thescientist--2020-08-11--Gilead Urged to Explore Remdesivir Relative as COVID-19 Drug

Gilead Sciences , the maker of remdesivir , is under pressure from citizen advocates to launch clinical trials on COVID-19 patients of another of its compounds—one that advocates claim could be cheaper , easier to make , and more effective at treating the novel coronavirus .
Remdesivir is currently the only medication to have emergency use authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients .
In a letter posted last week ( August 4 ) , the Washington-based advocacy organization Public Citizen urged the company to focus on GS-441524 , a compound that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been used to treat cats infected with a different , feline-specific coronavirus .
The letter presses Gilead and government health agencies to “ either work collaboratively to promptly pursue the development of the experimental antiviral drug GS-441524 .
.
.
as a treatment for [ COVID-19 ] or publicly provide evidence why it is not scientifically or medically feasible to develop this drug in parallel with its close analogue , remdesivir.
” The organization isn ’ t the first to highlight the possibility of repurposing drugs used to treat feline coronavirus .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in May by researchers in Canada suggested that another drug used to treat viral infections in cats , GC376 , could inhibit an enzyme that SARS-CoV-2 needs in order to replicate .
The company with the license for that compound , California-based Anivive Lifesciences , is reportedly planning clinical trials , according to Science News .
Neither compound has received FDA approval in cats with feline coronavirus infections , let alone in people with SARS-CoV-2 infections .
Gilead tells the Chicago Tribune that the company is working on preclinical studies with GS-441524 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been formally tested in people prior to the pandemic .
Remdesivir had gone through rapid clinical trials during the West African Ebola epidemic of 2013 to 2016 .
Derek Lowe , a drug discovery scientist and author of In the Pipeline , a well-known blog about the pharma industry , tells The Guardian that remdesivir and other antivirals such as GS-441524 will become less important to the public health response to COVID-19 as efforts to find other treatments and prophylaxes progress .
“ Monoclonal antibodies and vaccines are , to my eyes ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this pandemic , ” he says .

Remdesivir is currently the only medication to have emergency use authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In a letter...
Gilead Sciences, the maker of remdesivir , is under pressure from citizen advocates to launch clinical trials on COVID-19 patients of another of its compounds—one that advocates claim could be cheaper, easier to make, and more effective at treating the novel coronavirus.
Update (August 25): The National Institutes of Health has said it will be conducting preclinical research on GS-441524 as a potential COVID-19 treatment. In a letter dated August 20, the director of the agency’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences wrote: “We are planning to independently test the therapeutic hypothesis for GS-441524 in treating SARS-CoV-2. . . . We expect to conduct these studies quickly and make the results available to the research community for further consideration.”
The letter presses Gilead and government health agencies to “either work collaboratively to promptly pursue the development of the experimental antiviral drug GS-441524 . . . as a treatment for [COVID-19] or publicly provide evidence why it is not scientifically or medically feasible to develop this drug in parallel with its close analogue, remdesivir.”
The organization isn’t the first to highlight the possibility of repurposing drugs used to treat feline coronavirus. An in vitro study posted as a preprint in May by researchers in Canada suggested that another drug used to treat viral infections in cats, GC376, could inhibit an enzyme that SARS-CoV-2 needs in order to replicate. The company with the license for that compound, California-based Anivive Lifesciences, is reportedly planning clinical trials, according to Science News.
Neither compound has received FDA approval in cats with feline coronavirus infections, let alone in people with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Gilead tells the Chicago Tribune that the company is working on preclinical studies with GS-441524, which, unlike remdesivir, had not been formally tested in people prior to the pandemic. Remdesivir had gone through rapid clinical trials during the West African Ebola epidemic of 2013 to 2016.
Derek Lowe, a drug discovery scientist and author of In the Pipeline, a well-known blog about the pharma industry, tells The Guardian that remdesivir and other antivirals such as GS-441524 will become less important to the public health response to COVID-19 as efforts to find other treatments and prophylaxes progress. “Monoclonal antibodies and vaccines are, to my eyes (and not just mine) the answer to this pandemic,” he says.


thescientist--2020-08-11--Infographic: What is ME/CFS?

Infographic: What is ME/CFS?

People with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome ( ME/CFS ) suffer from a chronic , debilitating fatigue that can leave them @ @ @ @ @ or take part in normal activities .
Because of the condition ’ s unclear pathology @ @ @ @ @ disease was long dismissed as a psychiatric illness by doctors and ignored by researchers .
@ @ @ @ @ estimated that 836,000 to 2.5 million Americans suffer from the disease—the vast majority of them @ @ @ @ @ billions annually in medical bills and lost incomes .
See “ Could COVID-19 Trigger Chronic @ @ @ @ @ ” Below are the diagnostic criteria for the disease , according to the National Academy @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know what causes ME/CFS , which has hampered efforts to develop treatments @ @ @ @ @ disease .
However , there are several factors that appear to be involved .

ABOVE: © THE SCIENTIST STAFF
People with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) suffer from a chronic, debilitating fatigue that can leave them unable to maintain a job or take part in normal activities. Because of the condition’s unclear pathology and root causes, the disease was long dismissed as a psychiatric illness by doctors and ignored by researchers. Today, it’s estimated that 836,000 to 2.5 million Americans suffer from the disease—the vast majority of them undiagnosed—and that the illness costs billions annually in medical bills and lost incomes.
Below are the diagnostic criteria for the disease, according to the National Academy of Medicine.


thescientist--2020-08-11--Russia Approves World's First Coronavirus Vaccine

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced today ( August 11 ) that his country had won the global race to approve a vaccine against COVID-19 , several news outlets have reported .
Despite having only been in clinical trials for less than two months , the vaccine developed by the Gamaleya Institute in Moscow is safe , Putin said at a televised cabinet meeting , noting that it has already been given to one of his daughters , according to Reuters and The Washington Post .
The government plans to first vaccinate high-risk groups such as healthcare workers and teachers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large-scale production begins , according to the Associated Press .
“ It works effectively enough , forms a stable immunity and , I repeat , it has gone through all necessary tests , ” Putin said at the meeting , according to The New York Times .
Researchers around the world , including in Russia , expressed worries that Gamaleya and its collaborators may be cutting corners of vaccine development , with no safety or immunity data yet released from ongoing early stage trials , and no Phase 3 trial yet underway .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leader in the ( vaccine ) race , it will just expose consumers of the vaccine to unnecessary danger , ” Russia ’ s Association of Clinical Trials Organizations said Monday as it cautioned against the vaccine ’ s premature approval , according to the AP .
“ The collateral damage from release of any vaccine that was less than safe and effective would exacerbate our current problems insurmountably , ” agrees Imperial College London immunologist Danny Altmann in a statement quoted by several news outlets .
The vaccine uses an adenovirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the AP , Kirill Dmitriev , chief executive of the Russian Direct Investment Fund , told reporters this week that Phase 3 testing in the UAE , Saudia Arabia , the Philippines , and elsewhere could start as early as tomorrow and include “ several thousand people.
” The World Health Organization ( WHO ) , which last week urged Russia to follow international COVID vaccine development guidelines , according to the BBC , says it ’ s now in talks with the country for a possible “ WHO prequalification , @ @ @ @ @

Vladimir Putin in Serbia, October 2014
ABOVE: © ISTOCK.COM, DICUS63
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced today (August 11) that his country had won the global race to approve a vaccine against COVID-19, several news outlets have reported. Despite having only been in clinical trials for less than two months, the vaccine developed by the Gamaleya Institute in Moscow is safe, Putin said at a televised cabinet meeting, noting that it has already been given to one of his daughters, according to Reuters and The Washington Post. The government plans to first vaccinate high-risk groups such as healthcare workers and teachers, with mass vaccination starting in October after large-scale production begins, according to the Associated Press.
“It works effectively enough, forms a stable immunity and, I repeat, it has gone through all necessary tests,” Putin said at the meeting, according to The New York Times.
Researchers around...


thescientist--2020-08-10--Noel Rose, Who Demonstrated Autoimmunity Exists, Dies at 92

