Latest news with #biomedicalResearch
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Scientists Need to Explain Themselves
Crises can be useful for pressure-testing systems and exposing their weaknesses. Such is the case with the delays and outright cancellations of federal funds for worthy biomedical science research projects. DOGE-engineered interruptions of research programs funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF)—with only muted objections by politicians and the public—reveal a systemic brittleness in the public's support for science. It is possible that the public's unwillingness to rise up in defense of science owes much to its having lost faith in scientists. That lost trust borders on outright dislike: According to Yale University's president (my boss), in a recent address to her faculty, our institution has a 20 percent public approval rating. My fellow scientists would probably like to believe that our sinking poll numbers reflect the public's distaste for marauding students and censorious humanities colleagues. But we must admit that we share some of the blame. We do not put enough effort into explaining our work to the members of the public, who are our patrons. If scientists believe—as I do—that our research in medicine, physics, computer science, biology, and other disciplines is responsible for our high standard of living and our sophisticated understanding of the world around us, then we must do a much better job at explaining ourselves to our tax-paying, non-scientist friends. Consider how scientists communicate now. Most of us report our work in scientific journals for the consumption of our fellow scientists. Even if the public wanted to read our published academic papers, many (in final form at least) are behind paywalls. By and large, we rely on science journalists to translate our findings, with varying degrees of success and fidelity to the material. Some science journalists do the public a great service by explaining complex concepts in understandable terms. But qualified journalists can only take on so many topics. The majority of us scientists do essential and exciting work that will rarely, if ever, get covered in a newspaper or magazine if we wait for a science journalist to do it. Sure, there have always been practicing scientists and doctors who have bypassed journalists to tell their scientific stories directly to a lay audience. They write engaging books (that sometimes become movies) to recount their stories. In the process, they do a wonderful job of popularizing scientific and medical breakthroughs and building trust and appreciation of science by the public. James Watson (discovery of the double helix), Kay Redfield Jamison (treatment of bipolar disorder), Jennifer Doudna (invention of CRISPR), Oliver Sacks (recognition of bizarre neurological disorders), and Siddhartha Mukherjee (cancer treatment) are noteworthy examples. But they are the exceptions. The rest of us, who prefer to keep to ourselves and speak in our own esoteric languages, are paying the price for our collective reticence. We pay in lost public support. But we may pay double if our good work is mischaracterized by loudmouths and influencers, whether that mischaracterization is unwitting or purposeful. What's the solution? Create whole armies of scientists who are also science-explainers, science-popularizers, and, dare I imagine, cool-science celebrities? This seems simple enough. But it won't happen unless the incentives for success for scientists are altered to reward accessible and even entertaining public-facing communication. To understand why, one must understand the present system that governs the promotion prospects of publicly funded basic- and applied-science professors. How does one get promoted in academic science? There are generally three recognized avenues. Research, teaching, and service (the latter typically includes work on university committees, administration of programs, and contributions to professional societies). This triad of expectations is firmly rooted in the academic system. What is needed is a fourth path, one that requires public-oriented science communication and the teaching of how to do it successfully. The university must cultivate a new breed of professor: the 'scientist-public-communicator.' Could such a major change in incentives ever occur in the rather staid environment of a university? Yes. For support and encouragement, we can look to a relevant historical precedent. Nearly 50 years ago, a revolution of sorts rocked academia and created the 'scientist-inventor-entrepreneur.' In 1980, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act (otherwise known as the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act). As any venture capitalist in biotech knows, Bayh-Dole allowed government contractors (including academic scientists and their universities who were federal grant recipients) to patent and benefit from inventions that emerged from their federally funded research. Before that, patents were typically assigned to the federal government, where most of them languished forgotten and undeveloped. The Bayh-Doyle Act was an intentional move by Congress to promote the translation of basic discoveries into practical products and treatments. Before Bayh-Dole, it was rare for scientists to commercialize their discoveries; in fact, profiting from one's academic research was considered unseemly. Afterwards, everything changed. Initially, there was much doomsaying over potential conflicts of interest between academic work and industry demands. But sitting in a university today, one can see numerous joint programs that teach science and engineering students to engage with entrepreneurship, and many generous angel funds to promote commercialization of lab-based discoveries by faculty. Entrepreneurship among faculty (and student) scientists has become normalized. This is not only a boon for the scientists themselves, but for local economies. One has only to walk along Drydock Avenue in Boston's Seaport district and count the number of biotech companies started by local academics to see evidence of economic growth and benefit. Once disdained, entrepreneurship has become valued within the halls of academia. Patents are routinely reported on one's curriculum vitae and favored by university hiring committees. Thanks to Bayh-Dole, the incentives for entrepreneurial science were put in place. And behaviors followed. Back to science communication. What about scientists who are poor communicators? Shall we banish them and in doing so forfeit their obvious talents for scientific research? No. Not everyone must excel in every aspect of the current triad in order to be promoted, after all. Consideration for promotion is usually in one primary category (e.g., research) with achievement in the others considered secondarily. The inclusion of a fourth path to promotion is not a proposal to reward faculty for publishing political screeds. Although protected speech, communicating propaganda should have no currency toward promotion. The main goal of the proposal is to allow and encourage some number of practicing scientists to be able to 'go up' for promotion based on their outstanding achievements in the public communication of their science. How will new incentives manifest? No one can say precisely. Maybe some new podcasts, a flood of new comic books on science, or even a new science dance craze. But the best thing to do with creative people is incentivize them, and then get out of their way. I am sure of this because I have seen it happen on a small scale: In my medical imaging class at Yale a few years ago, the students were required to create TikTok videos to explain concepts we had studied. With some trepidation, I asked the students to show their works in class. I was pleased to see that the TikToks were both on-point and entertaining, and not at all what I had expected. Many colliding forces in academia, politics, and education have created the present crisis in science funding. Inadequate science communication to the public may not be the most acute force at play, but lack of public understanding of what we scientists do is surely a smoldering fire that will continue to fuel the crisis. Universities and their leaders must take the long view to douse the fire. Incentivize and reward scientists for excellent public-facing communication of all types on what science research is and why it is important. Done right, incentives will breed a new strain of professor: the 'scientist-public-communicator.' Refashion the old maxim 'publish or perish' into 'public or perish'—for without support of the former, we shall surely suffer the latter.
New York Times
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
A Surreal Night on the French Riviera With Jeff Bezos and Duran Duran
