Do you want to get away from the books and bench and go downtown to meet new people, greet opportunities and take in the view with a brew?
The New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) have arranged a ‘speed networking’ session for grad students and other science folk on October 6th (6:30 PM to 8:00 PM). Its worth attending for the view alone!
This event is co-sponsored by Nature Network and the Science Communication Consortium
If you are interested in registering, click here
Imagine a film festival that was entirely about science. Not only that, but also the films in that festival had credible scientific groundings. That is no longer science-fiction, but is in fact a reality in the
guise of the Imagine Science Film Festival. After a successful first run last year, ISFF returns in October and promises to be bigger and better! The aims of the festival are to enhance communication and collaboration between scientists and filmmakers to make science accessible and stimulating to a broader audience. The ISFF is the brainchild of scientist and filmmaker, Alexis Gambis. Nature Network NY managed to catch up with Alexis for a quick chat in-between his busy preparation for this year’s festival.
How did you get into making films?
My interest in filmmaking goes back to my childhood. I grew up in Park Slope, Brooklyn. My mother is a filmmaker and in the 80s she was attending NYU Tisch Film School. We always had actors roaming around the house. At around 6 years old, I remember watching my mother cutting film strips on a steamback machine at home or sitting on the brownstone stoop having deep conversations with actors. I also recall my debut as an actor. I was in my mother’s friend Tia Brelis NYU student film as a baby. Also, my brother was making films at Brooklyn College and I would miss class to be in his films; I played a genius chess player and a voodoo victim human doll in a Prospect Park setting. Good times. Now, about 20 years later punctured with tough teenage-hood years in Paris and a 6-year PhD voyage, I am back in Park Slope living in a brownstone apartment a few blocks away from Prospect Park. Also, in 10 days, I begin NYU Film School. The cycle repeats itself. I couldn’t be happier; I am exactly where I want to be and there is no time to waste – I am a workaholic! I have also secured an adjunct biology professor position so I will be teaching biology to undergraduate students in a class called “Molecules of Life”. This opportunity will help reduce NYU film school expenses and help me keep a foot in the science while making films.
I started making my first films at Bard College but at the time, I didn’t have much to say on camera and I quickly turned my attention to biology. It is in the 2nd year of my PhD that I had an awakening. I remember vividly the night I decided I wanted to take my experiences in the lab to the screen; I immediately called my girlfriend to let her know. Looking back, it almost feels like it was a religious awakening. Soon after, I took a few evening film classes made my first documentary “A Fruit Fly in New York” and short 16mm silent film “Dr. Funque and his Petri Dish”. It quickly became very clear to me the human stories revolving around scientific research would be the main source of inspiration for my future film productions.
Tell us what is planned for this year’s festival
We are currently gearing up for the 2nd annual Imagine Science Film Festival. I would call last year’s festival a pilot film festival although it did have a significant impact in the city with press coverage notably in the Village Voice and Nature magazine. This year’s festival is much bigger. We have many more sponsors, film premiers, city support and a bigger following. We pride ourselves on being the first science film festival in NYC and one of the first of its kind in the world. The festival will run for 10 days from October 15 to the 24. The mission this year is to diversify the venue types and locations as to attract a diverse audience. We have screenings in universities, museums, cinemas, art spaces and bars. We want to bring science to everybody and at cheap or free rates. This year’s venues include Tribeca Cinemas in Tribeca, Galapagos Art Space in Dumbo, The Bell House Bar in Gowanus, New York Hall of Museum in Corona, The CUNY Graduate Center in midtown and the New School Tishmann Auditorium in the Lower East Side. Last year, we had about 50 submitted films and this year, we count over 200 submitted films. The festival awareness is growing exponentially. From the submitted films, we will choose approximately 30 shorts and 5 feature films. Some of the features have already been booked. These include
1) “In Search of Memory” a new documentary about Eric Kandel retracing his memories and Nobel-prized work on memory,
2)“The Clone Returns Home” (NY-premiere/Tribeca Cinemas), a sci-fi film about a cloning program which explores identity, memory and the ethical responsibilities of science,
3) Quantum Quest (World Premere/CUNY Graduate Center), an animated education sci-fil adventure film directed by Harry Kloor (known for writing for Star Trek: The Voyager) and
4) Sizzle (NY Premiere/Closing Night/New School Tishmann Auditorium) by Randy Olson, a doc/mock-umentary comedy on global warming.
