Category: Government Regulations

Snake Banishment Bias

Government Regulations, Science Policy

The New York Times article, Snake Owners See Furry Bias in Invasive Species Proposal caught my eye today because I love snakes. I know that it is a little unusual for a girl to love snakes, typically snakes induce a lot of frightened yelping. But, I have always found them awkwardly beautiful.

Normal and Albino Snake. Source: Wikimedia Commons

According to the article the US Fish and Wildlife Service is cracking down on snake ownership due to the increased prevalence of invasive snakes in various ecosystems. Boas, Anacondas, and Pythons are among the types of snakes included in the crack down, but they are popular as pets. Pet snakes become problematic when they escape or get released into the wild and prey on local species.

Opponents to legislation to restrict the sale of snakes say that there should be a distinction between snakes that can’t thrive in the wild (suffering from albinism, or in unsuitable climates) versus snakes that are likely to become invasive.

Snake enthusiasts are opposed to legislation that would restrict the sale of snakes on the grounds that there could be a significant loss of revenue for breeders. Because the animals are pets, restrictions would also bring up the issue of whether the government should be able to dictate what type of pets people keep.

NIDA pledges $10 million to develop addiction treatments

Government Regulations, Public Perceptions, Research Funding

Here is another article that I wrote for J800 last semester (in September 2010) that wasn’t timely once I had edited it, and I couldn’t get it picked up anywhere. But for those of you interested in research funding, this is an interesting look at basic vs. preclinical and clinical research. 





NIDA has announced the four winners of the first funding award specifically designed to support research to create a viable human treatment for cocaine or nicotine addiction.






There is the patch, the pills, the gum, and even going cold turkey, but for some nicotine addicts, nothing seems to stop the urge to reach for a cigarette. Instead of feeling dejected, people suffering from addictions can now pin their hopes for quitting on the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA.)

NIDA, a member of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), recently announced the four winners of a funding initiative for research that develops addiction treatments for human application. The initiative seeks to produce new addiction treatments by providing more government-based funding for the development of pharmaceutical treatments.

“Usually pharmaceutical companies support potential drugs,” said Jia Bei Wang, a pharmacology researcher at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and winner of the new award. “But I don’t think these companies are interested in addiction because it’s not profitable, so drugs for addiction are very much in need of government support.”


The new NIDA award will provide a combined total of $10 million to develop ways to counteract cocaine and nicotine dependency. The initiative hopes to create viable human treatments at the end of five years.

“I think that this is something very new,” said Wang. “As a researcher I have gone through a lot of grant applications, and this is the first of its kind that I have tried, that is not a mechanism for basic research but that is a drug development grant.”


According to Wang, the majority of federal funding for research is for basic research, projects that evaluate scientific questions without a definite sense of the outcome. The NIDA Avant-Garde Award for Innovative Medication Development is different because it is focused on pre-clinical and clinical research, projects that are outcome driven and based on extensive basic research.

“I think NIDA realizes there is a gap between basic research and clinical outcomes, and the research that bridges that gap is very important,” said Wang. “A lot of progress is made in the basic sciences, but on the clinical side we still don’t have any useful drugs [for cocaine addiction].”


Why is a clinical-only grant needed?

Every year the government spends billions on scientific research. According to the NIH Office of Budget, in fiscal year 2010 NIDA dedicated just $118,546 million to their pharmaceutical development department out of a total budget of $1.06 billion. According to Wang, by pledging an additional $10 million specifically for pharmaceutical development NIDA is finally stepping up to the plate to help find new addiction treatments.

“There isn’t a lot of interest from industry, but NIDA is the public health institute and they have a responsibility to develop treatments for these diseases for the people, and I think this grant came out of recognizing that need,” said Wang. 


Ivan Montoya, deputy director of NIDA’s division of pharmacotherapies and medical consequences of drug abuse will oversee the Innovative Medication Development award. According to Montoya, this funding is part of a NIH push to support innovative research, while addressing the risk involved in providing government support for drug development projects. 

