Researchers may have found a solution to the problem of plastic pollution–a caterpillar’s larvae that have the very unusual ability to digest plastic. A new study published on Monday describes how the larvae work.

The specific type of caterpillar is called the wax worm, which is the larvae form of the greater wax moth. The larvae are normally used as fishing bait. Because they can chew and digest beeswax, they are commonly found in beehives. Beekeepers consider them a pest, which that is how the larvae’s ability was discovered.

Federica Bertocchini, a scientist with the Spanish National Research Council, also keeps bees as a hobby. After removing wax worms from her beehives she realized they managed to chew their way out of the plastic bag she kept them in. After conducting an experiment, Bertocchini and her counterparts at the University of Cambridge, Paolo Bombelli and Christopher J. Howe, confirmed that the larvae did actually digest the plastic and were not simply chewing it into smaller parts.

To determine that, they put the larvae in a blender and spread the paste out on plastic. Because the plastic continued to degrade even when dead larvae were lying on it, the scientists believe that an enzyme in the insects is likely responsible. They could not determine whether the worms produce the enzyme or if it’s made by the bacteria in their gut, but they did see that something broke down the plastic into smaller molecules. Beeswax is composed of a very diverse mix of lipids and it’s likely that the breaking down of polyethylene, the most common plastic, involves a similar chemical process.

The world produces 300 million tons of plastic every year, much of which ends up in landfills or in the ocean, often hurting wild animals. If a caterpillar could be used to stop some of this or if the chemical process can be replicated, it would be a major breakthrough. Bertocchini said of the discovery:

We are planning to implement this finding into a viable way to get rid of plastic waste, working towards a solution to save our oceans, rivers, and all the environment from the unavoidable consequences of plastic accumulation.

The researchers said that, ideally, they would be able to isolate the specific chemicals in the worms that break down the plastic and then insert it into bacteria that could break down plastic faster than worms can. However, they warned that such an accomplishment would take several years even if they are successful, it probably won’t solve the world’s plastic problem altogether. But it is a step in the right direction.

Read more: What Really Happens to Your Trash?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could This Caterpillar Help Solve one of the World’s Pollution Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

Literary critics have spent the past week reeling after the Nobel Prize committee’s announcement that it has granted the 2016 Prize in literature to Bob Dylan (who hilariously failed to even acknowledge the prize for five days). The attention that Dylan’s win has garnered has detracted attention from the Nobel Prizes in both Chemistry and Physics, announced earlier this month, each resulting in an award of 8 million Swedish kronor, or $930,000, to the recipients. Three British physicists who currently work in the U.S. were awarded the prize for their examination of the properties of matter in extreme states , research which can be used for the next generation of superconductors and even quantum computers. The prize in Chemistry was awarded to a team of three scientists from France, the U.S., and the Netherlands respectively for their development of molecular machines, molecules with controllable movements. While these prizes do not draw the same attention as a Peace Prize or a Literature Prize among the general public, they are critical factors that influence what research gets funded at our top universities and how scientists decide what is worth studying. But is that really a good thing?

Incentivized research projects such as the XPrize or Cancer Research UK’s research prizes motivate innovation in certain fields but the Nobel Prize does not have such a targeted aim. Although the Nobel Peace Prize is centered around positive impact on the human race, the scientific prizes are not always as concerned with the human factor. Yes, the matter in extreme states that won the 2016 Physics Prize is incredibly innovative and the molecular machines that won the Chemistry Prize may be used to create revolutionary new materials and energy storage–but do they have immediate benefits that we will feel in 2016? Will they transform medicine, or public welfare, or the lives of the greater population of the planet within the coming months?

These projects are incredible but they are the first step in a larger chain of exploratory science that, while it is admirable and truly commendable, will not be ending world hunger, curing a disease or creating a more equitable and inclusive society within our lifetime. The Nobel Prize is a beautiful way to recognize some of our brightest minds, but it also detracts from the work going on to solve problems that need to solved in order to save lives.

The brightest scientific minds of our world often get caught up in theoretical problems, and when we reward them with financial incentives, the spotlight falls on that research rather than the work of scientists tackling more “mundane” problems. If a research institution gains a Nobel Prize, it will attract the best and brightest minds but will force them to focus on the project that received Nobel acclaim. By giving financial prizes only to scientists who are working on projects that are far-reaching rather than those who are tackling immediate crises, we may cut the legs out from valuable research that needs funding today. Projects that create crops resistant to climate change, make transit more affordable and simple  and design affordable vaccines are all revolutionary and have immediate positive effects on human well being–yet none of them have received the Nobel prize. The Nobel Prize should not by any means be done away with–but perhaps the committee should consider doing even more good by rewarding research that will save lives immediately rather than possibly improve lives after several more decades of research.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Is the Nobel Prize Rewarding the Wrong Research? appeared first on Law Street.