Noel Rose , an immunologist and microbiologist whose early experiments underpinned the molecular mechanisms of autoimmune disease , died of a stroke July 30 .
He was 92 .
As a young medical student , Rose worked alongside his mentor , Ernest Witebsky of the University at Buffalo , studying organ-specific antigens .
The prevailing hypothesis for the last half century had been that the body was incapable of producing antigens against itself , an idea known as horror autotoxicus .
Witebsky ’ s own academic lineage stretched back to the idea ’ s original progenitor , Paul Ehrlich , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late 19th century .
But Rose showed that rabbits injected with their own thyroid-derived antigens mounted an immune response against the invading molecules that damaged or destroyed the animals ’ thyroid .
The body was indeed capable of attacking itself .
The results were so outlandish that the first journals refused to publish the findings , and it took years of careful experimentation to finally topple the paradigm of horror autotoxicus .
Over the next several decades , Rose would further characterize the genetic and environmental causes of autoimmune diseases , publishing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subject , according to Johns Hopkins University .
“ In every aspect , [ Rose ] is the father of autoimmunity , ” George Tsokos , a professor of rheumatology at Harvard Medical School , told The Scientist in a profile of Rose this year .
“ The man opened a whole chapter in the book of medicine.
” Currently , there are more than 80 recognized autoimmune diseases , including lupus , type 1 diabetes , rheumatoid arthritis , and AIDS , that have sickened more than 20 million Americans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Rose called autoimmune diseases “ one of the big three , meaning cancer , heart disease , and autoimmune disease.
” Rose was born December 3 , 1927 , in Stamford , Connecticut .
His father , a physician who served during World War II , became a specialist in treating rheumatic fever , now considered to be an autoimmune disease , the Post reports .
Prior to his groundbreaking work , Rose frequently brushed up against the limitations of medical knowledge at the time .
When he began his undergraduate degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wanted to study microbiology , but he was only able to attend a handful of classes on the topic .
Instead , he majored in zoology and took the electives in microbiology , which were taught by botanists—bacteria were largely thought to be plants at the time , The Scientist reported in June .
Rose decided to complete a PhD ahead of attending medical school .
He joined the lab of microbiologist Harry Morton at the University of Pennsylvania in 1948 , where he spent the next several years studying the flagella-like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacterium that causes syphilis .
See `` The Father of Autoimmunity : A Profile of Noel Rose '' Next , Rose enrolled as a medical student at the University at Buffalo , where he would make many of his most important medical discoveries .
It was here , working alongside Witebsky , that he first demonstrated autoimmunity in rabbits .
Rose extracted a protein called thyroglobulin from humans , horses , and pigs , treated it with a solution called Freund ’ s adjuvant to induce an immune response , and injected it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thyroglobulin was similar to the protein already in the rabbits ’ body , the animals still produced protective antibodies .
This was true even when the protein , primed by the adjuvant that induces an immune response , came from another rabbit , and most surprisingly , when the protein was extracted and re-injected into the same animal .
When he looked at the thyroids of these rabbits , he found that they were often damaged , and sometimes destroyed , by the body ’ s own immune response .
After having their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Rose turned to studying autoimmunity in humans , determined to replicate and refine their work .
They focused on Hashimoto ’ s disease , a rare thyroid condition with no identifiable cause , showing that serum taken from patients developed the same type of antibodies when exposed to thyroglobulin that they had seen in rabbits .
“ We went ahead and showed that this same destruction applies to humans and that you could induce a disease in an organ by immunizing it with a specific antigen of the same species , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that was autoimmunity.
” Having overturned the idea of horror autotoxicus , Rose says , the work “ came out of the walls , ” and he spent the next several decades furthering the study of autoimmune diseases .
He graduated with his MD in 1964 and remained at the University at Buffalo .
According to a memorial page by Johns Hopkins University , where his career would eventually take him , his lab at Buffalo was the first to show that the genes for the major histocompatibility complex , closely linked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary genes that determine the risk for autoimmune diseases .
Rose moved his lab to Wayne State University in 1973 , where he remained for almost a decade before finally accepting a position at Johns Hopkins in 1981 in the Bloomberg School of Public Health .
There , Rose focused on environmental conditions that could trigger disease .
In many diseases , Rose told The Scientist , “ genetics was always less than half the risk .
We thought something from the environment must be involved.
” His later work focused on myocarditis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Rose was still working up until his death .
He found great promise in the advent of big data and using it to analyze hundreds or thousands and patients to identify the best possible treatments and preventives .
“ What we want to do is avoid the train wreck from the beginning , and I think we can begin to do that , ” Rose told The Scientist .
“ That ’ s what I ’ m excited about.
” Rose is survived by his wife of 69 years , Deborah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 grandchildren , and five great-grandchildren .

But Rose showed that rabbits injected with their own thyroid-derived antigens mounted an immune response against the invading molecules that damaged or destroyed the animals’ thyroid. The body was indeed capable of attacking itself. The results were so outlandish that the first journals refused to publish...
As a young medical student, Rose worked alongside his mentor, Ernest Witebsky of the University at Buffalo, studying organ-specific antigens. The prevailing hypothesis for the last half century had been that the body was incapable of producing antigens against itself, an idea known as horror autotoxicus. Witebsky’s own academic lineage stretched back to the idea’s original progenitor, Paul Ehrlich, who had coined the term in the late 19th century.
“In every aspect, [Rose] is the father of autoimmunity,” George Tsokos, a professor of rheumatology at Harvard Medical School, told The Scientist in a profile of Rose this year. “The man opened a whole chapter in the book of medicine.”
Currently, there are more than 80 recognized autoimmune diseases, including lupus, type 1 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis, that have sickened more than 20 million Americans. Speaking to The Washington Post in 1995, Rose called autoimmune diseases “one of the big three, meaning cancer, heart disease, and autoimmune disease.”
Rose was born December 3, 1927, in Stamford, Connecticut. His father, a physician who served during World War II, became a specialist in treating rheumatic fever, now considered to be an autoimmune disease, the Post reports.
Prior to his groundbreaking work, Rose frequently brushed up against the limitations of medical knowledge at the time. When he began his undergraduate degree at Yale University in the mid-1940s, he wanted to study microbiology, but he was only able to attend a handful of classes on the topic. Instead, he majored in zoology and took the electives in microbiology, which were taught by botanists—bacteria were largely thought to be plants at the time, The Scientist reported in June.
Rose decided to complete a PhD ahead of attending medical school. He joined the lab of microbiologist Harry Morton at the University of Pennsylvania in 1948, where he spent the next several years studying the flagella-like motor structures of Treponema pallidum, the bacterium that causes syphilis.
Next, Rose enrolled as a medical student at the University at Buffalo, where he would make many of his most important medical discoveries. It was here, working alongside Witebsky, that he first demonstrated autoimmunity in rabbits.
Rose extracted a protein called thyroglobulin from humans, horses, and pigs, treated it with a solution called Freund’s adjuvant to induce an immune response, and injected it into rabbits. Even though the injected thyroglobulin was similar to the protein already in the rabbits’ body, the animals still produced protective antibodies. This was true even when the protein, primed by the adjuvant that induces an immune response, came from another rabbit, and most surprisingly, when the protein was extracted and re-injected into the same animal. When he looked at the thyroids of these rabbits, he found that they were often damaged, and sometimes destroyed, by the body’s own immune response.
After having their findings rejected during peer review, Witebsky and Rose turned to studying autoimmunity in humans, determined to replicate and refine their work. They focused on Hashimoto’s disease, a common thyroid condition with no identifiable cause, showing that serum taken from patients developed the same type of antibodies when exposed to thyroglobulin that they had seen in rabbits. “We went ahead and showed that this same destruction applies to humans and that you could induce a disease in an organ by immunizing it with a specific antigen of the same species,” Rose had told The Scientist. “And that was autoimmunity.”
Having overturned the idea of horror autotoxicus, Rose says, the work “came out of the walls,” and he spent the next several decades furthering the study of autoimmune diseases. He graduated with his MD in 1964 and remained at the University at Buffalo. According to a memorial page by Johns Hopkins University, where his career would eventually take him, his lab at Buffalo was the first to show that the genes for the major histocompatibility complex, closely linked on human chromosome six, contain the primary genes that determine the risk for autoimmune diseases.
Rose moved his lab to Wayne State University in 1973, where he remained for almost a decade before finally accepting a position at Johns Hopkins in 1981 in the Bloomberg School of Public Health. There, Rose focused on environmental conditions that could trigger disease. In many diseases, Rose told The Scientist, “genetics was always less than half the risk. We thought something from the environment must be involved.”
His later work focused on myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and Rose was still working up until his death. He found great promise in the advent of big data and using it to analyze hundreds or thousands and patients to identify the best possible treatments and preventives. “What we want to do is avoid the train wreck from the beginning, and I think we can begin to do that,” Rose told The Scientist. “That’s what I’m excited about.”
Rose is survived by his wife of 69 years, Deborah, two sons, two daughters, 10 grandchildren, and five great-grandchildren.
Correction (August 12): We mistakenly included AIDS in a list of autoimmune diseases and referred to Hashimoto's disease as a rare condition, when in fact it is common. The Scientist regrets these errors.


thescientist--2020-08-10--Research Slated for Fall Will Stumble Without Undergraduates

