science funding


George Church on What Comes After CRISPR

George Church joins us today. He’s the Robert Winthrop Professor of . . . . well, he’s George Church. And he confirms that, yes, a movie called “Woolly" is being made about his lab. In the next breath, he reminds us (and himself?) that less than 1% of his press is about the woolly mammoth.

George was honored this year as one of Time Magazine's "Time 100 List", and we’re curious about what topics of conversation come up when he’s with non-scientists. What does he think of Trump (or what he calls “the new politics”)? Is he tempted to join the wave of scientists running for office?

“In China, about 80% of their top government officials have a degree in science or engineering, while in the United States it's closer to 1%,” he deadpans.

We cover some scientific ground today as well. George says CRISPR has been overhyped as the step between Zinc Fingers/Talens and the next gene editing tool. So what is the next CRISPR? And what ever came of his 3-D sequencing?

Enjoy.

Is Population Medicine Failing Us? Michel Accad

Is health the same thing for an individual as it is for a population? This question goes to the foundation of how we practice medicine today and that of most of genomic research.

Michel Accad is a cardiologist in San Francisco and the author of a new book, Moving Mountains: A Socratic Challenge to the Theory and Practice of Population Medicine, in which he uses Socrates to spar with Geoffrey Rose, a British physician and one of the architects of modern medicine.

As early as the 1950’s, Rose advocated for the idea that individuals should be treated based on bell curves of an entire population, essentially risk based medicine. This philosophy would lie at the heart of not only the British National Health Service but many public health programs. It informed the famous Framingham studies here in the U.S. In fact, the term “population medicine” is a very positive term for those working in healthcare today. Genomic medicine has been an outgrowth of population medicine.

Michel says this philosophy is failing us at the level of individual health. Third party payers, be they governments or insurance companies, are in their offices working a system based on large datasets. They develop algorithms using all kinds of risk studies. But these payers have little to no contact with the actual patients. Ironically, he says, we call it personalized medicine. Michel points to hypertension, a disease area where sixty years after Rose pushed for risk studies, cardiologists are still divided into camps over whether to treat a patient if their blood pressure lies above the average. Michel argues that population medicine is utilitarian and ultimately utopian. What are framed as scientific studies are really social engineering.

What about clinical trials, we ask Michel. Don't population studies bring doctors and patients many good drugs?

In the second half of the interview, Michel points out that a mechanistic view of biology dominates clinicians and scientists today. It’s true. Our guest last week, a well known geneticist from Stanford, compared people to cars, arguing for the need to wear health data gathering sensors.

"Right now among philosophers of science, there’s a recognition that “mechanism” is inadequate to explain cellular organisms."  The study of biology also has often been developed with tautologies, he says.  "For example, say you’re studying the beaver and you ask what is a beaver. The standard answer is to go to the genetic sequence. From the genetics, you say you have a beaver. But you have to know what beavers are in the first place in order to study a beaver. It’s a circular argument."

So what other models might we use in biology? And what can we do in healthcare if we’re not using large population studies--go back to blood letting?

(Amazon link)

Over $1 Billion Invested this Past Year: Synthetic Biology in 2017 with John Cumbers

What does it take to make it in synthetic biology in 2017?

Working as a bio engineer at NASA, John Cumbers founded SynBioBeta, the primary “activity hub” for the synthetic biology community. SynBioBeta will be putting on their sixth conference this year in San Francisco, along with conferences in London and Singapore. The young industry has seen a flourish of startups working on new genome engineering tools and a dizzying array of applications that include synthetic animal meat and synthetic human skin. Last month John partnered with Data Collective to launch a new seed stage fund for this space.

John is not only interested in startups. Currently writing a book with the working title, “What’s Your Bio Strategy?”, he is provoking existing companies to consider using biology as technology.

“The book is designed to be something we could take into [Apple CEO] Tim Cook’s office, and ask him what’s your bio strategy. And he says, 'I don’t have a bio strategy.' So you put the book on his desk and say give me a call if we can help you to develop one.”

When we first talked with John, he was heading up a program at NASA to develop building materials for use on Mars. Five years later, is John's number one goal in life still to settle the solar system?

With 50 Million Users, Is Academia.edu Speeding Up Science?

Today we follow up with Richard Price, the founder and CEO of the most popular social sharing site for the academic sector, Academia.edu. When we talked to Richard almost five years ago, the site had 1.5 million users, mostly academics sharing their own papers so that their peers had access without any paywalls. Today the site boasts over 50 million users and serves as a laboratory for the future of academic publishing.

It’s not hard to understand the site's phenomenal growth. Weathering the hit back by Elsevier and other prestige publishing houses, Academia.edu has been able to open up access to millions of scholarly papers which otherwise would not have been accessible. And the papers are not only available to academics. Anyone can get an account for free. Richard recently found a farmer from Sub-Saharan Africa downloading a paper on water conservation.

In addition, many users now choose to publish on the site rather than with an established journal. An emeritus professor at Berkeley told Richard this:

“If I publish in a journal, it takes two years to come out and seventeen people read the paper. If I upload to Academia, I get 100 views in the first week."

It's a success story in terms of uptake by the scholarly sector, but what does this success mean to Richard and the company, and to its users and the future of publishing?

