A new study published Monday in Environmental Health Perspectives revives fears about the pesticide environmentalists everywhere love to hate: DDT. Researchers examined 129 women who were exposed to the pesticide as children and found that the women had a whopping 400% increase in breast cancer risk.

This isn't the first time the link between breast cancer and DDT has been examined, but previous studies were either inconclusive, questionable or found no link. The difference this time, according to the researchers, is that these baby boomer women were exposed to the pesticide in the 1950s and 60s, before they were 14 years old. The age of exposure has a great deal to do with breast cancer risk, apparently.

I have some doubts about the study because of its size, but even if it is confirmed by other research, it's important to emphasize that the study was looking at women who were exposed to the pesticide as it was used in the 1940s and 50s, when it was sprayed widely — one might say recklessly — for agricultural purposes. That's now banned in most parts of the world.

Where it is used, DDT is sprayed indoors, in very small quantities, for malaria control. And in fact, it's the most powerful tool available against the mosquitoes that spread malaria. That's why, despite its sketchy reputation, the WHO and others decided to support its use in Africa, as I reported last summer. Studies like this are often misused and misinterpreted. But the consequences of dismissing DDT's benefits are far too serious to contemplate.

**

On a completely unrelated note, yesterday was my last day as senior news editor at Nature Medicine. As of next week, I'm joining the Simons Foundation, where I'll be helping to create an online community for autism researchers. It's been a pleasure contributing to this blog, however infrequently I've done it lately. I hope you've enjoyed reading it — and will join me on my personal blog, which I hope to have up and running sometime soon.

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Have you seen this picture?

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.

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 05:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

When I worked at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle I was struck by the chemicals researchers routinely tossed away—often down the drain. It seemed paradoxical that the attempt to understand cancer involved the manufacture of some nasty carcinogens.

Of course, in the big scheme of things the amount of chemicals used in cancer research is small. And almost any positive endeavor has its shades of grey.

Take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Its role in public health has been extraordinary—but as a report in the Los Angeles Times reveals, the financial arm of the foundation invests in companies that spew some pretty toxic stuff, and may otherwise undermine the mission of the foundation.

These investments include oil companies that pollute regions of Africa where the foundation operates and a health care company embroiled in lawsuits for allegedly unnecessary surgeries. The Times claims that at least 41% of the foundation’s assets, or $8.7 billion, are in companies that “countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy.

Unlike some other philanthropies, such as the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation has apparently set up a firewall between its investment and granting arms—to try to keep the fund as flush as possible.

It may be easy to quibble with some of the standards used by the LA Times to criticize the Gates Foundation. Nonetheless, with an endowment boosted by Warren Buffett to more than $60 billion, it seems that the foundation could wield its substantial investment power in ways more in keeping with its public health mission.

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 05:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Hello! This is Charlotte, the News and Views editor here at Nature Medicine, and it’s about time I posted. I’ve been scurrying around getting out my section, which involves mainly commentaries written by scientists. Part of my job as editor is trying to get scientists to write in a lively way—and to push them to have opinions. So I hope I manage to achieve that myself here in this blog! If not, you can excoriate me in the comments section.

While much of the rest of our team is based in New York City, I’m in Washington DC—land of the wonk. So that means I get to attend all sorts of panels, science policy events and schmooze fests of dubious value. Some of them are worthwhile.

In fact, this last Thursday I attended the “White House Summit on Malaria” —along with just about every luminary in the public health world, Condoleeza Rice, singing children and a superstar pastor.

The summit, hosted by President and Mrs. Bush, was designed to raise awareness of the disease; the administration’s campaign against malaria has been garnering some praises lately for shaking down red tape and increasing transparency.

For a while I was wondering if anything was really going to happen at this event. But among numerous platitudes—“We have a chance to make history” —several new endeavors were announced and achievements highlighted. For instance, as part of a push for greater business involvement, the National Basketball Association and other groups have raised $1.7 million dollars since May for mosquito bed nets, spurred by a column in Sports Illustrated.

And while we were all waiting for the president to speak, silenced by the delay and the intimidating stare of the secret service guys lining the corridors, Yvonne Chaka Chaka, a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador for Malaria, spontaneously broke into song onstage, "The power of Africa". (Chaka Chaka, being a pop star, could probably sense the need for the security guys and the rest of us to be amused). The crowd started to bounce in their seats. One silver-haired lady, wearing a red suit in the way that only the well-off can do, got up and danced—and so did Eyitayo Lambo, Nigeria’s minister of health (on stage). He has reason—last week his country got a loan of more than $180 million from the World Bank to fight malaria.

Perhaps most thought-provoking was the call for greater involvement of religious groups.

Rick Warren, a star on the sermon circuit, and author of the Christian bestseller, “A purpose-driven life” explained his approach. He said religious groups, of whatever faith, have access to the community, credibility and an unprecedented volunteer pool. His network of churches is partnering with the government of Rwanda and other groups to train villagers to counteract malaria. Already more than 1000 church leaders in the country have signed up, he said.

Warren’s approach has the blessing of Richard Feachem, head of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. “There is a church in every village,” he said.

Religious groups have played a big role in the public health effort against AIDS—not without controversy, because of issues about condoms and sexuality. But with malaria, hopefully, there will be more consensus. This seems like a good idea to me—what do you think?

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 04:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)