The upshot of months of controversy over whether to publish research that used the H5N1 avian flu virus — experiments in which scientists engineered forms of the bug that could spread through the air to infect mammals — was that scientists got to publish their work in full in a special issue of the journal Science on Thursday.

At the same time, the U.S. government and health officials around the world continued to ponder what to do next about so-called dual use research of concern: experiments with scientific merit that can also pose a threat to health and security. In March, the U.S. released a new policy to help begin the process of monitoring the pathogen research, but experts said this week that the guidelines didn’t go far enough to solve the problem.

They had different takes on what future oversight of bird flu research would — or should — look like.  One commentary article in Science’s special issue called on strict controls on who can conduct bird flu research.  Another argued that probably wouldn’t work.

The author of yet another commentary, Carrie Wolinetz of the Assn. of American Universities, told the Los Angeles Times in an interview that she thought self-regulation would be most appropriate, with additional biosafety and biosecurity training to get scientists thinking seriously about the potential threats posed by their research.

“We see that when the awareness is raised, scientists are generally very responsible,” she said. “I think following the guidelines for education and communication as more of a voluntary system would be a better way forward then trying to regulate, with a knee-jerk policy response, an incredibly complicated issue like dual use research of concern.”

But Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University who has been critical of the community’s approach to dual use research, said researchers would need a strong push from authorities to get meaningful reform under way:

The March 29 policy does not call for a system of review or a system of oversight. It merely calls for enumeration of projects involving dual-use research of high concern.  Each funding agency merely needs to compile a list of these projects and to ensure that each PI prepares a risk mitigation plan and files it with the agency. This is not a system of review.  This is a system of registration. 

What is needed is a formal and mandatory system of review, analogous to the current systems for review of human-subjects and vertebrate-animals research.

We already have models that work.  These are already applied to tens of thousands of experiments annually.  We merely need to apply these to the tens of experiments that involve dual-use research of high concern.  The only reason not to do it is a lack of will.  It’s not a matter of lack of models and not a matter of lack of resources. 

The system for review of pathogens research would probably best be modeled on the system for review of recombinant DNA research, with institutional panels looking at a narrow set of research projects and passing along an even narrower set of projects  for review by a national panel outside the funding agencies, like the RAC.

This is not rocket science.  This is not even molecular biology.  This is simple public policy.  And the decision to proceed is one of will, not of complexity.  Most scientists would prefer not to be regulated.  Just as most bankers would prefer not to be regulated.

written by Biosafety

The study is being presented Sept. 26 at the European Respiratory Society’s Annual Congress in Amsterdam.

It is well known that when people are exposed to certain substances and chemicals it can cause asthma. However, there has been little research investigating whether a mother’s work exposure during pregnancy can lead to asthma in their children.

This research, carried out by scientists in Denmark, included 42,696 children from the Danish National Birth Cohort and assessed the association between their mother’s occupation and asthma prevalence amongst the children at the age of 7 yrs.

The main focus of the study was on the effect of low molecular weight agents, such as synthetic chemicals and natural substances. This includes those found in vehicle parts, furniture, shoe soles, paints, varnish, glues and wood-derived products.

To assess the impact of low molecular weight agents, subjects in the study were classified into occupation groups, including those exposed to low molecular weight agents, mixed exposures, farmers, students and office workers.

The assessment showed that 15.8% of the cohort had asthma. Out of the children whose mothers were occupationally exposed to low molecular weight substances, 18.6 % had asthma. These results were found after other factors, such as the mothers’ age and weight, smoking status, use of medication and exposure to pets, had been taken into account.

There were no significant associations with asthma found within other occupation groups.

Dr Berit Hvass Christensen, from the School of Public Health in Denmark, said: “There are many factors which could cause asthma and many associations which have not been explored. We aimed to investigate whether a mother’s occupation can have an effect on their children.”

“This is the first large-scale study which has shown an association between maternal exposures during work and asthma in children. Whilst a link has been found, our results at this stage are modest and further research is needed into specific chemicals and substances to determine those that could be most harmful.”

Professor Marc Decramer, President of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), said: “Indoor air quality is a major global issue. The European Respiratory Roadmap, which was launched this week to improve lung health, highlights the need for exposure standards, whereby all work places examine levels of allergens and respiratory irritants in their indoor air, to help prevent lung diseases. There is a clear need for this as many allergens are not currently regulated by international guidelines. We believe that everyone is entitled to clean indoor air and we can achieve this by taking positive steps towards managing air quality in the workplace.”

written by Biosafety

Researchers from the Epithelial Homeostasis and Cancer group at the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) have carried out a study which is to be published in the journal Nature, describing how circadian rhythms, that is the internal biological clock which controls our behaviour during the day and night, regulate the function of the cells which are responsible for the daily regeneration of the skin (the skin stem cells).

Stem cells regulate cell replacement in tissues. In the case of the skin, they are responsible for constantly producing new cells to replace those that deteriorate through daily use. Correct function of the stem cells is essential for maintaining healthy tissue throughout the life an organism. The skin is exposed to various harmful agents through the day, such as ultraviolet light during daylight hours, and pathogens such as bacteria and viruses. The main function of the skin is to protect an organism from these potential dangers, whilst being an impermeable barrier separating our body from the outside world.

The researchers involved in the study have found that the behaviour of skin stem cells is regulated by an internal biological clock, and that the correct function of this clock is necessary in order to maintain the tissue. This clock regulates the behaviour of stem cells in such a way that, for example, during the peak hours of light exposure, the cells are able to protect themselves from harmful radiation (the main cause of skin cancer), whilst in the evening and at night they can divide and regenerate the tissue replacing damaged cells with healthy ones. In this way, the biological clock allows stem cells to divide at times when the skin is no longer exposed to possible damage, when it would be more vulnerable to the accumulation of mutations in DNA and which would cause a loss of regenerative capacity, or a higher predisposition to tumour development.

“Therefore, the biological clock enables the precise adjustment of the temporal behaviour of stem cells, in such a way that the system adapts to the needs of the tissue according to the time of day and there is constant replacement of the cells of the tissue with minimal risk of accumulating DNA mutations. If this control is lost, stem cells may accumulate DNA damage, and the likelihood of cell ageing and generation of tumours increases significantly.” says Salvador Aznar Benitah, coordinator of the study.

The genes Bmal1 and Period1/2 are responsible for controlling this rhythm and regulating cell regenerative activity or rest. Through the genetic manipulation of both genes, the researchers showed that disruption of the biological clock in skin stem cells prevented the cells from knowing when to exercise which function, and that this caused long-term problems in cellular ageing and tissue generation. Moreover, the arrhythmia in the clock also significantly increased the propensity to develop a type of skin cancer which is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in industrialised societies.

The biological clock (commonly known as the “circadian rhythm”) arranges all of our biological functions according to the natural cycles of light and darkness to which we are exposed on a daily basis. The results of the group from the Centre for Genomic Regulation show that skin regeneration, essential to prevent from ageing and tumour development, is also subject to these rhythms. As we age, the accuracy of this biological clock tends to fade gradually with changes in our daily routine, specially with those who are exposed to constant changes like jet lag in frecuent flyers. Researchers believe this may eventually cause failure in the regenerative capacity of our tissues and consequent ageing, and, in addition, a greater propensity to tumour development. More research will be needed in the future to understand why the biological clock fades as we age, and whether ways to restore a “young” clock can be developed to slow down the tissue degeneration process and reduce the risk of developing tumours.

written by Biosafety