Month: December 2024

Time Constraints for Tenure, Promotion, and Funding Decisions Lead Academic Biologists to Over-Study Already-Studied Genes

George Stigler argued that when most economists were self-funded business practitioners economics was more applied and empirical, while after most economists were academics funded by endowments or the government economics became less applied and more formal. [In a quick search I failed to identify the article where Stigler says this–sorry.] A similar point was made to science more broadly by Terence Kealey in his thought-provoking The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. The article quoted below argues persuasively that research on human genes is aligned with the career survival goals of academics, rather than with either the faster advance of science or the quicker cure of diseases like cancer. The alignment could be improved if more of research funding came from a variety of private sources.

(p. D3) In a study published Tuesday [Sept. 18, 2018] in PLOS Biology, researchers at Northwestern University reported that of our 20,000 protein-coding genes, about 5,400 have never been the subject of a single dedicated paper.

Most of our other genes have been almost as badly neglected, the subjects of minor investigation at best. A tiny fraction — 2,000 of them — have hogged most of the attention, the focus of 90 percent of the scientific studies published in recent years.

A number of factors are largely responsible for this wild imbalance, and they say a lot about how scientists approach science.

. . .

It was possible, . . ., that scientists were rationally focusing attention only on the genes that matter most. Perhaps they only studied the genes involved in cancer and other diseases.

That was not the case, it turned out. “There are lots of genes that are important for cancer, but only a small subset of them are being studied,” said Dr. Amaral.

. . .

A long history helps, . . . . The genes that are intensively studied now tend to be the ones that were discovered long ago.

Some 16 percent of all human genes were identified by 1991. Those genes were the subjects of about half of all genetic research published in 2015.

One reason is that the longer scientists study a gene, the easier it gets, noted Thomas Stoeger, a post-doctoral researcher at Northwestern and a co-author of the new report.

“People who study these genes have a head start over scientists who have to make tools to study other genes,” he said.

That head start may make all the difference in the scramble to publish research and land a job. Graduate students who investigated the least studied genes were much less likely to become a principal investigators later in their careers, the new study found.

“All the rewards are set up for you to study what has been well-studied,” Dr. Amaral said.

“With the Human Genome Project, we thought everything was going to change,” he added. “And what our analysis shows is pretty much nothing changed.”

If these trends continue as they have for decades, the human genome will remain a terra incognito for a long time. At this rate, it would take a century or longer for scientists to publish at least one paper on every one of our 20,000 genes.

That slow pace of discovery may well stymie advances in medicine, Dr. Amaral said. “We keep looking at the same genes as targets for our drugs. We are ignoring the vast majority of the genome,” he said.

Scientists won’t change their ways without a major shift in how science gets done, he added. “I can’t believe the system can move in that direction by itself,” he said.

Dr. Stoeger argued that the scientific community should recognize that a researcher who studies the least known genes may need extra time to get results.

“People who do something new need some protection,” he said.

For the full commentary see:

Carl Zimmer. “Matter; The Problem With DNA Research.” The New York Times (Tuesday, September 25, 2018 [sic]): D3.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Sept. 18, 2018 [sic], and has the title “Matter; Why Your DNA Is Still Uncharted Territory.” Where there are differences in wording between the versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

The paper in PLOS Biology co-authored by Thomas Stoeger and mentioned above is:

Stoeger, Thomas, Martin Gerlach, Richard I. Morimoto, and Luís A. Nunes Amaral. “Large-Scale Investigation of the Reasons Why Potentially Important Genes Are Ignored.” PLOS Biology 16, no. 9 (2018): e2006643.

Kealey’s book, praised above, is:

Kealey, Terence. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.

The Patterns in Unexpected Cancer Cures Can Yield Actionable Insight

The method for fighting cancer discussed by Gina Kolata in the passages quoted below, is similar to the method that led William Coley to first develop immunotherapy in the late 1800s. Coley searched the archives of his hospital, seeking any cases in which cancer seemed to have been spontaneously cured. When he had a few cases he looked for a common feature that might explain the cures. He found that in each case the patient had a severe viral or bacterial infection. When the patient’s immune system cured them of the infection, it also, as a desirable side-effect, cured them of the cancer. In the case of the rare ovarian discussed below, Dr. Levine hypothesizes that the common feature of the rare single-mutation cancers that can be cured by immunotherapy drugs, is that there is a mutated master gene that turns on and off other genes–creating an abnormal variation that somehow alerts the immune system of the presence of tumor cells that should be attacked. (The article quoted below is now over six years old–I wonder if in those six years Dr. Levine has found evidence to support, modify, or reject his hypothesis?) [My memory is foggy on this, but I think Steven Rosenberg may also have applied a similar method after he encountered a case of spontaneous cancer cure when he was working in a veteran’s hospital early in his career–see Rosenberg and Barry, 1992.]

Notice that the four patients only were cured because they had the courage and boldness to ask their oncologist to try a therapy that the standard protocol said would fail. And notice that the four patients only were cured because they had oncologists who had the courage and boldness to violate accepted protocols. Or maybe something besides courage and boldness explains the oncologists’ actions. Maybe the oncologists were practicing medicine in countries were hospitals, regulatory agencies, and health insurance companies did not exert as much pressure to follow the protocol as is exerted in the United States? (I wonder if there is enough information publicly available to check this possibility.)

Notice that instead of searching a dusty archive, Levine joined a patient ovarian cancer Yahoo discussion group. Patients were trying to be in control of their cancers, and unlike some doctors, Levine had the humility to think he could learn from what these activist patients reported. Citizen science is a resource to be used, not a distraction to be tamped down or ridiculed. [Amy Dockser Marcus defends citizen science, and gives an extended example, in her We the Scientists.]

Finally note that the method pursued by Coley and Levine can yield genuine actionable knowledge. Randomized double-blind clinical trials are not the only sources of knowledge.

Gina Kolata has written many thought-provoking articles. I hope to follow-up on this one sometime.

(p. D1) No one expected the four young women to live much longer. They had an extremely rare, aggressive, and fatal form of ovarian cancer. There was no standard treatment.

The women, strangers to one another living in different countries, asked their doctors to try new immunotherapy drugs that had revolutionized treatment of cancer. At first, they were told the drugs were out of the question — they would not work against ovarian cancer.

Now it looks as if the doctors were wrong. The women managed to get immunotherapy, and their cancers went into remission. They returned to work; their lives returned to normalcy.

. . .

“We need to study the people who have a biology that goes against the conventional generalizations.”

Four women hardly constitutes a clinical trial. Still, “it is the exceptions that give you the best insights,” said Dr. Drew Pardoll, who directs the Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

The cancer that struck the young women was hypercalcemic small cell ovarian cancer, which typically occurs in a woman’s teens or 20s. It is so rare that most oncologists never see a single patient with it.

. . .

(p. D3) Women with this form of ovarian cancer were sharing news and tips online in a closed Yahoo group. Dr. Levine asked to become part of the group and began joining the discussions. There he discovered patients who had persuaded doctors to give them an immunotherapy drug, even though there was no reason to think it would work.

The women reported that their tumors shrank immediately.

. . .

Lung cancer, a genetic type of colorectal cancer and melanoma have huge numbers of mutations, and immunotherapy drugs often are successful in treating them. Cancers of the prostate, pancreas, breast, ovaries — and most other tumors — carry few mutations.

“These are the cancers that rarely respond,” Dr. Pardoll said.

The idea that the drugs might work against something like hypercalcemic ovarian cancer, which is fueled by just one genetic mutation, just made no sense.

“For the vast majority of cancers, there is an amazingly clean correlation between response to therapy and mean mutational load,” Dr. Pardoll said.

. . .

And then came a handful of women with a rare ovarian cancer. Oriana Sousa, 28, a psychologist in Marinha Grande, Portugal, was one of them.

She found out she had cancer in December 2011.

. . .

For the next four years, Ms. Sousa’s doctors tried to control the cancer, giving her rounds of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. But every time, new tumors emerged.

. . .

Things are different now. In 2015, she finally persuaded a doctor to give her an immunotherapy drug, nivolumab. Immediately, her tumors shrank and continued shrinking as she continued with the drug — so much that her doctors now say she has no evidence of disease. Life has returned to normal.

. . .

What saved her? Dr. Eliezer M. Van Allen, a cancer researcher at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, has come across one clue.

He found that a gene mutated in kidney cancer was sort of a master regulator of other genes, controlling which were turned on and when. But the regulated genes were normal and did not produce proteins that the immune system might recognize as abnormal.

Nonetheless, patients responding to immunotherapy were the ones with the master gene mutation. “We saw this result and weren’t sure what to make of it,” he said.

Dr. Levine and his colleagues found the same phenomenon in patients with hypercalcemic ovarian cancers. One explanation, he and Dr. Van Allen said, is that the immune system may recognize that cells in which genes are erratically turning on and off are dangerous and should be destroyed.

“That is strictly hypothesis,” Dr. Levine cautioned.

For the full story see:

Gina Kolata. “Cured Unexpectedly.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 20, 2018 [sic]): D1 & D3.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Feb. 19, 2018 [sic], and has the title “Doctors Said Immunotherapy Would Not Cure Her Cancer. They Were Wrong.”)

The academic article co-authored by Dr. Levine that reports on the remission of a rare ovarian cancer in four women is:

Jelinic, Petar, Jacob Ricca, Elke Van Oudenhove, Narciso Olvera, Taha Merghoub, Douglas A. Levine, and Dmitriy Zamarin. “Immune-Active Microenvironment in Small Cell Carcinoma of the Ovary, Hypercalcemic Type: Rationale for Immune Checkpoint Blockade.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 110, no. 7 (2018): 787-90.

The book by Marcus that I praise above is:

Marcus, Amy Dockser. We the Scientists: How a Daring Team of Parents and Doctors Forged a New Path for Medicine. New York: Riverhead Books, 2023.

Rosenberg’s encounter with a case of spontaneous cancer cure, that I mention above, can be found somewhere early in:

Rosenberg, Steven A., and John M. Barry. The Transformed Cell: Unlocking the Mysteries of Cancer. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1992.

“Sunlight Can Degrade Polystyrene in Centuries or Even Decades”

Oregon, New York, Colorado, and Washington D.C. forbid restaurants from giving plastic straws to patrons. When I drink from a paper straw in those locales, the straw routinely collapses before I finish the drink, causing me to curse intrusive regulators. The anti-plastic-straw regulations are one example of the environmentalist fear of the effects of plastic. On Thurs., Oct. 10, 2019, Collin P. Ward, the lead author of a 2019 study, said: “Policymakers generally assume that polystyrene lasts forever. That’s part of the justification for writing policy that bans it” (as quoted in Broad 2019, p. D4). We often hear, for instance from the United Nations Environment Program, that the most common plastic in the environment, polystyrene (used for instance in Styrofoam), will likely take thousands of years to degrade. But is what we hear true?

Ward’s 2019 paper answered the question. It turns out that instead of lasting almost forever, “sunlight can degrade polystyrene in centuries or even decades” (Broad 2019, p. D4). Previous claims that polystyrene lasts almost forever were based on the finding that bacteria cannot consume polystyrene. But previous claimants did not let the sun shine in!

The article discussed and quoted above is:

William J. Broad. “Sun Breaks Down Common Ocean Pollutant, Study Says.” The New York Times (Tuesday, October 22, 2019 [sic]): D4.

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Oct. 11, 2019 [sic], and has the title “In the Sea, Not All Plastic Lasts Forever.”)

Ward’s co-authored 2019 academic article discussed above is:

Ward, Collin P., Cassia J. Armstrong, Anna N. Walsh, Julia H. Jackson, and Christopher M. Reddy. “Sunlight Converts Polystyrene to Carbon Dioxide and Dissolved Organic Carbon.” Environmental Science & Technology Letters 6, no. 11 (2019): 669-74.

Government Gave “40 Years of Seriously Incorrect Advice” on Trans Fats

The government’s advice often turns out to be wrong. That is an added argument for not giving the government the power to enforce its advice through mandatory regulations. (“Added” to the fundamental argument based the right to free choice.)

[In May 2021 Nicholas Wade, the author of the review quoted below, showed enormous courage in being one of the first few to risk cancelation by presenting a cogent case that Covid leaked from a Wuhan lab.]

(p. C9) Rachel Carson rightly complained in “Silent Spring” that farmers were sloshing far too many harmful pesticides into the environment. But she took aim at the wrong one. DDT, a mild and enormously effective pesticide, helped rid the United States of malaria and its benefits, if more discriminately pursued, could have outweighed its costs.

The overstrict verdict against DDT is an instance of the harms that can ensue when scientific evidence is ignored. This and other cases described by Paul A. Offit in “Pandora’s Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong” raise provocative questions about the reasons that science is misused in modern society.

. . .

Another case of medical advice based on insufficient data is that of dietary fat. As Dr. Offit tells the story, in the 1970s the government advised cutting down on fat consumption. In the 1980s the message changed. Unsaturated fats were good; only saturated fats were bad: Eat margarine, not butter. But then it turned out that unsaturated fats came in two forms, known to chemists as “cis” and “trans,” and that “trans fats” were appallingly active promoters of heart disease. Margarine and hydrogenated vegetable cooking oils, whose use had been encouraged, were rich in trans fats. After 40 years of seriously incorrect advice, trans fats were mostly eliminated from the American diet only in 2012.

. . .

Besides his overconfidence in the checking mechanisms of science, Dr. Offit goes too easy on the motives of those who abuse science. Environmentalists, for instance, are interested in achieving political results, not in distracting scientific caveats and uncertainties, which they do their best to suppress. It is their propensity to take everything to excess that leads to obscurantist positions, such as irrational fear of genetically modified crops.

For the full review see:

Nicholas Wade. “A Little Knowledge.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, April 8, 2017 [sic]): C9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review was updated April 7, 2017 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

The book under review is:

Offit, Paul A. Pandora’s Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2017.