We are also finalizing the short film program and should have the final ISFF program by mid-September.
Our selection of films reflects our desire to make science more “hip” and “young” + to showcase all film genres (from documentary to sci-fi) which successfully embed entertaining/credible SCIENCE credible way in storytelling. We are looking for films where science is wrapped up into human stories and intrigue.
What are your favorite science films of all time?
This is a question that often comes up. I do have a few favorites. GATTACA which deals with future facing genetic discrimination, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, an all-time favorite and landmark film, which unravels a unique view on science, humanity and technology. I also loved “A Beautiful Mind” which cracks into the personal/human aspects of “the scientist”. Other good ones include Metropolis, A Trip to the Moon and Sleep Dealer.
However, there are far too many science film duds out there which hurt the scientific message, exaggerate stereotypes and present false science leading to misconceptions and misunderstandings about many scientific issues. I really believe there is a need for more credible science into mainstream cinema. I hope to add my grain of salt to this effort with both my films and the Imagine Science Films’ efforts.
How do we make science more interesting in movies without compromising the technical accuracy?
There are many different opinions on this matter and I am believer that the more ways science is introduced on the silver screen the better. After all, not everybody likes the same types of movies. Some people prefer the dry scientific documentaries. I personally prefer when science is embedded into narrative filmmaking. I think that science “in” fiction has more potential of targeting a larger mainstream audience. Also, you need to have the right dose of science in film – not too little, not too much.
I definitely don’t think you need compromise technical/scientific accuracy to make science more interesting. But I do admit that this is a prevalent notion out there and reflects ignorance or lack of scientific awareness. The scientific process is inundated with spicy stories ranging from comedy to drama. Working in a lab for 6-years, I have collected notepads worth of stories about scientists, daily scientific breakthroughs and struggles and comedic anecdotes. Trying to rid the public from this idea that science needs to be distorted to be more exciting is part of the festival’s mission.
What advice would you give for any scientists out there wanting to get into film making?
Unfortunately, we still don’t have enough films by scientists. But, this year we have introduced “The Scientist” award for the best film made by a scientist. We will give the filmmaker who wins this award a small camera and present his film on our website and to our sponsors.
When I started the film festival, I got many emails from scientists who wanted to make films but didn’t know how. I would recommend to all scientists who love their research to keep a visual diary. Nowadays, there are small (FLIP) cameras that can fit in the lab coat pocket next to the 1ml pipette. Also, let your imagination take over and go back to the lab at night to make short quirky films. Science is as much about rigor as it is about imagination. I think that the more we get scientists to make films, the more the general public will realize how creative scientific work is and leave in the closet the images of the socially-inept nerdy scientist (often seen in Hollywood films). Scientists are artists who hypothesize, imagine, create and discover. This reminds me of a comment I once got in a bar in the Lower East Side. I told somebody that I was a scientist as I sipped on a Corona lime beer under the stroboscope lights. The response was: “wow, you definitely do not strike me as a scientist”.
As a scientist and filmmaker, what does the future hold for you?
The future is always uncertain but what I do know is that I will be at NYU Film school for the next 5 years making films about science. In school, we will constantly be cranking out films. I am planning to make a suite of short fiction films where science will be incorporated into comedic, dramatic, and fantastical realms. I have also begun to work on a feature film screenplay on the early 19th century 26-square feet Fly Room, where modern genetics was born. I have already gone up to Columbia to do some research for the film. The film will be about the double life of Calvin Bridges, one of the drosophila scientists in the Fly Room. He was an usually creative scientist who worked his way up from technician to professor and balanced his life between fruit flies and woman. The Fly Room takes on the symbol of a confined space where scientific breakthrough intermingles with human drama. From the heights of notoriety to the depths of depravity, Calvin experiences it all. He harbors a true passion for science and women. The same obsessive nature that brings him scientific recognition and fame becomes a destructive force outside of the confines of the Fly Room taking his life away in tragic consequences.
