Professor David Schultz, Professor of Synoptic Meteorology, University of Manchester, said:

“Tornadoes are unfortunately to be expected in this area of the US at this time of year.  Compared to the 1999 Oklahoma tornado, which was of similar magnitude, yesterday’s tornado sadly led to a greater number of deaths.  This is partly because of the time of day it occurred – at around 3pm, parents were out and about picking up children from school and some children were still in class.  Because people were less likely to be near a television or listening to a radio, they might not have heard warnings and therefore unfortunately might not have been able to take precautions.  In 1999 the tornado hit at around 7pm, when most people were sitting down to dinner or watching the evening news, which would have been reporting live on the track of the tornado.  Sheltering within their homes with their families would have been easier.  Clearly, the time of day that the tornado hits can affect people’s ability to be prepared.

“In the US, the National Weather Service issues outlooks days in advance of anticipated severe weather.  The outlooks highlight regions of the country that face the risk of tornadoes, large hail, strong winds, and lightning.  With possible tornadoes three to six hours away, watches are issued that highlight portions of a state or two.  Tornado warnings are issued when the threat of tornadoes is imminent.  Warnings often appear tens of minutes before the tornadoes hit.  In the case of large and violent tornadoes, such warnings can be quite accurate.  Weaker tornadoes sometimes may happen without warning.  Research within the National Severe Storms Laboratory and the Storm Prediction Center aims to improve the tornado warning process, giving more lead time to the public.”

Dr John Marsham, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, said:

“We do not yet know the full details of this particular event and it is impossible to attribute any one event to climate change. Tornadoes are too small to be explicitly represented in climate models. However, research shows that in much of the USA climate change is likely to lead to increase in the frequency of severe storms, and tornadoes form as a result of severe storms. Climate change therefore may well increase tornadoes, but the effects are expected to be regionally varying and much remains uncertain.”

Dr Andrew Russell, Lecturer in Climate Change, Brunel University, said:

“It is unclear whether tornadoes will become more likely as our climate changes because computer climate models don’t have the power (i.e. high enough resolution) to represent tornadoes. So you can’t just go through climate model data and count the tornadoes that it thinks will occur. It is possible, though, to look at the changes in the larger scale conditions that usually result in tornadoes, but this also gives us a unclear picture: whilst the increased warmth and moisture predicted by climate models will mean more energy would be available to developing tornadoes, the climate projections also shown a decrease in the occurrence of the wind patterns that are needed to form tornadoes. Nonetheless, there is some good evidence showing that reducing greenhouse gas emissions now will reduce the risk of more severe storms and tornadoes in the future.”

Dr Andrew Barrett, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading (commenting on the frequency and strength of tornadoes), said:

“Tornadoes are quite common in the Great Plains in May, averaging about 3-4 per day (often in clusters) – but not usually as strong as this one, and not usually in urban areas. Only 2% of tornadoes in the USA reach EF4 status (scale EF0 to EF5), with winds over 165mph.

“Tornados can occur in many places across the globe, but tornado alley of the Central Plains of the US is most famous. Central Plains in US is ‘Tornado Alley’ because it sees frequent collisions of warm, moist air from the south and cold air from further north and has no major east-west mountain range to block air flow between these two air masses.

“Moore, Oklahoma has been hit by significant tornadoes four times in the last 15 years (1999, 2003, 2010 and yesterday) including most intense storm ever with winds of 317 mph. The size of the tornado was not unprecedented, but at larger end of scales (widths vary from: 100m – 3 km).”

Dr Suzanne Gray, Senior Lecturer in Weather Systems, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading (commenting on climate change and tornadoes), said:

“Tornados are too small scale for current climate models to simulate, so it is not possible to say very much about how strength and occurrence might alter under climate change. But climate change means warmer temperatures and more moisture and that is providing more energy for the types of storms that produce tornadoes in a warmer climate.”

Dr Pete Inness, Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading (commenting on tornadoes in the UK), said:

“The geography of the US High Plains is unique in creating the perfect environment for tornado formation. In the UK we simply don’t have the right set of circumstances to generate the intense storms in which big tornadoes form.

“According to the UK Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO) the UK experiences 30-40 tornadoes per year, although these are all far weaker and shorter lived than their US equivalents and most cause little or no damage to property. Recent occurrences include a small tornado in Oxfordshire in May 2012 which was tracked using Doppler radar by researchers at the University of Reading.

“In July 2005 a tornado hit Birmingham where damage to trees, houses and cars was widespread across an area to the south-east of the city centre. This was one of the few UK tornadoes to cause significant damage (estimated at 40 million pounds) and 19 people were injured.”

Further notes on tornadoes, from the University of Reading:

What is a tornado?

A rotating column of air usually accompanied by a funnel-shaped downward extension of a thunder cloud and having winds whirling destructively at speeds of up to 300 miles per hour.

• Speeds vary from 18ms^-1 to >120ms^-1
• Categorised according to fijtia (EF) scale from EF0 (weakest) to EF5 (strongest)
• Width of tornados can be: 100m – 3 km
• Lifetime: few seconds – (rarely) an hour or more. Many last 10s of mins.
• Depth: several 100m to 10 km.
• Most rotate cyclonically; a few rotate anticyclonically

Dr Matt Watson, Lecturer in Natural Hazards, University of Bristol, said:

“Springtime in Oklahoma is pretty much prime time and place for tornadoes, therefore sadly this is not particularly unusual.  It is virtually impossible to attribute single events like this to climate change.”

Professor Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards, UCL, said:

“While there is no discernible upward trend in the number or strength of tornadoes in the US, I would not be surprised to see more in the way of the most powerful tornadoes as the world continues to warm. As climate change tightens its grip, extreme weather of all types is likely to be the order of the day.”

Claire Bale, Research Communications Manager at Parkinson’s UK, said:

“This new research is a huge step forward in the on-going fight to find a drug which can slow down, or even halt, the progression of Parkinson’s.

“In this new study, researchers have shown that Exenatide – a drug commonly used to treat diabetes, may have real promise in helping to slow down Parkinson’s in some people, helping them to remain more mobile for longer.

“People with diabetes are also at a slightly increased risk of developing Parkinson’s and although it isn’t yet clear why; some diabetes drugs may also have potential for treating Parkinson’s – such is the case with Exenatide.

“Despite these encouraging results, it is simply too soon to tell whether this drug is a blind alley or a breakthrough for people with Parkinson’s.  The research was conducted in a very small number of people and, crucially, without a placebo group – making it difficult to draw too many firm conclusions at this stage.

“We look forward to seeing the results of a much larger trial to fully examine the usefulness of Exenatide for people with Parkinson’s.”

Professor Roger Barker, Professor of Clinical Neuroscience and Honorary Consultant Neurologist, University of Cambridge, said:

“This new study, whilst producing encouraging data suggesting that this drug may slow down disease progression in Parkinson’s disease (PD), is perhaps more noteworthy for the approach it has taken with respect to the clinical trial design. There is currently a great debate about how to take drugs licensed for one indication and use them in unrelated neurological conditions as possible disease modifying agents. In the past such studies have often been large, complex and expensive and this new study presents an alternative approach that may herald a new era of such trials. In particular this study by Foltynie et al used: no placebo arm (because of the expense of making devices to deliver placebo injections); blinded raters that scored videos on the patients; and a wash out period to exclude any symptomatic effect. All of this was done in a modest number of patients and the results compared with a matched control arm that received best medical therapy. Using this approach they found a signal of effect that suggested that the drug may well be slowing down the disease process. All of which is good news not only for patients with PD but for us all, as we seek to explore how drugs already out there could be repositioned for use in these chronic neurodegenerative disorders of the CNS.”

‘Exenatide and the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease’ by Iciar Aviles-Olmos et al. published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation on Monday 20th May.

The SMC invited four experts from genetics and oncology to brief journalists on the challenges and opportunities of bringing genetic testing into routine cancer care. They answered questions such as:

• Has the promise of genetic testing delivered on expectations?
• Do technological advances mean that mainstream genetic testing is now possible?
• How can complex genetic information be rapidly translated into clinical action?
• Should cancer patients be offered routine cancer testing and how can barriers to this in the NHS be overcome?
• Does genetic testing actually lead to cancer prevention?

Speakers:

Professor Nazneen Rahman, Head of Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, & Head of the Cancer Genetics Clinical Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust

Professor Peter Donnelly, Director, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics (WTCHG), Professor of Statistical Science, University of Oxford

Professor Martin Gore, Medical Director, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Professor of Cancer Medicine, The Institute of Cancer Research, London

Dr Clare Turnbull, Team Leader in Division of Genetics, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, & Consultant in Clinical Genetics, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 

Dr Richard Allan, Reader in Climate Science at the University of Reading, said:

“This work has used observations to estimate Earth’s current heating rate and demonstrate that simulations of climate change far in the future seem to be pretty accurate. However, the research also indicates that a minority of simulations may be responding more rapidly towards this overall warming than the observations indicate.”

“Sunlight reflected back to space by aerosol pollutant particles, which offsets some of the heating from greenhouse gases, is difficult to measure, as is the heating rate of the deep ocean. Both make it difficult to estimate the most realistic rate of future global warming, but they don’t change the overall picture and certainly don’t give us cause for complacency.”

“It is important to understand how much the planet will warm up in response to radiative forcing from rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This is often quantified as the total warming experienced in response to a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration: how sensitive climate is to this heating effect (climate sensitivity).

“However, since the total response of the climate system can take hundreds of years to reach its final resting place (or equilibrium), more useful for making policy decisions involving adaptation strategies is the journey to this final resting place, or how quickly the climate responds (transient climate response).

“Are climate simulations, used to project future changes in climate, realistic in both of these respects?  To answer this question, Otto et al combine knowledge of the extra energy entering the climate system due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and other factors (radiative forcing) with observations of surface temperature and of how heat is building up (primarily within the oceans).

“Despite the slow rate of surface warming in the recent decade, energy has continued to build up within the oceans and the authors find that the inferred sensitivity of climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations based on these observations (1.2-3.9 C total warming) is more or less consistent with the range from climate simulations (2.2-4.7 C).  However, the observations suggest that the rate of warming up to the point of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations over the coming decades may be slightly lower than predicted by a few of the climate models used to make future projections.

“The authors caution that uncertainties in the observations and the cooling effects of aerosol pollutant particles mean that it is difficult to precisely anticipate the most realistic rate of climate response over the coming decades, but with work like this our predictions become ever better.”

‘Energy budget constraints on climate response’ by Alexander Otto et al. published in Nature Geoscience on Sunday 19th May.

On the eve of DSM-5 publication the SMC gathered some of the top UK experts from psychology, psychiatry and beyond to preview DSM-5 and discuss everything from drugs to classification to environmental causes and the evidence behind therapies.

• Why are psychologists and psychiatrists at war, who is right and what needs to change?
• How do we stop every behaviour being labelled a disorder?
• What evidence is there for all the classifications? Is DSM-5 actually helpful?
• Are we giving out too many drugs to too many people and for the wrong reasons?
• Do any mental health therapies actually work or is it just down to placebo?
• Do drug companies have too much power and are health decisions being made purely for profit?
• Why are researchers so focussed on biological factors when social problems are the real triggers?
• What does all this actually mean for patients in the UK?

Speakers:

Prof Elizabeth Kuipers, Professor of Clinical Psychology, Head of Department of Psychology, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry

Prof David Clark, Professor of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford and Honorary Fellow of the British Psychological Society

Prof Nick Craddock, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Cardiff and Director of the National Centre for Mental Health, Wales

Prof David Taylor, Royal Pharmaceutical Society expert and spokesperson on mental health medicines and Editor of the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines

Andy Bell, Deputy Chief Executive, The Centre for Mental Health

Sue Avery, Director of Birmingham Women’s Fertility Centre, said:

“This is an interesting piece of science which has successfully identified a factor that is associated with improved implantation. Unfortunately the study does not compare this exciting new approach with standard practise in embryology in which embryologists already look for the best embryos to place in the womb. Until the new technique is compared to current practise we cannot know whether different embryos are being chosen. The IVF community needs a prospective randomised controlled trial to prove that the new approach delivers better results before it can be recommended to patients. Until then this study is an interesting piece of science but not clinically significant.”

Dr Allan Pacey, Senior Lecturer in Andrology, University of Sheffield, and Chair of the British Fertility Society, said:

“This paper is interesting because we really do need to make advances in selecting the best embryos created during IVF. The idea of monitoring embryo development more closely is being used increasing in clinics around the world and so it is good to see the science involved submitted to peer review and publication. All too often developments in IVF are trumpeted as advances when they remain unproven. In this case, whilst this is a good piece of science, before we splash this on the front page it should be subject to full randomised control trials.”

Mr Stuart Lavery MRCOG, Consultant Gynaecologist and Director IVF at Hammersmith Hospital, said:

“Time lapse imaging of the early development of human embryos offers the exciting potential of a novel and non-invasive way of selecting the embryo with the greatest chance of implantation. The authors suggest that using a retrospective analysis against a predictive model of chromosomal abnormality, this new approach could provide accurate and reliable information to allow selection without the need for invasive biopsy and expensive chromosomal analysis. To confirm this a prospective randomised trial using time lapse imaging in comparison with standard embryology selection techniques as well as chromosomal screening would be necessary. Several IVF units around the country have already adopted time lapse photography into their clinical service, this research adds to the evolving evidence base supporting its use.”

Sheena Lewis, Professor of Reproductive Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, said:

“This may well be the technique we have been waiting for to improve embryo selection and thus success in fertility treatment.  It is certainly timely to develop new ways of looking at embryo health since we have been basing embryo choice on just cell number and shape since IVF began.  Time lapse imaging provides the opportunity to give continuous,  detailed information on how the embryo is growing. However, this is a small study with just 46 embryos being followed through to birth.  Much more research will be needed before this becomes a routine clinical tool.”

‘Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics’, by Campbell, Fishel et al., published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online on Friday 17 May 2013.

‘Retrospective analysis of clinical pregnancy and live birth rate for IVF embryos classified for aneuploidy risk, without PGS, demonstrates the benefit of a time-lapse imaging derived model’, by Campbell, Fishel et al., published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online on Friday 17 May 2013.

Speakers:

Mrs Alison Campbell, Director of Embryology, CARE Fertility Group

Prof. Simon Fishel, Managing Director, CARE Fertility Group

Prof. Martin Johnson,  University of Cambridge and Editor of RBM

It has previously been suggested that post-mortem MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) may offer an effective alternative to autopsy that is less invasive and therefore more acceptable to parents and next of kin. However, evidence for its accuracy is scarce.

Research in The Lancet reports the first large prospective study of post-mortem MRI in foetuses, infants and children, and the SMC invited the authors in to describe their findings and the implications it has for this most complex and sensitive issue.

Speakers:

Dr Sudhin Thayyil, Consultant Neonatologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) and University College Hospital

Professor Andrew Taylor, Consultant Radiologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital and University College Hospital

Christopher Shaw, Professor of Neurology and Neurogenetics at King’s College London and Director, Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute, said:

“This is an important advance because it is feasible – one embryonic stem cell line was generated from just two eggs.  It also provides an alternative and more physiological method of reprogramming. Like many good experiments caffeine has made an invaluable contribution.”

Prof Mary Herbert, Professor of Reproductive Biology, Institute for Aging and Health at Newcastle University, said:

“This interesting report from the Oregon-based Mitalipov research group claims to have overcome a longstanding barrier to successful reprogramming of somatic cells by human oocytes.   Provided that the experiments are reproducible in the hands of others, the findings offer the potential to accelerate progress towards the development of patient-specific embryonic stem cells to treat a range of degenerative diseases.” 

Prof Alison Murdoch, Head of Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life, Newcastle University, said:

“The importance of the egg donor is again illustrated in this paper. Only high quality human eggs had the potential to reprogram somatic cells.  It is remarkable that adding caffeine was the key that resulted in ES cell lines from all 3 donors.”

Dr Paul De Sousa, Reader, Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, and  Chief Scientist, Roslin Cells Ltd., said:

“Fifteen years ago, the creation of Dolly the sheep by adult somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) into an egg, and the derivation of human embryo stem cells, by the groups of Ian Wilmut and Jamie Thomson in the UK and US, respectively, inspired a vision for  human “therapeutic cloning” whereby person specific embryo stem cells  with a “pluri”-potency to make all of the cells of the human body could be created to model and treat human diseases. Realising this aspiration was challenged by the inefficiency of the SCNT process in animals and humans and the limited availability of human eggs for research. Almost a decade later scientific and public interest in SCNT was shifted by the ability to induce a state of pluripotency in adult cells by gene transfer, first reported by the laboratory of Shinya Yamanaka in Japan. This achievement also helped diffuse public concerns for the development of SCNT as a means for reproduction. This report from the group of Shoukhrat Mitalipov now provides a convincing demonstration that human SCNT can indeed be used efficiently to create pluripotent embryo stem cells.  As such it will likely stir renewed interest in research and applications that had become discounted as impractical.

“The work builds on advances in SCNT validated by many researchers in diverse animal models since the original Dolly experiments, coupled with over  a decade of committed effort  of the group itself in primate and human SCNT and embryo stem cell derivation. The group’s success is attributed to optimisation of the component steps in the SCNT process beginning with egg quality and involving gentle forms of physical treatment and drugs to tightly control the onset of development during manipulation.  Significantly, modest numbers of eggs recoverable from a single donor after hormonal stimulation were reproducibly sufficient to produce SCNT embryos and embryo stem cell lines with comparable efficiency and properties as can be obtained from fertilised embryos. Further research is required to assess how these cells will compare with those produced by gene transfer, although the comparative ease with which the latter are created means they are unlikely to be replaced any time soon. However, this achievement will undoubtedly renew interest not to mention concern for the use of eggs and SCNT for research and reproductive purposes. The remarkable and singular capacity of egg cells to “reprogram” developmental competence, provides valuable opportunities to identify the key factors which underpin this process. This knowledge alone would be valuable to both stem cell research and the treatment of infertility. This research can also underpin the development of new medical interventions to prevent the maternal transmission of mitochondrial diseases through embryo pronuclear transfer, which the group are also expert in. This application is distinct from the use of SCNT to produce children derived from an adult cell donor, although all such interventions demand comprehensive ethical and medical scrutiny to ensure that the risk of harm does not outweigh the intended benefit.”

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, Head of Developmental Genetics, MRC National Institute for Medical Research, said:

“This interesting work at last brings the topic of therapeutic cloning in humans back into the realm of good science rather than controversy.

“This approach was proposed about 15 years ago as a way to derive patient-specific ES cell lines that can be used as a tool for research into the underlying causes and development of genetic diseases, and perhaps to derive treatments for these. However, although there have been proof-of-principle experiments using mice and monkeys, and several false claims and failed attempts, until now no one had been able to carry out the whole procedure with human somatic cells (such as skin cells) and human eggs to give ES cell lines (which have the ability to make any cell type in the body) that are genetically identical to the somatic cell donor.

“The scientists responsible for the latest work managed to overcome many of the technical problems experienced previously by others, making each step more efficient, and found that therapeutic cloning could work very successfully. This means that although early human embryo development is slightly different from that of other animals, including monkeys, we are not that unique.

“Patient-specific ES cell lines made in this way can now be compared with similar cells made by other more recent methods that don’t require eggs and cloning (so-called iPS, or induced pluripotent cells), but which may carry mutations and other abnormalities that could compromise their clinical application.

“With two methods available, it is exciting times for scientists trying to link underlying genetic causes to disease.”

For further information on many of the processes involved see SMC resources:

Science Media Centre guide to embryonic stem cells

Briefing notes on human stem cells

Embryonic stem cells and nuclear reprogramming

Mitochondrial DNA

Additional details and explanations from Professor Lovell-Badge:

“It always seemed strange that SCNT and subsequent derivation of embryonic stem cell lines was relatively efficient in other mammals, but unachievable in humans. There was no reason to think that human eggs lacked the ability to reprogramme an incoming somatic cell nucleus – indeed that this was possible had been shown previously by others, although apparently not in a way that would allow ES cell derivation. So what was wrong? Was it just a problem of efficiency and therefore a problem for researchers to obtain sufficient numbers of human eggs?

“The lab of Shoukrat Mitalipov set about refining many of the technical steps used in SCNT, beginning with their experience of this with non-human primates (macaque monkeys) with which they had previously been successful. It seems that several of these steps were simply sub-optimal for human eggs.

“The most critical problem, which they had recognised in an earlier paper this year (dealing with related techniques for avoiding mitochondrial disease), was to do with “activation” of the egg. This is the process that initiates embryo development and it is normally triggered by the sperm when it fuses to the egg. (Activation involves the release of calcium ions that are stored in vesicles within the egg, which then stimulate a range of biochemical reactions.) For proper development after SCNT it is essential that this occurs just at the right time – not too early and not too late. The authors could fix the latter problem, by using an electric shock (referred to in the paper as an electroporation stimulus) alone, rather than in combination with other agents usually employed to help activation. This was used to activate the egg at an appropriate time after the somatic cell (a skin fibroblast) has been fused into the egg that has had its own nuclear DNA removed.

“However, early activation was the bigger problem. Simply removing the “spindle” (the structure within the egg containing the nuclear DNA) often led to premature activation. The authors hypothesise that this leads to loss of the (as yet unknown) reprogramming factors that are present in the egg cytoplasm. They managed to solve this by maintaining the eggs in medium with a low level of caffeine. I generally need a cup of tea or coffee to activate myself, but in this case caffeine prevents activation of the egg happening prematurely.

“Using this and other modifications to the methods, the authors were able to have very efficient development to blastocyst stages (the stage prior to implantation, where the embryo has around 100 cells of just two or three types). And critically, these were very efficient at giving rise to embryonic stem cell lines in vitro. These cell lines had identical nuclear DNA to the original somatic cells used for SCNT, but mitochondrial DNA mostly corresponding to that of the egg donor, as expected.

“SCNT would allow the derivation of patient-specific ES cell lines that can be used as a tool for research into the causes and development of genetic diseases. They could also be used for drug screening, and for other types of personalised medicine, potentially including transplants for cell-based therapy.

“However, another method of obtaining essentially the same type of cells, termed iPS cells, has now been used successfully for a number of years towards these aims. This is a relatively simple method, that does not need human eggs or complex equipment and expertise, which uses specific factors to directly reprogramme somatic cells from a patient into induced pluripotent stem cells, that are ES-like in their properties. So why is it still important to have SCNT-derived ES cells? The direct reprogramming methods (of which there are now many) are relatively inefficient, but more critically there is evidence that each iPS cell line may have accumulated a set of mutations and/or epigenetic changes that might affect their properties in vitro or after transplant back into a patient. Most regulatory authorities consider this to be a problem, especially for the latter. It will be interesting to do a direct comparison between SCNT-ES cells and iPS cells from the same individual, which the current work now makes possible.

“For those concerned about “reproductive cloning”, the efficiency to obtain blastocyst stage embryos and ES cells, does not mean that implanted embryos would develop normally. Many years of experience with reproductive cloning in animals tells us that the vast majority of cloned embryos fail at some point during gestation, most early after implantation, but all the way up to birth and beyond. It is an unsafe procedure in animals and it will similarly be an unsafe procedure in humans. For this reason alone it should not be attempted. Moreover, while there are good arguments for SCNT to obtain ES cells (“therapeutic cloning”) there are no valid reasons for attempting to carry out reproductive cloning in humans. We are not just a product of our DNA, which is the only thing that is copied in cloning. Nurture and environment are at least as important in determining who we are, therefore cloning cannot be used to bring back a loved one.

“Of more immediate importance, the same authors have published on using similar techniques as a way to avoid mitochondrial disease. This would involve transferring the spindle (with the nuclear DNA) from an egg carrying mutant mitochondria into an egg with normal mitochondria from which its own spindle has been removed (a technique termed Maternal Spindle Transfer or MST). This does not involve any form of cloning as the egg will be fertilised with sperm from the father. However, some of the methods adopted in the current paper may overcome the problems of efficiency, especially those due to abnormal egg activation.”

“The idea of using caffeine came from previous experiments they had performed with monkey eggs. Caffeine inhibits certain protein phosphatase enzymes that are involved in the degradation of “maturation promoting factor (MPF)”, a factor that is essential for controlling the cell cycle machinery in the egg.

“The authors also changed the method used to introduce the somatic cell nucleus into the egg. They used the coat (envelope) from a virus that is very efficient at promoting fusion of cell membranes to fuse the skin cell into the egg (this is making use of the mechanism the virus would normally use to get into a cell, but there is no viral genome present, so the eggs are not infected), followed by an electric shock (referred to in the paper as an electroporation stimulus) to activate the egg.

“Ionomycin is a drug that makes very small holes in cell membranes allowing Calcium ions to move through them. This is often used in activation protocols to release Calcium ions from the vesicles in which they are stored in the egg.

“The authors also made use of trichostatin A (TSA) a factor that generally releases repressed gene activity, which is thought to help reprogramming of the somatic cell – however, they found that too much of this is bad, so they carefully titrated this to the lowest levels compatible with deriving NT-ES cells.

“Ovarian stimulation to give high oocyte numbers gave eggs that were less likely to work for SCNT. The protocols for SCNT worked best when fewer eggs were produced per donor woman. Interestingly, however, some donors gave eggs that worked well, whereas those from others did not. The authors suggest a genetic influence, but this is very speculative and many other aspects of the donor’s way of life and treatment could be relevant.

“N.B. For those attempting to read all the detail in the paper, there is a problem with some of the supplementary figures, which don’t seem to match the description given in the main text.”

Additional commentary from scientists:

The paper from the Oregon group reports another milestone in the quest for patient-specific ES cells lines.

In theory, patient-specific ES cells can be generated by inducing somatic cells to revert to an embryonic state either by genetic manipulation to produce so called  induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), or by performing somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to harness the reprogramming power of the oocyte (the female gamete).   

The few studies published on human SCNT indicate that human oocytes reprogramme somatic cells less efficiently than those of other species.  A study published by the Egli group in 2011 indicated that this was due to a requirement for factors associated with, or encoded by the oocyte chromosomes, into which nuclear DNA is packaged. Having tried and failed to derive ES cells using the conventional procedure of fusing a somatic cell with an enucleated oocyte, they successfully derived ES cells by using intact instead of enucleated oocytes.  While this study gave ground to a plausible framework for understanding the biological barriers to efficient reprogramming in human oocytes, the ES cell lines contained three sets of chromosomes instead of two and therefore did not provide an immediate route to SCNT-based cell therapies. 

The latest addition to the field from the Oregon group indicates that efficient reprogramming can be achieved by exposing oocytes to caffeine during the SCNT procedure.   Caffeine has a number of effects at the cellular level, one of which is to inhibit the calcium signals responsible for triggering the onset of embryonic development.  The authors concluded that premature onset of embryonic development is the major barrier to reprogramming of somatic cells in human oocytes.  By using caffeine to prevent this, they derived ES cells without the help of the oocyte nuclear genetic material.

The development of SCNT techniques to reproducibly derive ES cells is significant for a number of reasons. In the context of iPSCs, SCNT-derived ES cells are thought to provide a gold standard against which different approaches to generating iPSCS can be evaluated.  In this regard, it is interesting to note that the somatic cells used by the Oregon group were obtained from open cell repositories. It should therefore be possible to use these same somatic cells to generate iPSCs for direct comparison with the Oregon SCNT-derived ES cell lines. This may advance progress by helping to inform the development of iPSC procedures that closely mimic the reprogramming activity of oocytes.

The ultimate aim of SCNT is to develop patient-specific ES cells for the treatment of degenerative diseases. Of particular interest are degenerative disease caused by mutations in mitochondrial DNA, which is present in several thousand copies per cell. These diseases are unlikely to be amenable to iPSC-based technologies due to persistence of the mitochondrial DNA mutations present in the somatic cells. SCNT, on the other hand, is likely to result in dilution of the mutation by the vast amount of mitochondrial DNA present in the oocyte.

This use of SCNT to treat mitochondrial DNA disease should not be confused with the technologies of pronuclear transfer and spindle transfer currently being developed to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA mutations from a mother to her child.  These techniques involve transfer of the nuclear genetic material between oocytes either before or after fertilisation.  These techniques do not share the biological complexities of somatic cell reprogramming required for successful SCNT.  Importantly, the ultimate aim of pronuclear transfer and spindle transfer is to produce a healthy baby, free of mitochondrial DNA disease.   By contrast, the ultimate aim of SCNT is to produce ES cell lines for the purposes of treating patients who already suffer from a variety of degenerative diseases, including, potentially, mitochondrial DNA disease.  

‘Human embryonic stem cells derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer’ by Shoukhrat Mitalipov et al. published in Cell on Wednesday 15th May.

This year many of its findings will inform the IPCC report AR5.  Ice2sea scientists are gathering in London this May for a final meeting and have collected their findings in a document for policy-makers.

Four of the lead UK scientists came to the SMC to discuss the project’s conclusions, including global mean sea-level rise to 2100 and beyond and the impact on Europe’s coastline.

Speakers:

Prof David Vaughan, ice2sea co-ordinator at British Antarctic Survey

Prof Michiel van den Broeke, Utrecht University and ice2sea research leader

Prof Tony Payne, University of Bristol and ice2sea research leader

Prof Jonathan Bamber, University of Bristol and ice2sea research leader 

Dr Tim Chico, Senior Clinical Lecturer and honorary Consultant Cardiologist, University of Sheffield / Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said:

“The importance of healthy kidneys is often overlooked, but many of the things that can damage the heart also affect these vital organs. Many people are unaware of the close link between heart and kidney disease, but problems with one often lead to problems with the other. For example, most people with kidney disease have high blood pressure which increases risk of heart disease, while heart disease and its treatment frequently places a strain on kidney function. Since we know traffic pollution increases the risk of heart disease, the message of this study – that traffic pollution might damage the kidneys – is perhaps to be expected. The responsibility to reduce traffic pollution falls on everyone, and this study is yet another reason (as if we needed one) to travel on foot or bike where possible. However, the current study only shows an “association”; it does not prove living next to road definitely affects kidney function.”

Professor Jon Ayres, Professor of Environmental and Respiratory Medicine, University of Birmingham, said:

“This is an interesting and plausible association but the effects are small.  If the effect on kidney function is real it is likely mediated through an effect of airborne particulate matter on vascular atheroma. However, the possibility that arterial disease leads to stroke and therefore also leads to renal impairment is the most likely explanation of the association (i.e. reverse causation).  The demonstrated effect of distance from roads on health may be more likely explained by a social class effect; those living nearest main roads tending to be of lower social class and therefore tending to be in poorer health anyway and although the authors have made some allowance for socio-economic status a residual effect of social class is still likely to remain.  Nevertheless this needs replication in another study.”

‘Residual proximity to major roadways and renal function’ by Shih-Ho Lue et al. published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health  on Monday 13th May.

Dr Peter Horby, Senior Clinical Research Fellow, the Wellcome Trust and Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) in Hanoi, Vietnam, said:

“This is not the first time that person to person transmission of the novel corona virus has been described. It definitely occurred in the UK, but to an individual with pre-existing poor health and therefore vulnerability, and probably occurred in other clusters in the Middle East. 

“However, the fact that we have now observed several clusters in different settings in different countries demonstrates more clearly that the virus possesses the ability for limited person to person transmission under certain conditions, such as the health care setting and prolonged close contact. 

“Information is limited but the large cluster in Saudi is the more concerning since it might represent more than one link in the chain of transmission (from person to person to person) and/or transmission from an infected person to previously healthy people. More details are urgently needed, particularly on the specific conditions under which transmission has occurred.

“These events highlight the need for a high level of vigilance for possible cases and adherence to strict infection control and prevention practices, particularly in settings where there are other vulnerable patients.”

Prof Peter Openshaw, Director of the Centre for Respiratory Infection, Imperial College London, said:

“We are right to be concerned about the reporting of transmission from person to person, but there is absolutely no reason to panic.

“Human to human transmission has now been documented but this is not a great surprise and the virus seems relatively hard to transmit. The ‘super-spreading’ events, in which one person infects several dozen people at a time (as was seen with SARS coronavirus), do not seem to be happening with this coronavirus.

“There is much we still don’t know about this virus, including the nature and location of its reservoir and how often it caused mild or unapparent disease in healthy people. We need to know a lot more in order to limit spread in the future”

Dr Ben Neuman, Director of Internationalisation, virologist and expert on coronavirus, School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, said:

“This virus can cause a life-threatening pneumonia similar to SARS, but the spread of the virus is still quite slow in comparison.  So far, the virus has only spread between people in unusual circumstances, such as living in the same house, or among people who were already hospitalised for other reasons.   

“The outlook remains cautious, but infections are fortunately still rare. One of the lessons from the SARS outbreak is that viruses can adapt to humans in small steps by first spreading through intermediate species. The important thing now is to investigate how the virus has been able to move from bats to humans, and whether it passed through another kind of animal in order to do so.”

Prof Ian Jones, Professor of Virology, University of Reading, said:

“The WHO data do indicate probable human to human transmission. However the circumstances are unusual, close contact in a hospital, and other patients co-housed with index case did not become infected. This does not amount to human to human transmission “on the street” so the risk remains very low. The most important goal remains to locate the source of infection so that measures to minimise contact can be taken.”

Professor Jon Ayres, Professor of Environmental and Respiratory Medicine, University of Birmingham, said:

“These results should be treated with caution.  As the authors point out, their measurements of fasting blood insulin levels and estimations of air pollution levels were not taken at the same time.  Therefore these results should be regarded with caution and a larger and methodologically more secure study needs to be done to confirm the possible link between air pollution from traffic emissions and insulin resistance in children.” 

Professor Frank Kelly, Professor of Environmental Health, King’s College London, said:

“Urbanisation and dependence on motorised transport has increased our exposure to traffic pollution.  These include toxic air pollutants and noise for which there is increasing evidence for adverse health effects. Near-road pollution is a complex mixture of particle and gas phase components that are influenced by both exhaust and non-exhaust vehicle emissions.  

“The study by Thiering and colleagues builds upon an increasing literature which links children’s health with poor air quality. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of air pollution because they have a larger lung-to-body volume ratio, their airway epithelium is more permeable to air pollutants, and the lung defence mechanisms against particulate matter pollution and gaseous pollution are not fully evolved. Breathing the same pollutant concentrations, children may have a 2-to 4-fold higher dose reaching the lung compared with adults. Of particular relevance to these new findings are the Southern California Children Health studies, which demonstrate the relationship between long-term exposure to air pollution and decreased lung growth among children.

“From a pollution point of view most attention and focus has been paid to particulate matter (PM) pollution from traffic while the impact of the gaseous pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), has been largely overlooked.  It is of interest that this new study by Thiering and colleagues demonstrates that both PM and NO2 are linked to increased risk of insulin resistance in children. This finding is especially relevant for cities in the UK such as London which regularly exceeds current EU limit values for NO2.  Only last week the Supreme Court ruled that the UK Government was not doing enough to minimising NO2 pollution and protecting the health of its citizens.

“In attempting to explain their findings of how traffic related air pollutants which enter the body through the lung could have effects on distant organs such as the pancreas and kidney Thiering and colleagues remind us that PM and NO2 both cause oxidative stress – a biological response capable of causing cellular damage which could result in increased insulin resistance.  If correct, this is a timely reminder for Government that as well as improving air quality in our cites they need to ensure children have access to quality school meals which include fresh fruit and vegetables to ensure our children have good supply of antioxidants which will help protect them from the worst effects of traffic pollution.”

‘Long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and insulin resistance in children: results from the GINIplus and LISAplus birth cohorts’ by Thiering et al. published in Diabetologia on Thursday 9th May.

Catherine Collins, Principal Dietitian, St George’s Hospital NHS Trust, said:

“The authors of this study add to the knowledge that a diet rich in plant antioxidants and low in inflammatory fats – a ‘Mediterranean style’ diet – is protective against Parkinson’s Disease (PD), an irreversible condition for which there is currently no cure. This study built on previous research that showed smokers to have a lower risk of PD, attributed to nicotine possibly having a protective effect on brain cell function.

“People are often surprised to know that nicotine is found in variable amounts in the ‘deadly nightshade’ family of plants (potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, chillies, and aubergine – plus cauliflower, which isn’t a member of this family group).  In this study the researchers used a standard food questionnaire to examine the frequency (note – not the actual amount) of vegetable nicotine intake of PD sufferers compared to the general population.

“Despite strong suggestion that nicotine – from any source – may prove beneficial, the results of this study prove disappointing for a dietitian, with frequent pepper consumption showing a weak association with PD protection, but of insufficient robustness to promote peppers as a protective food against PD.

“Why should this be the case? Nicotine content can vary in vegetables due to growing conditions, storage, harvest and cooking method. For example, the nicotine content of a green tomato is ten times higher than a ripe tomato. Nicotine is poorly absorbed and we don’t really know enough about how other foods interact with the plant nicotine to influence its effect in the body.

“As the authors neatly explain in the discussion section, the devil is in the detail. Plants that we eat contain thousands of biologically active constituents, many of which have potential for protecting us against chronic disease. We also choose to eat plants in a variety of ways – which may also influence the effect on our health. Peppers and chillies are rarely eaten alone, and it may be the foods cooked with these vegetables that confer some protection. 

“As this and other research has demonstrated over the last decade, it’s impossible to pull out one vegetable, or a group of vegetables, as independently beneficial to health. The Mediterranean diet is more than the sum of its parts. At the moment, we can’t identify exactly what it is in the diet that does us so much good, only that we know it does.”

Claire Bale, Research Communications Manager at Parkinson’s UK, said:

“The researchers studied several vegetables that contain tiny amounts of nicotine including peppers, which have the most, as well as tomatoes and potatoes. They found that people who reported eating peppers at least twice a week were around 30% less likely to develop Parkinson’s. This may sound significant, but because the risk of developing Parkinson’s in the general population is already quite low (around 1 in 500), this reduction in risk is actually smaller than it sounds.

“This was a small study which involved just over 1000 people and to produce convincing results, these types of studies really need to involve much larger numbers – tens to hundreds of thousands. It also studied a relatively young group of people, the average age was mid-60s, when Parkinson’s is a condition which often develops much later in life.

“At the moment we don’t fully understand the causes of Parkinson’s and we don’t know of anything which can prevent the condition, although there are a number of factors that may slightly lower risk including smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee and exercise.

“Although this study offers some interesting clues about how diet may affect risk of Parkinson’s developing, we need much larger studies in older populations before we know whether eating peppers can be added to this list.  Currently, there’s no evidence that eating certain foods containing nicotine can slow Parkinson’s progression”.  

Professor K Ray Chaudhuri, Consultant Neurologist and Professor in Neurology / Movement Disorders, King’s College Hospital, said:

“Nielsen et al report an interesting study addressing risk of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and diet. They report, in a controlled study, that eating edible vegetables from the Solanaceae family (particularly peppers), allied to dietary nicotine, reduced the risk of developing Parkinson’s. This study adds to a number of studies that have reported various factors that may reduce or increase the risk of PD or symptoms such as dyskinesias, ranging from insecticides and pesticides to coffee and beer drinking.

“Nicotine has been previously studied and has a complex relationship with PD. A neuro-protective effect has been postulated and the MJ Fox foundation has embarked on a large trial, the NIC-PD, to address whether nicotine patches may have a protective effect against PD. If supported by further studies that show the same association, this dietary study would certainly add weight to this evidence base and for the first time, provide a reasonable evidence base for dietary intervention in PD. However, as the authors state, there may be many confounders of the observed effects, most notably alternative agents contained in pepper as well as the amount of effective nicotine that may be delivered to the brain from dietary nicotine containing vegetables, given there is delayed gastric emptying and absorption issues which may be present even in the very early stages of PD. Furthermore, studies in animal models have been disappointing with respect to motor effects of nicotine and previous studies in Parkinson’s have produced contradictory results. However, the controlled design as well as inclusion of a group of well characterised patients is a strength of this study. As the authors say, we have to regard these results with interest, but have to wait till large scale studies such as NIC-PD report their data.”

Professor John Hardy, Professor of Neuroscience, UCL, said:

“The trouble is in epidemiology studies one compares many factors against many outcomes.  Because so many tests are done but only the positive ones are reported it is difficult to assess their true significance.  The association reported here between eating red peppers and risk of developing Parkinson’s disease is almost certainly a false positive and not worth making a fuss about.”

‘Nicotine from edible Solanaceae and risk of Parkinson’s disease’ by S Nielsen et al., published in Annals of Neurology on Thursday 9th May.

Prof Jonathan Rees, Grant Chair of Dermatology, University of Edinburgh, said:

“The authors state various things as new, but in reality much of what they say, others have described before.

“The idea that the risk of skin cancer with pheomelanin is not associated with UVR seems a little far-fetched. So:

“1. Skin cancer occurs on areas that get the most sun. You rarely get skin cancer on your bum! This is true in those with red hair, and those without red hair.

“2. Rates of skin cancer in red heads are higher than those without red hair, but rates in reds are highest where there is most sun. So, red heads in Australia show higher rates of skin cancer than those in the UK.

“3. The risk of cancer in red heads rises with sun exposure (just like in those without red hair, the rate rises with UVR).

“For ‘hair’ the ratio of pheomelanin to eumelanin is increased in red heads. However, the data shows that the skin of red heads contains less of both types of melanin, i.e. this is not just about pheomelanin, rather that red heads often have less of both types of melanin. The study mentioned was done in mice.  Mice are not great models for studying skin cancer in humans; for one thing mice are covered in hair.  Mice are not men!”

Dr Bruce Morland, Consultant Paediatric Oncologist, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, said:

“The link between red heads and cancer was postulated by this research group in an article published in Nature last year. This article postulates the mechanism behind the observation but as yet does not provide the scientific proof. Clearly further work is needed before we will fully understand if the hypothesis is indeed correct.”

‘How does pheomelanin synthesis contribute to melanomagenesis?’ by A Morgan et al. will be published in BioEssays on Thursday 9^th May.

Professor Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatric Research, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“The idea that prenatal exposure to influenza might increase the risk of serious mental illness has a long history. There was a great deal of interest in this in relation to schizophrenia some 20 years ago.   However it was never possible to demonstrate this definitively.  If it is a risk factor then it is so only for a very small proportion of schizophrenia. 

“Now this paper looks at the same question in Bipolar Disorder and comes up with positive findings.  The study appears to be well done but of course the sample is small.    We should wait for a replication before we get excited. Certainly we should not alarm pregnant ladies about this possible risk when they so much else to worry about.”

Dr Fiona Gaughran, Lead Consultant Psychiatrist, National Psychosis Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Hon Senior Lecturer, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, said:

“This highly-regarded group of researchers has reported similar links between schizophrenia and various maternal infections. If future work confirms the link reported here, policy makers may need to consider implications for flu prevention pre-pregnancy, but mothers need not be worried. The overall risk of offspring developing bipolar disorder is low even if one did get flu in pregnancy.”

Dr Daniel J. Smith, Reader in Psychiatry, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, said:

“This is an interesting study which identifies maternal infection with influenza during pregnancy as a potential risk factor for the later development of bipolar disorder in offspring.  To some extent this finding is unsurprising given that maternal influenza has already been identified as a risk factor for the development of schizophrenia (and we know that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have many genetic and environmental risk factors in common).  It will be very important for this finding to be replicated in similar large-scale longitudinal studies and it is worth noting that only a minority of the bipolar individuals in this study (8.7%) were born to mothers who had been exposed to influenza during pregnancy, so it is likely that many additional risk factors are necessary to cause bipolar disorder.”

Dr Paul Keedwell, Clinical Lecturer in the Neurobiology of Mood Disorders and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Institute of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Cardiff University, said:

“This study suggests that individuals who were exposed to the influenza virus while in the womb have an almost fourfold increase in risk for bipolar disorder. Although the study needs replicating in a larger sample, it is further evidence of the complex interplay between environment and genes in the genesis of this often disabling disorder. Exposure to flu in utero also increases the risk of schizophrenia, suggesting that the two disorders may share some abnormalities of brain development. If we can work out how the flu virus affects the developing brain we might be able to understand the biological basis of these major mental disorders more broadly.”

Dr James MacCabe, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychosis Studies, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, said:

“These findings are potentially important but require replication. The study was conducted to the highest standards given the limitations of the data available. Of 92 individuals with bipolar disorder in adulthood, eight were found to have been exposed to influenza in pregnancy. This is nearly four times the expected number, but the role of chance cannot be ruled out.

“Two previous findings add credence to the results: firstly, previous research has found that exposure to influenza in pregnancy carries an increase in risk for schizophrenia, which shares some genetic overlap with bipolar disorder. Secondly, this is not the first study to report that problems with pregnancy may increase the risk of bipolar disorder in adulthood: a study last year published in the same journal, found an association between pre-term delivery and later bipolar disorder. 

“If these results are replicated in other samples, our next challenge is to understand how problems in pregnancy can influence the risk of bipolar disorder, decades later.  

“The Department of Health already advises pregnant mothers in the UK to have seasonal flu vaccination, primarily to protect the mother’s health, and women should continue to follow this guidance.”

Dr Fiona Lobban, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Lancaster University, said:

“The authors quite rightly identify limitations of previous research in this area and carry out an ambitious attempt to remedy some of these. However, there were 8 of 92 people with Bipolar Disorder who had a mother who had influenza in pregnancy and 19 of 722 people without Bipolar Disorder who had a mother with influenza in pregnancy. These are very small numbers.

“Even though the risk of influenza is greater in the Bipolar Disorder group, only 7% of people with Bipolar Disorder had a mother with influenza – therefore 93% of people didn’t.

“In summary, 93% of people with Bipolar Disorder never had a mother with influenza during pregnancy so of all the things pregnant woman are told to worry about, this should not be one of them”

Dr Warren Mansell, Reader in Clinical Psychology
, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, said:

“There are many known risk factors for mental health problems and so this finding is not surprising. Some are infectious agents, some are genes but many are life events such as childhood trauma and domestic abuse. But a risk factor is just that – it raises the chances of developing a mental health problem – it does not cause it. This research risks shifting the emphasis away from helping people with mental health problems right now, with the right community support and NHS-recommended psychological therapies that we know work.” 

‘Gestational Influenza and Bipolar Disorder in Adult Offspring’ by Parboosing et al., published in JAMA Psychiatry on Wednesday 8th May.

Dr Donal McNally, Associate Professor and Reader in Bioengineering, University of Nottingham, said:

“This is an extremely important piece of research which shows that a large proportion of people develop a very low level of infection in their intervertebral discs following a disc herniation and that a standard antibiotic treatment is effective in relieving pain and disability in patients who might have this type of infection (with a one year follow-up).  More than 3,000 people in England attended outpatient clinics with displaced discs in their necks or lower backs in 2011-12, this research demonstrates that about 1,200 of these people may have been helped by the antibiotic treatment to control subsequent low back pain.  However, as the authors note, this is a specific treatment for a specific form of low back pain (following disc herniation), and it should be seen in the context of the 16,500 people who attended outpatient clinics with low back pain over the same time period.”

Prof Laura Piddock, Professor of Microbiology and Deputy Director of The Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, & Director, Antibiotic Action, said:

“Consistent with the Department of Health’s ‘Start Smart, Then Focus’ campaign, antibiotics should only be used to treat back pain once a bacterial cause has been identified. Otherwise many patients could be exposed to antibiotics needlessly, and antibiotic resistant bacteria that live on their skin and in their gut could be selected. For this reason, physicians are encouraged to liaise with their Consultant Microbiologist colleagues for the most appropriate tests to carry out.”   

Dr John McCauley, director of the WHO Centre for Influenza at MRC National Institute for Medical Research, said:

“Experiments of the type described by Hualan Chen, and those previously described by Fouchier and Kawaoka and their colleagues, continue to shed light on some of the characteristics of avian influenza viruses that can be transmitted between small mammals through the air. The work done in China was done using guinea pigs, but there would be a valid scientific interest in pursuing the study of these viruses in ferrets, as it would further improve our understanding of the risk of transmission to the human population. All experiments of this type need to be undertaken within the existing rigorous processes of virus containment.”

The SMC invited several leading virology and health experts for a Q&A session, to answer  questions on H7N9. They discussed what we know about this virus, how it compares to previous flu viruses, how scientists monitor emerging outbreaks such as this one, and whether it is ever possible to predict or prepare for what will happen next.

Speakers:

Prof John McCauley, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Influenza, MRC National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR)

Prof Jeremy Farrar, Director of Wellcome Trust Major Overseas Programme in Vietnam & Director-elect of the Wellcome Trust

Prof Colin Butter, Research Leader of the Avian Viral Immunology Group, the Pirbright Institute

Dr Mike Skinner, Senior Lecturer in Virology, Imperial College London

Prof Peter Openshaw, Director of the Centre for Respiratory Infection, Imperial College London

Prof Wendy Barclay, Chair In Influenza Virology, Imperial College London

As King’s College London appointed its first ever professor of Aerospace Medicine, the SMC invited him in to discuss why we need such a post, why doctors, including GPs, need to be better trained and what does happen to our bodies while in the skies.

Speaker:

Professor David Gradwell BSc PhD MB ChB FRCP FFOM(Hon) DAvMed FRAeS, Professor of Aerospace Medicine at the Centre for Human & Aerospace Physiological Sciences, King’s College London

When Jeremy Paxman this week apologised to MMR experts on Newsnight for the shameful role played by parts of the media in the MMR crisis, he joined a chorus of soul searching over who is to blame for the ongoing measles outbreak and whether an unfounded scare story with such far-reaching consequences would get so much media attention today.

For my part I can think of few players in this saga who should not indulge in a little critical self-reflection, but if I have to choose a culprit mine would be the media’s serious addiction to amplified debate and controversy in the name of the principle of “journalistic balance”. There is much to criticise Wakefield for, but not even he can be held responsible for the completely false impression that medical science was split down the middle on the safety of the jab. Surveys show that is what the public believed.

But could it happen again? In some ways the outlook is rosy. Stung by criticism of inaccurate reporting on stories like MMR, many editors now defer more to their specialist science and health reporters, who were sidelined at the height of the MMR frenzy. Like good specialists should, these journalists do battle with news editors on a daily basis over what, where and how new studies are reported – and whether they are covered at all.

The scientific community is also playing a dramatically different role now. When Wakefield made his claim 13 years ago, far too many scientists and institutions lambasted the media coverage in the same breath as refusing to speak to the media. That thousands of research scientists are now prepared to leave their ivory towers to ensure that the media have access to their expertise at times like this will help immunise us against another MMR scare. 

…

Avoiding another MMR-style scare requires vigilance, which is why the Science Media Centre got together with a group of science reporters, news editors and sub editors to draft guidelines for good science reporting, which we submitted to Leveson. They were recommended in his final report. Perhaps when we finally get our new press regulator the guidelines will be adopted and we can collectively make sure that the vaccine scare we all talk about continues to be MMR.

The debate carried on in the comment section below the line:

26 April 2013 5:27pm

What everyone seems to forget in this debate is that it was the expert press – the Lancet, run by medical professionals and employing expert peer reviewers, which set the MMR problem going.
The Lancet is not what is normally meant by ‘the media’. It reaches a small specialised audience. It has the trust of many – including specialist journalists in the mainstream media who then followed up what it had published.

This is what kicked the problem off – and it certainly led to some very damaging excesses.

However it was then the mainstream media that helped put things right – initially in the form of a long article by Brian Deer in The Sunday Times on February 22, 2004.

Fiona Fox has ignored this to present a simplistic picture of what really happened with MMR, conflating specialist and mainstream media and ignoring key events such as the ST’s demolition of the errors made by Wakefield and the Lancet. The whole story is certainly a sorry one but it’s more complicated than described here.

As for the more general comments about what Fiona really thinks happens in newsrooms – well they are very interesting. But Fiona, rather like one might ask Wakefield, where is the evidence?

You say: “the persistence of a certain culture and practice in newsrooms” or “the media’s love affair with mavericks and outliers continues to leave scientists in despair as they watch people with little or no expertise enjoying disproportionate column inches and air time on issues like climate change and child development.”

The implication of remarks like these is that science is constantly and grossly misreported. There will always, of course, be articles where things go wrong but your newsrooms dont sound like any I know. So who have you spoken to? And how did you collate and assess the evidence? Did you spend any time actually in newsrooms? As with Wakefield, it would be good to see the real evidence behind your claims.

Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, The Sunday Times

27 April 2013 12:50pm

Jonathan Leake is absolutely right to say that the MMR story is more complicated than I allow for. I could probably write a book on it, but sadly the Guardian only wanted 800 words and of course much complexity is left out. I’m also grateful to Jonathan for a chance to pay tribute to Brian Deer who is my hero. Tragically however the kind of investigative reporting that Brian Deer does is not representative of the media. In fact he is almost unique these days in pursuing one story for so many years.

Jonathan says I am selective and then only focuses on my concerns about the culture of newsrooms. Just a few paragraphs before I talk about my faith in science journalists and conclude that an MMR scare is unlikely under the watchful eye of good journalists. I did not imply that science is constantly and grossly misreported and I do not believe that. In fact I spend most of my life at talks to scientists, on my blog and indeed in my evidence to Leveson saying the exact opposite – that the vast majority of science and health reporting in UK mass media is excellent.

