Finding the lead, beating the bushes, and other journalism-speak

It all started with this blog as a way to refresh my non-academic writing skills. I found that I have enjoyed writing about science, albeit it to a somewhat muted audience, even more than I thought I would. It has become ever clear that I enjoy writing about science much more than doing the science. And with the uncertainty in lab research I realize that I should at least pursue an uncertain field that I love.

In January I started working as an unofficial intern (ie volunteer) with the UIC Office of Public Affairs, science staff. It has been a great experience so far and I have learned a lot about interviewing other scientists, writing headlines, and how to write for the public.

Most recently, I wrote my first article for the UIC science blog. While I know science writing and communication is a crazy competitive field and hard to break into, I am at least have to try my hardest. Wish me luck and stay tuned both here and at http://uicscience.tumblr.com/.

She works really hard but he’s a genius! Why women are less represented in certain fields.

While there is often a call to get more women in the STEM fields, in reality one must look at the different sub-fields rather than the whole. By 2008 women earned more Ph.D.s in biology than men, but that number drops to less 20% for physics or computer science. The results of a study published January in Science help explain why certain fields within STEM and the humanities have much less women than others.

The authors started with three competing hypotheses and used questionnaires (a total of 1800 faculty, postdocs, and students) to determine people’s attitudes within the particular fields. The other variable was the percentage of women Ph.D.s in that field in the U.S. While the other two hypotheses, that the more time-demanding the field, the less women or the more selective the field, the less women, did not hold up, the third showed a strong positive correlation: The higher the emphasis on the need for brilliance to succeed in that field, the fewer women earned Ph.D.s in that field.

Fig 1 from Leslie et al. (2015).  Expectations of brilliance underlie gender
distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347 (6219).

The general public rarely hears a call for more women in the humanities or social sciences, but this area has a large distribution within the sub-fields. While women are the majority of those getting Ph.D.s in education and psychology, less than 35% of degree-earners are women in economics, philosophy, and computer science. These three fields, as well as physics and computer science are fields that more highly valued giftedness over dedication.

Questions such as, “Even though it’s not politically correct to say it, men are often more suited than women to do high-level work in [discipline],” examined biases about women’s intelligence in the different fields. Indeed, those fields that highly emphasized brilliance were more likely to hold these biases and therefore are likely less welcoming to women.

Interestingly, the same trend held true for African Americans, who the authors state are also stereotyped as lacking inherent intelligence. As a control, the authors showed that the trend was not true for Asian Americans, who, for better or worse are often stereotyped as the “model minority.”

The authors’ recommended that, “academics who wish to diversify their fields might want to downplay talk of innate intellectual gifted-ness and instead highlight the importance of sustained effort for top-level success in their field.”

This supports my previous argument, and post, for the role of imposter feelings in dissuading women from pursuing certain fields. Studies have shown that women are less likely to see themselves as brilliant and more likely to attribute their success to hard work. While I focused on science as a whole, it makes sense that insecurities over being an “intellectual fraud” would be magnified in disciplines where raw intelligence, rather than diligence, is emphasized.

Therefore it seems we need to target the fields themselves with a de-emphasis on “brilliance” (this will be hard to do as those within the field probably like to think of themselves as such) and put more emphasis on women’s intelligence from a young age.

UPDATE to “Informing the public: what is the responsibility of scientists and doctors?”

 Earlier this month I posted about the gap between scientists and the general public. The post centered on the current vaccine “controversy” though there shouldn’t really be any controversy at all. And that was the question posed: as nearly all scientists and doctors agree that the vaccine is safe, what should and can we do to communicate this information to the general public?

Well, since that post I have learned of one school that is offering a free, online course on vaccination. The course, called “Vaccines” is offered through the School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania and will cover such topics as the science of how vaccines are made and the actual and perceived risks of vaccination. This is a great idea though the cynical side of me thinks those who need the information in the class the most will not give it a chance, especially as the “recommended” reading is “Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All and Vaccinated: One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases” authored by the instructor of the class.

Still, I can’t criticize Dr. Paul Offit too much, especially since it is clear he is trying to defeat these preventable diseases.

If anyone tries to sign up/takes the class (which is 2 hours/week for I don't know how long) please let me know how it goes.

Carl Djerassi: scientist and renaissance man dies at 91

Picture from the IMBA

While to many he was “the father of birth control”, I knew him as the author of Cantor’s Dilemma, an assigned novel in a formative science fiction class. The book is science fiction in that it is fiction set within the world of science. The main characters are Dr. Cantor who runs a competitive research laboratory, his protégé postdoctoral assistant, and their dreams of the Nobel Prize. It was my first glimpse into the human side of scientists, the day-to-day frustrations and promise of glory in a career in science. The author was also an example of what a scientist could be: not just a narrow-focused, socially awkward, perpetually stressed, ivory-towered shut-in, but a person with diverse passions and interests.