Every year, as the Cannes Film Festival winds down, hundreds of celebrities and philanthropists gather at the palatial Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc for the amfAR gala, an event that raises millions for biomedical research and also prides itself on being a lavish, fashion-forward party. That was certainly the case at the 31st installment Thursday, which featured performances from Ciara, Adam Lambert and Duran Duran. At blustery cocktails in the seaside town of Antibes overlooking the vast blue water of the French Riviera, the Oscar-nominated actor Colman Domingo, wearing a custom Valentino suit and Boucheron jewelry that he said made him feel like a 'peacock,' admitted that it's a surreal night. 'It's so maximalistic in all of this expression,' he said. 'And it is all to draw eyes toward H.I.V. and AIDS research.' The cause was the reason the actress Teri Hatcher, dressed in a sleek black gown, said she was excited to attend, 'especially as an American wanting to, at this time, be putting light on causes that are important, that need funding.' It was her first time at the event, which was initially hosted by Elizabeth Taylor in 1993. The night raised more than $17 million. In his opening remarks at the dinner, the outgoing amfAR chief executive, Kevin Robert Frost, also alluded to the Trump administration's cuts affecting H.I.V. prevention. 'As you all know, this is not a great time for global health,' he said. 'Many governments, especially mine, the U.S., but also the United Nations and others, are cutting back on investments in health, and many communities are already feeling the consequences, especially people living with H.I.V., who depend on daily medications for their survival.' Sitting near the stage was Kimberly Guilfoyle, Mr. Trump's choice to be ambassador to Greece, in a bright red dress. Earlier Kyle Clifford, who is set to take over for Mr. Frost, said that the organization keeps politics outside of the gala tent, which this year was dressed up with hanging lanterns and moody red lighting. 'We're a nonpartisan organization and it's a safe, fun place for people to do their philanthropy,' he said. Indeed, the night drew more than 850 people and many famous faces, including Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sánchez, Kevin Spacey, who was found not guilty of sexual assault charges by a British jury in 2023, and Leonardo DiCaprio, who tried to remain incognito in a black baseball cap. On the hotel's perfect lawns, Ms. Guilfoyle was spotted posing for photos opposite Heidi Klum, the model and 'Project Runway' host, who later bemoaned the adjacent film festival's new dress code that prohibited nudity and 'voluminous' outfits. 'I think it's boring,' she said, dressed in a strapless gown, with a sheer skirt and large feathered train. At the bar, the director Spike Lee, who had just premiered his latest movie, 'Highest 2 Lowest,' at the festival, chatted with the Oscar-winner Adrien Brody. Upon entering the party, Mr. Lee, a dedicated New York Knicks fan, said he was glad he missed the previous night's playoff game, in which his team suffered a heartbreaking loss to the Indiana Pacers. 'I was on another continent, a thousand miles away,' he said. 'They cannot blame that disaster on me.' Mr. Brody had donated one of his artworks, a mixed media piece centered on Marilyn Monroe, to the night's auction. He was not the only actor to do so. James Franco, who has recently been less visible following sexual misconduct allegations, also supplied a painting. Ciara kicked off the dinner with a performance of her hits including '1, 2 Step,' flanked by two backup dancers. And while the night was hosted by Taraji P. Henson, the affair was dominated by the flashy live auction where items included Chopard diamond earrings, an Andy Warhol screenprint, and a Dodge Charger used in 'Fast X,' the most recent installment in the 'Fast & Furious' franchise, which the movie's star, Michelle Rodriguez, hyped up with a giggly introduction. A George Condo painting, made specially for the occasion, was the big seller at 1,150,000 euros, or about $1.3 million. Mr. Lee contributed a surprise item of a walk-on role in his next movie, and added during the bidding he would take the winner to a Knicks game next season. As is now tradition at the gala, the auction featured a fashion show curated by the French fashion editor Carine Roitfeld, with a collection that immediately sold. This year's theme was 'From Cannes With Love,' a tribute to James Bond. Ms. Hatcher, who played a Bond girl in the 1997 film 'Tomorrow Never Dies,' walked the runway. After a brief intermission in bidding, Mr. Lambert performed a series of songs by Queen with accompaniment from the band's drummer Roger Taylor. But it wasn't until the end of the long event, well after midnight, that the 1980s pop dandies, Duran Duran, who are about to embark on a European tour, took the stage. While guests lit up cigarettes inside, Mr. Domingo, Mariska Hargitay and Georgina Chapman grooved along to songs like 'Notorious' and 'Ordinary World.' But the night, and the world, felt far from ordinary.