There is plenty of evidence about the media loving mavericks and outliers and I’m not even sure most editors would see it as a criticism. A few years back I lost a New Year and several weekends to claims made by rogue IVF doctors like Xavos and Antinori, and even by a bizarre US sect called the Ralians, that they had cloned the first human. There was no evidence, the scientists did not publish in peer reviewed journals, did not present at scientific conferences and did not allow the press or other scientist to scrutinize their findings.

Aric Sigman is very often in the media expressing his alarming concerns about the effects of screen time and childcare on the developing brains of young children. Sigman is not a neuroscientist or medically qualified, does not do scientific research and does not work in an academic setting. And this week newsrooms have gone back to favoured experts including Richard Halvorsen, a private GP who runs a vaccination clinic providing separate measles and rubella vaccines while generally promoting anti-vaccination views, and Jackie Fletcher, a campaigning parent who is convinced her son was neurologically injured by a vaccine. These people are perfectly entitled to have their views heard but scientists object to how much airtime and prominence they get and the fact that they are often presented as one side of a debate rather than a minority view.

As it happens I am less exercised by the media’s use of mavericks than many in the scientific community, but in this context my point is that Andrew Wakefield got such prominence for so long because editors like outliers and mavericks. The fact that he has been back on front pages in recent weeks suggests that particular news value is alive and well in some newsrooms.

(Fiona Fox)

27 April 2013 3:30pm

@FionaFox – Jonathan Leake is absolutely right …. how great that sounds. Agree with most of what you say too.

But it’s worth emphasising Brian Deer’s role, and that of The Sunday Times which supported him in his research, in this debate because it shows just how the discussion risks becoming over-simplified to the point where we cannot learn from it.

So, the MMR debacle is too often presented as a failure of mainstream media but that is simply not borne out by the facts. Some sections of the mainstream media did come out very badly, but not all. Some behaved very well. Ditto for the medical profession and medical press.

So there is nothing simple to say about ‘the media’ or ‘medics’ and pretending there is just simplfied the whole debate to a level where we are just exchanging prejudices. Mark Walport came out with some trenchant criticisms of ‘the mainstream media’ in his appearance before the HoC Sci/Tech committee last week – and had to be reminded that it was a journalist (Brian) who actually exposed Wakefield where the entire medical profession and journals had failed.

Drilling down, it might be possible to pick out particular publications, perhaps the Daily Mail, and make some fairly trenchant comments but then we are no longer talking about ‘the media’ but about one outlet. And that is probably the level where lessons should be learned.

(Jonathan Leake)

Computing engineers and security experts argue that this creates vulnerability which could have severe impacts on public life.  Smart energy grids, passenger display boards at airports and railway stations, traffic lights, food supply chains and water are all reliant on networked systems.  How vulnerable is our infrastructure to attack, and where might it come from?

Results from a new survey of small and medium sized businesses by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) were discussed at this briefing, and the IET argued that the necessary skills to protect against cyber threats are in short supply in the UK.

A panel of engineers came to the SMC to discuss where the weak points are and what we are doing – and failing to do – to protect ourselves. 

Speakers: 

Hugh Boyes, Cyber Security Lead at the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)

Dr Sally Leivesley, Managing Director of Newrisk Ltd, advisor on catastrophic risk to companies and governments

Prof Alan Woodward, Visiting Professor in Cybersecurity at the University of Surrey

Prof Kenny Paterson, Professor of Information Security at Royal Holloway, University of London

The British Heart Foundation (BHF) is announcing the beginning of clinical trials for a new gene therapy approach to treatment for advanced heart failure, which has the potential to reverse some of the molecular damage that happens as part of the disease. 

This is the only gene therapy currently in clinical trials for the treatment of heart failure, and it works by inserting a gene directly into heart cells via a harmless virus.  The announcement of the clinical trials coincides with the ‘Fight For Every Heartbeat’ campaign from the BHF, which highlights the importance of research in the continuing advancement of treatment for heart disease.

The experts involved came to the SMC to talk about about how this gene therapy works, what the clinical trials will involve and what the potential is for the future of heart failure treatment.

Speakers:

Dr Alexander Lyon, BHF Senior Lecturer at Imperial College London and Consultant Cardiologist at the Royal Brompton Hospital, who is the UK lead investigator for the studies

Professor Sian Harding, Professor of Cardiac Pharmacology at Imperial College London, who helped to develop the treatment

Professor Peter Weissberg, Medical Director at the BHF, which is co-funding the trial

Dr Nigel Raine, Reader in Animal Behaviour at Royal Holloway University of London, said:

“The weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence suggests that field-relevant exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides can have adverse effects on bees.  Whether this moratorium will benefit bees depends on what alternative methods of pest control are used instead.  If the ban results in greater use of crop sprays the net result could be worse.  More research is needed to determine if this will be the case.  

“There is a clear need to monitor bee populations carefully during the two year moratorium to see whether they bounce back when these three neonicotinoids are not being used.  We also need to check the residue levels of these chemicals in the soil which could persist from crops sown this spring or earlier.

“Bees are actually exposed to multiple pesticides when they forage in the field.  The risk assessment for pesticides needs to take into account this type of combinatorial exposure as well as potential sublethal behavioural effects and longer term (chronic) impacts.

“Insects provide essential pollination services worth at least £440 million to UK agriculture each year.  Pesticides are a critical tool to achieve high levels of crop production.  Both have clear benefits, so we need to ensure that pesticides are used in ways that minimise any detrimental impact on insect pollinators.”

Prof David Goulson, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Sussex, said:

“There is no evidence that the withdrawal of these compounds will have significant negative impacts on farming.  It is high time we returned to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) – an approach focussed on minimising pesticide use, maximising the number of biological control agents, using cultural controls such as crop rotations, and monitoring pest numbers so that chemical controls only need be applied when there is a problem.

“Instead, neonicotinoids are applied prophylactically, much like taking antibiotics to avoid getting ill – and this use on crops such as wheat will continue after the partial ban.  This is a recipe for environmental damage and the evolution of resistance in pests.”

Dr Juliet Osborne, Environment & Sustainability Institute at the University of Exeter, said:

“If a moratorium goes ahead, it is crucial that two things take place at the same time to ensure the debate can be properly informed.  

“First, the ongoing review of the pesticide regulatory process must be completed to ensure it is fit for purpose to assess the safety of systemic pesticides.

“Second, a monitoring scheme of wild and managed bees must be set in place to provide evidence as to whether the moratorium is correlated with changes in foraging bee numbers and bee colony mortality.  It would also build a fuller picture if we were able to monitor the effect of such a moratorium on farmers and their crops.

“Whilst not giving direct evidence of cause and effect, such monitoring of bees would fill crucial gaps in the evidence base at the landscape scale, and would be valuable to assess what happens if the moratorium were lifted in the future.  A national monitoring scheme like this would also contribute good evidence to future debates about environmental impacts of land management on bees.”

Norman Carreck, Science Director of the International Bee Research Association, University of Sussex, said:

“It is not yet clear what the implications of this moratorium will be. There has been concern about this class of insecticides ever since they were introduced twenty years ago, yet many experiments and wide-scale studies in many countries over the years have failed to demonstrate harm to bees in the field. This being the case, it will be very difficult to demonstrate any benefits to bees of a moratorium in just two years.

If the purpose of the two years is to enable scientists to gather definitive evidence of the effects in the field, it is hard to see how can this be done if fields will no longer use treated seeds. I am also concerned about what Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out to evaluate the effects on bees of the use of alternative pest control measures that will follow this moratorium. Neonicotinoids will inevitably be replaced by older compounds. Just as we lack knowledge of the subtle sub-lethal effects of neonicotinoids in the field, we know little about these other compounds either, because historically the registration process has not focussed on these aspects.”

Dr Lynn Dicks, Research Associate at the University of Cambridge and NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellow, said:

“This is a victory for the precautionary principle, which is supposed to underlie environmental regulation. Scientific evidence is unclear about the role neonicotinoids play in causing declines in bees and other flower-feeding insects. They are probably one of many interacting threats, so a broader approach to protecting insects would be better. But neonicotinoids are one factor that MIGHT be causing a serious problem. The precautionary principle says we should err on the side of caution and stop using them while we find out more. I hope the EU Member States will now consider monitoring patterns of pesticide use more closely”

Prof Lin Field, Head of Biological Chemistry and Crop Protection at Rothamsted Research, said:

“We are concerned that the decision has been made through political lobbying, rather than a comprehensive and sound scientific risk-benefit assessment.  There are many other factors known to affect bee colonies – the varroa mite, the bee viruses spread by the mites, pesticides that beekeepers use to kill the mites, climate effects and flower and nectar availability – all of which need to be taken into consideration.  Thinking we can solved the bee problem by a ban on neonicotinoids may mean we overlook these other important factors.

“What’s more, the decision does not take account of the risk of the ban on our ability to control insect pests and secure crop yields.  Securing, and indeed increasing yields for food security, is a priority in Europe and will require a crop protection strategy to avoid unnecessary losses.  At present and until we find reliable and effective alternatives, the control of insect pests (and the crop diseases they carry) will rely on the use of chemical insecticides and banning neonicotinoids will reduce our options. 

“A major biological risk of removing an entire chemistry is that resistance will develop against the remaining products.  This is exactly what has happened in human health with bacterial antibiotic resistance.  Or are we willing to accept lower yields, leading to greater imports and potentially higher food prices?  The UK has already become a net importer of wheat this year for the first time in a decade.  It has also been reported that a ban on neonicotinoids could result in a significant impact to UK oilseed farmers, costing the UK economy £630m each year.

“That said, we should not ignore the potential implications of pesticide use on pollinators.  Rather than an immediate ban, we should take this opportunity to further study and de-convolute the many possible causes of colony collapse and aberrant foraging behaviour.  This will then help us to balance the risks and benefits for crop protection, crop pollination, ecosystem function and our health appropriately.”

Professor Nick Wareham, Unit Director, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, who leads the InterAct study, said:

“This finding comes from the largest study of this issue in Europeans and adds to a growing global literature suggesting that there is a link between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity and risk of development of type 2 diabetes. Together with observations from randomised controlled trials, this observation suggests that consumption of these beverages should be limited as part of an overall healthy diet.”

Professor Patrick Wolfe, Royal Society Research Fellow and Professor of Statistics at University College London, said:

“This study reports an association between consumption of sweet and sweetened drinks and increased incidence of type 2 diabetes in European adults.  Previous studies, focussing largely on North American populations, have also found evidence of an association.  The authors note that `the consumption of sweet beverages in Europe appears to be lower than in the USA, though it appears to be rising [13]‘, and point out that ‘diversity of dietary patterns in Europe leads to a wide variation in sweet beverage consumption across different countries [13,15]‘.  Given these differences, the authors are interested in seeing whether an analysis of European populations leads to comparable findings.  In essence, it does.

“Both this study and the North American studies (reviewed in [6]) are best interpreted as comparing ‘extremes’: persons who consume fewer than one drink per month with those who consume at least one per day.   (In the current study, only about 8 percent of the sample fell into this latter category.) Comparing these extremes, the current study and a summary analysis [6] of North American studies suggest that drinking one or more cans per day of sugary soft drinks is associated with about a 20 percent increased relative risk of type 2 diabetes, relative to people who drink fewer than one can per month. Of course, this doesn’t tell us anything about absolute risk, so to put this figure in perspective, consider that as of 2010 in the UK, overall type 2 diabetes incidence stood at about 4 percent of the adult population (http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Reports/Diabetes_in_the_UK_2010.pdf).

“We have to be careful when interpreting relative risk increases, because they don’t tell the whole story.  Consider two individuals who are otherwise very similar, except that one individual drinks fewer than one sugary soft drink per month and the other drinks at least one per day.  These studies give evidence that the latter person will be at a heightened risk of developing type 2 diabetes relative to the former – but if both individuals are physically fit and at a healthy weight, their absolute risks may be quite low, while if both are overweight and inactive, their absolute risks may both be fairly high.  In and of themselves, sugary soft drinks are only part of the picture – they’re just one of the potential risk factors for type 2 diabetes.  But since they are one we can easily eliminate – by switching to diet soft drinks or, even better, cutting them out of our diets altogether – it makes good sense to do so.

“Interestingly, the authors also saw an effect for diet soft drinks – but this effect disappeared when body mass index (BMI) and caloric intake were taken into account.  This suggests that diet soft drinks may not trigger the same mechanisms as sugary soft drinks, but that switching to diet soft drinks isn’t a panacea if you’re not also watching your weight.  By contrast, the increase in relative risk associated with drinking one or more can per day of sugar-sweetened soft drinks was still present even when BMI and caloric intake were taken into account – suggesting that the sugary-soft-drink effect is not due just to weight gain from ‘empty calories’ but may also reflect other mechanisms such as insulin resistance.

“The bottom line is that sugary soft drinks are not good for you – they have no nutritional value and there is evidence that drinking them every day can increase your relative risk for type 2 diabetes.  But your overall likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes will depend on your individual risk factors – primary among them your weight and level of physical fitness.”

‘Consumption of sweet beverages and type 2 diabetes incidence in European adults: results from EPIC-InterAct’ by The InterAct Consortium, published in Diabetologia on Wednesday 24th April.

Brendan Eley, Chief Executive of the Healing Foundation, said:

“The public may be surprised to know that whilst there are ongoing, systematic investigations into healthcare treatments and policy (such as the Cochrane Reviews), this has never before taken place in the area of cosmetic surgery. At the Healing Foundation we are delighted to launch the Aesthetic Research Institute in conjunction with the BAAPS, to help the profession, as well as the public, in a sector where the objectives of business and medicine have been known to collide.”

Rajiv Grover, consultant plastic surgeon and BAAPS (The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons) President, said:

“We are pleased that the recommendations by the Committee so closely reflect our own views and initiatives over the last decade championing greater transparency for the benefit of patient safety. To this end we are delighted the report supports the creation of the ‘HF-BAAPS Aesthetic Research Institute’ which will be housed in the offices of the Healing Foundation at the Royal College of Surgeons. In a sector often derided for its unbridled expansion and unrestricted marketing, the HF-BAAPS Institute will play an important role in examining clinical evidence and analysing outcomes to separate fact from fiction. The use of stem cells in fat transfer – procedures already widely promoted to the public but lacking long-term study data – and the pivotal role of psychological assessment are all areas that this Institute is looking into and developing in depth, among others. Sir Bruce Keogh’s findings confirm that the cosmetic sector urgently requires detailed scrutiny, and the HF-BAAPS Institute will be the first to explore the evidence base for cosmetic treatments with a view to providing information on efficacy and best practice.”

Dr Tamara Griffiths, Consultant Dermatologist and British Association of Dermatologists representative to the review, said:

“As a Consultant Dermatologist I have myself seen the devastation that can be caused to a person’s appearance when intra-dermal fillers go wrong. In many cases the effects can be reversed – although it may take a long time – but in some the disfigurement will be permanent. Although I have never had to deal with this myself there are also reports of blindness and even death being caused by inappropriate injection of fillers. I am therefore very pleased to have been involved in the Review and glad to see that the recommendations coming out of it will make this area of cosmetic treatment safer for the public in the future.”

Professor Norman Williams, President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS), said:

“We welcome this report and the recommendations to address the vacuum of regulation and standards that currently exists in cosmetic surgery.  Over the past decade there have been numerous reports, a great deal of discussion but little action. The failure of PIP implants was a wake-up call that brought into sharp focus the desperate need for Government intervention to ensure commercial interests no longer take priority over patient safety. We call on Government to work with us to implement these recommendations without delay.

“We support the committee’s recommendation that only doctors on a General Medical Council specialist register should perform cosmetic surgery and work within the scope of their specialty specific training. This is a start to addressing concerns about unqualified practitioners engaged in this work including some overseas surgeons operating in the UK.   We welcome the opportunity to set clear standards for training and practice to ensure all surgeons are certified to the same standard irrespective of where they are trained.

“We are also pleased that, as a priority, the review proposes a National Breast Implant Registry should be operational within 12 months. The College has long pressed for mandatory databases for all surgical implants to improve patient safety by keeping an audit trail of device failures and complications. We hope this registry will be rolled out across surgery so that all medical devices are covered.”

Mr Stephen Cannon, Chairman of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) Professional Standards for Cosmetic Surgery working party, said:

“We welcome the review’s recognition of the multi-disciplinary Professional Standards for Cosmetic Practice the RCS published this year. These standards addressed the very real need for doctors, dentists and nurses to undertake appropriate training, to market and advertise their services responsibly and to professionally manage a patient’s expectations of how they will feel after treatment. These standards will lay the groundwork for a number of the Interspecialty Committee’s tasks including the code of ethical practice for cosmetic procedures proposed by the review. This should stamp out unscrupulous practices in the industry once and for all.”

Stanley Batchelor, Society of Radiological Protection, said:

“I welcome many aspects of this report – the recognition of the current complete regulatory inadequacies, which expose those individuals seeking non-surgical cosmetic procedures to potential harm, and the scale of the numbers seeking their doctor’s help after cosmetic interventions, which itself is a significant cost pressure on the NHS.

“I support the recognition that all those delivering laser / IPL treatments should be accountable to a professional regulator – we have witnessed that this works effectively in London and Nottingham, which are the only areas that already require non-surgical use of lasers and IPLs to be licensed.

“The creation of approved training schemes is also welcome as the law currently allows anyone to claim competence to run such courses. I do not believe in a blanket need for non-healthcare professionals to be supervised by healthcare professionals for laser / IPL treatments – this will introduce an unnecessary burden of expense to the cosmetic industry.”

Speakers:

Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director

Vivienne Parry, writer and broadcaster

Andrew Vallance-Owen, former Medical Director of BUPA

Simon Withey, plastic surgeon

The disease affects over 600,000 people in the UK with a quarter of those cases unable to perform even basic activities or look after themselves. There is currently no cure and the disease is poorly understood.

However, the new UK CFS/ME Research Collaborative is being launched to bring together many of the best researchers in a bid to understand and, ultimately, find treatments for this debilitating disease. The group will be investigating every aspect of the disease and we brought some of the key players to the SMC to discuss the areas that are really making progress.

• How blood flow to the brain may be playing a part
• Whether the immune system plays a role in either causing or exacerbating the disease
• What imaging studies are showing us about overactive brains
• Why CFS is so heavily under-diagnosed and how prevalent it really is
• What impact the launch of the UK Research Collaborative will have and why it is so vital

Speakers:  

Dr Esther Crawley, Reader in Child Health, University of Bristol

Prof Stephen Holgate, MRC Clinical Professor of Immunopharmacology, University of Southampton

Prof Julia Newton, Dean for Clinical Medicine and Clinical Professor of Ageing and Medicine, Newcastle University

Prof Carmine Pariante, Professor of Biological Psychiatry, King’s College London

Dr Jade Thai, Senior Research Fellow and Centre Manager, Clinical Research and Imaging Centre, University of Bristol

A new paper, published by Elsevier, was also presented on teenagers’ understandings of and attitudes towards vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases. Public health workers efforts are currently focussed on increasing MMR vaccination rates amongst children and teenagers, and the paper explores the challenges of communicating benefits of immunization to an age-group who often don’t know much about vaccines.

The speakers came to talk about the paper, the current measles crisis, what it says about the future of vaccination, about the other M and the R (mumps and rubella), and about where they expect the next outbreak to occur.

Speakers:

Dr David Elliman, Immunisation Specialist of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

Dr Helen Bedford, Senior Lecturer in Children’s Health, Paediatric Epidemiology Unit, UCL Institute of Child Health

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, GP and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need To Know

Joff McGill, Head of Information, Advice and Research, SENSE

Dr Shona Hilton, Programme Leader, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit

People have different interests when it comes to sharing, or not sharing, information about donor conception. Some people feel strongly that information about a donor is essential for a donor-conceived person, while others feel information about the use of fertility services, or about the donor, is private to the parents or donor.

This report addresses if, how and when information about donor conception should be shared between donor-conceived people, parents, donors, and health professionals. It makes recommendations to fertility clinics, to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and to the Government.

Speakers:

Dr Rhona Knight (Chair of the Working Party), General Practitioner, Senior Clinical Educator at the University of Leicester and Member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics

Hugh Whittall, Director, Nuffield Council on Bioethics
 
Laura Witjens, Chief Executive, National Gamete Donation Trust and the UK Donor Conceived Register
 
Katharine Wright, Assistant Director and Project Head for the donor conception project, Nuffield Council on Bioethics 

Professor Peter Lees, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Pharmacology, Royal Veterinary College, said:

“All relevant data are contained in the EFSA journal report 2013 11(4): 3190- running to 45 pages.

“The main conclusions in the EFSA report are:  

1. “On a given day, the probability of a consumer being both susceptible to developing aplastic anaemia and being exposed to phenylbutazone was estimated to range approximately from 2 in a trillion to 1 in 100 million”
2. “ The risk of carcinogenicity to humans from exposure was considered very low based on the available experimental data on organ toxicity and carcinogenicity, as well as the low exposure levels and the infrequent exposure to phenylbutazone from horse meat or adulterated beef-based products”

“I concur with these conclusions but would add the following comments:

“The report emphasises that “in view of the assumptions made to address most of the existing uncertainties, it was concluded that the current risk assessment is likely to overestimate the risks”. This is true but something of an understatement for the following reasons:

“a. As the report states, “The doses at which carcinogenicity was observed are more than three orders of magnitude higher than those that could be expected from potential exposure to phenylbutazone from horse meat”. Indeed the DAILY doses used in carcinogenicity studies were massive.

“b. A threshold dose of phenylbutazone has not been set for the rare incidence (1 in 30,000) of humans who develop aplastic anaemia when treated therapeutically every day with the drug for weeks or many months. Therefore, the report assumes, understandably conservatively, that ANY exposure of a sensitive individual might lead to a life threatening blood dyscrasia in that individual. Whilst this cannot be excluded, it is worth noting that I have calculated that in the worst case exposure scenario from our horse muscle residue data (500 µg/kg at slaughter) and assuming an individual consuming 200 g of pure horse meat (on a rare occasion), the intake would be 100µg, which is 2,500 times less than the daily therapeutic dose in humans. Based on median residue concentrations of 4.0 µg/kg reported by EFSA, the intake would be 0.8 µg, which is 312,500 times less than the daily therapeutic human dose.”

Prof Tim Morris, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham & Vice Chair of the British Horse Industry Confederation, said:

“Following the discovery of horse meat in beef products at the start of the year the European Commission has coordinated EU wide testing. Over the last 3 months, 4,144 beef product samples were tested for the presence of horse meat DNA and this revealed 193 traces of horse meat DNA (4.66%). 3,115 of the beef product samples were tested for the presence of phenylbutazone and 16 showed traces of the horse medicine phenylbutazone (0.51%), which is also known as ‘bute’. Meaningful comparison between countries is complicated by different testing methods and by the fact that in Britain and Ireland all horse meat is now being tested for phenylbutazone. 

“The EU has not yet given details of the actual amounts of phenylbutazone found in these samples, this would aid further assessing the health risk to consumers. However in the current situation the risks to consumers are likely to be almost negligible as:

• Side effects of phenylbutazone in people (a blood disorder known as aplastic anaemia) were only found when they were treated by doctors with the much higher clinical dose, and then only in 1 in 30,000 people. This medicine is no longer used in people.
• Amounts of  phenylbutazone from eating horse meat are likely to be tiny, as even if all the product is horse meat it is estimated that 24 hours after giving the medicine to horses amounts in the meat (in a horse entering the food chain) are only in parts per billion, very much lower than the human clinical dose.
• Only very low rates of horse meat contamination, and then that horse meat itself containing phenylbutazone, were found in this recent EU testing.

“This is why yesterday the European Food Safety Authority said in a 45 page expert report: ‘On a given day, the probability of a consumer being both susceptible to developing aplastic anaemia and being exposed to phenylbutazone was estimated to range approximately from 2 in a trillion to 1 in 100 million.’ (A trillion is a million million).

“These scientific tests reinforce the view that this issue remains primarily a food fraud but it serves as a real wake-up to tighten up all aspects of the food chain from farm or stable to the retailer: all involved – animal keepers, vets, businesses and the government have their part to play to ensure we know what we eat and that it is safe.”

Professor Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, Queen Mary, University of London, University of London, said:

“You are more likely to be hit by a meteorite than get aplastic anaemia from Bute via horse meat.”

Dr John Macdonald, Reader in Structural Dynamics at the Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Bristol, said:

“The earthquake was very large in magnitude – typically about 2 earthquakes of this magnitude would occur each year worldwide.  But since it was quite deep (about 80km, contrary to some reports) and in a sparsely populated area, the number of casualties will hopefully be low.  In contrast, the Bam earthquake of 2003, although much smaller in magnitude (total amount of energy released) was shallow (10km) and close to the city (only about 10km away), leading to major damage and loss of life.

“Iran has a reasonable seismic design code for buildings, but I believe a major problem is the lack of compliance with that code.  In particular, I understand a high proportion of the population, especially in rural areas, live in buildings made of unreinforced mud bricks, which are vulnerable to earthquakes.  Another potential problem is earthquake-triggered landslides blocking roads into the affected area, which would obviously hamper rescue activities, and disruption to other infrastructure such as power and water supplies, as well as to communications.”

Dr Brian Baptie, Head of Earthquake Seismology at British Geological Survey, said:

“This earthquake occurred in the great belt of earthquakes that stretches through the Middle East into Central Asia that results from the collision of the northwards moving Arabian and Indian tectonic plates with Eurasian tectonic plate to the North.  Given the depth, the earthquake was probably a result of normal faulting within the Arabian plate as it is subducted under the Eurasian plate along the Makran coast of Iran and Pakistan.  The earthquake is located approximately 380 km ESE of the magnitude 6.6 Bam earthquake that killed over 31,000 people on 26 December 2003.”

Dr David Rothery, Chair of the Open University’s Volcanoes, Earthquakes and Tsunamis course at The Open University, said:

“This morning’s earthquake in Iran was strong (magnitude 7.8) but fortunately its source was quite deep, about 80 km.  Although the ground probably shook for the best part of a minute, the intensity of the shaking was less than it would have been for a shallower earthquake of the same magnitude.

“The area where the quake struck is mountainous and damage can be expected from landslides as well as because of poorly-constructed buildings.  It can add about 20% to initial construction costs to make a modern building resilient to earthquakes so that it will not collapse when the ground shakes. 

“This quake was in an earthquake-prone part of the world, as a consequence of the northward collision of both Arabia and India into Asia.”

Dr Jonathan Read from the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Infection and Global Health, said:

“Measles is a highly infectious disease. In fact it is one of the most contagious respiratory pathogens known, and can cause severe complications and even death in some individuals.

“Vaccination has, thankfully, proven extremely effective in taming the impact of this nasty pathogen, particularly in the UK where traditionally high vaccination rates meant very few cases were seen, until recently.

“An outbreak in Merseyside during 2012 and the current epidemic in south Wales remind us how easily near-extinct infections can take hold within pockets of susceptibility. In these cases, the susceptible are a cohort of teenagers who missed the MMR vaccines during earlier childhood, perhaps due to the false report that the MMR vaccine caused autism and associated negative publicity.

“The dynamics of behavioural response to outbreaks is the subject of a lot of contemporary research. We may expect to see many health related behaviours, such as vaccine uptake or symptom reporting, change as awareness and perceived risk increases in the community, partly driven by news reporting, but also through other communication media.

“In the case of the South Wales outbreaks, opening special clinics offering vaccination are an excellent organisational response to increased awareness-driven demand.

“One other factor that may delay an effective healthcare response would be misdiagnosis: GPs unused to seeing measles cases due to its previous scarcity would (quite reasonably) have difficulty in quickly and correctly identifying cases, until broader awareness spread within the medical community.

“The possible interplay between the spread of infectious disease and the contagion of awareness and risk of the disease are hot research topics at the moment.”

Dr Gavin Sandercock, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Physiology (Cardiology), University Of Essex, said:

“This is an interesting paper supporting a well-known phenomenon that having a lower heart rate means you are likely to live longer.

“The authors claim that this was irrespective of fitness level but there are three important things to note.

“1. Heart rate is the result of your heart’s ’intrinsic rate’, which varies between individuals but is more or less fixed, and the action of the two nerves (a ‘brake’ and  an ‘accelerator’) that change heart rate. The action of the nerves is not fixed, it varies greatly. The only way to lower your heart rate without the use of drugs like beta-blockers is to do regular aerobic exercise – this increases the action of the brake nerve.

“2. We all know that to be fit, you have to be active. When the authors took into account how fit the men were, the association all but disappeared except men with a very high rate >80bpm were more likely to have died than those with very low heart rate of <50bpm.

“3. People shouldn’t be put off doing exercise to increase longevity if they have a high heart rate; it’s still the best thing you can do to be healthy and we should bear in mind that the Danish men in this study were mostly very fit. Nearly half of them had heart rates <50 bpm which is pretty uncommon except in highly trained athletes – this makes the findings hard to generalise to normal middle aged men in the UK.”

Dr Tim Chico, Senior Clinical Lecturer and honorary Consultant Cardiologist, University of Sheffield / Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said:

“It is important to put this research into context. This study measured fitness in 1971, and compared this to resting heart rate in 1985, but 14 years is more than long enough to get unfit and unhealthy. The message I take from this research is the importance of keeping fit as a lifelong habit. I often see patients who have previously been very fit. The important question is “how fit are you right now?”

Professor Patrick Wolfe, Royal Society Research Fellow and Professor of Statistics at University College London, said:

“This analysis starts with the assumption, supported by previous studies, that an elevated resting heart rate is associated with an increased risk of death overall.  It aims to determine whether this association is a marker related to currently known risk factors (poor physical fitness, smoking, etc.) or apparently independent of these in generally healthy individuals.  The authors conclude the association is independent of known risk factors, based on a long-term study of originally middle-aged men in Copenhagen who have remained healthy.

“We shouldn’t be surprised by this study – it tells us that factors other than those we currently understand may influence resting heart rate, which we already know can be related to risk of death.  The obvious candidate is physical fitness – and here the study does provide evidence for an increase in relative risk after physical activity levels (and other known factors) are taken into account.

“However, the numbers reported don’t tell us anything about how your heart rate directly influences your overall chances of dying.  Instead, they describe the amount of relative increase in this risk – relative to someone with similar known risk factors otherwise, but a very low resting heart rate.

“We don’t yet know what explains this apparent increase.  So, over the longer term, it will be important to identify other factors that contribute to higher resting heart rates, or possibly why such rates might represent some level of increased risk in and of themselves.  For now, there are plenty of steps we can all take to increase our chances of living longer – maintaining good physical fitness, aiming for a healthy balanced diet, and not smoking.”

Dr Valerie Gladwell, Senior Lecturer in Physiology, University of Essex, said:

“Heart rate is considered to be a marker of health. Generally if it is over 110 beats per minute it is considered to be tachycardic (i.e. beating faster than expected) and is likely to be due to a potential clinical problem. In this study the heart rates studied were below 100 beats per minute and so are considered within normal ranges. 

“Heart rate is managed by pacemaker cells in the heart.  Although these pacemakers can generate their own rhythm they are controlled by nerves from the nervous system. These nerves can speed up the heart (sympathetic nerve) or slow it down (parasympathetic nerve). Without input from the nerves the heart would beat at about 100 beats per minute. This means that normally at rest the parasympathetic nerve is firing to slow down the heart (greater at lower heart rates), with much less influence from the sympathetic nerves.  Although measuring heart rate is simple to do, it is really important that if a resting heart rate is required that it is carried out with the participant lying down with no nicotine, caffeine or food ingested for 2 hours prior to the measurement.  Physical activity, mental activity and stress increase heart rate due to a reduction in firing of the parasympathetic nerve and an increase in firing in the sympathetic nerve. If people wish to measure their own heart rate it is best to do it prior to getting out of bed in the morning.

“According to this study, those individuals with a heart rate measured above 90 beats per minute appear to have a 3-fold increase in risk of death. This is interesting and may suggest that individuals with heart rates greater than 90 may be more susceptible to death, maybe due to an imbalance of their nervous system. The authors suggest that the increase in risk of death occurs with elevated heart rate even when age, smoking, alcohol, physical activity, fitness and other clinical measures are considered. There were only 54 people in this group out of a total of 2798.  It may also be that within the group with higher heart rates, there were individuals who generally reacted more to unfamiliar situations and may have even found it more stressful to have their heart rate measured and thus recorded higher heart rates.  Thus, in these individuals it may be their increased reactivity to unfamiliar situations rather than a high heart per se that may be increasing their risk.

“Over time, exercise training has been shown to decrease heart rate, in part by increasing the influence of the parasympathetic nerve. However, in this study the authors suggest that death was more likely if heart rate was higher irrespective of fitness level. However these results should be considered with caution as fitness levels were measured 16 years prior to resting heart rate and fitness levels. They may be different if recorded at the same time and thus physical fitness may have a greater influence than is considered within this study.”

‘Elevated resting heart rate, physical fitness and all-cause mortality: a 16-year follow-up in the Copenhagen Male Study’ by Jensen MT et al., published in Heart on Monday 15th April.

Prof David Linden, Professor of Translational Neuroscience, Cardiff University and Co-leader of the MRC Addiction Research Cluster Applied Cognitive Neuroscience, said:

“This study of the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine in response to beer flavours uses an interesting methodology to assess people’s motivational responses to alcohol cues. Alcohol abuse is a major public health concern, and it would be of great interest to have markers of predisposition to problem use of alcohol to enable early intervention.

“However, the presented effects are small and results have to be considered as preliminary, and the higher release of dopamine to beer compared to Gatorade flavours was not associated with actual drinking behaviour or dependence.

“We are thus still very far away from understanding the biological processes that contribute to risk of alcohol abuse.”

Professor Peter Anderson, Professor of Substance Use, Policy and Practice, Newcastle University, said:

“It is well known that all sorts of cues, including taste, smell, images, and habits (e.g. one always has a drink after work) raise desire for drinking.  This desire often appears to be dose dependent – meaning larger when average consumption is larger. This paper demonstrates that taste alone impacts on the brain functions associated with desire. This is not surprising – if taste increases desire, it has to impact on brain functions.

“With regard to the family history effect, this is quite difficult to assess and know what it means so we can’t be too sure of an effect or how strong it might be.  

“Finally, in my view, a direct pharmacological effect cannot be ruled out. In evolutionary terms, humans, as for primates and other mammals, were exposed to small doses of ethanol through eating ripe fruit that had fermented. There may have been some evolutionary advantages for this, and this is why we have the biochemistry to metabolize ethanol.  But, the doses would have been small and we would have been able to detect them and we would have biologically reacted to them.  In the present study, the subjects were exposed to about 12mg of ethanol over a 15 minute period – possibly enough for a direct pharmacological response.”

Professor Dai Stephens, Professor of Experimental Psychology, University of Sussex, said:

“This paper reports that in non-dependent experienced drinkers, the flavour of beer is able to increase dopamine in the ventral striatum, in a way similar to, though not to the same extent, as alcohol itself.  These findings, though neatly done, and a first convincing demonstration in humans that a drink’s flavour has such effects on the brain, are not particularly surprising as we have known for some time from animal studies that events conditioned to drug taking come to increase dopamine. And, while suggestive, the findings cannot with certainty be ascribed to conditioning. However, more provocatively, the study also suggests that not all beer drinkers show the same effect. Surprisingly, only those individuals who had close family members diagnosed for alcoholism showed dopamine increases in response to beer taste, raising the question whether a heightened conditioning, or an unusual ability of conditioned rewards to increase dopamine activity, underlies the development of alcohol (and perhaps other drug) abuse.

“Equally importantly, we know that exposure to such conditioned rewards is sometimes the trigger that induces abstaining addicts to relapse. Understanding the mechanisms that account for the differences in the consequences of this kind of conditioning between individuals at risk and not at risk for alcoholism might point to ways of reducing such risks.”

Further information from Professor Dai Stephens:

In Pavlov’s famous findings from over a century ago, occurrences meaningless in themselves (ringing a bell) after a few pairings with a significant event (delivery of food to a hungry dog) came to elicit similar physiological consequences (salivation) even if no food was delivered. This phenomenon is called Pavlovian conditioning, after its discoverer. It is not only physiological processes that can be conditioned, and, in a similar fashion, we have known for many years that similar meaningless events can become desired if they are repeatedly paired with something that is intrinsically rewarding. Wine drinkers often have collections of glasses way beyond their needs to serve dinner guests, and pipe smokers used to create collections when, for smoking purposes,  a single pipe would suffice. Sometimes, even mildly unpleasant occurrences become desirable if they predict something pleasant. Many of us who drink beer will remember that when we first sampled it, the taste was unpleasant.  Nevertheless, people who drink beer come to like the taste of beer, and, for some people, in the absence of anything better, the taste of even alcohol-free beer is better than nothing at all. How does this happen?

Pleasant events, and especially abused drugs, increase the activity of nerve cells that use the chemical messenger dopamine, in a part of the brain called the ventral striatum. Measuring this increase in people is difficult, so scientists have resorted to an indirect way. When dopamine is released from nerve cells, it passes on its message to the next nerve by docking at specialised proteins. Drugs related to those used for treatment of schizophrenia also bind to the same proteins, and compete with dopamine for these docking sites. So the more dopamine there is, the less chance the drug has of finding a parking space. Using brain scanners, and a radioactive form of the drug, scientists can measure the amount of the drug that is able to dock, and thus calculate how many docking sites are already occupied by dopamine, a reflection of how much dopamine is circulating nearby. Abused drugs (including alcohol) lower the binding of the competing drug, in correspondence to their ability to increase dopamine. 

‘Beer flavor provokes striatal dopamine release in male drinkers: mediation by family history of alcoholism’ by Brandon Oberlin et al. published in Neuropsychopharmacology on Monday 15th April.

In the light of this, the SMC invited one of the UK’s leading experts on GM animals, Professor Helen Sang, to describe some of the on-going applications of GM technologies in farm animals and the issues around regulation and public acceptance.

Speakers:

Professor Helen Sang, The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh

Bruce Whitelaw,  Professor of Animal Biotechnology, The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies Division of Developmental Biology University of Edinburgh

Professor Joe N. Perry, Chair, GMO Panel, European Food Safety Authority, said:

“The feed deriving from GM crops that is being fed to poultry has been thoroughly assessed for safety by a panel of independent scientists from the European Food Safety Authority.  Consumers should be reassured that there are no food safety concerns as a result of eating poultry fed with feed derived from these approved GM crops. 

“Chicken and chips is one of my favourites – I regularly buy free-range chicken from Tesco, and I shall continue to do so with confidence.” 

Prof Jonathan Jones, plant molecular biologist at the Sainsbury Laboratory, John Innes Centre, said:

“Most soybean growers plant GM varieties because weed control is easier.  GM is a method for crop improvement, not a thing in itself.  

“This decision by supermarkets reflects their acknowledgement that there is nothing harmful in the method, and that sourcing non-GM soy for feed increases costs to consumers to no good purpose.”

Professor Joe Leigh Simpson, commenting on behalf of the International Federation of Fertility Societies (New York), said:

“The International Federation of Fertility Societies mourns the death of Nobel Laureate Sir Robert G Edwards, who with Patrick Steptoe produced the world’s first IVF baby and contributed to reproductive biology in numerous other ways. His success in IVF was one of the 20th century’s great medical feats, pursued at long odds and despite great opprobrium. He laid the groundwork for infertile couples worldwide to have children, with 1-4 per cent of all babies in Europe, North America and Australia now born by assisted reproductive technologies started by Professor Edwards. He will be greatly missed”.

Professor Simon Fishel, CARE Fertility, Nottingham, said:

“Bob. A great mentor, friend, and a true pioneer, battling against all – you knew you could change infertility treatment when those all around were against you. Few will ever understand how hard it was to see his vision realised.  The Nobel Prize was a fitting tribute to his work but the millions of children born from IVF are his lasting legacy”

Professor Colin Blakemore, School of Advanced Study, University of London, said:

“I had the privilege of getting to know and admire Bob when I was starting my own career in science. His unbounded and infectious enthusiasm for his research, despite huge technical obstacles and the scepticism of many of his colleagues, was an inspiration.  He was driven not only by confidence in his ability to overcome the technical difficulties but also by his understanding of the distress that infertility can cause. The Nobel Prize was long in coming: thank goodness it wasn’t too late.”

Professor Lisa Jardine, Chair of the HFEA, said:

“It is with great sadness that we have heard about the death of Professor Sir Robert Edwards.

“Many thousands of families have benefited directly from IVF since the birth of Louise Brown in 1978. However, fertility treatment was not always as readily accepted as it is today and had it not been for Bob’s scientific innovation and his passionate commitment to ensuring the technology was made available to all those who needed it, many parents would have been left childless.

“Few scientists can say that their work has impacted on mankind in such a meaningful way. He was an exceptional man whose compassion and tenacity will be dearly missed.”

Dr David Lynn, Director of Policy, Wellcome Trust:

“Few scientists can have contributed so much to the sum of human happiness as Bob Edwards, whose pioneering work with Patrick Steptoe has allowed millions of couples affected by infertility to start families. British science continues to build today on the world leadership in reproductive technology which he established, through research such as Newcastle University’s IVF techniques for preventing transmission of mitochondrial disease.”

Martin Johnson, Professor Of Reproductive Sciences at University of Cambridge, said:

“Robert Geoffrey Edwards, or “Bob” as his colleagues and friends knew him, is one of the true giants of the 20th Century. A modest, affable, argumentative and generous Yorkshireman, the farsightedness, energy, determination and rigour he brought to the study of human reproduction led to the most significant advance in the history of infertility treatment, for which in 2010 he received the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. As well as being an experimentalist and keeping abreast of the scientific literature in such diverse fields as immunology, embryology, genetics and endocrinology, he was also a prolific writer and a pioneering promoter of the public awareness of science and of its role in overcoming infertility and genetic disease, both sources of much human anguish. Early and continuing ethical challenges to his work also prompted Bob to think and publish widely about reproductive bioethics – a subject of which he is truly a father figure. Bob also drove the foundation of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology and its journals, which he edited for many years, and then in 2000 he set up a new e-journal, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, with emphasis on rapid publication and the airing of controversies. His almost inexhaustible energy, combined with a passionate belief in humanity, socialism and the commonsense of people, meant he also found time to engage in local politics. Indeed, I am sure that it is a source of gentle pleasure for him that he outlived Margaret Thatcher – born in the same year as him – by 48 hours!”

Anna Veiga, chairman of ESHRE, said:

“Bob was a tireless and inspirational leader in reproductive medicine, and it’s fair to say that the infertility treatments we have today would not have been developed without his direction. It was also Bob who laid down the statutes which govern ESHRE’s organisation and define its constitution today. We will remember him for many reasons, but mostly for his sympathetic ear, his constant encouragement and of course his remarkable achievements in human biology. Without Bob’s scientific foresight and care for the infertile couple, the treatments of assisted reproduction would never have gained the universal acceptance they have today.”

Sarah Norcross, Director, Progress Educational Trust, said

“We were greatly saddened to hear of Professor Sir Robert Edwards’ death, and yet glad that he lived to see his work receive long overdue recognition, in the form of his 2010 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Bob Edwards made an outstanding contribution to assisted conception, working with Dr Patrick Steptoe and Jean Purdy to pioneer IVF techniques which resulted in the birth of Louise Brown and led to more than five million IVF babies being born worldwide. Those who owe the existence of their children or indeed were born thanks to IVF will mourn Bob’s passing.”

Professor Peter Braude, Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Kings College London, said:

“Few biologists have so positively and practically impacted on humankind. Bob’s boundless energy, his innovative ideas, and his resilience despite the relentless criticism by naysayers, changed the lives of millions of ordinary people who now rejoice in the gift of their own child. He leaves the world a much better place.”

Everything the SMC has previously done on the horsemeat story, including a factsheet on bute and horsemeat, can be found here.

Prof Tim Morris, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham & Vice Chair of the British Horse Industry Confederation, said:

“Following the finding of the veterinary drug bute (phenylbutazone) in corned beef products from Asda, I think consumers should recognise this is perhaps inevitable given the wide scale of abuse of meat regulations in processed food.

“There is no room for complacency, but from the information given on the amount of bute in the product this is more of a fraud rather than a food safety issue, and it emphasises why the Government and retailers need to crack down on this problem.”

Dr Mark Bowen, Associate Professor in Veterinary Internal Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, said:

“Phenylbutazone (bute) is a safe and effective painkiller used extensively in horses throughout the world. It is the only medicine of its type that can be used for long term management of pain and is therefore essential in order to protect the welfare of animals with diseases such as arthritis. While other painkillers are available that can be used safely in food producing animals, including horses, the long term safety of these have not been shown, and are therefore not direct replacements.

“Phenylbutazone cannot be used in any food producing animal. However suggesting any risk from the miniscule amounts of bute found in ASDA corned beef products is simply absurd; the amount of bute present is so low that you would need to eat hundreds of thousands of tins per day for several weeks to be exposed to any risk of side effects. Even then, the chances of any significant side effects are very low (less than 1 in 20,000).

“It is important to remember that this is the first discovery of bute in processed foods in the UK. All horse meat from the United Kingdom is now tested for the presence of bute prior to export to Europe. While it is clear that the corned beef was manufactured in France, the origin of the horse meat is currently unknown. There is no suggestion that this represents a breakdown of the controls that prevent this medicine entering the human food chain in the UK.

“The Horse Passport Act (2004) was devised to create a mechanism that enabled horses to be permanently excluded from the human food chain, in order to preserve the availability of bute, in order to maintain welfare standards in horses. This legislation was subsequently improved in 2009, by the requirement for horses to be permanently identified by a microchip inserted into the neck.

“Although the horse passport system has improved considerably since 2004, some weaknesses remain which provide opportunities to defraud the system and complicate the practicalities of compliance; The British Equine Veterinary Association are working with the rest of the equine sector to identify any remaining shortcomings of the current system of passports in order to help improve the current legislation.”

David Nutt discussed developments across the field of neuroscience, including an update on his work using magic mushrooms as a treatment for depression and why regulation is holding it back. Other work also discussed:

• the latest research showing how our minds and conscious experience of emotion are affected by what is happening in other parts of our bodies;
• a new study explaining how stress hormones in the womb lead to mood disorders in later life.

Speakers:

Prof David Nutt, President of the British Neuroscience Association & Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London

Dr Sarah Garfinkel, Research Fellow in Emotion and Neuroscience, Brighton & Sussex Medical School

Dr Alejandra Sel, postdoctoral researcher, Department of Psychology, City University London

Catherine Collins, Principal Dietitian, St George’s Hospital NHS Trust, said:

“The authors performed a number of studies on humans and mice models that showed an increased blood level of TMA-O in the diet of meat eaters. TMA-O is a breakdown product of L-carnitine, found naturally in meats, but when present in the bloodstream of mice is associated with accelerated atherosclerosis. In a rather elegant series of tests, they proved that meat-eaters have different bacterial strains in their gut, and that these different bacteria appeared responsible for converting L-carnitine to TMA-O, a process that didn’t occur if vegan or vegetarian subjects set their dietary objections aside and ate meat, or if meat eaters were given antibiotics to kill of specific bacterial groups.

“The authors suggest that L-carnitine (found naturally in meat) and a similar food component choline (found in eggs, soya and other beans, and brassica vegetables) may be the link with heart disease in meat eaters, rather than other components such as saturated fat, or excessive iron intake from red meat.

“It’s a very persuasive argument, but we know that eating a couple of portions of red meat weekly is of no risk, heart wise. We also know including seafish in the diet is beneficial for heart health – yet seafish contain TMA and TMA-O naturally. And that eating beans and brassicas also seem protective in an omnivorous diet – which goes against this hypothesis in a meat-eaters diet.

“There’s no need to change our dietary recommendations from this – a Mediterranean style diet with modest meat, fish, dairy and alcohol intake, coupled with more pulses, vegetables fruits, wholegrains and mono-unsaturated fats, remains the nutritional blueprint for a healthy and healthful life. But I would strongly recommend that unless you’re a vegetarian or vegan, there is a potential risk from taking L-carnitine, lecithin, choline or betaine supplements in an attempt to ward off cognitive decline or improve fat metabolism. If the evidence is confirmed these supplements would do more to damage arteries than provide health benefits.”

Professor Brian Ratcliffe, Professor of Nutrition, Robert Gordon University, said:

“Dietary intakes of saturated fatty acids do not explain all the variation in blood cholesterol levels and these in turn do not explain all the variation in the occurrence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD).  These diseases are complex and multi-factorial and this study provides another piece in the jigsaw puzzle showing the links between atherosclerosis and diet and lifestyle.  The study is comprehensive and demonstrates a mechanism that may help to explain the observed associations between the consumption of red meat and the risk of CVD.  This does not mean that we need to change current dietary recommendations because the advice is to limit the intake of red meat anyway.   However, people who take supplements of L-carnitine for non-medical reasons may need to have some second thoughts.” 

‘Intestinal microbiota metabolism of L-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis’ by Robert Koeth et al. published in Nature Medicine on Sunday 8 April.  

Dr Holly Shelton, Avian Influenza Research Fellow at The Pirbright Institute, said:

“This H7N9 Influenza virus is unique in several ways; firstly, it is the first time that low pathogenicity avian influenza has been associated with human fatalities, secondly, according to the phylogenic data this virus has resulted from a novel reassortment between H7N9 viruses circulating in birds in Europe and Asian lineage H9N2 viruses, and thirdly, no animal reservoir for the virus has yet been identified.

“There are several sequence motifs identified in this H7N9 virus that suggest that the virus has gone some way towards adaptation to mammalian hosts, for example in the receptor binding pocket of the H7 protein which is important for attachment of the virus and the polymerase gene PB2 responsible for replication of the viral genetic material.

“However we can also see that the virus is probably susceptible to the anti-viral treatments of Tamiflu and Relenza and so far there does not appear to be any person to person spread of the virus which limits the ability of this virus to disseminate quickly through a population.

“The fact that people have died from this infection is naturally worrisome but what we don’t know is whether the people who have caught this infection have any underlying medical issues or predispositions to infections and in particular Influenza infections. We saw with the recent 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain that certain conditions including obesity and asthma resulted in a more severe outcome from a virus that for the majority of the population was a mild. The Chinese government and scientists with help from the international community now have a lot of work to do in understanding the source of this virus, its transmission route to human and in sampling the local populations to understand if infection without severe symptomology is occurring.

“Here at the Pirbright Institute we are investigating what characteristics make an avian Influenza virus likely to jump species including to humans and other economically important livestock such as pigs. This virus is another example that can be investigated in order to understand this more thoroughly.”

Dr Nigel Raine, Reader in Animal Behaviour at Royal Holloway University of London, said:

“Insects provide essential pollination services worth at least £440 million to UK agriculture each year.  Pesticides are a critical tool to achieve high levels of crop production.  Both have clear benefits, so we need to ensure that pesticides are used in ways that minimises any detrimental impacts on insect pollinators.

“The weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence suggests that field-relevant exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides can have adverse effects on bees.  In recent statements Defra appear to have set aside all of this evidence in favour of one unpublished in house study.  I’m pleased to see that the Environmental Audit Committee has taken a balanced view of the evidence.

“Bees are actually exposed to multiple pesticides when they go out to collect nectar and pollen from crops.  Policymakers need to consider the risks of exposure to combinations of pesticides, and the fact that some bee species are more sensitive to pesticides than others, as part of the risk assessment process.”

Prof David Goulson, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Stirling, said:

“EAC are calling for a moratorium on neonicotinoid use, and hence are broadly in agreement with EFSA.  It seems that pretty much any independent review of this subject comes to the same conclusion – we should stop using these chemicals until we have much more convincing evidence that they are safe.  At present the balance of evidence suggests that they are very far from safe.

“Quite how Defra can justify its abstention in the recent EU vote, a decision seemingly based on the results of its own rushed, poorly designed, fatally compromised, and unpublished field study (rather than on the many much better, peer-reviewed and published scientific studies that are available) is beyond me.

“I particularly applaud the call for a return to “Integrated Pest Management” – whereby pesticide use is minimised by careful monitoring of pest problems, applying controls only when needed, and by encouraging natural enemies as far as possible.  Prophylactic use of neonicotinoids is contrary to all the principles of IPM.  Defra say that they are keen to encourage IPM, but IPM is not new – I was taught about it in the 1980s when I was an undergraduate.  We have been moving AWAY from it for the last 20 years or more, with farmers receiving much of their advice from agronomists who make most of their profit by selling agrochemicals.

“It is also nice to see attention being drawn to the long persistence and accumulation of these chemicals in soils.  Any toxic chemical with a half-life in excess of a thousand days is surely not safe to use, for it will inevitably build up and up in the environment.”

Populations of bees have steadily declined in recent decades. The European Commission has proposed a ban on three neonicotinoid pesticides, which some blame for falling numbers. Studies have shown the pesticides have a detrimental effect on bee health, but there is scientific disagreement on the relationship between use of neonicotinoids and bee numbers in field trials.

Below is a collection of all the material the SMC has put out on the issue.

Prof Ian Boyd, Defra’s Chief Scientific Advisor, came to the SMC to brief journalists on the state of the evidence on neonicotinoids and the reasoning behind the government position.  

Professor Kevin McConway, Professor of Applied Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology, The Open University, said:

“I’m lucky enough not to have gone bald (says he smugly), but I have several balding male relatives and friends.  Should I be worrying more about their heart health, given this study?  I’d say not.