I also hope to help other scientists find their cinematic voice by starting the Imagine Science Films Production company to help fund narrative films with a strong scientific message.
Long hours in the lab and too many PCRs, can do funny things to a scientist. Some turn to copious amounts of caffeine and other chemicals. Others turn to rap…
Thanks to Zach-Charlop Powers of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine for the video. Zach is also the founder of the New York Soccer Science; a one day soccer tournament for scientists. Last years event drew over 160 participants. This year Zach will be organizing another event in the fall. Watch this space for more information.
The words “cool” and “job” generally aren’t the first thing to come into people’s minds when you mention science as a career. To explain what it is to be a scientist can be a difficult task, as what people perceive in their minds about how science is done is often very different than the reality. Furthermore, trying to explain why you should become a scientist to a child can be difficult in the face of other more glamorous or seemingly easier career choices. “Cool Jobs” at the WSF aimed to address these issues by presenting a range of different scientists who have “some of the coolest jobs out there” and present this in a way that was accessible to curious minds of all ages. The event was hosted by Majora Carter, a pioneer in the progressive environmental movement, especially in New York.
The first presentation was by Maurizio Seracini, who has been also named “The Da Vinci Detective”, due to his leading work on using forensic science to investigate major works of art by Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, Raphael, Caravaggio. Dr Seracini presented in detail how he studies and treats his “patients” (the works of art). By studying the degradation, we can learn how to preserve these masterpieces. As an example we see the “the Pregnant Lady” (by Raphael) under normal and ultraviolet fluorescent light. The differences are quite stark in the decay that is happening to this painting. Using a combination of techniques and light sources (a method called multispectral diagnostic imaging), including radiography, reflectography near infrared, and UV, Dr Seracini revealed some fascinating discoveries other than just portrait decay. What was remarkable was that in many cases under the visible surface of famous works of art, there were in some cases numerous hidden layers of alterations.
The prime example of this was in Leonardo da Vinci’s painting the “Adoration of the Magi” which hangs in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence (Dr Seracini’s home city). On the surface the painting looks monochrome brown, however using a IR reflectogram, analysis reveals underneath, many detailed and complex hidden drawing by Leonardo. Most remarkable he concluded that the painting on the surface was not put there by Leonardo, but by another artist.
Dr Seracini has expanded his work to investigate buildings by similar approaches revealing hidden architecture, buried beneath recent renovation to buildings. His most recent achievement is the discovery of da Vinci’s most famous and lost piece of work (The Battle of Anghiari), buried in the walls of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. As Dr Seracini’s stated, “you have to interact with your culture and heritage and science can do that”. Further, his work allows us to see art like it has never been seen before.
Following this was Hazel Barton who’s work is the study of microorganisms in caves. Training in her lab involves leaning how to rock climb and ascend from great height with ropes and equipment. Not your usual grad school experience. Her particular interest is to understand how organisms can live in the absence of the sun. The organisms that live down in these cases (usually around 300 foot down) are known as extremophiles. In addition to climbing around deep caves in all areas of the world, this also involves scuba gear and working in crawl spaces as little as 5 inches. Add to this, trying to collect specimens and do science at the same time and this makes for some interesting field work. The implications of Dr Barton’s work are vast including the discovery of novel antibiotics, the understanding of how microorganisms could be used to remove carbon dioxide from the air and the break down of pesticides. Dr Barton’s work on extremophiles has also led to her work with NASA on keeping the Mars Lander microbe free.
The next presentation was by Tyrone Hayes who turned a childhood fascination with frogs into a career. Dr Hayes presented how complex the development of a frog is, where two different sets of genes are needed for tadpole and mature frog development. However, the frog is a great model for water quality as its development is severely affected by chemical pollutants in its habitat. One particular chemical Dr Hayes found to be a problem was the pesticide atrazine. This is no longer is use in Europe, but is still heavily used in the US. Atrazine (a herbicide) was found to inhibit the production of testosterone and induces estrogen, leading to feminization of males in amphibians. Dr Hayes showed that in frogs this resulted in gonadal malformations in males leading to the development of egg production in the testes. These findings and Dr Hayes concern for the public health from drinking or using this water has led him into the realm of public health.