Telegraph
22-05-2025
- Science
- Telegraph
The scientific community is still censoring Covid heretics
Last year a prestigious scientific journal invited me and a colleague, Professor Anton van der Merwe of Oxford University, to prepare a scholarly paper summarising the evidence that Covid began with a laboratory accident in Wuhan. We did so, writing a 5,000-word paper with 91 references. The journal summarily rejected it. We revised it and tried another journal: same result. And again: ditto. None of the reasons given by the peer reviewers made much sense – some were simply false. 'It is unfair to speculate on where the virus has arisen unless there is solid evidence – currently, there is none,' wrote one editor. Yet paper after paper rejecting a lab leak or exploring the flimsy evidence for a seafood-market origin of the virus has sailed through peer review and into prestigious journals. It was clear that their objection to our paper was political: peer reviewers just did not want to see the hypothesis in print because that would admit there was a debate. Peer review, supposedly the gold standard of scientific respectability, is increasingly a fraud. On the one hand it takes the form of 'pal review' in which scientists usher their chums' papers into print with barely a glance, let alone a request to see the underlying data. That way all sorts of fakes and mistakes get published unchecked. About a third of all biomedical papers later prove impossible to replicate. It took a student at Stanford to point out that published papers on Alzheimer's from the president of his university, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, had fraudulent errors, misleading the whole field: Tessier-Lavigne resigned. So peer approval is no guarantee of truth. On the other hand, peer review takes the form of gatekeeping, in which scientists make sure that others' papers never see the light of day. 'Kevin and I will keep them out somehow,' wrote Phil Jones in an email that later leaked, referring to climate-sceptic papers, 'even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!' Yet 10 years after that 'climategate' episode, exactly the same peer-review tricks to enforce orthodox dogma were employed in Covid. So peer rejection is no guarantee of untruth. Part of the problem is anonymity. Peer reviewers get to keep their identities secret, but the authors of papers don't. That is a recipe for vindictive behaviour. By keeping heretics out of the literature, the dogmatists can then claim that there is no dissent and a 'consensus' has formed. That this is a circular argument usually passes gullible journalists by. And they waive the need for peer review when the conclusion of a paper suits their politics. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to boast that it only considered peer-reviewed papers – until it was caught citing sources from activist press releases. Grant applications too are filtered by biased peer reviewers. Heretics who challenge dogmas, on the causes of stomach ulcers, Alzheimer's or climate change, have all been denied funding by the high priests of consensus. With narrowing sources of scientific funding, how is the next Darwin, Einstein or Crick ever going to challenge conventional wisdom? Science, said the physicist Richard Feynman, is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Peer review is a fairly recent invention. Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 was never peer reviewed. The system should be replaced by a much simpler procedure: post-publication review. Scientists can publish papers online and let lots of readers pick them apart. That's what we have done with ours.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Science requires ethical oversight. Without federal dollars, society's health and safety are at risk
Stock photo from Getty Images. As the Trump administration continues to make significant cuts to NIH budgets and personnel and to freeze billions of dollars of funding to major research universities – citing ideological concerns – there's more being threatened than just progress in science and medicine. Something valuable but often overlooked is also being hit hard: preventing research abuse. The National Institutes of Health has been the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. Its support helps translate basic science into biomedical therapies and technologies, providing funding for nearly all treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019. This enables the U.S. to lead global research while maintaining transparency and preventing research misconduct. While the legality of directives to shrink the NIH is unclear, the Trump administration's actions have already led to suspended clinical trials, institutional hiring freezes and layoffs, rescinded graduate student admissions, and canceled federal grant review meetings. Researchers at affected universities say that funding will delay or possibly eliminate ongoing studies on critical conditions like cancer and Alzheimer's. It is clear to us, as legal and bioethics scholars whose research often focuses on the ethical, legal and social implications of emerging biotechnologies, that these directives will have profoundly negative consequences for medical research and human health, with ripple effects that will last decades. Our scholarship demonstrates that in order to contribute to knowledge and, ultimately, to biomedical treatments, medical research at every stage depends on significant infrastructure support and ethical oversight. Our recent focus on brain organoid research – 3D lab models grown from human stem cells that simulate brain structure and function – shows how federal support for research is key to not only promote innovation, but to protect participants and future patients. The National Institutes of Health began as a one-room laboratory within the Marine Hospital Service in 1887. After World War I, chemists involved in the war effort sought to apply their knowledge to medicine. They partnered with Louisiana Sen. Joseph E. Ransdell who, motivated by the devastation of malaria, yellow fever and the 1928 influenza pandemic, introduced federal legislation to support basic research and fund fellowships focusing on solving medical problems. By World War II, biomedical advances like surgical techniques and antibiotics had proved vital on the battlefield. Survival rates increased from 4% during World War I to 50% in World War II. Congress passed the 1944 Public Health Services Act to expand NIH's authority to fund biomedical research at public and private