Category: Public Perceptions

Just to Clarify: The Blackbird Incident

Blame the Media, Public Perceptions,

There was a great article in the New York Times about the confusion that took place between the media, scientists, the government, and the public regarding the New Year’s Eve bird deaths in Arkansas. Conspiracies Don’t Kill Birds, People Kill Birds by Leslie Kaufman does a great job of explaining how the bird story got blown out of proportion.

Red-winged_blackbirdBasically, birds die all the time. It’s not all that unusual for flocks of birds to die, according to the article’s statistics (from the National Audubon Society) approximately five billion birds die in the US every year. Rural cats kill 39 million birds a year. So basically, the whole incident wasn’t a conspiracy or a case of poison run amok. Birds die, thats kind of all there is to it.

Flying objects can interrupt birds’ flight and send them careening into buildings and billboards. So while I was pretty skeptical of the fireworks explanation on the basis that if fireworks cause bird deaths we would have heard about it before this, it is possible that was what happened in Arkansas. That would mean that all the subsequent bird death articles in the media could very well be a case of the media being bored and picking up on a story that really wasn’t a story because it happens all the time.

What’s In A Name?

New Research, Public Perceptions

I found an interesting little article (New Dehli superbug named unfairly says Lancet editor) in the BBC about naming bacteria, and whether or not it is fair to name a bacteria after a place.

Map of India. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

The bacteria in question is called New Delhi metallo-beta lactamase 1 (NDM-1) and was discovered by researchers from Cardiff University in the UK. According to the BBC’s article the researchers named the bug after the city because the patient whom they first noticed it in, had been in a hospital in Delhi.

The Lancet, the journal that published the article about the bacterium has made a statement saying that the name of the bug is unfair because it stigmatizes India. The bug has since been found in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, Africa, and East Asia.

While I get why India might be pissed off (no one wants bad things named after them) I think you really have to analyze the impact that the name will have. Honestly, the bug is going to be known as NDM-1. Very few people would use the term ‘New Delhi metallo-beta lactamase 1’ in conversation. Of the people that will use and know the real name of the bug, it will not be the tourists interested in coming to India. Therefore I find the argument that the name will harm India’s tourism industry kind of overblown.

I also find it interesting that the Lancet essentially threw the Cardiff University researchers under the proverbial bus. Again, I understand that the journal has to protect itself and its reputation, but if the researchers stand by the name I don’t think its the journal’s job to denounce it. If nothing in the research is wrong factually, I don’t think the journal should issue a public statement saying that the researchers showed poor judgement. It makes me wonder who was putting pressure on the journal to make a statement.

Universal Flu Vaccine

New Research, Public Perceptions
H1N1 Virus. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

A new study in the Journal of Experimental Medicine reports that people who fight off the swine flu (H1N1) develop antibodies that can help them fight off other flu infections as well. This finding could be used to create a universal flu vaccine that would eliminate the need for a yearly flu shot against that year’s most likely problematic strains.

Five antibodies isolated from patients that had successfully fended off swine flu appeared different than those antibodies created to fight more typical flu strains. Those antibodies have proven able to fight off even virulent flu strains like the “spanish flu” from 1918 and bird flu (H5N1).

The important thing to remember with a breakthrough like this is that even thought the results are promising, it takes a long time to get from the basic research stage to human trails and widespread availability as a treatment. So even if this works, don’t expect a universal vaccine anytime soon. It is likely to be five years or more before doctors can even think about saying goodbye to yearly flu shots.

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.”

Blackbird Homicide

Blame the Media, Environment, Public Perceptions

I hope everyone had a great start to the new year! Over my weekend blogging hiatus the big science story in the US was the mysterious death of thousands of birds on New Year’s Eve in Arkansas.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

More than 3,000 blackbirds fell in the town of Beebe, AK and samples have been taken for analysis to determine what could have killed the birds in one mass attack. Initial reports said that the birds have died due to trauma (they fell out of the sky, so clearly that was a shocking conclusion.) Now the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is reporting that fireworks launched to commemorate the new year caused the birds’ demise.

However, today it was reported that approximately 500 red-winged blackbirds (the same species found dead in Arkansas) and starlings fell from the sky in Labarre, Louisiana, hundreds of miles south of the original bird deaths. Early reports from Louisiana also state that the birds suffered some trauma, although an official cause has yet to be determined.

One theory on the mysterious deaths is that the mere sound of new year’s fireworks could have startled the birds, causing them to fly into buildings or billboards. Although, you have to wonder why we’ve never heard of fireworks (launched every year for new year’s, the fourth of july, weddings, fairs, and numerous other events) causing birds to die in large, concentrated groups.

I think that we’re definitely going to have to stay tuned to this story to see what happens after the birds from Louisiana are analyzed more closely, and also watch to see if more birds die in other areas — which most certainly wouldn’t be attributable to fireworks.