Amid growing fear of terrorism and divisive rhetoric on the campaign trail, researchers have identified a startling upward trend in hate crimes against Muslims. According to a recent study, these crimes have reached their highest levels since the period directly after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Brian Levin and Kevin Grisham, researchers at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, identified a slight rise in hate crimes overall but found a significant increase in those targeting Muslims. Using data from law enforcement officials in 20 states, they found 196 anti-Muslim hate crimes in the 2015 calendar year–a 78 percent increase from the previous year. Based on that sample, they estimate that there were approximately 260 hate crimes against Muslims across the country in 2015.

While most categories of hate crime saw either declines or slight increases, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab crimes spiked significantly, increasing by 78 and 209 percent respectively. They also found a 40 percent increase in anti-gender/transgender hate crimes. The 196 anti-Muslim hate crimes identified by the researchers in the 20 states surveyed amounted to a 29 percent increase relative to what the FBI found nationwide in 2014. The evidence for the increase in hate crimes with an Arab and gender bias came from smaller 10 and 9 state samples, respectively.

It’s important to note that these numbers almost certainly undercount the actual number of hate crimes in the United States. Incidents of hate crimes are notoriously difficult to measure–many victims may be reluctant to report these crimes and police departments may not identify hate crimes as such. And as the report notes (and I’ve previously written about), there is a significant gap between the number of reported hate crimes and the results of victimization surveys, which indicate that they occur much more frequently than these statistics suggest.

Last December, the researchers conducted a study of unofficial reports of hate crimes–largely by identifying incidents in news reports–and found evidence of a spike in the wake of the Paris shootings. With this study, they were able to build on their past findings using official data from police departments to identify an overall increase last year. “The newly available official data corroborates the December/November spike found in our earlier study,” they write. “The increase was real and material across the entire year as well.”

Trying to explain what is driving the recent increase is also particularly difficult, as causal connections are difficult to identify. But the authors note that recent rhetoric directed at Muslims is likely a factor. They point to a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes that occurred after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. That spike dropped significantly–although it didn’t go away altogether–after September 17 when President Bush gave a speech at an Islamic center to distinguish terrorism from Islam and called for respect for American Muslims.

In contrast, they note that in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings last year, Donald Trump publicly called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. They note that after that point hate crimes against Muslims increased by 87.5 percent. Overall, the researchers identified a multi-year trend even predating the rise of Donald Trump in American politics.

The authors also note that the causes of hate crimes are extremely complicated. While hostile rhetoric may contribute to an increase in these events, there are many other factors at play. Many factors can contribute to prejudice toward a certain group and an even more complicated set of factors can explain whether a prejudice leads to violence. Ultimately, these statistics cannot provide a full picture of hate crimes in the United States, but they identify a trend that is troubling and difficult to refute.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Research Shows a Recent Surge in Hate Crimes Against Muslims appeared first on Law Street.

In the latest episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver went over the problem with scientific studies in the media. He pointed out that if you start a story by claiming “scientists say…” you can give credence to any kind of not-so-true information. According to Oliver, the problem is the amount of information floating around out there masking itself as science, whether it’s actually only tested on five people, based on information that later got misinterpreted, or biased because of who sponsored the study. Or, my personal favorite, only tested on rats instead of people.

Oliver highlighted the fact that many scientists are under a lot of pressure to publish as many studies as possible, in as prestigious of publications as possible, to get more funding to be able to keep doing their jobs. Which means no one really wants to do replication studies because they are less likely to get funding, which in its turn leads to no one confirming the original study to corroborate its results.

As the Brit pointed out, “a lot of bullshit” is out there making us believe pseudo news stories that have been distorted since the press release. Take a look at these grains of gold: women are more open to romance when they are not hungry; a glass of red wine is the equivalent to going to the gym for an hour; or driving when you’re dehydrated is as dangerous as driving drunk (this study was sponsored by Coca Cola).

One notable video clip Oliver showed was from the “Today Show,” with one host saying, “You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with that.”

And this is precisely what makes people not take science seriously–the idea that you can just pick what you like as easily as you pick which diet to be on. Oliver points out that it’s the same mindset that makes people not believe that climate change is real or that vaccines will give your kid autism. So all in all, always double-check your facts and go to the original source–otherwise you might actually still believe that smelling farts will prevent cancer.

Check out Oliver’s full takedown below:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Takes on Bad Science in the Media appeared first on Law Street.

Dr. Stanley Riddell’s team at the Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center earned themselves a place in medical history with the research they recently presented at the American Association for the Advancement for Science’s annual meeting. Riddell’s immunology team works with terminal patients. This new treatment engineers a patient’s own T-cells to target and fight back against the blood cancer cells that are attacking them–a major breakthrough in cancer research.