“The study reports rather large numbers of increases in the risk of heart disease, comparing severely bald men with men who aren’t bald. But we could do with more information before deciding how big an issue this is.

“The study reports (in one place) that severely bald men in younger age groups have a 44% greater risk of coronary artery disease than their hairier counterparts, but it doesn’t answer the question “44% greater than what?”  To make sense of this we need to know the absolute risks – how likely is a 50 year old man with a full head of hair to have a heart attack in the next 10 years?  How likely is it for a 50 year old bald man?

“In addition, these figures on increased risk aren’t actually known very precisely.  The press release doesn’t mention that, but from the paper we can see that, for instance, the 44% increase might plausibly be an 11% increase, or any 86% increase, or anywhere in between. There just isn’t enough information to be more precise.

“The researchers describe what they found as a ‘potential relationship’ between baldness and heart disease, and suggest it should be investigated in further major studies to see if it can be confirmed. They do suggest that bald younger men should be encouraged to improve their heart risk profile, presumably by healthier eating, giving up smoking and so on, but that probably applies to all of us. And they specifically warn against screening men for signs of heart disease just because they are bald.

“So yes, this is interesting, but I won’t be advising my bald friends to do anything different.”

Professor Patrick Wolfe, Royal Society Research Fellow and Professor of Statistics at University College London, said:

“This article follows several studies from the 1990s and onwards that have suggested evidence of a link between baldness and heart disease in adult men.  It reports a meta-analysis of 6 such studies in the English language, 5 of which reported evidence of a link, and concludes results that overall are qualitatively consistent with many previous studies.

“The idea of a link between baldness and heart disease can seem alarming, because many adult men are affected by male pattern baldness.  Most of us don’t look forward to going bald, and so it would be nice if there were a silver lining!  

“But it is important to remember that the study reports an increase in relative risk, after factors such as body mass index and smoking have been taken into account.  So, if we consider the case of two male, non-smoking marathon runners in top physical condition, one of whom is bald and the other not, then their absolute risks for heart disease are likely to be quite small – despite the fact that their relative risks may be different – both because of baldness and because of other factors, including family history.

“Right now the link that is seemingly responsible for this relative risk increase is not well understood, and so in future we might look forward to a day when understanding more about the various mechanisms underlying heart disease will tell us more about those underlying male pattern baldness, and vice-versa.  In the meantime it’s a case of focusing on the things that we can control – our diet, exercise regimens, and other risk factors – to lower our overall risk for heart disease.”

Professor David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, University of Cambridge, said:

“This study estimates that keeping hair on your crown is associated with a similar reduced risk of heart disease as taking a statin.  But sensibly no causal link is made: it’s a nice example of where a common factor may contribute to both baldness and heart disease.

“I am sceptical about the claim that different types of baldness have varying associations with heart disease, although it would be a relief to older men like me with bare temples but still a bit of fuzz on top.”

Dr Anita Thomas, Research Associate, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, said:

“Male gender has been linked with cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence for a considerable period of time. Men tend to develop CVD and other vascular diseases earlier than pre-menopausal women (although there is catch-up after menopause).

“There is an interesting (and similar) report to this BMJ Open press release that was published in 2000. The previous study found that, compared with men with no hair loss, men with frontal baldness had a 9% increased risk for heart conditions and those with vertex baldness had a 23% increased risk.  Those with near-complete baldness had a 36% increase in risk for heart conditions (nonfatal heart attack or angina, procedures to open blocked coronary arteries (e.g. angioplasty, stenting and bypass surgery)).  Reference:  Lotufo PA, Chae CU, Ajani UA, Hennekens CH, Manson JE. Male pattern baldness and coronary heart disease: the Physicians’ Health Study. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jan 24; 160(2):165-71.”

‘Male pattern baldness and its association with coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis’ by Tomohide Yamada et al. published in BMJ Open on Wednesday 3 April 2013.

Dr John McCauley, Director of WHO Collaborating Centre on Influenza, Division of Virology, MRC National Institute for Medical Research, said:

“A new strain of influenza virus affecting humans has been recently identified in eastern China by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, one of the WHO Collaborating Centres for Reference and Research on Influenza, part of the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System. The first three cases showed disease symptoms between 19 February and 15 March.

“The virus belongs to the A(H7N9) sub-type, a sub-type that has not previously infected humans, and has emerged from the reservoir of avian influenza viruses.

“The cases have been in the Anhui and Jiangsu provinces and in the city of Shanghai. The number of laboratory-confirmed human cases currently totals seven – three have died of the infection.

“It is not known how the virus was transmitted to these seven individuals. By identifying the source of infection measures can be taken to reduce human exposure to this new virus. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating whether there has been any human-to-human transmission.

“Analysis of the three virus isolates at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention has shown that the viruses are sensitive to the anti-influenza drugs that target the virus neuraminidase, Tamiflu and Relenza.”

This is a guest blogpost by Helen Jamison, Deputy Director of the Science Media Centre and originally appeared on Independent Voices on the 19th March 2013.

NHS press officers have had some pretty bad PR recently. Apparently they cost the NHS millions and prevent journalists from questioning NHS bosses at conferences where they are, ironically, promoting openness and transparency.

Prof Martin Siegert, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Bristol, said:

“This work indicates that the ice ocean system is sensitive to several forcing factors, and that we’re still uncovering these and determining which are the most significant. 

“Past records show that long periods of warming or cooling are non-steady, and such small scale variability may be due to competing processes and their feedbacks.  The process proposed in Antarctica is unlikely to be significant, however, due to relative lack of ice shelves around the sea ice growth regions.”

Dr Emily Shuckburgh, Head of Open Oceans at British Antarctic Survey, said:

“It has long been known that ‘global warming’ is a vast over-simplification of the changes that might be expected from increased greenhouse gases.  Unusually cold weather in the UK and increasing sea ice in parts of Antarctica are both examples of disruption to our climate that may in fact be a symptom. 

“There are fascinating and subtle interactions across the globe between the air temperature and wind, the properties and circulation of the ocean, and ice in its different forms.  This paper demonstrates how these interactions can sometimes lead to unexpected results.”

Dr Paul Holland, Polar Oceanographer at British Antarctic Survey, said:

“It is already known that the existence of ice-shelf meltwater promotes the existence of sea ice.  Basically, a layer of fresh water from the ice shelves forms a ‘cap’ on the ocean that reduces the mixing upwards of ocean heat (fresh water is buoyant, so mixing it is hard).  Less ocean heat arriving at the sea surface means that the ocean can freeze more easily.  That concept was demonstrated quite clearly in 2004 by Hartmut Hellmer of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany.

“This paper claims that the observed increase in ice-shelf melting has made a significant contribution to the observed increase in sea-ice cover.  That result makes sense and might well be expected, but I don’t think this paper demonstrates it to be true.  The paper uses two strands of evidence:  a Met Office collection of ocean data, and the results of two models run with increased meltwater input.

“Regarding the data, I am sceptical that there are enough wintertime Antarctic data to reliably determine changes in the ocean for 1985-2010.  There are now lots of freely-floating sensors in the Southern Ocean (‘Argo floats’), so there will be a relatively large amount of data for recent years, but there is very little for older years, which makes the reliable calculation of changes very difficult.  Also, the paper shows trends for a ‘zonal mean’ – averaging around all longitudes of Antarctica.  That is complicated because the different regions of Antarctica have experienced very different changes.

“The paper also uses trends from a satellite SST dataset.  These cannot be trusted, because the SST is simply set to -1.9C, the freezing temperature of seawater, below sea ice.  So in the regions where sea ice has increased the ocean appears to cool simply because the SST is recently being set to -2C when previously it was not.

“Regarding the models, none of the results shown match the observed changes in sea ice (compare figures 2a and 4d, or figures 2a and Supplementary Figure 5), so I don’t find that at all convincing.  The authors are using a completely wrong distribution of freshwater increase from Antarctica, putting in increased ice-shelf melting where it is not occurring.  They are also using a rate that is vastly too high.  They are using 250 Gt/y of extra meltwater for 40 years, whereas the real melting increase has ramped up slowly since 1992, adding only 71 Gt/y on average in that period (and much less before that).  The real distribution and rates can be found in Shepherd et al 2012 [Science, 10.1126/science.1228102].  This lack of quantitative agreement is critical, because the authors are claiming that the freshwater effect is important.

“There are plausible alternative explanations for the Antarctic sea ice increase.  To use an example close to my heart, in a Nature Geoscience paper last year (attached), Ron Kwok and I showed that changes in the wind can explain changes in the ice cover.  Changes in the wind change the ice cover by both blowing the ice around directly, and by carrying colder or warmer air masses over the ocean, leading to more or less freezing.  The Bintanja paper claims that this is unlikely to be true because the observed change in sea ice does not correlate with various climate variables, such as the Southern Annular Mode (SAM).  However, the SAM and other variables describe only a fraction of the variability in the winds around Antarctica, so it is entirely possible that the winds are linked to the ice change but the SAM is not.

“The possibility remains that the real increase is the sum of wind-driven and meltwater-driven effects, of course.  That would be my best guess, with the meltwater effect being the smaller of the two.  But none of that is proven.

“In summary, the freshwater concept is plausible and its playing a role is not inconsistent with previous work.  However, this paper has not demonstrated that increased ice-shelf melting has made a significant contribution to the observed increase in sea-ice cover.  Alternative explanations remain entirely viable.”

Dr Andrew Russell, Lecturer in Climate Change at Brunel University, said:

“The Antarctic climate is complex and the increase in sea-ice is one aspect that’s been looked at a lot in the last few years.  It was shown recently that changing wind patterns around Antarctica played a role in driving the sea-ice growth but this latest study adds another important factor to that picture. 

“The new paper show that melting from the bottom of ice shelves – where the Antarctic glaciers flow out over the ocean – produces a layer of cold water that stops warmer water below reaching the surface and slowing sea-ice growth.  So overall we have two components of a warming climate – wind pattern changes and ice shelf melting – resulting in increased sea-ice, which perhaps isn’t what you’d expect but is consistent with our best description of climate change.”

‘Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion’ by R. Bintanja et al. will be published in Nature Geoscience on Sunday 31^st March.

Leading UK psychiatrists came to the SMC to discuss the issues facing the professional psychiatric community, and give their views on the future path that psychiatry must take in order to continue to provide patients with the highest standard of care and support.

This briefing also marked the launch of the Academy of Medical Sciences report ‘Strengthening Academic Psychiatry’ and shared the recommendations made by an expert working group chaired by Sir David Carter.

Speakers:

Professor Sir Simon Wessely, Vice Dean, Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London

Professor Nick Craddock, Professor of Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, Cardiff University and Honorary Treasurer of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Sir David Carter, Emeritus Professor of Surgery, University of Edinburgh, formerly Chief Medical Officer of Scotland and Chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences working group on Strengthening Academic Psychiatry.

Professor Charles ffrench-Constant, Director of the University of Edinburgh’s MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, said:

“These unproven and ill-prepared stem cell therapies, for which there is no scientific basis, will do nothing for patients and their families except make them poorer. For a European country that is home to some of the world’s finest and most rigorous stem cell biologists to approve such an approach sends a confused and counterproductive message to the world community.”

Professor Austin Smith, Director of the Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, said:

“This situation highlights the need for proper understanding of the scientific process and especially of the requirement for evidence. If politicians, doctors or patient organisations ignore the facts, they may unwittingly become party to exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society by approving meaningless ‘treatments’.”

Professor Steve Dunnett, Co-director of the Brain Repair group in the School of Biosciences, University of Cardiff, said:

“Many novel and unproven stem cell therapies involve significant risk and very high cost while offering no detectable benefit for desperate patients and their families threatened with life changing illnesses. As a scientist it is natural to be cautious. However our government has a responsibility to protect all citizens from unsubstantiated marketing of therapies of no demonstrated value, and has a particular duty to protect vulnerable patients from being conned out of their savings for treatments that have no realistic hope of benefit, undemonstrated safety and potential significant risk. European law, directions and regulation provide a well-established framework for determining the safety and efficacy of new treatments, including lowering the bar for novel treatments for orphan or life threatening diseases. However, when companies such as this latest example rely on personal claims of benefit, but withhold access to any scientific assessment, and never publish their results on mechanisms, safety or efficacy in the properly reviewed scientific literature according to widely accepted scientific criteria, then our starting position has to be that the marketing is a scam to which the correct response should indeed be to refuse a licence, and certainly not pay for a spurious ‘treatment’ out of the public purse. The decision of the Italian minister to ride roughshod over existing European licencing criteria, which have been  establish for very sound reasons both of health and safety and of protecting patients from blatant fraud, set a dangerous precedent, perpetuating false hopes but  with considerable potential to cause real harm and distress for no actual benefit.”

Professor Roger Barker, Professor of Clinical Neuroscience at the University of Cambridge, said:

“The use of unproven stem cells therapies for patients with incurable neurological diseases causes concerns at two levels. One is the exploitation of desperate patients and families seeking cures for diseases that sadly do not have one at the moment.

“The other is that a complication or death with this type of therapy would run the risk of essentially bringing to a stop all stem cell therapies for neurological disorders and this would include some of the more promising therapies that have a strong scientific rationale for working in patients with certain types of disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.”

Professor Michele De Luca, Centre for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Modena, Italy, said:

“Not only is there no evidence that mesenchymal stromal cells (the cells used by Stamina Foundation) can cure all those diseases, there is no rationale for this and no evidence that these procedures are not dangerous for patients. The way things are being authorized is simply illegal. These decisions conflict with European and Italian regulations and laws on advanced therapies and clinical trials. This creates a dangerous precedent.  Anyone could avoid using evidence-based medicine procedures and regulations by doing what the Stamina Foundation has done – using the media and patients’ hopes to exert pressure. And English, German, French and other patients could start a sort of medical tourism and ask Stamina to provide them with such unproven therapies.”

http://www.eurostemcell.org/story/scientists-raise-alarm-italian-government-rules-unproven-stem-cell-therapy

Dr Lynn Dicks, Research Associate at the University of Cambridge and NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellow, said:

“The study finds fairly consistent exposure to neonicotinoids in free-living bumblebee colonies.  One or more of the chemicals were found in at least some colonies at all three test sites, including the control site, which was next to a 6.5 ha field of oilseed rape not treated with neonicotinoid.

“The actual neonicotinoids found in pollen and nectar collected by the colonies were not the same as the chemicals used on the treated fields the colonies were next to.  Thiamethoxam was found at the highest levels, although it was not used on the treated fields included in the experiment. Use of thiamethoxam has rapidly increased in the UK in the last three years – 250,000 ha were treated with it in 2010.

“This finding is important because it shows very clearly that this design of field trial, with bumblebee colonies placed at the edge of treated or untreated fields (fields were 6.5 to 12 ha in size) is not sufficient to compare the effects of neonicotinoid exposure against control ‘untreated’ colonies.  I am not at all surprised by this.  It is well known that bumblebees forage over several kilometres.

“Levels in bumblebee-collected nectar and pollen in the field ranged from detectable but too low to measure quantities up to an average of 2.4 μg/Kg (equivalent to parts per billion) of thiamethoxam in nectar for colonies at one site.  Average levels of 0.7 μg/Kg of thiamethoxam were found in pollen at two of the three sites.  This is lower than the 6 ppb used in pollen by the Whitehorn et al experiment, where they measured an 85% drop in queen production (Whitehorn et al. 2012), although Whitehorn used imidacloprid, which was only found below the levels of quantification at one of the sites in this study.  The different neonicotinoids do not necessarily have the same toxic or sublethal effects.

“There are not consistent and strong statistical correlations between the degree of exposure to different neonicotinoids via different routes, and colony mass or queen production, at these levels of exposure.  The study uses two statistical approaches.  Some significant effects are found, but there seem to be no cases for which a strong statistical signal is found using both approaches.  For example, one approach (potentially powerful but with strong assumptions) finds an effect of clothianidin in nectar on colony mass at end of study.  The other approach (cruder but with fewer assumptions) finds effects of all measures of neonicotinoid exposure on colony mass after 3-4 weeks, but not at the end of the study.  On queen production, little overall effect is found by either approach.

“If the effect was strong and clear, a range of different statistical approaches would detect it.  The effect here isn’t massive, or overwhelming like the effect on queen production found by Whitehorn et al.  Even at the site with the least productive colonies, they produced an average of 16 queens/ colony, which is comparable to buff-tailed bumblebee colonies measured in other situations (control colonies in Whitehorn et al.’s study produced 13 queens on average, for example).

“However looking at the data in the report (Figure 7, page 26) it seems there could be some subtle impacts on bumblebee colony performance at these exposure levels. I would like access to the raw data.

“The reporting of statistical results in this study is difficult to interpret.  The main results table (Table 7) does not explain what the different rows mean.  Results are reported as the percentage of models from 1000 partially simulated datasets that found ‘a significant effect’.  Some linear model results are given in the Appendix (p 51 onwards), but they are not well explained.  It is not clear to me how these relate to the results presented in Table 7.  We can’t easily see the strength of interactions between different response variables in these different test runs.  Does the effect of clothianidin in nectar change according to the exposure to thiamethoxam in pollen, for example?  What happens if you don’t include the simulated data for the colonies exposed at levels below the quantifiable threshold?

“The study monitored 60 buff-tailed bumblebee colonies Bombus terrestris, with 20 colonies at each of three sites in Lincolnshire or Yorkshire.  It shows, as expected, that buff-tailed bumblebees are not feeding exclusively on oilseed rape even in intensive arable landscapes in the early summer.  Only 13-26% of the pollen collected by the bumblebees was from oilseed rape.  This may also be true for nectar.

“Overall, the consistency and levels of exposure to neonicotinoids in free-living bumblebee colonies revealed by this study are not surprising, given the use of these chemicals in the landscape.  As a society, the results should make us think carefully about the impact of our agricultural practices on wild bees and other insects.  The bee species used, the buff-tailed bumblebee, is common, widespread and not known to be declining.  The findings should prompt urgent and very careful consideration of the effects of such consistent exposure on other, more vulnerable species.”

Prof Francis Ratnieks, Professor of Apiculture at the University of Sussex, said:

“The results of this study are a contribution to our knowledge on the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees.  The bumble bee, Bombus terrestris, colonies studied foraged heavily on oil seed rape (OSR), which provided over 1/3 of the pollen collected.  Most oil seed rape in the UK is treated with neonicotinoid insecticides, and as oil seed rape is a crop that has flowers that produce pollen and nectar it is an obvious and presumably major route by which bees may pick up these chemicals from the environment. 

“The colonies were set up in 3 places, one adjacent to fields of OSR untreated with neonicotinoids, and one each adjacent to fields treated with two different neonicotinoids, clothianidin and imidacloprid.  There was no difference in the proportion of young queens reared by colonies at the three locations. 

“This is interesting in the light of a lab study published in 2012 by researchers from Stirling University that found that imidacloprid reduced the proportion of queens reared by colonies of B. terrestris.  It is a pity that one group of colonies was not set up in an area without oil seed rape, or ideally with only an untreated field.  The field without oil seed rape was 1km from other fields of oil seed rape that may have been treated, and samples of pollen and nectar from colonies at this location did have thiamethoxam (in all 19 nectar samples) and in 9 of the pollen samples.  Clothianidin was also detected, but not imidacloprid. 

“Bumble bees are known to forage at distances of over 1km and it seems likely, therefore, that the colonies had found other oil seed rape fields to forage in.  Overall, the results of this study are inconclusive.  As the authors state: ‘“The absence of these effects [on colony success and on proportion of young queens reared] is reassuring but not definitive’.  More studies on colony performance under field conditions are needed, including studies on honey bees as well as bumble bees.”

Defra Chief Scientist Ian Boyd said:

“Decisions on the use of neonicotinoids must be based on sound scientific evidence.  The analysis of laboratory studies published by Defra today demonstrates that while we cannot rule out the possibility of neonicotinoids affecting pollinators we cannot be clear as to the extent of their impact.

“Some of the studies analysed did not replicate the realistic dosage which bees and other pollinators would be exposed in the natural environment.  The results of a study by Fera – also published today – into the foraging habits of bees on crops treated with neonicotinoids seems to support this assessment, as the Fera study suggests bumble bee forage over large distances.

“I therefore support the conclusions of the analysis that further data based on more realistic field trials is required.”  

Defra analysis: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/chemicals/pesticides/insecticides-bees/

Original FERA study:
http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/scienceResearch/scienceCapabilities/chemicalsEnvironment/documents/reportPS2371Mar13.pdf

Prof Francis Ratnieks, Professor of Apiculture at the University of Sussex, said:

“This is an interesting piece of work which adds to our understanding of how insecticides affect part of the honey bee brain.  The authors are careful not to oversell their results in terms of declines in bees, or the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides in bee decline.

“One of the chemicals tested was coumaphos. This has been used in the USA as a control agent against Varroa mites in the formulation CheckMite+.  But my contacts in the USA tell me that it is not widely used any more due to the mites becoming resistant.  Coumaphos is not legal for use in the UK or EC to control Varroa mites.

“Whenever lab work on the possible effects of pesticides on bees is done, the researchers have to choose appropriate doses, and should ideally work with a series of doses.  The researchers report that ‘Imidacloprid levels of up to 28 p.p.b. have been detected in plant flowers and nectar’.  However, it seems that typical concentrations, such as in the nectar of oil seed rape, are in reality lower than this.  Cresswell (2011) reviewed numerous studies on the effect of imidacloprid on honey bees and states: ‘the field-realistic range of imidacloprid concentrations is assumed to be 0.7–10 micrograms per litre’. Cresswell also comments that oilseed rape has lower levels. 

[Cresswell J. E. 2011. A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (Imidacloprid) on honey bees. Ecotoxicology 20: 149-157.]

“Bees are wonderful creatures in their own right, and are of increasing importance to our own food supply through pollination.  This makes it extremely important that we understand what affects their health and causes declines in their populations.  It’s no surprise that insecticides at high concentrations are harmful, but we don’t know whether the low levels of neonicotinoid insecticides in the nectar and pollen of treated plants, such as oil seed rape, are harmful in the real world. 

“Bee populations in the UK have been declining for a lot longer than neonicotinoid insecticides have been used.  It’s not as though we don’t have other potential causes for the declines.  The intensification of farmland, which covers 75% of Britain, is probably the most important.  This has significantly reduced the numbers of flowers and habitats for wildlife.  Practically any type of wildlife you care to name is in decline in Britain: reptiles, amphibians, birds, butterflies, moths, bumble bees, honey bees, wild flowers.

“This new research gives us basic knowledge of how these insecticides affect specific cells in the honey bee brain that play a role in honey bee learning and behaviour.  It should be remembered that insecticides are supposed to kill insects, and many of them, including those studied here, kill via effects on the nervous system.  In terms of the overall effect of neonicotinoid insecticides on bee health and bee populations, the jury is still out.  In particular, we do not know enough about the actual amounts contacted by bees as they forage and the degree to which this may result in fewer bees.

“One potential worry in the use of insecticides is that two or more may ‘synergise’; that is, combine to have an effect that is disproportionately bad on a non-target organism like a bee.  The authors state that the effects of treating bee brain with multiple chemicals ‘are additive with combined application’.  That is, the effect is not synergistic.”

‘Cholinergic pesticides cause mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees’ by Mary J. Palmer et al., published in Nature Communications on Wednesday 27th March.

Dame Sue Ion, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:

“The nuclear strategy published today is both important and unique.  Unique in that for the first time in several decades, the two departments of Government with policy responsibility for the energy sector are aligned and have made strenuous efforts to ensure that the views of a wide range of industry, academia, National Lab and individual experts have been taken into account.

“The strategy recognises that there are significant opportunities for companies in the UK supply chain to gain a foothold and begin to make their marks on the global stage in the first wave of new nuclear power stations.  However it also recognises that key investments in engineering development will have to be made to pave the way for success.

“The strategy also recognises that UK will need to plan for nuclear energy to continue to play a significant role in the UK’s energy mix through to 2050 and beyond.  This means ensuring appropriate investments are made in the fuel cycle as well as in next generation reactor technology including small modular reactors.”

The report from this Board was published on Tuesday 26 March, alongside the Government’s Nuclear Industry Strategy and other associated documents.  These set out a route to help the UK to return to the international “top table” in relation to nuclear research.

The Board came to the SMC to announce their recommendations and the Government’s response.

Speakers:

Sir John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Professor of applied population biology at Imperial College London

Dr Graham Fairhall, Chief Science and Technology Officer at the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL)

Professor David McKay, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)

Professor Robin Grimes, Director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London

Professor Andrew Sherry, Director of the Dalton Nuclear Institute at the University of Manchester

Professor John Perkins, BIS Chief Scientific Adviser

In a study to be published in The Lancet, researchers conducted a randomised controlled trial of over three hundred patients, to determine whether there was any impact on the number of patients being readmitted, the time to readmission or how long they stayed in hospital.

The researchers came to the SMC to discuss the results and implications of their work.

Speakers:

Prof Tom Burns, Chair of Social Psychiatry, University of Oxford

Dr Jorun Rugkåsa, Resarch Fellow, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford

Professor Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Professorial Research Fellow, Birkbeck, University of London, said:

“Children are born into a media-saturated world. Rather than focus on the possible adverse effects – and this study shows that they are tiny – it would be better to focus on the positive neural and cognitive changes that occur when the child actively engages with screen exposure.”

Professor Sonia Livingstone, Professor of Social Psychology, London School of Economics, said:

“At last we have a robust, longitudinal study that reveals a balanced picture. If five year olds watch more than three hours of television per day, research detects a small but noticeable negative effect on their conduct problems, though no effect on hyperactivity or emotional problems. So, no cause for panic, but good reason to ask why some children spend so much time watching television – perhaps the pressures on their parents are too great, or perhaps there are no play spaces nearby? Or maybe what matters is how children watch television: research also shows that children benefit the most from opportunities to talk, interact and play – and this can be done in front of the television as well as elsewhere.”

‘Do television and electronic games predict children’s psychosocial adjustment? Longitudinal research using the UK Millennium Cohort Study’ by Alison Parkes et al. published in Archives of Disease in Childhood on Monday 25th March.

Professor Richard Davis, who led the University of Manchester Planck team, said:

“The information extracted from Planck’s new map provides excellent confirmation of the standard model of cosmology with unprecedented accuracy and sets a new benchmark for our knowledge of the ingredients of the Universe.

“But because the precision of Planck’s map is so high, it has also revealed some unexplained anomalies in the data that require further study. Among these interesting findings are fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background over large scales that do not match what the standard model of physics predicts, including an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the skies.”

Professor Richard Battye, from the Jodrell Bank Centre of Astrophysics at The University of Manchester and part of the Manchester Planck team, said:

“Planck has provided us with a huge amount of information about the nature of the very early Universe and the fundamental processes taking place there. The data are broadly consistent with the standard picture that has emerged over the last 20 years, but there are also a number of tantalizing hints that there is something missing in our understanding. It will be fun trying to figure out what is going on.”

Professor Sir John Tooke, President of the Academy of Medical Sciences, said:

“We are delighted that a recent public dialogue has shown broad public support for permitting mitochondria replacement to prevent transmission of serious mitochondrial disease.

“It is vital that therapies which could reduce the number of children born with rare mitochondrial diseases receive the support and guidance that will see research translated to patient benefits as quickly and safely as possible.

“Given the broad public support and the advice from the HFEA we urge the Government to make changes to the legislation so that these techniques can be used in the clinic, provided that further research continues to demonstrate their safety and efficacy.”

Hugh Whittall, Director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, said:

“In its 2012 report the Council concluded that the two new techniques represent an ethically acceptable treatment option for families affected by mitochondrial disorders, provided further research shows they are likely to be sufficiently safe and effective, and that families are offered appropriate information and support. Any treatment would need to be provided under strict regulation, and long term follow up of any children born via this method would be crucial. 

“Given that only some elements of the donor egg are used, not including the cell nucleus, we have taken the view that mitochondria donors should not be treated in the same way as egg donors for IVF, for example, they should not be required later to be identifiable to those born from their donation.

“The Council concluded that the proposed treatments would be a form of germline therapy, as changes resulting from the replacement of mitochondrial DNA would be passed on to the descendants of any girls born from the techniques. However, there is a clear line between these particular techniques and germline therapies that would act on the nuclear genome. These would involve further ethical considerations and would need to be considered entirely separately.”

Ted Bianco, Acting Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“This report shows that the public is broadly in support of this research because of its potential to provide families with a history of mitochondria disease with the opportunity to have healthy children. Enabling the new techniques to be adopted by clinics as soon as the safety and effectiveness research has been completed should be a priority for legislative changes being considered by the Government in the term of this Parliament.”

Prof Doug Turnbull, Professor of Neurology and Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research at Newcastle University, said:

“Mitochondrial DNA disease runs in families and there is no cure. The techniques we are working on here in Newcastle, could help hundreds of women have healthy children.

“We are very grateful for the detailed public engagement exercise carried out by the HFEA and welcome the supportive views of most of the public.

“We understand that more research is required but believe it is crucial that the Government moves now to draft the regulations so that mitochondrial patients in the UK will have access to this treatment.”

Prof Mary Herbert, Professor of Reproductive Biology at Newcastle University, said: 

“We are currently working towards refining and perfecting the techniques with the aim of providing a safe and effective treatment to reduce the risk of mitochondrial DNA disease in the children of affected families.  It is really important that the regulatory and legal process required to permit the use of these techniques in clinical practice is progressed in parallel with the science”

Prof Alison Murdoch, Honorary Professor of Reproductive Medicine at Newcastle University, said:

“The next step is for Government to draft the regulations needed under the Human Fertility and Embryology Act so that an application can, when appropriate, be submitted to the HFEA to permit treatment.

“We welcome the HFEA’s recommendation that mitochondria donors should be thought of as tissue donors, protecting the anonymity of the donor.

“Although further discussions will be needed, we believe that the Reports submitted today are a very positive step towards achieving suitable oversight for these new treatments.”

Dr Marita Pohlschmidt, Director of Research at the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, said:

“We welcome these recommendations. There is currently no effective treatment available for mitochondrial diseases, and at this time, prevention remains our strongest option. By taking forward research into pro nuclear IVF, we move towards giving women living with these devastating and unpredictable conditions the choice to bear their own unaffected children. This technique does involve a step into new scientific territory. But it is a calculated, specific step with the sole aim of preventing a potential fatal condition from being passed down to the next generation, where possible.

“We respect that this is complex issue that generates strong views both in support and opposition. The HFEA’s consultation has been a crucial opportunity to share the realities of this IVF technique with the public, and to create open, transparent dialogue. We, and the families we work with, are grateful it has received the backing needed to move forward.

“The HFEA assures us that its recommendations will be made to the Secretary of State for Health by Easter. It has taken years to reach this stage – keeping up momentum now is vital. The Government must decide swiftly on whether regulations will go to vote in both Houses of Parliament.”

Dr Catherine Elliott, Director of Clinical Research Interests, Medical Research Council, said:

“The Medical Research Council funds research by UK scientists such as Douglas Turnbull and his team because we hope their work might one day lead to viable treatments for mitochondrial diseases. We consider that there is a compelling clinical need to assess and make these treatments available to women. To do this would require an amendment to UK law so it has been really important to engage the public in discussion and the HFEA have conducted a thorough consultation.  We recognise that there are those for whom aspects of such treatments raise ethical concerns. Parliament can now have a clearer view of what the wider public think and we hope that this will assist them in providing the legal framework needed to help those families affected by these distressing conditions.” 

Hugh Whittall, Director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, said:

“We welcome the HFEA’s work to explore public opinion on these potentially groundbreaking techniques and look forward to seeing how the Government will respond to the outcomes of the consultation.

“The Council concluded that the two new techniques represent an ethically acceptable treatment option for families affected by mitochondrial disorders, provided further research shows they are likely to be sufficiently safe and effective, and that families are offered appropriate information and support. Long term follow up of any children born via this method would be crucial. 

“Given that only some elements of the donor egg are used, not including the cell nucleus, we do not believe that it is legally or biologically correct to refer to the mitochondrial donor as ‘third parent’ of the resulting child. We therefore argue that mitochondria donors should not be treated in the same way as egg donors for IVF, for example, they should not be required later to be identifiable to those born from their donation.”

Sarah Norcross, director of Progress Educational Trust, said:

“UK scientists are leading the way in the prevention of inherited mitochondrial disease. Now, with the public voicing its clear support, UK policymakers can lead the way in showing how policy and regulation can keep pace with scientific developments, so that patients can benefit without delay.

“Techniques to prevent inherited mitochondrial disease received the green light from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics last year, and have now received the green light from the general public. We urge the government not to create unnecessary roadblocks, and to pass legislation so that families blighted by mitochondrial disease can benefit from these techniques.”

The outcomes of the consultation were announced at this briefing, giving an overview of the public views expressed and a scientific update on the efficacy and safety of the mitochondria replacement techniques (Maternal Spindle Transfer and Pronuclear Transfer).

Speakers:

Professor Neva Haites, Chair of the expert group overseeing the consultation, Chair of the panel which produced the scientific report and former HFEA Authority Member.

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, member of the expert group overseeing the consultation and member of the panel which produced the scientific report

Juliet Tizzard, Head of Policy and Communications, HFEA.

Hannah Darby, Senior Policy Manager, HFEA.

Speakers:

Dr Pauline Heslop, Research Fellow, (lead author of the study) Norah Fry Research Centre, University of Bristol

Prof Peter Fleming, Professor of Infant Health & Developmental Physiology, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol

Prof Jim Watson, Research Director, UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), said:

“Today’s planning consent for Hinkley C is only one of several steps that need to be taken before this plant can be built. A more important decision concerns the level of financial support consumers will provide to EdF Energy. That decision has not yet been made. Because there is no competition to build this particular plant, it is essential that the government protects the interests of consumers in the on-going negotiations – and minimises the risk that they will pay too much for this or any other low carbon electricity project.”

Prof Andrew H. Sherry FREng, Director of the Dalton Nuclear Institute at The University of Manchester, said:

“This decision is good news for the UK.  As a low carbon source of electricity, new nuclear build will help the UK meet its challenging but necessary 2050 carbon reduction target.  While there remain some issues to overcome, the building of new nuclear power stations, including that at Hinkley Point C, will create thousands of new jobs and will contribute significantly to economic growth — particularly in sectors such as manufacturing and construction.”

Professor John Hardy, Professor of Neuroscience, UCL, said:

“This is a terrible blow to the UK Pharma industry.  While I am sure it has many interrelated causes, the following factors must have played a part: first, short-termism in terms of the need for longterm investment in drug development pipelines (it has always proven easier for companies to get quick money for their shareholders by mergers) and second, a hostile regulatory climate towards animal, especially rodent, work.  The contrasting history of the pharma industry in the UK compared with that in Switzerland and Germany is informative in these regards.  Our German/Swiss counterparts are still thriving whilst the UK industry has largely disappeared.  Poor leadership and heavy handed regulation are undoubtedly part of the problem.”

Steve Bates, BioIndustry Association (BIA) Chief Executive Officer, said:

“I am pleased that AstraZeneca has seen the value of the UK as a global hub for bioscience and we welcome its £330 million investment in consolidating its R&D activities and its global headquarters in Cambridge.

“AstraZeneca’s decision recognises the strengths of the UK in terms of its science base, biotech capabilities and position as a leading centre for business.”

President of the British Pharmacological Society (BPS), Professor Phil Routledge, said:

“The AstraZeneca team at Alderley Park has been a key player in UK drug development and it should be recognised that many lives have been saved due to its development of important medicines, including the beta-blockers discovered by BPS member and Nobel Prize winning pharmacologist, Sir James Black during his time with the then ICI Laboratories. BPS has successfully provided careers support for its members through periods of change in the recent past. We are working with cross-sector partners to try to future-proof both UK pharmacology and the skills of our pharmacologists. At the same time, we warmly welcome new models for drug discovery capabilities and any investment they might result in.”

David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, said:

“AstraZeneca’s decision to invest £330 million in a world leading R&D facility in Cambridge is a real vote of confidence in the UK life sciences sector.

“They chose to make this major investment in the UK after considering options around the world.  Our strategy for life sciences provides a very competitive environment in the UK to conduct highly skilled research keeping us ahead in the global race.”

In response to plans for Alderley Park, David Willetts said,

“Clearly the decision to reduce R&D activity at Alderley Park is disappointing.  But the government will work closely with AstraZeneca and local partners to ensure this excellent facility has a prosperous future with new opportunities for the site.

“I have agreed with AstraZeneca and local leaders that a taskforce will be established to coordinate work to support Alderley Park staff and the local economy during the transition. This will work to ensure a sustainable, thriving future for the site. The Taskforce will be jointly led by Chris Brinsmead, the Government’s Life Sciences Champion, and Clive Morris, a Vice President of AstraZeneca, alongside local partners.”

Dr Mark Downs, Chief Executive of the Society of Biology, said:

“It is a sad day for many in the UK’s pharmaceutical industry. On top of the closure of the Pfizer Sandwich site this latest announcement of at least 700 job losses at AstraZeneca risks further reducing the UK’s collective capability in Drug Development. The UK is a world leader in the field and we must ensure we retain the key skills and people to continue this strong track record. The Cambridge investment is a hopeful step but many more of these large scale collaborations are needed to ensure we can address the significant need to develop new medicines.”

Beck Smith, Acting Director of The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), said:

“AstraZeneca’s decision to build a new strategic centre in Cambridge shows just how important accessing the best research and opportunities for collaboration are to industry.  However, it’s disappointing that today’s announcement is coupled with job losses at existing sites. 

“The Government must continue to invest in our world-leading research base to ensure that we are not only seen as a place to locate by industry, but also supportive of UK researchers and innovators starting their own companies.”

Dr Lynn Dicks, Research Associate at the University of Cambridge and NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellow, said:

“We know that some wild insect species in the UK, such as certain moth, butterfly and ground beetle species, are declining in numbers dramatically.  At the same time, use of insecticides in agriculture is increasing in terms of total treated area of land.  It is really no surprise to find that insecticides kill insects.  They are designed to.  They are unlikely to be the sole cause of falling insect numbers and diversity, but they represent one of a set of multiple interacting threats that seems to be driving declines.

“If we care about maintaining healthy ecosystems in farmed landscapes, we should aim to reduce the impacts of insecticides by using them as sparingly and efficiently as possible, if at all.  This means managing commercial crops in a way that relies less on insecticides, and making the best use of natural pest control services provided by ecosystems.  This strategy has not been the focus of much publicly funded research so far, so there are probably many new developments to come.  To me, the neonicotinoids represent a step in the opposite direction.  They are usually applied as a seed treatment, which means they are used whether or not there is a pest problem.  It’s similar to the prophylactic use of antibiotics in livestock farming.

“The key question in responding to today’s EU vote not to suspend neonicotinoid use is: would this ban have been a step towards achieving long term reduction in insecticide use?  I think not.  The European Union is already taking steps towards that, by requiring plant protection products of concern to be monitored, with timetables and targets for reduction of their use.  This seems a better approach, more likely to help bees and other insects in the long term.”

Dr James Cresswell, Ecotoxicologist at the University of Exeter, said:

“While recent research based on artificial dosing shows that neonicotinoids can harm bees, uncertainty remains over the severity of environmentally realistic conditions.  That science has not yet produced unequivocal answers to questions about severity.  This has put policy makers in a difficult position and so they have reason to act cautiously.”

Prof David Goulson, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Stirling, said:

“I am sorry to see that this vote has not been passed.  The panel of independent experts at EFSA spent 6 months studying all the evidence before concluding that current use of neonicotinoids posed an unacceptable risk to bees.  There is now a clear and consistent body of evidence showing that field-realistic exposure of bumblebees feeding on treated crops is likely to cause them significant harm.

“The EFSA and almost everybody else (apart from the manufacturers) agree that this class of pesticides were not adequately evaluated in the first place.  Yet politicians choose to ignore all of this.  Presumably their opinions were swayed by the spurious claims that restricting use of these insecticides will cause vast economic losses to farming; claims that are not backed up by evidence.”

Prof Lin Field, Head of Biological Chemistry and Crop Protection at Rothamsted Research, said:

“I am very pleased that a sound scientific risk approach has been taken in this deliberation.  In my view there is still is not enough clear evidence supporting a ban on neonicotinoids.  Of course they can kill bees, they are insecticides; but whether they actually do this, or whether sublethal effects occur and damage the colonies on any important scale, has not been proven.

“Indeed there are many other factors likely to affect bee colonies (e.g. the varroa mite, the bee viruses the mite spreads, the pesticides used to kill the varroa, climate effects, flower supplies) which need to be taken into consideration.

“So should we apply the ‘precautionary principle’ and ban neonicotinoids just in case?  Well, on the face of it that might be the best solution but it takes no account of the ‘risk’ of the ban on our ability to control insect pests and secure crop yields.  Securing and increasing crop yields for food security has been identified as a priority in Europe and this will require a crop protection strategy to avoid unnecessary loss of yields.

“At present, and for the immediate future, the control of insect pests (and the crop diseases they vector) will rely heavily on the use of chemical insecticides until we find reliable and effective alternatives.  That said, we should not ignore the potential implications of pesticide use on pollinators as the health, viability and resilience of managed and wild pollinators are essential to a delivering food security, farmer livelihood, ecosystem functioning and general well-being of the public.  

“We need a proper science-led risk assessment to understand the effects of pesticides (and their active ingredients) on bees, whilst considering the effects on other pollinators (both wild and managed), within the context of farming practice and the wider ecosystem.  This will help us balance the risks and benefits for crop protection, crop pollination, ecosystem function and our health appropriately.  More work is required to get these data.”

Prof Valerie Beral, Professor of Epidemiology at the University Of Oxford, said:

“I don’t think this paper really tells us anything about HRT as a cause of breast cancer.  Scientists would rarely – if ever – infer cause and effect from cancer trends.  Breast cancer trends can be influenced by many factors including childbearing patters, changes in obesity, alcohol consumption, and screening practices; so the effect of HRT simply can’t be teased out by looking at trends alone.

“What we do know from several dozen studies is that, almost without exception, use of HRT increases the risk of breast cancer; and when use is stopped the risk goes away within about 5 years.”

‘Does hormone replacement therapy (HRT) cause breast cancer?  An application of causal principles to three studies’ by Samuel Shapiro et al published in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care on Thursday 14th March.

Speakers: 

Sir Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychological Medicine and co-director of King’s Centre for Military Health Research at King’s College London

Dr Deirdre MacManus, forensic psychiatrist and clinical lecturer at King’s College London

Dr Nicola Fear, epidemiologist and co-director of the King’s Centre for Military Health Research at King’s College London

Prof Patrick Wolfe, Royal Society Research Fellow and Professor of Statistics at University College London, said:

“It is important to remember that neither this study by Bhatti et al nor the commentary by Erren is claiming that working nights over the long term directly causes cancer–rather that there may be an association or hidden linkage between the two (such as a continued disruption in circadian rhythms affecting the body’s production of melatonin).  Both articles recommend that follow-up work should try to refine this understanding by assessing in detail whether participants are ‘lark’-like or ‘owl’-like (referred to as ‘chronotype’)–the idea being that this may provide greater insight into the degree of disruption of circadian rhythms experienced by these two types of nightshift work.” 

“There are huge challenges in progressing from laboratory experiments with rats to large-scale epidemiological studies, and as the authors note, their work should be seen as a first step in teasing out the possibility of an association.  They are correctly cautious in noting 3 factors in particular: first, the only previous similar study did not find evidence of an association, which might be because it did not collect data on long-term night shift working; second, they saw evidence of an effect only in the set of subject who were 50 years of age or older; and third, they did not see an effect that increased with increasing duration of long-term nightshift work.”

Dr Paul Pharoah, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology at the University of Cambridge, said:

“This paper reports that night shift work might be associated with a small increase in risk of ovarian cancer (from a lifetime risk of 18 per 1000 to lifetime risk of 24 in 1000).  However, the evidence is weak.  

“In this study it would not have been possible to control for all possible factors that might be associated with ovarian cancer risk.  The fact that there was no evidence that increasing amounts of night shift work were associated with increasing risk brings into question the causal nature of the association.  

“Further work is required, but night shift work and the associated changes in sleep patterns and hormones is incredibly complex and studies that will generate robust results are exceptionally hard to do.  I’d be very surprised if this reported association were confirmed in the next ten years.”

Prof Valerie Beral, Professor of Epidemiology at the University Of Oxford, said:

“The authors themselves state that this evidence is weak and should not be used to conclude that shift work causes cancer.  I agree.   There could be a number of factors at play.  One important one is that women who do shift work have fewer children; the pattern is very marked, and it matters to ovarian cancer even more than breast cancer. 

“We already know that having children reduces risk of ovarian cancer by an additional 15-20% for every birth.  If shift workers are having fewer children it could partly account for their higher incidence of ovarian cancer.  In addition, in a study like this it is quite possible that those women with cancer are more likely to recall shift work patterns, especially if they are looking for causes of their cancer.  So we must be ultra-cautious about interpreting these results.

“But shift work does merit further investigation, and in our own study, funded by the HSE, we will look specifically at women doing shift work and track their health over time.  This should give a more reliable indication.”

‘Nightshift work and risk of ovarian cancer’ by Parveen Bhatti et al. published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine  on Thursday 14th March.

Prof Paddy Regan, Professor of  Nuclear Physics, University of Surrey, said:

“The proposed Higgs boson fundamental particle measured to be consistent with the standard model assumption just goes to show how good a description of the subatomic world the standard model is. Other big issues such as the nature of dark matter look like they might need other experiments in other size and energy regimes to unravel.”

Prof Jonathan Ball, Professor of Molecular Virology at the University of Nottingham, said:

“This study shows that the mass swine influenza vaccination campaign in the US during 2009 was associated with an increase in the cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome. However the increase was tiny and the benefits of vaccination against this potentially deadly virus far outweigh the risks.

“The important thing is to try to understand how this vaccine might cause this debilitating illness so that hopefully in future this very small risk can be removed.”

Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School, said:

“This paper reconfirms that the benefits of inactivated injected flu vaccine greatly outweigh the risks. It also reminds doctors who recommend immunisation and the public who receives it that they are making risk-benefit judgements when they use vaccines, in just the same way as when they make other everyday decisions, for example to drive a car, play sport or drink alcohol. The value of detailed studies like this is that those decisions become more accurately informed.”

‘Association between Guillain-Barré syndrome and influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent inactivated vaccines in the USA: a meta-analysis’ by Daniel A Salmon et al. published in The Lancet on Wednesday 13^th March.

Dr Michael Moore, Reader in Primary Care Research at the University of Southampton, GP, and Clinical Champion for Antimicrobial Stewardship for the Royal College of GPs, said:

“Antibiotics have come to be used more widely than was really needed for conditions such as common colds and infections that will get better naturally or respond better to other treatments. Patients have got used to this and both GPs and patients often worry about more serious infections; this can make it difficult for GPs to prescribe appropriately. Reducing unnecessary prescribing will need a partnership between patients and their doctors to understand when antibiotics are not needed and when to visit the doctor.

“The focus of research in Southampton has been to identify alternative strategies for GPs to use when faced with these tricky prescribing decisions. These might be through using clinical scores or near patient tests to identify those most likely to benefit from antibiotics, or improving consultation skills or identifying alternative ways of relieving symptoms.

“Antibiotics are still needed for serious infections; we need to make sure they are used appropriately to preserve essential antibiotics for the future.  We welcome this report which will highlight the dangers of overprescribing antibiotics. Patients need to be more aware of when antibiotics are needed and this report will help to get this message across.”

Prof Christopher Thomas, Professor of Molecular Genetics, University of Birmingham, said:

“Any reassessment of antimicrobial resistance that results in it being increased as a public health priority will help us not only enforce the immediate actions that can prevent the spread of resistance but also invest in research into new ways to combat the threat it poses. While better surveillance, hygiene and restricted use of antibiotics can slow the spread of resistance we also need new ways to kill resistant bacteria or reduce their carriage of resistance genes.  Novel approaches that might have appeared unrealistic a few years ago need to be explored if they hold a chance of helping us tackle this issue.  For example carriage of resistant bacteria by healthy individuals continues to rise, e.g. in old people in care homes and other institutions.   Novel approaches that can reduce such carriage could contribute significantly to tackling this threat”

Prof Laura Piddock, Professor of Microbiology and Deputy Director of The Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, & Director, Antibiotic Action, said:

“I’m very glad that the Chief Medical Officer is recognising the antibiotic discovery void, which has been widely reported elsewhere in the last decade, and that she is now calling for politicians to treat this seriously. Equally it is very important that people use antibiotics properly, in order to preserve their utility. My colleagues and I applaud the activities and awareness-raising that she is undertaking on this issue.

“Antibiotic Action (antibiotic-action.com) has been calling for action since November 2011, and we are delighted to see this being highlighted in the public eye. We ask everyone to sign our petition to help raise awareness of this impending medical crisis.

“However, there are an increasing number of infections for which there are virtually no therapeutic options, and we desperately need new discovery, research and development; the UK is extremely well-placed to do basic discovery and research for new antibacterial molecules.

“I also welcome her call for this issue to be placed on the national risk register, as antibiotic resistance was highlighted in the recent global risks register discussed at the World Economic Forum in January, for which I was an expert adviser.”

Professor Nigel Brown, President of the Society for General Microbiology, said:

“Professor Dame Sally Davies rightly flags the issue of antimicrobial resistance to be of national and international concern. Urgent action is required by microbiologists and other scientists to identify and produce new antibiotics, and to tackle the problem of antibiotic resistance and its transmission.

“The Society for General Microbiology has brought these issues to the attention of its members in the November 2012 issue of Microbiology Today. Our members will be working on understanding infectious disease processes, reducing transmission of antibiotic resistance, helping develop new antibiotics and educating the users of antibiotics about these issues. The techniques of microbiology and new developments such as synthetic biology will be crucial in achieving this.”

Emeritus Professor Richard James, former Director of the Centre for Healthcare Associated Infections, University of Nottingham, said:

“Dame Sally Davies is to be congratulated in making clear the seriousness of the problem of antimicrobial resistance and proposing 17 recommendations to try to counter this threat.

“Anyone reading the report will realise that there are no magic bullets.

“The majority of the 17 recommendations relate to actions in the UK alone but there is acknowledgement of the requirement for the UK Government to campaign for this issue to be given higher priority internationally.

“If international agreement on the required global actions can be reached then a regular audit of the progress of each country could be carried out by the WHO.”

“My opinion:

“I would stress the importance of an integrated strategy that concentrated on the requirement for effective global action that included:

• Further measures to promote the development of new antibiotics by small biotechnology companies and universities, including alternatives – i.e. quorum sensing inhibitors, bacteriocins and vaccines. Antibiotic discovery is difficult, expensive and even if successful, is challenged by the rapid development of resistance. The use of antibiotics is the ultimate Darwinian selection.

• Improved surveillance of the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is excellent in the UK/EU but needs improving in many other countries so that we can monitor the emergence of new antimicrobial resistance threats and monitor their spread globally.

• Effective antibiotic stewardship to prevent the overuse/misuse of antibiotics. Examples would include stopping over the counter sales of antibiotics in Southern Europe; reduce use in farming, including fish farming etc.

• Explore economic measures, such as a tax on antibiotic use, to prevent a “tragedy of the commons” scenario.

• Better education of doctors and patients on why antibiotic use should be restricted. It may be in the patient’s interest to be prescribed antibiotics but this could be detrimental to society.

• Improved infection control in hospitals to prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

• Improved rapid diagnostic tests to inform antibiotic prescribing of infected patients.

• Acknowledgment of the interaction between social conditions and the spread of infection, i.e. TB spread amongst the disadvantaged in inner cities; urban populations in India that lack access to sanitation, Carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriacae in care homes in the USA.”

Catherine Collins, Principal Dietitian at St George’s Hospital NHS Trust, said:

“This population study showed that processed meats were associated with an increased risk of heart disease. It also showed they were more weakly associated with an increased risk of cancer, although this was not statistically significant across all the models they used. (Previous studies have suggested a link between processed meat intake and bowel cancer). The risks of heart disease appeared greater the more processed meats were consumed, with intakes above 40g a day suggesting an increased population risk of premature death from heart disease. The reason for this can’t be established from this study, but saturated fat content, salt and nitrates, and ‘burnt proteins’ (heterocyclic amines) from the cooking process may all play some part. However, it’s impossible to estimate personal risk from this data as other factors – such as the overall diet and lifestyle choices (such as obesity, smoking, exercise) could potentiate the effect of diet even though accounted for in the data.

“Should we be concerned in the UK? Our most recent government National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) suggests the average adult intake of processed meats (burgers, kebabs, meat pies, sausages and other meat products) averages a measly 37g a day, so not really something to worry about. However, it did show that for some adults up to 100g of processed meats daily was the norm. Whilst not as risky as this study’s top range of over 150g/d, it does suggest that those living on a daily diet of pies and sausages would be at potentially increased risk.

“There are problems in collecting the data as in any large study of this type, such as accuracy of recall, and how exactly would you code a pepperoni pizza? Processed meat or cheese dish? So the take home message for the public is to choose a variety of meats (red meat is fine), include more chicken and fish dishes, and why not add a vegetarian, egg or cheese dish as a meat substitute a couple of times a week?”