ABOVE : Undergraduate students face an uncertain future as schools wrestle with tentative fall plans .
COREY GARZA/CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY , MONTEREY BAY While many universities weigh a return to in-person classes this fall , research progress in the fall could be stymied if students continue to shelter in place as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic or if labs remain shuttered even when campuses reopen .
Undergraduates in particular are important contributors to ongoing research , scientists say , but their return hinges on the virus ’ s progression over the summer .
“ If my students aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t happen , ” says Annaliese Franz , a chemist at University of California , Davis .
Because of the pandemic , her five undergraduates , some of whom have priority in working in the lab over her PhD students , have been barred from continuing their experiments synthesizing new molecules , a major contribution in driving Franz ’ s research developing biofuels forward .
Moving into the fall , Franz says she “ has hope ” undergraduate students will be able to return , but she ’ s managing her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her concern for her research .
While no single entity tracks the research output of the roughly 16.6 million undergraduate students nationwide , metrics from individual institutions offer some scale : the Undergraduate Research Center at UC Davis reports that roughly 50 percent of its 31,000 undergrads are involved in independent research , mostly in STEM fields , while the University of Washington reports that undergraduate research efforts topped 1.5 million hours in the 2017–18 academic year .
“ It ’ s substantial work that helps to move the research agenda forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Council on Undergraduate Research in Washington DC .
Undergraduates may start out untrained , but many become essential members of their lab groups , DeCosmo notes .
Rather than see productivity plummet with undergraduates out of the lab , Franz , Michael Johnson , a microbiologist at the University of Arizona , and other researchers have pivoted to focus on renewing their existing grants , analyzing neglected data , and writing up results for publication .
“ There ’ s still a lot of work that can be done remotely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Johnson tells The Scientist .
See “ Opinion : Use the Pandemic to Expand the Lab to the Home ” While established scientists such as Franz and Johnson can tap into years of past work to continue to move their research forward , junior faculty aren ’ t so fortunate .
Chris Durr , an inorganic chemist at Amherst College in Massachusetts , relies on his students to design biodegradable alternatives to plastics .
But having just completed his second year of teaching and building a lab , he doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data awaiting analysis .
His lab still operates under startup money provided by his institution , and those funds support the work of undergraduates who are no longer allowed in his lab because of the pandemic .
“ Not having them in the lab has really kind of ground everything to a halt , ” Durr tells The Scientist .
Because he can not further his research goals , Durr has instead “ completely shifted to teaching ” —a time-consuming task for newer faculty who are expected to teach multiple classes each year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus has been on restructuring curricula for virtual learning , which takes time away , he says , from other tasks such as completing grant applications due at the end of summer .
Junior faculty member Elizabeth Mosqueda , who has just finished her first year at California State University , Monterey Bay , says she has been fortunate to continue her field research , although her lab on campus remains inaccessible .
Mosqueda is an agronomist studying how automation affects workers in the agricultural fields of central California .
She and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to count weeds before and after an automated weeding machine passes through to measure how it eases the burden on crews that perform a second pass pulling any missed weeds by hand .
Her assistant received special clearance because during their work , Mosqueda says , “ it ’ s pretty simple to keep social distancing.
” But even as Mosqueda ’ s project continues , other crucial aspects of establishing a new lab and research program have suffered .
A grant application fell through after her collaborator admitted he didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caring for his three children .
On top of funding losses , ongoing isolation makes it difficult to build working relationships with other colleagues in her field .
“ That collaboration is everything when it comes to managing and bringing up your research program , ” Mosqueda says .
Despite itching to make progress , uncertainty around safety for her students has made Mosqueda think twice about her plans for the fall .
She had hoped to take on more students to build her team , but “ I just don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time for me to do that , ” she says .
See “ Amidst Uncertainty , Flexibility Is Key in Higher Ed , Faculty Say ” For now , faculty are making what they can of the summer .
Durr says one advantage of the pandemic is the opportunity to “ step back and think about new molecules to make ” in the future .
As a summer project , he has two undergraduates at work “ scouring the literature ” and taking initial stabs at conceptualizing new experiments for when the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has put his students to work completing literature reviews , learning to code , and analyzing data of their own while they ’ re at home .
Sensing a wider need for student opportunities , he established the National Summer Undergraduate Research Program ( NSURP ) in June , which placed its first cohort of 124 BIPOC ( Black , Indigenous , People of Color ) students into virtual research projects nationwide .
As with his own students , participants in NSURP continue to gain skills through independent projects facilitated by faculty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a switch to teaching professional development skills such as resume building and science communication .
Johnson says these activities , which are themselves foundational to becoming a good scientist , will most likely persist into the fall if labs remain closed .
When asked when they anticipate a return to normalcy , all of the researchers pointed far into the future , to the spring or fall of 2021 .
“ Nobody has great answers for what the future is going to look like , ” Durr says .
“ I think a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , being a professor right now , being a student right now , is learning to be okay with that .
”

“If my students aren’t in lab, the research just can’t happen,” says Annaliese Franz , a chemist at University of California, Davis. Because of the pandemic, her five undergraduates, some of whom have priority in working in the lab over her PhD students, have been barred from continuing their experiments synthesizing new molecules, a major contribution in driving Franz’s research developing biofuels forward. Moving into...
While many universities weigh a return to in-person classes this fall, research progress in the fall could be stymied if students continue to shelter in place as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic or if labs remain shuttered even when campuses reopen. Undergraduates in particular are important contributors to ongoing research, scientists say, but their return hinges on the virus’s progression over the summer.
She’s not alone in her concern for her research. While no single entity tracks the research output of the roughly 16.6 million undergraduate students nationwide, metrics from individual institutions offer some scale: the Undergraduate Research Center at UC Davis reports that roughly 50 percent of its 31,000 undergrads are involved in independent research, mostly in STEM fields, while the University of Washington reports that undergraduate research efforts topped 1.5 million hours in the 2017–18 academic year.
Students collect field measurements on Catalina Island off the coast of California. COREY GARZA/CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, MONTEREY BAY
“It’s substantial work that helps to move the research agenda forward,” says Janice DeCosmo, president of the Council on Undergraduate Research in Washington DC. Undergraduates may start out untrained, but many become essential members of their lab groups, DeCosmo notes.
Rather than see productivity plummet with undergraduates out of the lab, Franz, Michael Johnson, a microbiologist at the University of Arizona, and other researchers have pivoted to focus on renewing their existing grants, analyzing neglected data, and writing up results for publication. “There’s still a lot of work that can be done remotely that is valuable and contributory to the field,” Johnson tells The Scientist.
While established scientists such as Franz and Johnson can tap into years of past work to continue to move their research forward, junior faculty aren’t so fortunate. Chris Durr, an inorganic chemist at Amherst College in Massachusetts, relies on his students to design biodegradable alternatives to plastics. But having just completed his second year of teaching and building a lab, he doesn’t have the same pool of idle data awaiting analysis. His lab still operates under startup money provided by his institution, and those funds support the work of undergraduates who are no longer allowed in his lab because of the pandemic. “Not having them in the lab has really kind of ground everything to a halt,” Durr tells The Scientist.
Because he cannot further his research goals, Durr has instead “completely shifted to teaching”—a time-consuming task for newer faculty who are expected to teach multiple classes each year. With classes now online, his focus has been on restructuring curricula for virtual learning, which takes time away, he says, from other tasks such as completing grant applications due at the end of summer.
Undergraduates can often work unsupervised on independent projects or as research assistants for graduate students carrying out research in the field. CARLOS ROBLES/CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES
Junior faculty member Elizabeth Mosqueda, who has just finished her first year at California State University, Monterey Bay, says she has been fortunate to continue her field research, although her lab on campus remains inaccessible. Mosqueda is an agronomist studying how automation affects workers in the agricultural fields of central California. She and an undergraduate assistant travel to local lettuce fields to count weeds before and after an automated weeding machine passes through to measure how it eases the burden on crews that perform a second pass pulling any missed weeds by hand. Her assistant received special clearance because during their work, Mosqueda says, “it’s pretty simple to keep social distancing.”
But even as Mosqueda’s project continues, other crucial aspects of establishing a new lab and research program have suffered. A grant application fell through after her collaborator admitted he didn’t have time to work on it while caring for his three children. On top of funding losses, ongoing isolation makes it difficult to build working relationships with other colleagues in her field. “That collaboration is everything when it comes to managing and bringing up your research program,” Mosqueda says.
Despite itching to make progress, uncertainty around safety for her students has made Mosqueda think twice about her plans for the fall. She had hoped to take on more students to build her team, but “I just don’t know if it would be the right time for me to do that,” she says.
For now, faculty are making what they can of the summer. Durr says one advantage of the pandemic is the opportunity to “step back and think about new molecules to make” in the future. As a summer project, he has two undergraduates at work “scouring the literature” and taking initial stabs at conceptualizing new experiments for when the work picks up again.
Johnson also says he has put his students to work completing literature reviews, learning to code, and analyzing data of their own while they’re at home. Sensing a wider need for student opportunities, he established the National Summer Undergraduate Research Program (NSURP) in June, which placed its first cohort of 124 BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) students into virtual research projects nationwide. As with his own students, participants in NSURP continue to gain skills through independent projects facilitated by faculty mentors. Many faculty have also made a switch to teaching professional development skills such as resume building and science communication. Johnson says these activities, which are themselves foundational to becoming a good scientist, will most likely persist into the fall if labs remain closed.
When asked when they anticipate a return to normalcy, all of the researchers pointed far into the future, to the spring or fall of 2021. “Nobody has great answers for what the future is going to look like,” Durr says. “I think a big part of doing research right now, being a professor right now, being a student right now, is learning to be okay with that.”