In the most recent trial, U.S. researchers used genetically modified T-cells in 35 terminally ill patients with leukemia, and 94 percent went into remission. Riddell’s T-cell research has only been applied to blood cancer but for the thousands of people in the United States alone suffering from blood cancer, this treatment could be the medical innovation they have waited years for. As with any new treatment, there is cause for caution–the data from this treatment is still being processed which means it still needs to be peer-reviewed and vetted by a host of evaluators. Furthermore, the risk involved in the treatment can be steep. For all the patients who witnessed major positive effects or full remission, there were several patients who were admitted to intensive care due to their treatment.

Cancer treatments are on the whole brutal and exhausting for the patient, but in this case, two of the participants in the study died because of adverse reactions to the treatment. It is important to remember that the patients for this trial were all terminal, which meant they were incredibly weak even as their newly trained T-cells tried to fight against the more aggressive cancer cells. However, members of the medical team believe they can minimize the dangers as time goes on by using lower doses of the therapy. This week, Dr Alan Worsley, from Cancer Research UK, told the BBC that while the field was incredibly exciting, “this is a baby step…the real challenge now is how do we get this to work for other cancers, how do we get it to work for what’s known as solid cancers, cancers in the tissue?”

Even though this research still has a long way to go before it becomes a typical cancer treatment, the attention that the stunning success rate has garnered will no doubt spark a wave of funding for similar T-cell therapy projects. There are dozens of top research institutions working around the clock to test experimental treatments and Riddell’s team is not the only one investigating the efficacy of engineering cells to fight off cancer attacks.

Nonprofits, corporate donors, and governments alike should all take note of this new T-cell trend and adjust cancer research funding accordingly. It can be difficult to divert funding into one particular branch of research when there are so many different forms of cancer that need cures, but if the results of T-cell training research continue to match the success rate of this study, the financial forces behind research hospitals may allocate more resources to this genetic branch of research.  Prioritizing treatment of one type of cancer over another may seem callous, but if this blood cancer treatment can be adapted to solid cancers then we may be looking at an actual cure for the disease as a whole–an opportunity it is difficult to ignore.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Will the New T-Cell Treatment Change the Funding of Cancer Research? appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps no modern advancement in transportation has been so divisive as Uber. Some cities, states, and countries have welcomed the popular ride-sharing app with open arms, while others have demonized the company and tried to block its implementation. However, Uber may now have a new bargaining chip when it comes to convincing its critics that it’s actually a good thing. A study conducted in California recently found that the use of Uber helped to reduce drunk driving fatalities in the state.

Uber has actually been claiming that it can reduce drunk driving deaths for a while. For example, earlier this year, it sent out an email stating:

Since we launched uberX in California, drunk-driving crashes decreased by 60 per month for drivers under 30. That’s 1,800 crashes likely prevented over the past 2 ½ years.

The study on which it based that claim was co-authored with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and showed that drunk driving incidences have fallen in the California cities where Uber operates. However, critics claimed that the study only showed correlation, not necessarily causation, and claimed that Uber didn’t have enough evidence to make the claim.

However, the new study, conducted independently by researchers led by Brad Greenwood from Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, might get more credence. Essentially the findings of the paper were that cheap ride-sharing apps (not just Uber, but also its competitors like Lyft) lowered drunk driving incidences. This study may be better received because it attempted to show a causation rather than just a correlation. The researchers were able to test the impact that Uber had when it entered various markets, and estimate its potential future effects.

The conclusion about its future effects was interesting, and bodes well for Uber. The report stated:

Economically, results indicate that the entrance of Uber X results in a 3.6 percent – 5.6 percent decrease in the rate of motor vehicle homicides per quarter in the state of California. With more than 13k deaths occurring nationally each year due to alcohol related car crashes at a cost of 37 billion dollars, results indicate that a complete implementation of Uber X would create a public welfare net of over 1.3 billion to American taxpayers and save roughly 500 lives annually

Another interesting aspect of the study was that it discovered that only the cheap models of the apps seem to be successful at lowering the drunk driving rate. More expensive models like Uber Black don’t appear to make much of a difference.

Given some of the struggles that Uber–particularly the crowd sourced and cheaper UberX–has had getting into various markets, this promises to be a decent bargaining point. While Uber is obviously very far from being perfect, and still has some serious regulatory issues to work with, this could be a big plus in the argument to introduce Uber to new locales.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Uber Lower the Number of Drunk Driving Deaths? appeared first on Law Street.

You just sunk every penny you have into opening a restaurant. After spending years perfecting every detail from menus to music, you forgot one major element: an advertising budget. How will you make sure people experience your culinary genius? Fueled by passion, you do something you know you probably shouldn’t. You write a glowing review of your restaurant on Yelp.

Is the review a lie just because it came from the owner? Not necessarily. Just because a biased party tells you something is good doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not; their recommendation just holds less value than one from a disinterested party.

But, bias fueled by passion and economic interest happens in medical research all the time. Like you and your restaurant review, medical study funders often promote the information best for their cause. They finesse study designs and findings to make results seem more favorable for their product or service. A manufacturer of a new blood pressure drug might play up one specific benefit of their product in a way that makes you believe the drug beats others overall. It’s not fraud or misconduct, it’s just spinning results in a positive way–something any human with a vested interest in an outcome tends to do. Furthermore, data from a study means nothing by itself to most people, so invested parties can play with it as much as they want to tell a good story.