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, University of Cambridge, said:

“If we took these findings at face value, 50g of processed meat a day would be associated with losing around 2 years off your life expectancy – that’s as if a daily sausage or bacon sandwich were taking an hour off your life. But I would judge that this is too much – there are a lot of assumptions underlying their risk estimates, in particular the effects of smoking and the way of dealing with errors in assessing how much processed meat was eaten.”

Prof Tom Sanders, Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, Kings College London, said:

“This a pan European study, it demonstrates a weak association but is confounded by the association of processed meat consumption with low social class and cigarette smoking. Tobacco use is such an enormously potent factor that it contaminates the findings of the study. Does this mean we should not eat processed meat like ham, bacon, sausages, burgers? There are reasons to advocate only eating them occasionally because they tend to be high in salt or saturated fat. But I find 20g figure hard to swallow based on predicted effects on known risk factors.”

‘Meat consumption and mortality – results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition’ by Rohrmann et al. is published  in BMC Medicine. 

Researchers from the University of East Anglia have attempted to quantify the deer population across land in East Anglia.  They find that current approaches to deer management are failing to contain the problem, with a cull of over 50% of deer necessary just to stabilise current populations, and higher culling needed if damage by deer is to be reduced.

The research was conducted in East Anglia, but the findings are equally relevant to deer concentrations across Britain.  Would such a policy be acceptable to the public?  Would it become more acceptable if verifiable, healthy venison were cheaply and readily available in the shops?

The work is published in Wiley’s Journal of Wildlife Management.  

Speakers:

Dr Paul M Dolman, Lecturer in Ecology at the University of East Anglia (UEA)

Dr Kristin Wäber, Research Fellow at UEA

Professor Emeritus Alun Evans, Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University of Belfast, said:

“This huge, well-conducted prospective study demonstrates a very significant association between the number of symptoms of poor sleep at baseline and the development of heart failure a decade later.  Could this association be causal?  Links between sleep disturbances/deprivation and childhood overweight and learning impairment, and adult obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and cognitive dysfunction have been reported previously.  How might these diverse conditions be linked?

“An entirely separate intervention study has recently shown that sleep deprivation affects the expression of several hundred of our genes.  These findings could point to causal mechanisms.”

Dr Tim Chico, Senior Clinical Lecturer and honorary Consultant Cardiologist at the University of Sheffield/Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said:

“Heart failure is caused by reduced efficiency of the heart to pump blood, and often causes symptoms such as shortness of breath, tiredness, ankle swelling and distension of the abdomen.  Our ability to treat heart failure has improved massively in the last few years, with many hospitals setting up specific heart failure clinics and services.  Diagnosis of heart failure usually involves an ultrasound scan of the heart, blood tests and an assessment by a specialist.

“This is an ‘association study’; it links insomnia to heart failure, but does not prove that insomnia causes heart failure or vice versa.  Studies like this raise interesting suggestions that need further work to examine.  Insomnia is a very unpleasant condition, but there are effective lifestyle changes that can reduce it, such as weight loss and exercise.  Luckily, many of the things that reduce the chance of heart failure also reduce insomnia; good diet, exercise, weight loss and not smoking.”

‘Insomnia and the risk of incident heart failure: a population study’ by Lars E. Laugsand et al. published in the European Heart Journal on Wednesday 6 March.  

Prof Jonathan Ball, Professor of Molecular Virology at the University of Nottingham, said:

“It is difficult to comment accurately as it is unclear how the baby was diagnosed as being HIV positive. If the baby was tested for the presence of virus (using a genome detection assay), and not too early after birth, and has subsequently been shown to be negative then this is good news.

“However, the preference should always be to prevent so-called vertical transmission – where a mother passes HIV to her unborn child – in the first instance, by diagnosing infection in the mother and then treating it effectively during pregnancy.

“Using HIV drugs to prevent infection following exposure to the virus isn’t new, but it’s difficult to know on a case by case basis if it worked. Not every exposure to HIV results in a new infection – it’s like playing Russian roulette; only one chamber contains a bullet – so if you remain HIV negative you don’t know if you cleared the virus or simply didn’t get infected in the first place.”

Dr John Frater, University Research Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Physician at Oxford University, said:

“The reported cure of a child infected with HIV-1 has created much excitement amongst physicians and researchers into HIV eradication.  The case appears to be one in which an HIV positive child was treated within hours of birth with potent anti-HIV drugs.

“Normally, when an HIV positive patient stops therapy the virus comes back very quickly – this did not happen for this child.  The researchers have looked for virus in the blood plasma and cells but could not find any convincing sign of on-going infection.  They have concluded that the early therapy has somehow led to the eradication of the virus from the child – a cure. 

“However, two questions remain.  Was the child really infected; and is this ‘cure’ going to be sustained?  The researchers have some convincing evidence for the former, however only time will tell if the virus will eventually come back.  They have used very sophisticated tests to look for virus in the blood, but it can also hide elsewhere in the body. 

“The message for the research community, though, is a strong one – if patients can be identified very soon after infection, there may be a therapeutic approach that can induce this form of ‘remission’ or ‘cure’ on a wider basis.  On-going research in Oxford and more widely across the UK through the CHERUB collaboration – the UK’s platform for HIV cure research – will hopefully provide further answers to these questions over the next few years.”

Professor Peter Piot, Director of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and former Executive Director of UNAIDS, said:

“This is great news and a proof of concept that curing HIV infection is a possibility – even if much more research will be needed to make a cure a reality for patients.  Provision of antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy has proven effective in preventing HIV transmission from mother to child, and this could be the first case in which the virus has been shown to be eliminated within a baby born with HIV infection.

“In terms of the wider picture, however, it is clear that AIDS will be with us for generations to come.  Despite the more widespread availability of antiretroviral drugs, incidence of infection is still on the increase in several parts of the world, and it is vital to co-ordinate efforts at effective prevention as well as treatment.”

Genevieve Edwards, Director of Health Improvement at Terrence Higgins Trust, said:

“This is interesting, but the child will need careful ongoing follow-up for us to understand the long-term implications and any potential for other babies born with HIV.  In the UK we already have a programme of ante-natal screening for HIV, which means that there are very few babies born with the virus.  Expectant mothers with HIV are given anti-HIV treatment during pregnancy which together with a low-risk caesarean and no breastfeeding means their babies have a 98% chance of being HIV negative.  But this could be of interest where mothers to be are diagnosed with HIV during labour rather than pregnancy.

“The roll-out of anti-retroviral therapy across the developing world has both saved the lives of individuals living with HIV, and also had a real impact on the rates of mother-to-child transmission.  In this context, it would seem that success lies in making antenatal testing available and then giving the drugs to the mother to prevent the child getting HIV, rather than hoping the drugs will cure the baby once born HIV positive.  But for those babies born with the virus, this may be significant.”

Prof Jim Smith, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Portsmouth, said:

“The WHO report is a major step forward in our understanding of the likely health consequences of the Fukushima accident.  Apart from the emergency workers, the most affected people were those who remained in some highly contaminated towns and villages to the northwest of the power station for up to four months before evacuation. The report found that these people received a lifetime radiation dose of up to 50 milli-Sieverts (mSv) and therefore have a significant, but relatively small, additional risk of contracting cancer in later life.

“Whilst serious, this additional radiation exposure is not high compared to exposures received by all people worldwide from natural background radiation and diagnostic medical procedures.  For example, the average British person receives over 150 mSv during their lifetime from background radiation, and in some areas natural radiation exposures are much higher.  Around 200 emergency workers at Fukushima received an average radiation dose of about 200 mSv.

“The report does not yet present data on numbers of people who received particular radiation doses, so it is not as yet possible to estimate overall health consequences.  However, the report’s findings imply that, as expected, the health consequences of Fukushima (in particular the incidence of thyroid cancer) will be much less than those of the Chernobyl accident.  The report highlights the importance of potential social and psychological impacts of the accident on the affected populations as well as the direct health effects.”

Jim Thurston, medical radiation expert at the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, said:

“The report appears to be a very well-considered assessment, showing that as a result of the radiation doses received by the most-exposed group of the general population living near the plant (12-25mSv), any increases in the cancer incidence rate in the general population local to the plant will be very small and barely detectable (overall a 1% increase on the ~30% normal lifetime incidence rate for all solid cancers together), and will be hidden within the normal random fluctuations in a population.  Furthermore, the increases in cancer due to the doses received by other populations will be extremely small and certainly won’t be detectable. 

“It is important to emphasise the normal incidence rates for solid tumour type cancers – near 1 in 3 of the population will get cancer in their lifetime, and that the terrible events at Fukushima have led to only a very small incremental increase in that normal incidence rate.  Even for the worst-case scenario in terms of a specific cancer – thyroid cancer in females, for which the survival rate is very high – the increases implies that the lifetime incidence rate will only rise from approximately 0.75% to 1.25%.

“These predictions are based on a standard radiation dose–risk model, called the ‘linear-quadratic’ model.  This model predicts that at the low doses received as a result of the incident the response is roughly linear – i.e. double the radiation dose received means double the risk, and no lower level below which radiation can’t cause harm.  It is a compromise between a lot of data gathered over the decades since Hiroshima and Nagasaki – a compromise between data that might suggest that radiation is more harmful at lower dose then the model predicts, and other data that shows the exact opposite.  Overall, the linear-quadratic model remains the best model for predicting the risk of harm from radiation exposure to a population from both external irradiation and the ingestion of radioactive contamination.

“The executive summary and press release go on to state that of course these predictions will be followed up with continued long-term monitoring of the population to look at the actual cancer incidence rates over the future years and decades.  Experience of previous incidents and accidents would suggest that this report’s predictions will, if anything, overestimate the subsequent excess cancer incidence rates measured.”

Prof Richard Wakeford, Visiting Professor at Dalton Nuclear Institute at the University of Manchester and contributor to the WHO report, said:

“The release of radioactive materials into the environment during the Fukushima nuclear accident was substantial; but based on measurement data, the radiation doses received by the surrounding population are small, even for the most exposed communities.

“These doses produce an extra risk of cancer over a lifetime of about 1% at most, in addition to background lifetime cancer risks from all other causes of, on average, 40% for men and 29% for women.  The extra cancer risk is much lower than this outside the most exposed communities.  Radiation exposure from the Fukushima accident has had only a small impact on the overall health of the nearby population, and much less outside the most affected areas.”

WHO Fukushima health risk report:
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_report/en/index.html

Prof Christopher James, Professor of Healthcare Technology at the University of Warwick, said:

“This paper is quite an interesting improvement on our earlier work of 2009 where we showed that brain to brain (B2B) communication is a possibility.  Using implanted electrodes (in animals) it is possible to more accurately extract information from specific brain areas, and, more importantly, to excite specific areas in the ‘decoder’ rat.

“What this shows is that we have already had the technology for a while to do all aspects of this B2B operation – extracting the information, transmitting it and stimulating.  Yet it remains crude – cracking a walnut with a sledge-hammer!  We are limited to specific brain areas (not diffuse or multiple sources), we are unsure of the stimulation patterns to use (although in this paper they approximated this well enough), and we can stimulate a specific brain site.  What this means is that we are not transmitting any complex thoughts here – so it’s not ‘I’m thinking of an animal, can you think it too?’  Rather, we are sending specific messages to specific brain sites.

“So in the case of the decoder rat, it will more often than not choose a specific left or right leg movement – not through some ‘higher power telling it what to do’ but rather because the site for left or right limb is being blasted by a gross signal influencing the choice.  One imagines that the rat has no clue this is happening, just that one limb becomes preferred.  Could you call this mind control?  Well, even that is a gross exaggeration: in reality it’s only ‘influence’ and even then only 65% of the time!  We are far from a scenario of well-networked rats around the world uniting to take us over, the stimulation is crude and specific, but nonetheless the claim of a distributed network is true – albeit mainly of interest to computer scientists fascinated by the prospect.

“The main difference to our work is that we relied on the existing senses to directly input information.  Leap into the future by, say, 50 years: if you could stimulate MANY multiple sites and we knew what patterns to use and when, then we may well be able to conjure up complex ‘thoughts’, because abstract thoughts are harder to read and represent; but not impossible technologically.  We can already do that as I’ve said, we just need to understand the brain better.

“Finally, as for the ethics: I struggle to think of any applications that would not have ethical issues.  My favourite is that of an air traffic controller, a high stress job that can also be boring and repetitive.  If an impending crash were detected, could the controller be alerted using this ‘sixth sense’, bypassing visual and auditory alarms and going straight for a more direct route?  As to the question of ‘why do this at all?’  Well, it just may be (and this is pure speculation on my part) that such a sixth sense might be faster at passing information than the eyes, ears etc. – which can take quite a few milliseconds to process complex thoughts.  Perhaps information, at its most basic level, can be transferred fastest brain-to-brain.”

‘A Brain-to-Brain Interface for Real-Time Sharing of Sensorimotor Information’ by Miguel Pais-Vieira et al., published in Scientific Reports  on Thursday 28 February.

Dr Alison Lennox, Principal Investigator Scientist, MRC Human Nutrition Research, said:

“The findings of this paper are interesting, but it is difficult to say how they apply to the UK, because adults’ sugar consumption has not risen. Sugar intakes by adults in the UK have not increased over the past decade, according to data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey.

“The paper relies on sugar availability data, and the potential problem with that is where food wastage increases, as it has done in western countries, then food availability could rise while the actual amount of food consumed stays the same or even falls. It would be valuable to see if the association between sugar and diabetes still holds when compared to dietary consumption.”

UK daily sugar intakes (called non-milk extrinsic sugars)

Adults

2000-01 63.3g

2008-11 60.0g

Children 4-10 years old

1997 73.5g

2008-11 61.3g

Children 11-18 years old

1997 81.6

2008-11 73.7g

The latest National Diet & Nutrition Survey data can be found at http://transparency.dh.gov.uk/2012/07/25/ndns-3-years-report/  in the Chapter 5 Tables (Table 5.4 – NMEs).

Professor Brian Ratcliffe, Professor of Nutrition, Robert Gordon University, said:

 “This paper describes a carefully considered epidemiological study across over 137 countries relating the prevalence of diabetes to FAO food supply data and other factors such as the prevalence of obesity.  The authors show an interesting link between the supply of sugar and the prevalence of diabetes but they have stressed that this adds to the debate but does not demonstrate that sugar intake is causing diabetes.  The effect of sugar seemed not to be related simply to effects on energy intake or obesity.  It is interesting that they also showed a powerful link for GDP per capita indicating that a nation’s wealth is related to the prevalence of diabetes.”

‘The Relationship of Sugar to Population-Level Diabetes Prevalence: An Econometric Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Data’ by Basu et al., published in PLOS ONE , on Wednesday 27th February.

Prof Jonathan Ball, Professor of Molecular Virology at the University of Nottingham, said:

“This paper confirms a previous association between administration of a specific formulation of the swine flu pandemic vaccine and incidence of narcolepsy in children. It does not indicate why this association might exist and, as the authors point out, it is not clear whether these children would have gone on to develop this later anyway.

“The normal seasonal flu vaccine contains different ingredients and has proven to be very safe.  We mustn’t forget that flu can, in some vulnerable people especially the young and the old, be a very serious illness – so it is crucial that people continue to be vaccinated against seasonal flu.

“What the study does indicate is that further work is needed to assess the impact of these newer vaccine formulations, which were used because of a very specific need that arose due to the emergence of a new pandemic strain of the virus.”

Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics at University of Bristol Medical School, said:

“It is now pretty clear that Pandemrix, an injected flu vaccine that was used in response to the swine flu pandemic that began in 2009, carried a risk of around one in 50,000 of narcolepsy when given to children, especially teenagers.   As well as causing suffering and distress to those affected and their families, this raises some important questions about why exactly this happened with this particular vaccine.

“The many children who received Pandemrix and are currently well are expected to remain fine as the problem, when it happens, seems to develop a few months after the vaccine and Pandemrix has not been in use for 2 years now.  Pandemrix is the only vaccine that has been linked to this problem – there is nothing to suggest that it occurs after other flu vaccines or vaccines against other diseases.”

Dr John McCauley, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Influenza at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research, said:

“This is a very thoroughly carried piece of work on the association of narcolepsy with vaccination of children and young people with the pandemic swine influenza vaccine.  A few other countries have also detected this effect.  The increase in the rate of narcolepsy was about 14-fold increased.  This resulted in a case for about every 50,000 doses delivered.

“The current seasonal influenza vaccines are not the same as the swine influenza vaccine so the observed increase in narcolepsy is possibly a one-off event.  Surveillance needs to be continued.”

‘Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis’ by Elizabeth Miller et al.  published in BMJ on Tuesday 26^th February.

But has this knowledge really changed anything and is long-term brain injury from contact sport a ticking time bomb? Should we simply consider banning boxing altogether, and is there any reason to single out one sport over another.

Professor John Hardy came to the SMC to talk about chronic traumatic encephalopathy, what causes it, its frequent association with other neurodegenerative disorders and the impact it has on sports men and women.

Prof John Hardy is Chair of Molecular Biology of Neurological Disease at the UCL Institute of Neurology. He is a geneticist and molecular biologist with over 23,000 citations, one of the most cited neurology researchers in the UK and an elected Fellow of the Royal Society.

Prof Richard Sharpe, Research Group Leader/Professor, MRC Centre For Reproductive Health, Edinburgh University said:

“This is an interesting and well-conducted study that has explored the potential effects of bisphenol-A on human and rodent neuronal development in vitro.  Clear effects of exposing the neuronal cells to 100nM bisphenol A are shown.  Interesting though the effects are from a mechanistic point of view, they have no relevance to human health because the concentration of bisphenol A used, exceeds human exposure by ~100,000 times (and this is probably a conservative estimate).  As the motivation for the studies was publications suggesting an association between bisphenol A exposure and later behavioural problems in children, this would not provide any linking/supporting evidence because of lack of credibility with the doses used.

“This study is reminiscent of many similar studies with bisphenol A in vitro or in animal studies – many show convincing effects on various biological processes relevant to human health, but they always involve doses that are in a different ballpark to human exposure.  When realistic doses are applied (i.e. those to which humans are internally exposed), no effects are found – although I hasten to add that most such studies never explore human-relevant doses.”

‘Bisphenol A delays the perinatal chloride shift in cortical neurons by epigenetic effects on the Kcc2 promoter’ by Yeo, M. et al., published in PNAS on 25 February 2013.

Short Q&A supplied by Prof Ian Jones, Professor of Virology at the University of Reading: 

What characteristics does this virus have?

“The virus is a coronavirus, which mostly cause respiratory and gastrointestinal infections.  The new virus appears to cause primarily respiratory infections, at least in man.  We do not yet know the exact origin of the virus or to what extent it might circulate in some parts of the world.” 

How does this one compare with other virus scares?

“It is related genetically to SARS but only distantly and the other known human coronaviruses cause only mild disease; so “SARS-like” is currently an overstatement in relation to spread and disease.  Like avian flu it may have the potential to spread more widely but not without acquiring multiple changes.  The current virus does not appear threatening.”    

What are the clues on how will it develop?

“The most likely outcome for the current infections is a dead end, that is, the virus will become extinct locally.  This is by far the most usual outcome for such zoonotic infections, infections that are normally restricted to animals but occasionally infect people.  Only if the virus adapts to the human body does the potential for more widespread infection arise.  There is no evidence for this type of spread so far.” 

What are scientists doing to track/predict its movements?

“HPA scientists have developed a test for the historical presence of the virus and will be able to ask if animals and humans from geographically diverse areas of the world have encountered this virus before.  This will provide some idea of the normal reservoir for this virus and so provide guidelines to reduce the risk of exposure.”

Should we be worried?

“Not at this stage.  The pattern so far is of an occasional zoonotic occurrence not an outbreak.  You have to remember that these patients were flown in to the UK for treatment, the virus was not encountered here.  The father to son transmission does not signify transmission on a wider scale.”   

The report – entitled ‘Our Nutrient World’ – highlights the problems of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and proposes a goal for future intergovernmental agreement to improve nutrient efficiency by 20%, saving 20 million tonnes of nitrogen per year by the year 2020: ‘20:20 for 2020’.

Counting the nitrogen savings, implementation cost and the environmental and health benefits they estimate that such a goal would provide a net saving of £108 billion pounds per year.

The report’s authors came to the SMC to present their work.

Speakers:

Prof Mark Sutton, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) UK, Lead author of the report and chair of the International Nitrogen Initiative

Dr Bruna Grizzetti, Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) in Paris, France, contributor to the report and expert on nutrient pollution

Prof Oene Oenema, Professor of nutrient management and soil fertility at Wageningen University, The Netherlands, contributor to the report and co-chair of the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

Prof Mark Bowen, University of Nottingham and British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA), said:

On Streptococcus equinus:

“Streptococcus equinus is a bacteria that is present in the intestines of normal animals including, but not exclusively, horses. It’s occurrence therefore is, not specifically linked to contact with horses.  Streptococcus equinus has occasionally be associated with disease in people, as has the closely related bacteria Streptococcus bovis. However these conditions are very uncommon.

“Since the bacteria are present in the animals intestines, contamination of meat is highly unlikely.  It does not cause clinical disease in animals and would not normally be present in meat of horses or cattle. Infection would most likely occur from direct contact and not from food.

“The risk of food borne infection from this bacteria is incredibly unlikely.  The public should, of course, cook processed food as per the manufacturers instructions, not because of the risks of Streptococcus equinus but due to the potential, albeit small, risk from normal food borne pathogens.”

On bute: 

“Phenylbutazone (bute) is a safe and effective painkiller used extensively in horses throughout the world. It is the only medicine of its type that can be used for long term management of pain and is therefore essential in order to protect the welfare of animals with pain caused by arthritis. While other painkillers are available that can be used safely in food producing animals, including horses, the long term management safety of these have not been shown, and are therefore not direct replacements. 

“Phenylbutazone cannot be used in any food producing animal. In order to preserve the availability of this drug, and therefore to maintain welfare standards in horses, the Horse Passport Act (2004) was devised to create a mechanism that enabled horses to be permanently excluded from the human food chain. This legislation was subsequently improved in 2009, by the requirement for horses to be permanently identified by a microchip inserted into the neck.

“A number of scenarios could explain how bute has been found in horses that have been slaughtered for human consumption. These may include deliberate fraud, lack of compliance with the regulations by owners or vets or by contamination of feeds or buckets resulting in accidental intake of the drug by horses that were not the intended recipients. 

“Although the horse passport system has improved considerably since 2004, some opportunities to defraud the system remain; BEVA are keen to work with DEFRA to remove such loopholes. We have been working with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate over several years, to help develop guidelines and advice to vets to ensure compliance. The importance of compliance by owners, and risks of accidental administration needs to be highlighted to members of the public. 

“For those who choose to eat pure horse meat, the minuscule amounts of this medicine within these cuts of meat does not represent a genuine risk to human health. Members of the UK public who are  concerned about contamination of processed foods by horse meat should at least be reassured that the major source of this meat appears to be from Romania, and there is no suggestion of any medicine residues in these products.”

Dr Simon Goodwin, Reader in Astrophysics from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, said:

“Objects from space are hitting us all the time.  Estimates are that 1,000 – 10,000 tonnes of material from space rain down onto the Earth every day. The vast majority are small (mm or cm) and burn-up high in the atmosphere. These ‘shooting stars’ look pretty and cause no damage at all.

“How far something gets through the atmosphere depends on how big it is and what it’s made of.  Metal or solid rock meteors can often get to the ground and meteor hunters go looking for these in deserts and on ice (somewhere where the colour of the meteor is different to that of the ground).

“If a meteor makes it all the way to the ground it can produce an impact crater and possibly do significant amounts of damage.  A meteor crater in Arizona is over a km across caused by an impact about 50,000 years ago. The impact that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago has a crater 200km across hidden under rock in Mexico.  There are quite a few impact craters on the earth, but most are hidden under sediment and are difficult to spot.

“It seems like the damage from the meteor in Russia yesterday was not due to the meteor hitting the ground.  It seems to have been caused by a shock wave as either the meteor broke the sound barrier, or maybe exploded in the air. This shock wave then broke windows and caused the damage and injury.  Probably the area is covered with tiny bits of meteor if it did airburst, and maybe there is a small impact crater but I have heard no reports of this yet.

“This could be a less extreme version of the Tunguska event in 1908 when we think a meteor exploded in the air above Siberia flattening about 2,000 square km of thankfully uninhabited forest.

“While events this big are rare, an impact that could cause damage and death could happen every century or so.  It very much depends on where it hits – the Tunguska impact killed nobody, but if it had hit a few hours later it could have killed a million by exploding over St Petersberg.

“A big enough (few hundred m) meteor could cause significant immediate death and maybe cause climate change by releasing dust into the air – these are maybe every few thousand years.  An impact into the sea could cause a world-wide Tsunami causing lots of damage in any low-lying area.  And a really big (km) impact occurs every few tens of millions of years and can cause mass extinctions (one killed the dinosaurs).

“This has happened at the same time that the asteroid 2012 DA14 is passing fairly close to Earth.  They might be related, but probably not.  Asteroids pass close to us very often (most of the time we have no idea), and impacts occur constantly and airbursts happen a few times a year (often above the ocean or uninhabited areas, we only know about these by spotting them from satellites).

“Scientifically this is not hugely interesting as we collect bits of meteor from all over the world already.  Probably its greatest importance is to make people realise that things fall from space all the time, and every now and then they can be dangerous – maybe very dangerous.

“Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop impacts. So far there are no confirmed reports that anyone has ever died due directly to a impact, but it will happen eventually.  And an impact in a heavily populated area could kill huge numbers of people with no warning or chance of stopping it.”

Dr Hugh Lewis, Lecturer in Aerospace Engineering, University of Southampton, said:

“Small meteors enter the Earth’s atmosphere quite frequently (shooting stars can be seen every night, really) and we might see a relatively large fireball once a year, maybe. Something like this event (a 10 ton object, according to an AP report citing the Russian Academy of Sciences) is rarer.

“The UK saw a meteor in September last year. Experts at the time thought it was space debris because of its apparent slow speed, but it was later confirmed to be a meteor.”

Joint statement from the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA):

“The presence of phenylbutazone (or bute) in horses intended for the food chain will be of concern to consumers who rightly expect the UK food chain to be robust. We are grateful to the Chief Medical Officer for clarifying the very low level of risk that this presents to human health and we will work with the FSA and Defra in any way we can to assist their investigations into these incidents.

“The ability to treat horses with bute is very important for equine welfare. Bute provides affordable, long-term pain relief for horses and is unique in this respect.

“The UK Horse Passport Regulations are designed to facilitate the ongoing medical treatment of horses not intended for the human food chain, whilst ensuring that these animals do not enter the food chain.

 “We fully support the concept of the Horse Passport Regulations but have argued for some time that there are problems with the system in terms of the number of Passport Issuing Authorities and the vulnerability of the system to fraud. We are very keen to continue our dialogue with Defra and others to find ways to make the system more robust.

“Our members are aware of the strict rules regarding the regulation of medicines (including bute) and the use of horse passports, and in recent years we have provided clear guidance on the regulations to help both vets and their clients. These incidents will hopefully reinforce these messages amongst horse owners and all of us involved in equine healthcare.” 

Professor Peter Lees, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Pharmacology, Royal Veterinary College, said:

“1. Bute is an excellent pain killer in horses that makes a significant contribution to improved welfare, and has done so for some 60 years.

“2. The main toxicity concern in humans is that some people developed (very rarely – 1 in 30,000 to 1 in 50,000 persons) an anaemia which was life threatening, when the drug was used clinically in humans. This occurred when the drug was used therapeutically in humans at a dose rate of some 2 to 6 mg/kg, similar to the current dose for the horse of 4.4 mg/kg.

“3. The evidence on carcinogenicity in animal studies was equivocal even with high doses (50 to 300mg/kg administered daily for a virtual lifetime-2 years) – if you feed rats enough of many substances they may develop a few more tumours over two years. Carcinogenicity in humans is in the category “not classifiable”.

“4. Calculated human exposure to phenylbutazone and its metabolite oxyphenbutazone from consumption of horse meat, assuming a series of worst case scenarios, is no greater than 1/4,000th of the dose originally given in humans therapeutically. When phenylbutazone was used therapeutically in humans, there were inevitably reported side-effects (as for all drugs) BUT most people given bute for a prolonged period had no serious side effects before it was withdrawn from the human market.”

Professor Tim Morris, veterinary surgeon and Vice Chair of the British Horse Industry Confederation, said:

“Phenylbutazone (often referred to as ‘Bute’) is an anti-inflammatory medicine commonly used in horses, as is a type of medicine similar to aspirin or ibuprofen. It has a good safety record in horses but, as is sometimes found, a different safety profile in people. Some people occasionally suffer a severe adverse reaction to Phenylbutazone, leading to anaemia, hence it is no longer used in people as safer alternatives are available.

“In European law, the horse is regarded as a food producing animal, so as with farm animals there are prohibitions on animals entering the food chain, and horses treated with Bute cannot be humanely slaughtered and then the meat passed into the food chain. To ensure this happens, each horse has its own passport, and for those horses that have had Bute, a section in the passport is amended so the horse cannot enter the food chain.

“If Bute is being found in horsemeat it will be because either the original passport has not been amended after Bute was prescribed by the vet, or because the passport has been altered or substituted, or because controls at the abattoir have failed; all these circumstances are unacceptable as they pose a potential risk to human safety.

“However it is important to note that the levels of Bute in horsemeat, even if it is found, will be very low, and greatly below the doses following medical treatment in people that have been associated with occasional rare adverse reactions; therefore whilst this is unacceptable the actual risk to consumers is very small.”

Prof Chris Elliott, Director of the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen’s University Belfast, said:

“What at first seemed to be a small scale meat contamination issue has now turned out to be a complex multi-national problem that cuts across many issues in relation to food security in the UK.  It is inevitable that intensive investigations to ascertain how and why the horse meat scandal came about must be performed.  It’s likely that further twists and turns will yet be uncovered. 

“However, eventually – and the sooner the better – the focus must switch to thinking about how we can truly protect the integrity of all our foodstuffs that we purchase.  The last great shake-up of meat supplies came about 20 years ago due to BSE.  A generation later and in the wake of some of the impacts of food globalisation starting to emerge the time to rethink things has surely arrived.”

Dr Emma Roe, Lecturer in Human Geography, University of Southampton, said:

“It is no surprise that it is the value ranges of processed meat products that are being identified as containing horse meat.  And perhaps no surprise that these are products which should contain beef – a more expensive meat than, say, chicken.”

Where has all the beef gone that should be in these products?

“There is a commercial logic to utilising the least-favoured parts of the animal carcass in processed meat products, adding fat and salt to make them edible.  The horse meat saga suggests that there is a shortage of beef products at a price suitable for value-range processed meat products, despite the need to find a commercial home for all the parts of the beef carcass.  This may be linked to the desinewed meat ban, not considered ‘meat’ enough by the EU.  The retailers are pushing down prices to meet the needs of cash-strapped consumers who are dealing with food and fuel bills prices rising.  The beef meat for processed products may now just be too expensive, despite it in effect being a waste product from a carcass that produces more desired cuts of meat.”

How do we normally dispose of surplus horses?

“Horses are culled when not fit for use anymore and their bodies do need to be disposed of.  It appears some of these horses are being sent to meat abattoirs.  Perhaps this is a better use for them, and a better death because of meat hygiene and humane slaughter standards than incinerating their bodies for energy?  The lack of a market for horse meat in this country may mean that it is higher quality horse meat (rather than the meat that normally ends up in processed meat products from a beef carcass) which is in the lasagnes, burgers etc. – who knows?”

Nigel Horrox, Editor of specialist publication International Meat Topics, said:

“Consumers cannot have cheap food and food that meets more and more requirements – the two are mutually exclusive!  The possible number of theoretical contaminants of foods for human consumption is massive and you cannot test every food for every possible contaminant.

“When it comes to contaminants which are not associated with product safety, has the time come when we should simply prove that what should be there is really there – and only if this is found not to be the case to then start looking for that which should not be there?”

You can download this Factsheet as a pdf.

Background

Phenylbutazone (bute) is a painkiller and anti-inflammatory drug used in horses and dogs.

Bute is one of the most widely used drugs in horses; it is an inexpensive, highly effective treatment that can be injected intravenously or given orally to horses as a powder or paste.

Findus have been ordered by the FSA to carry out tests for bute on their products which have been found to contain horsemeat.

Rules regarding use of bute in horses

• Since 2005, European law has required all horses to have a passport which declares whether it is for human consumption

-          Horses marked for human consumption have a limited number of medicines which can be administered

-          Use of any products that are not on a prescribed list of allowed substances automatically means a horse must be permanently excluded from the food chain (this includes phenylbutazone)

• Around 8-10,000 horses are slaughtered for human consumption every year in the UK
• Bute continues to be found in horses that have been slaughtered for human consumption

-          Between 2 and 5%  of samples taken at abattoirs have tested positive for bute in the UK over the last 5 years

-          Detection of bute in horses destined for the food chain can be either from non-compliance with the passport scheme, or because feed containing bute is eaten by a horse other than that for which it was intended

Human health

Bute was used as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and gout in humans in the 1950s but was removed due to adverse health impacts.

Phenylbutazone is known to be able to induce blood disorders, including aplastic anaemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis and thrombocytopenia.

-          Toxic reactions to bute occurred in a minority of patients when used as a medicine

Aplastic anaemia means the bone marrow stops making enough red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets for the body. People with severe or very severe aplastic anaemia are at risk for life-threatening infections or bleeding.

Metabolites of bute (substances which bute is broken down into in the body) can cause these blood disorders, and are detectable in the flesh of horses, but at concentrations considered far too low to be of concern.

-          The reported adverse reactions were associated with the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day

Bute is know to be a carcinogen in rats, but there is not conclusive evidence for it to be carcinogenic in humans.

Sources / further information

Veterinary Medicines Directorate

Position Paper – Residues of Phenylbutazone in horses, Published July 2012
http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/VRC/pdf/PositionPaper_Phenylbutazone.pdf

Guidance on horse medicines and horse passports
http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/pdf/leaflet_horses.pdf  

Toxicology Data Network – Extensive evidence on the toxicology of bute
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+3159 

Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics – Phenylbutazone in the horse
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3517382 

Mount Sinai Hospital information on aplastic anaemia
http://www.mountsinai.org/patient-care/health-library/diseases-and-conditions/aplastic-anemia#risk 

FDA information on human health impacts of phenylbutazone
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm124078.htm 

Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Phenylbutazone on rats
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=0708CAA4-0E21-4DD3- A165B607853F9C9B 

This is a fact sheet issued by the Science Media Centre to provide background information on science topics relevant to breaking news stories. This is not intended as the ‘last word’ on a subject, but rather a summary of the basics and a pointer towards sources of more detailed information. These can be read as supplements to our Roundups and/or Briefings.

A Factsheet accompanied this Briefing.

Speakers  included: 

Professor Tim Morris, Vice Chair of British Horse Industry Confederation and veterinary surgeon, University of Nottingham

Michael Walker, Science and Food Law Consultant at LGC (international analytical services company, formerly Laboratory of the Government Chemist) and expert in analytical chemistry, food science and food policy; was founder board member of the Food Standards Agency 

Dr Chris Smart, Corporate Business Development Manager, Leatherhead Food Research

Dr Mark Woolfe,  Food Scientist/Technologist who has worked for 25 years as a Government Scientist (MAFF and the Food Standards Agency), with responsibility for European/UK Regulations on the labelling and composition of a wide range of foods including meat products

(Dr Woolfe ran the FSA’s Food Authenticity Programme from its beginning in 1992 up to 2009)

Dr James Nicholls, Research Manager, Alcohol Research UK, said:

“This study contributes to the evidence that minimum unit pricing for alcohol can have a positive impact on alcohol-related harm.  Looking at data from British Columbia between 2002-9, the researchers analyse a range of mortality indicators and find that there is a significant reduction in deaths that can be ‘wholly’ attributable to alcohol following an increase of 10% in minimum unit pricing.  This is important as ‘wholly’ attributable deaths provide a narrower measure than ‘alcohol attributable fractions’, which include conditions that may have other causes. 

“However, the effect of minimum pricing on a number of acute and chronic conditions is less clear, so the results do not demonstrate a uniform impact across all measures of harm. 

“Also, the analysis does not identify impact on specific population groups, which in the Canadian context include aboriginal communities known to be particularly at risk.

“However, the authors argue that the identified effects are likely to be due to minimum pricing targeting harmful groups in particular – which is relevant to wider debates about the capacity of minimum pricing to especially target at risk groups.

“Overall, this research does show some clear positive impacts from minimum unit pricing, so should provide an important contribution to current debates on the policy in the UK.”

Dr John Holmes, Research Fellow in Public Health, Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, University of Sheffield, said:

“This new research by Tim Stockwell and his team is a major contribution to the evidence on the impact of minimum pricing, and suggests that this type of policy can have substantial impacts in reducing the number of premature deaths associated with alcohol. This finding is a strong indication that the policy has reduced the consumption levels of those drinking at hazardous and harmful levels.

“Research from the University of Sheffield also suggests that the biggest impact of minimum unit pricing in England would be for hazardous and harmful drinkers.  A 40p minimum price (approximately equivalent to the Government’s proposed 45p in 2014) is estimated to lead to 1,190 fewer alcohol-related deaths in the tenth year after the policy is implemented and save £600m in direct costs to the health service over the first ten years of the policy.”

‘The relationship between changes to minimum alcohol prices, outlet densities and alcohol attributable deaths in British Columbia in 2002-2009’ by Zhao et al. published in Addiction on Thursday 7th February.

However, the consequential impact on the UK’s engineering infrastructure – which includes the electricity grid, satellite technology and air passenger safety – has not previously been critically assessed.  A new report by the Royal Academy of Engineering brings together engineering and scientific experts from across many disciplines to identify and analyse those impacts.  It highlights some legitimate concerns that need the attention of government, industry and engineers in order to be best prepared for this ‘high impact, low probability’ natural hazard.

The report has an emphasis on the UK, but many of the conclusions also apply to other countries. The authors came to the SMC to discuss their findings.

Speakers:

Prof Paul Cannon FREng, Qinetic/University of Birmingham (study chair)

Chris Train, Director of Market Operation, National Grid 

Dr Jill Meara, Deputy Director/Public Health Consultant CRCE, Health Protection Agency

Keith Ryden, Reader in Space Engineering, University of Surrey Space Centre 

Prof Mike Kaiser, Professor of Marine Conservation Ecology, Bangor University and Non-Executive member of the Board of the Sea Fish Industry Authority (Seafish), said:

“The vote to reform the Common Fisheries Policy is great news, certainly the policy couldn’t really be made any worse. There has been a lot of focus on discarding unwanted fish and yes, that is a major waste and it’s wonderful to hear that it’s being stopped, but it is also a bit of a distraction for two reasons.

“First, the big issue is actually the levels of fishing allowed in the first place – we need to be aiming for the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) so that enough juvenile fish can actually reach adulthood and reproduce to build up the depleted stocks and pleasingly the levels of fishing are being changed across the board.

“Second, even when we bring in banning discarding, how is it going to be regulated? Whilst we know where ships are, we have no idea what they are doing. Regulation is not, therefore, going to be the sole answer. Instead we need to harness the enthusiasm of the fishing industry to engage and maintain fish stocks for their own livelihoods as well as for ecological reasons. The scientific community has long been calling for changes because we have so little data on the number of fish on the quayside, let alone how much goes over the side – we can either send out observers or use quite sophisticated means to estimate the volume of fish being thrown away – but apart from cod and a few others we also have very little data on fishing levels generally. In fact with shellfish, which are a major component of the industry, we don’t even have any formal assessment let alone good data. The fishing industry are willing to collect this data, but they need to be shown how.

“In this current climate of concern over food security the future of our fish stocks is vitally important and discarding perfectly good fish obviously makes no sense. The science is clear, we need sufficient fish reproducing to maintain the populations, but in many ways this whole issue is not so much a scientific issue as a governance one. It takes local knowledge and regional expertise and an ability to react quickly in order to see the great results that real-time closures of fisheries in Scotland can have. Perhaps one of the most significant changes therefore is in the EU taking the first steps to relinquish some of the central bureaucracy and move towards regional management where the best, up-to-date science can be put into effect.”

Prof Callum Roberts, Professor of Marine Conservation, University of York, said:

What does the scientific evidence say about the current state of fish stocks across Europe?

“This is summarised from the EU Commission (2011): In the North-East Atlantic 63% of known fish stocks are overfished, 20% of all stocks for which scientific advice is available are in critical condition (outside safe biological limits or at risk of collapse) and for about 64% the state of the stock is unknown due to poor data (in other words, we don’t have a clear idea about the status of two-thirds of the fish stocks we exploit in Europe). For the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, 82% of stocks for which scientific advice is available are overfished.”

What evidence is there that discarding unwanted fish has a big impact?

“Fish are usually discarded from fisheries that use unselective fishing methods, especially bottom trawling. Some perfectly good fish are discarded because the boat doesn’t have a quota for them, or has exceeded its quota. Others are thrown away because they have little or no market value (too small, wrong species). Some are thrown away in a process called high grading, in which perfectly good fish already caught are discarded in favour of later catches that consist of more valuable species or sizes of fish.

“A phased in ban on discarding fish is included in the reform package being considered. It is popular because fishermen don’t like throwing away good fish, the public does not like seeing the waste and scientists want to know better how many fish are being caught and killed (which they don’t know when fish caught are not recorded because they are thrown away at sea).”

Does the scientific community think that stopping discarding will have an impact?

“A discard ban should lead to less waste (of fish and fuel), but will only solve overfishing if fishing effort is also reduced so less fish are killed in the first place.”

Is it enough on its own or will it only have an impact if combined with other reforms?

“A discard ban is not enough on its own to solve overfishing in Europe. Measures to recover fish stocks to optimal levels of productivity (maximum sustainable yield) are also included in the reforms being voted on. If MEPs vote in favour, then fish stock recovery is more likely.”

Are we focusing on the right issues or are there aspects highlighted by scientific evidence that are being ignored?

“There are three key issues that have been neglected in my view: The tendency of Ministers to ignore scientific advice; the destructive tendencies of some fishing methods and the need for marine protected areas to recover fish stocks and habitats.

“On the first point, the reforms suggest that multi-annual plans will do away with horse trading and quota inflation. But last December, at the first test of this principle, ministers voted to abandon the cod recovery plan rather than allow automatic fishing effort reductions warranted by a slow recovery trajectory.

“On the question of destructive fishing methods, like scallop dredging, few people yet realise just how badly they compromise the productivity of European seas.

“On the question of protected areas, there is wording in the reform package to establish them as part of stock recovery, but whether this amendment has been voted in is unclear.”

Scientists have been calling for change for a while – what would need to be done to:

• lead to stock recovery to a healthy level?

“Here is my wish list: establish a network of marine protected areas that are off limits to fishing across approximately one third of our seas; reduce fishing effort in the rest by approximately half; phase out or greatly constrain the area within which the most destructive fishing methods are used, such as scallop dredging and beam trawling; keep and use all catch and bycatch except fish that have a high survival on return to the sea (e.g. rays); implement the best available technologies to reduce bycatch and collateral environmental damage by fishing (e.g. damage to seabed life); stop fishing in the deep sea (>800m) as stocks and habitats there are too vulnerable and sensitive to sustain it.”

•         return stocks to pre-industrial fishing levels (do we know what level this would be and should that actually be our aim?)

“If we want to continue fishing we must accept that we cannot return stocks to pre-industrial levels. However, marine protected areas off limits to fishing will help stocks recover to much more productive levels and allow habitats to rebuild. Some of these areas may come to resemble pre-industrial conditions after 30 or more years of protection.

“One of the tenets of fisheries management is that reducing population sizes of fish by fishing will boost their productivity. So from a fishing perspective, reducing populations from pre-industrial levels is a good thing. The trouble is, we have gone much too far, reducing many stocks to very unproductive scarcity.”

Are there any rules of thumb that members of the public can follow when considering buying fish that follow good scientific advice?

“This is what I say in my recent book Ocean of Life: How our Seas are Changing:

“The blue Marine Stewardship Council logo is a pretty solid guide to fisheries that are well managed and where the target animal is still reasonably abundant. Try to avoid prawns or scallops and other bottom feeders fished up by dredgers and trawlers, such as plaice, cod and hake. If you want to eat such fish, try to find them line caught: handlines and trolls (hook and line towed from a boat) have less bycatch than longlines. Eat low in the food web, so favour smaller fish like anchovies, herring and sardines over big predators like Chilean seabass, swordfi sh and large tunas (you will be doing yourself a favour as these predators also concentrate more toxins). If you can’t give up tuna, choose pole and line caught animals which have virtually zero bycatch. ‘Dolphin friendly’ versions alone may not be very dolphin friendly, since tuna are often caught with purse seines, walls of net that surround and stress dolphins and snare sharks, turtles and other wildlife. Farm-raised fish and prawns often come at a high environmental cost in destroyed habitat and wild fish turned into feed. Vegetarian fish like tilapia and carp are better than predators like salmon and seabass. Organic is better too, since your fish will have been dosed with fewer chemicals.”

Prof Kevin McConway, Professor of Applied Statistics, The Open University, said:

“The study provides evidence that the higher the level of a certain kind of air pollution, the greater the rate of low birth weight. But we mustn’t read too much into it. Though the rate of low birth weight does appear to change as air pollution changes, it doesn’t change very much. Suppose we could halve the amount of particulate air pollution in Newcastle from its current level. According to figures from this study, that would lead to around two or three fewer low birth weight births in a year, out of the 3500 or so births to Newcastle mothers. That sort of reduction might well be worth having, but it’s not something that pregnant mothers should lose sleep over, I’d say.“

Dr Tony Fletcher, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said:

“This new study is very helpful in establishing another health impact of air pollution. Because the average effect is quite small, it needs enormous multi-country studies such as these to quantify the effect.  The study is of excellent quality and the conclusions are clear: while the average effect on each baby is small and so should not alarm individual prospective parents, for the whole population these small risks add up across millions of people. Another reason for London and other large cities to force traffic-related pollution down to lower levels.”

‘Maternal Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Term Birth Weight: A Multi-Country Evaluation of Effect and Heterogeneity’ by Dadvand et al.  published in Environmental Health Perspectives on Wednesday 6th February.

Prof Iain Broom, Research Professor, Centre for Obesity Research and Epidemiology (CORE), Robert Gordon University, said:

“My comments are wider than the current paper’s focus, which is solely in n-6 PUFA intake, but I would say that the outcomes are not in the least surprising and the paper does carry out an exhaustive analyses of the data now available.  In addition the authors do come up with plausible explanations as to the reason for the increased CVD mortality in the shape of more easily oxidisable low density lipoprotein particles (LDL).  I find it incredible that the CVD data were not published in the original paper.  This paper could have repercussions amongst both Governments and the food industry where recommendations may not have been appropriate, and may also have implications for the American Heart Association’s recent suggestion of increasing n-6 PUFA dietary content.”

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of The Public Understanding of Risk, University of Cambridge, said:

“These are typically 50-year-old men, mainly smokers, who have had a heart attack already, and there were only 63 deaths altogether (35 in the control vs 28 in the intervention group) with barely statistically significant results.  So I would not want to get very excited about this study on its own, but it does add some evidence to a complex issue.”

Catherine Collins, Principal Dietitian, St George’s Hospital London, said:

“This article re-examines dietary information given 40years ago to young men who had had a major heart event at a young age (30-59y) despite being normal body weight. This re-analysis shows that a high intake of omega-6 polyunsaturated fat (derived from safflower oil – an oil rarely used in the UK but available in healthfood shops) – actually increased the risk of death from a second cardiac event, even though changing dietary fat choice reduced saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol levels.

“Our knowledge of diet and heart disease has become much more sophisticated over the intervening 40 years. We now know that reducing artery inflammation – by boosting monounsaturated fat intake (from rapeseed oil and olive oils) helps stabilise artery walls and make them more resistant to damage. More mono-unsaturates, with a modest amount of polyunsaturated fats, also helps to lower blood cholesterol levels. This together with other aspects of the Mediterranean diet – more dietary fibres, less salt, and more fruit and vegetable intake along with modest alcohol, are all part of the robust heart-healthy ‘portfolio’ of foods relatively unknown 40 years ago.

“Should we be concerned about our current intake of omega-6 polyunsaturates- linoleic acid in particular? As a Dietitian I think not. We already have a healthier diet than 40 years ago, and for those with resistant cholesterol levels medication can help regulate.

“Our diet is now naturally higher in mono-unsaturates which is protective against omega-6 fats, but for the older generation who still choose polyunsaturated margarines, and fry foods regularly in corn or sunflower oils, a change to ‘vegetable oil’ (rapeseed oil ) is all that is necessary to limit risk from linoleic acid. After all, it’s all about proportion of each fat in the diet, not absolute amounts.

“Almost 70% of subjects in both groups were smokers, which was common at the time but less so now with only 20% of the population smoking (see here). Why is this important? Smoking damages your arteries, and so in these subjects having a high polyunsaturated fat intake – naturally less stable than other fats – the risk of damage and health effects from the combination of smoking and linoleic acid intake would have been enhanced.”

Prof Tom Sanders, Head of Diabetes & Nutritional Sciences Division, King’s College London, said:

 “This is data dredging of a study conducted many years ago in Australia. It has little relevance to diets today. It reports the results of a study conducted in Sydney where subjects were asked to consume large amounts of safflower oil. The study was stopped because of adverse effects – I heard about this from a colleague whose brother was involved in the trial more than 30 years ago! Hopefully science has moved on. Firstly, the study was enormously underpowered to detect any meaningful outcome with only 458 men. Assuming a high mortality of 12% per year, the chances of detecting meaningful differences in mortality are small, particularly when follow-up is short.

“A meta-analysis of other randomised controlled trials including n–6 PUFA which has been published in the last few years refutes this (including a Cochrane review by Lee Hooper). It shows that dietary advice to replace saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces incident coronary heart disease (CHD; Mozaffarian et al. Plos Med ). The prospective cohort studies also show benefit of replacing saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fatty acids (mainly linoleic acid).

“Safflower oil is rather unusual in that it contains mainly linoleic acid whereas commonly used vegetable oils such as soybean oil and rapeseed oil contain both linoleic and linolenic acid. The evidence for the benefits of long-chain n-3 PUFA have also received a drubbing by the systematic reviewers in JAMA in September. Furthermore, in support of the benefits of n-6 PUFA is a current report from the Oxford EPIC group which shows a 32% reduction in incident CHD in vegetarians (published in the current AJCN). Vegetarians have high intakes of n-6 PUFA, much lower blood cholesterol concentrations and slightly lower blood pressure.

“You need to look carefully at the paper because the dietary intervention was as a supplement of margarine and oil rather than the type of dietary modification currently advocated for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention such as the DASH diet or the NICE guidelines. We do not know the level of trans fatty acids in the margarine, which are now known to increase risk of heart disease. Current advice should be based on present knowledge and not veered off course by this new study. Taking extra fat on board in patients with CHD is not a good idea. Current dietary guidelines focus on decreasing sources of saturated fat and partially replacing saturated with unsaturated fatty acids i.e. vegetable oils rather than animal fats.”

Prof Brian Ratcliffe, Professor of Nutrition, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, said:

“This paper does not provide evidence for changes to the current recommendations for a healthy diet.  It provides interesting additional information regarding the role of dietary fats in the development of cardiovascular diseases.  The study was specifically a secondary prevention and it may have limited relevance to primary prevention. 

“Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that current advice in the UK (dating back to the COMA report of 1994) does not recommend replacing saturated fatty acids with n-6 PUFA.  It was recommended that there should be no increase in the average intake of n-6 PUFA and that the proportion of the population consuming this type of fat in excess of 10% of energy intake should not increase, and the target is about 6% of energy intake.  Subjects in this study achieved PUFA levels of 15% of food energy.  Also, it is recommended not to exceed a PUFA:SFA ratio of 1 whereas in this study, in the intervention group at follow up, the ratio was 1.7. 

“It has been known for some time that there is potentially a problem with high intakes of linoleic acid leading to oxidised linoleic acid metabolites that would be potentially atherogenic.  The authors of this latest paper suggest that this may indeed be the mechanism that has contributed to the increased mortality from cardiovascular diseases seen in the study. 

“It is generally assumed that eating a healthy diet involves achieving a balance of n-6 and n-3 PUFA and many authorities have suggested that diets in developed countries are too imbalanced in favour of n-6 PUFA.  It is also worth pointing out that this study used a safflower oil with a particularly high content of linoleic acid (n-6 PUFA) and the level of this fatty acid varies considerably in commercially available safflower oils.”

‘Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis’ by Ramsden et al. published in the BMJ on Tuesday 5 February.  

Dr Allan Pacey, Senior Lecturer in Andrology, University of Sheffield, said:

“This is an interesting paper which examines the role of sedentary lifestyle on male fertility by looking at semen quality in men who are physically active versus those who are not. The results are intriguing and suggest that men who do regular exercise have higher sperm counts than men who watch a lot of television.

