Bahrain and Syria jail medical workers to undermine protests

Bahrain and Syria are imprisoning doctors for treating wounded anti-regime protesters, a tactic that aims at extinguishing medical neutrality in order to undermine anti-regime protests, the International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies has warned.

On Thursday 14 June, a group of Bahraini physicians lost an appeal against lengthy convictions for alleged violent opposition activity, amongst other charges, accusations that the network, which campaigns against human rights violations and unjust imprisonment of scientists, scholars, engineers, and health professionals, say were trumped up and intended to intimidate health professionals.

Doctors brought in by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, an international expert group established in June last year, examined eight of the accused and found evidence of torture, including electric shocks and severe beatings. The others allege that they, too, were tortured to extract “confessions”, but independent doctors have not been permitted to examine them.

“By denying them medical care, the regime clearly doesn’t want the wounded protesters to survive,” the network’s executive director, Carol Corillon, told Nature. “If protesters know they won’t receive medical treatment, they’ll think twice about heading into the streets.”

“This is a flagrant violation of medical neutrality,” she added. Continue reading

Research strategy urged on risks of nanotechnology

A selection of CosmeticsCalls for high-quality research into the risks of nanotechnology date back as far as the field itself,  but now one august body has added its voice. In a report released today the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) calls for a more coordinated research strategy to cover open questions as basic as how many nanoparticles of different kinds are being released into the environment, and who is being exposed to them. “There are some significant gaps that we need to address in order to move forward,” says Rebecca Klaper, an ecologist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who served on the authoring committee.

The report also criticizes the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which since 2000 has coordinated operations at the many US agencies that fund nanomaterials-risks research, focusing on the NNI’s dual role in promoting nanotechnology while also overseeing research on its risks. Klaper says that the NNI was founded to promote job creation in industries that use nanotechnology, such as cosmetics and car manufacturing. “There’s a potential conflict,” she says. The NAS panel is urging that the promotional activity be separated from the oversight of research into risks. It also says the NNI needs additional budgetary authority to shepherd some of the US$120 million that the US now spends piecemeal on nanomaterials-risk research in a larger, better coordinated effort. Research would also benefit from a small funding increase of around $22 million–$24 million per year, the panel says.

A spokeswoman for NNI says, “we see no inherent conflict of interest in the NNI’s focus on the responsible development of nanotechnology.” She adds that the NNI believes the current approach to shared budgetary responsibilities has been very effective and that the new authority recommended by the report would require action by the US Congress.

A report issued by the NNI in 2011 released a research strategy for nanotechnology but the NAS did not look at that as part of its study, which the spokeswoman says is unfortunate, as the NNI has already covered many of the elements the study calls for.

In December, Nature reported on concerns over the standards and quality of the nanotoxicology literature. As did the experts quoted in that story, the NAS called for accelerated development of standard reference materials so that researchers can calibrate the materials they are testing relative to one another.

Image by incurable_hippie on Flickr under Creative Commons.