I was in my last years of college majoring in science with no direction, having just ruled out med school.  I was having a hard time committing to single career, especially what I conceived of would a boring job in science. I enjoyed my poetry and anthropology classes much more than biochemistry and physiology. Yet I was determined to get a “useful” degree. But Djerassi allowed me to believe that I could have it all – a stable and lucrative career as a scientist and the creative outlets of writing in my spare time. So maybe I didn’t realize that science funding was already on the decline from a 2003 peak, making science anything but a stable career – that’s beside the point. And I certainly have no regrets.

It is difficult to describe Djerassi without using “renaissance man.” He was a poet, playwright, novelist, and esteemed scientist. Sparked by the death of his artist-daughter in 1989, he established an artist’s colony on his ranch in California. [He made mad bucks in investing in the company that produced the pill].

It is perhaps ironic that he was called the father of birth control as numerous scientists over much time contributed to the invention of the pill. It had already been known that high progesterone and estrogen levels prevented pregnancy. He and his colleagues synthesized a progesterone that was used in the earliest contraceptive pills. It is ironic because his writing reveals the dangers of trying to chase accolades and prestige in science. He broached this idea in a 2000 interview, “But identifying scientists is really only a surrogate for identifying the inventions or discoveries…I’m certain that if we didn’t do our work, then someone else would have come along shortly afterwards and done it.”

Perhaps that is the fulfillment he got from writing – he offered unique perspectives on the politics and ethical concerns involved in doing science. Indeed, he saw his writing as a way to bridge science and the public: “I think that we as scientists should educate the public about the scientific and technological advances so that society can decide how best to use them. This is my missionary obsession."

Informing the public: what is the responsibility of scientists and doctors?

 Last year, the U.S. had a record number of measles cases and in January there were over 84 cases in 14 states. According to the Center for Disease Control the majority of these cases were in unvaccinated people. There has been a lot of press coverage of late on the increasing number of people choosing not to vaccinate their children. In California, which has had outbreaks in the last two years, eight percent of kindergartners are not vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR).

A 1998 paper published in a reputable British journal The Lancet, fueled the anti-vaccination movement. The study, led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism and gastrointestinal disease. However the study only looked at 12 children and had no control group. Researchers were not able to replicate the results and numerous studies have not found any link between autism or GI disease and vaccines^1,2.

The evidence against the paper and specifically, Wakefield, is clear and damning. An investigation found numerous conflicts of interest: he received research money from lawyers representing parents suing vaccine companies. He patented an alternative measles vaccine that would benefit if the MMR vaccine were found unsafe. In 2010, the paper was retracted by The Lancet and Wakefield was disbarred from practicing medicine in the U.K. because of his intentional falsification in the study and endangerment of children.

A study just published by the Pew Research Foundation found that 68% of American adults say childhood vaccines such as the MMR should be required. In contrast, 86% of scientists thought they should be required³. So – what is a scientist or doctor to do when they still hear the Wakefield paper being bandied about as evidence against vaccination? What is our responsibility when doctors swear an oath and nearly all scientists receive taxpayer dollars?

We are all familiar with the skepticism about climate change so it is easy to dismiss the chasm between scientists and the general public as a conservative problem. But the measles outbreak is occurring in affluent, liberal areas whereas Mississippi has the highest vaccination rate of any state. (Granted, this is because the rest of Mississippi’s healthcare infrastructure is so poor as to necessitate strict vaccination guidelines.) A guest on a last week’s episode of the Diane Rehm Show stated the problem well: mothers who don’t vaccinate their children aren’t uninformed, they are misinformed.

Additionally, in the Pew Research study, the largest gap in opinion was not on climate change, but on a liberal issue: the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. 90% of scientists said it was safe to east GM foods while only 37% of non-scientists did.

Another problem that is often cited by scientists is the public’s mistrust of science. While an attractive theory, because it removes our responsibility to bridge that gap, the Pew study paints a somewhat different picture. 75% of adults polled said government spending on basic science pays off in the long run and 79% of people say science has made life easier, having a positive effect on things like health care.

So if we can’t blame it on Republicans (as academics are sometimes wont to do) and we can’t blame it on blanket mistrust of science, then perhaps, we, as scientists need to look at our role in educating the public. Should we go on to parenting message boards and whenever the Wakefield study is cited – and it still often is – respond with a barrage of rebuttals? While I don’t know what would be most effective at bridging the gap, I think it is important to at least raise the question that we may have this responsibility.

References:

1. Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, et al. (November 2002). "A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism". N. Engl. J. Med. 347 (19): 1477–82.