In discussing the interpretation of statistics in Made to Stick, authors Chip and Dan Heath put it this way:

Ethically challenged people with lots of analytical smarts can, with enough contortions, make almost any case from a given set of statistics.

Keep reading for more on funding bias and what you can do about it.

How is scientific research funded?

When you read a juicy new bit of research about something that might kill you or change the world as we know it, the study’s funding probably escapes your interest. But any study you read, whether it’s about drugs, medical treatments, nutrition, or even sleep, costs money. Where does the money come from? It can come from government grants, nonprofits, independent companies, and even you. When you buy dish soap, some of that profit might go to funding a Procter & Gamble study on a new cleaning chemical. Some portion of your taxes might trickle down to a government grant and end up in a laboratory. And of course, if you donate to a charity, that money might fund studies supporting that cause.

Money Talks

Since money fuels science, science itself can be shackled by economic interests, and interests of any kind can lead to bias. Even without fabricating results, funders have tools they can use to sway study results.

In a paper titled “Tobacco industry manipulation of research,” Dr. Lisa A. Bero calls out some reasons why research findings might not be as concrete as they seem:

• Any study has a context that can be skewed by framing the study, defining the problem, and sculpting that language of study questions and results.
• Data doesn’t present itself. It’s up to the funders and researchers to deliver it to the world, and this delivery can be nuanced to serve a given purpose.

That covers underlying reasons why bias happens, but how does it happen? The World Health Organization analyzed thousands of books, articles, and other materials to see how bias can occur in drug studies and promotions. Its paper, “Drug Promotion – What We Know, What We Have Yet to Learn,” outlined several ways researchers can skew results:

• Publishing results in multiple journals and with multiple authors. Different researchers can write papers on the same exact study. The multiplication of evidence revealing the same findings makes the results look more credible and can lead to a general overestimation of the studied drug’s treatment power.
• Leaving out unfavorable conclusions. Industry-funded studies left out negative results more often than their nonprofit counterparts.
• Using retrospective design, which looks backward to prove a determined outcome. With a known outcome, it’s easier to manipulate study designs to show X might cause Y.
• Putting focus on some features and leaving out others. Industry-funded studies tend to focus on acute benefits of drugs and stray away from ranking the drug’s benefits overall.
• Publishing only favorable results. If a study doesn’t achieve the desired outcomes, the industry funder can simply choose not to publish it, like a lie of omission.

Now let’s look at some real-world examples. In practice, a common method of skewing public scientific opinion involves funding counter blows to combat damaging research.

Bias in Practice

So we know bias happens, we know how it happens in theory, and in the real world the skewing attempts get even scrappier. In these examples, the industries used their funding prowess to spin the science of others.

Sugar

This NPR article relays the story of Dr. Christin Kearns, a dentist who was shocked when a handout of government advice about diabetes didn’t mention sugar. Detecting the scent of industry involvement, she began digging for evidence of similar foul play in the dental community.

After months of research and scouring through internal beet and cane sugar documents dating back to the 1950s, Kearns found that the industry does in fact push policy, especially when it concerns potentially damaging research. When the sugar industry caught wind of dental professionals’ intentions to tackle sugar consumption, they launched a counterattack to help people combat tooth decay while eating as much sugar as they wanted. They looked into enzymes that busted up plaque and other ways to fight tooth decay.

Tobacco

No surprise here: the tobacco industry’s efforts to combat damaging research have been fodder for many public health case studies. Tobacco companies specialized in contending with the findings of detrimental studies. Their philosophy read something like this: The longer you argue, the longer it takes to make decisions. And the longer it takes to make decisions, the more time we have to continue business as usual before we’re hampered with new policies. The tobacco industry used this philosophy to fight regulations for decades.

The 1950s and 60s saw tobacco companies fighting claims that smoking was bad for you. After that, they gracefully transitioned to denying the harms of secondhand smoke.

Here’s a commercial for Camel cigarettes showing doctors smoking and enjoying cigarettes and even recommending the Camel brand. Their decision to use a doctor as the main character sends a strong message to the public: If smoking was so bad, would a doctor do it?

In the 1990s, tobacco companies moved to using PR campaigns focusing on “junk science” to criticize reports on the risks of tobacco smoke, even from the government.

In 1998, big tobacco and the United States reached an agreement about how tobacco could be marketed and advertised. This Master Settlement Agreement surfaced documents outlining tobacco’s science-fighting strategy that confirmed what many had already suspected. When it came to steering science dialogue, tobacco’s policy was to:

• Pay for, publish, and promote research supporting their goals; and ,
• Suppress and criticize research going against their goals.

