« April 01, 2007 - April 07, 2007 | Main | April 29, 2007 - May 05, 2007 »

April 27, 2007

What dangers lurk in your lab?

The Israeli health ministry released a rather sobering study yesterday: apparently, women who work in a lab are at a 26% higher risk of developing certain cancers.

The scientists are careful to avoid saying anything about cause and effect — they didn't discover links to any particular chemicals that might be the trigger, for example. But there is a convincing correlation. The study took into account 9,000 hospital, health fund and university lab workers who had worked in the labs for 20 years or more, according to this news article.

Depending on the kind of lab they worked in, the women seemed to be at higher risk of breast cancer, melanoma, lip cancer (that one I find a bit strange, I must admit) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but at lower risk of lung cancer (which also I find strange).

Because of the findings, the health ministry began organizing courses on lab safety. Good news is, the researchers say, the study was conducted over the 80s and 90s, when conditions were much worse than they are today, so women working in labs today are probably safer.

Do you buy that?


Trouble in the HIV field

When I went to the HIV vaccine meeting in Whistler last month, I heard some rather disturbing tales of people upset at the NIH. Some of the behind the scenes complaining I wrote about here. The rest became a news story about conflicts between HIV scientists and the NIH that runs in our May issue.

Before I wrote it, some scientists privately asked me not to write it, saying it would only stir up more trouble in the field. Others assumed--wrongly--that the story would be based on the complaints of only a few disgruntled researchers. But in fact, the discontentment is widespread, and CHAVI, the NIH's HIV vaccine project, is perhaps unfairly bearing the brunt.

Even those who have little to do with HIV vaccines seem to be aware of the swirling bitterness. It’s understandable that CHAVI is stirring up resentment when established scientists are having to downsize their labs and young researchers are giving up on science, says Paul Bieniasz, who works at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York.

Bieniasz serves as chair of an NIH study section on AIDS molecular and cellular biology, so he has seen first hand the effect of the tightening budget on the peer review process. Like many others I quoted when CHAVI was first launched, he doesn't believe sinking $350 million into one project is the way to solve the vaccine challenge. But unlike most of the people I tried to speak to for the most recent article, he was willing to go on the record.

"What if they’re (CHAVI is) wrong?” he says. “People have to speak out, we shouldn’t be living in an environment of fear.”

So... how about it? Here's your chance to break out of the environment of fear...

April 26, 2007

The malaria dance

Have you seen this picture?
bush.jpg

That's President Bush, dancing at a benefit for Malaria Awareness Day. The picture is priceless, but I'll restrain myself. This is once I can't fault the administration too much.

In 2005, Bush launched the President's Malaria Initiative which has, among other things, helped support the use of DDT in many African countries.

Yesterday, Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), a NGO that helped bring DDT back, scored donor countries on their efforts fighting malaria. On their scorecard, the US ranks above everyone else, getting an impressive B+. Considering most other countries got themselves big, fat Fs that's really good.

Things weren't always so rosy, of course. In fact, before AFM and others took the US Agency for International Development to task, the agency was spending about 7% of its budget on actual interventions. the rest went to "other" costs. After Congress intervened, things at USAID have improved dramatically and they're now working closely with AFM.

But that still leaves all the other donors, who are--litreally--failing in their efforts to fight malaria.

For the purposes of the scorecard, those countries "got an F because they never even responded," AFM's Richard Tren told me yesterday at a fundraiser in New York for the NGO.

Maybe it's time to rustle up pictures of those leaders.

Archives

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2