institutions. President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it 'as sound an investment as any Government can make; the dividends are payable in human life and health.' As science advanced, so did the need for guardrails. After World War II, among the top Nazi leaders prosecuted for war crimes were physicians who conducted experiments on people without consent, such as exposure to hypothermia and infectious disease. The verdicts of these Doctors' Trials included 10 points about ethical human research that became the Nuremberg Code, emphasizing voluntary consent to participation, societal benefit as the goal of human research, and significant limitations on permissible risks of harm. The World Medical Association established complementary international guidelines for physician-researchers in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. In the 1970s, information about the Tuskegee study – a deceptive and unethical 40-year study of untreated syphilis in Black men – came to light. The researchers told study participants they would be given treatment but did not give them medication. They also prevented participants from accessing a cure when it became available in order to study the disease as it progressed. The men enrolled in the study experienced significant health problems, including blindness, mental impairment and death. The public outrage that followed starkly demonstrated that the U.S. couldn't simply rely on international guidelines but needed federal standards on research ethics. As a result, the National Research Act of 1974 led to the Belmont Report, which identified ethical principles essential to human research: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. Federal regulations reinforced these principles by requiring all federally funded research to comply with rigorous ethical standards for human research. By prohibiting financial conflicts of interest and by implementing an independent ethics review process, new policies helped ensure that federally supported research has scientific and social value, is scientifically valid, fairly selects and adequately protects participants. These standards and recommendations guide both federally and nonfederally funded research today. The breadth of NIH's mandate and budget has provided not only the essential structure for research oversight, but also key resources for ethics consultation and advice. Biomedical research on cell and animal models requires extensive ethics oversight systems that complement those for human research. Our research on the ethical and policy issues of human brain organoid research provides a good example of the complexities of biomedical research and the infrastructure and oversight mechanisms necessary to support it. Organoid research is increasing in importance, as the FDA wants to expand its use as an alternative to using animals to test new drugs before administering them to humans. Because these models can simulate brain structure and function, brain organoid research is integral to developing and testing potential treatments for brain diseases and conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and cancer. Brain organoids are also useful for personalized and regenerative medicine, artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces and other biotechnologies. Brain organoids are built on knowledge about the fundamentals of biology that was developed primarily in universities receiving federal funding. Organoid technology began in 1907 with research on sponge cells, and continued in the 1980s with advances in stem cell research. Since researchers generated the first human organoid in 2009, the field has rapidly expanded. These advances were only possible through federally supported research infrastructure, which helps ensure the quality of all biomedical research. Indirect costs cover operational expenses necessary to maintain research safety and ethics, including utilities, administrative support, biohazard handling and regulatory compliance. In these ways, federally supported research infrastructure protects and promotes the scientific and ethical value of biotechnologies like brain organoids. Brain organoid research requires significant scientific and ethical inquiry to safely reach its future potential. It raises potential moral and legal questions about donor consent, the extent to which organoids should be grown and how they should be disposed, and consciousness and personhood. As science progresses, infrastructure for oversight can help ensure these ethical and societal issues are addressed. Since World War II, there has been bipartisan support for scientific innovation, in part because it is an economic and national security imperative. As Harvard University President Alan Garber recently wrote, '[n]ew frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances. … For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.' Cuts to research overhead may seem like easy savings, but it fails to account for the infrastructure that provides essential support for scientific innovation. The investment the NIH has put into academic research is significantly paid forward, adding nearly US$95 billion to local economies in fiscal year 2024, or $2.46 for every $1 of grant funding. NIH funding had also supported over 407,700 jobs that year. President Donald Trump pledged to 'unleash the power of American innovation' to battle brain-based diseases when he accepted his second Republican nomination for president. Around 6.7 million Americans live with Alzheimer's, and over a million more suffer from Parkinson's. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed with aggressive brain cancers each year, and 20% of the population experiences varying forms of mental illness at any one time. These numbers are expected to grow considerably, possibly doubling by 2050. Organoid research is just one of the essential components in the process of learning about the brain and using that knowledge to find better treatment for diseases affecting the brain. Science benefits society only if it is rigorous, ethically conducted and fairly funded. Current NIH policy directives and steep cuts to the agency's size and budget, along with attacks on universities, undermine globally shared goals of increasing understanding and improving human health. The federal system of overseeing and funding biomedical science may need a scalpel, but to defund efforts based on 'efficiency' is to wield a chainsaw. Christine Coughlin, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University and Nancy M. P. King, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