Tobacco’s efforts mark some of the first concerted and funded campaigns against science in history. Their efforts demonstrate the power of manipulating public opinion. Luckily, physician opinion is much harder to shape.

Does funding bias influence practice?

Good news: doctors know how to evaluate medical studies.

In a randomized study of physicians’ interpretations of funding disclosures published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found a majority of physicians were fully capable of evaluating research based on academic rigor and were not fooled by common manipulations. In fact, the knowledge that a study was funded by industry caused their evaluation of the study’s rigor and likelihood of prescribing the studied drug to decrease.

What You Can Do

We can’t ignore oodles of research just because it might be biased. Luckily, there are safeguards in place. Title VIII of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) made researchers start registering and submitting results to clinicaltrials.gov where you can check them out at any time. Individual journals also have publishing regulations protecting us from misleading science. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine publishes information on funding, protocols, and the funding organization’s involvement in the study with all of their articles.

But if you’re feeling less than trusting, you can develop your own methods of evaluating the research you read. When you see something new, check for other studies on the same subject to see if they coincide and take an extra careful look at the study’s design.

This graphic from Compound Interest ranks study methods on a descending scale. Keep this in mind when you’re evaluating research.

Even if it’s just something you see in a magazine, you can look up the original study to investigate the design for yourself and form your own opinion. We have access to more science than ever before. With that comes great power, but also great responsibility. Science can be biased but it’s still up to you whether or not to buy into the bias.

Resources

Primary

World Health Organization: Drug Promotion: What We Know, What We Have Yet to Learn

Additional

Washington Post: As Drug Industry’s Influence Over Research Grows, So Does the Potential For Bias

NPR: Documents Detail Sugar Industry Efforts to Direct Medical Research

Heath, Chip and Dan: Made to Stick

Plos Medicine: Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents

Journal of the American Medical Association: Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials: A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events?

University of California Museum of Paleontology: Who Pays For Science?

Public Health Chronicles: Tobacco Industry Manipulation of Research

Scientific American: Can the Source of Funding For Medical Research Affect the Results?

New England Journal of Medicine: A Randomized Study of How Physicians Interpret Research Funding Disclosures

New England Journal of Medicine: The Proposed Rule For U.S. Clinical Trial Registration and Results Submission

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trusting Scientific Research: Who Funds Our Opinions? appeared first on Law Street.

Cancer. Just one little word that sets hypochondriacs everywhere on edge. To some, the word means nothing but certain death. If that seems a little dramatic to you, guess what’s the second most common cause of death in the United States? That’s right, cancer.

What about the word “virus”? Scary…but not nearly as scary as cancer. It’s certainly not a word that evokes hope. But that may change as medical breakthroughs present a compelling question: can we use viruses to treat cancer?

How could we use viruses to cure cancer?

I know what you’re thinking. How can two negatives combine to achieve something as positive as a cure for cancer? The answer lies in your immune system.

Your immune system pinpoints a virus as a foreign invader, and works to eliminate it. Kind of like how our government would react to an alien spaceship entering Earth’s atmosphere.

On the other hand, your immune system has a harder time detecting cancer. Cancer cells share more characteristics with your own harmless cells than viruses. After all, cancer does originate from your own cells. It’s not in your body’s best interest to attack its own cells, so your immune system may overlook cancer as a threat. Kind of like how the government would react to a standard American aircraft filled with aliens. Seeing the aircraft as one if its own, they would leave it alone, and we’d have an invasion.

In summary, your immune system recognizes and fights viruses, but often not cancer.

So where does the cancer treatment part come in?

Our bodies can fight off viruses efficiently. What if we could hijack that fighting spirit and direct it towards cancer cells? What if we could manipulate our marvelous immune systems to fight off cancer?

That is the basis for how we may use viruses to treat cancer in a process known as oncolytic virotherapy.

Let’s go back to our surreptitious alien friends (cancer). They’ve made it into our atmosphere in their inconspicuous plane and are having a lovely joy ride when that alien spaceship (virus) joins them to transfer some of its passengers. Someone is bound to notice this suspicious activity and alert the authorities. Now the government (immune system), is wise to the presence of foreign invaders in both aircrafts and prepares for attack.

In oncolytic virotherapy, a virus infects a cancer cell. Distressed by this turn of events, the tumor cell releases cytokines which are really just messenger proteins. The cytokines raise the inflammation red flag and the immune system dispatches its sniper-like white blood cells to eliminate the source of inflammation–the infected tumor cell.

That was just one cell. What about an entire cancerous tumor? That’s where a virus’s prodigious replicating power is actually a good thing. Viruses don’t reproduce per se, but inject their own genetic material to commandeer host cells and replicate with their help. Replicating is a virus’s raison d’etre, host cells beware. After one cancer cell is successfully infected, the virus uses it as its replication puppet, consequentially infecting more cancer cells. So one transmission of a virus to a patient could cause destruction of many cancer cells and possibly an entire tumor.

