Seeds of Distrust

Seeds of Distrust: The Story of a GE Cover-up explores the potential release of genetically modified (GM) corn in New Zealand in 2000 and alleged attempts by the government to cover it up. As New Zealand has very strict controls on the presence of GE organisms, the publishing of this book made genetic engineering (GE) a hot topic in the 2002 elections. Although Nicky Hager describes some dubious practices from the Labour government, the story in Seeds of Distrust is let down by a lack of science and ultimately loses sense of all proportion.

In late 2000 the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) were notified by seed company Novartis of the possible presence of a transgene in a sweet corn seed shipment. Initially Helen Clark took the position that the planted crops needed to all be pulled out and destroyed. Legislation was quickly rushed through in order to give the relevant government agencies the necessary authority. However, after meeting with representatives from the industry, the government became less convinced of any significant transgene presence and moved to adopt new rules allowing seed shipments containing up to 0.5% trangenes to be labelled GE free. The rational for this is PCR - the technique used to detect transegenes - has a certain lower limit of detection (for practical reasons). Additionally, some doubt was cast on the accuracy of the positive results which could have been due to sample contamination or a PCR artifact. Given the positive tests were less than the newly adopted 0.5% threshold, the government allowed the sweet corn to mature and enter the food chain. The Labour government kept the whole situation relatively low key in order to avoid spooking the public as a royal inquiry into GE was currently underway. This is the basic story that emerged for me after reading the facts presented in Seeds of Distrust - and it is a well documented book - however Hager has a different take.

Hager makes a big deal of the government meeting with industry to talk about the possible release of a GMO. Although I share his unease with the influence of corporations on government, in this case it was Novartis who initial detected possible transgene presence and it was their corn seed shipment which may have been recalled or destroyed, they needed to be involved in the early stages. Hager also focuses on the threshold level being set at 0.5%, he says the practical limits of PCR detection were actually 0.1%. Although, in principle, this meant the government was allowing up to fives times more GMOs into the country than was necessary, the overall level of transgene presence in the shipment of seeds was 0.04 - 0.08% and therefore below either measure. There was one test which reported a 0.5% transgene level but here his lack of science really lets Hager down as the rigour of the test is not defended at all. The story then continues with Hager doing everything he can to spin the downplay of the possible GMO release by the government into a deliberate cover-up of a definite GE food contamination. This is the weakest part of the book and I was not convinced anything particularly sinister was being perpetrated by the New Zealand government.

After reading this book I wanted to find out more about the science of the PCR tests that had gone on during this process. I found this press release by Dr Russell Poulter (now a professor of genetics at Otago University) who explains where the positive results came from. The ‘transgene’ detected was actually the nos terminator which can be associated with the actual transgene but can also be found in the common soil bacteria Agrobacterium. If this was an actual case of transgene presence then a 35S promoter sequence should have also been found by PCR as it is associated with the transgene but is not present in soil bacteria. It wasn’t. Given that Hager notes two of the samples were opened in the field, it seems likely these positive results were from contamination of the sample rather than due to a GMO. Removing these as false positives brings the presence of transgene down to an undetectable amount and eliminates most of the force in Seeds of Distrust.

Overall, Hager has written a book detailing behind-the-scenes decision making when governments behave in a less than exemplary manner. But given that the major premise of his book - GMOs were knowingly released by the government - is not well defended and likely false the whole thing reads like a storm in a teacup. Only worth reading if you are interested in the GMO scandal that hit around the 2002 election.

2/10.

Free GE

A recent story in the Dominion Post (Commercial benefits lacking in GE trials) reveals the genetic engineering trials being carried out by Crown Research institutions have lead to very few commercial gains. Plant and Food and AgResearch have paid over half a million dollars in application fees to ERMA and only one of the trials has resulted in royalty generating IP. To those familiar with New Zealand's restrictive requirements for GE research, this outcome is hardly a surprise.

Despite decades of safe use around the world, GE and GMOs remain contentious issues in New Zealand. The regulatory environment alone makes it difficult to carry out even basic research, let alone the commercial research which scientists are now being criticised for not producing. Anti-GE spokeswoman Claire Bleakley decries that the benefit of GE research being completed in New Zealand is lost to the overseas companies. But if private companies are the only ones paying for the research to be carried out then it makes sense they are the ones who reap the economic benefit. Basic funding for GE research is simply not available in New Zealand, the funding bodies know there is little chance any innovation made will be allowed to be used.