“On the face of it, this seems like a well conducted study albeit with a relatively small number of participants. Having said that the authors appear to have used good methodology and have attempted to control for all of the obvious variables that might differ between the two groups of men (e.g. diet, smoking, BMI etc). Their conclusions are plausible, and I would agree that there is evidence to suggest that moderate exercise could change men’s physiology sufficiently to improve testicular health. Similarly, we already know that testicular heating through sedentary jobs or tight underwear can decrease sperm counts and so arguably the same effect might be seen in men who spend too many hours on the sofa watching television.

“However, it remains to be seen if coaxing a TV watching couch potato into doing some regular exercise could actually improve his sperm count. Or whether there exists an unknown fundamental difference between men who like exercise and those who do not which might account for the findings. This should be a relatively easy study to perform, but before all worried men hunt for their sports bag it’s important to note that other research suggests that doing too much exercise can be harmful to sperm production and this study did not examine the type and intensity of exercise their participants were undertaking.

“My advice would be everything in moderation – and that includes time in the gym as well as watching TV (or perhaps both at the same time!)”

‘Physical activity and television watching in relation to semen quality in young men’ by Gaskins et al., published in British Journal of Sports Medicine  on Monday 4 February 2013.

Enter the word “cancer” into any internet search engine and you will be bombarded by results. Switch on the television or open your daily newspaper and the effect is the same: hundreds of articles about cancer, its causes and cures, the latest scare or breakthrough. Cancer is one of the media’s most popular subjects, but this can often lead to confusion for the public.

At first glance, many news stories appear oversimplified (does coffee cure or cause cancer?), and experts may be wary of engaging as a result; especially when it’s controversial and seems easier to stay out of it.

Waiting for the story to subside, however, rarely works and often allows myths to go unchallenged. As one seasoned communications expert reminded us recently, silence is toxic.

The science community is engaging more openly with the media than ever before, but I remain cautious. The theme of this year’s World Cancer Day – dispelling damaging myths – gives us a chance to reflect on where there is still more to do.

The recent tragic story of Neon Roberts is a case in point. Despite a decade of encouraging scientists of the need to engage, the SMC struggled to keep up with the interview requests we received from journalists.

It’s obviously a little more complicated than that – there are good reasons why some couldn’t comment and there were others who did drop everything to help out – but by and large we found ourselves with a vacuum that was hard to fill.

The result was a lost opportunity. Not to talk about an individual case, but to talk to the media and public about cancer research and treatments, what we know and what we do not; to give a broader view on the current state of evidence, and, perhaps most importantly, to dispel many myths.

Continued engagement between scientists and the media is crucial. We cannot simply assume that members of the public, including patients and their families, will always accept established scientific opinion.

Engaging with the media may feel like the last thing many experts or organisations want to do, but at the SMC we see it as an opportunity rather than a threat. That opportunity, however, also comes with the responsibility that experts and their press offices work hard to ensure their media work and comments are measured and accurate. It is admittedly a tricky balancing act, but it’s essential that cancer research is not exaggerated – stories that raise false hope are just as damaging as those that cause fear.

The good news is that we now have a huge amount of evidence that, not only is media engagement often a very enjoyable experience, it’s absolutely clear that when you put the best scientists and science journalists in a room, the standard of reporting that results is extremely high.

In the UK we have some excellent science journalists, and, at a time when the media itself faces an uncertain future, we should be doing whatever we can to work with the specialist reporters we are lucky to have.

Dr Simon Boxall, Associate Lecturer, School of Ocean & Earth Science, University of Southampton, said:

“At this stage, and until analysis comes back from the UK Environment Agency as to the nature of the substance, the story is speculative.  The fact that such a large number of offshore feeding birds have been killed and over such a long stretch of coast does lead towards a likelihood that this is an offshore spill of reasonable size.  The advance of dead birds eastwards up the English Channel further supports this as the natural flow and the prevailing winds would drive a slick east and slightly north toward our coast.

“It is possible that the material is palm oil.  Huge quantities are moved through the Channel every week and the nature of the contamination of the birds would fit palm oil – we will know soon.  The source is likely to be illegal.  Option 1 is a ship sunk with a cargo of material -  unlikely as ship sinkings do tend to get reported.  Option 2 is an accidental spill – someone hit the wrong button and dumped a few tons of material overt the side. Errors occur but to not report it is a criminal offence.  Option 3 (most likely) is a ship flushing its tanks after having recently delivered a cargo of the material. Illegal dumping like this is totally inexcusable and is rare (the shipping industry have cleaned up their act substantially over the past 20 years) but there are still criminals out there.  Washing the tanks at sea with sea water is cheap and quick but could result in hundreds of tonnes of material being dumped into our oceans.  100 tones sounds a lot to lose but remember some of these vessels carry over 100,000 tonnes so it is a small percentage (0.1%) of residual material left behind.

“Unlike Silent Witness, forensic science like this takes time.  Assessing the nature and source of a substance isn’t a quick task but is underway. Finding a slick in the open ocean, with no clue as to where it started (if we have a ship as a source it is much easier) is a tricky task.  This is made worse by the current weather: windy and poor visibility.  To put it into perspective:  the English Channel covers about 30,000 square miles.  A slick from an illegal dump would be at most 1 square mile. That’s a bit like trying to find an averagely-sized village in England, but with no clue where it is, and it’s moving around!  This all being done in the rain with a single aircraft flying low.  A big task!”

Dr Esther Crawley, Reader in Child Health, University of Bristol, said:

“Every patient with CFS/ME wants to know how likely they are to recover. This large, well conducted trial shows convincingly that adult patients who receive cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or graded exercise therapy (GET) have a much greater chance of recovery than those who see a doctor alone, or who are treated with adaptive pacing. It is sobering to see that, even with the best possible treatment, only 22% of patients recovered.

“Although the authors worked hard to define recovery based on the data available from the PACE trial, we need further research to understand what recovery means for patients with CFS/ME, and how to measure it in future studies.”

Prof Willie Hamilton, Professor of Primary Care Diagnostics, University of Exeter, said:

“This paper is excellent news. The early reports showed that graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy had better outcomes. What’s new here is the prospect of recovery. At times with CFS/ME patients it’s easy to get despondent. Sure, only a fifth of patients fully recovered, but – as the authors say – we can work hard on finding better treatments for the other four fifths.”

Dr Alastair Miller, Consultant in Infectious Disease, Royal Liverpool University Hospital and Deputy Chair British Association for CFS/ME (BACME), said:

“This is another encouraging result to come out of the “PACE stable” showing that recovery from CFS/ME is not only possible but considerably more likely with the current therapeutic approaches of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy. Whilst it is well recognised that these techniques will not benefit everyone and further research into alternative approaches continues to be a priority, these results add to the growing evidence base for our current therapeutic strategy.”

Reference:

‘Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after 2 treatments given in the PACE trial’ by P. White et al., published in Psychological Medicine on Thursday 31 January 2013.

Prof David Taylor, Royal Pharmaceutical Society spokesperson on mental health, said:

“We already know valproate is associated with the highest risk of major and minor congenital malformations compared with other anti-epileptic drugs, and for this reason its use is avoided in pregnancy.  Use of this drug in pregnancy would require a full and frank discussion of the risks with the patient.  Health professionals should ensure that effective contraception is recommended to women of child bearing age who are taking Valproate.”

Dr Gavin Woodhall, Reader in Neuropharmacology at Aston University, said:

“There is now a developing scientific literature based upon the use of valproate as a model of autism in rodents.  Sodium valproate is administered to the pregnant dam during embryonic development and offspring subsequently develop behavioural features (lack of proper social interaction) and neuroanatomical features (loss of specific types of neurons etc) of autism.  Hence, this study in man is consistent with what is seen in animal models and should come as no major surprise. 

“However, this is only a small study as yet, and it is important to take into account the fact that controlling epilepsy in pregnancy is very important, and most women who are treated for epilepsy during pregnancy go on to have perfectly normal babies.”

Reference: 

‘The prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in children prenatally exposed to antiepileptic drugs’ by Rebecca Louise Bromley et al., published in The Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry on Wednesday 30 January 2013.

Dr Barrie Lambert, member of the Society of Radiological Protection, said:

“The ultimate fate of the legacy of high and intermediate level radioactive waste has been debated ad nausem for decades, not least by CORWM.  The safest option is underground disposal in a repository (rather than a depository). 

“Whatever the arguments are for and against nuclear power, we have the waste and something must be done with it.  The containment facilities at Sellafield are secure but not suitable for very, very long term storage and from the point of view of, say, terrorist attack, the waste is more secure underground.

“I can understand Cumbria CC’s worry that the Lake District will be linked for ever with the disposal site; but Sellafield, where about 70% of the waste is located, has hosted the UK’s reprocessing plant for the last 60 years and it has provided thousands of jobs and, amazingly, more recently, a significant tourist attraction.  The geology may not be absolutely perfect but the risks involved in transporting the material to some other UK site would surely outweigh this, even if such a site could be found. 

“The time has come for a realistic and pragmatic appraisal of the long term situation.  We have the waste; now what is the least risky option for disposal?”

Dr Richard Shaw, Radioactive Waste Team Leader, British Geological Survey, said:

“Following the decision by Cumbria County Council to say ‘no’ to moving to the next stage of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely process, the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to finding a suitable site to host a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) for the UK’s radioactive waste by a process of voluntarism.

“Most geologists believe that building a GDF at depth in a suitable geological setting is the safest way of dealing with our radioactive waste over the very long timescales that it needs to be isolated from the surface environment.  There are a number of distinct geological environments which are suitable for building a GDF and it is important to consider that an individual site has to be good enough – it does not have to be the best site.”

Dr Paul Norman, senior lecturer in nuclear physics from the University of Birmingham, said:

“Despite today’s decision, it is clear that the UK still needs to find a way forward for disposing of its nuclear waste.  It also seems likely that we will need new nuclear power as part of our energy mix in the short to medium term future.

“Regardless though of new nuclear power stations or not, a solution for our radioactive waste disposal needs to be found, and we need to be careful that we are not now running out of options.”

Prof Bill Lee, Co-Director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London, said:

“This is a disappointing decision by Cumbria County Council (CCC) to reject any further part in this process.  But it is only a blip, and in the big picture the UK’s programme of managing radioactive waste safely will continue to look for volunteers.

“We can’t simply leave the waste in temporary container storage, it has to go into a proper disposal facility underground.  That needs a combination of a community willing to host it and the right geology.

“Even if CCC had said yes there was still a long way to go before we were convinced the geology was suitable.  Cumbria have withdrawn much too early in my opinion.  The technical arguments put forward against the site were not scientifically convincing, and the process would have benefitted from much more scientific analysis to make sure any decisions were based on facts and not myths.  That can not now happen.

“We should remember that, contrary to some claims by campaigners, this facility is not being pushed on anyone, it is a voluntary decision.  It is a national issue but it has to go somewhere.  It is now up to other communities to come forward.

“The offer of payment to the region which agrees to accept the waste has been criticised by some as being a bribe.  But whichever community comes forward will be providing a national service, and it is only right that they be rewarded.”

Prof Neil Hyatt, Professor of Radioactive Waste Management at the University of Sheffield, said:

“Today’s vote by Cumbria County Council has effectively halted, for the present, consideration of radioactive waste disposal in the Cumbria region. 

“The county council had concerns over both the right of withdrawal, as the planning process progressed, and the suitability of the local geology.  What happens now is an open question.  There are currently no other local communities with a declared interest in hosting a radioactive waste disposal site. 

“Whatever happens, it is clear that, in the future, Government will need to support both closer engagement with volunteer communities, and much more scientific research to build confidence in the safety of radioactive waste disposal.”

Prof Robin Grimes, Co-Director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London, said:

“I am sure the UK will continue to face up to the challenge of finding a permanent residence for our nuclear waste.  Nevertheless, this halt in the investigation in Cumbria will, for now, deprive us of finding out if this region might offer us the practical solution that we require.”

Dr Nick Evans , Senior Lecturer in Radiochemistry at Loughborough University, said:

“This is a short-termist, self-serving decision that does nothing to solve the legacy problems at Sellafield, and which will cost the country and locality much more cash in the long term.”

The Home Office consultation on this issue comes to an end on Wednesday 6^th February 2013.  Come to the SMC to put your questions to a panel of experts in advance.

Speakers:

Dr John Holmes, Research Fellow in Public Health, Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, University of Sheffield

Dr Robin Purshouse, Lecturer in Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield

Prof Anne Ludbrook, Chair in Health Economics at the University of Aberdeen

Dr James Nicholls, Research Manager, Alcohol Research UK

The Institute of Cancer Research in London is taking advantage of huge advances in gene sequencing technologies to set up a new Tumour Profiling Unit that will not only allow targeting of treatments at the weaknesses of a particular cancer, but enable doctors to track the changes in tumours over time, and combat drug resistance when or where it arises. Scientists can now identify the molecular causes of drug resistance in individual metastatic sites, and are in the process of developing blood tests that allow doctors to take multiple samples of tumour DNA during the course of treatment, without the need for invasive biopsies.

But the advances in science and technology also bring questions of policy. If treatments are increasingly targeted at molecular mechanisms within individual cancers, rather than at tumour types like breast or prostate cancer, then what does that mean for our drug licensing system?

The SMC invited three leading experts from The Institute of Cancer Research to talk about the latest in their advances in tumour profiling, explain what they will do in their new unit, and set out the clinical benefits for patients of the latest research.

Speakers:

Professor Alan Ashworth, Chief Executive of The Institute of Cancer Research and Professor of Molecular Biology

Dr Amanda Swain, Team Leader in Development and Cancer at The Institute of Cancer Research and Head of the new Tumour Profiling Unit

Dr Nick Turner, Clinical Researcher in Breast Cancer Research at The Institute of Cancer Research and Honorary Academic Consultant Medical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust

Professor Peter Braude, Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King’s College London, said:

“I am delighted that the government has listened, and revised its plan to abolish the HFEA and the HTA and to transfer functions to the CQC. They also have taken on board the idea that however positive the view of these bodies may be, efficiency and function can be improved and that the recommendation of an external review has been accepted.

“However I am concerned with the suggestion once again of merging the HFEA and the HTA into a single body, a reincarnation of RATE (the Regulatory Authority for Tissues and Cells), a proposal appropriately and convincingly discredited by the 2007 Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. There has been enough money wasted trying ineffectively to reorganise these regulators – joint working and improvement by all means, but enough meddling for political ends. It is patient safety and professional probity that matters.”

Sarah Norcross, Director of the Progress Educational Trust, said:

“On one hand the government has decided to save the HFEA and the HTA from being submerged into the CQC but on the other their new review will give serious consideration to the merger of the HFEA and HTA. More importantly in my opinion is that it should aim to reduce the bureaucratic burden on researchers and IVF clinics so that both time and money are saved there as well as in the civil service.”

Professor Alison Murdoch, Professor of Reproductive Medicine, Newcastle University, said:

“I welcome the government’s acceptance that the activities of the HFEA need to be subject to an independent review. The BFS has shown that the current system of data collection is inefficient, is not fit for purpose and has published proposals for improvement. This includes procedures that would overcome the risks associated with the current flawed data collection processes about children conceived from donated gametes. The recent MOU between the CQC and the HFEA enables the sharing of information but does not overcome the bureaucratic burden associated with duplication of inspection.

“In relation to research, it is difficult to understand why a clinic would need HRA approval to undertake a trial comparing two different (approved) drugs given to women during IVF but if we wanted to compare two different (approved) culture media for the embryos in the same IVF treatment, we would still need both HRA and HFEA approval.”

Dr Allan Pacey, Senior Lecturer in Andrology at the University of Sheffield and Chairman of the British Fertility Society, said:

“The British Fertility Society is very pleased with the Department of Health proposals for the future of the HFEA and the mechanism by which activities covered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts are to be regulated.

“The HFEA was set up to respond to the concerns of the day and performed admirably in establishing a regulatory framework and successfully navigating the political, ethical and cultural issues thrown up by the emerging technology.  However, it has of late hampered the progression of the UK fertility sector without providing any enhanced regulation, its principal responsibility under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts.

“We along with many other respondents to the consultation therefore look forward to taking a thorough and objective review of the HFEA’s functions to ensure that UK fertility treatment and research continues to be well regulated under a far simpler system. The administrative time that could be spared by cutting duplication within the regulatory systems will amount to a significant reduction in NHS spend.

“It is important to note that the British Fertility Society is absolutely committed to upholding the principles enshrined in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts, specifically those that protect the interests of patients and children, and the special status of the human embryo. We advocate a review of regulatory functions from the HFEA solely in the understanding that fertility treatments and embryo research can continue to be safe, effective and ethically sound under a ‘one-stop-shop’ system, rather than the current one which leads to vast duplication of effort.

”We believe that regulation of activities covered by the Act should be done in the most efficient and effective way, and be confined to the specific requirements of the legislation and associated regulation, recognizing that assisted conception is now an accepted element of healthcare, carried out by appropriately qualified practitioners, according to established standards.

Professor Lisa Jardine, Chair of the HFEA, said:

“I am delighted that the Government has decided that the HFEA’s dedicated expert regulation of IVF and embryo research will continue. I have always believed that the interests of the fertility patient, who of course matters most, are best served by having a specialist regulator.

“We already work closely with the HTA and I welcome this review as an opportunity to identify where we can strengthen and streamline those arrangements still further.”

Reference:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2013/01/response-hfea-hta/

Prof Sheila Bird, Programme Leader at the MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, said:

“The UK’s decisions on cost-effectiveness, for example by NICE, are indeed informed by valuations on quality and length of life.  These valuations were drawn up through a carefully-designed survey in 1993 of 3,395 interviewees (response-rate of 64%) from representatively sampled 5,324 UK addresses.

“This was a major undertaking by health economists at York University, and is relied upon still. Other nations, such as Canada, have copied the UK’s methodology to develop their own national valuations.

“The UK is already considering the need to update its valuations as they may have changed in the 20 years since they were first examined.  Whether they have changed enough to warrant the considerable research costs to re-examine them is a matter of judgement.

“However, the contrast is stark between how well these valuations were originally obtained and the description of how eccentrically 1,300 respondents – across several nations – were approached: not to elicit valuations, except for mobility, but to inquire about how risk averse they are. 

“It is plain common sense to know that individuals vary in how risk-prone/averse they are!  Indeed, that variation is precisely WHY national-applicable utilities, such as the UK’s, must properly represent the national spectrum and be averaged across it.  It needs good applicable science that has stood the test of time, and a robust methodology that has since been adopted by other nations; and that’s exactly what we have.

“This new project, apparently unpublished, seems to have a number of other specific flaws.

“It assumes that the system of valuations which grades different conditions cannot be said to reflect how real people view these conditions.  This is wrong.  The population-based valuations are precisely what we need to properly reflect the UK public’s view of the value to be placed on life in 243 different states of well-being/disability.

“It finds that most people are either risk averse or willing to take risk, and that it was rare to find someone neutral.  This is right but irrelevant.  Of course people vary, which is exactly why population-based valuations are applied and why the original York study used a representative sample of households.

“The project’s leader, Ariel Beresniak, proposes that valuations be made differently for each disease, and claims in his defence:  ‘The pro-QALY lobby will respond that such a system doesn’t compare different treatments for different diseases…But we never need to do this in real life medical situations.’  But, this comparison across diseases is precisely what NICE has to do!  And it is also what NHS commissioners will need to do with NICE’s help.

“All countries have to make difficult decisions about affordable treatments. The valuations underlying QALYs help us to do so on an objective basis, but judgment matters too.”

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of The Public Understanding of Risk, University of Cambridge, said:

“These type of criticisms are not new and do not invalidate what is done by NICE.  Of course the QALY approach is not perfect, but some mechanism is needed to provide consistent comparisons across different medical interventions, based on aggregate benefit and cost.  Otherwise the money could go to those with the most appealing emotional argument.”

Dr Adam Jacobs, Director, Dianthus Medical Limited, said:

“There are indeed a number of assumptions underlying the use of QALYs in health economic analyses. That is not a new revelation: all health economists are very well aware of those assumptions and the limitations they place upon conclusions drawn from QALYs. A good health economics analysis should make the assumptions explicit, and will also look at sensitivity analyses to find out what the effects would be if some of the assumptions turned out to be inaccurate.

“While QALYs are undoubtedly an imperfect methodology for assessing cost effectiveness of interventions, they are still useful, and I am not aware of any alternative methodologies that have been shown to perform any better.”

Prof John Cairns, Professor of Health Economics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, & a member of the NICE Appraisal Committee for ten years, said:

“Given limited budgets we do need to compare different treatments for different diseases because agreeing to spend more on a particular treatment for a particular disease implies that there will be less available to spend on other diseases.  We need to be able to compare what we gain by spending in one area with what we lose by not spending in another area.  This new project’s suggested approach of using measures of outcome specific to particular diseases will not allow us to do that.

“QALYs are certainly not perfect and we should be looking for better ways of informing decision making but getting rid of an imperfect system without replacing it with a better one is not the way forward.”

Dr Andrew Walker, economist at the University of Glasgow, with ten years’ experience of reviewing new medicines at the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), said:

“I am amazed it has taken these authors 3 years and EUR1m to establish what we already know, that QALYs are not perfect.  Anyone who makes decisions using QALYs and who cannot think of at least three issues with them is not thinking hard enough.  But as I explain QALYs to doctors and some patient groups around the country they can see they have a valuable role to play.  No measure is perfect.

“They give one example of where one organization has made a questionable decision: as someone who is pro-QALY I can easily say ‘I think NICE got that wrong’ without in any way believing we should scrap QALYs.  If the UK government is found to have got its figures wrong on debt reduction, do we try to scrap all statistics?  Of course not.

“As an alternative they propose cost per remission in arthritis, but I ask them to tell me how they define remission, how long remission lasts and how much we are willing to pay for one remission. What’s more they have set out four conditions the QALY must meet in full to be valid in their eyes – have they tested their ‘cost per remission’ approach against these same criteria?

“I can only speak for Scotland and the UK and with a limited health budget we do have to make decisions across diseases.  If we want to spend more on cancer medicines it has to come from somewhere.  The researchers speak as though there were no budget limits.”

ECH Outcomes Project.

Prof Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, Queen Mary University of London, said:

“This study is interesting but there are some significant points to consider. There are ways in which some of these pesticides might have a mechanism of action that would affect amphibians, these will differ between compounds and so would need examining carefully.

“The main problem is how the experimental levels of exposure compare to the likely exposures that amphibians might receive in the field. In the test system used, the frogs were subjected to very different kinds of exposure than one would expect in the field. This means that it is very difficult to draw conclusions about the implications of the work.

“In the field, if the amount of pesticide applied is ‘x’ then the actual exposure experienced by amphibians will be significantly less than ‘x’ due to dilution in water and water masses, fixation to the target crop and to soil etc. Of the findings in this study, the ones for exposure levels of 10 x the maximum use amount are much less interesting than those around the normal levels of application.

“Of the compounds that are tested, a number have highly restricted uses and some of them are specific in their action (affecting particular processes in fungi, for example). A number of the compounds used are only used in restricted circumstances (notably the organophosphate compounds).

“It is interesting to note that Fenoxaprop is a compound which mimics juvenile hormone activity and which might be thought to affect development in amphibians. It would be necessary to determine whether levels that produce this type of effect would be reached in the field.”

Dr Mick Hamer, Environmental Safety, Syngenta, said:

“Bruhl et al (2013), in their paper ‘Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians: An underestimated cause of global decline?’ have exposed juvenile common frogs to a number of pesticides. The study was designed to fill a knowledge gap with respect to the effects of pesticides on terrestrial stages of amphibians and as such, followed a similar methodology, and found similar results, to Belden et al (2010), referenced within this study. As with Belden (2010), the scenario was direct overspray of juvenile amphibians, in this case, confined to a cage above bare soil.

“The study was limited, particularly with respect to numbers of animals and this is to be applauded as the sacrifice of animals in such studies seems unnecessary, as the relevance to exposure of amphibians in the field has not been established. The claim is that the exposure is ‘realistic worst-case’, however the only thing realistic are the application rates. It has yet to be established how and the extent to which amphibians are exposed to pesticides, particularly for terrestrial life-stages in agricultural environments.

“The extrapolation from laboratory mortalities following overspray to effects in the field and the subsequent link to amphibian decline is not justified.  Consideration needs to be given to application scenarios and timing, crop interception (these pesticides are not applied to bare soil) and the co-occurrence of amphibians in the field at application.

“Extrapolating from these simplistic lab exposures to effects in the field, with the use of language such as ‘alarming’ and ‘astonishing’, whilst perhaps journalistic, is not sound science.  Indeed, the counter argument can be made, that if amphibian mortality is as portrayed in this paper, it is ‘astonishing’ that there are not more reports of dead amphibia from the field.”

None of the pesticides used in the study are Syngenta products.

Prof Richard Shore, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, said:

“This study is useful in that it highlights the toxic hazard posed by terrestrial pesticides to amphibians that might be present in cropped areas; such risks are not routinely assessed. 

“However, the exposure scenarios in this experiment are not realistic of field situations and might be expected to result in higher exposures (and associated effects) for the given spray rates. Therefore, while highlighting the hazard posed by these terrestrial pesticides to common frogs and potentially other amphibians, the authors’ statement that their results suggest ‘large-scale negative effects of terrestrial pesticide exposure on amphibian populations seems likely’ are difficult to justify.

“However, the importance of cropped areas for amphibians is uncertain and if such areas are a significant habitat then consideration of likely risk to amphibians within crop may well be needed.”

Further info from Prof Shore:

Toxicity

“The paper raises some valid points about whether current testing regimes are adequately protective of adult amphibians that might be present in agricultural crops. I believe the authors to be correct when arguing there are no direct tests for this and so there is uncertainty as to whether current risk assessment is protective here, although it is not known what percentage of amphibians are likely to be in fields during  spraying periods… and therefore how important any lack of direct assessment may be.

“The authors note some toxicity with all products at x1 normal maximum application and with the higher rate (x10 application rate), and some mortality with three products at 10 times lower than the maximum application rate. The study therefore demonstrates hazard to common frogs from these formulated products. The data suggest that compounds used in the formulation of the product may also affect toxicity which indeed might be expected.”

Exposure

“Exposure in this study appears to be through direct over-spraying both of the soil substrate and, as far as I can tell from the methods (although it is not crystal clear from the text), of the frogs. I am assuming that the frogs were over-sprayed as the text refers to the animals being confined to the substrate and in the bottom part of the containers that were sprayed. 

If we consider the x1 maximum application rate treatment, exposure in the study is most likely worse than in the field for various reasons, such as:

a)      Frogs were directly over-sprayed (this would occur in the field only if animals were present on the soil surface when spraying occurred),

b)      There was 0% interception of spray by crops whereas interception would be expected by crops in the field.  The amount of interception varies with a bunch of factors but could easily be more than 60% and quite possibly much higher. 

c)       Frog exposure to subsequently volatilised pesticide from soil and surface residues on the soil may well be higher than in the field as animals had no ability to move away from contact with sprayed soil, and the way that moisture was added to the soil in the experiment was designed to prevent pesticide leaching.  

“Overall therefore, the experiment is not realistic of exposure in the field.  The x1 maximum application rate in this study might be expected to result in an exposure in frogs greater than the equivalent spray rate in the field, the 10X dose rate obviously more so.  The relative exposure associated with the 0.1 dose rate relative to what may occur in the field when pesticide is applied at normal rate is uncertain.”

Sample size

“The study is mostly well explained but the numbers of animals used per test is small, albeit for good reasons.  Because of small sample numbers, mortality could only be recorded in steps of 20% at best (maximum of five frogs were used per dose).  There was no replication of tests per compound and full dose response curves are not described.  Thus, there will be considerable uncertainty around the given % toxicity values, although the tests are clear in showing that some toxicity does occur in frogs that were exposed.” 

Should we be doing anything differently with pesticide use?

“I don’t think this is the right question.  I think the question is should we be specifically evaluating the potential risk to amphibians from terrestrial pesticides?  This depends on whether there is good evidence that within-field cropped areas are utilised significantly as habitat by amphibians. If there is such evidence, consideration of likely risk to amphibians within crop may well be needed.”

Reference: 

‘Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians: An underestimated cause of global decline?’ by Bruhl et al., published in Scientific Reports on Thursday 24th January.

Prof Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at Queen Mary, University of London, said:

“The compound has rarely caused blood dyscrasias even on those who have taken a lot for many years.  The idea that you might get a clinically significant amount in horse meat even after therapeutic administration to the horse is, frankly, daft.”

Peter Jones, President of the British Veterinary Association, said:

“Phenylbutazone (Bute) is a painkiller that is also used in humans.  It has a licence for use in horses that have been identified in their passport as not being destined for the food chain. 

“A Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) in meat has not been established for the use of bute in food-producing species because of concerns regarding the toxicity of the metabolites which could reside in meat from treated animals.  Due to the lack of the MRL, bute is banned for use in food-producing species.  The tracing system of horses for the food chain should pick this up and any horse having been treated with bute should be removed from the food chain.  Unregulated horsemeat of unknown provenance (i.e. that which enters the food chain illegally) could have a risk of bute residue as it is a commonly used drug.”

Prof Chris Elliott, Director of the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen’s University Belfast, said:

“Phenylbutazone is a drug often used in horses to treat sore joints and aid recovery after fractures.  Research has shown that when humans or animals were exposed to high levels there were adverse side effects such as bone marrow toxicity.  Therefore it is not licensed for use in animals that go into the food chain.  There is a system in place in Europe which should identify when horses have been treated with the drug to prevent them going for food production but the effectiveness of this has been doubted by many. 

“Thankfully the residues of drugs such as phenylbutazone found in meat are very low and the risk to the consumer is correspondingly low.  However, the use of veterinary medicines in all animal species that do go into the food chain is a matter of food safety and has to be treated seriously. 

“In the UK & Ireland as well as all other EU member states there are systems in place to test samples of foods of animal origin of a wide variety of veterinary medicines.  In the vast majority of cases, however, this testing is in the raw materials – meat, eggs, fish etc – and not on processed foods.  This is a gap in the monitoring system which is in place to safeguard the consumer and authorities may feel the need to address this, particularly as we all consume so much processed foods these days.  

“In the present incident there is no evidence to suggest any residues of veterinary medicines were detected and indeed no evidence of any food safety related topic.”

Prof Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the University of Leeds, said:

“According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), phenylbutazone is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity.  There is no convincing evidence of its carcinogenicity in humans because in the individuals studied many other drugs had also been taken and any one of these might have caused the cancers seen.  And there is no animal evidence either that it is a carcinogen.

“The reason the chemical is not for human consumption appears to be rare and idiosyncratic responses in humans to the chemical.  These include aplastic anaemia and some other disorders of the bone marrow.  But these are not cancer events.”

Prof Hay has also provided a research paper for background.  It refers to the identifiable drug in horsemeat and the need to have proper screening processes in place to pick up the drug.

The Food Standards Agency has issued the following statement:

“The Food Standards Agency (FSA) carries out checks in slaughterhouses to ensure that horses presented for slaughter are fit for human consumption, in the same was as they do for other animals such as sheep and cattle. The FSA also carries out regular enhanced sampling and testing for phenylbutazone in meat from horses slaughtered in the UK.

“In 2012, the FSA identified five cases where horses returned non-compliant results. None of the meat had been placed for sale on the UK market. Where the meat had been exported to other countries, the relevant food safety authorities were informed.

“During the recent horse meat incident the Food Safety Authority of Ireland checked for the presence of phenylbutazone and the samples came back negative.”

Beck Smith, from the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), said:

“After his speech at the Royal Society, the Chancellor was called to put his money where his mouth was and today’s allocation of the money from the Autumn Statement for science does that. CaSE has welcomed all the recent additional spends on science – they go a long way to compensating for the £1.7bn shortfall the sector faced following the 2010 Spending Review.

“What the sector needs now is a long-term strategic vision for science which spans all Government departments, so that policies in areas like immigration and education work together to ensure the UK really can be the best place in the world to do science.

“Our recent 4Growth campaign – which calls for the 4G spectrum auction revenue to be reinvested in science and innovation – outlined four key areas the Government needs to invest in if we’re to become a growing, high-tech economy.”

Dr John McCauley, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Influenza at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research, said:

“A WHO meeting was held in February to discuss this issue with the authors of the manuscripts, the head of NIAID (Dr Tony Fauci), the editors/deputy editors of the journals, the head of the committee that made the assessment for the US Government and the Directors of the WHO Collaborating Centres on Influenza. This meeting recognised the importance of the work that was being carried out.

“At the meeting, it was felt that the research would allow us to be in a position to make far better risk assessments of the zoonotic and pandemic threat posed by any H5N1 virus. Having a restricted circulation of research material was also discussed, but it was not deemed to be feasible. The group also thought that publication of conclusions rather than the complete work was not useful or helpful.

“The recommendation from the meeting, in a statement from Dr. Keiji Fakuda, was published on the WHO website. Here the moratorium was recommended to be extended whilst there was some education about the biological and other security measures that were used to contain the virus and about the explanation of the benefits of the research.

“The laboratories have expanded on their containment and security system used in the experiments and I think the value of the results has been recognised. Therefore, the WHO group’s recommendations were satisfied.”

Prof Wendy Barclay, Chair in Influenza Virology, Imperial College London, said:

“The moratorium on research with H5N1 highly pathogenic influenza viruses leading to increased transmissibility in mammals was put in place last year by an international collection of influenza virologists. The stimulus for this voluntary pause in research in one specific area was the revelation that two labs had actually generated recombinant viruses with increased transmissibility. Several other labs along with these two had been working in this area for some years, publishing and presenting their work openly, but only when efforts yielded up a positive result did anyone really notice. Then there was a knee jerk response from certain quarters previously naive of this approach, expressing horror that scientists were brewing up deadly diseases. It became clear that the public needed reassurance and justification about these experiments.

“The original moratorium was supposed to last 60 days and during that time it was hoped that a wide body of people would get together to debate the merits of the work and also to ensure that such work, if conducted, would be done under the most appropriate containment. After all, inadvertent release of these genetically manipulated viruses might cause a devastating human outbreak. Inevitably, 60 days proved too short a time to debate this issue fully enough and now a whole year has passed. During that time, many meetings have been held both open and closed, many opinions have been expressed in closed halls but also in the public domain (including live webcasts and on line debates) and the safety measures for this type of work have been clarified. There is probably not a scientific issue in recent times that has not been so widely thrown out for public consultation as this one.

“Now the scientists suggest it is time to move on, go back to the very safe bench they were working at, taking on board the comments of the past year which will undoubtedly have focused their minds on the key questions they hope now to address. H5N1 has not stood still during this year, but thankfully it has also not made any significant evolutionary jumps either. Evidence suggests the virus continues to drift antigenically especially in places like Egypt, but also that clinical management of patients caught early in the infection is improving their chances of survival. The information learned from the two publications that finally made it into Nature and Science last year has been processed by the influenza community and has been hugely informative, not only for understanding the risks from H5N1 but also for illuminating how other subtypes of flu might species jump and even for assessing the zoonotic risks from other pathogens. The lifting of the moratorium will undoubtedly lead to more scientific revelations that will have direct consequence for human and animal health.”

Prof Wendy Barclay is a signatory on the letter.

‘Transmission studies resume for avian flu’ a signed letter with 40 signatories,  published in Nature and Science on Wednesday 23rd January.

Professor Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School, said:

“Over the last 20 years we have been steadily getting rid of bacterial meningitis through the introduction of vaccines against different strains. This new vaccine is the first one expected to prevent cases of meningococcus B which is now the main cause. It’s been a big challenge for the researchers and manufacturers to come up with this vaccine and it’s very rewarding to see it become available. This is not the end of the fight against meningitis, but it’s an extremely important next step.”

Tony Ennis, Technical Director at Haztech Consultants Ltd, said:

“The material released is that which is used to give the distinctive odour to natural gas. It is added in extremely small quantities and is detectable by smell at tiny concentrations – in the order of 1 part in 2.8 billion.  It is used because it has such a distinctive smell and because it can be used in such small quantities that it does not affect the combustion properties of the gas itself.  It is not toxic at low concentrations despite the strong smell!

“The material is one of a group known as Mercaptans – many of which are extremely smelly. Mercaptans contain sulphur and hydrogen sulphide is released from rotten eggs, hence the smell being likened to rotten eggs.

“Natural gas itself (mainly composed of methane) has no smell and the odour is added to make people aware of any gas leakage as a safety measure.

“The stable weather conditions (little atmospheric turbulence) and low temperatures at the moment, coupled with the low threshold of detection of this material mean that the smell is drifting across the UK, a distance of over 200 miles from the source.”

Prof Jon Ayres, Professor of Environmental & Respiratory Medicine, University of Birmingham, said:

 “This is an important piece of research and, being a longitudinal study where we see exactly what happens to individuals over time, it has very robust findings.

“We already know that occupational asthma costs many millions of pounds to the UK economy each year. This latest research has identified cleaners as a new and very important at-risk group. However, we already know how to prevent occupational asthma and how to solve it. The difficulty is the expense for small and medium enterprises which may save just one case of adult-onset asthma over a long period.

“The main message from this study is that employers need to pay greater attention to exposures in at-risk groups. Both government and industry need to reconsider how they can best control exposure and reduce adult-onset asthma due to occupation.

Prof Danny Altmann, Head, Pathogens Immunology and Population Health, Wellcome Trust, said:

“This important study gives us new insights into asthma and exemplifies the value of being able to conduct such research using long-term, longitudinal cohorts such as the 1958 Birth Cohort (co-funded by the Wellcome Trust and the MRC) in the context of accessible, national healthcare data.

“Asthma research has tended to focus on identifying the major allergens (for example house dust mite proteins, dander from domestic pets, fungal spores), the genetics and, to a lesser extent, the interplay with infection.

“This study reminds us of the many unexplored areas and gaps in our knowledge: few researchers would be able to explain the mechanisms that leave farmers, hairdressers or cleaners more susceptible to adult-onset asthma. However, learning more about these occupational exposures will clearly need to attain higher prominence.”

Prof Somnath Mukhopadhyay, Chair of Paediatrics, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, said:

“This remarkable study has a number of important and novel messages for asthma sufferers and doctors. It shows that a high proportion of adult asthma in the UK could result from occupational exposure. It throws light on a range of new occupations that may represent significant risk factors for asthma. The study should thus influence routine history-taking in day-to-day general practice in the UK, as identifying the precipitant for asthma is a key step in asthma management. It also raises interesting questions for the future. For example, does the removal of these factors at the time of initial presentation to primary care prevent the progression of the disease?”

‘Asthma and occupation in the 1958 birth cohort’ by Ghosh et al., published in Thorax on Monday 21^st January.  

Professor Sir John Burn, Professor of Clinical Genetics, Newcastle University, said:

“This is an important paper. Given the importance of aspirin in reducing the risk of heart attacks, strokes and now cancer too, we need to study any possible side effects carefully. It may be we should think about an upper age limit for use in prevention.”

‘The association of aspirin use with age-related macular degeneration’ by Gerald Liew et al., published in JAMA Internal Medicine on Monday 21^st January.

Prof Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, Queen Mary University of London, said:

“This study has a good experimental design and shows very small amounts of melamine excreted, as expected. As the authors point out, no comments can be made about effects but at low levels of melamine you would not expect toxicity. The ‘follow-up’ paper would be to see if those who used melamine always have more stones than those who don’t. But you would need huge numbers to carry this out so I am not sure it could be done. The findings of the current study are, in my view, noise of no clinical significance.”

Professor Alan Boobis, Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Imperial College London, said, said:

“Melamine is a well studied compound.  Its primary toxic effect is to the kidney. The effect is highly dependent on the dose, as it is a consequence of crystallisation of melamine. At doses below those which produce sufficient amounts in the urine to crystallise there is no adverse effect.  Hence, exposure to small amounts of melamine will not cause any harm. According to EFSA and the WHO, regular exposure to melamine in amounts of up to 0.2 mg per kg body weight in the diet on a daily basis (the tolerable daily intake) would not be expected to cause any harm.  Indeed, it has been known for some time that consumers can be exposed to small amounts of melamine through the use of melamine cookware and this does not result in excedence of the tolerable daily intake.  

“EFSA evaluated a number of use scenarios of melamine cookware and concluded that none resulted in levels that would exceed the tolerable daily intake. This is confirmed in the study by Wu et al.  Total excretion of melamine (almost all of which when ingested will be excreted in the urine) was maximally around 0.02 mg.  Given that the tolerable daily intake is 0.2 mg/kg bw, equivalent to 14 mg per 70 kg adult or 2.4 mg per 12 kg toddler (1-3 years of age), one would have to consume very many portions (>200 by a toddler) of food cooked as in the Wu et all study in a single day before the tolerable daily intake was exceeded.”

Professor Tony Dayan, Emeritus Professor of Toxicology, University of London, said:

“1. Melamine is a monomer that is polymerised in the manufacture of resins used to make bowls and other containers for domestic use. Similar resins occur in other food containers and in adhesives used to seal and label various food packs. It may also occur in foodstuffs as a metabolite of a pesticide.

“Its biological and toxicological properties have been extensively studied, even before the contaminated milk and animal food scandal a few years ago.

“2. Major regulatory agencies, such as WHO [see WHO below], the US FDA and the European EFSA have published formal reviews of its toxicity from which various estimates have been derived of the ‘Tolerable Daily Intake’ (TDI) in man considered not to represent any risk to consumers.

“The estimates have ranged from 0.63 to 0.2mg/kg/d for adults. The potential toxicity of the association in foodstuffs of melamine and the related substance cyanuric acid is included in these estimates.

“The principal risk, as shown in the recent contaminated milk scandal is the formation of kidney and bladder stones if sufficient melamine is ingested regularly for months on end.

“3. The new report from Taiwan continues work started there some time ago showing that melamine may be leached from containers holding hot, acid liquids, such as certain types of soup.

“4. The new report suggests that the intake of melamine from 500mL hot soup in melamine resin bowls may result in the urinary excretion of melamine up to 8.35μg/day. When the subjects ate the soup from ceramic bowls they excreted melamine 1.31μg/day.  Urinary excretion of melamine is a reasonable indicator of the total amount ingested by the person.

“5. The new research was done because of concern about the high incidence of such stones in Taiwan and their possible relationship to melamine in the diet.

“6. Conclusion: Much has still to be done to quantify the frequency and the concentration of melamine monomer in the diet in every country and its relationship to the quantity excreted in the urine but the amounts now demonstrated seem small in relation to what is generally accepted as a tolerable daily dose.

“The new information does not suggest a major new risk factor in the causation of kidney and bladder stones particularly when the very varied nature of the foodstuffs likely to be stored and served in melamine resin bowls are considered many of which will probably not leach any of the monomer from the resin or adhesive.” 

‘A crossover study of noodle soup consumption in melamine bowls and total melamine excretion in urine’ by Chia-Fang Wu et al., published in JAMA Internal Medicine on Monday 21^st January.  

Soon after former BBC director general George Entwistle let it be known he wanted more female experts on the BBC, I arrived in the office to find a new colleague struggling to help the Today programme.

The request was linked to a Science Media Centre (SMC) press briefing we had set up to allow two leading experts, who happened to be men, to express their controversial view that the public sector may need to step in to drug discovery for diseases like Alzheimer’s as pharmaceutical companies retreat.

The story was splashed across The Independent and created quite a stir. But the producer wanted a female guest. Finding a leading female Alzheimer’s expert is not a problem – we have several on our database of 3000 scientists. But my poor colleague was trying to establish what the female experts think on this specific issue, then work out whether they were exercised enough and available to go on Today to argue the case – all this when two leading experts were willing and able, but of the ‘wrong’ sex.

It was certainly not the first time the SMC has had such a request from the media and in some ways the strange thing about Entwistle’s entreaties was that there has already been a dramatic increase in requests for women guests for some years from BBC news programmes. In fact, far from discriminating against female guests, it sometimes feels that the BBC seem to be doing the exact reverse – bending the stick towards women.

There are elements of this which are great news. The SMC is happy to promote female researchers – more women scientists and engineers on the airwaves will go some way to inspiring the next generation and emboldening those women scientists who are currently too media shy.

But there are also aspects that make me uncomfortable, most especially when desperate producers on incredibly tight deadlines appear to ask for any female expert rather than the best expert. My main fear is that if we are not careful, hard-pressed reporters and producers will end up bending the stick towards scientists who may have less expertise, but invite them onto programmes in order to reach arbitrary targets.

The lack of women at the top in science remains truly shocking. Over the last 10 years women account for only 10 per cent of new Fellows elected to the Royal Society, an award reserved for scientific excellence. This trend is reflected across science with women making up just 4.9% of Fellows at the Royal Society of Chemistry, 4.7% at the Institute of Physics and 3.8% at the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Journalists would do far better to expose and report these inequalities in science than disguise them.  It’s arguable that by disguising them we let the scientific establishment off the hook because things look and sound much better than they are.

One of the things I am most proud of at the SMC is how we have hugely increased the pool of scientific experts available to the news media. When we were set up 10 years ago producers often relied on a handful of well-known scientists who were happy to talk outside their specific areas. This happens far less frequently today because the SMC and other press offices have persuaded and trained many more eminent experts to emerge from their ivory towers and take to the airwaves.

As a result, journalists have easier access to the very best experts on breaking stories like swine flu, E. coli outbreaks, Fukushima, volcanic ash clouds and so on. Rejecting the best expert for a female expert, as we have been asked to do by journalists on several occasions, risks undermining the gains we have made in the quality of science coverage.

If all things are equal, and there are top experts of both sex available, then I am happy to discriminate in favour of putting a woman on air. Where I am uneasy is when all things are not equal and the best expert available is a man. Positively discriminating in favour of a woman with less expertise is patronising to women, bad news for the media coverage of science, and ultimately bad news for the quality of public debate on science.

In the end this comes down to one of those classic ‘ends justifying the means’ debates.  BBC managers are right to want to see more women scientists on our airwaves. I also absolutely salute those in the BBC who want to shake journalists out of their lethargy and get them to think much more imaginatively and intelligently about the range of studio guests. But I worry that the means employed, risk undermining the quality of science in the news while not achieving the meaningful change we all want to see.

So what’s the answer? For a start the scientific community has to get its own house in order. It depresses me that so many of the structural barriers to women reaching the top in science stubbornly remain, with women who take breaks to have families struggling to get back on the career ladder and shocking studies showing that we still harbour dinosaurs who promote poorly-qualified men over well-qualified women.

I welcome the debate about how we increase the number of women scientists on air and the SMC is currently looking at how we can do more to support and encourage women scientists to speak out in the media. But when asked by anyone on the SMC’s database ‘why me?’, I only ever want to say ‘because you are the best expert for this interview’.

For any women scientists who are interested in joining the SMC’s expert database, please do get in touch on 020 7611 8300 or smc@sciencemediacentre.org to find out how we can work together.

Professor Chris Pollock, Honorary Research Professor, Aberystwyth University, said:

“I was saddened to hear of the financial problems facing the Royal Institution and of the threat of sale of the building.  At a time when so much emphasis is being placed upon public engagement with science it seems to me to be quite unacceptable for the community to stand by whilst such a venerable and venerated institution loses its home.  How can we contemplate allowing the spot where Michael Faraday lectured to the public to be turned into another up-market West End shop?  As someone who has had the privilege of lecturing there, I would fully support efforts by the scientific establishment to set up a national campaign to save  the Ri and ensure that it remains a focus for all that is best in science engagement.”

Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Professor of Physics at the University of Surrey, said:

“Many of us in the science community have for some time now been aware of the financial pressures the Ri has been under, which go deeper than simply a reflection of the current economic climate. But no-one foresaw the possibility that the wonderful building on Albemarle Street might actually need to be sold off. It seems crazy that at a time when science and science communication is riding a wave of popularity not seen for generations we hear that the very epitome of a British scientific institution is under threat. We cannot sit back and wait for a potential rich benefactor to come along – we need to mobilise a national campaign to raise the necessary funds to save it. I have had the privilege of giving many lectures in its famous theatre – indeed with another one coming up next week. It is truly one of the most inspirational places in the world to lecture in and one is constantly aware of the ghosts of Davy and Faraday looking down.”

Sir Roland Jackson, Chief Executive of the British Science Association, said:

“I am very sad that the excellent staff at the Royal Institution are facing such a situation and wish them the best for a successful outcome.”

Colin Blakemore, Professor of Neuroscience and Philosophy, University of London, said:

“The RI invented science communication, but there are now a multitude of other organisations that do the same things, sometimes better and usually more cheaply. Nevertheless, the loss of this icon of public science would be a tragic signal that Britain no longer values its unique contribution to history. A fraction of the cost of a Picasso or a football club would save this venerable institution. Surely there’s a benefactor out there who wants to secure a place in history by rescuing it.”

Dr Paul Wigley, Reader in Foodborne Zoonoses sat the University of Liverpool, said:

“The consumption of horse meat is not common in the UK for cultural and aesthetic reasons. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about eating horse meat and it is commonly eaten in other parts of Europe and around the world. 

“There are only a small number of abattoirs in the UK producing horse meat for human consumption but there are more in Europe.  These abattoirs are subject to the same standards and legal requirements as abattoirs producing any other type of meat for human consumption. Horses need to be accompanied by a ‘passport’ that identifies the animal and confirms that it is intended for human consumption.  The horses, as with other species, are inspected by the Official Veterinarian (OV) at the abattoir before they are killed.  Each carcass is also inspected after slaughter to ensure that it is fit for human consumption.”

Dr Emma Roe, Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Southampton, said:

“Once an animal is brought to an abattoir and slaughtered the most valued parts of the carcass are often cut, prepared and packaged immediately and sent off to supermarket shelves as fresh meat product.  The parts of the carcass that no one wants to eat as fresh meat cuts are then sent on elsewhere (including out of the country) for ‘further processing’.  The meat processor, who receives these frozen pieces of less-desired animal body parts from potentially various parts of the world, then turns them into burgers, sausages, nuggets etc.

“What is interesting is that the findings of this investigation point to the fact that the identity of the animal species and its relation to established food products, for example the beef burger, should be made from the bodies of cattle and not chickens, horses or pigs, appears to become blurred in meat processing plants.  At one level, why should it matter what species the meat comes from?  The least-favoured meat cuts they are handling need flavouring and processing to make the meat appetising, because of where the meat was harvested from the animal’s carcass.  But at another level, it’s crucial to be attentive to this, because of cultural and religious dispositions consumers have about what they are happy to eat or not, and consumers deserve transparency about what meat they are eating.”

Catherine Collins, Principal Dietitian at St George’s Hospital NHS Trust, said:

“Few of us are directly involved in food production, so provenance is extremely important in being able to trust food producers who supply our foods.  Horsemeat itself is as nutritious as other red meats, but the fact that it, and pork extracts, appeared in a beef product without notice is of concern – particularly for those following Kosher or Halal diets.  Animal husbandry is another key issue for meat eaters, and of course there is no way to know the health or welfare of the animals included in these products.”

Dr David Jukes, food law expert from the University of Reading, said:

“Manufacturers and retailers apply targeted Quality Assurance to try to ensure 100% compliance but it is not possible to guarantee this at all times – the costs involved in attempting to achieve 100% compliance through testing would be prohibitive.  Their priority is always to maintain the safety of the food supply.  Other matters, whilst important, have a lower priority when establishing QA procedures.   For these secondary aspects there is therefore greater reliance on audits and traceability to maintain confidence in the integrity of the supply chain. 

“However these systems do not, and cannot on their own, identify and prevent unscrupulous traders from fraudulently introducing cheaper ingredients into the food supply chain, which is huge and stretches around the world. We have come to expect foods to be available throughout the year with ingredients both local and exotic.  Any single manufactured food product may contain many ingredients from different parts of the world which have themselves been passed through numerous different businesses. It would be possible to create systems which are nearly 100% reliable but this would be at exorbitant cost.  However, at all stages, we rely on people – to harvest, to collect, to manufacture, to distribute – and no system can ensure that people are 100% reliable or honest.  Hence the need for effective enforcement backed by penalties which create a deterrence.

“Targeted auditing and occasional random surveillance sampling is necessary to identify these cases and they are then often followed by extensive investigations, often involving the police.  It appears, from the information currently available, that the present problem was identified through surveillance and the background to this will now be subject to detailed investigation by many different organisations and businesses.  The presence of undeclared horse meat in a beef burger is a criminal offence and will be investigated as such.

“The reasons for the current situation are unclear and it will take time for this to be resolved.  As the matter is a criminal offence, speculation should be avoided and the investigating authorities should be allowed to proceed with their work to ensure that, if appropriate, they are able to obtain the necessary evidence which will lead to a successful prosecution.  It is only through effective application of the law and the prosecution of offenders that all consumers are protected.”

Michael Walker, Science and Food Law Consultant at LGC (international analytical services company, formerly Laboratory of the Government Chemist), said:

“In the UK the presence of horsemeat and, for some, pigmeat in beefburgers, is objectionable and emphasises the need for vigilance in monitoring the supply chain with sound analytical testing.  How it got there is speculative but I agree with the Tesco spokesman quoted saying that the root causes of this incident are likely to be either illegality or negligence by suppliers.

“It is possible that human error diverted the supply of horsemeat from legitimate continental producers to the plants that seem to be implicated.  In some countries, of course, horsemeat is a legitimate part of the supply chain and traditional recipes for salami and salami-type products may include meats from animals such as wild boar, horse and donkey. 