thescientist--2020-08-10--Looking Back, Looking Ahead

Looking Back, Looking Ahead

As we all continue to grapple with the disruptive reality of the COVID-19 pandemic , most people are focused on the present and the near future .
Will schools open in the fall ?
Are vaccine trials delivering promising results ?
When will this nightmare end , and what will the world look like in its aftermath ?
Not as much of our collective attention is being paid to the past .
But the turbulent first half of 2020 has shown us that without the proper appreciation for the past , we are in danger of repeating mistakes or perpetuating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the world have been wrestling with systems in which the subjugation , oppression , and enslavement of entire groups of people has been commonplace for centuries .
Properly contextualizing and understanding this shameful history is an obvious first step towards creating a better world and more loving societies for everyone .
Absent this grounding in the past , a brighter future , free from racist ideologies and the scars they left , is virtually impossible .
A well-informed view of history might similarly facilitate living through and learning from the ongoing pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of COVID-19 offered hasty ( and false ) reassurances that COVID-19 was comparable to seasonal influenza .
Claims that SARS-CoV-2 ’ s prevalence would wane with the warming months of spring or that it wouldn ’ t exact a toll much beyond that of a bad flu season turned out to be wrong , as many people pointed out when such assertions were first voiced .
But a little more than a century ago , a worldwide influenza pandemic killed at least 50 million people and perhaps as much as 100 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may help modern citizens , which comprise the descendants of those who survived that global catastrophe , cope with our own pathogenic present and future .
Experts aren ’ t sure where and when the 1918 flu outbreak started .
An early cluster of cases on a US military base in Kansas could have been ground zero for the pandemic .
The illness only became known as the “ Spanish flu ” as unfettered reports of infections and deaths emerged from Spain , which remained neutral throughout the course of the world war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years .
In countries that were combatants in that multinational conflagration , the considerations of wartime propaganda and the projection of national strength outweighed the need to provide accurate and up-to-date epidemiological information on a disease that was racing rapidly around the globe .
If this obfuscation , which was aided by media outlets acquiescing to political strategies in warring countries , had been tempered by an urgency to disseminate quality health and disease information , perhaps the dreadful tide of the flu pandemic could have been stemmed to a degree .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarly hobbling the world ’ s ability to mount and sustain a robust and effective response to a widespread disease .
Recently ( July 21 ) , with the US accounting for more than 25 percent of confirmed COVID-19 cases globally and about 23 percent of deaths from the infection , President Donald Trump downplayed the situation , tweeting : “ You will never hear this on the Fake News concerning the China Virus , but by comparison to most other countries , who are suffering greatly , we are doing very well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few other countries could have done !
” And prior to this tweet , the Trump administration announced a policy shift that has hospitals bypass the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) to send all COVID-19 patient information directly to a central database in Washington , DC .
The CDC had shared its COVID-19 tallies publicly on its website , and cutting out this well-established , independent federal science agency from the process of reporting health information cast those data into the shadows of a political town .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mistakes of the past , medical care and science have made much progress in the century between these two pandemics .
Right ?
Physicians in 1918 had essentially no evidence-based treatments—not even IV fluids , respirators , or vaccines—for the debilitating flu that seemed to sicken and kill both young and old .
Some doctors and public health experts championed alcohol , laxatives , and bloodletting as treatments .
Science wouldn ’ t even discover viruses , never mind that the causative agent for the 1918 pandemic was the H1N1 strain of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , scientists were quick to identify the agent causing COVID-19 , and researchers were doing detailed genomic analyses of the virus within weeks of the outbreak starting .
But still , public figures have been proposing nonsensical treatments , such as silver-containing products and commercial disinfectants .
As we bide our collective time until a COVID-19 vaccine is developed , tested , and disbursed , public health agencies around the globe have been recommending social measures that mirror what the public was asked to do during the 1918 pandemic .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wear masks , and to curb social activities such as dining out , shopping , and bar hopping , just as our ancestors were during the uncertain times of their own global health catastrophe .
When the 1918 flu hit San Francisco in September of that year , city leaders quickly enacted school closures , mandated mask wearing , and forbade gatherings , among other measures .
Although the city recorded more than 2,000 cases of flu by mid-October , infections seemed to be trending downward , and the mask ordinance was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases began to rise , and by mid-January 1919 , the city again mandated public mask wearing .
Just one week later , the Anti-Mask League held a meeting that an estimated 4,000–5,000 people attended .
This organization presented a petition to San Francisco ’ s Board of Supervisors , and the mask ordinance was lifted citywide on February 1 .
The city would end up recording almost 45,000 cases and more than 3,000 confirmed deaths from the pandemic flu .
We are seeing these mistakes and others replaying in the US now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd dance clubs , beaches , and bars , while vocal anti-mask factions have arisen in some localities and governors are suing mayors who seek to mandate mask wearing in their cities .
And we might have avoided these pitfalls if we had a more robust appreciation for the history of pandemics past .
Will we start to heed warnings from previous episodes of infectious peril as we find ourselves still very much in the thick of the COVID-19 pandemic ?
I ’ m not terribly hopeful .
But perhaps we can wrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and near-future experiences to help guide us through the next pandemic .
My suspicion , based on solid scientific evidence from researchers who study emerging infectious diseases , is that it will not take another century for another one to befall us .

Most recently, individuals across the world have been wrestling with systems in which the subjugation, oppression, and enslavement of entire groups of people has been commonplace for centuries. Properly contextualizing and understanding this shameful history is an obvious first step towards creating a better world and more loving societies for everyone....
As we all continue to grapple with the disruptive reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, most people are focused on the present and the near future. Will schools open in the fall? Are vaccine trials delivering promising results? When will this nightmare end, and what will the world look like in its aftermath? Not as much of our collective attention is being paid to the past. But the turbulent first half of 2020 has shown us that without the proper appreciation for the past, we are in danger of repeating mistakes or perpetuating injurious patterns.
A well-informed view of history might similarly facilitate living through and learning from the ongoing pandemic. Some commenters early on in the spread of COVID-19 offered hasty (and false) reassurances that COVID-19 was comparable to seasonal influenza. Claims that SARS-CoV-2’s prevalence would wane with the warming months of spring or that it wouldn’t exact a toll much beyond that of a bad flu season turned out to be wrong, as many people pointed out when such assertions were first voiced. But a little more than a century ago, a worldwide influenza pandemic killed at least 50 million people and perhaps as much as 100 million people. Studying the 1918 flu pandemic may help modern citizens, which comprise the descendants of those who survived that global catastrophe, cope with our own pathogenic present and future.
Experts aren’t sure where and when the 1918 flu outbreak started. An early cluster of cases on a US military base in Kansas could have been ground zero for the pandemic. The illness only became known as the “Spanish flu” as unfettered reports of infections and deaths emerged from Spain, which remained neutral throughout the course of the world war that had been raging in Europe for four years. In countries that were combatants in that multinational conflagration, the considerations of wartime propaganda and the projection of national strength outweighed the need to provide accurate and up-to-date epidemiological information on a disease that was racing rapidly around the globe.
If this obfuscation, which was aided by media outlets acquiescing to political strategies in warring countries, had been tempered by an urgency to disseminate quality health and disease information, perhaps the dreadful tide of the flu pandemic could have been stemmed to a degree. Today, politics and finger pointing are similarly hobbling the world’s ability to mount and sustain a robust and effective response to a widespread disease. Recently (July 21), with the US accounting for more than 25 percent of confirmed COVID-19 cases globally and about 23 percent of deaths from the infection, President Donald Trump downplayed the situation, tweeting: “You will never hear this on the Fake News concerning the China Virus, but by comparison to most other countries, who are suffering greatly, we are doing very well - and we have done things that few other countries could have done!” And prior to this tweet, the Trump administration announced a policy shift that has hospitals bypass the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to send all COVID-19 patient information directly to a central database in Washington, DC. The CDC had shared its COVID-19 tallies publicly on its website, and cutting out this well-established, independent federal science agency from the process of reporting health information cast those data into the shadows of a political town.
Even if global politics seem to be repeating the mistakes of the past, medical care and science have made much progress in the century between these two pandemics. Right? Physicians in 1918 had essentially no evidence-based treatments—not even IV fluids, respirators, or vaccines—for the debilitating flu that seemed to sicken and kill both young and old. Some doctors and public health experts championed alcohol, laxatives, and bloodletting as treatments. Science wouldn’t even discover viruses, never mind that the causative agent for the 1918 pandemic was the H1N1 strain of influenza, for another couple of decades. Today, scientists were quick to identify the agent causing COVID-19, and researchers were doing detailed genomic analyses of the virus within weeks of the outbreak starting. But still, public figures have been proposing nonsensical treatments, such as silver-containing products and commercial disinfectants.
As we bide our collective time until a COVID-19 vaccine is developed, tested, and disbursed, public health agencies around the globe have been recommending social measures that mirror what the public was asked to do during the 1918 pandemic. We are asked to practice physical distancing, to wear masks, and to curb social activities such as dining out, shopping, and bar hopping, just as our ancestors were during the uncertain times of their own global health catastrophe.
When the 1918 flu hit San Francisco in September of that year, city leaders quickly enacted school closures, mandated mask wearing, and forbade gatherings, among other measures. Although the city recorded more than 2,000 cases of flu by mid-October, infections seemed to be trending downward, and the mask ordinance was annulled in late November. But flu cases began to rise, and by mid-January 1919, the city again mandated public mask wearing. Just one week later, the Anti-Mask League held a meeting that an estimated 4,000–5,000 people attended. This organization presented a petition to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, and the mask ordinance was lifted citywide on February 1. The city would end up recording almost 45,000 cases and more than 3,000 confirmed deaths from the pandemic flu.
We are seeing these mistakes and others replaying in the US now. Young adults, often unmasked, crowd dance clubs, beaches, and bars, while vocal anti-mask factions have arisen in some localities and governors are suing mayors who seek to mandate mask wearing in their cities. And we might have avoided these pitfalls if we had a more robust appreciation for the history of pandemics past.
Will we start to heed warnings from previous episodes of infectious peril as we find ourselves still very much in the thick of the COVID-19 pandemic? I’m not terribly hopeful. But perhaps we can wrest some sense and strategy from our current and near-future experiences to help guide us through the next pandemic. My suspicion, based on solid scientific evidence from researchers who study emerging infectious diseases, is that it will not take another century for another one to befall us.
Editor-in-Chief
eic@the-scientist.com