If New Zealand wants its scientific organisations to produce applied science using GE technology then it must:
1) relax the regulatory environment so that research time and money is not being consumed navigating expensive legislation
2) fund GE projects so the IP is not captured by overseas companies
3) open the New Zealand market to GMOs so that the benefits of this technology can be accrued here

There is very little risk and huge benefits to allowing GE research to be conducted more freely. The longer New Zealand clings to the anti-GE label, the more we miss out on the exciting commercial opportunities. Rather than be GE-free, let's free GE!

Science vs religion: the effect of education

A new sociological study of UCLA undergraduate students has been getting some play in the sceptical blogosphere. Since it relates to some previous blog posts I have written on the LoR I thought I would go through it. Basically, a UCLA organisation called the Spirituality in Higher Education Project (SHEP)1 surveyed the religious opinions of the first-year population on campus. They then followed up with another survey of juniors to identify opinions influenced by several years of higher eduction. The study in question (Scheitle, 2011) focuses on the students’ perception of the relationship between religion and science.

Students could choose between four options to describe their view on this relationship.

Conflict – I consider myself on the side of religion
Conflict – I consider myself on the side of science
Independence – they refer to different aspects of reality
Collaboration – each can be used to help support the other

Categories three and four were lumped together into a ‘non-conflict’ answer.

Of this sample 83% of the students were religious. Unsurprisingly then, this means that 86% of the respondents went with non-conflict (69%) or sided with religion (17%). That leaves 17% non-religious students, 14% of whom sided exclusively with science. Given the large proportion of Christians in the US and that most are not of the fundamental variety, meaning they will have their science and eat it too, this seems a fairly straight-forward result.

Interestingly by their junior year, 73% of those who had originally sided with religion had come to adopt a non-conflict or pro-science position. This shift perhaps reflects the secularising effect of education. However, 47% of those who had originally picked science had also shifted their position. Not as large of a percentage of those who changed from a pro-religion stand-point but a substantial proportion of students. Even when the researcher looked into the data for only science students, the moderating effect of education was still present. Apparently, learning more about science decreased the view that science and religion were in conflict.

What I would have liked to be able to look at is the detailed data for both the independence and collaboration viewpoints instead of having them lumped together in a single category. If it’s correct that more education promotes a more secular viewpoint I would expect to see the ‘independence’ category increase. Whereas if education was actually supporting religion, I would expect to see a growth in the number of students picking ‘collaboration’. With the data in their current form, it’s impossible to make such judgements.



SHEP is funded by the Templeton foundation; any true sceptics will now hum the Jaws theme.

Scheitle, C. P. (2011) U.S. College Students’ Perception of Religion and Science: Conflict, Collaboration, or Independence? A Research Note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 175-186.

Could you patent the sun?

One of the biggest enemies facing critical thinking and scepticism is that of personal bias. Bias is extremely easy to spot in other people, but notoriously difficult to spot in yourself. No one likes to think that they may be biased but everyone is, in one way or another. Bias often appears in science denialism where someone may be religiously biased towards a Biblical interpretation of the fossil evidence (for example) rather than towards the scientific explanation. The best we can do about our biases is recognise them and be extra vigilant when we come across evidence that conforms to our biased pre-judgements. Because bias has such an affect on our interpretation of evidence, scientists especially should try to limit the influence of such outside factors on their impartial research. Yet we see precisely the opposite occurring. As research and industry snuggle into a cosy relationship, scientists have become enamoured with their commercial partners.

The commercialisation of research has exploded in the fields of biomedical science and biotechnology, with industry poised to make millions, scientists are all too happy to take a cut of the action. However, money is a powerful motivator and researchers now have an added incentive to find certain result. The result which favours whatever corporation provides the funding. If scientists are being influenced by their source of funding, then it should be apparent in their results. Industry funded projects should find positive results more often than non-profit funding. Indeed, taking the example of pharmaceutical research, that is what we find.