The final presentation was by Dickson Despommier who spent may years researching parasitic worms, before changing direction in research to sustainable urban farms. In his current work (The Vertical Farm Project), the idea is to change abandoned building and tall buildings into integrating agriculture into large cities. These multi-story farming buildings would allow year-round fresh and locally grown food. The added benefits would be that large areas of the world used for intensive farming could be restored to their natural habitats and benefit the environment.
The message of this event is really that there is no set route to a scientific career and that as diverse the research that was presented, the way these people reached the jobs they enjoy was just as varied. In the end, it is doing any form of science that you are passionate about that is the “cool job”.
The World Science Festival is happening this week in New York and runs through Sunday. Myself and Caryn will be blogging from the event here on the New York hub. We will be putting together links to our and other blogs posts around the internet about the festival. Anyone who is planning on blogging anything from the WSF, send us the link to your blog post and we’ll link it here.
Once we collect enough posts, we’ll be hosting a WSF blog carnival here at Nature Network NY.
Follow our tweets here
You’d have to be quite literally living under a sedimentary rock stratum to miss the recent news on the discovery of a fossilized “link” to humans. Published in PLoS ONE, entitled “Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology” the paper behind the headlines describes a 47 million year old lemur-like primate species discovered in Germany. Named “Ida” after the discoverers daughter, the specimen has been classified as Darwinius masillae.
In 27 detailed pages (and numerous supplemental ones), the authors analyze and describe the most completely preserved example of an early primate. What makes this particularly remarkable is that not only is the specimen completely intact, but also the last meal of the organism is preserved inside what used to be its stomach. The authors demonstrate that Ida firstly lacks a grooming claw and tooth claw (characteristics of modern day lemurs) and secondly has opposable thumbs and fingernails. These two traits are what the authors suggest Ida a direct ancestor of humans.
However, was most surprising was how the release of the study was coincided with mass media coverage including news reports, television specials, an interactive website, a movie and a book in the works. Furthermore, an epic new conference was held in New York at the Museum of Natural History to the unveiling of Ida by Michael Bloomberg. You’d almost think following this coverage that this wasn’t an advertising campaign for “Land of the Lost” and Will Farrell would then drag out some dinosaur bones.
What is really interesting about this study is that the press releases came long before anyone had a chance to see the paper. “World renowned scientists reveal a revolutionary scientific find that will change everything” it was claimed. This was followed by an exclusive preview in The Daily Mail (not the first place to come to mind for announcing science) and an “unofficial” interview in the Wall Street Journal. Whilst there is a large discussion that scientists should promote their work to the media, utilizing the hype machine in the manner by which the History Channel and A&E network has done, may not lend the right credence to the work.
Subsequently, the blogosphere has since been full of discussion on both the merits of the study and the treatment by the media. This has been a wonderful example of the use of blogs, where instant reactions can be written in response to science, whereas previously before blogging this would have taken time to be published in other journals. A number of major points were raised online, which I have summarized here:
1. What’s wrong with the term “missing link”?
The term “missing link” appeared in numerous should not be used. Further, as John Wilkins over at Evolving Thoughts points out in the aptly titled post, There is no missing link. Over at A Primates of Modern Aspect, there is further explanation
The term originates from the “Great chain of being” or scala naturae, which is a medieval pre-darwin concept. In this, the chain represents the hierarchical links from the most basic elements (earth/rock) to the highest form (God). In-between lie (in ascending order) animals, men, kings and angels, with every imaginable thing fitting somewhere in the chain. Therefore, extinct species can be fitted as “missing links” in the chain. From this explanation, it can be seen how contrary to evolutionary theory the phrase “missing link” is.
2. Could Darwinius masillae be an evolutionary ancestor of humans?
This is where there is a lot of debate. There have been some excellent explanations here
here here which also quote a range of experts in paleontology who either disagree with the findings or argue for caution on the implications of the data.
