|
This week in European sciences -- week 21|2004 |
|
The Guardian about the opening of the first stem cell bank in Britain. NZZ on why it's important also to publish negative-result studies, also a view on the declining credibility and relevance of U.S. science due to the Bush government's policy. El Pais about an expert group's statement on new legislation for euthanasia. De Standaard on the European Patent Office revoking a patent on a breast cancer gene. Dagens Nyheter on a cut-down in Swedish obesity research, and a piece about tackling the fading public knowledge of species. Science about European research policy and the role of universities. Dagens Nyheter on a controversial in dietary for baby. The Guardian with an opinion piece by Jeremy Rifkin on the precautionary principle and the forthcoming European chemical legislation. Science pleads for a new dialogue between science and society on global change issues. In addition: NY Times about warning of natural disasters to safe people's lives, also about a new technology to speed up realistic 3D computer games. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
First British Stem Cell Bank Opened In Britain
the first stem cell bank in the world opened to store available cell lines
and provide them for science studies. "It is the only place in the
world that will systematically maintain and distribute an ever-growing
range of stem cells to scientists around the world", writes Alok
Jha who listened to Stepen Minger in an interview for the Guardian (May
20, 2004). Minger is director of the Stem Cell Biology Laboratory
at the Centre for Neuroscience Research, King's College London, and showed
himself proud to contribute his institute's cell lines to the biobank.
Scientists hope to find clues for the treatment of diseases like Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's disease or diabetes by studying embrionic stem cells and
their differentiation into different cell types in the body. |
|
The
Guardian |
|
|
Why Many Scientific Results Never Get Published Many clinical
studies and their conclusions for medication and treatment never meet
the public, reports Nicola von Lutterotti in Neue Zürcher Zeitung
(May
20, 2004). Especially those with negative outcome. You might think:
What matters? But publishing every trial on an Internet portal and recording
each legitimate study could lead to a hugh benefit for medical research.
But evaluations show that industry sponsored clinical studies tend to
come out with positive results. Furthermore, because the scientific community
only honours success, researchers are likely to turn a non-effective drug
by statistically doctoring the data into a significant improvement in
medication. This enhances also the so-called impact factor of the study.
This factor measures the amount of references to the publication by other
papers. But: Also the editors of the major medical journals value the
impact of studies published in their magazines - and hence, encourage
more the publication of positive than of negative results. Well, negative
results weren't quoted very often. Lots of patients took part in those
studies, and hence for ethical reasons the results should be published
to foster medical knowledge, eg. in a publication as the Journal
of Negative Results in Biomedicine which was established recently. |
|
Neue
Zürcher Zeitung |
|
|
Bioethic Experts: Spain is Ready for a New Euthanasia Legislation "The new
Spanish government has to keep his earlier promises about studying the
rights in dying with dignity." This is the account of Spanish bioethic
experts in an official document. They say that the Spanish public is ready
for a new legislation, that fixes the euthanasia very detailed, writes
Juan Bedoya in El País (May,
19, 2004). A recent poll discovered that six out of ten health professionals
in Spain encourage this petition, made by philosophers, lawyers and anthropologists. |
|
El
Pais |
|
|
On May 18th,
the European
Patent Office (in Munich, Germany) revoked one of three patents of
the American company Myriad Genetics on the breast cancer gene BRCA1,
reports De Standaard (May
19, 2004). This means that European centres for human genetic research
can now again perform breast cancer tests themselves (which, as De Standaard
(May
14, 2004) reported earlier, they were still doing, illegally and with
the risk of prosecution) and for a lower price than Myriad does, explained
the Flemish researcher Gert Matthijs who was part of one of the opposing
parties in Munich. |
|
De
Standaard |
|
|
Improvements in Forecasting Natural Disasters According
to a report of Elizabeth Olson in the New York Times (May
18, 2004) about
700 floods, storms and other weather extremes claimed in the year 2003
about 75,000 lives worldwide and caused an economic damage of about 65
billion U.S. dollars. Most of the victims have been hit in the poor countries.
Olson quotes a recent study of the World Meterological Organization in
Geneva saying that "in the future that toll can be cut in half due
to improvements in forcasting." Thus people may by notified in time
when dangerous conditions are building up. But the weak point of the new
options lies in the access to the relevant data in poor countries, to
process them into an appropriate preparedness plan, and how to
broadcast them in time and to the relevant groups, for instance, fishermen
on the sea. |
|
New
York Times |
|
|
Obesity Research Cut off the Swedish Agenda Obesity is recognized more and more as a major public health challenge, but obesity research at the Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm is threatened with closure, reports Lisa Brattberg (May 16, 2004). Professor Stephan Rössner, leader of the group, has written a letter to the public health minister Morgan Johansson claiming that the financial basis of his research is slowly eroding and that he will only be able to continue until October 2005. The unit has contact with approximately 5000 patients; 70% of these obese patients participate in a number of research studies. Rössner didn't succeed in securing 4 million crowns (440,000 euros) for several interdisciplinary research projects and now complains that obesity research, despite announcements by politicians, doesn't seem to be very high on the agenda of the research councils. Public Understanding of Species Three years
ago, the Swedish parliament approved the so-called "Swedish Species Project".