2. Black C, Kaye JA, Jick H (August 2002). "Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database". BMJ 325 (7361): 419–21.

3. Pew Research Center, January 29, 2015, “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society”

Johns Hopkins University President calls for increased funding and support for young scientists

In the most recent issue of PNAS, the president of my alma mater, Ronald J. Donalds, discusses the disturbing trend of decreased funding for young scientists saying, “The departure of young scientists from the academic biomedical workforce in turn poses grave risks for the future of science.”

Fig 1 from article: Percent of NIH R01 principal investigators and medical school faculty by age (1980 in pale and 2010 in bold).

The R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of the largest and most important grants for scientists to independently fund and maintain their careers. Donalds says that the number of scientists 36 or younger who received an R01 dropped from 18% in 1983 to 3% in 2010.

In the article he addresses several theories for why young scientists aren’t receiving grants, including inherent bias in the grant process towards more established scientists, the financial hardship placed on institutions in supporting faculty, and the protracted postdoctoral training period which increases the average age a scientist obtains a faculty position.

He goes on to address each point. In regards to the long training periods he makes several suggestions. As it is well known and recorded that there are far more postdoctoral researchers than available faculty positions, Donalds calls for better career training. “To provide a true foundation of support for early-stage scientists, we will need to construct a pathway to a career in the biomedical sciences that is sustainable, humane and fair.” One solution Donalds offers are more staff scientist positions at core facilities in universities and research institutions.

Donalds also cites the need for “weaning our biomedical workforce away from an overreliance on postdoctoral researchers.” A decade-old report by the National Academy of Sciences suggested imposing a 5-year limit on funding for postdocs, which Donalds suggests should be revisited. He also suggests increased K99/R00 grants, which provide funding for postdoc training as well as establishing their own independent career. Finally he says there is a need for “demystifying the R01” as the most important factor for obtaining and retaining faculty.

Antibacterial everything: should we be putting triclosan in consumer products?

Triclosan is an antibacterial and antifungal agent that has been used in the hospital setting since the 1970s. In the last decades, triclosan has increasingly been added to household products including hand soaps and wipes, body washes, and toothpastes. It is now even found in some products that consumers may not be aware of, including toys. The safety and efficacy of triclosan has been debated for years, but this last year saw major milestones. In 2014, Minnesota became the first state in U.S. to ban triclosan in soaps and several major companies, including Johnson & Johnson announced they would phase out triclosan from their products. In a 2010 consumer report, the FDA said that there was no evidence that triclosan was hazardous to humans, yet a 2013 consumer report cited an FDA microbiologist, “the risks associated with long-term, daily use of antibacterial soaps may outweigh the benefits (1,2)”. The FDA is currently evaluating its regulations on triclosan and is set to make a final decision in 2016.

The controversy surrounding triclosan is really on three levels: what the compound does to bacteria, possibly creating antibiotic resistance, what it does to humans when they ingest or absorb triclosan through the skin, and finally, what it does to the environment. The latest research on each front is presented here.

Colgate Total

1. Effect on microbes:

The microbes that could be affected by triclosan-containing products include the bacteria on your hands, in your household or environment, and those inside of you, which make up the microflora.

The late 1990s, early 2000s saw a drastic increase in the number of publications on antibiotic-resistance and triclosan. While there are discrepancies in the literature, the field is generally in agreement that triclosan use at the levels found in consumer products selects for and promotes triclosan resistant bacteria in the gut or on skin, including Salmonella enterica, E. coli and the MRSA-causing opportunistic bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus (7).

The FDA concluded in 1997 that triclosan in toothpaste was safe and effective at preventing gingivitis (1). However, questions have since arisen as toothpaste accounts for the greatest amount of ingested triclosan in humans. Many studies support the claim for reduced gingivitis and show that dental plaque bacteria do not become resistant to the triclosan even with nearly two decades use in toothpaste (3-6). But beyond fighting gingivitis, the FDA has not found any other health benefits of using triclosan-containing products, reporting that there was no “evidence that triclosan in antibacterial soaps and body washes provides any benefit over washing with regular soap and water (1).”

Last year, Syed et al. reported that triclosan was present in the nasal secretions of 50% of healthy adults. Triclosan levels were positively correlated with colonization by S. aureus, which is a risk factor for other infections. Rats given triclosan were more likely to have nasal infections by S. aureus. Intriguingly, the authors concluded that triclosan appears to induce changes in the bacteria that increase binding to surfaces such as host cells (8). 