Cladistics have shown that modern primates can be subdivided into two major groups; the Strepsirrhines (which comprise of lemurs) and the Happlorrhines (which include apes, monkeys, tarsiers and humans). Further, the Strepsirrhines have been proposed to have evolved from Adapids and Happlorrhines from Omomyids. In the paper, the authors argue that Ida shares distinct features with Haplorrhines than are absent in Strepsirrhines; in particular the lack of a tooth comb and grooming claw. Therefore, the authors propose Haplorrhines evolved from Apapids. Another explanation for these findings are convergent evolution (the occurrence of a trait in unrelated lineages). The classical example of this is the wing, which is common to both birds and bats, but was not present in their last common ancestor.
Further to this, the methodology of the paper has been criticized in that in the PLoS ONE paper compares only 30 traits between Ida and primitive or higher primates, as opposed to the standard practice of 200 to 400. Furthermore, it is suggested the authors neglected to compare Egyptian anthropoids and newer fossils from Asia and do not perform adequate phylogenic analysis
Whether “this is the first link to all humans”, as Dr Hurum stated, will be debated for some time.
3. Should science be sold through the media in this way?
Everyone agrees that this is a truly remarkable fossil. The conclusions of the study as outlined below are the obvious debate point. However, the media bombardment in the last few weeks certainly have raised this story out of the exposure of usual scientific publications. Dr Jorn Hurum, author of the PLoS ONE paper and the person to unveil the fossil in New York, is no stranger to working the media and promoting science on television.
However, Dr Hurum is an great presenter of the work and his desire to promote science in the media exampled in this quote “If we really want kids to get involved with exciting scientific findings, no matter what kind of field, we really need to start thinking about reaching people other than our fellow scientists. This paper could have been drowned in other papers and would have been read by 15 people around the world.”
Dr Hurum has a regular spot on Norwegian television and previously worked with the History Channel on the documentary “Predator X”. In last weeks airing of The Link
on History Channel, Dr Hurum is the lead character in a “dream team” of paleontologists including Holly Smith, Jens Franzen, Jörg Habersetzer and Philip Gingerich. In a 1 ½ hour science-a-thon, the program builds the drama from the discovery and purchase from a collector to “save it for science” to the implications of the fossil in terms of evolution (“the origins of every person on the planet”). We have graphics, 3-D renditions and the paleological lighting equivalent of lab colored chemicals. The conclusions are that Ida is not a true lemur and therefore must be an anthropoid. Human connection established. On the whole, the program, although well presented is a bit long and could have the same message in half the time. With the “secrecy” regarding the find we also only hear the opinion of the “dream team”. It would have been nice to get the comments of other experts in this field. And hear less of the term “missing link”.
4. How does this help or hinder the debate with creationists?
Within hours of the first stories being published, comments on articles were in their hundreds between proponents of evolution and creationism. Nothing unusual there for a mainstream story on evolution, but the potential of over hyping a finding could have implications in the arguments of creationists. The main worry is that all the hype and claims of a “missing link” by the media fuels the beliefs of anti-evolutionists and especially if Ida turns out not to live up to the hype.
Already anti-evolutionist blogs have critical of the presentation of the data including here
“the fossil was hailed as humanity’s missing evolutionary link before the technical details of the find were published”. And the entertaining headline Lemur Monkey Falls From the Sky, Robbing Man of Sleep, in reference to Dr Hurum’s statement of not sleeping for two days after first seeing the fossil
Furthermore, creationists have seized on the disagreement over where Ida fits in with primate evolution, which fuels the old argument point of “scientist don’t agree on the theory of evolution”. The parallels used between the discovery of Ida with that of the “holy grail”, do not help the case in terms of seeing evolutionary theory like a faith.
Overall, the discovery of Darwinius masillae is indeed a great finding for the study of primate evolution. Whether Ida turns out to be a transitional form in anthropoid primate evolution will be of discussion for quite some time to come. In the end perhaps this story tells us more about how science and the relationship with the media is changing. Brian Switek said it best in The Times, “She (Ida) truly is an amazing find, but for now I think that she has taught us more about science communication than our ancestry.”