Many scientific journals require the submitting authors to declare any conflicts of interest, for example being funded by the same company who owns the patent on the drug in question. Several statistical analyses have been done on the outcomes of these studies and the results should not be surprising to anyone who understands the effects of bias. In 2001 an analysis of 314 drug trials found that non-profit funded research was 3.5 times more likely to find a negative result than industry sponsored trials1. A 2002 study of 159 articles in the British Medical Journal, which requires that funding be declared, found that the authors' conclusions were significantly more positive in trials funded by for profit organisations compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48, P=0.014)2. A 2004 study showed that in 158 drug trials published in five leading medical journals results favoured industry funded studies by an odds ratio of 1.93. Finally, in 2003 a review selected 37 of the most rigorous studies and pooled their data. They found a statistically significant odds ratio of 3.6 favouring industry funded research4. This review also found that industry funding was associated with restriction on publication and data sharing if the results were negative.

One point to make about these analyses is that they are correlative only, causation could not be determined. Although the quality of the studies was controlled for (often poorer quality in industry funded trials) one possible explanation is that industry interests somehow pick pharmaceuticals that are more likely to succeed in trials. I can’t imagine how they would know beforehand which drugs have better prospects, but it is a possibility. More likely, however, is that the scientists performing these studies are influenced by the commercial factors at play in their research. These results are very reminiscent of ‘tobacco science’ where, for example, 94% of industry funded inquiry found no harm from second-hand smoke compared to just 13% of non-profit funded research. If correct, this interpretation is quite troubling. First, it means that consumers are being bombarded by new pharmaceuticals which are of questionable value over the old versions and in some cases, downright dangerous. Second, the reputation of science for impartiality and following evidence is being ruined by commercial interest by both outside companies and the scientists themselves. When the commercial bias of scientists is revealed, say through a drug recall or hidden financial contributions, the public starts becoming suspicious of these intellectual elites. In fact, the commercialisation of research could be contributing to the distrust of science, the growing interest in alternative medicine, and the rejection of genetic engineering.

Believe it or not there was a time when industry and academia where more or less separate. Scientists with relevant expertise might be given an honorarium to help overcome a particular problem or speak on a certain topic, but that was about it. Funding was largely provided by governments and scientists were free to explore myriad lines of inquiry, whether it might lead to a practical application or not. Even when there research could be commercialised, the scientists themselves would rarely have much to do with it. Their results were given away into the public domain. In 1954, Jonas Salk developed his vaccine against polio, when asked whether he would patent it he found the idea ridiculous replying, “Could you patent the sun?” Unfortunately, this attitude is found rarely in the field of biotechnology. Many exotic genes and interesting methods are often patented by the researchers who first discover them either preventing further inquiry or driving the cost of research even higher. This also makes the funding of science less attractive to the public sector that now sees less return for its investment.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any solutions for the problem. I just think the commercialisation of research makes an important contribution to the growth of science denialism and was worth highlighting. Patent law clearly needs a complete overall. I dislike attempts to own parts of nature - “to patent the sun” - but companies do need protection for their intellectual property. Similarly, industry funding research is having a negative impact on the impartiality of science, but there is no denying the benefits that have emerged from such partnerships. Perhaps blinding individual scientists to the source of their funding and preventing patents on natural products could go some way to removing this troubling commercial bias from academic scientists.

1. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract. 2001 Dec;18(6):565-8.
2. Lise L Kjaergard & Bodil Als-Nielsen. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325:249 ( 3 August )
3. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 2004 Feb 17;170(4):477-80.
4. Justin E. Bekelman, AB; Yan Li, MPhil; Cary P. Gross, MD Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review JAMA. 2003;289:454-465

Ulster Museum to Promote Creationism?

Nelson McCausland, culture minister for Norhtern Ireland has asked Ulster Museum to put up displays on Creationism. Creationism is the Biblical based view that the Earth was created October 23rd, 4004 BCE. It is anti-science in the extreme and not something a museum ought to be promoting. Guardian covers the story.

Science vs. religion: are they incompatible?