So far revenue sources are limited. Experiments with a premium service have had mixed results with users pushing back and arguing that "open access to scholarship should be a human right, not a business model." How will the site, which requires huge infrastructure, sustain itself?

Richard said before that the site could speed up science. Has it?

Join us behind the scenes with the mastermind of Academia.edu.

A Republican Staffer on the Gottlieb Hearing

This week at a Senate hearing Scott Gottlieb defended his nomination to be FDA commisioner.  Last night at happy hour we caught up with a Republican staffer who was willing to be candid in exchange for remaining unnamed.

 

Staffer:  Oh, yeah, the Gottlieb nomination.  Sweet little thing.  The nomination, I mean.  Seems like the hearing was weeks ago with this whole “nuclear” warfare going on in the Senate over Gorsuch.  

Mendelspod:  The Republicans looked pretty pleased with Gottlieb, as did some of the Democrats.

Proposed NIH Cuts, Undermining GINA, and Game Changing Drugs: March 2017 with Nathan and Laura

The largest cut to NIH budget ever, rolling back genetic non-discriminatory law—the bad news continues to roll from Washington. But there was great news this month as well.

Both Nathan and Laura are fuming about HR 1313, or a Republican bill to roll back GINA protections. Laura points out that the proposed law builds on an exemption in GINA for wellness programs—a category difficult to define. And Nathan reminds us that families and children could be hurt by the new bill. Theral asks since when did privacy become partisan? GINA passed in ’08 with a vote of 95-0 in the Senate, 414-1 in the House (Ron Paul playing the weirdo there), and it was signed by George Bush.

Then on to some “game changing” drugs for multiple sclerosis and eczema and a successful gene therapy trial for severe sickle cell anemia. Not only are there new therapies, drug manufacturers seem to be getting the message on pricing.

Art in the Lab (Falling in Love with Bacteria)

Today’s guest makes time to create beauty in the lab. Memo Berkmen is a bacterial artist along with being a staff scientist at New England Bio Labs. He and his colleague, Maria Penil, were the winners of the American Society for Microbiology’s agar art contest in 2015. Their felicitous relationship with the unseen, often unnoticed, world of ancient organisms fills us with wonder and inspiration.

-----

Bacteria art by Memo Berkmen, Maria Penil

Democracy and Science Have Tea at the White House

The wheels on his navy blue Toyota Prius could be heard squeeling as Science wound down the parking structure in Bethesda.  Yes, it's true, Science's parking spot involved two stories and some undwinding to get out on the open road.  Today Mr. Science was headed to the White House for tea with Ms. Democracy.

As it happens, on this particular day, our Mr. Science is a religious man.  One doesn't know how it happened.  It just happened.

Flint Whistleblower Says Today's Science Is to Blame for Its Own Lack of Public Trust

Marc Edwards is telling a different story than the one most of us have been reading and hearing lately. But then he’s used to it.

Marc was the engineer from Virginia Tech who was called one day in September, 2015, by a resident of Flint, Michigan. A Ms Lee Ann Walters wanted Marc to check out her water. When Marc and his team got to Flint they uncovered super high levels of lead in the potable water, with over 100,000 people exposed to high lead levels and 12,000 people with lead poisoning. You know the rest.

But you may not know that a very similar story to Flint played out in the nation’s capital in 2003. A Washington DC water crisis led to a hearing in which Congress found that the CDC had released “scientifically indefensible” reports on the water.

Marc Edwards exposed those reports and lost a contract with the EPA over it.

Aghast at the world of academic science which he says is "gamed by a system of quantitative incentives" and at government agencies who often overlook the truth, Marc now takes aim at the whole system of science. Last year he co-authored a report Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. The report warns of a tipping point where science “itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age."

The integrity of science has been a major theme here on the program, so while Marc is not a biomedical researcher, his experience in exposing bad science resonates within our own life science community.

In line after quotable line (“The idea of science as a public good is getting lost. In science our product is truth, and our brand is trust. The greatest proportion of truth seekers are not going into science as opposed to other human endeavors."), Marc fillets today’s scientists in government and academia, arguing that the system of science is skewed towards quantitative markers rather than quality: the pressure to publish more papers each year, citations, how much funding, etc.

Marc thinks things have gone so wrong that the war on science today (and yes, he does think there is a war on science), is more the fault of the scientists than any political movement. Somewhat with irony, but more with sadness, he says:

“The Flint water crisis was so bad it restored my faith in politicians. I mean that’s how screwed up it was. The politicians behaved themselves really well. The people who have been indicted are the scientists and engineers."

In-Situ Sequencing, CRISPR Patents, and Racist Milk Drinkers: February 2017 with Nathan and Laura

Commentators Nathan Pearson and Laura Hercher join us to look back on February’s genomics headlines.

Beginning this time with science, Nathan says we should be expecting great things from new in-situ sequencing. Laura found it encouraging that the National Academy of Sciences shifted to be more in support of genome editing. Theral asks what life forms are left to sequence for the Earth BioGenome Project?

Then it’s back to politics. Are the departure of Liz Mansfield from the FDA and Matt Might from the White House the beginning of a brain drain from government agencies in the new administration? We finish with some stories about racism that might fit under the heading “family genomics and black history month."



New to Mendelspod?

We advance life science research, connecting people and ideas.
Register here to receive our newsletter.

or skip signup