The Imagine Science Films Festival (ISFF) are having a pre-festival fundraising party on the June 26, 2009 at Kenny’s Castaways, 9 to 11 pm.
If you’re interested in learning more about what the festival is all about and want a sneak preview, this is the event to go to.
The event includes:
• Musical performances by Audiometry
• Sneak-peeks at films from the 2009 Imagine Science Film Festival
• Special screening of Aron Epstein and Daniel Stedman’s short film The Moth and The FireFly
• Special screening of Vimeo Video Pick of the Week Contest Winner Parallelostory, created by Kelly Meador and Daniel Elwing of Impactist.
Tickets are $10 in advance and $15 at the door, and may be purchased online through Paperless Post
Details can be found on the ISF website
Genetics; didn’t it seem so simple at school many years ago? Watson/Crick, Mendelian Inheritance, and the four nucleotides of the genetic code (adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine). However, then came the human genome project, complex multi-gene/environment disorders such as cardiovascular disease and the emerging field of epigenetics.
Epigenetics is defined as the inheritance of genetic traits due to mechanisms other than changes in DNA sequence. One of the best described mechanisms is the methylation of cytosines to form 5-methylcytosine. Methylation typically occurs in CG nucleotide rich areas or “CpG” islands, which are found to occur in particular around the transcriptional start sites of many genes. Alteration in the methylation status of genes has been demonstrated to occur in a range of disease states, including numerous cancers. Studies of cancer related genes have revealed that gene hypermethylation has been associated with transcriptional inactivation in cancer. Therefore methylation status represents not only a potential diagnostic tool, but only a mechanism to target for therapeutic intervention.
In a recent online published article in Science magazine, two researchers from Rockefeller University have identified another form of methylated cytosine in mammals; 5-hydroxymethylcytosine
5-hydroxymethylcytosine has been previously identified in bacteriophage and shown to play a role in infectivity
The authors identified the nucleotide modification by chance when comparing different murine neuronal cell types. Using TLC, HPLC and MS, the authors found that around 40% of methylated cytosine in the large nucleated Purkinje cells were of the 5-hydroxymethylcytosine form. Anyone who has previously studied methylated DNA will be familiar with the method of bisulfite treatment which deaminates cytosine residues to uracil, whereas 5-methylcytosine remains unmodified. Subsequent analysis by PCR or sequencing can reveal these changes and hence the methylation status of a gene region. In particular this method is being used by the Human Epigenome Project, which is a large scale collaboration to identify and catalogue Methylation regions in the human genome. The significance of the current study is that bisulfite treatment is unable to differentiate between 5-methylcytosine or 5-hydroxymethylcytosine.
The authors speculate that this may too regulate gene expression, but perhaps in a different manner. The discovery of mammalian enzymes that convert 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine, further suggests a regulatory role
So what is the biological role of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine? Does this have a neuronal function alone? What is its relevance in gene regulation? Does this exist in humans? Answers to these questions should provide further insight into the fascinating world of epigenetic regulation.
“Do Scientists Compete Unethically” is the title of an article in the New York Times Science section this week by John Tierney. This interesting piece is in response to a previous post on “What If Scientist Didn’t Compete” (here)
Which in both cases has spawned a series of intense debates.
The original post led to the majority of responders online insisting that competition is an essential element of science. This week’s piece is in response to one scientist (Dr Cutler) who’s main point is “Compete ethically”. Dr Cutler points out that there are elements of researchers who are unethical. These examples include reviewers who “exploit their access to privileged data to gain unfair advantages in the “race” to the next big discovery”, and lack of cooperation from scientists for requested published materials. Dr Cutler recommends a system of rewards for ethical behavior such as when it comes to publications and grant funding.
I though this was an interesting post for discussion here on Nature Network. My questions are therefore;
How can we regulate such a system and evaluate ethics?
How widespread do you think this problem is?
There has been much discussion here on Nature Network and on other blogs on the decline of traditional media outlets due to the rise of the internet and other means by which journalism as a whole is being reported. Science and medicine are obviously no exception to this rule, with both ends of the quality spectrum being represented out there on the World Wide Web. One example of the evolving online media is the Huffington Post, touted as “The Internet Newspaper”. The HuffPo as its also known, publishes a variety of news articles on world events and featuring articles on politics, entertainment, business and “living”.