thescientist--2020-08-07--COVID-19 Lockdowns Will Have Negligible Effect on Climate Change

The current pandemic is an unprecedented opportunity to study how global climate responds to a massive drop in human activity .
And so far , it appears that lockdowns are likely to have little effect on climate change unless future economic recovery plans include green policies , according to a study published Thursday ( August 6 ) in Nature Climate Change .
While previous research this spring had noted a 17 percent decline in carbon dioxide emissions worldwide associated with reduced human activity during the pandemic , the current study includes nine other greenhouse gases and relies on anonymized movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to track the activity of 4 billion people .
In April 2020 , the authors found , global emissions fell 10 percent to 30 percent as the world sheltered in place and businesses operated at a reduced capacity .
The researchers caution that despite these sizable declines , the overall effect on climate may only amount to a decrease in the global temperature of 0.01 °C over the next five years .
“ The fall in emissions we experienced during COVID-19 is temporary , and therefore it will do nothing to slow down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and a coauthor on the new study , tells Science News .
She notes that the response of global leaders in this moment could be “ a turning point if they focus on a green recovery , helping to avoid severe impacts from climate change.
” The results are the brainchild of a father-daughter pair who found themselves with time on their hands after daughter Harriet Forster ’ s exams at Queen Margaret ’ s School were canceled .
She decided to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Leeds , scrape and collate data on air quality and mobility to better understand how the emissions of 10 different greenhouse gases are changing during the pandemic .
Mobility data can be linked to energy-consuming activities such as driving , working , and shopping that generate emissions .
Jenny Stavrakou , a climate scientist at the Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy who was not involved in the study , tells Science News that the use of mobility data from cell phones is “ an innovative approach ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not all , greenhouse gases sit in the atmosphere for a long time , making it difficult to track smaller changes over days or months .
“ Mobility data have big advantages , ” Stavrakou adds , because they are constantly updated and can be used to infer trends in gas emissions over much smaller timescales .
The Forsters and their colleagues pulled together many different datasets , including the previous research tracking carbon dioxide , and their study ultimately included information from 123 countries collected between February and June of 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they used air-quality monitoring stations from around the world to focus on shorter-lived greenhouse gases , Grist reports .
Nitrogen dioxide , for example , is a useful proxy for quantifying carbon dioxide , as the two are released together during the burning of fossil fuels , but nitrogen dioxide dissipates much more quickly and is easier to assess trends over the last few months of the pandemic .
While global emissions fell between 10 percent and 30 percent on average , the team found that the benefits were largely mitigated by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides fell by roughly 30 percent , a finding the authors attributed to less driving and use of public transportation .
But at the same time , sulfur dioxides released by industry fell by 20 percent .
While the former two gases increase global temperatures , sulfur dioxide actually cools the earth by forming aerosols that reflect incoming sunlight .
Together , their findings suggest that the drop in emissions will be negligible in the long term .
Peter Neff , a climate scientist at the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these results show that “ to have a good chance of limiting global warming to the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 °C by 2050 , we essentially need reduction in carbon emissions similar to that caused by the initial pandemic response every single year for the next decade and beyond.
” Some of the more positive climate aspects during the pandemic could be incorporated into policy moving forward , BBC News reports .
For example , road traffic is still down in many places , and a shift towards greener transportation options could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to retain some level of telework in the future .
Stimulus money could be funneled into emerging renewable technologies and electric cars .
The authors stress that if the world returns to its previous energy consumption behaviors , the odds of meeting the Paris Agreement threshold are very low .
Nevertheless , Pier Forster is optimistic that the challenge can be met .
“ Disasters are often historically the time of biggest change , ” he tells BBC News .
“ For once , government , industry and public voices are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investments are the way to build back better .
We just need to do it .
”

While previous research this spring had noted a 17 percent decline in carbon dioxide emissions worldwide associated with reduced human activity during the pandemic, the current study includes nine other greenhouse gases and relies on anonymized movement data gleaned from Google and Apple phones to track the activity of 4 billion people. In April 2020, the authors found, global emissions fell 10 percent to 30 percent as the world sheltered in place and businesses operated at a reduced capacity. The researchers caution that despite these sizable declines, the...
The current pandemic is an unprecedented opportunity to study how global climate responds to a massive drop in human activity. And so far, it appears that lockdowns are likely to have little effect on climate change unless future economic recovery plans include green policies, according to a study published Thursday (August 6) in Nature Climate Change .
“The fall in emissions we experienced during COVID-19 is temporary, and therefore it will do nothing to slow down climate change,” Corinne Le Quéré, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and a coauthor on the new study, tells Science News. She notes that the response of global leaders in this moment could be “a turning point if they focus on a green recovery, helping to avoid severe impacts from climate change.”
The results are the brainchild of a father-daughter pair who found themselves with time on their hands after daughter Harriet Forster’s exams at Queen Margaret’s School were canceled. She decided to help her father Piers, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds, scrape and collate data on air quality and mobility to better understand how the emissions of 10 different greenhouse gases are changing during the pandemic. Mobility data can be linked to energy-consuming activities such as driving, working, and shopping that generate emissions.
Jenny Stavrakou, a climate scientist at the Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy who was not involved in the study, tells Science News that the use of mobility data from cell phones is “an innovative approach” for estimating short-term changes. Many, although not all, greenhouse gases sit in the atmosphere for a long time, making it difficult to track smaller changes over days or months. “Mobility data have big advantages,” Stavrakou adds, because they are constantly updated and can be used to infer trends in gas emissions over much smaller timescales.
The Forsters and their colleagues pulled together many different datasets, including the previous research tracking carbon dioxide, and their study ultimately included information from 123 countries collected between February and June of 2020. In addition to the mobility data, they used air-quality monitoring stations from around the world to focus on shorter-lived greenhouse gases, Grist reports. Nitrogen dioxide, for example, is a useful proxy for quantifying carbon dioxide, as the two are released together during the burning of fossil fuels, but nitrogen dioxide dissipates much more quickly and is easier to assess trends over the last few months of the pandemic.
While global emissions fell between 10 percent and 30 percent on average, the team found that the benefits were largely mitigated by the interplay between different gases. For example, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides fell by roughly 30 percent, a finding the authors attributed to less driving and use of public transportation. But at the same time, sulfur dioxides released by industry fell by 20 percent. While the former two gases increase global temperatures, sulfur dioxide actually cools the earth by forming aerosols that reflect incoming sunlight.
Together, their findings suggest that the drop in emissions will be negligible in the long term. Peter Neff, a climate scientist at the University of Minnesota, tells Grist in an email these results show that “to have a good chance of limiting global warming to the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 °C by 2050, we essentially need reduction in carbon emissions similar to that caused by the initial pandemic response every single year for the next decade and beyond.”
Some of the more positive climate aspects during the pandemic could be incorporated into policy moving forward, BBC News reports. For example, road traffic is still down in many places, and a shift towards greener transportation options could keep emissions lowered, as could the decision to retain some level of telework in the future. Stimulus money could be funneled into emerging renewable technologies and electric cars. The authors stress that if the world returns to its previous energy consumption behaviors, the odds of meeting the Paris Agreement threshold are very low.
Nevertheless, Pier Forster is optimistic that the challenge can be met. “Disasters are often historically the time of biggest change,” he tells BBC News. “For once, government, industry and public voices are all pretty aligned that green jobs and green investments are the way to build back better. We just need to do it.”


thescientist--2020-08-07--Scientists Oppose NSF's New Graduate Fellowship Priority

