Science and Policy: Mixing Two Polarized Worlds

source

Scientists and politicians come from two completely different worlds that are dependent on each other to function properly. Unfortunately, there is a growing disconnect between policy and science in the United States. This issue is becoming increasingly problematic the further our society advances, and both sides are beginning to realize this predicament.

In an effort to help bridge the gap between science and policy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held an inaugural workshop for graduate student researchers in science about policy. I was lucky enough to be chosen to attend this workshop a few weeks ago, and taught me a lot about why there is a science policy gap, and why it is a pressing problem that should be immediately addressed for the good of our country, which was inspiration for this post.

source

One of the most important things I learned in the workshop was that U.S. representatives and senators want to help their constituents, and if you want something, you need to ask for it. After learning strategies to communicate with policymakers, we were set up in meetings with our local representatives to share our stories about research and how the recent budget cuts have affected us. They wanted to hear our stories and learn how their decisions affect each of us. My fellow UW traveler, Jeff Bowman, outlined our discussion with the Washington state legislators in his most recent blog post.

Though it seems that often both sides don’t realize it, science is dependent on policy and policy is dependent on science. If the United States is going to keep a competitive economy, our political leaders and scientists need to improve communication with each other and the public. More efforts are needed to bring these worlds closer together. What are some ways we can achieve this goal?

source

The Science and Policy Gap

Science arguably plays a role in almost every current issue we face.  Climate change, rising population, war, new technology, and health problems are all dependent on the scientific studies and development based on research Which brings the rise to the question, shouldn't politicians and policymakers have a better understanding of the science that their policies are based on?

Less than 5% of congress has a science background. Of everyone in congress, 20 members have doctoral degrees, 24 have medical training, and 22 have no college at all. The vast majority of congress is made up of lawyers and MBA's. It doesn't make much sense that the people making decisions about the future of science as well as issues that stem directly from scientific research don’t really have any background in understanding it. The problem is starting to show.

Of the 535 members of congress, only 20 have doctoral degrees. Image source.

Science is traditionally bipartisan, and for that reason has been a large tool in policy making. Back to the days of Roosevelt, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was established to use science in war and peacetime policy. There are two ways that science and policy intersect: science in policy and policy in science.

Science in Policy

Science is used to solve problems we face every day. In this way, science can be used to steer policy. Almost every current issue has a scientific piece to it. Therefore, scientists inform our policymakers based on what they find using their research.

More and more of the issues we encounter today require a thorough scientific investigation. For example, genetically modified foods, drug treatments, vaccinations, climate change and energy, development of weapons, and even policy related to gun control and healthcare issues.

Policy in Science

Policy dictates the ability for scientists to do research. This is in the form of policies involving safety and ethics, collaboration between institutions and countries, the funding of research, and priorities of the research conducted.

As outlined in my first blog post science is divided between two types of research: basic and applied. These research fields have high return on investment and have been extremely beneficial to our economy. Research requires private and federal funding in order to be successful. Policy in science works to prioritize how and which research is funded.

Bringing them together

The growing gap between scientists and policymakers is becoming more evident as science funding and science-based issues are becoming more bipartisan. Scientists are frustrated that funding for research is continually being cut and less is getting done. In turn, there are less scientists who are good at communicating about science. This vicious cycle needs to be stopped in its tracks.

source

The problem is the lack of communication between scientists and politicians, as well as the people who elect them. Scientists need to do a better job of communicating their research and why it is important without jargon that is hard to understand to the public. It starts with the public, so they are more informed on the officials they choose to make these important decisions.  Neil Degrasse Tyson said it perfectly in the New York Times interactive piece titled “If I were President” in which 10 experts with different backgrounds were asked what they would do if elected president.

“Our government doesn’t work — not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, wouldn’t be to lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to bring an objective reality to the electorate so it could choose the right leaders in the first place.” – Neil DeGrasse Tyson 

To fix the science and policy gap, the United States needs to improve its science education system. More emphasis should be placed on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, starting from elementary school. This education should be carried into adulthood so that the public is more informed and less prone to believe claims made by non-experts on topics of importance.

Barring the improvement of scientific knowledge among the general public, the media will be held more accountable for publishing scientifically accurate facts. Unfortunately the media has managed to give equal weight to what celebrities and actual researchers recommend, the vaccine debate being a current example. Industrial giants have had the power with the media to dismiss what scientists have proven over and over again because it might undermine their business model. These are problems that are growing the communication and partisan gap with science. 

Scientists are equally to blame for the gap. Scientists need to be trained to better relate their research to what the public and policymakers care about in terms they can easily understand. These two articles list the 20 most important things that scientists should knowabout policy making and the 20 most important things that politicians shouldknow about science. They provide a great way to start the dialogue between current policymakers and scientists.

Ultimately scientists and politicians (in theory) have the same goal: to make the world a better place. Politics usually involves choosing between two good things, and is characterized by the daunting task of deciding which is better. Scientists want to solve the problems of the world. If they worked more closely together these two forces have incredible potential to contribute to a greater good. Cheers to using science and policy to better the world!

Thanks for reading, and cheers to your brain!

Like my Facebook page to stay up to date on weekly blog posts and other science findings!

Vaccines: A “shot” at eliminating infections

Source Huffington Post

A highly contagious, airborne, and potentially deadly infection has recently been spreading in the United States at an alarming rate.  Infected people experience coughing, fevers, rashes, muscle pain, sore throat, and other flu like symptoms that can develop into pneumonia. Without a specific treatment, rest and medication can only relieve symptoms. This virus is called measles and can be completely prevented by a simple shot, called a vaccine.