2. Effect on human physiology:

Triclosan is absorbed through the skin with topical use and through the GI tract and oral mucosa when ingested. Triclosan is detectable in most people, through serum, milk, and urine (9, 10). Triclosan binds the human estrogen receptor, though weakly (11) and it is thought that triclosan may act an endocrine disruptor, causing hormonal changes that could lead to cancer. Several studies have linked triclosan to thyroid and liver dysfunction in mice or rats (12, 13). However the concentrations used were several orders of magnitude higher than to what humans are exposed. Epidemiological studies on human populations have not provided evidence that triclosan poses a health risk through endocrine disruption (14). However a recent study looked at the effects of low levels of triclosan (based on those found in humans) on mammary gland development in rats. While there was no effect on rats that have never given birth, those that had given birth experienced changes to their mammary glands, with decreased lactation and changes in gene expression (15). Therefore, further testing is required to understand the real threat posed to humans by long-term triclosan exposure.

3. Environmental effects:

Of note, the EPA and FDA have begun working together in evaluating the risks of triclosan. While most triclosan is removed at wastewater treatment facilities, significant amounts still end up in water sources and have been found in fish (16-18). Recent studies in natural water sources near urban populations, where triclosan levels are the highest, showed a correlation between triclosan levels and resistance of bacteria to triclosan Artificial stream experiments, where experimental factors are more controlled, backed up the findings and found that triclosan exposure was toxic to algae and led to a dramatic increase in cyanobacteria, indicating large changes in the stream ecosystem (16). Other studies found changes in the populations of phytoplankton, a key player in water ecosystems, including decreased photosynthesis with triclosan exposure (17, 18).

Though more studies are needed to understand the full risks posed by low level exposure to triclosan, it is likely that public opinion will go the way of bisphenol A. As for now the safest bet is to use regular soap for hand washing and triclosan-containing toothpastes only if recommended by your dentist.

References:

1. FDA Consumer Health Information (2010). Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know

 <http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm205999.htm>. Accessed Jan 1, 2015.

 2. FDA For Consumers. (2013). FDA Taking Closer Look at 'Antibacterial' Soap. < http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm378393.htm>. Accessed Jan 1 2015.

 3. Haraszthy, VI., et al. (2014). Community-level assessment of dental plaque bacteria susceptibility to triclosan over 19 years. BMC Oral Health. 14:6.

 4. Cullinan, M.P., et al. (2013). No evidence of triclosan-resistant bacteria following long-term use of triclosan-containing toothpaste. J Periodontal Res. doi:10.1111/jre.12098.

 5. Niederman, R. (2005). Triclosan-containing toothpastes reduce plaque and gingivitis. Evid Based Dent. 6:33.

 6. Davies, R.M., et al. (2004). The effectiveness of a toothpaste containing triclosan and polyvinyl-methyl ether maleic acid copolymer in improving plaque control and gingival health: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 31:1029–1033.

 7. Yazdankhah, S.P., et al. (2005). Triclosan and Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria:

An Overview. Microb Drug Resis. 12: 83-91.

 8. Syed, A.K. et al. (2014). Triclosan Promotes Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Colonization. mBio. 15: e01015-13.

 9. Calafat, A.M., et al. (2008). Urinary concentrations of triclosan in the U.S. population: 2003–2004. Environ. Health Perspect. 116:303–307.

 10 – Allmyr, M. et al.. (2006). Triclosan in plasma and milk from Swedish nursing mothers and their exposure via personal care products. Sci. Total Environ. 372:87–93.

 11. Ahn, K.C., et al. (2008). In vitro biologic activities of the antimicrobials triclocarban, its analogs, and triclosan in bioassay screens: receptor-based bioassay screens. Environ. Health Perspect. 116:1203–1210.

 12. Yueh, M.F., et al. (2014). The commonly used antimicrobial additive triclosan is a liver tumor promoter. PNAS. 111: 17200–17205.

13. Halden, R. (2014). On the Need and Speed of Regulating Triclosan and Triclocarban in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48: 3603-3611. 

 14. Witorsch, R. (2014). Critical analysis of endocrine disruptive activity of triclosan and its relevance to human exposure through the use of personal care products. Crit Rev Toxicol. 44: 535–555.

 15. Manservisi F., et al. (2014). Effect of maternal exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals on reproduction and mammary gland development in female sprague-dawley rats. Reprod Tox. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.12.013.

 16. Drury, B., et al. (2013). Triclosan exposure increases triclosan resistance and influences taxonomic composition of benthic bacterial communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47:8923–8930.

 17. Ricarta, M., et al. (2010). Triclosan persistence through wastewater treatment plants and its potential toxic effects on river biofilms. Aquatic Tox. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2010.08.010.

18. Pomati, F. and L. Nizzetto. (2013). Assessing triclosan-induced ecological and trans-generational effects in natural phytoplankton communities: a trait-based field method. Ecotoxicology. 22: 779-94.