As a regular reader of the site, it I’m no fan of the science coverage in the latter section, which seems to feature articles of an anti-scientific nature (extensive coverage of this over at Science-Based Medicine). Two such examples pointed out here include an article by Kim Evans (author of Cleaning Up – The ultimate body cleanse) on how “Antibiotic cause cancer?” citing the outstanding quackery of Dr. Tullio Simoncini who claims that cancer is a fungus and Margaret Ruth (a metaphysical teacher) who reports on the “intuitive scan … provides an energetic profile of the client”, as a diagnostic tool akin to an x-ray.
Could it get any worse? Well, this last week was no disappointment with an “editorial” from the actor / comedian Jim Carrey. In this article titled “The Judgment on Vaccines Is In?”, Mr Carrey voices a range of arguments including the safety of vaccinating children, the link between vaccines and autism, and a conspiracy of the CDC and pharmaceutical companies to create toxic products with only profits in mind. Mr Carrey and his partner Jenny McCarthy are part of an increasing movement to “green our vaccines” and “too many too soon”; claims that vaccines are full of toxins and the increasing vaccination schedule of children today being too much for a child’s immune system. How did this anti-vaccination viewpoint start?
Historically as long as vaccinations have existed there has been opposition, either due to religious or political beliefs. This opposition started with the introduction of the first vaccine against smallpox by Dr Edward Jenner, and continues to this day. One of the most recent examples is the controversial link made between the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and autism. This originated from a study published by Dr Andrew Wakefield in the Lancet in 1998, which suggested a link between the initiation of an inflammatory bowel condition, and the administration of the MMR vaccine in autistic children. In this paper of 12 subjects and no controls, Dr Wakefield and colleagues described a series of case reports where the authors mentioned eight of the twelve children developed behavioral problems within two weeks of MMR vaccination. Although, numerous studies could not reproduce these findings, media coverage did not adequately highlight these findings.
If that wasn’t bad enough, 10 of the original authors of this paper issued a retraction in 2004. It took however, an additional paper authored by Dr Wakefield in 2002 (known as the “O’Leary" paper) to fully create a widespread media induced panic in the UK. Ultimately, the one-sided media reporting induced an understandable panic amongst parents, ultimately causing a drop in the number of children being vaccinated with the MMR vaccine (93% to as low as 50% in some areas of the UK). Subsequently, the incidence of measles (previously eradicated in the UK), has risen from 56 cases in 1998 to 1,348 reported cases in 2008.
It would take a few years for the anti-vaccination movement in the U.S to seize on these publications, which would ultimately result in court cases against the vaccine makers in both the U.K and U.S. The U.S case also rested on the premise that thimerosal, a mercury derived compound used as a vaccine preservative was the responsible for the apparent rise in autism. There are a few points worth noting here though; 1. thimerosal has not been used in vaccines in the U.S. since the FDA called for its removal in 1999. 2. since this time, autism diagnosis rates have continued to increase, mainly through increased awareness and diagnostic criteria. 3. thimerosal was not used in live vaccines such as MMR.
These two papers would not only become the central scientific evidence in these court cases (MMR Vaccination Litigation in the UK and the Vaccine Court Case (Cedillo v. Health and Human Services) in the US), but also their downfall. The expert testimony of Professor Stephen Bustin; an expert in PCR, would question the validity of the O’Leary paper too. In this study, the authors had demonstrated that the measles virus RNA had been detected in gut biopsies of children with autism by RT-PCR, linking directly the MMR vaccine to autism. The problem with these findings were that noone could reproduce these findings. Professor Bustin’s analysis concluded that the study was flawed on a number of counts, the first being due to probable PCR contamination with positive control plasmid DNA. The second flaw and quite a considerable one, was that on examination there were instances where the authors seemed to have forgotten to perform a reverse transcription step before performing real-time PCR on the biopsy samples. Yes, before you check your textbook, ladies and gentlemen, the measles virus is RNA based. You can read Professor Bustin’s report here and the court testimony here
In addition to this, numerous epidemiological studies from around the world have failed to demonstrate any link between the MMR vaccine (or any vaccine) and autism. Furthermore, the Institute of Medicine concluded on the extensive available evidence that there is no link between autism and either the MMR vaccine (in 2001) or with thimerosal (in 2004). Therefore, you would think everyone would agree this would scientifically close the case on the link between vaccinations and autism, and focus valuable research resources on other potential causes for autism. Unfortunately, not everyone.