Source: nationalweekender.net

Health officials are urging people to make sure they are up to date on their Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine to prevent further measles infection. Recently, there has been an “anti-vaccine” movement for fear of side effects of vaccines, which has been blamed for the decreasing rate of vaccination in the United States and other countries. So exactly what are potential side effects, and how does a vaccine prevent us from contracting viruses?

Vaccines use our immune system to keep us from getting sick

The human immune system is incredibly complex and effective at protecting us from getting fatal illnesses. In essence, it is a military system that defends us from harm in the form of disease caused by bad microbes, more commonly referred to as germs. Specialized cells in our bodies called macrophages make up an army used specifically to fight off bad microbes.

Macrophages recognize that bad microbes have a different structure than regular cells in our bodies. Molecules called antigens mark bad microbes. Molecules in the macrophage called antibodies recognize bad antigens when the macrophage comes across them, and tell it to attack them. The macrophage engulfs the microbe and grinds it into pieces. The figures shown below illustrate this process.

A macrophage preparing to engulf a bacteria 
(Source: Illustration by Pat Britten)

Source: http://www.whfoods.com/

Antigens from the pieces of the microbe are delivered by the macrophage (like the army capturing the enemy) to lymph nodes. The lymph node releases them so other special cells, called lymphocytes, will recognize them (registering the enemy into a system). Lymphocytes memorize the antigens’ structure so that the body can attack the bad microbes again if they ever get back into the immune system. This video goes into more detail about how the immune system works. It’s pretty amazing that our bodies do so much to protect us from getting sick.

Source: Information for The Center for Disease Control and Prevention

Vaccines mimic an infection to elicit an immune response using antigens from a weak or dead virus, which cannot reproduce within the body to cause an infection. Macrophages cannot distinguish between healthy and weak viruses when they attack. As with a normal microbe, the antigens from the virus introduced by the vaccine are taken to the lymphocytes and converted to memory. This way the infection does not spread or cause symptoms, but the antibodies are ready to fight it if a healthy form of the virus is ever introduced. The illustration above shows this process. In other words, vaccinations make you immune to germs without ever getting you sick, pretty cool!

Vaccines benefit more than just the people who get them

Edward Jenner developed vaccines in 1798 with a goal of eliminating smallpox. In 1979, smallpox was successfully completely abolished. Since Jenner’s initial vaccine, they have been continually developed and improved, and have diminished and eliminated several contagious and scary diseases, shown in the table below.

Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease

While vaccines’ overall purpose is to improve the quality of health of the population, doing so also benefits the economy. It is cheaper to prevent a disease than it is to treat or cure it. Researchers have estimated that for every dollar invested in vaccination development, $5 are saved in indirect costs and $11 are saved in additional costs to society. These costs can be in the form of tax money, medications, time and pay lost taking a sick day at work, and other related costs.

When a critical amount of people are vaccinated against an illness, the entire group of people are much less likely to get the disease, and vice versa. This phenomenon is called “herd immunity” and is demonstrated from the numbers in the table above. The graphic below demonstrates how herd immunity works.

Unfortunately, certain groups of people are unable to get vaccines because they have compromised immune systems in the form of allergies or immune diseases. Pregnant women, people who have had adverse reactions to previous immunizations, and infants are also not eligible to get some vaccines. This leaves them particularly vulnerable to diseases like the measles. The current outbreak has resulted in the death of several infants who were too young to receive the vaccine.

An increasing amount of people are choosing not to get vaccinated

In 1998 Andrew Wakefield published a paper in Lancet stating his hypothesis that the MMR vaccine lead to symptoms in the digestive system that he associated with autism. The study compared children with autism to those without autism who were all given the MMR vaccine. He found that children with gastrointestinal symptoms, which developed after the vaccine was given, also had autism.

This paper had critical flaws that were exposed by peers in the field and follow up studies. His association with autism and the MMR vaccine are attributed to the fact that MMR is given at an age that is also the age of diagnosis for autism. In addition, he only used vaccinated children, when his comparison should have compared unvaccinated children to vaccinated children. The gastrointestinal symptoms that were described developed after autism was diagnosed, so could be attributed to autism and not the vaccine.

Source: http://briandeer.com/

The scrutiny of Wakefield’s study by other scientists led to an investigation by The British General Medical Council, who eventually charged him with misconduct in his research involving abuse of disabled children, falsification, and conflict of interest. Wakefield was stripped of his medical license and qualifications and his article was retracted.

Since, other scientific studies on autism have only disproven his theory, none have been able to reproduce it. In fact, recent studies have shown that autism is a pre-natal development that shows that cellular changes in the brain during pregnancy are the cause of it. Andrew Wakefield is largely the cause of the anti-vaccine movement we have seen today, which is blamed for the current measles outbreaks.

Vaccines are safe, effective, and economically beneficial

Since Edward Jenner’s development, vaccines have been improved and regulated throughout history. To ensure the safety of vaccines, the development phase is a long process with many guidelines by many private and public agencies. This site describes each of the stages of developing a vaccine.

Parents just want to protect their children from any harm, including autism. Unfortunately, the media and one fraudulent scientist have incorrectly made some believe that vaccinations cause autism. However, not vaccinating is putting more children at risk than ever, including those who do not have the choice to get vaccinated.

Vaccines are an incredible tool that scientists have developed to protect the human population against dangerously powerful microbes. They have been successful since their development and are largely to thank for drastically reducing the amount of disease throughout the world. Do your neighbor a favor and get your shots! Cheers to science for helping create a healthier world for everyone!

Source: giphy

Thanks for reading, and cheers to your brain!

Like my Facebook page to stay up to date on weekly blog posts and other science findings!

**Updated formatting and image sources 02/03/2015