To truly understand this process, take a moment to brush up on your viral replication knowledge. This video will help you out:

Will any virus work?

Any virus can infect and destroy a cancer cell, but it can also infect and destroy healthy cells. Successful oncolytic virotherapy requires a more selective virus–an oncolytic virus. The word oncolytic stems from oncolysis, which means the destruction of tumor cells. Oncolytic viruses are specifically attracted to tumor cells and leave your normal, healthy cells alone. This type of virus combats cancer cells without making patients sick.

That’s a new thing, right?

Yes and no. The concepts underlying virotherapy have been recognized for years. Doctors have pondered the use of viruses to treat cancer for more than a century as they discovered tumor remissions after viral episodes. As early as 1904, researchers noted a remission of cervical cancer in a woman given the rabies vaccination. But while early observations were strong, patient tests yielded erratic results. Then, technological breakthroughs took off in the 1940s and transformed oncolytic virotherapy from dream to possibility.

Scientists began studying genetic material in vitro by the 1970s, opening doors for new experiments and tests. The discovery of recombinant DNA technologies in the 1990s sparked an explosion of breakthroughs in genetic engineering. Genetic engineering took oncolytic virotherapy to new levels.

Genetically Engineering a Cancer-Killing Virus

Genetic engineering empowered scientists to devise oncolytic viruses with certain ideal characteristics for safer, more specific, and more effective oncolytic virotherapy. Scientists created viral vectors that target tumors in the body even more specifically than naturally occurring oncolytic viruses by isolating the human genes that code for tumor antigens. This heightened specificity diminished risk of infection in healthy cells and the toxicity witnessed in early murine (family of rats and mice) and human experiments was mitigated.

With engineered super viruses in tow, interest in oncolytic virotherapy soared.

Fear of engineered viruses  

Many find the concept of engineering viruses a bit on the scary side. I Am Legend, both the book and the movie, epitomizes distrust of viral engineering. The story features some possible side effects of tinkering with nature. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t go well for the people in this story.

But fear not, scientists aren’t cooking up a myriad of franken viruses in their labs unchecked. The field is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration with detailed oversight from the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee reporting through the Office of Biotechnology Activities. To conduct a human study, researchers have to file an investigational new drug application with the FDA. They must provide ample evidence of human safety from prerequisite lab and animal tests. Rest assured they are working hard to prevent a virus induced apocalypse.

Other than oversight…

What other government activities could possibly affect the future on oncolytic virotherapy? Well, if there’s one thing cancer research requires other than brilliant brains, it’s money. In that vein, organizations like the American Society of Clinical Oncology find the stagnant growth in federal funding for cancer research disheartening.

In fact, 75 percent of oncologists in the United States say that current funding slumps impact their ability to conduct cancer research. Check out this infographic from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that sums up the situation.

Even so, proposed legislation to invest in biomedical research, encourage innovation in biotechnology, and fight off the deadliest cancers proves confronting cancer remains a priority for representatives. It looks like the War on Cancer started by the Nixon administration in 1971 is still going strong today.

Does oncolytic virotherapy work?

Mayo Clinic announced a great success in oncolytic virotherapy last May. One nearly hopeless woman saw complete remission of her multiple myeloma after injection with the measles virus – enough to vaccinate 100 million people. Speaking of vaccines, Dr. Mark Federspiel actually came up with the proper concentration of the virus by building up a strain of the measles virus used safely in vaccines. Watch to find out how this success is giving doctors hope for a one-shot cure for cancer:

Hungry for more evidence? Check out Table 1 of this article for a list of published clinical trials in the field of oncolytic virotherapy. One major critique of the therapy is that lab successes often don’t translate to human trials.

What are we waiting for?

There are a few kinks to work out in the field of oncolytic virotherapy before the procedure gains mainstream acceptance.

Here are a few key hurdles:

• The explosion of engineered viruses created by pharmaceutical and biotech companies have presented scientists with more options than they have time or money to test. Furthermore, modifications come so fast, a state of the art engineered virus can quickly become obsolete.
• Treatment toxicities are always possible when using a virus to treat a disease. Healthy cells risk infection as even meticulously engineered viruses have the ability to mutate.
• Finding the right balance of immune suppression and aggression is difficult. The immune system must be weak enough to allow the virus to get to the host, yet also strong enough to combat the infected tumor once the virus has reached it.

Conclusion

A one-shot cure for cancer? Who wouldn’t love that? While it seems like a fairy tale, recent successes are creating buzz that we may be getting closer. Even if one shot doesn’t do it, many believe oncolytic virotherapy can be used synergistically with other cancer therapies to induce tumor remission.

Hope is the most important part of our War on Cancer. Hope drives us to continue fighting in the face of a daunting adversary. Is there reason to hope viruses may be used to treat cancer? Absolutely. Is further research and testing needed? Again, absolutely. The field of oncolytic virotherapy has made incredible progress since the first whispers began over 100 years ago. Surely the next century will bring more advancements than we can possibly imagine today.

