-airline companies use, a fleet of smaller planes for employees’ use.What is particularly scary about the method that United chose is that it didn’t factor in why people weren’t taking a US$1,000 voucher to change flights. Its method for choosing which passengers to bump only focuses on connections, so those who were ending up at the destination airport were prioritized for bumping.What if someone’s job depended on getting to a location on time? What if someone had a dying relative, a wedding or funeral to attend? What if someone were a doctor who needed to get to a critical patent? None of those possibilities was been taken into account, and the poor guy who was beaten up was in fact a doctor.United’s decision has cost it millions in brand damage, and because the passenger looked as though he might have been Chinese, China is treating this like a racial attack on its people, which could result in sanctions. I bet that before this is over, Congress might put a law on the books addressing it. I’d name it “The United CEO Is An Idiot Law.” (By the way, PRWeekwants its award back. Suddenly this is an Oscar 2017-like event.) It may even cost the CEO his job — all because it didn’t have a better way to move employees around, which is kind of sadly ironic given it is in the transportation business.At the end of that last linked article, the author asks why it took so long for United even to understand this was a problem. It was because, in the minds of its executives, customers had stopped being people and had become an exploitable resource instead. That attitude generally is considered a company and career killer. Customer Abuse Between Apple and Samsung, I’m not sure which has the stronger tendency for suicidal policies. Apple clearly has a problem, because it is a firm that is valued largely for its innovation, and that is one word that largely has been used in the past tense since Tim Cook took over for Steve Jobs. While the iPhone has done well — particularly this last quarter, thanks to Samsung’s suicidal moves — nothing else has risen to diversify Apple’s revenue or offset a trend of increasing margin pressure. As a result, Apple has moved to a strategy of aggressively cutting costs.That sets a foundation for the kind of problem that I mentioned earlier in this column. You see, Apple customers effectively are locked in to Apple services — which would be OK, as long as Apple didn’t see it as an opportunity to mine them, and could grow its revenue and margins by creating more and more compelling products.However, Apple hasn’t done that. The Apple Watch has languished, the iPad is in decline, and the iPad Pro has been a disappointment. MacBooks, Macs and iMacs have been cash cows for so long that reviving them seems increasingly unlikely, and is driving the company go cheap on components while considering charging more and more for iPhones.The Qualcomm filing basically just says “Apple is an assh*le,” which is far from an uncommon position from any Apple supplier. It gets interesting on page 46 of the whopping 130-page document. It alleges that Apple not only has been using sub-optimal (read cheap) parts, but also has been threatening to retaliate should anyone point that out.Point 4 on page 46, basically says there are two iPhones in market sold as the same phone: one with cheap parts, and one with good parts but that Apple is crippling so that people can’t tell the difference (and thereby avoid the bad phone). However, Apple can’t cripple it enough, so people are barred from pointing out that the crippled phone is still better. WTF!?!Here is the thing: Increasingly we live on our cellphones. We depend on them to work if there is an emergency. Our lives increasingly literally depend on them, and folks think that by buying Apple they are getting the best. However, if Qualcomm is correct, they either are getting a substandard phone — or worse, an intentionally crippled product.The potential consequences range from poor performance to bad connectivity, which could leave users with a phone that doesn’t work when they most need it. Cutting quality while raising prices and aggressively covering that up only works temporarily. Eventually people figure it out — and that didn’t end well for IBM or for the CEO that shortly thereafter was fired.Like all of the other examples I’ve cited here, Apple’s alleged action is customer abuse. If it turns out to be true, then it means that the only difference between Apple and all the rest of these bad examples is that Apple has taken more money from its customers. I expect that as a reason to buy from a company, that likely falls pretty low on anyone’s list.I’ll add one other element that I think is very similar to the old IBM and the new Apple. Both companies enjoyed — and still enjoy — phenomenal customer loyalty. Even though IBM’s behavior had been going on for years, most customers seemed to give IBM the benefit of the doubt. As a result, when the problem became pronounced it went to nuclear unbelievably fast.Certainly, it was way too fast for the existing management team to respond, and the result was a purge. It eventually saved the company, but it was a very close thing. Apple’s loyalty is, if anything, greater than IBM’s was — and today’s consumer market certainly can move a ton faster than enterprise computing did back in the 1980s and early 1990s.What this means is that if this alleged anti-customer behavior is left in place too long, the backlash on Apple could be unrecoverable — particularly if Google further