One question that frequently confronts the New Atheists (especially those with a scientific background) is whether a religion and science are incompatible. The stock answer is that many religious leaders accept science as a good way to understand the natural world and conversely, many scientists have a religious faith (Ken Miller and Francis Collins come to mind). In a previous blog post I talked about how sociological research had revealed that about half of American scientists are able to both perform cutting-edge science and maintain a religious identity. An even larger proportion is still interested in matters of spirituality despite daily engaging in rational, empirical inquiry.

These facts show there is, at least, a kind of ‘brute compatibility’ between science and religion; a single person can hold both ideas simultaneously. However, the obvious counter to ‘brute compatibility’ is to point out that in certain cases the findings of science to conflict with specific claims about how the nature of the world. For example, if you claim that the world is 6,000 years old, science says you are wrong. According to empirical data, the world is more like 4.5 billion years old and anyone who says the scientific evidence shows otherwise is simply mistaken. Because science can only conflict with specifically defined religious claims, I call this ‘specific incompatibility’. Although this type of incompatibility is important, and probably accounts for a large proportion of science’s moderating impact on religion, it does not completely contradict all types of religious claims. Again, this answer is too superficial; the original question is asking something more fundamental - are religion and science incompatible at the deeper, philosophical level?

Here we must start with a rigorous understanding of the exact nature of science, its epistemological limits, and the assumptions it makes. First science assumes that the universe exists and is, broadly speaking, observer independent. This assumption avoids the problem of solipsism, where I could construct an argument based on the idea that the universe is simply a figment of my (hyperactive) imagination. The second assumption brings in causality, scientists must assume that causes and effects are empirical (observable and measurable) and, more importantly, natural. That these causes must be empirical is fairly self-explanatory. If we cannot observe and measure we cannot draw any inferences, offer any explanations, or say anything at all about them! Basically, we would not be able to do science. Less clear might be why science can only approach natural causes rather than supernatural ones.

Let’s use an example to help highlight the problem of supernatural causes. A nice set of evidence for evolution is that of the fossil record. Without going into too much detail, the arrangement and transitions of different fossil types is empirical evidence for evolution occurring in the real world (the universe out there). However, along comes a supernaturalist, and he to us “yes, I agree with your observations and measurements of the fossil evidence, however God (or other supernatural cause) made it so the fossil record appeared to support evolution but in reality the theory is wrong.” This is a serious and unsolvable problem for science and it can be applied to any other explanation or conclusion derived from methods based on the two assumptions above. If supernatural causes are allowed the best of real, verifiable, and empirical science will frequently give the wrong answer. If God (et al) always makes the observed and measured evidence look like it is supporting the wrong conclusion no appeal to empiricism can save a scientific theory – by definition. This is why science must reject supernatural causation and become methodologically naturalist at the outset. Without this assumption we would not be able to do science.

Methodological naturalism, therefore, means that science cannot ever make a judgement on supernatural claims. Science assumes that supernatural causes don’t exist and gets on with its job of figuring out the observable universe. As religion, for the large part, is based on such supernatural claims (God caused the universe, Karma causes ill luck, Boobs cause earthquakes) science has very little to do with the majority of religious assertions. I call this ‘philosophical compatibility’, as an understanding of the philosophy of science shows that science and religion are not in conflict. I accept that in specific cases religious claims may contradict with the findings of science and in those cases religion is wrong, but we can always take the step back to the philosophical level and show that such ‘contradictions’ may not be problematic if we allow for supernatural causes.

There’s one last level I want to discuss and that is ‘metaphysical incompatibility’. Working from science and its assumption of methodological naturalism one might take the eminently reasonable position of philosophical naturalism – supernatural forces positively do not exist in the real world. Note that this is not a scientific position but a metaphysical one, albeit one informed by scientific understanding. Science is insufficient to get us to philosophical naturalism, the move also requires reason and logical arguments (examples would include the argument from suffering of which I am fond). Philosophical naturalism is in clear contradiction with a metaphysic infused with religious supernaturalism. There is also a secondary incompatibility at this level but Feynman said it best so I’m going to turn the last word over to him:

“As a matter of fact, the conflict is doubly difficult in this metaphysical region. Firstly, the facts may be in conflict, but even if the facts were not in conflict, the attitude is different. The spirit of uncertainty in science is an attitude toward the metaphysical questions that is quite different from the certainty and faith that is demanded in religion. There is definitely a conflict, I believe – both in fact and in spirit – over the metaphysical aspects of religion.”