“If [a research proposal] is very innovative it carries more risk, but it has to guarantee that results will be obtained after the five-year period,” said Montoya. “It is critical that the background science is successful, otherwise NIDA won’t give funds to someone that the committee doesn’t think has a good idea. It has to be supported by a good future for results.”


Creating the Innovative Medication Development award addresses the lack of interest from the pharmaceutical companies, but also satisfies NIDA’s need for confidence in the projects they fund. According to Montoya, to this end, the four winners of the award will be monitored for the duration of the grant, and required to provide progress updates about how they spend the money. NIDA hopes keeping tabs on the researchers will push the winning ideas toward the complete development of new therapies.


Potential abounds, but what about results?

According to William (Stephen) Brimijoin, a researcher in molecular pharmacology and experimental therapeutics at the Mayo Clinic, and a winner of the award, a government focus on human application is vital to making progress on addiction treatment.


According to Brimijoin, NIDA should be commended for selecting promising clinical research projects and cultivating them for human applications. “If some of these projects do result in a useful therapeutic agent we should all celebrate,” said Brimijoin. “Right now we just don’t know which projects will go all the way to real human applications.”

Polar Bear Protection

Environment, Government Regulations
Polar bear at the Henry Vilas Zoo
Madison, WI August 2010

It’s Thanksgiving! But instead of talking turkey, I’m going to talk about polar bears. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently designated an area twice the size of the United Kingdom as protected habitat for Polar Bears to help combat the effects of global warming and the reduction of sea ice on the polar bear population.

Setting aside the land is important, because some of it was previously open to and slated for oil drilling by Shell. The only reason Shell hasn’t already drilled in that spot is because of a temporary stay due to the BP oil spill that occurred earlier this year in the Gulf of Mexico, (Shell still intends to drill in other parts of the Arctic starting in 2011.)

For those who don’t know, Polar Bears are my favorite animal so I’ve done several reports on threats to habitat prevention in the arctic for school. It is amazing the amount of wildlife that depends on the arctic.

Crackdown on Antibiotics for Animals

Environment, Good Writing, Government Regulations, Science Policy,

I think the New York Times’ Eric Eckholm did a really good job with the article US Meat Farmers Brace for Limits on Antibiotics. As a standard practice farmers in the US give healthy animals antibiotics to make sure that they stay healthy, and to help them grow faster. I do understand the economic value of such a practice, those animals are those farmers livelihood and if they can do anything to safe guard against losing their investment in those animals I see why they would do it. HOWEVER, there is a serious impact to the environment and to public health by giving healthy animals antibiotics.

I like Eckholm’s article because he’s clear in the way he explains the new components of the story (that the FDA is considering stricter regulations on the use of antibiotics in animals, and that such actions are gaining popularity in Congress). But he also provides the background and context necessary to understand both the farmer’s point of view, and the science behind the call to end the use of antibiotics in animals because of their detrimental affects on humans.

The article also has a really nice lead by taking the story down to the level of a single pig farmer and his experience using antibiotics in his healthy animals. It imparts a literary aspect of story telling that I admire in a hard news story. I think its a good example of a writer going beyond the hard news angle and giving some really nice and necessary context to the story.

On a different, but similar, note for those of you who have never seen the Meatrix you should watch it.  I love it and I think its a great way to talk about the use of antibiotics and other issue facing the meat industry (as long as you aren’t a farmer).

Another Chapter on Stem Cells

Government Regulations, Science Policy,

More news today about the controversy over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. A federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated the ability of federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research, while it takes more time to review the Obama Administration’s appeal of an earlier court decision banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The issue just seems to go round-and-round.

Coverage of the court’s new decision:
The New York Times: Appeals Court Ends Ban on Stem Cell Financing, for Now
The BBC: Court delays ban on federal funds for US stem cell work
The Washington Post: Stem cell funding gets reprieve
The Associated Press (In The LA Times): Court allows funding of embryonic stem cell research for now, but projects still remain uncertain