reduces the migration pain to Android.Given that many of you have huge investments in Apple, I’m suggesting you might not want to have all those eggs in that same troubled basket. Diversification may save your ass. center_img I don’t know about you but I can’t seem to get out of my head the image of that poor Asian doctor who, seemingly unconscious, was dragged off that United flight. The fact that the airline did that to a 69-year-old doctor just so it could save money moving employees around is nearly as unbelievable as the initialtone-deaf response from United’s CEO, who blamed the passenger. (It was only after a tremendous backlash that the CEO offered an actual apology.)While the United debacle was going on, I happened to be reviewing Qualcomm’s counterclaim against Apple, and holy crap. It alleges that Apple crippled the modems in some iPhones to cover up its use of cheap parts, and that it aggressively acted to prevent anyone, particularly Qualcomm, from pointing it out.I have the view that if you pay for a thing, you should get that thing — and Apple customers, according to Qualcomm, are getting screwed. Given how we depend on our phones, my guess is that if this is true, it won’t end well for Apple.I’ll share some thoughts on customer abuse and then close with my product of the week: the Netgear Arlo Security Camera system (again). Netgear Arlo ProThe Netgear Arlo is my third camera system, and it was by far the easiest to set up. The lack of wiring means I can put the cameras anyplace I want, and I can install a ton of them. My dogs and cats each have their own tracking camera, but my wife had me move the one that was on her. (That’ll teach me to tell her, huh?)I did figure out one thing: It is cheaper to buy the cameras in the bundle then one by one. You can get an Arlo system with four cameras for $350 if you shop around, while the cameras individually cost around $150.Sadly, I didn’t figure this out until after I’d purchased an additional eight cameras. Further, you get up to five cameras with the free service, but if you want to go to 10 it will set you back $99 a year. However, you then get 30 days of storage for up to 10 GB of data. For 15 cameras, it’s $149 a year and you get 60 days storage for up to 100 GB.Arlo just launched a $450 camera, and what makes it different is that it has local storage, a 3G/4G connection, and a massive battery. Sadly, this is only available to large companies or the government, and we know they would never use them to spy on you…It has been a long time since I was this excited about a product, and that is why the Netgear Arlo is my product of the week — again! You could call this “the iPod of security camera systems.” There are times when I wonder if boards and CEOs either are mentally challenged or suicidal. From Samsung, to United, to Apple, this year has been an increasingly ugly example of executives behaving badly.I know I missed the chapter in management school that suggested screwing customers was a great business practice, but I seriously think those pages should be torn into little bitty pieces and tossed out, along with the idiots who adhere to this strategy.In any case, this month has provided a strong “teachable moment.” Let’s hope a lot of executives learn by watching rather than doing. It is never OK to abuse customers. When companies do, they have translated “customers” into “things.” We really don’t like being mistreated as “things.” United’s Disastrous Decision I often wonder if top executives and boards have some weird undiagnosed disease that causes them, from time to time, to do something so incredibly stupid you have to wonder if someone snuck up on a bunch of them and hit them with a stupid stick.I recall having a discussion with an IBM exec I reported to back in the early 1990s about the company’s practice of intentionally creating buggy products and then charging customers to fix the problems it had created. I asked why we were doing something that seemed insane, only to be told, effectively, that since the customer had no choice, IBM could do what it wanted to them and they would pay whatever IBM charged.It was like selling air. It remains one of the most idiotic responses I’ve ever heard, and shortly after I left the firm that entire executive team was canned. (Apparently the newly hired CEO, Louis Gerstner, agreed with my assessment.)Microsoft had a group of executives who covered up that Office 98 wasn’t backward-compatible, and a different group covered up the issues with Windows Vista that should have prevented its release. Those issues created massive problems with customers, and most of the folks responsible lost their jobs as a result.To hit aggressive price points with lithium-ion batteries in the early 2000s, Sony covered up that they hadn’t updated their lines to prevent metal contamination. The batteries became contaminated and caught fire, forcing massive recalls and pretty much wiping out Sony’s lithium-ion battery business.Those batteries could have resulted in an impressive number of deaths had one of them gone up next to a better fuel source on a plane. The lithium-ion coverup followed Sony’s institution of a program to put rootkits on PCs in an attempt to combat piracy, which opened those PCs to hacking and put customers at risk. The backlash over that helped wipe out Sony’s Walkman business and opened the door to the iPod.Takata covered up that their airbags were not aging well and actually could kill drivers when they deployed. It apparently did not