And that is the heart of the science/religion incompatibility in a nutshell.

It's alive!

Scientific paper here.

Science denialism

One of the most serious problems facing science communication is that of well funded and well organised movements of science denialism. The adherents of these movements completely reject certain aspects of mainstream science and no amount of persuasive evidence or reasoned argument will help them change there mind. Some examples of science denialism include creationism (aka intelligent design), anti-vaccination (aka Jenny McCarthyism), AIDS denial, and climate denial.

Proponents of science denial often defend their views with great zeal and effort. Yet apart from the one or two areas where they refuse to trust mainstream science, they are often logical and rational people. It is not hard to explain why someone who begins down the path of science denialism often finds it difficult to claw their way back to reality. Once a denialist has made a commitment to a particular anti-science idea, self-justification will allow them to overlook bias and ignore disconfirming evidence. These cognitive processes can quickly lead to an entrenched opinion which is fundamentally anti-scientific and almost impossible to dislodge. The problematic outcome is compounded by the availability of flagrantly false material over the internet and a sense of entitlement, that ones opinions should be valued at the same rate as an expert’s. However, this does not explain why a denialist would take that first false step, even when they appeared to have every opportunity to do otherwise.

I think there are two factors at play, pre-judgements and logical mis-steps. Pre-judgements occur due to our pre-existing biases and beliefs. They can take the form of ideologies, religions, or simply prior attitudes and assumptions. These biases cloud our judgement making us more likely to take our first step in the wrong direction, away from science and towards denialism. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a prime example of pre-judgement over-ruling the scientific approach. When a Christian approaches the evidence for evolution with “Biblical glasses” they’ve already closed their minds to disconfirming facts. The choice to go against the evidence was, in effect, already made when they chose to approach the question from their religious viewpoint. It is impossible to eliminate bias or to completely step outside your ideology/religion but the point is to be aware of what they are and be prepared to accept findings that contradict your previous ideas. This is what it means to have an open mind.

The second factor that sends someone onto the denial path is a logical mis-step. These occur because our brains are wired to take short-cuts in thinking, these short-cuts can be convenient but they frequently give us the wrong answer. A prominent example of this type of thinking is to confuse correlation with causation. This error frequently occurs in the vaccine denialist movement where the childhood vaccination schedule correlates with the onset of autism. Despite the total lack of evidence that vaccinations actually cause autism, for many parents the correlation is sufficient to take the first step towards denialism. Another frequent mis-step is to consider the consequences of a scientific point of view rather than considering the evidence. If evolution is true then we are related to monkeys, if HIV causes AIDS then I’m seriously ill, if global warming is true then the Earth is FUBAR. Because each of the consequences is detrimental (to our health or civilisation or concept of self) we will be sorely tempted to deny the science behind these facts. If we choose to disbelieve science based solely on the unpleasant consequences, then we have made a logical mis-step. The good news is that just being aware of logical errors helps to guard against making them. Learning critical thinking skills will prevent people from becoming denialists.

Once self-justification sets in, getting someone to give up their form of science denial is almost impossible. It will usually require a great deal of time, effort, and patience – with no guarantee of success. By contrast, preventing people from entering the denailism path is much easier and much more likely to succeed. As sceptics, freethinkers, and scientists this is where our energy should be going. Countering nonsense is unlikely to change any minds, but it is likely to prevent further minds from rejecting reality.

Humans evolve too

Altitude sickness is caused as a decrease in air pressure affects the body's ability to take up oxygen (although the exact causes are not completely understood). The effects are more severe in those unacclimatised to high-altitude conditions. People who have lived all their lives in such conditions are, understandable, less affected. Mountaineers can also spend time at a high-altitude base camp to acclimatise before making the final assent.

Those who live in the mountainous regions of Earth, generation after generation, have the possibility of adapting to the conditions on a more permanent, genetic bases. Altitude sickness can be debilitating and is occasionally fatal so mutations that allow more effective delivery of oxygen will be favoured. Researchers have now found evidence of such mutations in the high-altitude populations of Tibet.

By taking genetic samples of about 30 villagers and subjecting them to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis looking for single base changes in crucial genes. By comparing these SNPs to those from a nearby, low-altitude village 10 candidate genes were identified - including two related to haemoglobin. More work needs to be done to understand how (or if) these gene mutations contribute to survival at high-altitudes but it is certainly suggestive evidence that humans evolve too.


Genetic Evidence for High-Altitude Adaptation in Tibet Tatum. S. Simonson, Yingzhong Yang, Chad D. Huff, Haixia Yun, Ga Qin, David J. Witherspoon, et al. Science, 13 May 2010 DOI: 10.1126/science.1189406

Half the Earth too hot by 2300

If anthropogenic global warming continues, over the next 300 years half of the Earth's surface may become too hot for human habitation, say scientists from Australia's University of New South Wales and Purdue University in the USA. Along with rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, and ocean acidification a major problem is the warming itself. If we are unable to stop the warming or adapt to the new conditions, global warming could be a real doomsday for human civilisation.

Lizard competition drives evolution

In a large manipulation of the environment two researchers have used entire islands in the Bahamas to test evolution. The biologists focused on the traits of running and body size of native lizard populations to test whether intra- or inter-specific competition was the greater driver of evolution.

On different islands these researchers alternatively used bird-proof netting to limit predation, introduced snakes to increase predation, or added more lizards to increase competition. They found that predation was essentially random with neither body size or overall speed making much difference to who would be eaten for lunch. On the other hand, when intra-specific competition increased having a larger body size and faster movement allowed certain lizards to access scare resources more effectively. It was this force, the researchers found, that drove the lizards evolution and not the predation.

While this is fascinating research and provides yet more evidence that evolution does actually occur (and within our lifetime) the biologists are quick to point out that this finding may not be replicating in other predator/prey relationships where predation could be more of an evolutionary factor.



Ryan Calsbeek, Robert M. Cox. Experimentally assessing the relative importance of predation and competition as agents of selection. Nature, 2010; DOI:10.1038/nature09020

Science vs. Religion

A sociological survey by Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University has asked a sample of 1,700 scientists from top tier American universities about their view on religion. Perhaps surprisingly, a large proportion (50%) did claim a religious identity. The scientists in this survey were less religious than the general population, 52% said they had no religious affiliation compared with only 14% of the American population. A greater majority (65%) say they are interested in matters of spirituality. Ecklund has recently published a book discussing her research called, Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.

Around 300 of these scientists (both religious and non-religious) were followed up in more in-depth interviews. Many scientists had the view that religion was not a topic for discussion amongst their colleagues and chose to keep their faith hidden. Others had unorthodox views of religion - not believing in God while still identifying as a catholic, for example. Only 2% identified their beliefs as 'fundamental' or 'evangelical'. The best news was that none of the interviewees though intelligent design (creationism) should be taught in classrooms.

Interestingly, the results of this survey indicate that learning about science does not seem to cause people to lose their religious beliefs. Most of these scientists had already come to their religious point of view before engaging into higher education. The biggest predictor of a scientist's religion (or lack thereof) was still the religion of their parents.

I think this survey has revealed some heartening information about the scientific community (at least in USA). Scientists that are also religious already understand the tensions between science and faith, and how to resolve them. These religious scientists are also more likely to be accepted into faith-based communities and have the best chance of imparting good scientific information. As long as they are not to scared to 'come out' to their colleagues, there is a great opportunity for some useful dialogue in the science vs. religion debate.



Ecklund, Elaine and Christopher Scheitle 2007. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.’ Social Problems 54: 289–307.

Jumping genes

The transfer of genetic material is well known to occur in a vertical orientation. Parents pass their genes on to their children, and their children pass those genes on to the next generation. This fact allows scientists to analyse particular genes and to use the pattern of inheritance to build the tree of life.

It is also well known that the bacteria at the base of this tree form more of a fuzzy bush. This is because bacteria are much more promiscuous than their mammalian counter-parts. While invertebrates stick exclusively to members of their own tribe, bacteria are happy to have sex with a completely different species and will even engage in necrophilia if the occasion arises. This swapping of genes between species is called horizontal gene transfer and was thought to be the purview of bacteria (and some fungi) only.

But now scientists have discovered that transposons (jumping genes) can be transmitted from parasite to host - at least in some special cases. The parasite in this case is the blood-sucking triatomine, a parasite which regularly bites humans and can carry Chagas disease. Researchers found the invertebrate had transposon DNA which was also found in some vertebrate hosts, namely the opossum and the squirrel monkey (but not humans - yet). These jumping genes were 98% identical between the different hosts.

Although this is a clearly a rare and special case, it does demonstrate that genetic transfer between different species is possible. This finding increases the risk associated with genetic engineering and emphasises that once a gene is released into the ecosystem total control of the set of instructions cannot be guaranteed. On the other hand, what scientists do when genes are artificially transferred from one species to another is not much different to this newly discovered natural process. Perhaps this finding may help to ease the environmentalists' fear that genetic engineering is bringing Dr Frankenstein's monster to life.


Clément Gilbert, Sarah Schaack, John K. Pace II, Paul J. Brindley, Cédric Feschotte. A role for host-parasite interactions in the horizontal transfer of transposons across phyla. Nature, 2010; 464

The Vaccine War

I've just finished watching a new PBS Frontline documentary called The Vaccine War. The documentary covered the current dispute between parents and medical professionals over whether vaccines are safe to give to children.

Both sides of the question were given ample time to present their respective cases, including plenty of screen time for anti-vax cheerleader Jenny McCarthy. Frontline did an excellent job of hearing out the claims made by the anti-vaccine advocates and then debunking them by presenting the scientific evidence and credible explanations by experts in the field.

The documentary also made exposed the major tactic of pseudoscientific proponents which is to shift the goalposts once the scientific facts on their previous claim have been gathered. Led by Andrew Wakefield, the vaccine denialists first pronounced that the MMR vaccine caused detrimental effects in young children who received immunisation. This was shown by epidemiological studies in Denmark, Japan, and the US to be false. Furthermore, it was explained that Dr Wakefield's flawed study had been retracted by the prestigious medical journal in which it was originally published. The anti-vaccine advocates then switched to blaming mercury present in the thiomersal preservative for the autism their children developed after receiving multiple vaccinations. The claim was once again shown to be false by epidemiological evidence. It was also made clear by the scientific experts that the correlation between vaccination and autism was only due to the coincidence in timing between the onset of autism and childhood vaccination schedule and causation should not be assumed (a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy). Finally, the vaccine denialists were left calling for more studies and generic testing even in the face of overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe and efficacious.

The last segment of the program focused on the harm that anti-vaccine advocates are causing. The first and most obvious problem is that the children who are not vaccinated get sick with these deadly diseases. I some cases, such as polio and measles, anti-vaccination movements have actually prevented these diseases from being eliminated from our planet. Every year people get sick and die from vaccine-preventable diseases, yet vaccine denialists still promote the non-use of these life-saving measures (see the Jenny McCarthy body count - 509 deaths at the time of writing). The second issue is that of lost herd immunity. Some, because of age or ill-health, cannot safely be vaccinated and rely on those around them not to pass on diseases. With the lower levels of vaccinations, this herd immunity is lost. The Vaccine War included the story of one little girl who almost died from Pertussis (whooping cough) a disease many young doctors have never even seen in their patients. The final problem is that of distraction. The money and time spent on eliminating the MMR vaccine and thiomersal as a potential cause of autism could have been better spent studying the actual causes of autism and providing real results to desperate parents who have so many unanswered questions.

One final point that Frontline touched on but did not provide a definitive answer for, was that of requiring parents to vaccinate their children. After all, we expect parents to take reasonable care of their children, to prevent injury and sickness as best they can. Since vaccines are such a success, perhaps parents should have no say in the matter and vaccination should be mandated by the government. Although the ideal situation would be for informed parents to make the right choice and get their children vaccinated, I think it the importance of preserving herd immunity and wiping out these deadly diseases outweighs the slight loss of parental freedom. Ironically, if every parent had their children properly vaccinated, these diseases would disappear and there would be no need for a continued vaccination program. Smallpox is currently the only virus which has been eradicated and other diseases could be eliminated if only people would listen to the experts and get immunised. Overriding the parents' choice is not the perfect system but as long as vaccine denialists continue to spread their misinformation, it may be a necessary one.