Resources

Primary 

Cancer Research Institute: Cancer and the Immune System: The Vital Connection

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Oncolytic Virotherapy

Additional

American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Figures 2014

Genelux: What is Oncolytic Virotherapy?

BBC: How Does the Body Fight Off a Virus?

American Cancer Society: Immunotherapy

The New York Times: Viruses Recruited as Killers of Tumors

UC San Francisco: Killing Cancer Through the Immune System

Clinical and Translational Oncology: Viruses in Cancer Treatment

Mayo Clinic: Harnessing Viruses to Treat Cancer

Dove Press: Applications of Coxsackievirus A21 in Oncology

Dove Press: Reovirus in Cancer Therapy: an Evidence-Based Review

NIH: Oncolytic virotherapy

Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: Oncolytic Viruses for Cancer Therapy: Overcoming the Obstacles

BMJ: Fighting Cancer With Oncolytic Viruses

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fighting Fire With Fire: Can Viruses Cure Cancer? appeared first on Law Street.

There are a few ways you can screw up an interview before it even starts. Here are some common (and not so common…hopefully) mistakes that can ruin your chances.

1. Canceling/Rescheduling/Showing up late. Shit happens. Life gets in the way. It happens once in a while to everyone. But short of an emergency, there is no excuse for a last-minute interview bailout. If you do have to change things around, give as much notice as possible. If you’re a no-show or cancel at the last minute, then you need to make that choice with the understanding that you are probably not going to be in the running for the position. 

2. Not bringing your resume. This one won’t necessarily put a nail in your coffin, but it won’t show that you’re prepared. Even if they don’t need it, bringing a copy of your resume shows that you took the extra time, thought ahead, and are serious about the position.

3. Not being prepared. You will be asked what you know about the company. Prepare for that. You’ll hurt yourself right out of the gate if you don’t.

4. Talking about money too soon. I know that everyone has a bottom line and a salary requirement. Making sure you know your worth is an important part of selecting a career, but don’t bring this up until you’re far along in the process. Make sure to keep the interview about how you’ll benefit the position and the company. A salary offer isn’t usually presented until the position is offered, or close to that point, so don’t jump the gun on this.

5. Not looking appropriate. Business casual, people. Just be safe.

6. Having no questions or comments to offer. There’s a part of every interview when you’ll be asked if you have any questions. Make sure you have them — at least one. It further drives home the point that you’ve done your homework.

7. Offering unsolicited advice on how the company could do better. If you see a flaw on the company’s website or in their social media presence, keep it to yourself. Unless expressly asked, your criticism, no matter how well-meaning, won’t leave a good impression.

8. Being hungover. I saved the best for last. When I did some research, this was actually common advice. This is surprising because it wouldn’t seem like this would be necessary given how incredibly stupid you would have to be to do this. But yes, don’t show up hungover. Or worse, still drunk.

Happy hunting.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Top 8 Interview Mistakes to Avoid appeared first on Law Street.

Abortion rates in the US are at the lowest point since the procedure was legalized in 1973. Between 2008 and 2011, the rate of abortions nationwide decreased by 13 percent, and according to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, there are several explanations contributing to this downward trend. Researchers noted that the decreasing abortion rate coincided with a general decrease in the number of pregnancies and births in the US, an increase in contraception access, and the general effects of the recession. Significantly, the study did not find a correlation between the lower rates and restrictive state policies on abortions. For instance, some of the states included in the remarkably lower rates of abortion were California and New York, states that do not have very restrictive abortion laws. 

These findings are very interesting, but what is really important about the research is how it is handled by the media. The differences between the sources reporting on this study provide an excellent example of the subtle techniques news outlets use to impact the opinion of their audiences.

Here is Fox News‘ rendition of the story.

Although Fox claims to be ‘fair and biased’, it is pretty well known that Fox News is right leaning. The article correctly reports the published data from the Institute, but also includes certain additions to the piece that speak to the ability of news sources to include an ideological slant. First, the outlet incorporates a picture of pro-life activists as if the decreased abortion rate has been attributed to the success of groups lobbying to restrict abortion, which is contradictory to the findings’ inability to correlate the implementation of states’ restrictive policies and the decrease in abortions.

Furthermore, the Fox article includes statements from leaders of pro-life organizations who were confident that the results of the findings meant that their efforts to discourage abortion were succeeding, despite the lack of supporting evidence. The article includes quotes from the presidents of the National Right to Life Committee and Americans United for Life, both of whom remain committed to the belief that the pro-life movement should be credited for the drop in abortions. On the contrary, there are no statements from a pro-choice organization. By only including the opinions of one point of view on the abortion issue, the Fox article fails to objectively report on the story.

Another conservative source, the New American, goes further in its article; it almost chastises the Institute’s study by failing to include data of abortion rates after many states in 2011 enacted new restrictive abortion policies. It also includes statements from pro-life affiliates who discuss the next steps in the fight for limiting abortion, which completely strays from the discussion of the study’s findings.

Compare that to the Daily Beast’s rendition of the study, which was largely in response to conservative positions on the story.

In this article, The Daily Beast clearly showcases its slant by not only featuring a picture of pro-choice activists, but by arguing that progressive efforts such as increased contraceptive access and sex education policies have a greater impact on the decreased abortion rate than policies limiting abortion clinics. While the study did find contraceptives to be a factor in the decreased abortion rate, the article fails to mention anything about the other variables listed by Guttmacher, which are crucial to the overall findings: decreased birthrate and the recession. The article takes only the pieces that fit well into their argument.

The Daily Beast’s liberal take on the story is echoed by Slate, which featured a picture of condoms and stated that the lower rate should be championed by pro-choicers.

Of course, freedom of the press allows the media to say what they want about different stories, and these sources did correctly display the Institute’s data. However, what the contrast of the sources shows is that readers need to be aware of potential bias depending on where they choose to get their information. True, it is pretty well known that Fox News and The Daily Beast have clear political ideologies. However, these blatant examples of the media’s tricks to slant their reporting highlights the importance of smart and careful reading. By providing visual images of a clear ideological stance on an issue as well as selectively including or deleting certain parts of the study, the different articles show the subtleties that they utilize to influence their readers or viewers.

Additionally, this example shows the importance of seeking out sources of one’s opposing viewpoint in order to get a different perspective and learn how the other side can view the same issue. In order to truly grasp the crux of the issue at hand, readers must be prepared to compare different media sources to really get the best information. 

[Guttmacher] [Fox News] [The Daily Beast] [New York Times] [Slate] [The New American]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [lalavnova via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Abortion Rates Are Down, But Why Does Your News Outlet Say That Is? appeared first on Law Street.

Harvard Medical School has been slapped with fines of $24,036 for violating the Animal Welfare Act.The Animal Welfare Act originated in 1966 and includes provisions to protect the rights and treatment of animals in research facilities. Since 2011, four of their research monkeys have died. These were not expected cases of research running its course, and the monkeys dying of diseases for which cures were attempting to be found. Instead, these cases seemed to be more clear-cut instances of neglect. One monkey died after a lab worker overdosed it with anesthetic. Another two monkeys died from lack of hydration. And a fourth was strangled after a toy attached to its cage wrapped around its neck.

After a lengthy investigation by the USDA, eleven separate violations were found. Not all of these fines were in relation to the treatment of those four monkeys, but included charges that workers who had not been properly trained were allowed to handle the animals. All of the violations occurred at a Harvard Medical School Research Lab in Southborough MA, called the New England Primate Research Center. Harvard Medical School does have another lab, in Boston. Because of personnel problems, financial issues, and other reasons, Harvard Medical School has actually vowed to shut down the Southborough research facility, but keep the smaller Boston lab that also deals with primate research, open.

Each of the eleven violations that were found could have warranted a $10,000 fine, but Harvard Medical School got off relatively easily with a fine of $24,036. They received a lesser fine because many of the violations had been previously disclosed, and because they took effort to mitigate the problems that had been discovered. Harvard Medical School officials stated they believed their fine was lessened because of the “excellent work of those members of our community who took aggressive action to institute rigorous quality improvements that benefit animal safety and welfare”.

The fine is relatively unusual. There are about 1,300 licensed animal research facilities around the country, all of which are held to the Animal Welfare Act. While investigators often find small violations, the facilities are usually just censured because the violations are usually not as egregious as what happened at Harvard Medical School. In the past three years, only eight research facilities have been been fined. Five of those eight violations have been for mistreatment of primates.

Although the fine seems like a lot, animal activists have pointed out that it doesn’t seem to be nearly enough. For a research facility the size of Harvard, $24,036 won’t make too much of a dent. A PETA spokesman pointed out that Harvard Medical School receives $185 million in taxpayer-funded grants alone, and about half of those go to research. Animal rights activists have also pointed out that a few years ago, the University of Louisiana at Lafayette was fined almost $40,000 for three primate deaths arising out of just two incidents.

We need to test on animals, that’s nothing new. In an ideal world, we would not have to, but that’s just not a point to which our science has progressed at this period in time. But it is hard to excuse a case that seems like pretty straightforward neglect. The Animal Welfare Act was put in place to prevent things like animals dying because of a mistake like an errant toy, or lack of water. And while I usually find organizations such as PETA to be a bit heavy-handed, in this case I think they’re right. The fine to Harvard Medical School will just be a slap on the wrist, at best.

I’ve written a few articles on sentencing being too harsh for individuals, but in this case, I think the opposite is true. If the Animal Welfare Act is going to be enacted against large institution facilities, it needs to be guarantee a harsher sentence than what Harvard Medical School received.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jim Ankan Deka via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Medical School Violates Animal Welfare Act appeared first on Law Street.