This summer , the National Science Foundation announced three priorities areas for its Graduate Research Fellowship Program in 2021 : artificial intelligence , quantum information science , and computationally intensive research .
In previous years , the grant has not focused on particular research topics , and thousands of scientists have signed a petition to remove the emphasis on these disciplines , saying that it runs counter to the mission of the program and could edge out students from underrepresented groups , Times Higher Education reports .
“ Creating preferred research areas limits efforts to diversify science and will ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” reads the petition , which was posted a couple of weeks ago .
It was started by Chelsea Catania , a former recipient of the Graduate Research Fellowship Program ( GRFP ) and current postdoc at MIT .
As of August 7 , nearly 3,400 signatories had joined Catania ’ s petition .
Hundreds of scientists have also signed on to an open letter to the National Science Foundation ( NSF ) expressing concerns about pushing specific fields of study through the fellowship , and computational disciplines in particular .
“ Preferring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from the GRFP ’ s unique purpose in identifying and supporting the best scientists in any field and towards giving priority to one field over others , ” states the letter , penned July 30 by Jason Williams of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory .
“ The change will also further contribute to the disproportionate awarding of the GRFP to students who attend schools with the most resources—a small handful of predominantly white , exclusionary undergraduate institutions.
” Around 2,000 graduate students are awarded the GRFP each year .
It provides three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to commit to the research project they propose in their applications .
On July 28 , the NSF noted on Twitter that fellows will still be selected by individual merit and that the emphasis on the three areas of research are “ not intended to exclude any areas of science.
” Nature notes that 80 percent of fellows between 1994 and 2004 were white .
Computational fields are likewise predominantly white and male , with roughly 19 percent of computer science bachelor ’ s degrees going to Black and Latinx students and 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The last thing anybody wants to see is for a really stellar young scientist to look at this new solicitation and say , ‘ That ’ s not me , ’ ” Margaret Byron , a mechanical engineer at Penn State and former GRFP recipient , tells Nature .
Times Higher Education reports that the NSF has not clarified how the emphasis on the three disciplines will factor into selecting fellows .
Such a lack of clarity “ will discourage deserving applicants from fields that now appear to be de-emphasised , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of California , Los Angeles , tells the news outlet .

“Creating preferred research areas limits efforts to diversify science and will ultimately hamper scientific discovery and student development,” reads the petition , which was posted a couple of weeks ago. It was started by Chelsea Catania , a former recipient of the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) and current postdoc at MIT. As of August 7, nearly 3,400 signatories had joined Catania’s petition.
This summer, the National Science Foundation announced three priorities areas for its Graduate Research Fellowship Program in 2021: artificial intelligence, quantum information science, and computationally intensive research. In previous years, the grant has not focused on particular research topics, and thousands of scientists have signed a petition to remove the emphasis on these disciplines, saying that it runs counter to the mission of the program and could edge out students from underrepresented groups, Times Higher Education reports.
“Preferring certain research areas will mean a movement away from the GRFP’s unique purpose in identifying and supporting the best scientists in any field and towards giving priority to one field over others,” states the letter, penned July 30 by Jason Williams of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. “The change will also further contribute to the disproportionate awarding of the GRFP to students who attend schools with the most resources—a small handful of predominantly white, exclusionary undergraduate institutions.”
Around 2,000 graduate students are awarded the GRFP each year. It provides three years of funding and has not required students to commit to the research project they propose in their applications.
On July 28, the NSF noted on Twitter that fellows will still be selected by individual merit and that the emphasis on the three areas of research are “not intended to exclude any areas of science.”
Nature notes that 80 percent of fellows between 1994 and 2004 were white. Computational fields are likewise predominantly white and male, with roughly 19 percent of computer science bachelor’s degrees going to Black and Latinx students and 19 percent going to women in 2016.
“The last thing anybody wants to see is for a really stellar young scientist to look at this new solicitation and say, ‘That’s not me,’” Margaret Byron, a mechanical engineer at Penn State and former GRFP recipient, tells Nature.
Times Higher Education reports that the NSF has not clarified how the emphasis on the three disciplines will factor into selecting fellows. Such a lack of clarity “will discourage deserving applicants from fields that now appear to be de-emphasised,” Stephanie Correa, a biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, tells the news outlet.


thescientist--2020-08-06--Self-Experimentation in the Time of COVID-19

Long before there were rumors of COVID parties ( decline your invitation ) , there were actual “ filth parties , ” and the guest list was exclusive .
Joseph Goldberger , an infectious disease expert in the US Public Health Service , was tasked in 1914 with determining the cause of pellagra , a skin disease known for its four Ds—dermatitis , diarrhea , dementia , and death .
Many physicians at the time believed pellagra stemmed from an unknown germ , but Goldberger felt strongly , correctly , that it was the result of a nutritional deficiency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife Mary held small gatherings during which they and a few brave volunteers injected themselves with the blood of pellagra victims and ate the feces and urine of patients in pill form , what Mary called “ the most nauseating diabolical concoctions , ” according to a 2014 book detailing Joseph ’ s work .
Goldberger repeated this spectacle multiple times in cities through the country to press his case .
He died of cancer in 1929 , but before then his work earned him four Nobel Prize nominations .
History is spattered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some of which have netted notoriety and reward , and the COVID-19 pandemic is no different .
Across the world , researchers are offering up their own bodies to science in pursuit of a vaccine to treat infection with SARS-CoV-2 , a virus that has so far killed more than 700,000 people and sickened more than 18.5 million worldwide .
“ In the history of medicine , [ self-experimentation ] has certainly been a well-recognized tradition , ” says Susan Lederer , a professor of the history of medicine and bioethics at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would argue .
.
.
it was almost required .
The fact that you would risk it on your own body , or on your own children , was a sign of your good faith.
” In one of the more famous examples , Jonas Salk , a virologist at the University of Pittsburgh , first tested his polio vaccine on himself and his children in 1952 before giving it to strangers .
Marina Voroshilova and Mikhail Chumakov , a married pair of Russian polio experts , likewise self-administered a potential vaccine in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cubes laced with weakened poliovirus .
After a contentious debate over how to design and administer the vaccine , the consensus settled on an oral vaccine using live poliovirus .
The disease was declared eradicated in the Western Hemisphere by the World Health Organization in 1994 .
Yellow fever vaccine development also inspired great self-sacrifice .
A research team led by US Army physician Walter Reed arrived in Cuba at the end of the 19th century during the Spanish-American war to study the virus , which killed 13 soldiers for every one killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease was transmitted through mosquitoes , several of Reed ’ s colleagues intentionally exposed themselves to mosquitos that had previously fed on victims of yellow fever .
Many of them got sick , and one man , Jesse Lazear , subsequently died .
This early work prompted several successful mosquito-eradication programs that greatly reduced the number of cases , but it wasn ’ t until 1930 that Max Theiler , a virologist with the Rockefeller Foundation , began developing a vaccine that he first tested on himself .
For his discovery , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
See “ Self-Experimentation Led to the Discovery of IgE ” Now , in the time of COVID-19 , researchers in the United States have again begun sharing their experiences of testing their own vaccines .
MIT Technology Review reports that Preston Estep , a cofounder of the citizen science initiative Rapid Deployment Vaccine Collaborative ( Radvac ) , developed a nasal coronavirus vaccine and joined at least 20 other researchers , including Harvard Medical School geneticist George Church , in self-administering it .
Last month , they shared details of their vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since lost track of how many people have used it .
Beyond the US , Chinese news media widely covered statements made in February by Huang Jinhai , an immunologist at Tianjin University , who claimed he had taken four doses of a vaccine developed in his lab even before it had been tested in animals .
In late July , the head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention , Gao Fu , said in a webinar that he too had been injected with an experimental vaccine , adding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Similarly , the director of the Moscow-based Gamaleya Research Institute , Alexander Gintsburg , made headlines when he claimed to have tested a new COVID-19 vaccine on himself ahead of the start of human clinical trials .
Days before , Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had called self-experimenting scientists “ fanatics in what they do in the best sense of the word.
” Nowadays , it isn ’ t only expert virologists who have access to the materials needed to create new vaccines .
So-called “ biohackers , ” some of them scientists who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , apply a DIY attitude toward manipulating the human body .
Mild biohacking might be as simple as monitoring one ’ s sleep or exercise , but its more extreme forms can involve implanting computer chips under the skin or injecting oneself with CRISPR DNA , as Josiah Zayner did in 2017 .
Zayner and anther biohacker , Justin Atkin , have publicly hinted at or shared plans to inject themselves with DIY coronavirus vaccines and document their experiences on social media .
Several videos shared as part of an ongoing investigation by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that as many as 10 people may have already begun self-administering vaccines , although this can not be confirmed .
Because they mix the vaccine themselves and administer it only to themselves , groups such as Radvac and biohackers like Zayner and Atkin have so far avoided the need for regulatory approval .
But if subjecting oneself to an untested vaccine seems ethically or legally murky , that ’ s because it is .
There is no mention of self-experimentation in the Declaration of Helsinki—a set of ethical principles put in place by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ govern human experimentation—or in the Nuremberg Code , a separate set of research ethics set down after atrocities committed during World War II .
In a 2012 study detailing the history of self-experimentation in medicine , cardiologist and medical historian Allen Weisse claimed to have written to the US Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) , the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) , and the Institute of Medicine about their policies and received no replies .
The practice isn ’ t explicitly forbidden—it ’ s hard to argue against success—but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All research carried out on human subjects in the US must be approved by an institutional review board under the 1974 National Research Act , and most agencies also abide by the “ Common Rule ” requiring informed consent from participants and providing extra protection for at-risk groups such as prisoners , pregnant women , children , and fetuses .
Otherwise , researchers can put themselves forward as candidates for treatments just as anyone else might .
The moral and ethical views surrounding self-experimentation therefore seem to be largely dictated by the medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemingly been falling out of favor , at least among Americans .
Lederer says that people now “ look askance ” at scientists who subject themselves and their families to unregulated treatments .
Weisse ’ s study identified 465 examples of self-experimentation in medical research in the 19th and 20th centuries , but only 82 of those instances that took place between 1950 and 1990 .
“ The trend in recent years toward collaborative studies , often on a massive scale , makes self-experimentation by a single individual , tucked away in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relic of the past , ” Weisse explains in his study .
Still , the last Nobel Prize awarded for work involving self-experimentation was only five years ago , when Tu Youyou was honored for developing an anti-malaria drug that she first tested on herself .
Lederer says it ’ s likely that self-experimentation more often goes unreported nowadays , even as it still happens .
Amid the frenzy to develop a COVID-19 vaccine and the notoriety gained by biohacking , Lederer points to history as a sobering counterpoint .
After testing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive trial involving more than 200,000 children .
In what became known as the Cutter incident , the company charged with developing the vaccine failed to sufficiently neutralize the virus before adding it to the vaccine , resulting in 40,000 cases of polio and 10 deaths .
Self-experimentation is likely to remain a murky , fringe endeavor .
Reflecting back on over 200 years of medical advancement , Weisse shared this parting thought : “ My own conclusion is that , despite some unwise decisions in the past to indulge in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the medical community and to the patients we are seeking to help .
Therefore , rather than scorn such intrepid colleagues in their search for truth , I am inclined to salute them.
” Trust in medical science and in vaccines in the United States is low .
Only 50 percent of Americans have said they would take a COVID-19 vaccine if it were developed .
Self-experimentation has long been a way of reassuring the public , and indeed , Gao told the Associated Press he had offered himself up to instill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time when social media spreads misinformation seemingly faster than the virus itself .

Many physicians at the time believed pellagra stemmed from an unknown germ, but Goldberger felt strongly, correctly, that it was the result of a nutritional deficiency. To prove it, he and his wife Mary held small gatherings during which they and a few brave volunteers injected themselves with the blood of pellagra victims and ate the feces and urine of patients in pill form, what Mary called “the most nauseating diabolical concoctions,” according to a 2014 book detailing Joseph’s work. Goldberger repeated this spectacle multiple times...
Long before there were rumors of COVID parties ( decline your invitation ), there were actual “filth parties,” and the guest list was exclusive. Joseph Goldberger, an infectious disease expert in the US Public Health Service, was tasked in 1914 with determining the cause of pellagra, a systemic disease known for its four Ds—dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia, and death.
Jonas Salk embracing his son Jonathan as his family looks on. Salk tested his original polio vaccine on both himself and his children ahead of widespread trials. University of Pittsburgh
History is spattered with sometimes gruesome examples of medical self-experimentation, some of which have netted notoriety and reward, and the COVID-19 pandemic is no different. Across the world, researchers are offering up their own bodies to science in pursuit of a vaccine to treat infection with SARS-CoV-2, a virus that has so far killed more than 700,000 people and sickened more than 18.5 million worldwide.
“In the history of medicine, [self-experimentation] has certainly been a well-recognized tradition,” says Susan Lederer, a professor of the history of medicine and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin. “I would argue . . . it was almost required. The fact that you would risk it on your own body, or on your own children, was a sign of your good faith.”
In one of the more famous examples, Jonas Salk, a virologist at the University of Pittsburgh, first tested his polio vaccine on himself and his children in 1952 before giving it to strangers. Marina Voroshilova and Mikhail Chumakov, a married pair of Russian polio experts, likewise self-administered a potential vaccine in 1959 before giving their three sons sugar cubes laced with weakened poliovirus. After a contentious debate over how to design and administer the vaccine, the consensus settled on an oral vaccine using live poliovirus. The disease was declared eradicated in the Western Hemisphere by the World Health Organization in 1994.
Yellow fever vaccine development also inspired great self-sacrifice. A research team led by US Army physician Walter Reed arrived in Cuba at the end of the 19th century during the Spanish-American war to study the virus, which killed 13 soldiers for every one killed in battle. To establish that the disease was transmitted through mosquitoes, several of Reed’s colleagues intentionally exposed themselves to mosquitos that had previously fed on victims of yellow fever. Many of them got sick, and one man, Jesse Lazear, subsequently died. This early work prompted several successful mosquito-eradication programs that greatly reduced the number of cases, but it wasn’t until 1930 that Max Theiler, a virologist with the Rockefeller Foundation, began developing a vaccine that he first tested on himself. For his discovery, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1951.
Now, in the time of COVID-19, researchers in the United States have again begun sharing their experiences of testing their own vaccines. MIT Technology Review reports that Preston Estep, a cofounder of the citizen science initiative Rapid Deployment Vaccine Collaborative (Radvac), developed a nasal coronavirus vaccine and joined at least 20 other researchers, including Harvard Medical School geneticist George Church, in self-administering it. Last month, they shared details of their vaccine for others to copy, and have since lost track of how many people have used it.
Beyond the US, Chinese news media widely covered statements made in February by Huang Jinhai, an immunologist at Tianjin University, who claimed he had taken four doses of a vaccine developed in his lab even before it had been tested in animals. In late July, the head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said in a webinar that he too had been injected with an experimental vaccine, adding, “I hope it will work.”
Similarly, the director of the Moscow-based Gamaleya Research Institute, Alexander Gintsburg, made headlines when he claimed to have tested a new COVID-19 vaccine on himself ahead of the start of human clinical trials. Days before, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had called self-experimenting scientists “fanatics in what they do in the best sense of the word.”
Nowadays, it isn’t only expert virologists who have access to the materials needed to create new vaccines. So-called “biohackers,” some of them scientists who have left academia to form independent groups, apply a DIY attitude toward manipulating the human body. Mild biohacking might be as simple as monitoring one’s sleep or exercise, but its more extreme forms can involve implanting computer chips under the skin or injecting oneself with CRISPR DNA, as Josiah Zayner did in 2017.
Zayner and anther biohacker, Justin Atkin, have publicly hinted at or shared plans to inject themselves with DIY coronavirus vaccines and document their experiences on social media. Several videos shared as part of an ongoing investigation by MIT Technology Review reporter Antonio Regalado suggest that as many as 10 people may have already begun self-administering vaccines, although this cannot be confirmed.
The George Church selfie of him taking a DIY coronavirus vaccine. This picture is a classic
This is the thread to go with it. pic.twitter.com/7xpb9zs8j6 — Antonio Regalado (@antonioregalado) July 29, 2020
Because they mix the vaccine themselves and administer it only to themselves, groups such as Radvac and biohackers like Zayner and Atkin have so far avoided the need for regulatory approval. But if subjecting oneself to an untested vaccine seems ethically or legally murky, that’s because it is.
There is no mention of self-experimentation in the Declaration of Helsinki—a set of ethical principles put in place by the World Medical Association in 1964 to govern human experimentation—or in the Nuremberg Code, a separate set of research ethics set down after atrocities committed during World War II. In a 2012 study detailing the history of self-experimentation in medicine, cardiologist and medical historian Allen Weisse claimed to have written to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Institute of Medicine about their policies and received no replies.
The practice isn’t explicitly forbidden—it’s hard to argue against success—but it certainly isn’t encouraged. All research carried out on human subjects in the US must be approved by an institutional review board under the 1974 National Research Act, and most agencies also abide by the “Common Rule” requiring informed consent from participants and providing extra protection for at-risk groups such as prisoners, pregnant women, children, and fetuses. Otherwise, researchers can put themselves forward as candidates for treatments just as anyone else might.
The moral and ethical views surrounding self-experimentation therefore seem to be largely dictated by the medical community itself, and the practice has seemingly been falling out of favor, at least among Americans.
Lederer says that people now “look askance” at scientists who subject themselves and their families to unregulated treatments. Weisse’s study identified 465 examples of self-experimentation in medical research in the 19th and 20th centuries, but only 82 of those instances that took place between 1950 and 1990. “The trend in recent years toward collaborative studies, often on a massive scale, makes self-experimentation by a single individual, tucked away in his laboratory, seem almost quaint, a relic of the past,” Weisse explains in his study.
See “Biohacker Injects DIY Herpes Vaccine on Facebook Live”
Still, the last Nobel Prize awarded for work involving self-experimentation was only five years ago, when Tu Youyou was honored for developing an anti-malaria drug that she first tested on herself. Lederer says it’s likely that self-experimentation more often goes unreported nowadays, even as it still happens.
Amid the frenzy to develop a COVID-19 vaccine and the notoriety gained by biohacking, Lederer points to history as a sobering counterpoint. After testing his polio vaccine on himself, Salk launched a massive trial involving more than 200,000 children. In what became known as the Cutter incident, the company charged with developing the vaccine failed to sufficiently neutralize the virus before adding it to the vaccine, resulting in 40,000 cases of polio and 10 deaths.
Self-experimentation is likely to remain a murky, fringe endeavor. Reflecting back on over 200 years of medical advancement, Weisse shared this parting thought: “My own conclusion is that, despite some unwise decisions in the past to indulge in this activity, many self-experiments have proved invaluable to the medical community and to the patients we are seeking to help. Therefore, rather than scorn such intrepid colleagues in their search for truth, I am inclined to salute them.”
Trust in medical science and in vaccines in the United States is low. Only 50 percent of Americans have said they would take a COVID-19 vaccine if it were developed. Self-experimentation has long been a way of reassuring the public, and indeed, Gao told the Associated Press he had offered himself up to instill public confidence in vaccines, especially at a time when social media spreads misinformation seemingly faster than the virus itself.