“However, given the financial climate, it is also possible that fraud – including cheaper meats to ‘bulk up’ the main constituent meat product – is involved.

“The possibility of undeclared and unwanted meat species in meat products is a well-known risk. Thankfully there do not appear to be any health implications here but the incident emphasises the need for vigilance.  A relatively large survey for horsemeat in salami was carried out in 2003 with essentially negative findings but this sort of thing crops up from time to time.

“Regarding the presence of pigmeat in beefburgers, the FSAI have suggested that an explanation may be cross contamination from handling pork meat in the same plant. This is a credible explanation, especially if the levels found were low but is worrying in that cleaning and separation are basic to good hygiene and should have worked to prevent cross contamination.

“In the UK, it is an offence under Sections 14 and 15 of the Food Safety Act 1990 to sell food which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the consumer, or to falsely or misleadingly describe or present food.  Consumers do not expect horsemeat in beefburgers and for those who wish to avoid pigmeat the description and labelling of the food must be accurate and honest to allow them to do so.

“DNA testing for meat species is a well-established technique and I am sure the FSAI laboratories carried out stringent quality control of their testing to ensure accurate results.

“Although objectionable to many, the presence of horsemeat carries no safety implications provided the proper hygiene and safety checks took place prior to and after slaughter.  However if fraud was involved there is a risk that those checks were ignored, resulting in unknown possibilities of microbiological and chemical hazards such as food poisoning and veterinary drug residues.

“Lastly there is a section of the population that is at very real risk from undeclared and fraudulent switching of food ingredients in the supply chain.  People with allergies depend on accurate and honest labelling to protect them and there have been fatalities when, for example, peanuts have been used to substitute for more expensive nuts in food products.”

Dr. Mark Tallon, Chair of the Food Law group at the Institute of Food Science & Technology (IFST), said:

“The primary issue here is likely not a safety one as cooking would kill most bacterial contamination. However, the issue is to restore public trust over control over the supply chain as these foods are clearly not of the nature and substance intended.  Pork contamination could likely be explained by poor clean-down prior to making burgers but the horse meat is more difficult to explain given the robust regulations covering the processing of beef following the BSE crisis of the 1990s. 

“A major concern is how long this issue has been occurring, given this contamination was identified a few months ago.  The traces of non-beef DNA may be a result of imported horse meat.  However, its appearance in burgers at an amount of up to 30% suggests that the meat is not simply a contaminant – but we need to await the results of a full investigation from both the retailers and food safety competent authorities before drawing any firm conclusions.”

Prof Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University London, said:

“This is an illustration of how food systems work on trust.  So far as we know, there are no safety implications, but it does raise deep concerns.

“Firstly, is it fraud?  No label declared the horsemeat or traces of pig DNA.  Secondly, it appears to be adulteration, a cheaper meat being substituted for a more expensive one. 

“Thirdly, and probably most importantly, this exposes failings in commercial food governance.  Big retailers are supposedly in control of the food system, yet their management and contracts and specifications have been found wanting.  Retailers understandably are saying this is a matter of their suppliers. These were own-label products, we are told.  If I was on their Boards of Directors I’d want an overhaul of their commercial governance on meat products.  The state’s system of food governance has worked, we should note.  The authorities audited and exposed the failures.  Good for them. 

“Finally, we need to remember that many cultures eat horse quite safely.  But if fraud and adulteration are found, it’s a sign that standards are either stretched or weakening.”

Prof Chris Elliott, Director of the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen’s University Belfast,said:

“The current information suggests that this is an issue about food integrity and not safety, thankfully.  The substitution of low quality, low value materials for the true foodstuff has plagued food production for centuries.  As we are now in a global food supply chain the changes of such events occurring have increased markedly.

“While retailers operate wide ranging audit systems to verify that their supply chains are robust there must be scientific verification that these systems are working.  This might seem a simple solution but it is far from that.  The costs involved in undertaking high-level verification will ultimately be passed to the consumer.  However, I believe this is a price worth paying to ensure what we eat is what we think we have purchased.”

Gaynor Bussell, independent dietitian, said:

“From a nutrition and food safety aspect there is no harm in eating horse meat; the real issue is that today the public expect to know the ingredients of what they are eating.  People find eating some meats unacceptable, including horse which is not usually eaten in the UK.”

Prof Alastair Lewis, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry at the University of York, said:

“This new study helps us see the bigger picture: that we need to tackle air pollution and climate change as one joined-up problem.  

“In the past there has been a rather artificial separation between science and policy that deals with ‘pollution’ – meaning the impact of dirty air on health – and climate, which is often CO2-focused and considered to be on such a large global scale that it induces policy ‘despair’.  In practice, many governments have been extremely successful in tackling their national air pollution problems, in contrast to global attempts to deal with CO2.  

“It has long been known that diesel engines and combustion of wood and coal contribute to both kinds of pollution.  This new work shows us that careful selection of air pollution control at national level could be an effective means to create climate benefits in the future.

“This study shows us that black carbon – or ‘soot’ – has a significant role in climate change, and reducing its concentrations would have a fast and significant effect.  But this does not mean that CO2 has a lesser effect; and most certainly should not allow us to lose sight of essential reduction of CO2 emissions.  It simply tells us we must do both – and fast.”

Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds’ School of Earth and Environment, who co-led the study, said:

“There are exciting opportunities to cool climate by cutting soot emissions, but it is not straightforward.  Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits.

“If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions, we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming—or a couple of decades of respite.

“Mitigation is a complex issue because soot is typically emitted with other particles and gases that probably cool the climate.  For instance, organic matter in the atmosphere produced by open vegetation burning likely has a cooling effect.  Therefore the net effect of eliminating that source might not give us the desired cooling.

“One great candidate is soot from diesel engines. It may also be possible to look at wood and coal burning in some kinds of industry and in small household burners.  In these cases, soot makes up a large fraction of their emissions, so removing these sources would likely cool the climate.

“Soot mitigation is an immediate effect but helps for a short time only.  We will always need to mitigate CO2 to achieve a long-term cooling.”

‘Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment’ by T. C. Bond et al. is published in Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres  

A new paper published in Nature Climate Change evaluates the regional and global impacts avoided by a set of climate mitigation policies.  The study examines the how the size and speed of emission reduction would affect a number of key climate threats including water availability, coastal flood risk, crop suitability and rising energy demand for cooling.

This research is part of the AVOID research programme funded by DECC/Defra and led by the Met Office in a consortium with the Walker Institute, Tyndall Centre and Grantham Institute: www.avoid.uk.net

Speakers: 

Prof Nigel Arnell, Director of the Walker Institute, University of Reading

The SMC invited three leading experts in palliative medicine to talk about their work and the wider evidence on palliative and end of life care. They answered questions such as:

• what is palliative care and how do we decide who needs it?
• can palliative care actually prolong a patient’s survival?
• how is palliative care provided, and how is it accessed by those who need it?
• what research is being done into palliative care; is it enough?

Speakers:

Dr Bee Wee, Consultant and Senior Lecturer in Palliative Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, & President of the Association for Palliative Medicine

Prof Irene Higginson, Professor of Palliative Care and Policy, Kings College London, & Scientific Director of Cicely Saunders International

Dr David Brooks, Macmillan Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Chesterfield Royal Hospital, & Vice-President of the Association for Palliative Medicine

Prof Alan Boobis, Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Imperial College London, said:

“The draft opinion on aspartame from EFSA provides reassurance that current exposure to aspartame is not a cause for concern.  The conclusions are based on a substantial body of work and are consistent with those of previous risk assessments by other organisations.”

Dr Richard Allan, Reader in Climate Science at the University of Reading, said:

“Global warming is not ‘at a standstill’ but does seem to have slowed down since 2000 in comparison to the rapid warming of the world since the 1970s.

“In fact, consistent with rising greenhouse gases, heat is continuing to build up beneath the ocean surface:

http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/284-warming-over-the-last-decade-hidden-below-ocean-surface

“This indicates that changes in ocean circulation are in part responsible for the recent slower rate of surface warming.  The way the ocean distributes the extra energy trapped by rising greenhouse gases is critical in determining the new Met Office forecasts of global surface temperature over the coming decade and is an area of active research.

“These decadal forecasts are very much experimental – they are at the cutting edge of the science and are technically very challenging.  The Met Office are being open and transparent by making the forecasts available to allow a proper validation to occur.  The Met Office is one of about 10 groups performing these type of forecasts worldwide and all predict a warming over the coming decade.

“Nothing in their data leads me to think that global warming due to human influence has stopped, or is irrelevant.  It hasn’t, and it isn’t.”

Prof Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University Of Oxford, said:

“Comparing the expected temperature for 2013-2017 with a single exceptionally warm year (1998), as some reports have done, is just daft.  1998 was around 0.2 degrees warmer than the 1996-2000 average, largely thanks to a massive, once-a-century El Nino event.  The IPCC predicted a warming of 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade due to human influence back in 2000.  That means the one-off impact of that El Nino event was equivalent to about 20 years of the expected background warming trend So, unsurprisingly, 20 years later, expected temperatures have risen so that an average year is now as warm as that exceptionally hot year. 

“That said, a lot of people (not the IPCC) were claiming, in the run-up to the Copenhagen 2009 conference, that ‘warming was accelerating and it is all worse than we thought’.  What has happened since then has demonstrated that it is foolish to extrapolate short-term climate trends.  We did see unexpectedly fast warming from the mid-1990s to the early-2000s, but the IPCC, quite correctly, did not suggest this was evidence for acceleration. 

“While every new year brings in welcome new data to help us rule out the more extreme (good and bad) scenarios for the future, it would be equally silly to interpret what has happened since the early-2000s as evidence that the warming has stopped.”

Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Director, Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said:

“The current news item that the Met Office now predicts no global warming in the period up to 2017 is based on the latest 5-year forecast run with their new climate model.  Such forecasts are at the frontiers of the subject and form part of a research programme in this area in the Met Office and elsewhere, but should not be considered to be predictions.

“One interpretation of the forecasts is for little warming from 1998 until 2017. This is consistent with a multi-decadal fluctuation in temperature that presently opposes the continued upward trend. However the two supported one another during the rapid warming in the 1990s and can be expected to do this again in the future, leading to another period of rapid warming.

“The forecast results also suggest that half the years in the period to 2017 would be expected to give new record global temperatures.”

Prof Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at University College London, said:

“I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘global warming has stopped’!  Global mean temperatures – whether measured or predicted – are not the issue.  What matters is the energy balance of the planet and the changes that an energy imbalance will drive in the climate system – as well as the consequences for humans. 

“90% of the energy imbalance enters the ocean and is not visible to the global mean surface temperature value.  The continuing rise in sea level demonstrates ongoing energy accumulation in the ocean (as well as a contribution from melting land ice). 

“Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe.  We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment.”

In 2009, scientists from the Universities of Brighton, Sussex and Dundee came to the SMC to discuss their research suggesting a particular genotype is associated with exacerbations in asthmatic children exposed daily to the popularly prescribed medications salbutamol and salmeterol.

They have now undertaken a study to test their findings directly in the community, and in particular have investigated the effects of alternative medication to salmeterol in children expressing the susceptible genotype. The lead author of the study came back to the SMC to discuss these latest findings and what they mean for the future of asthma treatment in children.

Speakers:

Professor Somnath Mukhopadhyay, Chair in Paediatrics, Brighton and Sussex Medical School (a partnership between the Universities of Brighton and Sussex with the NHS)

Prof Stephen Holgate CBE, MRC Clinical Professor of Immunopharmacology, University of Southampton, & Associate Editor for the Respiratory System, Clinical Science, said:

“While genetic changes that determine bronchodilator responses in asthma have been known for some time, this is a wonderful example of stratified or personalised medicine working its way into practice. While still a small trial, the results in the asthmatic children’s response to the two treatments across a number of asthma outcomes are impressive. It will undoubtedly encourage further, larger studies to be undertaken to confirm the findings in different children and adult asthmatic populations. The gene-based test is not yet available to doctors, but should become so if larger trials are equally positive.”

Prof Donald Singer, Member of the British Pharmacological Society and Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the University of Warwick, said:

“This study is important in providing evidence that simple genetic testing can be used to personalize selection of medicine in clinical practice – in this case applied to treatment choice in children with poorly controlled asthma.

“Their main outcome – less time off school because of asthma – is important both for children and their families. The authors were careful to consider poor compliance with asthma treatment as an important alternative explanation for their findings. However this is a small study and needs to be confirmed in larger well-controlled clinical trials.”

Malayka Rahman, Research Communications Officer at Asthma UK, says:

“These findings are really encouraging, although more research would be needed to confirm these and establish whether a genetic test for Arg16 should be implemented. We are keen to see more research into genes that affect responses to asthma treatments across different populations, as this exciting area of research has the potential to lead to the tailoring of better treatments for an individual based on their own genetic make-up; ultimately keeping more people out of hospital and preventing unnecessary asthma deaths in the long-term.

“In the meantime current asthma treatments are very effective so we would advise parents of children with asthma to keep an eye on their child’s inhaler use and symptoms and if they do have any concerns to discuss these with their GP or asthma nurse.”

Anna Murphy, consultant pharmacist and Royal Pharmaceutical Society Spokesperson for respiratory conditions, said:

“This paper presents a case for individualised treatment which I very much support. However although we are moving towards tailoring treatment according to genetic profile to do this effectively we need to be able to easily identify patients according to their genetic make-up, this would require mass genetic screening which is not currently feasible. Although in more complex cases, where asthma symptoms are not well controlled we are already matching treatment to the underlying cause of disease.

“It is important to note that other studies show only about 15% of children with asthma would have the genetic profile that is identified by this research.

“The study itself was designed to prove that a child’s genetic make-up can have an impact on the effectiveness of treatment rather than to advise on the specific treatments we use for children with asthma. Therefore it would not be responsible to change prescribing practice at this time.

“My advice to parents of children with asthma would be to continue with regular inhaled corticosteroids using good inhaler technique to achieve good asthma control and to prevent long-term changes within the lung caused by inflammation. If patients still experience symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids then other treatments are available.

“Salbutamol has been used since the 1960′s and salmeterol since the 1980′s both have been proven safe in large scale well conducted clinical trials. However it’s important that salmeterol and other long acting inhalers that open up the airways are always used with inhaled steroids.  Parents who are concerned about their child’s asthma symptoms should seek advice from pharmacist or doctor.”

‘Tailored second-line therapy in asthmatic children with the Arg16 genotype’ by Mukhopadhyay et al., published in Clinical Science on Tuesday 8^th January 2013.

Prof Ottoline Leyser, Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge, said:

“There are many different biofuel crops, cultivation methods, production and processing systems post-harvest, and different final biofuels. Each one has advantages and disadvantages, which must be compared to the advantages and disadvantages of alternative options. The key is to ensure that the policies driving biofuel development and adoption are properly formulated to take account of these complexities, as described in the 2011 report of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.”

Dr. Angela Karp, Scientific Director of the Cropping Carbon Institute Programme, Rothamsted Research, said:

“It is well known that many trees emit isoprene and efforts have been placed on reducing this. In our own Institute Strategic Programme grant (Cropping Carbon) we have flagged this up as a target for research, pointing out that reducing isoprene emissions from willow would not only reduce greenhouse gases but reduce loss of carbon from the plant. Having said that, at least one previous publication I know of does not suggest that the levels harm air quality.

“Land use calculations of impacts for willows and poplars need to consider that they are among many biofuels crops being grown (most of which are not trees but grasses) and take into consideration the large land areas already under forests. For all these reasons we do not see that the UK needs to reconsider its interest in biofuels.”

Prof Keith Goulding, Head of the Department of Sustainable Soils and Grassland Systems, Rothamsted Research, said:

“Ground-level ozone results from emissions of NOx and Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOCs), the latter from trees and other higher plants. This research says that increasing the area of bioenergy crops will increase NMVOC emissions and so ground-level ozone, and makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the impact of bioenergy crops. However, the extent to which these crops will be grown is still a subject of much debate. Using all the land available (72Mha) must be seen as an extreme case, especially when food security is a priority.”

“Current issues with ground level ozone are summarised well in the recently (2012) published Review of Transboundary Air Pollution (RoTAP): http://www.rotap.ceh.ac.uk/ which states that ‘exposure to typical summer concentrations of ozone has been calculated to reduce the UK yield of wheat and potato production by 7% and 2% respectively’. And goes on to say that ‘for ground level ozone, the benefits of reductions in peak values as a consequence of reductions in European emissions of oxidised nitrogen and volatile organic compounds, have been eroded substantially by emissions elsewhere throughout the northern hemisphere, including from international shipping, which are driving up the background ozone concentrations. To solve ground level ozone problems in the UK and elsewhere, it will be necessary to develop policies and emission control measures at the hemispheric scale.’”

‘Impacts of biofuel cultivation on mortality and crop yields’ by K. Ashworth et al., published in Nature Climate Change on Sunday 6th January.

Prof Anthony Warrens, British Society for Immunology member and V-P of the British Transplantation Society, said:

“This is a great achievement technically for the team involved and reflects an extremely well coordinated multidisciplinary approach including surgeons, physicians, psychologists and basic scientists, such as immunologists. It is the sharing of expertise in this way that ultimately works for the benefit of the patient. There are enormous challenges, including the prevention of rejection and the psychological response to a transplanted hand. But with meticulous planning and ongoing multidisciplinary support, this sort of procedure can offer enormous benefits to a selected group of patients. As with all transplantation of this nature, it is important to note the great altruism  of the donor and his or her family in agreeing to donate after death and to recognise how much good for others can be done by this phenomenal act of human generosity.”

Lord Robert Winston, Imperial College London, said:

“History repeats itself.  The first hand transplant that I was involved with was done by Willy Boeckx and myself in 1975 in Leuven when I was working there (not 1998) when we were pioneering microsurgery.  Even then, I am not sure whether it was the first, probably not.  What is clear is that since that time there have a number of hand transplants (I followed one in my TV series Superhuman in 1999 – 2000) which showed that, even when nerves and vessels and tendons were all carefully joined up under a microscope, these transplanted hands were very limited and most often caused huge inconvenience to the recipient because of lack of function – essentially a largely ‘dead hand’ at the end of an arm.  I really can’t see this is much of a breakthrough given that a donor hand has extra inconvenience and complications – not least of which is the serious risk of rejection in spite of the need to take powerful and risky immunosuppressive drugs.”

Professor Norman Williams, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, said:

“This is yet another example of life-changing surgical advancements that are now possible. New surgical techniques together with a greater understanding of organ rejection are making an ever wider range of transplants possible. This presents opportunities for treating conditions and improving quality of life in ways that simply were not possible in the past.

“As with all procedures that improve the quality of life rather than save it, there is an ethical balance to be struck – especially as the lifelong anti-rejection medication that the patient would need to take carries its own risks. Care always needs to be taken in choosing suitable patients who understand the risks and benefits. This selection should be by a multi-disciplinary team of doctors which includes a psychologist or psychiatrist as a core-member of the selection team.”

Dr Daniel Sokol, Medical Ethicist and Barrister, and former member of the Royal College of Surgeons Working Party on Laryngeal Transplantation, said:

“A hand transplant, like other major transplants, is a risky and delicate procedure, with huge potential benefits as well as considerable risks.  Unlike some forms of transplant, it is not a life-saving procedure so there must be a careful assessment of risks and benefits and patient consent is paramount.  The transplant itself is a great achievement, but it is not the end of the road.  How the patient will react post-transplant, physically and psychologically, is key to the success of the procedure.”

Professor Nigel Arnell, Walker Institute Director, University of Reading, said:

“Rainfall has increased in recent decades over many parts of the Northern Hemisphere and we’re seeing rain falling in heavier bursts. 2012 for the UK fits with that picture and we’ve seen the effect of all this rain with disruptive flooding across many parts of country.

“While rainfall varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade, there is increasing evidence that the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is starting to affect rainfall across the globe.  That means we are likely to see flood frequency increase further.  The sort of wet winters we currently see over Northern Europe just once every 20 years could happen almost every other year by the end of the century, but curbs on global greenhouse gas emissions could significantly reduce the expected increase in flood risk.”

Ola Holmstrom, Head of Water at WSP Engineering Consultancy, said:

“We are heading towards a time where there will no longer be any real drought or rain periods, we could just as easily have a drought winter and a flood summer – as seen this year. Adapting to these new weather patterns is the challenge; it requires innovative thinking from those with responsibility for risk management as well as commitment at every level of society, from individuals to Government.

“Although much of the long-term solution is about planning and adapting approaches, funding is crucial and public budgets need to be protected. Our core infrastructure will need to be adapted, re-enforced and in some cases completely re-built which comes with a cost.”

Dr Dusko Ilic, Senior Lecturer in Stem Cell Science, King’s College London, said:

“The study tackled a novel, quite interesting approach to cell based therapy, something that we do not usually hear about. Although this approach requires further verification and a lot of work needs to be done before we can think about clinical trials, the initial data are promising. This pioneering work definitely provides a strong foundation to build and expand our knowledge about new opportunities in cell based therapy and personalised medicine.” 

Professor Alan Clarke, Director of the European Cancer Stem Cell Research Institute, Cardiff University, said:

“This is a potentially very exciting development  which  extends our capacity to develop novel cell therapies based on IPS (Induced Pluripotency).  There are two  important features in this research -  first, the potential ability to continually ‘resupply’ the T cells, and so overcome their short half life; second, the fact that this could ultimately be tailored  to individual patients – i.e. the IPS derived therapeutic cells  could be patient specific, so overcoming problems of immune rejection of the therapeutic cells. Taken together, this offers an exciting novel treatment possibility.”

Professor Sir John Burn, Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, said:

“This is a very appealing concept and the research team are to be congratulated on demonstrating the feasibility of expanding these killer cells using iPS techniques.  Headline writers need to beware that even if these T cells are effective, it could prove very challenging to produce large quantities safely and economically. Nevertheless, there is real promise of this becoming an alternative when conventional therapies have failed.”

Professor Chris Mason, Professor of Regenerative Medicine Bioprocessing, UCL, said:

“For the next decade, the role of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells in therapy is more likely to be in the fight against cancer than for permanent implantation to regenerate tissues and organs. The challenge is not their ability to function, but in proving their safety – the risk/benefit profile will take years to establish for permanently implanted iPS-derived cells due to the complexity of their reprogramming. However, for transformative cancer therapies, where the implanted cells may only be required to transiently initiate a ‘rapid killer punch’ before being wiped out by the patient’s immune system, their clinical application may well be far sooner. This paper lays the foundation for such an approach and moves the iPS cell focus towards clinical targets better suited to our current state of knowledge. A pragmatic route forward that will enable patients with major unmet medical needs to benefit from iPS cell therapies both safer and sooner.”

‘Regeneration of human tumor antigen-specific T cells from iPS cells derived from mature CD8+ T cells’ by Raul Vizcardo et al. published in Cell Stem Cell on Thursday 3rd January 2013.  

Professor Andrew Peet, NIHR Professor and Honorary Consultant in Paediatric Oncology, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, said:

“Medulloblastomas are the most common malignant brain tumours in children. Doctors who treat these children across the world have come together over the past 30 years to work out the best way to treat them through a series of clinical trials each testing out new treatments and making sure they are better than the old ones. Through this work, we now have an excellent understanding of the best way to treat these tumours with what we have currently available. Children who have a tumour which has not spread to other regions of the brain or spine at diagnosis have around an 80% chance of long term survival with surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy and it has been well demonstrated that relatively low doses of radiotherapy to the brain and spine are effective. Whilst the treatment does have some unwanted effects, children can survive their tumour and have happy and productive lives. Some go on to higher education, have successful careers and have families of their own. Radiotherapy is a key component of the treatment and there is no robust evidence that medulloblastoma can be cured without it except for children with very specific subtypes which usually occur in very young children. One of the things that we have established is that the time from surgery to radiotherapy should be short and if it is too long then the chances of survival are reduced. This is a quickly growing tumour and treatment must be delivered in a timely fashion to be effective.”

Dr Jane Barrett, President of the Royal College of Radiologists, said:

“The treatment of cancers in children is a highly complex and emotive issue and each case must be treated individually. The decision as to which treatment pathway will be of most benefit to the patient should be made by the multidisciplinary team, which includes clinical oncologists who deliver the treatment, and the family by assessing the risks and benefits. The Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group (CCLG) has devised a series of clear protocols to support this process and whilst radiotherapy is an effective treatment for both children and adults, these decisions are always carefully considered and balanced.

“Over the past 20 years there have been major advances in the use of radiotherapy with the advent of more accurate treatment beams and by reducing the amount of radiation to which children are exposed. Parents of a child with a brain tumour can be reassured that their treatment programme is based on carefully conducted clinical trials and that if radiotherapy is recommended it is because the benefits outweigh the side effects.”

Martin Ledwick, Head Information Nurse at Cancer Research UK, said:

“Survival rates have more than doubled for childhood cancers over the last 30 years and this has been thanks to better treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. But there’s more work that needs to be done. Cancer Research UK is funding research and trials into new treatments to save more children from cancer and reduce the side-effects that can come from treatments, helping children live full lives unaffected by their cancer.”

Professor Katherine Vallis, MRC-CR-UK Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, Oxford University, said:

“About half of all cancer patients receive radiotherapy during their illness, and it forms part of the treatment of just under half of all the patients who are destined to be cured of the disease. It is true that all medical interventions, including radiotherapy, may cause some unwanted side effects but it is also true that with modern radiotherapy, these can be minimised and, in some cases, eliminated. The use of highly precise, advanced radiotherapy techniques means that the cancer tissue can be exposed to the radiotherapy beam while surrounding healthy tissue is avoided. 

“More often than not these days, radiotherapy is used in combination with surgery and chemotherapy, with each type of treatment contributing to the efficacy of the overall treatment programme. Clinical trials that test new radiotherapy techniques and combination treatments lead to evidence-based improvements in practise.”

Professor Tim Maughan, Professor of Clinical Oncology, MRC-CR-UK Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, Oxford University, said:

“All treatments for cancer carry the hope of benefit but the risk of short or long term side effects. This is especially the case when considering the case of a child with a brain tumour and the risk of brain damage from treatment.

“The treatments that are used in standard practice (that is surgery radiotherapy and chemotherapy) have all been under long term assessment and there is clear evidence that the benefits of these treatments outweigh the side effects. For that reason they are used as the standard of care across the developed world.

“In the case of radiotherapy, recent improvements in the precision with which the treatment is delivered due to IMRT (intensity modulated radiotherapy), IGRT (image guided radiotherapy) and proton beam therapy have all reduced the doses of radiation given to critical normal tissues near the cancer and this reduces side effects further. All of these treatments are available through the NHS either in UK hospitals or through the national proton beam therapy service which funds suitable patients to receive proton beam therapy at designated overseas centres. Radiotherapy for childhood brain tumours has a clear cut benefit in terms of improving survival.

“In contrast, new treatments have not been shown to be effective in the curative treatment of brain tumours.

“Delay in starting radiotherapy treatment can have adverse effects. In the UK over the last year radiotherapy waiting times have been dealt with so that now over 94% of patients start radiotherapy within the national target of 31 working days. It has been estimated that this removal in the delay to start radiotherapy treatment saves 2500 lives of cancer patients each year. More details about this and all aspects of radiotherapy in the UK are available in the recent DH publication: radiotherapy services in England 2012.

“Research in radiotherapy has received much attention and improved funding in the last decade in the UK. In 2005 the MRC and Cancer Research-UK collaborated to fund the Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology in Oxford which is a world leader in the research in the underlying scientific mechanisms of the effects of radiotherapy.  Since 2009 a national radiotherapy research working group (the NCRI CTRad) has brought together all radiotherapy related research across the UK resulting in more radiotherapy clinical trials and more patients being treated in research studies. The NIHR funds a national radiotherapy quality assurance programme which ensures that all radiotherapy in these clinical trials is of the highest precision and accuracy. This in turn is increasing the precision and accuracy of radiotherapy used in routine clinical practice.”

Professor Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter, said:

“None of the alternative treatments considered by Sally Roberts are supported by good evidence. In fact, the notion of alternative cancer “cures” is a fallacy: it suggests that conventional oncology ignores promising leads simply because they originate from alternative practitioners; this is silly, insulting and untrue. Alternative cancer “cures” are a contradiction in terms.”

Dr Seena Fazel, Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow in Clinical Science, University of Oxford said:  

“Research suggests that most people carrying out a multiple killing do not have an identifiable mental illness; estimates of those who have carried out a multiple killing and have a mental illness range from 10-40%.

“It is important to underscore the point that when psychiatrists make a diagnosis of a mental disorder or illness, they use multiple sources of information, such as interviews with the person themselves, partners and parents if appropriate, and observations are often made over weeks and months. Radiological, blood and neuropsychological tests are part of this process and inform the diagnostic process. Although it is easy to speculate over retrospective reports of behaviour, these may be inconsistent and based on information that is dated.

“What does seem common to many of these cases is that they are carried out by socially isolated young men who want to die from suicide. So beyond discussions about gun control, health services could consider about how to reach these individuals, most of whom have no history of involvement with mental health services, and examine whether their needs can be met and their risk managed.”

• What treatments are available for children’s cancers in the UK? Are they different to adults?
• What testing is done on children’s treatments, is this different than for adults and why?
• Are treatments such as Sonic Photo Dynamic Therapy (SPDT) and immunotherapy on offer in the UK and if not, why not?
• What side-effects come from common therapies and how do we judge whether the risks outweigh the benefits?
• Are alternative therapies being seriously considered and what do results show?

Speakers:

Dr Antony Michalski, Paediatric Oncologist, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London

Dr Michael Williams, Consultant Clinical Oncologist, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge

Dr Martin English, Consultant Paediatric Oncologist &. Neuro-Oncology MDT Lead, Birmingham Children’s. Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Prof Corinne Le Quéré, Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of East Anglia and Lead Author for IPCC WG1, 3rd, 4th and 5th (ongoing) assessment reports

“The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming, and there is nothing in the draft IPCC report leaked today that suggests the contrary. 

“The conclusions from the last report published in 2007 remain the same: that most of the 0.8 degree warming observed in the past century is due the increase in carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and other human activities, and the sun’s contribution to this increase was small. 

“The new assessment is underway, and tearing it apart before the new consensus has been reached will only create confusion.  That’s not what we want.  We want clarity about the state of understanding of climate change; we want robust evidence and conclusions, and clear information about the remaining uncertainties and what they mean.  We want this so the public and policy makers can make informed decisions on what to do about climate change for the benefit of all.”

Prof Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at University College London, said:

“People have to decide who they believe.  Personally I do not find it at all convincing that the IPCC documents undermine the case for man-made climate change; in fact the opposite, the leaked material appears to lend more support than ever to the science.

“My feeling is that journalists and the public won’t be fooled by this.  What we all need is careful evaluation of the evidence to support prudent actions for a better future.”

Prof Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds, said:

“The original leak grabbed some out-of context text about the solar influence on climate and claimed that IPCC scientists at last admit to a cosmic ray cause of climate change. In fact, since the last IPCC report there has been some very nice work at CERN that rigorously tests an important part of the cosmic ray theory  and finds a clear cosmic ray effect on cloud formation -  but crucially it is very unlikely to be a large enough effect to influence 20th century climate change.

“Although this may seem like a ‘leak’, the draft IPCC reports are not kept secret and the review process is open.  The rationale in not disseminating the findings until the final version is complete is to try and iron out all the errors and inconsistencies which might be inadvertently included.  Personally, I would be happy if the whole IPCC process were even more open and public, and I think we as scientists need to explore how we can best match the development of measured critical arguments with those of the Twitter generation.”

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, said:

“As a registered reviewer of the IPCC report, I condemn the decision by a climate change ‘sceptic’ to violate the confidentiality of the review process.  The review of the IPCC report is being carried out in line with the principles of peer review which operate throughout academic science, including an expectation of high standards of ethical behaviour by reviewers.  It is disappointing, if not surprising, that climate change ‘sceptics’ have been unable to meet these high standards of ethical behaviour.

“The ‘sceptic’ who leaked the draft report has also attempted to misrepresent its contents by cherry-picking quotes out of context to try to give the impression that it endorses the idea that global warming is driven by a decline in cosmic rays from outer space.  In fact, the draft report concludes that there are strong arguments against the cosmic ray theory, while there is compelling evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are driving the unequivocal rise in global average temperature.”

“It is very important that the IPCC acts swiftly and decisively to defend the integrity of the report and counteracts attempts by climate change ‘sceptics’ to misrepresent its contents.  The IPCC must show that it has learned from recent crises and does not allow arguments about due process to prevent it from engaging effectively with the blogosphere and 24-hour news media.”

Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London and contributing author on the recent IPCC report on climate change and extreme events, said:

“Alex Rawls’ interpretation of what IPCC5 says is quite simply wrong.  In fact, while temperatures have been ramping up in recent decades, solar activity has been pretty subdued, so any interaction with cosmic rays is clearly having minimal – if any – effects.  IPCC AR5 reiterates what we can be absolutely certain of: that contemporary climate change is not a natural process, but the consequence of human activities.”

Professor Robert Mair FREng FRS, Chair of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering review, commented:

“We are pleased to see the Government recognise the importance of the joint Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report on the geological and environmental risks of shale gas extraction in the UK.  We welcomed the opportunity to discuss our recommendations with the Department for Energy and Climate Change, the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency recently and commend their commitment to implementing the recommendations set out in our report.  Our report concluded that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and robustly enforced through regulation.  It is now up to the Government, regulatory bodies and operators to ensure that these responsibilities are met. 

“Safeguarding well integrity is at the heart of ensuring that risks associated with hydraulic fracturing can be managed effectively.  Our report highlighted the need for continued monitoring by independent experts to ensure that each well is designed, constructed and operated in a safe and responsible manner.  We strongly encourage both the Government and the operators to implement a properly independent examination and onsite inspection programme so that the public can have confidence in the process.  

“The decision by Ed Davey to commission a study of the possible impacts of shale gas extraction on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change should be welcomed.  There are few reliable estimates of the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction and potential methane leakages during the extraction process have been highlighted as a concern, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas.  The findings of this study will be important in deciding the future of large scale extraction of shale gas in the UK.”

Andy Furlong, director of policy at the Institution of Chemical Engineers, said:

“Shale gas represents an enormous opportunity for the UK.  The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracking can be managed effectively as long as the activity is fully risk-assessed and operational best practice is implemented through appropriate regulation.

“Fracking is an established technology that has been used in the oil and gas sector for decades.  Chemical and process engineers have extensive knowledge of the exploration and production of natural gas.  Furthermore, the UK has 60 years’ experience of regulating the oil and gas industries, offshore and onshore.”

Professor Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, said:

“Shale gas is the same as natural gas – it is a high carbon fuel, with around 75% of its mass made of carbon.  For the UK and other wealthy nations shale gas cannot be a transition fuel to a low-carbon future.  Anyone who says differently does not understand our explicit international commitments under the Copenhagen Accord, the Cancun Agreements – or, alternatively, is bad at maths.

“The UK’s commitment to make our fair contribution to reduce emissions in line with keeping global warming below a 2°C rise gives a very clear global carbon budget, and hence a UK budget: in other words, how much carbon we can put into the atmosphere over this century.  Here the maths is unambiguous – we have insufficient budget for the carbon we are already emitting and by the time shale gas is produced in any quantity (five to ten years) there will be no emissions space left for it.  The maths is that simple, even if the conclusion is not what we want to hear.

“Another fundamental mistake made by many experts on shale gas is that they assume it is lower carbon than coal, but this is valid only if we don’t burn the coal!  In a world that is hungry for energy, any UK shale gas used here will mean we import less gas and coal – gas and coal that will simply be burnt elsewhere.  The climate does not care from which country the carbon comes from – so burn shale gas here and UK emissions may go down but global emissions will go up.  Shale gas is another high carbon fossil fuel – it just adds to the problem – in the absence of a stringent limit on total carbon emissions it will not substitute for coal.

“Finally, even if the technology of ‘carbon capture and storage’ can be made to work with gas – the level of emissions reductions will not be enough to meet our international carbon commitments. In the UK and globally we are now reaping the reward of a decade of hypocrisy and self-delusion on climate change.  We pretend we are doing something ourselves, whilst blaming others for rising emissions.  The truth is out – it is a tragedy of the commons par excellence – we are all to blame and we have left it too late for a technical fix.  We are heading towards a global temperature rise of 4C to 6C this century; if we want to get off this trajectory shale gas needs to stay in the ground and we, in the wealthy world, need to consume much less energy – now!”

Professor Michael Bradshaw from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), said:

“Only an exploratory drilling programme can provide the information needed to arrive at a better assessment of the reserve base, but the US experience suggests that even that will provide limited understanding.

“It is only by extensive drilling that commercial levels of production can be guaranteed.  Any further decisions must assess the commercial viability of shale gas in the UK, against the regulatory costs and tax regime, the environmental impacts (both direct in relation to the drilling activity and indirect in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) and the wider societal acceptance of the industry.  In short, shale gas will remain a conditional resource in the UK for some-time to come.”

Prof Quentin Fisher, Professor of Petroleum Geoengineering at the University of Leeds, said:

“This is a sensible decision given the overwhelming evidence that hydraulic fracturing is safe.

“However, no one should get too excited about potential revenues from UK shale gas exploitation.  A massive amount of uncertainty still exists regarding the volume of shale gas in the UK and whether it can be produced economically.  Around 10-20 wells are needed before gas volumes and flow rates can be reliably estimated.  Even if large volumes of gas are proved to exist, they may be too expensive to exploit on a large scale in the near future given the poorly developed supply chain for unconventional gas production in Europe and the large amount of cheap gas being supplied from elsewhere.

“A key challenge will now be overcoming opposition from local communities who are feed a constant steam of scare stories by environmental activists whose underling objection is the burning of fossil fuels and not the safety of fracking itself.

Prof Andrew Aplin, Professor of Petroleum Geoscience in the School of Civil Engineering and Geoscience at Newcastle University, said: 

“This decision is in line with the substantial body of evidence that gas can be safely and cleanly produced from shales, given an appropriate and transparent regulatory framework.

“Gas will be an important transition fuel as we strive for a lower carbon economy and it is noteworthy that the US has actually reduced its CO2 emissions in the last two years as a result of switching some of its power generation from coal to gas.

“The UK is heavily dependent on gas for its energy and without new sources we will be importing up to 80% of our gas needs by 2020.  All energy production has a visual and environmental impact, whether shale gas, wind turbines or major solar projects.  With careful planning, the visual impact of shale gas production is probably less than that of wind turbines, per unit of energy generated.”

Prof Peter Styles, Professorial Research Fellow at Keele University and co-author of the scientific report to DECC into the Blackpool earthquakes published in April 2012, said:

“As part of the expert group (Styles, Green, Baptie) which examined all of the data and evidence concerning the minor seismicity which occurred last year near Blackpool, I welcome the decision to proceed with carefully monitored exploratory hydraulic fracturing as we recommended to Government in April.

“We have recommended protocols and modus operandi for the industry which will monitor the operations and use these data to control the process in a measured way in order to understand the behaviour of shale rocks in the context of UK Geology.  The resources which are potentially available are large and we should be cognisant of our need for a cleaner, more secure source of energy than coal at a time when we are net importers of gas and heavily dependent on it (50% is imported) for our domestic heating and cooking (70% of which comes from gas) and electricity generation (about 50%).

“During this recent spell of very cold but very still air the welcome contribution from renewable sources such as wind has been minor (0.5 GW out of about 50 GW).  We must under EU regulations on Flue Gas Desulphurisation close around 10% of our generating capacity by 2015 as six coal-fired power stations are taken offline and we have had no shipments of LNG since October as they have all been bought by Japan and Korea.  Even if we did obtain LNG shipments, we have only limited (12 days) of storage as compared to France and Germany who have ten times this amount.  

“We must also avoid the hypocritical position of refusing to face up to our responsibilities of producing our own indigenous supplies (and also bearing the responsibility for disposing of the CO2 generated from them) while happily importing and using gas from countries where political frameworks and regulatory legislation are illusory at best – and where the actual transport of that gas through the pipeline has a higher carbon footprint than actually burning it!”

Prof John Loughhead from the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) said:

“The full adoption of the recommendations made in the review by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering on safe practice, and its own independent review of seismic risk mitigation, shows that DECC has taken the best technical advice to establish safe regulation and processes.

“There is no doubt that it is possible to recover shale gas safely, and in an environmentally acceptable way.

“The ability to exploit shale gas could dramatically increase accessible UK reserves of the cleanest fossil fuel and is an economic opportunity that cannot be ignored.  If successful, it is likely to eventually displace coal from the UK’s energy supply, and make more gas available to do the same elsewhere in the world, which has major environmental benefits.

“No-one can say what the impact might be on gas prices in the UK, but we shall not see serious production for at least 10 years even if the reserves are both proven and economically recoverable.

“Over the next 25 years it is technically unrealistic to expect current renewable energy technologies to replace coal, so shale gas would not displace their further deployment.”

Dr Christopher Green, Director of G Frac Technologies Ltd and co-author of the scientific report to DECC into the Blackpool earthquakes published in April 2012, said:

“A decision on continuation of shale gas was urgently needed, if we are to secure a sustainable energy future for the UK.

“This is a welcome boost in an area where the UK could see benefits on several fronts: defining an industry best practice for ‘legislator-operator regulation’ that addresses the need to minimise risk and conducts safe shale gas operations; developing a resource that could help as part of the future energy mix to UK energy security; and developing local personnel and expertise that will be of benefit not only to the local economy but also might be exported world-wide, to help other nations develop their own shale gas resources.”

Prof Jim Watson, Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, said:

“The view of Ministers that shale gas will significantly boost UK energy security is questionable for two reasons.

“First, the UK is already in a comparatively strong security position, with access to a diversity of domestic and international sources of gas via pipelines and ships.  Rather than relying on shale gas, a priority to strengthen gas security should be more attention to the low amount of gas storage we have.

“Second, even if UK shale gas resources turn out to be large and low cost – and that is a big if – this will not necessarily bring down prices to UK consumers.  It is unlikely that UK shale gas will be anywhere near as cheap as it is in the US, and any price difference between UK gas and continental European gas will quickly disappear as a result of demand from other countries.”

Dr Nick Riley, Head of Science Policy (Europe) at the British Geological Survey, said:

“Drilling and testing for shale gas will allow Britain to assess whether we have an economic resource and how it can be accessed with minimum impact to the environment.

“Gas is the greenest of the fossil fuels and may have a role in reducing carbon emissions in countries which are dependent on coal for electricity generation, but shale gas also has high emissions from all the energy used in drilling and fracking.  If gas power generation is connected with carbon capture and storage the convenience of home grown gas can be combined with very low emissions to help keep Britain within its emissions targets.”

Prof Stuart Haszeldine, Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage at the University of Edinburgh, said:

“The UK undoubtedly has some shale gas resource and, if the relevant environmental regulations and monitoring are enforced, this can be a lower carbon source of fossil energy than imported gas. 

“Fracking is well established in the subsurface industry, and monitoring should greatly reduce the risk of earth tremor.  High quality well casing and sealing of drilling fluids and gas production from surrounding aquifers is equally important, as is control of fugitive emissions.  However, I expect the rollout of shale gas in the UK to be a lot slower than the Treasury hope for, and not to control the price of domestic gas supplies.”

Ed Holloway, Head of Care and Services Research at the MS Society, said:

“The MHRA has already looked at the evidence surrounding Sativex and has decided it is a safe and effective treatment for spasticity – otherwise it would not have been licensed.  The MS Society believes the MHRA is the right organisation to be making that decision and this latest paper does not provide any new evidence; it simply looks at the same evidence the MHRA has already reviewed via a rigorous process.

“As such, we do not believe this work should call into question the MHRA’s decision.  Sativex works for some people and we want everyone with MS to have all possible treatment options available to them to combat the symptoms of the condition.”

‘What place for cannabis extract in MS?’ published in Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin on Wednesday 12 December.

Professor Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, said:

“The CCC’s latest report puts a well-placed boot in the popular view that low-carbon electricity is bad for the pockets of householders and UK plc. 

“Whilst Machiavellian journalists and sceptics will recite the “green energy costs money and jobs” mantra – the more careful and candid scribbler will conclude that renewable and low-carbon energy reduces costs as well as carbon. Ultimately, the CCC makes a robust defence of the position that low-carbon electricity is both good for our wallets and our children; a message that powerful fossil-fuelled groups don’t want us to hear!”

Prof Uta Frith, Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Development, UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, said:

“I am sceptical, because over my lifetime I have seen a number of treatments for autism come and go. However, what makes me sit up and take notice is that the study is based on a randomised control trial design. This is a good thing, but still many questions remain, such as what is the mechanism? Will the effect be replicated? Are some children more likely to benefit than others? The effects of the drug over placebo were modest and one should not overlook that 33% of the placebo sample treated showed amelioration.”

*‘A randomised controlled trial of bumetanide in the treatment of autism in children’ by E Lemonnier et al., published in Translational Psychiatry on Tuesday 11 December 2012. 

Professor John Bond, Strategic Research Advisor (Social gerontology and health services research) at the Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, said:

“This is not the first paper to be published on this subject. Wilson and colleagues published a paper in Archives of general psychiatry in 2007 that showed that loneliness was a risk factor for Alzheimer’s Disease. However this is a soundly conducted study and an important confirmation of the association.”

‘ Feelings of loneliness, but not social isolation, predict dementia onset: results from the Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL)’ by Tjalling Jan Holwerda et al., published in the Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry on Monday 10 December 2012.

Dr Marita Pohlschmidt, Director of Research at the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, said:

“We are glad to have been part of this consultation, which has been an opportunity both to put the science behind pronuclear transfer under the microscope and to present the harsh realities of life with mitochondrial disease.

“For the patients and their families affected by mitochondrial disease, we have heard that safety is a key concern about this IVF technique. Scientists have tested the technique in the laboratory and are now working to optimise and refine each stage of the process. We know that there is both the commitment and funding available to ensure this happens.

“The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is optimistic that the public will share this view. There is still work to be done before it can move towards clinical trials. However, if the results are the clinical trials are successful, we may have a treatment offering invaluable life choices to women living with a cruel condition.”

HFEA public consultation: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/6896.html

Dr Christine Patch, Consultant Genetic Counsellor, Reader in Clinical Genetics, Guys Hospital, said:

“The promise of investment in DNA sequencing, NHS infrastructure and research and training is to be strongly welcomed and I look forward to hearing more about the details of the proposal, in particular the source of funding for this encouraging initiative.

“Sequencing DNA has the potential to generate much more information about patients and is becoming cheaper and easier. More research is needed to fully understand the findings and their implications. It is important that patients participating in these developments are confident that their personal data and information is protected. Translating the findings into useful information for patients is a challenge that will require close working with the NHS.”

Sir Martin Rees, University of Cambridge, said: 

“Patrick Moore may have been an amateur scientist, but there’s no gainsaying his consummate professionalism as a broadcaster and communicator. He did his homework; he absorbed new ideas quickly.  To a TV audience, he was a ‘character’ — indeed in the earlier days of science broadcasting the demeanour of a ‘mad professor’ seemed a prerequisite for media success. But in his case, this image overlay a lifetime commitment, a ‘workoholic’ mission to explain, and an enthusiasm to promote his subject in whatever ways he could.

“Most scientists (I’m certainly among them) find it hard to explain clearly something we’re familiar with and think we’re experts on. But Patrick had the rare ability to absorb some new discovery, and then immediately expound it clearly to camera, without hesitation, deviation or repetition.”

Prof Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds, said:

“Let’s get the positives from Doha.  I didn’t hear anyone in Doha questioning the science or the need for urgent action.  While many were lamenting the pace of the negotiations, the science tells us that there is still time both to mitigate and adapt: even low-lying island states can be saved if we collectively act significantly and immediately.

“Policy makers can witness lives saved within their own careers by instigating common sense adaptation measures such as flood defences and rainwater capture.  Signing the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol shows real leadership from the UK and continued pressure from all of us should force other countries to follow.”

Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said:

“It is vitally important to remember that the dangerous experiment we are performing on the climate system through our emissions of greenhouse gases continues unabated, with global emissions still growing at an alarming pace. 

“The climate system will not wait decades for the governments of the world to inch towards an agreement.  This trend needs to be reversed quickly.  The outcome of the Doha talks is therefore extremely disappointing, if not unexpected.” 

Prof Donald Singer, member of the British Pharmacological Society and Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Warwick, said:

“This report suggests the need for caution, particularly in the longer term use of benzodiazepines. However the authors note that they cannot be sure whether their findings are cause and effect or have other explanations. For example, it was puzzling that risks from these drugs appeared lower in patients with more complex disease burden. There are also risks to stopping these medicines suddenly so patients with concerns should seek advice from their doctor or pharmacist”

Prof Simon Maxwell, University of Edinburgh, and Chair of the British Pharmacological Society’s Prescribing Committee, said:

“UK patient data, like those used in this study, can be exceptionally valuable for informing prescribing decisions. We will need further studies and continued monitoring of NHS patient data to give us a clearer picture of the actual relationship between the use of benzodiazepines and an elevated risk of pneumonia.”

Prof Peter Openshaw, Director of the Centre for Respiratory Infection, Imperial College London, said:

“We normally tell patients with chronic bronchitis that they should avoid using sleeping pills since these may cause respiratory suppression and inhibit coughing. The normal reflexes that help to clear secretions from the lungs at night may be inhibited.

“It seems likely that the effects described in this study are due to deep sleep caused by the drugs. This causes secretions being retained in the lungs, so that bacteria are not cleared so fast and cause infection. This seems more probable than the possible effects of the drugs on the immune system, which may or may not be important. It is also possible that those needing sleeping pills are more prone to pneumonia for other reasons, and that the link is not causal.

“Whatever the explanation, it’s an interesting paper and important finding.”

Dr Jodi Lindsay, Reader in Microbial Pathogenesis, St George’s, University Of London, said:

“The study shows an unexpected and intriguing association between benzodiazepines and pneumonia.  The next step will be to understand why.  This could lead to safer anxiety and sedative drugs as well as improving strategies for preventing and treating infections.”

‘The impact of benzodiazepines on occurrence of pneumonia and mortality from pneumonia: a nested case-control and survival analysis in a population-based cohort’ by Sanders et al., published in Thorax on Wednesday 5th December.

A new project will look at how stem cells can used in developing new treatments for complex conditions like Alzheimer’s, autism and schizophrenia.

A €50m Europe-wide consortium of universities and pharmaceutical companies will use induced stem cells from patients to generate different tissue types against which drug compounds can be screened.

Testing drug candidates from the start in cells from patients will be much more relevant for coming up with effective treatments,  and of course there may also be benefits in reducing the numbers of animals used in research.

Speakers:

Dr Zameel Cader, University of Oxford

Dr Martin Graf, Head of Stem Cell Platform, Roche

Dr Sally Cowley, Oxford Stem Cell Institute, University of Oxford

Prof Paul Hardaker, Chief Executive of The Institute of Physics (IOP), said,

“Science adds significant value to the economy and society so to see it prioritised alongside school infrastructure, fast transport links and new houses is very positive.

“George Osborne, Vince Cable and David Willetts clearly recognise the value that science can unlock for society, but it’s important to remember that investment in science is a long-term commitment. It starts in schools, through higher education into research and to industry, but the pay-off is that we know it delivers growth and jobs to the UK.”

Prof Rick Rylance, Chair of Research Councils UK, said:

“This very welcome investment acknowledges the crucial contribution of research to economic growth and the societal wellbeing of the UK. It will also significantly advance the future of our outstanding research base.

“RCUK is committed to supporting excellent research across a wide range of disciplines and providing access to a full range of world-class research facilities. The funds made available today will underpin the key areas for capital and infrastructure investment identified in our new Strategic Framework for Capital Investment, announced just last month by the Chancellor. Such vital investment allows the Research Councils, collectively, to provide an infrastructure essential for the future sustainability of UK research competitiveness, and it will support the UK in maximising its innovation potential and driving economic growth.”

Prof Brian Cox, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, said:

“The extra £600M for capital expenditure on science announced by the Chancellor today is extremely welcome. George Osbourne has said that his government is up to the challenge of making Britain the best place in the world to do science, and this does indeed seem to be the trajectory we are on. Science and engineering are the route to future economic growth, and with the continuing support of government, I am convinced that the academic and research sectors, in collaboration with industry, will deliver.”

Dr Mark Downs, Chief Executive of the Society of Biology, said:

“We welcome the news that £600 million has been made available for investment into science infrastructure. This again demonstrates that the coalition government recognises the critical role science and engineering plays in supporting growth and jobs, health and social well-being. Many of the solutions to the world’s most challenging problems lie, at least in part, in the biosciences and related subjects.

“To deliver on the opportunity of science we need a skilled workforce and an engaged public, and we therefore welcome the promise of £270 million for Further Education colleges and £1 billion for schools. We urge the government to continue to monitor the impact of funding changes to university teaching practices, to ensure immigration does not continue to prevent the UK from attracting the best scientists and students, and to continue its support for professional recognition as continuous learning.”

Director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering (CaSE), Imran Khan, said:

“We were hoping that the Chancellor would continue his trend of supporting science and engineering, and are really delighted with this new commitment – the total amount of new funding since 2010 has now reached almost £2bn.