do anything to address the problem, which eventually was discovered and resulted in the biggest automotive recall in history. It still might put the company out of business.It appears that Samsung cut short quality testing to get the Galaxy Note7 out quickly only to find out it was catching fire. In an effort to address that problem quickly, it guessed wrong about the cause, and replacement phones caught fire too. To recover some of the costs associated with its massive recall, Samsung decided to sell refurbished Galaxy Note7s, and I doubt that’ll end well. I think Samsung has a death wish.It really seems like an epidemic of stupid at times… last_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgDevices built on Nvidia’s Tegra X-1 mobile processor are at risk of attack from a flaw security researchers revealed Monday.The exploit chain discovered by Katherine Temkin and a team at ReSwitched affects any device running the chip, including the Nintendo Switch gaming console and some Chromebooks.Called “Fusée Gelée,” the vulnerability allows anyone to run code on the chip by overloading a critical buffer when a system boots.”Fusée Gelée isn’t a perfect ‘Holy Grail’ exploit — though in some cases it can be pretty damned close,” Temkin wrote.What makes the defect particularly nettlesome is that there is no easy way to patch it on devices that are in the hands of consumers. Unfixable Flaw What can chip makers learn from this latest quality control failure?”They need to see this as a warning as to the practice of shipping devices with unmodifiable bootROM loaders,” Ulster University’s Curran suggested.”Of course, there is a defense to some degree in unmodifiability, but that always presupposes that no flaws exist,” he continued,” and as we see in this attack, there are a number of smart hacker types in the community determined to find vulnerabilities.”Fusée Gelée should alert chip makers to the need for better communication between the hardware and software sides of their business, observed Willy Leichter, vice president of marketing for Virsec.”The silos between chip designers and software developers continue to leave big potential openings for increasingly resourceful hackers,” he told TechNewsWorld.Chip makers also should be aware that they’re attracting more attention from hackers.”We are seeing a lot more focus on hardware level exploits,” said Chris Goettl, director of product management for security at Ivanti.”Most of what we are seeing is proof of concept,” he told TechNewsWorld, “but it is only a matter of time before someone figures out how to take a PoC and weaponize it for delivery in a successful attack.” Prelude to Piracy It’s not unusual for gamers to search for vulnerabilities like Fusée Gelée so they can modify their systems, said Jean-Philippe Taggart, a senior security researcher at Malwarebytes.”This is something that occurs to all gaming platforms,” he told TechNewsWorld. “Some enthusiasts argue that it is to enable the use of home brew games, but a significant amount of this research is usually leveraged to enable piracy.”Owners who exploit Fusée Gelée risk not only damaging their consoles, Taggart added, but also being banned from online gaming, if Nintendo should detect a console has been modified with the vulnerability.”Bypassing the protection mechanisms that manufacturers put in place is a neverending arms race,” he observed. “No protection implementation is perfect.” center_img Fusée Gelée is the result of a coding mistake in the bootROM found in most Tegra devices. The flaw can be patched before a device leaves the factory, but not after.”This immutability is actually a good thing in terms of security,” Temkin wrote.”If it were possible to apply patches to the bootROM after a unit had been shipped, anyone with a sufficiently powerful exploit would be able to make their own patches, bypassing boot security,” she explained.”The bootROM is the keeper of the Jewels, and now it can be bypassed,” noted Kevin Curran, a professor of cybersecurity at Ulster University in Northern Ireland and a senior member of the IEEE.”Hackers will be able to run code of their choosing,” he told TechNewsWorld.Fusée Gelée likely will be more worrisome to Nintendo than to the users of its Switch consoles, maintained Nael Abu-Ghazaleh, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of California, Riverside.”The attack requires physical access to the console so basically the owners would be able to attack their own consoles to run arbitrary code and to potentially circumvent DRM protections or to cheat in games,” he said.”Its the equivalent of jailbreaking your iPhone for this console,” Abu-Ghazaleh told TechNewsWorld. Chip Makers Beware John P. Mello Jr. has been an ECT News Network reportersince 2003. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, IT issues, privacy, e-commerce, social media, artificial intelligence, big data and consumer electronics. He has written and edited for numerous publications, including the Boston Business Journal, theBoston Phoenix, Megapixel.Net and GovernmentSecurity News. Email John.last_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgA ‘new and versatile biomarker’ for prostate cancerClark says the really exciting finding was that the test could predict disease progression up to five years earlier than when standard clinical methods are used. It also identified men who were eight times less likely to require treatment within five years of being diagnosed:”If this test was to be used in the clinic, large numbers of men could avoid an unnecessary initial biopsy and the repeated, invasive follow-up of men with low-risk disease could be drastically reduced.”The test is among a number of new tests, including other urine tests, as well as scans and blood tests, that are being developed by scientists in efforts to improve detection of the disease. Experts say a combination of such checks may eventually prove to be the best approach.Georgina Hill from Cancer Research UK called the findings “promising,” but said they need confirming in more patients before the test could be offered routinely.Connell says a larger trial is now planned. He hopes the test could become available as an add-on to PSA testing within the next three years.