A report last week stated that, according to the US Health and Human Services Department, advocates of the idea that vaccines are linked to autism will join neurologists and other health professionals as members of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, a new panel that will recommend areas for autism research.

If the vaccines-autism link has been repeatedly proven to be wrong, and even the Institute of Medicine, an independent organ that advises the US government on health issues, has urged scientists to look elsewhere for the causes of autism, what's the point of including supporters of such a link, other than to appease the advocacy groups?

I hope I'm wrong, but being inclusive for the sake of political correctness doesn't strike me as the right way to tackle a problem as serious as autism.

Posted by Juan Carlos Lopez at 03:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

My colleague Clare Thomas pointed me to this fascinating report in SciDev.net.

A Nigerian doctor is suing the Nigerian Academy of Science after challenging his claims that he has produced an effective HIV vaccine from the blood of infected patients. What struck us the most was the fact that Jerimiah Abalaka, the doctor in question, cites an article he published in the journal Vaccine as evidence of his claims' legitimacy.

Why did Vaccine publish this paper? At the time of its publication, Ray Spier, editor of the journal, wrote an editorial saying that Abalaka's study was not published a peer-reviewed research paper, but as a report. He then goes to great lengths to try to justify his decision to publish the paper and concludes by stating that "desperate situations call for desperate measures".

This statement seems absurd to me. If the paper wasn’t peer reviewed, what is the true value of the data? I wish I could tell you how many charlatans send us papers every month, reporting cures for all kinds of diseases (including HIV, of course), and how quickly we reject them without further ado. How supremely irresponsible of Vaccine to publish something of such potential importance without peer review! Has science been served by the decision? The only thing that has come out of it is undue support for a man who is now in a stronger position to put the lives of thousands of people at risk.

Posted by Juan Carlos Lopez at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Speaking of blood, my friend Andy Marshall, the editor of Nature Biotechnology, told me the other day that he's been mentioned at the British Parliament, no less.

Unfortunately, the British Commons did not bring him up to praise his contributions to the advancement of science. Instead, this past week they released an Early Day Motion (# 425) to regret "the continuing attempts to silence or misrepresent scientists whose research indicates possible human health problems from GM (genetically modified) crops".

The Motion specifically focuses on the case of Dr Irina Ermakova who, allegedly, "was misled by the editor of Nature Biotechnology into submitting an article to the journal to be published under her name, with the article in fact published under the editor's name with criticisms by four well-known GM supporters not seen by Dr Ermakova prior to publication".

I've spoken to Andy, and this is not exactly what happened. The article is more of a News Feature/Interview, which is why it's authored by Andy. Furthermore, Dr. Ermakova has been given a chance to rebut the comments from the other scientists. Her reply will be published on Friday as part of the December issue of Nature Biotechnology.

I don't want to steal their thunder and would therefore encourage you to read the whole article and the rebuttal once it's available. The only thing I'll mention here is another segment of the Motion, which specifically caught my attention. The Motion "calls on the Government Chief Scientist to protect the integrity and objectivity of science by reasserting the right of scientists to have their views published by journals without underhand interference by journal editors, and for the Chief Scientist to encourage journal editors to withdraw papers they have published which subsequently turn out to be grossly misleading or even fraudulent".

Pretty strong words to use in a case like this one. In any case, I've promised Andy that, if he's sent to prison, I'll make sure to get him cigarettes, the newspaper and, every month, a copy of Nature Biotechnology.

Posted by Juan Carlos Lopez at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Good news for those of you who are tired of visiting this blog to find only posts of mine, which often read as if they came out of a gossip magazine.

First, Charlotte Schubert is back in business, as you may already know from her latest entry.

Second, I'm delighted to welcome Roxanne Khamsi, our new News Editor, whose contributions to this site I'm sure will be very interesting and timely. I'm looking forward to reading them.

Posted by Juan Carlos Lopez at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After six months of maternity leave I’m back
and ready to blog. Please hold the applause...

Like everyone says, having a kid changes your perspective. One thing that happens is that everything to do with babies—all that stuff that once bored you to tears —is now fascinating.

So I provide fair warning: you can expect future blog material on issues such as finding bisphenol A-free baby products (laborious), the medical structure set up around childbirth (peculiar), and parental leave policies for scientists (abysmal).

But I’d like to start off by proving that I’m not going to inflict you only with baby-centric jabber. I'm back on my soapbox about tobacco.

People here at the journal think I’m pretty shrill when it comes to
cigarettes. But the events of the last month or so should make anyone
concerned about public health emit at least a groan.

President Bush, in one of the first vetoes of his presidency, nixed a bill this fall to expand healthcare to low-income children by increasing the cigarette tax. The veto came on the heels of a CDC report that smoking rates have stopped leveling off in the US and are rising again among teenagers.

One reason for the veto, said Bush, is that the bill would increase taxes on “working people.”

And that is exactly why the bill should be passed: A report from the Institute of Medicine this year concluded that one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking—especially among the poor and teenagers—is to increase taxes on cigarettes. Raising tobacco taxes to fund children’s health seems like a win-win situation: a way to both reduce smoking and to promote public health.

Apparently, the bill is being renegotiated now and may be resurrected again closer to election season. Let’s hope some politicians put the tobacco issue at the center of the debate.

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)