The aim of the project is to document within the next 20 years all animals,
fungi and plants occurring in Sweden and to support high-quality taxonomic
research. A second part of the project is aimed at the general public;
a 125-volume edition of determination keys shall make it possible for
amateurs to determine around 30,000, relatively easily recognizable species.
Karin Bojs reports that finally the first volume of this massive undertaking
is approaching publication: an illustrated key to all the butterflies
in Sweden (May
16, 2004). The two project leaders, Ulf Gärdenfors and Torleif Ingelög,
express their deep-seated concern that the knowledge of species is steadily
decreasing. Fighting for the conservation of biodiversity will thus in
their opinion become more and more difficult: most people simply will
be entirely unaware of the changes occurring in the environment. They
believe that the yearly cost of 30 million crowns (3.3m euros) - this
corresponds to a one-kilometer-stretch of motorway - is fully justified. |
|
Dagens
Nyheter |
|
|
Re-Thinking Europe's Universities In a recent
survey of University of Shanghai to measure the research output of universities
only 10 European universities ranked among the top-50, besides 35 from
the U.S. The report got a wide-spread impact in the scientific community,
especially in Europe where a recent meeting on "The Europe of Knowledge
2020. A vision for university-based research and innovation" tackled
the poor outcome. Martin Enserink reports in Science magazine (May
14, 2004*) about the European debate from his U.S. point of view unravelling
the discrepancies and obstacles in a multi-fragmented Europe. |
|
Science |
|
|
Questioning the Best Dietary for Babies Nothing but
breast milk during the first 6 month - that is the new advice given by
Swedish authorities to new parents. Previous advice stated that it is
safe to offer babies different foods after four months, but based on a
WHO study, which was published three years ago, the Swedish National Food
Administration has changed its recommendations last year in October. However,
the scientific evidence underlying the new recommendations is thin, reports
Per Snaprud (May
14, 2004). Gudmund Stintzing, paediatrician at Astrid Lindgren Children's
Hospital in Stockholm says that he was surprised how meagre the scientific
foundation of the dietary advice for small children is. The WHO study
reviewed 16 studies, 7 of which where carried out in developing countries.
Even the best of these studies didn't get high grades by the WHO experts.
The studies showed that under unhygienic conditions children that are
only fed breast milk during the first 6 months were slightly better protected
against stomach infections - an advantage which hardly matters in Sweden.
John Perlhagen, a paediatrician from Helsingborg and a member of the expert
panel for the National Food Administration, admits that there weren't
any strong scientific reasons to change the recommendations, but that
there was, for reasons not mentioned in the article, political pressure
from the National Board for Health and Welfare to adjust dietary advice
to the WHO research. |
|
Dagens
Nyheter |
|
|
Michel Marriott
tells the New York Times (May
13, 2004) how computer games' programmers speed up and enhance realism
of gaming due to a new technology called "normal mapping". The
word normal refers to a normal "vector, or line, that defines which
way one face of an object is pointing," explains the author. Anyway,
programmers and graphics people are enthusiastic about the new method.
|
|
New
York Times |
|
|
A New Scientific Approach is Required The European
Union is about to establish a "radical new approach to science and
technology based on the principle of sustainable development and global
stewardship of the Earth's environment", states Jeremy Rifkin, the
prominent visionary, in an opinion piece in The Guardian (May
12, 2004). Actually, Rifkin explains from his American point of view
how U.S. officials engage to water the European Commissions proposal to
set up a scheme of regulations, evolution and authorisation of chemicals
(Reach) - which affects 30,000 chemicals. As we know, European industry
seems to succeed to water the proposed EU regulations. Rifkin explained
the lobbying of U.S. officials. Furthermore, he sees a shift in European
debate from risk-taking to risk-preventing issues. "That debate is
virtually non-existent among American intellectuals", and hence explains
for some part the dissension. |
|
The
Guardian |
|
|
Jeffrey Sachs
pleads in a recent editorial for Science magazine (April
30, 2004*) for a new dialogue between science and society to enhance
the understanding in both spheres of the future needs to keep our Earth
habitable: "The requisite level of public understanding does not
yet exist. Our political leaders choose military rather than scientific
options, in part because the public lacks the knowledge of the real risks
and real options facing global society. For this reason, scientists themselves,
through academic institutions, national academies, and international associations,
have a key role to play in public leadership. There is a public hunger
today for information that is not spin or sound bites. The global scientific
consensus on the challenges of sustainable development is much greater
than the public is aware and could form the basis for meaningful plans
of action." The author is adviser to the U.N. and director of the
Earth Institute at Columbia University. |
|
Science |
|
|
Feedback |
|
We are glad to receive your comments! Send us an e-mail | subscribe | unsubscribe |