A moratorium shuts down research on flu, MERS, and SARS viruses
The debate began quickly over the moratorium that the White House has declared on certain sorts of virus research, the sort where researchers are deliberately trying to make a disease virus more virulent or infective. These are often called gain-of-function experiments, but that does not mean all gain-of-function work is potentially dangerous.
Deliberately making a disease organism more scary sounds loony at first glance, and lots of people think it’s loony no matter how many glances you give it. See, for example, Steven Salzberg’s post at Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience. Salzberg is one of the scientists involved in the Cambridge Working Group, which has been pressuring the administration to restrict the experiments–pressure that was one factor leading to the moratorium.
The moratorium applies to the viruses that cause flu, SARS, and MERS–influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome. Here’s what the White House blog had to say about the decision, with links to commentary from other US government agencies. At ScienceInsider, Jocelyn Kaiser reports that about two dozen NIH-funded studies will be affected, plus some at the Department of Agriculture.
There are, arguably, reasons for doing this sort of gain-of-function research. One example is the need to develop small animal models to better study a disease. One researcher is claiming the moratorium will halt her surveillance of circulating flu viruses. Another points out that potential flu drugs must be tested on wild strains, which could produce resistant viruses.
The risk assessment began immediately on Wednesday when the previously moribund National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity met for the first time since 2012. There’s a story there that hasn’t been told yet. Anyway, the NSABB heard from scientists who believe a moratorium is more of a threat to public health than the research is.
But the dismaying truth is that historically, bioterrorism has been much less of a risk than accidents emanating from well-meant research efforts to protect ourselves, a topic I wrote about here at On Science Blogs in June. Thus the White House has decided to err–and lot of scientists do think it’s an error–on the side of safety.
The moratorium is supposed to be voluntary and temporary, until the risks can be better assessed. But Nell Greenfieldboyce reports at Shots that some researchers who study these viruses say the National Institutes of Health, which holds the purse strings, has already sent them “cease-and-desist” letters.
The White House says the decision was prompted largely by the recent revelations about sloppy and potentially worrisome conditions at several government labs–where, for example, cleanup crews happened upon forgotten stores of the smallpox virus, supposedly banished from the face of the Earth to the safety of repositories in Russia and at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decades ago. (You can read about this revelation at an On Science Blogs post from July.)
I can’t help wondering, though, how much the irrational panic over US cases of Ebola–and the vituperation President Obama’s opponents have loosed upon him as a result–doesn’t have something to do with the moratorium. Details of the Ebola panic, collected by Maryn McKenna at Superbug, will astound you. (HT also to McKenna for bringing us the marvelous “panic button” photo, which I have appropriated herewith. And hearty thanks to Star5112, who shot it. Brilliant.)
Inheritance of fear unto the third generation
A paper showing that unconditioned mice could inherit memories of the conditioned fears of their grandfathers , which appeared late last year, made quite a media splash. The work was done by Brian Dias and Kerry Ressler of Emory University, and the paper ran in Nature Neuroscience.
The embrace of its findings–which made the case for transgenerational epigenetics, transfer of a memory of behavior for three generations–was more than usually rapturous. In the two items I wrote about the paper, here at On Science Blogs and in my weekly column at the Genetic Literacy Project, I noted that other scientists would be racing to replicate the study. Since mouse generation time is short, I hoped we might have confirmation of the startling findings (or failure to replicate) pretty soon.
Attempts at replication of the work haven’t been reported yet, but something else has. Gregory Francis, a psychologist at Purdue, argues in the journal Genetics that the paper’s statistics are too good to be true. He notes that the researchers reported uniformly positive results for the epigenetic memory experiments. The probability of such a result is only 2.3%, Francis says. And if you add in the other positive neuroanatomical results the paper reports, the probability of the reported numbers drops to 0.4%.
Neuroskeptic doesn’t know what to make of this critique, noting that if the reported probability was one in a million, there would be cause for serious concern. But, using Francis’s analysis, Neuroskeptic says the probability is about one in 300. A one-in-300 event may be unlikely, but it’s by no means impossible.
In a comment on the Neuroskeptic post, Francis says “these odds are estimates of replication success, and it seems that most scientists want odds better than 1 in 2. . . The 1 in 300 odds might be high enough to imply that Dias & Ressler were simply (un)lucky with their experimental findings, but their data still does not provide good support for their theoretical ideas.”
Francis’s critique in Genetics is accompanied by a reply from Dias and Ressler, who say they have been able to replicate the work themselves “multiple times.” Francis told me in an email, “I find the Dias and Ressler reply to be disappointing. In particular, one can hardly dodge a critique of being too successful by reporting more replication success.”
The critique is preceded by comments from Genetics‘s editor Gary Churchill. He seems to be presenting an Argument from Authority in favor of Dias and Ressler’s findings, declaring that an important journal like Nature Neuroscience wouldn’t have published the paper without thorough vetting.
For further discussion (and critiques) of Francis’s critique, see Kate Yandell’s piece at The Scientist. I would be delighted refer you to the paper itself–and the reply by Dias and Ressler, and Churchill’s comments. But I can’t. The papers are not open access.
I was startled by the fact that the papers and commentary were not easily available, having grown accustomed to even closed-access journals often granting free access to papers of unusual interest. It seemed particularly odd in this case since Genetics is published by a professional association, the Genetics Society of America, among whose members are K-12 teachers and community college instructors.
Against the tide of open-access
It seems particularly odd since this week I encountered a delightful statistic: At the Nature News Blog, Richard Van Noorden tells us that more than half the peer-reviewed papers published between 2007 and 2012 are now available free for downloading. Many other interesting details in this post. Which you can read for free because, although Nature is paywalled, Van Noorden’s post about open access–is open-access.
The recent papers, the ones we want to see most, are of course an entirely different story. Compared to olden times, however, even recent papers are often pretty easy to get.
- Search the paper through PubMed and you’ll be linked to full text or author manuscript if available. An encouraging number are.
- If not, email the corresponding author. Your copy will quite often arrive within a few hours; that’s how quickly Francis sent me his paper, plus the comments from Churchill and Dias and Ressler.
- Or email the senior author’s PIO or the journal’s PR department.
- Sometimes an even quicker solution is to find it on somebody’s site. Google the paper’s exact title in quotes (leaving off the period, if any.)