“PUR represents a new and versatile biomarker that could result in substantial alterations to current treatment of patients with prostate cancer,” write the researchers in the journal BJU International. Prostate cancer is more commonly a disease men die with rather than from. Unfortunately, we currently lack the ability to tell which men diagnosed with prostate cancer will need radical treatment and which men will not.”Shea Connell, Lead Author Invasive follow-ups could be a thing of the pastCurrently, when a man visits their doctor and presents with symptoms such as frequent urination during the night, they are given a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test, a digital rectal examination (DRE), an MRI scan or a prostate biopsy.However, up to three-quarters of men with a high PSA level who have a biopsy do not actually have prostate cancer. This means many men experience unnecessary worry, monitoring and treatment, so routine prostate screening is not yet offered to men.”A policy of ‘active surveillance’ has been developed as a way to combat this uncertainty but it requires invasive follow-ups and constant reminders that a patient has a cancer with an uncertain natural history,” explains Connell.“This results in up to half of men who get monitored choosing to undergo treatment whether they need it or not. It’s clear that there is a considerable need for additional, more accurate, tests.”Meanwhile, 15% of men without a raised PSA level are found to have cancer after all and in 15% of those cases, the cancer is aggressive.Now, Shea and colleagues have developed the new PUR test using machine learning to assess gene expression in urine samples taken from 537 trial participants. By assessing the expression of 167 genes, the team found that a combination of 35 genes served as a more accurate risk signature for the disease.Previous urine biomarkers tests have only been designed for specific purposes such as checking for prostate cancer when a patient has a repeat biopsy. The new test, on the other, identifies four PUR risk signatures that reliably enable men to be stratified by risk (low, intermediate or high) and determine how aggressive the cancer is going to be.The researchers say that looking for the risk signatures in urine will identify patients who do not need a biopsy, even if they initially appear to be at risk. More research now needs to be done to see how accurate this is compared to the newer, non-invasive methods being offered, such as multi-parametric MRI scans.”David Montgomery, Prostate Cancer UK By Sally Robertson, B.Sc.Jun 26 2019Reviewed by Kate Anderton, B.Sc. (Editor)Researchers have developed a new urine test to diagnose aggressive forms of prostate cancer, which could mean an end to the unnecessary treatment of men with non-aggressive cancers.Heiti Paves | ShutterstockThe test, which has been developed by researchers at the University of East Anglia and Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, would allow doctors to differentiate between patients with aggressive prostate cancer who would need surgery and those with cancer that would progress so slowly that patient monitoring would be sufficient.The test, which is called ‘PUR’ (Prostate Urine Risk), would enable doctors to predict whether treatment would be needed up to five years earlier than conventional methods do.Lead author Shea Connell and colleagues hope that the breakthrough will result in many low-risk men avoiding unnecessary biopsies, active surveillance, and follow-up.Mark Buzza, director of biomedical research programs at the Movember Foundation says: “The PUR test has enormous potential to transform the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.”Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK with 47,000 new cases diagnosed annually. This type of cancer tends to develop slowly and may never cause any problems. It generally does not require treatment over the course of a man’s lifetime, but men with aggressive cancer do require treatment to prevent it from spreading.However, doctors have difficulty predicting whether the cancer will become aggressive, which makes it difficult to decide on the appropriate treatment approach. This research shows that our test could be used to not only diagnose prostate cancer without the need for an invasive needle biopsy but to identify a patient’s level of risk. This means that we could predict whether or not prostate cancer patients already on active surveillance would require treatment.”Jeremy Clark, Co-lead Author Journal reference:Connell, S., et al. (2019). A four‐group urine risk classifier for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancer. BJU International. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bju.14811last_img read more

READ MORE