“Osborne’s consistency shows that he understands the UK must invest in becoming a high-tech nation. In the coming decades we won’t be able to compete internationally on natural resources or cheap labour, so the Government’s plan to build British excellence in areas likes synthetic biology and energy-efficient computing instead is absolutely critical. We applaud the Chancellor for supporting not only fundamental research, but also making science a bigger part of the UK’s industrial strategy.

“We hope that the Chancellor’s next step is to back the recommendations of CaSE and Nesta’s ’4Growth’ report, which is supported by figures such as Brian Cox and James Dyson and calls on the Government to strategically reinvest the £4bn proceeds from the forthcoming 4G spectrum auction back into science and technology. ’4Growth’ highlights the once-in-a-generation opportunity that the UK has to continue the rebalancing of the economy, which the Chancellor has made a vital contribution to today.

Minister for Universities and Science David Willetts, said:

“Science and innovation are fundamental to our economy and this £600 million takes the total capital investment announced since the Comprehensive Spending Review to over £1.5 billion. It will support high-tech areas where the UK’s research base and industry can gain a competitive advantage, like big data and energy efficient computing, synthetic biology and advanced materials. This will drive growth, create the jobs of the future and help us get ahead in the global race.”

Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, said:

“Innovation is the key to sustainable economic growth for the UK and science is the raw material of innovation.  The Chancellor clearly understands this and his ongoing commitment to investing in science, despite the difficult financial circumstances, is very welcome.  We have some way to go to match the public and private investment levels in research and development of some of our competitor economies but we have the advantage of already being truly world class in many areas of science.  The announcement today of an additional £600 million of capital investment will hopefully help ensure that our world leading scientists have world leading facilities with which to work.

“In a speech at the Royal Society last month the Chancellor identified eight areas where he believes the UK already has an edge and these are undoubtedly areas where we are strong and have the potential for application.  However, we must also make sure that we maintain capital and other support across a broad range of science.  We must not narrow our focus too much and risk sacrificing the ideas that will create growth decades from now.”

Sir Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“I am delighted that the Chancellor has backed the ambitious vision for British science that he set out at the Royal Society last month with this substantial package of investment. He is right to recognise that investment in world-class science and the world-class infrastructure it requires must be integral to any strategy for driving growth, even in times of austerity.”

Dr Dave Reay, Senior lecturer in Carbon Management at the University of Edinburgh, said:

“The Chancellor’s ‘gas strategy’ undermines much of the positive action on tackling climate change set out in last week’s Energy Bill. 

“By making gas-fired power stations central to UK electricity supply beyond 2030, the opportunity to realise a truly low-carbon economy has been squandered.  Electricity produced using conventional gas may be less carbon intensive than that from coal, but this strategy still locks us into an emissions future that simply does not square with our national and international obligations on climate change.”

The EPICure study recorded all babies born between 22-25 weeks gestation at every maternity unit in the UK and the Republic of Ireland – all 276 of them – for 10 months in 1995. It found that survival rates in these babies were low, and while 50% of the children who did survive had no disability, 25% of the group experienced severe disability at 2.5 years.

EPICure 2 was set up in 2006 to follow a new group of extremely premature babies to see how things had moved on since then, and to revisit the children born in 1995 to assess their long-term health. Two linked studies to be published in the British Medical Journal report the latest findings on survival and long-term disability in these babies, comparing them with those born a decade earlier.

Speakers:

Professor Neil Marlow, Professor of Neonatology, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London.

Professor Kate Costeloe, Professor of Paediatrics, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry  and Consultant Neonatologist, Homerton University Hospital.

Dr. Allan Pacey, Senior Lecturer in Andrology, University of Sheffield, said:

“There have been numerous studies published over the past 20 years which have claimed to show that human semen quality (measured by either sperm count, motility or morphology) could have decreased over time. Yet others have been published which have shown no change. As such, a very unclear picture has been painted about whether semen quality has actually changed and importantly whether or not we should be worried about any environmental threats to male fertility.

“Unfortunately, almost all of the studies published to date have inevitable flaws of one type or another. This is usually because they rely on piecing together historical data, or because the men were recruited to them were not representative of the general population (i.e. they were patients at fertility clinics, men having vasectomy, or men recruited as potential sperm donors). Therefore, getting a clear picture of what may have happened in the general population has been extremely difficult and I would argue that the ‘jury is still out’ on this issue.

“This paper is an impressive attempt at dealing with many of the previous criticisms by looking at the semen quality of men undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment with women with absent or blocked Fallopian tubes. Experimentally, this is a close approximation to what we might expect to see in men from the general population but without the many pitfalls and expense of trying to recruit them to a study. Moreover, the statistical approach used in this paper appears to be very elegant, although it is very disappointing that the authors could not control for socioeconomic status, since we already know that this has a major impact on semen quality.

“What is disappointing to me about the paper is that the authors provide too few details about the laboratory methods used to measure sperm concentration and motility. In the paper, the authors claim that the methods for measurement of sperm concentration and motility ‘have not changed noticeably during the study period’ yet to me this is an odd thing to say as in my experience they have changed remarkably everywhere else in the world! There have been two revisions of International Guidelines published by the World Health Organisation between 1989 and 2005, as well as increasing emphasis on quality control and quality assurances procedures that were rarely performed 20 years ago as part of general improvement in quality management systems. Therefore, I am left questioning how much of the changes described in this paper are simply a function of alterations to laboratory method.

“With regard to the measurement of sperm morphology, the authors quite rightly point out that it is a difficult procedure to perform and seem to acknowledge that definition changes may account for much of their observed decrease. However, they report unfeasibly high values for percent morphology in the order of 60.9% in 1989 to 52.8% in 1995. This is significantly out of step with my professional experience and my role as chair of the steering group for our UK national quality control programme for andrology. I simply don’t understand this data and how they have made these measurements and whether they are robust!

“There is no doubt that this paper is a useful contribution to the literature, but I would urge much caution in its interpretation as there remains too many unknowns. In my view, the paper certainly does not resolve the issue of whether or not sperm counts have declined or not. If we were to believe the data uncritically, we should put the changes into clinical context: the change in sperm concentration described 73.6 to 49.9 million per ml is still well within the normal range and above the lower threshold of concern used by doctors which is suggestive of male infertility (15 million per ml).

“In spite of my obvious criticisms of this paper, I think there remains a need to be vigilant on this topic and I would support the authors conclusions about the need for gamete quality monitoring systems. However, these need to be designed robustly if we are ever going to answer this important question.”

Prof Richard Sharpe, MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, said:

“Background: The concept that sperm counts have declined with time because of environmental/lifestyle impacts is not new, but has remained controversial. This has been mainly because comparing data for sperm counts from different centres in different time periods (eg in the 1970s with the present) always leaves room for doubt as to whether the decrease is genuine or has another explanation, and of course we cannot go back in time and check the earlier data.

“Another huge obstacle to studying changes across time in sperm counts is that, in general, it is only men with fertility problems who get to have their sperm counts checked, and sperm counts in these men will be lower than in men from the general population. So, finding out what is happening to sperm counts in ‘normal’ men from the general population is not easy.

“Strengths of this study: The present study has essentially sidestepped both of the above issues by (1) studying men evaluated in a standard setting (ART centres) in one country over a 17-year period, and (2) including only men whose partners were proven to be the cause of couple infertility. It is a hugely impressive study, and for numbers (26,600 men), dwarfs previous studies and gives it immense power.

“The key findings: The take-home message from the study is extremely simple, sperm number and sperm quality has declined progressively over the study period. For example, sperm count decreased by 32.2%. As the men studied are likely to be representative of the general population, this confirms that sperm counts have/are falling and essentially dispels the previous controversy described above. It also fits with studies across Europe in young men, which show that 1 in 5 have a sperm count low enough to impair fertility

“The implications: These findings have two population-wide health implications, (1) the impact on couple fertility, (2) the environmental/lifestyle factors that have caused the fall in sperm counts/quality.

(1) Fertility is a couple issue. If men have lower sperm counts it can place more emphasis on the need for high fertility in their female partner. However, because most couples are now delaying trying for children until in their 30s, this occurs when female fertility is on the decline (at 30-35 years it is only 40-50% of what it is at 20-25 years; see Sharpe 2012 EMBO Reports). This, combined with decreasing sperm counts in their male partner, leads to only one outcome – more couples are going to be experiencing fertility problems.

(2) The decrease in sperm counts year on year shown in this study, demonstrates that something(s) in our modern lifestyle, diet or environment (eg chemical exposures) is causing this, and it is getting progressively worse. We still do not know which are the most important factors, but perhaps the most likely is that it is a combination (‘double whammy’) of changes such as a high fat diet combined with increased environmental chemical exposures.

“What should be done: There are two key issues. First, identification of what factors in our diet, lifestyles and/or environment are responsible for falling sperm counts. Second, when do these factors act, because there is a growing body of evidence that falling sperm counts my stem from effects via the mother during pregnancy. However, effects in adult life are also increasingly indicated (eg due to diet).

“Armed with such knowledge, we can potentially prevent or reverse the adverse changes in sperm counts; without it, we have to expect that sperm counts will continue to decrease. In the UK this issue has never been viewed as any sort of health priority, perhaps because of doubts as to whether ‘falling sperm counts’ was real. Now, there can be little doubt that it is real, so it is a time for action. Doing nothing will ensure that couple fertility and average family size will decline below even its present low level and place ever greater strains on society (eg by reducing numbers of tax-payers; for fuller details see Sharpe 2012 EMBO Reports).”

‘Decline in semen concentration and morphology in a sample of 26 609 men close to general population between 1989 and 2005 in France’, by Rolland et al. (doi:10.1093/humrep/des415), published in Human Reproduction on Wednesday 5^th December.

If anyone wonders why the Science Media Centre gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry, they need look no further than a small news story this week reporting that the uptake of the MMR vaccine has finally recovered from the media frenzy of 14 years ago that wrongly linked the jab to an increase in autism. The fact that we have seen the return of thousands of cases of childhood measles, and even some deaths, illustrates why I stood in front of Lord Justice Leveson to argue that poor science reporting can damage the public interest every bit as much as hacking the phones of celebrities or crime victims.

In some ways summoning up the spectre of MMR is misleading. The media was not solely responsible for the scare and much has changed for the better in those 14 years. The UK has some of the best specialist science reporters in the world and the appetite for science in newsrooms allows great journalists to convey complicated, scary and messy new science to a mass audience on a daily basis. But it’s also important to acknowledge that aspects of the culture and practise in newsrooms that delivered the MMR scare do still raise their head – including the tendency to overstate a claim made by one expert in a single small study; the reluctance to ruin a great scare story by placing it in its wider more reassuring context; and the journalistic addiction to balance which often conveys a scientific divide where there is none.

It was these points that I elaborated on when called in front of Leveson last year. It was a welcome opportunity to offer a more ambitious vision of good science coverage. I dared to suggest that we should change the practise of non-specialist subeditors writing the headlines long after the science reporter has left, a practise which on the day of my evidence had led to a carefully written report on a tiny safety trial of stem cells for macular degeneration being wrongly headlined “Once they were blind, now they can see”.

And I found common ground with other witnesses at Leveson while talking about the need for redress – not so much for individuals smeared by the media but for the wider public who believed stories that turned out not to be true. Tongue in cheek, I recommended an experiment proposed by a US science writer who suggested that those papers that have regularly splashed with stories of “a cure for” or “a breakthrough in” cancer, Alzheimer’s and heart disease be invited to do a follow-up on how many “cures” we actually got. And I even got to pass on the outrage of many scientists at a culture that apparently allows the UK’s best known columnists to enjoy immunity from the normal rules about accuracy – with the science of climate change in particular falling prey to opinion pieces with little regard for the truth.

To emphasise my point that not that much needs to be fixed to dramatically raise standards of science reporting, I made a rather rash claim. I told Leveson that, in my view, if you locked a group of the best scientists in a room with the main science journalists it would not take them long to come up with a list of guidelines on good science reporting. I mentioned a few on the spot, like journalists emphasising the size of the study, including the important caveats, reporting risk in absolute numbers as well as percentages and providing a realistic time frame for new research findings moving from a lab to a real live treatment.

In the event, Leveson called my bluff and asked for the delivery of said guidelines and he writes in the report that they are “commendable for their utility as well as their succinctness”. He also suggests that any new regulator should “bear them closely in mind”.

Like with so much about this report I imagine there will be different views in the scientific community about Leveson. I am sure that many scientists will be disappointed that there is not more of an iron glove behind Leveson’s mild bouquet for our proposed guidelines, but the journalists who helped us to draft them believe they are actually more likely to be received warmly by newsdesks precisely because they have not been imposed from on high.

Scientists, like everyone else, will now have to wait to see whether this inquiry changes anything about the way newspapers operate, but when it comes to the future of the press – free or otherwise – there is an elephant in the room. The kind of science reporting that Leveson extols can only be done by newspapers with the resources to keep their existing specialist reporters, and right now the declining sales of newspapers is as much of a threat to good science coverage as sloppy standards or editorial hysteria. No one has come up with a good avoidance strategy for this collision course, and journalistic quality will be an indisputable casualty.

The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) is a collaboration between 47 researchers from 26 laboratories, and was supported by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

It gives the clearest picture yet of the extent and rate of ice loss since 1992, improving on the precision of IPCC AR4 estimates and ending much uncertainty on the subject.

Speakers:

Prof Andrew Shepherd, Professor of Earth Observation at the University of Leeds

Prof Michiel van den Broeke, Professor of Polar Meteorology at Utrecht University

Dr Hamish Pritchard, Glaciologist at British Antarctic Survey

Dame Sue Ion, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:

“Today’s statements seem to take on board what we at the Royal Academy of Engineering have been arguing for some time: that the engineering and financial challenges are unprecedented and immense and that energy is a vital, valuable and pricey resource.  Much more effort will need to go into reducing energy wastage as well as into new generating and grid assets.

“Contracts for Difference will be struck in the future so there is still a way to go to give investors the confidence they need that the strike price across a range of technologies will make investment attractive to proceed.  Investors need certainty more than anything else if we are to attract the massive amount of capital needed to refresh our infrastructure.  The UK has to be seen as an attractive market otherwise companies will move their funds to other countries offering a more stable and rewarding environment.

“The potential exemption for energy intensive industries is really important and means that Government has finally recognised that ‘you can’t leave it all to the market’ (otherwise we would just be exporting more manufacturing jobs), that some industries are part of a national strategic requirement and that manufacturing industry jobs matter.

“It is now recognised that one organisation needs to have full oversight of the entire picture and that National Grid should take that role as ‘conductor of the orchestra’.

“Government has recognised that it needs to take up the powers it has to ensure the lights stay on through a capacity mechanism.”

Professor Roger Kemp FREng of the University of Lancaster and Chair of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Heat working group, said:

“The Energy and Climate Change Secretary gave details of some of the initiatives the government is taking but it came over as a number of disconnected measures; what was not mentioned was the overarching need to see energy as an integrated system.

“A major reduction in carbon emissions from domestic energy use will require switching from gas to low-carbon electricity as the main source of energy.  The introduction of electric vehicles will further increase the load on the electricity grid.  Government needs to develop a truly integrated energy policy that brings together electricity,  transport, heat, and the power of a future smart grid to solve the trilemma of energy security, affordability and sustainability.”

Researchers are only beginning to understand what causes mental health problems, and it is thought that both genetic and environmental factors have a role. In a new piece of research to be published in PLoS ONE, scientists at the University of Cambridge have discovered an interaction between a key gene and early childhood adversity and find this leads to emotional processing deficits that are later associated with diagnoses of anxiety and depression. Although this is a preliminary piece of work, the findings could lead to the development of an inexpensive tool to screen children and adolescents for common emotional mental health diseases.

Authors came to the Science Media Centre to answer questions including:

• What does this new piece of research tell us about the way depression and anxiety disorders develop?
• Why are problems processing emotions during adolescence thought to be a risk factor for anxiety and depression?
• What do we know about how genetic and environmental factors cause mental health problems?
• How could this research lead to a tool to screen adolescents for mental health problems?
• Should we be screening adolescents for mental health problems?

Speakers:

Prof Barbara Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Cambridge

Prof Ian Goodyer, Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Cambridge

Prof Denis Murphy, Head of the Life Sciences Research Unit at the University of Glamorgan, said:

“This is a landmark paper that outlines the genetic blueprint of one of the major global crops.  Bread wheat provides a vital staple food to billions of people across the world and is found in products ranging from chapattis and pita breads to biscuits and western-style leavened (raised) bread.

“However, bread is much more than a mere food.  Since its domestication about 10,000 years ago, bread has acquired considerable cultural significance among European and Near Eastern societies. From the Near East we have the Christian New Testament saying ‘man doth not live by bread alone’, and the prayer ‘give us this day our daily bread’. In both examples, the word ‘bread’ stands for food in general. The continued cultural significance of bread is apparent in the modern, albeit slightly dated, Anglo-American slang usages where bread and dough each mean money—that ultimate medium of contemporary material value.

“As we struggle to confront the increasing challenges of population increase, land degradation, and climate change that are contributing to widespread food insecurity, it will be vital to understand the underlying genetics of staple crops like wheat. The newly published wheat genome will be a vital resource for researchers and crop breeders across the world in their efforts to maintain global food supplies.”

Prof Guy Poppy, Professor of Ecology at the University Of Southampton, said:

“This is an important body of work which has potential to help mankind on several fronts.

“Firstly, with the population having passed 7 billion and on its way to 8 billion, trying to increase the yields of crops like wheat is important to help deliver global food security.

“Secondly, with a changing climate and increasing extreme weather events, breeding crops such as wheat which can still yield under such varying environments will become important increasingly relevant and important.

“Finally, understanding those genes involved in delivering yield and/or resistant biotic and abiotic stresses should enable breeders to generate future wheat varieties which address all the pillars of food security such as stability, utilisation and access as well as the availability/productivity which has traditionally been how breeders have bred new varieties.”

Prof Martin Parry, Head of Plant Biology and Crop Science at Rothamsted Research said

“This exciting study unlocks the genomic information for wheat, the identification of novel genes and markers that will greatly facilitate our attempts to both understand and manipulate traits. 

“This will facilitate our attempts to increase the yield potential of wheat and deliver important government food security policy, for example through the BBSRC-funded  20:20 Wheat® programme at Rothamsted Research, which aims to increase wheat productivity to yield 20 tonnes per hectare in 20 years. “

‘Analysis of the breadwheat genome using whole-genome shotgun sequencing’ by Michael Bevan et al., published in Nature on Wednesday 28^th November.

Professor Dale Sanders, head of the John Innes Centre, said

“It is immensely gratifying that public bodies such as the EFSA are taking into account informed scientific advice when deliberating on issues of food and health.  The essential flaws in the study by Seralini et al have been effectively highlighted.  The recent commentary in Nature has demonstrated how Seralini and colleagues have attempted to manipulate press coverage of their supposed findings, which the EFSA have found to be flawed.  The JIC wholeheartedly endorses the processes and  findings of the EFSA. “

Professor Maurice Moloney, Institute Director and Chief Executive, Rothamsted Research, said:

“The full EFSA report confirms the original reaction of a large majority of qualified scientific experts that the Seralini study is seriously deficient in its design, its execution and its conclusions. This is compounded with the excessive secrecy around the data, which should have been released in their entirety so that this matter may reach closure. The consistency of the critique from several national risk evaluation agencies should prompt Elsevier to re-evaluate the standards of peer review at its journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology.”

Professor Alan Boobis, Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Imperial College London, said:

“EFSA’s final review of the paper by Seralini et al (2012) confirms the view of many scientists who read the paper with some surprise that it had been published, in that the study was inadequately designed, analysed and reported.”

Professor Cathie Martin, Group leader, John Innes Centre, and Editor-in-Chief of The Plant Cell, said:

“Given that EFSA concludes that the  authors’ conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis,  is it not time for Food and Chemical Toxicology to retract the manuscript? This paper has had orders of magnitude greater peer-review than most scientific publications, yet despite no independent scientific expert being able to support its design, reporting or analysis, it remains, gathering citations and increasing the impact factor for the journal. Is this not an example of scientific publishing at its most cynical?”

Professor Jonathan Jones, Senior Scientist, Sainsbury Laboratory, John Innes Centre, said:

“The message is clear.  The conclusions drawn by Seralini et al are not justified by the data provided in the paper.  The authors did not adequately respond to requests for more details about their data or their analysis methods. Conclusion; there are no data that justify the need to reopen safety evaluations of the GM event NK603.  Since the authors failed  to find these products dangerous, and since these data are not provided by Monsanto but rather by public sector scientists, I for one am even more confident than before that the product is completely safe.”

Final review of the Séralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology.

Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said:

“There are always weather records somewhere in the world, but this summary reminds us what a dramatic year it has been globally as well as in the UK. For me the drop in Arctic sea ice area and the persistent drought in the US stand out, the former because it gives a striking picture of global warming in action, and the latter because of its impact on world food supply.”

Dr Dave Reay, Senior Lecturer in Carbon Management, University of Edinburgh, said:

“The stand-out indicator of the ‘State of the Climate’ in 2012 has to be the astonishing drop in sea ice cover in the Arctic. Reaching a minimum extent far below that predicted by most models, this global parasol atop our world was left tattered by increased warming – a warming trend that will be accelerated still further as these vast expanses of reflective ice are replaced by tanker-filled open water.”

Dr Ed Hawkins, National Centre for Atmospheric Science based at the University of Reading, said:

“There’s still two months to go, but it looks like 2012 will be among the warmest years on record, in common with other years over the last decade. The January to October period of 2012 was the 9th warmest since records began in 1850. So, temperatures across the world in 2012 continue the trend of a world that is warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

“Notable extremes during 2012 include very warm spring and summer conditions over the US and Canada, accompanied in the US by severe drought conditions. Europe also saw record breaking temperatures during a warm and dry spell in March, which followed exceptionally cold temperatures over much of Europe during February.

“For the UK, while it might not seem like it, the year to date has been slightly warmer than the 1961-90 normal, but it was a year of two halves!  The UK saw a warm and dry start, especially in March, but since April, temperatures have been close to or below normal. Rainfall over the UK has generally been above average since June, in fact June to August 2012 was the second wettest on record (behind 1912). This meant the UK had relatively dry conditions when we might have expected rain and wet conditions during the summer when we might have expected some sunshine.  I’ve calculated that rainfall conditions during 2012 were the second “weirdest” on record in this regard (see http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2012/how-wierd-has-uk-weather-been-in-2012). Research at the University of Reading suggests this behaviour, with a dry spring and wet summer, could be linked to a major warming of the North Atlantic Ocean that occurred back in the 1990s. A transition back to a cooler North Atlantic, favouring drier summers in the UK and northern Europe, is likely and could occur rapidly. Exactly when this will happen is difficult to predict.”

Prof Andrew Shepherd, Professor of Earth Observation at the University of Leeds, said:

“This study presents an interesting comparison of variations in global temperature and sea levels, and suggests that in future sea level rise might be greater than the models used by IPCC have predicted.

“Of course for this to be correct, one has to consider the potential sources of that greater increase.  In their study, Rahmstorf et al suggest that accelerated losses from the polar ice sheets may be one such source.  However, when all of the available satellite data are considered, there is in fact little evidence to support the suggestion of accelerated ice loss from Antarctic.  One may therefore need to look elsewhere for potential sources of additional sea level rise.”

Prof Mark Maslin , Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Scholar at University College London, said:

“The World is currently ignoring climate change, assuming that it can put off any changes to the far future.  Our inability to do anything about current carbon emissions means that sea level rise over this century will be faster than the best prediction by the IPCC.  Unless we reduce our carbon pollution rapidly, this study clearly shows we are heading for the nightmare world at the top end of the IPCC predictions.”

Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said:

“In this paper the authors have stressed what many of us have thought for some time -  the IPCC is far from alarmist in its projections, and this is being made clearer as more recent data becomes available.”

‘Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011’ by S. Rahmstorf et al., published in Environmental Research Letters on Wednesday 28 November 2012.

Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol, said:

“The continuing upward trend in MMR uptake in young children all over the country is very encouraging, but we are not out of the trees yet. Measles cases are still occurring at much higher levels than previously. There are a lot of older children of different ages out there who missed one or both MMR doses over the last 15 years and they are vulnerable and able to pass the infection on to others.

“Measles is extremely infectious and only with continuous vaccine uptake rates at 95% and above over many years can it come under effective control. We also need to keep our eyes open for cases of mumps and rubella and congenital rubella going forward.

“Any parents who decided against MMR in the past should now reconsider having their children immunised and contact their GP.”

Dr Helen Bedford, Senior Lecturer in Children’s Health, Paediatric Epidemiology Unit, UCL Institute of Child Health, said:

“It is good news that parents have regained their confidence in this highly effective vaccine. However, some teenagers and children have never caught up with missed vaccines and remain at risk of these potentially harmful infections.  It is never too late to have the two doses of MMR vaccine needed to protect against measles, mumps and rubella which can be more severe in adulthood.”

Dr David Elliman, Immunisation Specialist of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said:

“This is great news. It means that most babies/infants are now being fully immunised.

“However, because MMR is so infectious it is necessary to have very high uptake of the vaccine to stop spread of the disease, hence the WHO recommendation that we need 95% uptake. There are still large numbers of older children who have not had two doses of MMR and we are seeing the results of this in terms of relatively high rates of measles cases.

“It’s important to emphasise that it is never too late to catch up.”

Prof Emily Simonoff, Professor of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“Autism has been recognized for over 40 years now to be a highly heritable disorder, in which the genetic influences are likely to be due to multiple genes acting together. More recently, however, different aetiological factors have been recognized.  These include genetic variants, often called copy number variants or CNVs. In addition, the possible role of gene-environment interplay, whereby the combined effect of genes and environment creates a particular risk for autism, has been highlighted.

“The role of environmental influences has been of particular interest for at least two reasons. First, despite the very high heritability, the genes identified as increasing the risk of autism have each been of small effect. Second, studies over the last two decades consistently show higher rates of autism than previous studies. While it is clear that in part this increase is due to factors such as better case identification and improved diagnostic tools, which do not involve causal factors, there nevertheless remain questions about whether new environmental risk factors could be a cause for a true increase in the prevalence of autism.

“The present study uses a case-control design that compares the early history of 279 children with autism compared to 145 age and case-matched children without autism.  Specifically, potential exposure to a range of air pollutants during pregnancy and the first year of life was compared, using as proxy measures of exposure the mother’s (and child’s) address and a range of reported measures of the level of air pollution. The study found an association between having autism (i.e., being in the ‘case’ group) and residing in the areas in which the highest (top quartile) levels of air pollution were reported. Children with autism were roughly twice as likely to have been resident either before birth or in the first year of life in areas corresponding to the top quartile for air pollutant exposure on a range of measures.

“This is potentially an important finding and it is therefore essential to consider the strengths and limitations of the study.  I cannot comment on the appropriateness of the measures of air pollution nor how such measures of residential exposure to air pollution relate to biological exposure and biological effect. It will be important to gain an expert opinion on this. However, the case-control design is not ideal for demonstrating causation and this is particularly problematic when exposure levels have been measured in a manner that is so distal to the putative biological effect. Most importantly, neither the case nor control group appears to have been ascertained systematically from the population. This makes the possibility of biases in either, or both, groups a considerable cause for concern, as other factors may differ between the groups and could bias the present findings. Second, the range of factors accounted for in the adjusted model was limited and did not include a number of factors that could the findings. These include accounting for paternal age and family history of autism and autistic-like traits. Such case-control differences could lie at the core of the present findings. At present, therefore, the findings need to be considered with caution.

“To add to the credence to the present findings, further research is essential and should consider the following points. An observational study commencing before birth and with more direct measures of air pollution (as well as a range of other potential causal factors) is an important next step. A range of outcomes should be considered. The evidence from both genetic and environmental (such as birth prematurity) studies indicates that these risk factors confer a broader risk for developmental disorders and not just autism. Therefore, a range of outcomes should be studied. Several geographic regions should be included and the sample sizes need to be considerably larger. Replication of the present findings will be an important next step.

“At present, pregnant women should continue to look after their health during pregnancy but should not be unduly concerned.”

Prof Uta Frith, Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Development at UCL, said:

“It seems to me very unlikely that the association is causal, rather than correlational. The authors bolster up their previous study suggesting that in California there are more cases of autism if the mother during pregnancy lived near a highway. The recent paper adds detailed measures of air pollution but does not get us any further since it does not present a convincing mechanism by which pollutants could affect the developing brain to result in autism. Rather than taking the results at face value I would like to know what it implies to live near a highway. It could imply all sorts of disadvantages, any of which might be associated with increased risk of autism – and with increased risk of other disorders as well.”

On the editorial on autism and research prevalence: Prof Tony Charman, Chair in Autism Education, Institute of Education, said:

“The measured prevalence has risen, but this may or may not be a true increase. Geri Dawson cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) figures that show an uplift in recent years.

“However, other factors, such as increased awareness amongst professionals, parents, others might underlie this measured increase. The CDC methodology is a care/records review/extraction process (health and education) so the way of measuring prevalence cannot rule out that increase is due to these kind of factors and may not be a ‘true’ increase.

“There are other international studies that have found similar rates (our work in the Lancet from 2006 in the UK: Baird et al, 2006, Lancet) , i.e. 1.16% (1 in 86 children)  for all ASDs (broadly defined). We also did a survey in 2002 where we found a similar rate to the latest CDC publication some 6 to 10 years before – ie. They just caught up. There are other studies where the rate is ~1%.

“The issue of whether this increase is real, and if so whether and what environmental (as opposed to clinical/cultural/awareness) factors might explain this, is still an empirical question.”

Sophia Xiang Sun, Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge, said:

‘Although traffic-related air pollution might be one of the contributing factors to the development of autism, other factors cannot be ruled out. These factors include second hand smoking during pregnancy, medical conditions related to pregnancy, indoor air pollution, especially if the family has a history of mental disorders as autism is highly genetic.

“Further research is needed to investigate the potential association between traffic-related air pollution and autism, ideally a prospective study that monitors traffic-related air pollution with the control of indoor air pollution and smoking. Until further research is carried out we will not know definitely if the association is there and, if it is there, how direct and to what degree.

“We know that traffic related air pollution can contribute to many other diseases and conditions, and it is biologically plausible it also has a role in pathways of autism. However, whether or not the potential association between autism and traffic-related air pollution exists, reduction of traffic-related air pollution would be good for public health.

“Regarding reports of an increase in prevalence of autism, there has been no clear evidence whether it is a real increase or not. This is because there have been many changes that could make it appear that the prevalence of autism is increasing, including:

• changes to the way we diagnose autism (broadening of the spectrum, a change in diagnostic criteria and a change to the way we view autism)
• the development of improved screening, diagnostic instruments and services for autism
• increased awareness of the condition among professionals and the public
• changes in study methods such as  variation in demographic characteristics of study populations

We need more robust research before we will know if this is a real increase or whether it is simply due to these changes.”

‘Traffic-Related Air Pollution, Particulate Matter, and Autism’ by Heather  Volk et al.  published in Archives of General Psychiatry on Monday 26th November.

On flooding:

Hamish Hall, Director at engineering consultancy WSP, said:

“Flooding is an ever present threat to our homes and communities and 2012 is proving to be a very bad year, highlighting the need for changes in how we collectively deal with the impacts.  Although Government has made efforts to make funding more flexible by enabling private contributions, with flood risk set to increase and a double dip recession threatening we can’t rely on raising private equity to deliver schemes.  Public funding is still crucial and flood budgets should reflect that.

“In the future communities will need to play a greater part in both understanding and managing their own risks.  This will require more support from bodies such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, but also a willingness from at risk communities to become more involved.  We must also recognise that we can’t continue to defend at all costs; we will need to adapt to the risks and where that this is not possible consider more drastic measures such as moving communities or investing in flood-resilient infrastructure and accept the consequence of flooding.  Professionals who deal with flooding will have to seek more innovative approaches to forecasting events and their impacts, how people respond to flooding and how we plan future development. ”

“The very fabric of our future society is based on the understanding that the houses we live in have a lasting value. The potential that our houses can lose much of that value or even become impossible to sell due to the lack of insurance cover could very well spark a rip-tide of negative equity in the mortgages sector.  We need a clear strategy to ensure that properties can get insurance in the future with the utmost urgency.”

Dr Tim Evans, independent environmental consultant, said:

“The consequence of climate change is generally predicted to be more frequent intense weather events (flood, drought, heat), and even those who don’t accept it is anthropogenic must surely accept that this is what we are experiencing. 

“We need a better understanding of climate change and we need mitigation; but no less importantly we need adaptation and we need to be doing it now. 

“We know that ‘urban creep’, i.e. increasing replacement of soft surface with hard surface, increases the rapidity of runoff, which in turn overloads the underground drainage infrastructure.  To halt and reverse this trend we need to increase the rate of retrofitting disconnecting rainwater from sewers and slowing runoff.  Cities around the world have shown the way. 

“Living roofs, raingardens, kerbside planting, etc. that absorb water or at least slow runoff, take the pressure off the urban drainage infrastructure.  The ‘green infrastructure’ for rainwater also reduces urban heat island effect, absorbs vehicle emission [and other air] pollutants and generally improves liveability and biodiversity.  Our cities have many street trees but few of them have hydraulic connection with the street surfaces, most could all be raingardens.  The only lack of space for green infrastructure is between people’s ears.  Some of this water will recharge the groundwater under urban areas, which increases water resource in times of drought. 

“An issue is that the work is spread across different budgets (highways, water, parks, amenity, planning, …).  We need vision, direction and leadership.  That is what exemplars such as Portland, Philadelphia, Gothenburg and even Welsh Water show.  The UK is not inactive but it is not doing enough.  Defra is still prevaricating about the date when the remaining sections of the Flood and Water Act are to be implemented, will it be April 2014?

“Stormwater tunnels, super sewers, interceptors, call them what you want, might be part of the mix but they are end of pipe, they won’t stop property flooding because of overflowing sewers upstream.  They won’t stop the underground trains flooding.  They are useless when they are full so it is essential they are pumped out quickly, which means massive pumps, and more climate change emissions.  Reducing the runoff by green infrastructure will reduce the size needed for the tunnels and the number of times they will be used.

“Green infrastructure is lots of smallish projects that added together have huge effect.  It takes time so we need to start now.  There is no more time to faff about with delays and indecision.”

On weather and climate:

Dr David Lavers, University of Reading, said:

“Over the last several days the jet stream, a ribbon of fast moving air around 8-10 km up in the atmosphere, has been located further south than normal and has brought a series of storms to the British Isles. The weekend saw a long-lasting low pressure system over the UK.

“Flood-generating rainfall in the UK has been linked by scientists at the University of Reading to ‘Atmospheric Rivers’, narrow bands of atmospheric moisture, thousands of kilometres long, that are transported by the wind. The recent succession of storms has transported moisture from the subtropical North Atlantic Ocean towards the UK, some in the form of atmospheric rivers, and this has fuelled large rainfall totals and widespread flooding.”

Professor Nigel Arnell, Walker Institute, University of Reading said:

“The floods this week have been caused not only by the heavy rain of the last few days, but also by the large amounts of rain that fell over the summer and autumn. Soils have been saturated now for a few weeks in many areas and any extra rain is likely to trigger flooding.

“There is a clear trend in the UK towards more heavy precipitation events over the last 50 years (in fact this trend is common over many areas of the world). This is consistent with what we would expect in a warming world and is consistent with what climate models predict for the future. Climate models also predict that UK winters may become wetter, leading to more prolonged periods of saturated soils, and increasing still further the risks of flooding. For example, the sort of wet winters we currently see over Northern Europe just once every 20 years could happen almost every other year by the end of the century.

“There’s also growing evidence that human induced climate change is already increasing the chances of UK floods and other extreme event. For example, studies have shown that human induced climate change made the devastating floods of autumn 2000, the wettest autumn on record in England and Wales, between two and three times more likely to happen.

“When you look back at seasonal rainfall for the UK over the last 100 years, there is some suggestion of an increase in winter rainfall and a decrease in summer rainfall, but there is also a lot of year to year and decade to decade variability. The last few summers have been wet over the UK. Whether this is an indication of how climate change might affect summer rainfall is too early to say, but it does emphasise the volatility of our climate.

“It is hard to study trends in floods themselves as they are affected by a whole range of factors, not just the amount of rain that falls: for example, changes to flood defences and changes in the amount of impermeable land surface can all affect floods and their impacts.

“The wettest year on record for England and Wales is 1872 with 1284.9 mm of rain; currently 2012 has had 931.4 mm (source: UK Met Office England and Wales rainfall series which began in 1766).”

Dr Dave Reay, senior lecturer in carbon management and climate change at the University of Edinburgh, said:

“What’s really worrying when you see the floods this week is the projected impact of climate change on UK rainfall.  We can expect even wetter winters and more intense downpours over the coming years, putting an ever greater number of homes and businesses at risk.”

Prof Andrew Watkinson, Living With Environmental Change Director and Professorial Fellow, University of East Anglia, said:

“An increase in flooding poses a major threat to the UK in a changing climate. The flooding events we have recently seen show how many parts of the country are vulnerable and how much work needs to be done to increase our resilience to flooding.”

Perhaps less well known is Dame Sally’s involvement in health research. She founded the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2006, which has an annual budget of £1 billion.

This press briefing will provide you with an overview of the NIHR, highlighting diabetes as an example of one field of NIHR research.

Dame Sally cam to the SMC to give an overview of the NIHR, highlighting diabetes as an example of one field of NIHR research, and also to talk about funding for the development of new medical technologies which have the potential to address existing or emerging healthcare needs through the NIHR Invention for Innovation (i4i) programme.

Three researchers who have received NIHR i4i awards will showcase their projects and explain the potential benefits for NHS patients. In the current financial climate where financial investment is hard to secure, all of these would otherwise have struggled to obtain funding.

Each project shows how relatively modest awards can help develop significant advancements for NHS patients:

• The first test to allow a doctor to see how a patient is responding to cancer treatment in real-time
• New smart phone connected HIV diagnostics will help widen access to testing in GP surgeries, pharmacies, community settings and developing countries
• Computerised glasses to improve the independence of those living with a serious visual disability

Speakers:

Dame Sally Davies, Head of NIHR

Damian Bond, ProKyma Technologies Limited

Rachel McKendry, University College London

Stephen Hicks, University of Oxford

Although ADHD continues into adulthood, treatment often stops in adolescence. Little is known about the impact of this, especially whether this has an effect on rates of criminal activity. A new piece of research, looking at the records of 25,656 people in Sweden with an ADHD diagnosis, has investigated whether treatment has an impact on rates of criminal behaviour. Sweden has similar prevalence of ADHD to the UK and uses similar treatments, so the research findings are broadly applicable to the UK.

The Science Media Centre has invited one of the authors, to answer questions including:

• What impact does treatment have on rates of criminal behaviour in adults with ADHD?
• How do we know we can trust the data/how was the study conducted?
• What does this mean for treatment of adult ADHD in the UK?
• Why could this research not have been conducted in the UK?

Speakers:

Dr Seena Fazel, Clinical Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychiatry, University of Oxford

Prof Philip Asherson, Professor of Molecular Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London

Prof Stephen J.W. Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, Dept of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:

“There are very many health-related factors that may be associated with grip strength but it appears that many of them have not been controlled for in this study. There is good evidence that physical activity is beneficial in terms of cardiovascular disease and some evidence that depression is helped by exercise, but the idea that exercise benefits those with low muscular strength has not been shown in this or any study of which I am aware. It would require an enormous randomised trial. Sadly the trials of an intervention to increase exercise have not shown notable benefits, though that does not discourage me and many others from exercising.”

‘Muscular strength in male adolescents and premature death: cohort study of one million participants’ by Francisco B Ortega et al, published in the BMJ on Tuesday 20th November 2012.

Prof Geoffrey Raisman FRS, Chair of Neural Regeneration at University College London, said:

“This is not a cure for spinal cord injury in humans – that could still be a long way off.  But this is the most encouraging advance for some years and is a significant step on the road towards it.   

“This innovative process uses ‘olfactory ensheathing’ cells taken from the dog’s own nasal lining.  Their purpose is specialised for the repair of nerve fibres in the nose, and by transplanting them to the spinal cord they can do the same repair work there.

“This shows convincingly that the beneficial effects previously reported in rodents can be produced in other species.  That is encouraging for application in human injuries. 

“But from a clinical perspective, the benefits are still limited at this stage.  This procedure has enabled an injured dog to step with its hind legs, but the much harder range of higher functions lost in spinal cord injury – hand function, bladder function, temperature regulation, for example – are yet more complicated and still a long way away.”

‘Autologous olfactory mucosal cell transplants in clinical spinal cord injury: a randomized, double-blinded trial in a canine translational model’ by Nicolas Granger et al., published in Brain, on Monday 19th November.

Dr Matthew Snape, Consultant Paediatrician and Vaccinologist in the Oxford Vaccine Group at the University of Oxford, said:

“We were delighted to hear today’s news that a new vaccine against meningitis will be licensed, having played a major part in this vaccine’s development.

“The vaccine targets serogroup B meningococcus (MenB), a major cause of childhood meningitis in the UK and other industrialised countries. Given the disease most commonly targets young children, having been able to enrol large numbers of healthy children into these trials has been incredibly important for this vaccine’s development. Indeed, we administered the first dose of this vaccine ever given to a child, just over 5 years ago. Seeing that the vaccine is now going to be licensed is very rewarding.”

Professor Andrew Pollard, who heads the Oxford Vaccine Group at Oxford University, said:

“The licensure of a group B meningococcal vaccine is a big step forward towards the hope of controlling this devastating disease.”

Prof. Graham A. W.  Rook, Centre for Clinical Microbiology, University College London, said:

“The findings suggested by this study are similar to data already published showing the same thing in mice¹. The processes the authors of this new research describe have also previously been suggested as one of the three mechanisms that enable helminth therapy to partially treat human inflammatory bowel disease.

“Nevertheless, the major mechanism of action for therapeutic helminth infection actually remains induction of immunoregulation²;  in rodent models the helminth does not need to be a gut parasite, nor does it need to go anywhere near the gut in any part of its life-cycle.”

¹Walk ST, Blum AM, Ewing SA et al. Alteration of the murine gut microbiota during infection with the parasitic helminth Heligmosomoides polygyrus. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010;16:1841-9.

²Taylor MD, van der Werf N, Harris A, Graham AL, Bain O, Allen JE, Maizels RM. Early recruitment of natural CD4+ Foxp3+ Treg cells by infective larvae determines the outcome of filarial infection. Eur J Immunol. 2009 Jan;39(1):192-206.

‘Therapeutic Helminth Infection of Macaques with Idiopathic Chronic Diarrhea Alters the Inflammatory Signature and Mucosal Microbiota of the Colon’ by Loke et al, published in PLOS Pathogens on Thursday 15 November 2012.

Patrick O’Brien, RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) spokesperson, said:

“This is a robust, good-quality prospective study on the topic of alcohol consumption during pregnancy which has produced significant results.

“Currently the RCOG advises that if a woman falls pregnant she should abstain from alcohol. However, small amounts of alcohol, not more than one to two units, once or twice a week, have not been shown to be harmful after 12 weeks of pregnancy. The safest approach would be to choose not to drink at all.

“Pregnant women should always consult their midwives or doctors if they have any concerns about their alcohol intake.

“This study will be looked at by the RCOG Scientific Advisory Committee for further review and discussion on current guidelines and recommendations. The RCOG welcomes high-quality research such as this which helps make sure that women have the most accurate information and advice available to them in pregnancy.

Prof Dorothy Bishop, Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology, Dept of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, said:

“This study, like previous studies, actually found slightly lower IQ in children whose mothers drank no alcohol in pregnancy compared to those who drank moderately. However, the authors argued that this could be due to lower age and educational level among abstainers. They attempted a more sensitive analysis which looked for effects of genetic differences in alcohol metabolism on child’s IQ, and this showed mild effects on average IQ only in those who drank during pregnancy. Unfortunately, though, their category of “moderate drinking” lumped together mothers who reported drinking less than one unit per week and those who drank as much as 6 units per week, making it impossible to determine from these data if there is a safe level of drinking in pregnancy.”

James Nicholls, Research Manager, Alcohol Research UK, said:

“Until now, scientific evidence on the effects of moderate drinking in pregnancy has been limited.  There is clear evidence that heavy drinking in pregnancy can cause damage, but findings on moderate and low consumption have been mixed and sometimes contradictory.  Consequently, advice that pregnant women avoid all alcohol has been largely based on precautionary principles.  In looking only at low and moderate consumption this study avoids results being skewed by the presence of heavy drinkers in the cohort.  Furthermore, by analysing a relationship between genetic variations and IQ levels it also avoids being skewed by socioeconomic factors (which play an important role in determining alcohol harms generally). The findings are, therefore, persuasive in isolating moderate alcohol consumption as a risk factor.  The authors are careful not to claim the findings prove a direct causal relationship between all drinking and reduced IQs in children, and journalists should be cautious not to confuse the study (which deals with reduced IQ levels) with research on Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.  The findings are, however, a significant contribution to the developing evidence-base on drinking in pregnancy.” 

Prof David Leon, Deputy Chair MRC Population and Systems Medicine Board & Professor of Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:

“There remains a lot of uncertainty about whether light or moderate drinking in pregnancy has an adverse effect on the fetus. This is because it is a very difficult topic to research. This new paper by Lewis and others from the University of Bristol is scientifically important because it illustrates the use of a potentially powerful new way of answering this question.

“Its findings provide some support for the conclusion that light drinking (up to 1 unit per day) during pregnancy may reduce IQ in childhood by a small amount.

“This study is the first of its kind. As the authors make clear the statistical association they find is not the same as showing that drinking in pregnancy actually causes a reduction in childhood IQ. Further studies are needed before clear and firm conclusions can be reached.

“Unfortunately, this new paper does not throw any light on the most difficult question of all: whether there is an adverse effect on child IQ associated with drinking around the time of conception or in the first month of pregnancy, when women often do not know they are pregnant.  

“Inevitably this study will create anxiety and concern among mothers about whether they should drink at all when they are trying to conceive or during pregnancy. The reality is that most women when they realise they are pregnant cut down their drinking or abstain completely.

“Given the uncertainty about the evidence of harms from light or moderate consumption in pregnancy, women may choose to adopt what is sometimes called the pre-cautionary principle, and to abstain or drink only occasionally when they are pregnant.”

Dr Clare Tower, Consultant in Obstetrics and Fetal Maternal Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester, said:

“Information on alcohol consumption during pregnancy has been conflicting in the recent past. Whilst it is acknowledged that high levels of alcohol consumption are harmful, the effects of low-moderate levels have been widely disputed. This study will add fuel to this debate.

“This study is unique (but also highly complex) in that it looks at genetic changes in the mother and the baby that affect alcohol metabolism, and the impact that these genetic changes, together with alcohol consumption during pregnancy had on the child’s IQ at the age of 8. In those carrying genetic changes leading to slower alcohol metabolism (and therefore associated with higher blood alcohol levels when alcohol is consumed), there was a small reduction in the child’s IQ if alcohol was consumed during pregnancy. However, the study, as with others, relied on retrospective recall of alcohol consumption, which is always subject to inaccuracies.

“Current UK advice (RCOG) is that the safest course of action is abstinence during pregnancy. The finding of this study would concur that this is undoubtedly the safest advice. However, other recent work in large groups found no impact on children’s IQ at age 5 years (BJOG June 2012). It is likely therefore, that any impact is likely small and not seen in all women. If women have had occasional alcoholic drink during pregnancy they should not be overly alarmed.”

Catherine Collins, Principal Dietitian at St George’s Hospital NHS Trust, said:

“From a dietetic point of view, we know that pregnancy alters the speed of metabolism of some dietary agents so advice during pregnancy is different from that for women in general. Caffeine for example is more slowly metabolised in pregnancy, which is the reason why we recommend moderation of caffeine intake to around 300mg a day to prevent the ‘jitters’ usually not experienced by women when they’re not pregnant.

“This study looked at what happens in pregnancy to genes that code for the body’s ability to break down alcohol. Alcohol is broken down by our body in a two step process. First of all one type of enzyme converts alcohol into the toxic acetaldehyde, and then a second enzyme quickly converts this dangerous product into harmless carbon dioxide and water. We already know that some people lack the second enzyme as their cell genes don’t ‘code’ for it. This means that whenever they consume alcohol, even a small amount, the breakdown of toxic acetaldehyde is delayed and that delay in the short term leads to widespread facial flushing as cetaldehyde irritates the blood vessels. Long term the presence of acetaldehyde is dangerous in that it causes permanent and serious liver damage, and can shorten lifespan. For this reason, if your party trick is to turn bright red with a single drink inside you, your body is telling you that you likely have one of these gene defects and you really shouldn’t be drinking.

“Some populations are more likely to have this missing gene and therefore can’t breakdown alcohol quickly and safely, for example this defect occurs more often in the Japanese population.

“In addition we know that excess alcohol can damage brain cells, and in children whose brain is developing at a vast speed this could have a major impact in their IQ during childhood and adulthood.

“In this study the authors examined the genes in both mum and baby to determine whether either had one or more of the defective genes for alcohol metabolism, and if any of these 5 known defects  this was carried forward in the baby to childhood, influencing IQ. What they found was that in children whose mums had taken alcohol during pregnancy – even a small amount – IQ was reduced in those children with specific genes known to influence alcohol metabolism. How did this gene difference lead to a lower IQ? We’re not really sure, but it could be that alcohol hung around longer in the baby, causing damage whilst in the womb. Another possibility is that having this gene defect induced due to mums alcohol intake had an effect on retinoic acid, a metabolite of vitamin A that is essential for normal brain development.

“What do mums take from this? Unfortunately it is a bit of a gene lottery. If your child has a particular gene profile, drinking any alcohol in pregnancy will have an effect on IQ – but, and it’s a big but – your child may not have one of those 5 identified gene defects, and so the effect is negligible.

“Bottom line? It’s probably best to keep your alcohol to a minimum in pregnancy.”

Dr Simon Newell, The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health’s Vice President for Training and Assessment, said:

“This research serves to confirm that drinking even a small amount of alcohol whilst pregnant can do harm to your unborn child.

“We already know that an estimated 6,000 babies a year in the UK are born with brain damage, physical problems or learning disabilities as a result of heavy alcohol consumption by their mother whilst pregnant. 

“It is impossible to say what constitutes as a ‘safe’ amount of alcohol a mother can drink as every pregnancy is different, so our advice to mothers is don’t take a chance with your baby’s health – drink no alcohol at all.”

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor Of The Public Understanding Of Risk, University of Cambridge, said:

“This is an ingenious study that tries to avoid the usual problem of common factors that affect both women’s drinking during pregnancy and their children’s IQ.  Unfortunately the study design does not provide an estimate of the actual effect of moderate drinking on children’s IQ, so it is difficult to assess the policy implications.”

Dr Iain Lang, Consultant in Public Health, NHS Devon & Senior Lecturer in Public Health, University of Exeter Medical School, said:

“In summary I would say that this is interesting and important research but that it is not sufficient, by itself, to be the basis of changes in official recommendations relating to alcohol consumption in pregnancy.”

“I think this is an interesting study: the methodology used (Mendelian randomization) is potentially powerful in that it allows researchers to deal with some of the potential problems of confounding in a situation like this (i.e. the fact that there are other factors, like maternal education, that relate to both level of alcohol consumption and to child IQ) and thus – as the authors state in the discussion – is indicative of a causal relationship (though it does not prove that the cause leads to the effect). This is the first study of its type in this area and replications in other datasets are needed to confirm what the authors report here.

“A cautionary note relates to the way in which alcohol consumption is measured (and this relates to *all* studies on alcohol consumption – I’m not suggesting it’s been done poorly here). People are very bad at reporting how much they alcohol they drink: they tend to underestimate or misremember and, if drinking at home where they are pouring their own measures, not to have much idea of how much alcohol they’ve actually consumed. That applies in general – in the case of pregnant women, who may have the idea that they shouldn’t really be drinking, or at least not drinking much, there may be an additional tendency for women to underestimate how much they have drunk – particularly in an “official” setting such as participation in a big study. Because of this, some of the effect the researchers record could be because women who’ve drunk more heavily (how heavily we cannot tell) are being mistakenly included in this study of moderate drinkers, and this could influence the results – potentially, though we cannot tell if this has occurred, to make them seem worse than they would otherwise be.

“As far as I can see, although women were asked about drinking at different stages of their pregnancy, results are not reported separately in relation to this – they classified women as drinkers if they reported drinking earlier or later in the pregnancy – so we can’t address that particular issue in relation to these results.”

Prof David Nutt, Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said:

“This is a hugely important study from the best UK cohort that can study this question. Even though the IQ effects are small, if at all possible women should avoid ethanol in pregnancy as it’s a known toxin.”

‘Fetal alcohol exposure and IQ at age 8: evidence from a population based birth-cohort study’ by Lewis, S et al published in PLOS ONE on Wednesday 14th November.

ASTRAEA is the world’s leading CUA research programme.  Initiated in 2006, its goal is to research and demonstrate how unmanned aircraft could safely fly in airspace shared with other civilian aircraft.  It also addresses legislation, ethics and control alongside the engineering and technical aspects.