Step forward the unofficial voice piece for this movement of the eminent celebrity research team of (Jenny) McCarthy and (Jim) Carrey. In addition to a fervent online campaign, the pair recently organized a march on D.C with the campaign to “green our vaccines” and that the vaccination schedule for children was “too many too soon”. This campaign is focused on the eradication of alleged toxins from vaccines and that a child’s immune system cannot cope with current number of vaccinations recommended within the first few years of life. Whilst no drug treatment can be considered 100% safe, there has been no program in modern health care that has been more successful than vaccination against infectious disease. The campaigners refuse to accept the scientific evidence and consensus outlined above and call for more “research”, mainly still based on the de-bunked Wakefield studies. This brings me to the point of this blog post, namely the dangers of the unscientifically based views that celebrities may have based on their own biases and the role of the media in propagating these points to the public. McCarthy and Carrey are just an example of the daily uphill struggle science and scientists face to effectively communicate to the public. In this case although their intentions may good and to bring attention to a subject (in this case the cause of autism), through unguided and unqualified viewpoints they cause parents to question the need to vaccinate their children. In their defense they vocally question any opposition from scientists, as having “conflicts of interest”, citing even grant funding from the NIH as evidence of being co-conspirators in a grand scheme cooked up by the pharmaceutical industry and the government. Let’s not even get started on celebrity conflicts of interest, especially when aforementioned celebrity has a book out on a “cure” for said disease. Although they cite (and in the article above), they be not against vaccinations, to tell everyone how dangerous vaccinating your child could be, is clearly going to influence some people not to. The drop in vaccination rates and the resulting endemic of infectious disease seen in the U.K is now starting to be seen here in the U.S. Lets not forget that a successful vaccination program only works when the majority of a community is vaccinated against a pathogen (herd immunity).
These two are not alone in their advocacy of their own version of science. Other notable examples include Gwyneth Paltrow’s anti-cancer views; “I am challenging these evil genes by natural means. I am convinced that by eating biological foods it is possible to avoid tumors.” Lets not forget Madonna’s research effort to “work with scientists to find a way to neutralize radiation”. The list goes on and on. So, how can we change this consensus? One such way is the approach taken by the non-profit organization “Sense about Science”. This U.K. based organization composed of ~3000 scientists promotes public understanding of science at the same time tackling misinformation in the media, and also providing guides for scientists to adequately communicate their work and viewpoints to the media. One of their guidebooks “Celebrities and Science” details the various claims by celebrities and the resulting explanation of the real science by experts in the field. They are all available here.
So, what’s the harm in celebrities voicing their views on science? Well, firstly, we have to know whether there is a hidden interest behind these pseudo viewpoints (a book or cosmetic range). Secondly, voicing opinions on important health issues whether just a random offhand quote, can influence more people than the official view which may have taken many years of public health care policy to have had an impact. At the same time however, this can be used positively such as using a public figure to reinforce a health campaign. This obviously all points to one central aspect; the media and how science is reported. Whilst journalists will cry foul that they are only reporting “the facts”, and it is the scientists’ responsibility / fault how we communicate, selling newspapers or viewing figures are the bottom line and therefore sensational headlines trumpet the information. Giving a mouthpiece or column space to this celeb pseudo-science fiction does not pass as science journalism (and that includes you Time magazine).
Ultimately, this comes down to how the modern media will evolve and the role of the scientist in this new medium. It is up to us to not only communicate science to the public, but more importantly explain the actual process of how science is performed and interpreted. If we leave it to the celebrities to communicate their version, in the future we can only expect that we will all just become dumb and dumber.