thescientist--2020-08-06--Thwarting a Pandemic: COVID-19 Vaccine Strategies

It usually takes 5-20 years to develop a vaccine , but researchers are racing to develop one for COVID-19 within @ @ @ @ @ to the seriousness of the pandemic .
To win this race , researchers must develop @ @ @ @ @ cause additional health problems , that provides long-term protection to prevent re-emergence of the virus @ @ @ @ @ and that protects older people who may mount a weaker immune response .
Download this @ @ @ @ @ Creative Services team to learn about • Four approaches that scientists are using to develop @ @ @ @ @ that are in clinical trials

It usually takes 5-20 years to develop a vaccine, but researchers are racing to develop one for COVID-19 within a much shorter timeframe due to the seriousness of the pandemic. To win this race, researchers must develop a vaccine that does not cause additional health problems, that provides long-term protection to prevent re-emergence of the virus in years to come, and that protects older people who may mount a weaker immune response.
Download this poster from The Scientist's Creative Services team to learn about


thescientist--2020-08-06--Starting a New Lab

Starting a New Lab

Starting a new research laboratory is an exciting experience that many post-doctoral research associates eagerly anticipate .
It can also @ @ @ @ @ experience as junior researchers transition to new leadership roles and chart new challenges .
Some @ @ @ @ @ the right universities or research locations to pursue , managing a budget , carving out @ @ @ @ @ equipment , hiring the right team members , and more .
Download this eBook from @ @ @ @ @ learn about • What to look for when buying essential lab supplies • First-hand experience @ @ @ @ @ An interview with Benjamin Izar

Starting a new research laboratory is an exciting experience that many post-doctoral research associates eagerly anticipate. It can also be a stressful and uncertain experience as junior researchers transition to new leadership roles and chart new challenges. Some of these challenges include selecting the right universities or research locations to pursue, managing a budget, carving out laboratory space, purchasing research equipment, hiring the right team members, and more.
Download this eBook from The Scientist and Bio-Techne to learn about


thescientist--2020-08-06--Disrupted Habitats Have More Zoonotic Disease Hosts: Study

When humans alter the landscape through urbanization or agriculture the wildlife that occupied that space becomes displaced .
According to a study published Wednesday ( August 5 ) in Nature , animals that stick around after this disruption have a greater proportion of species that host zoonotic diseases than those in undisturbed areas .
The researchers use the Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity in Changing Terrestrial Systems ( PREDICTS ) database in search of any pattern involving altered land and the presence of animals capable of hosting pathogens that can be harmful to humans , called zoonoses or zoonotic diseases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continents , including information on 376 species known to carry zoonoses and around 6,600 other species that don ’ t .
The authors concluded that zoonotic disease hosts represent a greater proportion of the animals in areas with altered land and higher human activity than in remote , less-affected areas .
“ What this means is that animal communities in more human-dominated landscapes end up with a higher proportion of disease-carrying species , both in terms of species richness and in the total number of individuals , ” co-lead author David Redding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research , tells UPI .
The Guardian reports that , according to the authors , many animals able to thrive in human-occupied areas , such as rodents , bats , and pigeons , are typically small and highly mobile , and have the capacity to reproduce quickly and in large numbers .
This rapid reproduction method , favoring quantity over quality , can come at the expense of the animal ’ s immune system , making them more susceptible to zoonoses .
The study did not quantify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturbance and zoonotic disease hosts , but there is concern it could have ramifications for human health .
For instance , there is evidence SARS-CoV-2 came from bats and made its way into humans , gripping the entire globe in lockdowns , distancing , and economic declines .
“ The COVID-19 pandemic triggered by a coronavirus of animal origin has awakened the world to the threat that zoonotic diseases pose to humans , ” Richard Ostfeld , a disease ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in New York , and Felicia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New York , comment in Nature .
“ With this recognition has come a widespread misperception that wild nature is the greatest source of zoonotic disease.
” See : “ Which Species Transmit COVID-19 to Humans ?
We ’ re Still Not Sure.
” The Guardian reports that humans have altered the landscape of more than half of the habitable land on the planet .
Although the rate of population growth is declining , the United Nations predicts that the number of humans will balloon to 9.7 billion by the year 2050 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and feed everyone .
“ Our findings provide a context for thinking about how to manage land use changes more sustainably , in ways that take into account potential risks not only to biodiversity , but also to human health , ” Redding explains in a statement .

The researchers use the Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity in Changing Terrestrial Systems (PREDICTS) database in search of any pattern involving altered land and the presence of animals capable of hosting pathogens that can be harmful to humans, called zoonoses or zoonotic diseases. PREDICTS holds data from across six continents, including information on 376 species known to carry zoonoses and around 6,600 other species that don’t. The authors concluded that zoonotic disease hosts represent a greater proportion of the animals in areas with altered land and higher human activity than in remote, less-affected areas.
When humans alter the landscape through urbanization or agriculture the wildlife that occupied that space becomes displaced. According to a study published Wednesday (August 5) in Nature , animals that stick around after this disruption have a greater proportion of species that host zoonotic diseases than those in undisturbed areas.
The Guardian reports that, according to the authors, many animals able to thrive in human-occupied areas, such as rodents, bats, and pigeons, are typically small and highly mobile, and have the capacity to reproduce quickly and in large numbers. This rapid reproduction method, favoring quantity over quality, can come at the expense of the animal’s immune system, making them more susceptible to zoonoses.
The study did not quantify the dangers of the relationship between habitat disturbance and zoonotic disease hosts, but there is concern it could have ramifications for human health. For instance, there is evidence SARS-CoV-2 came from bats and made its way into humans, gripping the entire globe in lockdowns, distancing, and economic declines.
“The COVID-19 pandemic triggered by a coronavirus of animal origin has awakened the world to the threat that zoonotic diseases pose to humans,” Richard Ostfeld, a disease ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in New York, and Felicia Keesing, an ecologist at Bard College in New York, comment in Nature. “With this recognition has come a widespread misperception that wild nature is the greatest source of zoonotic disease.”
The Guardian reports that humans have altered the landscape of more than half of the habitable land on the planet. Although the rate of population growth is declining, the United Nations predicts that the number of humans will balloon to 9.7 billion by the year 2050, requiring more land use to house and feed everyone.
“Our findings provide a context for thinking about how to manage land use changes more sustainably, in ways that take into account potential risks not only to biodiversity, but also to human health,” Redding explains in a statement.


thescientist--2020-08-06--Extreme Biotech: Understanding Extremophile Biology to Impact Human Health

Extremophiles are best known to scientists for their contributions to PCR , but researchers are now harnessing the power of @ @ @ @ @ new therapeutics from vaccine delivery to anti-cancer drugs .
In this webinar from The Scientist @ @ @ @ @ and Jaclyn Winter will discuss how they harness the unique biology of extremophiles for the @ @ @ @ @ therapeutics and vaccines .
• Harnessing the chemical potential of unprecedented microbes from the Great @ @ @ @ @ PhD Professor , Department of Microbiology and Immunology University of Maryland School of Medicine Professor @ @ @ @ @ Environmental Technology University System of Maryland

FREE Webinar
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
2:30 - 4:00 PM, Eastern Standard Time
Register Now
Extremophiles are best known to scientists for their contributions to PCR, but researchers are now harnessing the power of their unique biology to create new therapeutics from vaccine delivery to anti-cancer drugs. In this webinar from The Scientist, extremophile researchers Shiladitya DasSarma and Jaclyn Winter will discuss how they harness the unique biology of extremophiles for the discovery and development of new therapeutics and vaccines.
Topics to be covered
Harnessing the chemical potential of unprecedented microbes from the Great Salt Lake
Archaeal nanoparticles for therapeutics and vaccines
Register Now
Meet the Speakers:
Jaclyn Winter, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Medicinal Chemistry
University of Utah
Shiladitya DasSarma, PhD
Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Professor, Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology
University System of Maryland