ASTRAEA is now at the point of demonstrating ‘proof of concept’ solutions to key challenges through a series of studies, models, simulated experiments and flight trials.  These include technologies enabling unmanned aircraft to ‘detect and avoid’ potential collision hazards, one of the most critical considerations.

Speakers:

Lambert Dopping-Hepenstal, Project Director

Gary Clayton, Head of Research and Technology, EADS Cassidian

Dr Ruth Mallors, Director, Aerospace KTN

Chris Elliott, Pitchill Consulting Ltd

This study used these new technologies to examine an outbreak of MRSA in a hospital, to uncover new cases and, as the study developed, to intervene in the outbreak to end it more quickly.  Sequencing illuminated each person infected and described the transmission of MRSA between people coming to the hospital and within the hospital.  This is believed to be the first time that sequencing has been used to close an infectious outbreak and will be published in Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Speakers:

Professor Sharon Peacock, Professor of Clinical Microbiology, University of Cambridge

Dr Julian Parkhill, Head of Pathogen Genomics at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge

Dr Nicholas Brown, Consultant Medical Microbiologist, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge

The Schizophrenia Commission, a panel of 14 leading health and social care figures, have conducted an independent inquiry into the treatment and care of people with Schizophrenia. The Commission heard evidence from 80 experts and people affected by the condition, and received evidence from 2,500 more online. They also received new data from the London School of Economics on the costs associated with Schizophrenia in the UK. 

Topics covered:

• How much does Schizophrenia cost society? Could costs be reduced?
• Are current treatments good enough and what are the alternatives?
• Do patients have access to the best treatments and are we prescribing wisely?
• Are we spending too much on secure care?
• Could we intervene earlier to prevent future illness?
• Does treatment and care of those with schizophrenia need a radical overhaul?

Speakers:

Prof Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatric Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London

Prof David Taylor, Director of Pharmacy and Pathology, Kings College London

Dr Alison Brabban, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust

Prof Martin Knapp, Professor of Social Policy, London School of Economics

Dr Ben Lloyd-Hughes, Walker Institute, University of Reading, said:

“There’s no doubt that we’ve seen warming and changes in rainfall over the 20^th century as a result of human induced climate change, but quantifying what this means for “drought” is problematic.

 “That Sheffield et al see different results for different drought indices doesn’t surprise me at all – the sensitivity of the Palmer Drought Severity Index to its formulation and calibration have been of concern since the original critique of Alley (1984).

“The article raises the interesting, much broader, problem of how indices of drought actually relate to ‘real world’ drought impacts experienced by people on the ground. There is nothing wrong per se with the Palmer Drought Severity Index as a measure of drought within the narrow confines of its definition.  However, care needs to be taken when using a particular index as a proxy for drought in the broader sense. Numerous review articles have sought to compare and contrast the abilities of various indices to describe various drought impacts.  As is to be expected, the consensus is that no single index is sufficient to characterise the peril. This motivates the subjective combination of drought indicators into products, such as the United States Drought Monitor, that attempts to assess the `total environmental moisture status’. The sooner such an approach, as difficult as it may be, is taken in the context of climate change the better!”

Prof Richard Harding, Director of the Biogeochemistry Programme, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), said:

“The IPCC AR4 report concluded it was likely that there had been an increase in droughts since 1970.  This conclusion was based on a study of the Palmer Drought Severity Index.  This paper  revisits this study with a more physically realistic version of this Index.  The previous version used a commonly used empirical regression between evaporation and temperature – in fact in a changing climate such empirical relationships may change with time.  The new analysis suggests the previous study overestimated the trend in severity and area of droughts across the globe.  This is likely to lead to a reassessment of the level of confidence in the AR4 conclusion on changing droughts.  This study is a good example of the way scientists are continually questioning and refining our assessment of past and future climate changes.  This study in no way invalidates the overall conclusions of the IPCC AR4 study.”

Prof Piers Forster, Professor of Physical Climate Change at the University of Leeds, said:

“This study is a really comprehensive look at how we calculate drought trends. It shows that a much used previous estimate based only on temperature is flawed; in reality we don’t have good enough measurements to determine drought trends accurately. This re-evaluation finds no long-term globally averaged increase in drought since 1950. This revision principally affects the Americas, Russia and Australia.  Droughts in Europe, Africa and China are still believed to have become more severe since 1950.

“It needs to be understood, however, that this study looks at physical drought only and not crop yields.  In terms of staple harvests of wheat and maize, high temperatures at certain times of the growing season (e.g. temperatures above 35C at the time of wheat flowering) can kill off crops.  We know that these extreme temperatures have been increasing , causing harvest loss – e.g.  the French harvest of maize in 2003 was 20% smaller due to the summer heatwave that year.  

“This study is an important contribution highlighting the complexity of drought prediction  but  it does not make me downgrade the substantial threat to harvests posed by climate change.”

‘Little change in global drought over the past 60 years’ by Justin Sheffield et al.,  published in Nature on Wednesday 14 November.

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor Of The Public Understanding Of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said:

“I would be very cautious about over-interpreting these results.  For example, the controls are taken from administrators and nurses at the hospital treating the patients, and so are likely to differ in many ways from the ill people.  The controls reported less beating and insulting as children, so maybe not being beaten encourages people to enter a caring profession, rather than protecting them from disease?”

Dr Andrea Danese, Clinical Lecturer in Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“This research adds to the growing body of research linking childhood maltreatment to later disease. It is possible that child maltreatment may not only affect risk for mental illness but also contribute to risk for medical illness, such as asthma, cancer, and cardiac disease.

“This may have major implication for the way we understand the origins of disease and, thus, for disease prevention.  However, the evidence is largely based on retrospective reports of childhood maltreatment. In other words, instead of assessing maltreatment in childhood years and following children for years until they reach adulthood to check their health status, often researchers have asked adult people with or without disease to report on their memories of maltreatment in childhood.  The claims may therefore be biased or overstated, because ill people may be more likely to report unhappy childhood.

“Another problem is confounding.  What appears to be the effect of child maltreatment on later disease, may in fact be the effect of poverty, social isolation, or other factors that are related to both maltreatment and later disease.  Thus, although suggestive of a potential link between child maltreatment and ill health in adult life, more, carefully-design research is needed to understand this link, which has potentially major public health relevance.

“It is also vital to understand the mechanisms through which child maltreatment may influence health.  If we understand the biological and behavioural changes brought about by child maltreatment, we might be able to stop these processes before the onset of clinical symptoms.”

‘Beating and insulting children as a risk for adult cancer, cardiac disease and asthma’ by Michael E. Hyland et al. is published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

Some will argue that specialist blogs are now doing the job that reporters like Richard Black did and to an extent that is true.  I know for example that several of the old ‘nuclear decommissioning’ reporters who were laid off have set up blogs and websites which are now essential reading for other journalists, experts, politicians and international relations students.  But the difference is that these blogs do not reach a mass audience. Richard was a ‘beat reporter’ on BBC news website, bringing his detailed and in-depth understanding of the subjects he covered to a mass audience and it’s hard to see how the BBC can easily replicate that now that he has moved on.  At a time when we ought to be grateful for hanging onto any specialists in newsrooms it feels indulgent to argue for journalists who specialize to this extent but if the media’s fortunes were restored this would be the first thing I would argue for. As one former crime reporter says in a superb blogpost on this subject,veteran reporters on institutional beats, ‘keep bureaucracies honest’. 

The Newsnight saga

I hope that one good thing that comes out of the BBC’s current woes is a fresh debate about standards and quality of investigative reporting. And nor should it be restricted to Newsnight.

For good reasons Panorama is on a high at the moment, but the programme has had its own fair share of controversies. When it moved from its Sunday night hour long slot to the shorter 8.30 slot on Monday in a  hail of publicity and with celebrity presenter Jeremy Vine it almost immediately found itself in hot water. The first investigation was on controversial IVF doctor Mohamed Taranissi. The HFEA ended up issuing a public apology for their part in the programme, IVF experts including Robert Winston complained about the way their interviews were used and Taranissi sued the BBC for libel.  While the BBC never accepted liability this piece of journalism cost the license payer dearly with the BBC forking out £1.5 million in costs to Taranissi.  A few weeks later another science based Panorama caused more controversy when it emerged that one of the main experts used in an alarming report about the health risks of WiFi in school classrooms was the head of a single issue campaign group while one of the world’s leading scientific experts complained about the way his interview was edited.  And even the hallowed World Service is not immune. I once put a £20 bet on the integrity of the BBC after waking up to a furious Bob Geldof on Today lambasting what he claimed was an inaccurate World Service investigation claim that Live Aid funds were diverted to pay for arms.  I lost. And while ITV’s brave expose of the Savile claims will probably win awards, anyone who got to see Dara O’Briain’s latest tour will have been reminded that the first episode of ITN’s latest ‘flagship’ current affairs documentary on the links between Libya and the IRA contained footage not from West Belfast but from Call of Duty.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and I have bored anyone who would listen over the past 3 weeks with my view that the BBC should have been less quick to remove the editor of Newsnight over the shelved Savile report and more open to entertaining the possibility that he may have made that decision on  reasonable editorial grounds – even if that judgement is deemed wrong in hindsight. Feisty, experienced reporters should fight tooth and nail for their investigations, but editors surely should be forgiven for asking broader questions about the level and quality of the evidence supporting  extraordinary claims. 

We need a combination of bold and brave investigative reporting with those old fashioned Reithian values of ‘rigour’, ‘fairness’ and ‘accuracy’ and rather than looking for more heads to roll or debating the axing of Newsnight I hope we can now move on to discuss how to resource and support that  in the BBC and throughout the media.

On female guests on Today

Few people probably even remember now that before his Jimmy Savile woes the ill-fated George Entwistle seemed keen to ensure that this leadership be defined by his determination to get more female experts onto the Today programme and throughout the BBC.  It was the subject of his first talk to BBC staff and he raised it in all his early media interviews.  Most people of course welcomed this fresh new commitment to tackling the under representation of women on our airwaves. Others seized on it to attack Today all over again for the lack of female presenters and guests.  But I felt unsettled by the whole discussion.

As it happens I think Entwistle’s concerns were more widely shared than he gave credit for. For some time now it’s been common practice for the SMC to receive requests from all sections from the BBC for a female scientist where humanly possible.  All things being equal and if we have access to top women scientists willing to speak, the SMC is more than happy to comply.  We like promoting the women scientists on our database and can see that more visibility for women scientists and engineers can have a knock on effect on young women debating their future careers. 

But this needs to be done intelligently and with a degree of sophistication and I hope Entwistle’s successor will be cognisant of that.

There are many and varied reasons for the dearth of women at the top in science. Some are structural, with a lack of opportunities for women who take career breaks to have families and stunted career paths for those who choose to return part time. And of course there are still sexist dinosaurs in the scientific establishment who promote men over women every time.  Sadly the talented journalists at Today can do little about this – apart from expose it and report on it which they do. 

My fear is that under pressure from the top, anxious producers will end up bending the stick towards crass requests for a woman for the sake of having a woman. My colleague received such a request a few weeks ago (shortly after Entwistle’s talk) on an Alzheimer’s story where all those who had taken part in an SMC briefing to voice strong opinions on a specific issue happened to be male.  We found ourselves not just scouring the database for female Alzheimer’s experts (pretty easy) but also trying to second guess whether they might have a view similar to those expressed by the male experts who had chosen to speak out. I for one am not prepared to risk being asked ‘why have you asked me?’ to which the only truthful  answer would be ‘well not because you are the best expert on this particular angle or the right person for this specific interview, but because Today needs a woman’. 

And nor was I comforted by the latest salvo in this row – the news reported last weekend that a young woman was so incensed by the failure of  Today to find a female expert on breast cancer treatment that she has set up a website dedicated to media-friendly female experts. Interviewed by the Observer, freelance journalist Caroline Craiado Perez cited another interview on Today on teenage girls and contraception which included 2 male guests – an expert from Brook Advisory Centre and Anthony Seldon of Wellington College. Criado Perez makes the point that Today could have opted for a ‘headmistress of an expensive girls school’ because ‘as someone who has been a teenage girl herself, the headmistress would have been preferable’. Now I admit I did not hear that interview but this argument just does not work for me.  Either Seldon does have real expertise on this issue, in which case she is arguing for any women over someone with real expertise. Or he has no expertise at all in which case she is arguing that we put women with no expertise over men with no expertise. I feel sure we can do better than this.

And I say this as someone who is often critical of the experts on our airwaves and my family now call me Malcolm Tucker as a result of my reaction to the often ill-informed and lazy choices. What is needed to improve the quality of science in the media – and to improve the quality of public discourse on science –  is to get more and better expertise onto the airwaves. Scientists who are media friendly but also know their subject inside out, and have been researching it for 20 years and can challenge the lazy ideological claims made about many science stories by the politicians and campaign groups that love nothing more than a BBC studio. 

Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol, said:

“Rotavirus causes large epidemics of diarrhoea and vomiting in babies and young children every winter and with it, misery for thousands of families across the country.

“The vaccine, which is going to be introduced in the UK next year, is given by mouth at the same time as other routine vaccines starting at 2 month of age. It has been used in other countries including the USA, Mexico and Belgium for several years and it’s clear that it works well.

“I’m pleased that another unpleasant illness that affects most children is going to be brought under control. It will also help hospitals cope in the busy winter months by reducing pressure on beds and front-line staff.”

Dr David Elliman, Immunisation Specialist of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said:

“This is an important advance as whilst rotavirus does not cause many deaths in the UK, it does cause a huge amount of suffering. Rotavirus affects large numbers of under-fives causing them diarrhoea for a few days. This vaccine will mean less pressure both on distressed parents who have to care for their children and of course the GPs and hospital services who are treating them.

“This is a vaccine that has been used for some years in the US, so though new to us there is a large body of experience showing that it is safe and effective.”

Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“It is encouraging to hear the Chancellor talk about the importance of science with such enthusiasm. It is particularly gratifying that he acknowledges the parallel importance of curiosity-led and applied research, and the need for continued investment in science even in times of fiscal restraint.

“Maintaining a world class infrastructure will be essential to delivering the Chancellor’s vision.  We are delighted that Research Councils UK has set out a strategic framework that will allow better prioritisation of this essential investment, and that rightly recognises the need to back initial capital spending with ongoing operational support.”

Sir John Parker GBE FREng, President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:

“I am delighted to hear such public support from the Chancellor for investment in science, engineering and technology at this critical time for our economy. The specific areas he has highlighted – computing, synthetic biology, agricultural science, regenerative medicine, energy storage, nanotechnology, robotics and space – have huge potential for growth. This country is already a leader in some of these areas where top class scientific research is underpinned by world-beating UK engineering.

“Government can help the transition of great ideas from lab to market by creating a business investment-friendly environment that gives companies – and their supply chains – the confidence and incentives to invest in creating world leading products and services.”

President of the Royal Society, Paul Nurse, said:

“I am delighted to hear the Chancellor’s encouraging words on the place of science in driving a modern dynamic economy and his commitment to doing more for science in the future.  Only if we take a long term view will we be able to build an ecosystem that creates knowledge, develops it and turns it into a commodity that people will pay for.  We look forward to working with the Treasury to be certain that science continues to get the support it needs to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of technology and innovation.”

Lord Willis, Chair of AMRC and Member of House of Lords ST Committee, said:

“To listen to a well informed and pro-active speech from the Chancellor is warmly welcomed. The challenge now is to back his eight technology transfer priorities with significant new resources otherwise we will fail to meet the challenges he has rightly identified.” 

On the RCUK Framework that was announced this morning, Professor Rick Rylance, Chair of Research Councils UK, said:

“Economic pressures have led to a reduction in capital funding for research and, critically, the removal of this funding from the Science Budget’s ringfence. However, the need for investment in capital and infrastructure projects has not diminished; in fact, it is more crucial than ever. The rate of technological advance is accelerating and our researchers need the very best facilities to deliver the excellent research needed for economic growth.

“RCUK has responded to this challenge, and the Framework will enable the Research Councils to make strategic capital investment decisions to retain, foster and develop our national capability and continue to lead in global science and research.”

Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said:

“It’s really encouraging to see the Chancellor taking a personal interest in British science and engineering. The commitment to new spending on scientific infrastructure is important, as is the new framework for capital investment, as part of the UK’s push to be a modern, high-tech economy.”

“We hope that George Osborne carries on and turns this commitment into a sustainable, long-term one, along with addressing the cut that inflation has made in the ‘flat cash’ settlement. Using the £4bn revenue from the forthcoming 4G spectrum auction provides the perfect opportunity to do this, as we and Nesta have called for in our 4Growth report.”

David Reid, from the University of Sheffield’s School of Nursing and Midwifery said:

“The Dementia Friends initiative, announced today, is a further bold and positive step by the Department of Health, with the Alzheimer’s Society, to improve the likelihood of living well with dementia. While the target to have in place a million trained Dementia Friend volunteers by 2015 is ambitious, there are likely to be many members of the public who take up the challenge to offer a helping hand to those affected who require support in their local communities.

“However, people with dementia are as culturally diverse as any group in society. The same cultural barriers that currently prevent people with memory problems from certain minority ethnic groups coming forwards for assessment may well limit the cultural diversity of Dementia Friends. Further collaborative work is required with members of minority ethnic communities around the country to ensure the Dementia Friends initiative encourages ‘dementia friendly’ communities for all.”

Dr Ian Jones, Reader in Perinatal Psychiatry, MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Cardiff University said:

“Women with bipolar disorder are at very high risk of a severe postpartum episode and face very difficult decisions about continuing or stopping medication in pregnancy. This study suggests that factors associated with the illness itself may be associated with the small increased risk of poor pregnancy outcomes. It reminds us that there are also risks in stopping medication and emphasises that each women must make an individual decision after weighing up the risks and benefits involved. Women with bipolar disorder who find they are pregnant should discuss the options with their doctor before making a decision about their medication.”

‘Risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes in women treated or not treated with mood stabilisers for bipolar disorder: population based cohort study’ by Robert Bodén et al, published in the BMJ on Thursday 8 November 2012

Relationships between black tea consumption and key health indicators in the world: an ecological study. BMJ Open 7 November 2012

Claim supported by evidence?

The paper does not prove a link between high black tea consumption and low diabetes prevalence, but it does add weak support to this hypothesis.

Summary 

This paper looks at the prevalence of type-2 diabetes in countries where there is a high consumption of black tea.  It should be noted that black tea means tea made with black leaves (as we drink in the UK) – it has nothing to do with whether or not you add milk.

The study appears to show a linear statistical correlation between high black tea consumption and low diabetes prevalence in the world, although the authors are frank that ‘correlation does not imply causality’.

Strengths/Limitations

The linear correlation (fig 3) is driven by Turkey, UK and Ireland in the bottom right (with high tea consumption) and a country with very high diabetes and low tea consumption (in the top left). 

This plot suggests that the data are not appropriately distributed for this regression/correlation method – rank correlation should have been used instead. 

Ireland (with the highest black tea consumption) has a small population and so may be weighted too highly in this analysis.

In summary the significance of the results displayed here may not be as great as it first appears.

The authors are honest about limitations. 

They recognise that “the quality of data collection can be expected to be heterogeneous around the world.” – e.g. in the UK, recording of diabetes prevalence is likely to be more thorough than in other countries. 

The authors add “health indicators such as diabetes depend on diagnostic criteria, which can vary across countries”. – e.g. in UK testing is more thorough so if you have diabetes here you are likely to know about it.  In other countries you may live your whole life with diabetes and never be diagnosed.

The methods appear appropriate overall but data availability is the main limiting factor.

There is an increased chance of false positives because of multiple testing (five key health indicators are used) – in other words the more things you look at the more likely you are to find something that appears significant.

The p-value of 0.003 comes from the same test done in two different ways (the paper appears to suggest that the second way supports the first).  It would be more convincing if this p-value came out of two entirely separate tests.

The coefficient r² of 0.199 indicates weak evidence for a relationship.

There is no discussion of the obvious driver for the association which is genetic susceptibility.  Similarly there is no attempt to correct for covariates, such as latitude and longitude, which would serve as potential proxies for genetic susceptibility.

In summary: at face value, the results suggest that a high level of black tea consumption (as in the UK) would halve the prevalence of type-2 diabetes; but a lot more research would be required to prove this and this paper alone does not constitute proof.

Any specific expertise relevant to studied paper (beyond statistical)?

No.

The report, which stems from a joint workshop hosted by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society, looks at technologies that are already emerging and those that may realistically emerge in the short term. It emphasises the immediate need for further discussion and debate around issues such as potentially harmful new technologies, individuals feeling coerced into using enhancements, employee wellbeing, how the introduction of some technologies may be funded and concerns related to equity and fairness.

Speakers:

Professor Genevra Richardson CBE FBA, Professor of Law, King’s College London and Chair of the Steering Committee for this report

Professor Jackie Leach Scully, Professor of Social Ethics and Bioethics and Co-Director of the Policy, Ethics & Life Sciences Research Centre, Newcastle University

Professor Barbara Sahakian FMedSci, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Cambridge

Professor Nigel Shadbolt FREng, Professor of Artificial Intelligence, Head of Web and Internet Science Group, University of Southampton

A panel of leading plant pathologists presented the latest on the spread of Chalara and address such questions as

• What will this do to Britain’s ash trees, will they recover, and how will it change the landscape? 
• How did it get here – and could it have been stopped? 
• What other threats to Britain’s trees are scientists anticipating in the future, where do they come from and how can they be addressed? 
• Why should we care?

Speakers:

Dr Joan Webber, Principal Pathologist and Head of Tree Health Research Group at Forest Research

Prof Michael Shaw, Plant Pathologist at Reading University and President-elect of the British Society for Plant Pathology

Dr Steve Woodward, Reader in the Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences at the University of Aberdeen

Dr David Slawson, Leader of the Tree Health and Behavioural Change Programme at the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA)

Prof Ian Boyd, Chief Scientific Advisor at DEFRA

Prof John Shephard, University of Southampton and former Director of the Southampton Oceanography Centre, said:

“I am very pleased to hear that NERC Council has decided against the proposed merger, as the reasons given for it were not convincing. NERC now needs to act swiftly to repair the damage it has done, rebuild the morale of BAS staff, and replace the senior staff already lost, as soon as possible.”

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, said:

“The Government and the NERC should be congratulated for listening to the scientific community and removing the threat to the British Antarctic Survey. The UK’s world-class science base is being hit hard by the cuts to funding resulting from the Comprehensive Spending Review, and the Survey was set to become one of the most high-profile casualties. The Survey’s scientific research is vitally important in finding out how climate change is affecting the huge Antarctic ice sheets which could raise global sea levels by several metres if they melt and become destabilised. However, it is disappointing that the Government has committed only to protecting funding for the Survey instead of reversing the cuts to the NERC’s budget which will now threaten other important areas of research.”

Dr John Dudeney, former Deputy Director of BAS,  said:

“I am delighted that the merger will not now proceed.  However, the devil will be in the detail – the detail which is not included.  I have in mind here whether NERC will now move swiftly to make new permanent appointments of a Director and Deputy Director of BAS;  whether the BAS fleet will remain under the control of BAS and not be merged with the NOC fleet, and whether BAS will continue to be an integrated operation carrying out a substantial research programme as well a providing the presence in Antarctica, policy advice to Government, and wide ranging scientific collaboration.  It was of course perfectly proper for NERC to explore various options for the management of its institutes, but I think they do need to reflect on how they went about the process in this case.”

Prof Mark Maslin, University College London, said:

“It is reassuring that an institution such as NERC is strong and confident enough to have taken the expert views of their members and made the right choice despite it being opposite to their original proposal. Now if only the rest of Government would follow suite enact evidence based policy.”

NERC statement:

www.nerc.ac.uk/about/work/boards/council/bas-noc-outcome.asp?cookieConsent=A

Dr Tony Whitehead, Director of Policy at the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), said:

“The large investment and long timescales involved in all types of energy generation need consistent, long-term energy policies. Short-term uncertainty around UK energy policy, as we have seen in the last couple of days, is very unhelpful and has the potential to result in increased prices for consumers and delay much-needed investment in all forms of energy infrastructure.  It can also stop investment in new UK jobs.

“Uncertainty over policy toward one energy source implies uncertainty for all sources. Remarks about wind power also affect gas, nuclear and other investments.

“The UK has the world’s largest offshore wind industry and there is huge potential in terms of investment and future jobs. Several international companies planning investments in the UK recently wrote to the Energy Secretary expressing concern over the emergence of political risk in the UK which has traditionally been regarded as having a low risk for energy investment.

“Inconsistent comments from different quarters of the Government could be very damaging and affect confidence in the market, just at the time investment decisions are about to be made, potentially driving investment and jobs overseas.”

Prof Michael Grubb, Chair of Energy and Climate Policy at Cambridge University, said:

“In the UK we have a solid base of domestic renewable resources and a solid framework of policies on energy efficiency.  Yet this week’s announcements suggest we have a vocal faction in the government that is determined to undo all this by attacking renewable energy and undermining investor confidence.

“Onshore wind turbines must be carefully and properly sited.  But this intervention is nonsensical.  At a time of wrenching fuel bills, serious questions need to be asked about why Junior Minister John Hayes is unilaterally advocating a policy to try and block one of our cheapest renewable energy resources and thus drive up everyone’s energy bills.”

Philip Heptonstall, UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) and Imperial College London, said:

“The evidence shows that onshore wind in the UK is amongst the lowest cost per unit of electricity produced from the available suite of low carbon power generation options.  It follows that preventing the construction of appropriately sited onshore wind farms will make consumers bills higher than they would otherwise be.”

Central to the bill is the Electricity Market Reform (EMR), seen by some as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to simultaneously tackle climate change, address UK energy security and boost the economy by providing an investment framework for the energy industry, enabling much-needed upgrading of energy infrastructure.

Many industry leaders, including the CBI, also take the view that taking a lead in renewable energy could revitalise large swathes of British industry.  But the energy industry says that it urgently needs long-term policy certainty to justify spending at a time of global financial turmoil and stay in step with UK energy security needs.

We brought together some of the UK’s most experienced engineers and energy policy experts to discuss these issues ahead of the anticipated publication of the Energy Bill.

Speakers:

Prof Roger Kemp FREng, Professorial Fellow, Department of Engineering, Lancaster University

Prof John Loughhead OBE FREng, Executive Director, UK Energy Research Centre

Dr John Roberts CBE FREng, Former CEO of Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board and United Utilities

Sarah Grintzevitch, Meteorologist at the Royal Meteorological Society, said:

“The effects of Hurricane Sandy are predicted to be far greater than those of 2011’s Hurricane Irene.

“Comparisons have been drawn between Hurricane Sandy and the ‘Perfect Storm’ of 1991 however there are a number of factors including elevated ocean temperatures and high tides that have led to even greater impacts than those witnessed during this much talked about storm.

“Hurricane Sandy has combined with wintery weather from the west and cold air from the north to create a much larger and more intense storm.

“Hurricane Sandy has demonstrated one of the largest expanses of tropical storm force winds on record.

“Although only classed as a category 1 hurricane we must bear in mind that such classifications take into account only wind speed and don’t account for size, location or rainfall.

“The classification of Hurricane Sandy has changed to ‘Post-Tropical Cyclone’ Sandy as it has now made landfall. A hurricane draws all its energy from the ocean and hence once over land must be reclassified as its energy is then attained from contrasting atmospheric temperatures.”

Kamran Moazami, Head of Buildings Structures at engineering consultancy WSP and the structural engineer on the Freedom Tower in New York, said:

“New York is a city of skyscrapers but tall buildings are designed to withstand high wind loads – we design structures for a 50 year wind event, up to 98 miles per hour and on top of that structures are designed for a factor of safety.  The parts of the city that will suffer the most are the smaller structures and the infrastructure which makes up the nervous centre of the city.  As in any disaster it is the lack of water, power and transport and flooding that can have the most devastating impact and effect on the speed of recovery.”

Met Office blog on the hurricane:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/hurricane-sandy-heads-for-the-northeast-usa/

Dr Jane Strachan, Willis Research Fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“Although only a category 1 hurricane, Sandy is causing big problems for the U. S. northeastern states due to its huge size and slow movement up the U. S. East Coast. Powerful winds, torrential rains and storm surges threaten states from the Carolinas to New England, and yesterday the National Hurricane Center warned of a storm surge affecting New Jersey, Long Island and New York Harbour of between 2 and 4 metres.  

“After killing 60 people in the Caribbean last week, Sandy moved north and northeastward parallel to the southeast coast of the U. S., but today is expected to be drawn back northwestward toward the coast and is forecast to make landfall in southern New Jersey tonight. However, Sandy won’t have to come onshore for it to cause serious problems for the U. S. East coast.  Storm surge and the associated flooding are the biggest worry, due to the strong winds and very low pressure, coinciding with high tides associated with a full moon.  Additionally, heavy rains of up to 50mm per hour associated with this large and slow moving are making flooding a major concern.
“As Hurricane Sandy merged with a cold front, it has grown to over 3200 km in diameter and is now the largest hurricane in Atlantic storm history. Additionally, the storm is changing from tropical to extratropical in its structure, so that rather than the winds being more focused around the eye of the storm, the tropical-storm-force winds, reaching over 135 km/h, have spread out and are affecting a much larger area.
“Something that threatens hurricane monitoring is future satellite coverage of tropical storms. Vital information from polar satellites is fed into the models that help forecasters predict the path of storms like Sandy, providing warning information for the Caribbean and U.S. However, as a result of years of mismanagement, lack of funding and delays in launching replacements, it looks very likely that there will be a gap in polar satellite coverage, which would lead to reduced forecast quality. This was the worrying headline news in Friday’s New York Times, with existing satellites are nearing the end of their lives, while the launch of the next replacement (JPSS-1) has slipped to 2017, leading to a gap in coverage of at least a year.”

Professor Mark Saunders, Department of Space and Climate Physics at University College London, said:

“The situation with Hurricane Sandy will not become certain until after landfall late today (US east coast time).

“However, the two most unusual features of hurricane Sandy which may well make it unique as a storm are its track direction and curvature, and its relative strength.

“Track direction and curvature

From a location well offshore at a latitude of 35°-40°N the storm turns to the northwestward to strike the US mid-Atlantic coast. There is no precedent in hurricane records extending back to 1851 of a storm at this latitude taking this path. All historical hurricanes located well offshore at this latitude have followed the jet stream and tracked in a direction between north and east.

“Its strength for a hurricane striking the US mid-Atlantic coast in late October (which is near the end of the hurricane season). 

“Sandy’s central pressure is currently forecast to be 945-950mb at landfall late on Monday. A pressure this low would exceed the previous record low pressure of 955mb for a hurricane landfall in this region at this time of year. It would also be close to the record low pressure of 946mb for any hurricane landfall north of Cape Hatteras; this record-holder being the ‘New England’ hurricane which  occurred in September 1938.”

Prof Carmine Pariante, Professor of Biological Psychiatry and Head of the Sections of Perinatal Psychiatry & Stress, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, said:

“While it is important that reviews like this one look at the overall body of literature, none of these findings is new as we have known for a few years that the use of antidepressants in pregnancy is associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk of obstetric complications, prematurity and possible autism in the offspring.

“However the main limitation of all of these studies is that it is virtually impossible to disentangle the role of antidepressants in these adverse outcome as compared with the role of depression in pregnancy per se.  Studies have shown that depressed women who are not receiving antidepressants have similarly increased risks of obstetric complications, prematurity, and increased risk of adverse behavioural problems in the offspring. This is likely due to changes in the biology of the utero environment due to the depression in the mother. Therefore, we cannot really say if much of the negative effects of an antidepressant medication in pregnancy is due to the drug itself as opposed to the fact that the mothers are depressed in the first place.

“Clearly this is an important area and new evidence is always welcome, but we do know that untreated depression in pregnancy has also very severe adverse effects on the offspring, it persists overtime to become severe post-natal depression, and it disrupts the crucial mother-infant interaction in the first week of life. Therefore, we recommend that each decision on whether to prescribe antidepressants or not in pregnancy is discussed with the individual woman based on her clinical and personal circumstances.”

We brought together two of the UK’s leading experts to discuss the key issues surrounding pregnancy and mental health today.

Topics covered:

• What is the prevalence and range of mental health issues during and after pregnancy?
• What can we do to detect and help women who experience a mental illness during pregnancy?
• What are the risks of taking psychotropic medications when pregnant compared to the risks of not taking them?

Speakers:

Prof Louise Howard – Head of Section of Women’s Mental Health, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London & Honorary Consultant Perinatal Psychiatrist.

Prof Carmine Pariante – Head of the Stress, Psychiatry and Immunology Laboratory and of the Section of Perinatal Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London.

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research, said:

“This is an excellent set of experiments that provides some reassurance that at least one of the proposed methods to avoid the transmission of mitochondrial disease, which have so far been considered by expert committees at the level of both science and ethics, and which are now the subject of an HFEA Public Consultation (see: http://mitochondria.hfea.gov.uk/mitochondria/), are likely to be feasible. The work should give further, but I am sorry to say still cautious, hope to families affected by these diseases that a practical solution to having an unaffected child may not be so far away. 

“Mitochondria are small structures (organelles) within cells that have a vital role in the generation of energy used for living processes in all animals. They each have a small amount of DNA (mtDNA), carrying a few genes essential for this process. However, if one of these is mutated, it can lead to devastating diseases affecting many tissues, particularly those with a high demand for energy, such as muscles and the brain. Unlike the vast majority of genes that are contained within the cell’s nucleus that are inherited from both parents, mitochondria (of which there are usually many in a cell) are uniquely passed on from the mother via her eggs. Mothers with a mix of abnormal and normal mitochondria can themselves be free of the disease, yet pass it on to many or all of her offspring.

“This latest study from the lab of Shoukrat Mitalopov and colleagues, provides important data that are relevant to the question of the safety and efficiency of one of the key methods currently being explored to avoid transmission of mitochondrial disease, namely maternal spindle transfer (MST). The method involves moving the nuclear genetic material from one egg (or oocyte) to another, at a stage when this is in the form of chromosomes lined up in preparation for cell division on a structure termed the spindle. The rationale with affected mothers (not used in this study) will be to move the spindle from an egg with defective mitochondria into one with normal mitochondria that has been supplied by a donor.

“The same lab had shown previously (with some additional data reported in the current work) that MST was an efficient and safe technique in Macaque monkeys. These were chosen as an animal model for being much closer to humans in their reproductive biology than more commonly used laboratory species such as mice.  In the current study the authors show that the techniques are also possible to perform with human eggs and that, after fertilization, a significant proportion develop to blastocysts, an early stage of embryo (with about 100 cells). Most of these appeared to be normal, and could with high efficiency give embryonic stem cells lines, which could then be further tested to verify that chromosome numbers were good, that the cells were pluripotent (they could form many specialized cell types), and critically that there must have been very little carryover of mitochondria with the spindle to the new egg with the MST techniques. The latter is essential if the methods are to avoid passing on the disease not just to any resulting child, but if a girl, to her children, and so on. Avoiding both the psychological and physical threats of passing on the disease to subsequent generations are important additional potential  benefits of the methods, although this aspect is considered contentious by some because it constitutes a form of germ-line genetic modification.

“This set of experiments was one requested by the HFEA’s Review of scientific methods to avoid mitochondrial disease (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/6372.html). While the results appear very promising and they do not challenge the main conclusion of this Review, that there is no evidence to suggest that the methods are unsafe, there are still outstanding questions. In the current study, about half the manipulated eggs failed to fertilise properly, and consequently these gave abnormal embryos. While these are clearly recognisable, and could be discarded, this substantially lowers the efficiency of the procedure. The same problems were not evident with the macaque studies, suggesting to the authors that human eggs are more sensitive to manipulation at this stage. It is therefore conceivable that the other proposed method, that of pronuclear transfer (PNT), where the nuclear genetic material is transferred after fertilisation, will be more robust. This is an approach being actively pursued by Doug Turnbull and his collaborators in Newcastle.

“Although the results in the current paper appear convincing, it would be good to see the MST methods repeated by other scientists. Perhaps a slight tweaking of the methods would overcome the problems of abnormal fertilisation and development. If not, then this might suggest that extrapolating from monkeys to humans in the field of reproductive biology is not always ideal, especially when we know that this is a rapidly evolving system, and that humans are quite unique in showing such a high rate of early embryo failure, even under normal circumstances.”

Professor Mary Herbert, on behalf of the mitochondrial team at Newcastle University, said:

“We welcome the publication of this paper.

“This study is encouraging because it confirms our previous work published in Nature, showing that, in principle, it is possible to use IVF-based techniques to reduce the risk of transmitting mitochondrial DNA disease from a mother to her child. The manipulations required to do this can be performed either before (Spindle Transfer) or after (Pronuclear Transfer) fertilisation. This study published in Nature today represents an important step towards understanding the likely efficacy of Spindle Transfer as a treatment to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA disease.

“Overall the findings are encouraging. However, a striking result is that, in contrast to their previous findings using monkey oocytes, these researchers found that a high proportion of human eggs did not fertilise normally following Spindle Transfer. The data indicate that this is caused by failure of the Spindle Transfer eggs to properly halve their DNA content during subsequent fertilisation. 

“This finding is not altogether surprising.  The unfertilized egg has the complex task of remaining poised in readiness to halve its DNA content upon sperm entry.   Given the biological complexities associated with maintaining this state, we have always held the view that manipulation of the egg at this stage would be rather precarious.  In fact, the more surprising thing to us is that Spindle Transfer worked so well in monkey eggs.    

“The alternative technique of Pronuclear Transfer, allows the egg to halve its DNA content and become packaged into a large clearly visible pronucleus before being transplanted.   This means that the risk of inducing abnormal fertilisation is minimal.  The work here in Newcastle is focused on continuing to develop and test the efficacy of this technique.

“The study from the Oregon group also reports that those eggs that fertilised normally following Spindle Transfer were capable of developing under laboratory conditions. While, the researchers were able to grow some embryonic stem cell lines, the likelihood of pregnancy remains to be established.  This is largely dependent on embryo quality, which, in humans is highly variable.  While the recent paper does not report specifically on the quality of the embryos, the limited information provided is encouraging.  

“The study confirms that human eggs are more challenging to work with than those of the rhesus monkey.  The important thing now is to optimise procedures in human eggs and to perform detailed comparison with embryos created by conventional IVF.”

Professor Peter Braude, Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King’s College London, said:

“This is excellent and important work that continues to examine the safety of one of the methods proposed to avoid transmission of mitochondrial diseases, namely maternal spindle transfer (MST). It is exactly the sort of science that the HFEA expert committee recommended needed doing, and demonstrates further the feasibility of this technique. However it is still a long way off ready for human use.

“Although the team was able to reconstruct eggs with new spindles using donated eggs, when they were fertilised more than half of them showed significant abnormalities that would make them unsuitable for use. Only one in five of the original eggs obtained fertilised normally and made it through to the implantation stage. This would mean that in order to be certain of getting embryos that might be suitable for transfer, around 12 eggs might be needed, not always possible in an IVF procedure. The authors agree that this information is important and further work is needed to understand the reasons for the fertilisation abnormalities.

“The other technique, pronuclear transfer (PNT), which is being pursued by the Newcastle team supported by Wellcome Trust funding, holds the advantage that any manipulation takes place after fertilisation – so the sorts of abnormalities seen in this paper are less likely. Similar laboratory experiments using human eggs for the PNT technique are essential, emphasising how necessary it is for willing women to come forward to donate eggs in pursuance of this research.”

‘Towards germline gene therapy of inherited mitochondrial diseases’ by Masahito Tachibana et al, published in Nature on Wednesday 24th October. 

Dr Alexis Bailey, Lecturer in Neuropharmacology, University of Surrey, said:

“This study shows that the GLP-1 analogue, a drug used for the treatment of type II diabetes, can reduce the pleasurable/rewarding effects of cocaine in mice. One has to be cautious though as this is only a preliminary study and the effect is rather small. The drug does not completely block the pleasurable effect of cocaine, it just slightly reduces it. It would be interesting to see if it can actually reduce cocaine self administration which is more predictive of drug addiction behaviour.

“This is another example of how substances which control appetite can influence pleasurable centers in the brain. Indeed, there are common pathways in the brain involved both in food and drug addiction. Our lab at Surrey University are particularly interested in investigating common changes in brain chemistry which occur both during food and drug addiction.”

‘GLP-1 analog attenuates cocaine reward’ by Graham et al, published in Molecular Psychiatry on Tuesday 23^rdOctober. 

Prof Rowland Kao, Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Boyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health at the University of Glasgow, said:

“It’s going to be difficult to determine what, if any, short term effect the delay is going to have. Defra is already announcing more severe restrictions to cattle in the wake of a bTB breakdown (seehttp://www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla/2012/10/19/19-october-defra-introduces-tighter-control-measures-in-england-to-tackle-the-spread-of-bovine-tb/)- if these measures have the intended  impact on breakdown incidence, any changes in herd incidence will be hard to attribute to any one effect.

“Though estimates of overall badger densities are hard to come by, longer term, if they are increasing, then this could contribute to increases in higher incidence of bTB in cattle.

“It’s unlikely that the increased numbers of badgers will drastically change the expected incidence in cattle; what matters is the relative population density when comparing across regions – if the same underestimates apply quite broadly then it simply means that higher densities are required to see the observed incidence in cattle. Higher densities will mean more effort will be expended and costs may be higher to achieve given density reductions, but we don’t really have a good idea of the relationship between changes in badger density and cattle herd incidence as they occur in different regions. A paper from a collaboration I was involved with (‘Risk factors for bovine tuberculosis at the national level in Great Britain’ by Bessell, Orton, White, Hutchings and Kao in BMC Vet Research, 2012) does show that when comparing across high incidence areas in GB, badger density estimates are correlated with higher cattle herd incidence.”

“A good vaccine obviously has its attractions, but a large scale implementation of either a cattle or badger vaccine is likely to be a long way off; for cattle the lack of a test that distinguishes between vaccinated and infected cattle is a key problem and for badgers there is no efficient delivery system for a large scale implementation.  Plus we’ve no good field evidence for the required efficacy of a vaccine for either species.”

Prof Christl Donnelly, Professor of Statistical Epidemiology, MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Imperial College London, said:

“The badger cull is being delayed in part because it has been discovered that there are more badgers in the cull areas than had been planned for.  Scientists do not have a validated model to predict how a higher badger density would change the risks to cattle. The immediate impact of the increased badger numbers is that the requirement to remove a high proportion of badgers costs more if badger density is high and the contractors are being paid per badger culled.

“In the next month, I will be doing further updates to estimate the longer term effects of (repeated, widespread) badger culling, but the benefits estimated from the culling trial have been diminishing as the last culls get longer and longer ago, so these further analyses are unlikely to radically change anyone’s views on whether badgers should be culled.

“Vaccine development is ongoing for both cattle and badgers. I am not in a position to predict when an oral badger vaccine would be available but an injectable one is already available and is already being used in Wales.”

Prof Lord May of Oxford, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford and former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government (1995-2000) and former President of the Royal Society (2000-2005), said:

“The sentence handed down to six Italian scientists is truly shocking, revealing appalling ignorance of the basic nature of scientific inquiry within the Italian legal system.  The verdict might have been understandable in the Dark Ages, standing alongside the persecution of Galileo, but in today’s world it simply is an embarrassment to the Italian Government and anyone associated with it.”

Government Chief Scientific Adviser Professor Sir John Beddington said:

“The outcome of this trial is concerning. While I don’t know the details of this case, it is not possible to say that a natural hazard such as a volcanic eruption or earthquake will not happen. All experts can do is provide an assessment of the likelihood of an event based on the best scientific knowledge at the time.

“I do not think such an outcome would be possible in the UK, indeed the only possible risk of criminal prosecution would be if the advice was demonstrably grossly negligent or wilfully malicious. I am confident the advice provided to government by the hundreds of UK scientists and engineers does not fall into such a category. While in the case of civil not criminal proceedings all advisers are indemnified by Government.

“Government relies heavily on the network of advisory councils and committees to provide advice. I am glad to say that the Italian case does not present a threat to this activity.” 

Prof Robert Holdsworth, Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, said:

“The history shows that earthquakes in that region are a part of life but predicting where and when they will occur is extremely difficult.

“You cannot hold the scientists responsible for the forces of nature and I sincerely hope that the international community will put pressure on the Italian government to free the six scientists immediately.

“This action is unprecedented and drives a serious wedge between scientists and the wider community. Research and science can help society is so many positive ways and we should encourage scientists to communicate freely on issues of hazard and risk.”

Prof Ian Main, Professor of Seismology and Rock Physics, University of Edinburgh, said:

“I was the UK representative on the Italian Presidential commission for Earthquake Forecasting convened after this event. Our remit was to look at the subject world-wide. The findings and recommendations were presented to the Italian Civil Protection and at a press conference in L’Aquila itself, available publically at: http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf

“The full, peer-reviewed report with the evidence base is at: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/imain/igmpapers/LAquila.pdf

“The main points to get across are:

1.  Earthquakes don’t kill people directly: buildings do. The front line of defence is therefore the proper planning, construction and regulation of buildings and infrastructure to withstand earthquakes. Everything else is tinkering at the edges.

2. We can’t predict earthquakes with any accuracy or reliability at present.  No reliable precursors have been found, and we don’t expect any to emerge soon.

3. Research is ongoing into how the clustering properties of earthquakes can be used to identify periods of temporarily increased hazard. But the absolute probabilities of clustering based forecasting are likely to be very low (a fraction of 1%) and highly uncertain, leading to a very high false alarm rate (over 99%).

4. Deciding what to do with this new information is not straightforward, requiring interaction between scientists, social scientists, local authorities, community groups and Schools.  It will require ongoing and experimental ‘real-time’ tests, not just looking at past data with the biases involved in hindsight.

5.  Science-based disaster risk reduction is best conducted outside the highly-charged environment of a courtroom.  There is no doubt it has been severely harmed by the court case and the judgement.  Only time will tell by how much.”

Dr David Rothery, Senior Lecturer in Earth Sciences, Open University, said:

“I am glad that those found guilty will appeal. Earthquakes are inherently unpredictable, and prior to the magnitude 6.3 l’Aquila quake a ‘best estimate’ was given, which was that the current low level seismicity was not likely to herald a bigger earthquake. That turns out to have been wrong, but most of the time it would probably have been right. Maybe the message came across rather too complacently, but six years in jail for at worse poor communication skills seems to me totally disproportionate.

“If civil protection is to be effective, rather than having jail sentences hanging over them and having to battle the legal system, the Italian seismic experts should be spending time studying and advising on earthquakes.

“I am far less concerned about the scientists’ ‘failure’ to communicate the risks clearly enough, than I am about the likelihood that building codes for seismic resilience may have been flouted, with the result that buildings that should have withstood the shaking collapsed.”

Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards, UCL, said:

“This is an extremely alarming verdict. If this sets a precedent then national governments will find it impossible to persuade any scientist to sit on a natural hazard risk evaluation panel. In the longer term, then, this decision will cost lives not save them.

“We don’t have the ability to predict earthquakes, but what national governments need to do is spend time and money ensuring that the buildings in areas of potential earthquake risk are able to withstand expected earthquakes.”

Professor Bruce Malamud, King’s College London said:

“The scientists involved in the trial conveyed to the public the uncertainty and small probability of an earthquake occurring in L’Aquila based on accepted knowledge we as a community have accumulated over many years. The words ‘improbable’ and ‘unlikely to occur’ are often unfortunate translations from scientists of these small probabilities, as they convey to some in the public that a large magnitude event will never occur, when the scientists are trying to convey that there IS a possibility, just small and finite. But, that any year, there is a given chance of an earthquake of a given size or larger occurring.  It would certainly benefit society if instead of prosecuting individual scientists for a perceived failure to communicate, it rather works on educating the average citizen, through the schools and examples, as to what is meant by uncertainty and low probability.”

Professor David Spiegelhalter, University of Cambridge, said:

“This bizarre verdict will chill anyone who gives scientific advice, and I hope they are freed on appeal.  The lesson for me is that scientific advisors must try and retain control over how their work is communicated, and are properly trained to engage with the public.”

Sandy Steacy, Professor of Earthquake Physics, University of Ulster, said:

“If it stands, this verdict will have a chilling effect on earthquake science in Italy and throughout Europe. For instance, who would now be willing to serve on an earthquake hazard evaluation panel when getting it wrong could mean a conviction for manslaughter? 

“And what will be the effect on the “impact” agenda? Here in the UK scientists are being challenged to ensure that their research has influence outside academia; this case suggests that such engagement can be very dangerous.”

Dr Roger Musson, British Geological Survey, said:

“This is a very sad business indeed, these are people I know, who were doing their best to give an accurate account of large earthquakes. It seems to be wrong that they should be prosecuted for offering scientific advice to the best of their ability. It will certainly make scientists less free in speaking out where perhaps their expertise are really needed.

“It’s not about them failing to predict earthquakes, it’s not about anything those 6 scientists said at the forum which they were asked to give their opinion, what those 6 scientists said was correct and any seismologists would support it.”

Richard Walters of Oxford University’s Department of Earth Sciences said:

“I am very saddened to hear about the verdict. The issue here is about miscommunication of science, and we should not be putting responsible scientists who gave measured, scientifically accurate information in prison. This sets a very dangerous precedent and I fear it will discourage other scientists from offering their advice on natural hazards and trying to help society in this way.

“I have read the translated minutes of the meeting of the Grand Commission of High Risks on the 31st March, and the scientific information that was conveyed within that meeting was not inexact, incomplete or contradictory. It was clear, measured and scientifically accurate.

“The prosecution have not distinguished between the different defendant’s actions or words. To be prosecuted for other people’s miscommunication of your scientific advice is a travesty.”

Dr John Elliott of Oxford University’s Department of Earth Sciences said:

“This verdict is a sad end to a tragic series of events in L’Aquila. Earthquakes cannot be predicted, and these scientists should not even have been on trial accused of providing incomplete information, because it is unfair to have expected them to have provided an exact and complete warning of an earthquake in the first place – this is something which is not yet credibly possible for earthquake science.

“This potentially sets back scientists’ desire and ability to engage openly with the public and authorities on the risks faced by society from natural hazards, particularly those involving seismic activity.”

Dr David Rothery, Senior Lecturer in Earth Sciences, Open University, said:

“I hope they will appeal. Earthquakes are inherently unpredictable. The best estimate at the time was that the low level seismicity was not likely to herald a bigger quake, but there are no certainties in this game.”

Prof Malcolm Sperrin, Director of Medical Physics, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, said:

“Assuming that negligence and malpractice are not factors here then the prosecution, and now sentences, of the Italian seismologists comes as a considerable surprise. In seismology, as with many other branches of the pure and applied sciences, opinions are derived from observables and the application of experience and training. It is never the case that predictions are completely without uncertainty and any scientist will make this clear as well as an estimation of how accurate such predictions are.

“If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to certainties only and the benefits that are associated with findings from medicine to physics will be stalled.  It is worth pointing out that many of the valuable contributions made by scientists such as penicillin, radiobiology etc have stemmed from the enquiring mind rather than absolute certainty of success.”

Professor Peter Styles, Professor of Applied and Environmental Geophysics at Keele University, said:

“This is a very exciting and stimulating paper, which makes a very strong case for crustal unloading due to excessive groundwater extraction as the trigger for the Mw 5.1 earthquake that occurred in Lorca, southeast Spain, on 11 May 2011.

“Faults in the crust are in a state of equilibrium under complex systems of stress, partly tectonic in this case through the interaction between the North African and Southern European areas but also with the weight of the rock itself.

“Isostatic unloading and the associated elastic response of the crust and lithosphere is well known as a cause of seismicity; in fact much of northwestern Scotland’s recent historic seismicity is associated with glacial unloading from the last ice sheet c 10ka ago.  The Betic Cordillera is one of the most seismically active areas in the Iberian Peninsula reflecting the neotectonics and it is not unexpected that the removal of 250 metres of groundwater since 1960 (a very significant mass change over a relatively short period of time) together with many centimetres of subsidence caused by compaction are sufficient to act as the minor perturbation (the straw which breaks the camel’s back) for a stress system which was probably near to failure.  

“The authors comment on the role which anthropogenic activity can play in stimulating the response of the crust and there will no doubt be speculation as to the implications of this for hydraulic fracturing in the context of shale gas exploration.  Indeed, prior background seismicity of significant magnitude and the presence of active fault systems are two of the prime parameters, which need to be considered before hydrofraccing is permitted; and this region of Spain, even if it were prospective for shale gas, would be categorically excluded because of historic activity.

“The mechanism which has been generally accepted for the Blackpool earthquake sequence is of fluid percolation along bedding planes into a fault and the subsequent reduction of normal shear stress leading to minor slip of a few mm in a relatively weak rock with a consequent minor tremor of 2.4 ML.  This is in no way similar to the isostatic elastic response seen in Lorca.  Calculations of the Coulomb stress changes associated with extraction of shale gas (not groundwater) could be made but they are likely to be orders of magnitude smaller than are seen here.”

‘The 2011 Lorca earthquake slip distribution controlled by groundwater crustal unloading’ by Pablo J. González et al, published in Nature Geoscience on Sunday 21 October 2012. 

Dr James Cresswell, Ecotoxicologist  in Biosciences, University of Exeter, said: