Biotech for all – taking science back to it’s roots?

Posted on May 18, 2013 by LHeywood

This morning I came across a very interesting TED talk by Ellen Jorgensen entitled “Biohacking — you can do it, too” (http://on.ted.com/gaqM). The basic premise is to make biotech accessible to all, by setting up community labs, where anyone can learn to genetically engineer an organism, or sequence a genome. This might seem like a very risky venture from an ethical point of view, but actually she makes a good argument for the project being at least as ethically sound than your average lab. With the worldwide community of ‘biohackers’ having agreed not only to abide by all local laws and regulations, but drawing up its own code of ethics.

So what potential does this movement have as a whole? One thing it’s unlikely to lead to is bioterrorism, an idea that the media like to infer when they report on the project. The biohacker labs don’t have access to pathogens, and it’s very difficult to make a harmless microbe into a malicious one without access to at least the protein coding DNA of a pathogen. Unfortunately, the example she gives of what biohacking *has* done is rather frivolous, with a story of how a German man identified the dog that had been fouling in his street by DNA testing. However, she does give other examples of how the labs could be used, from discovering your ancestry to creating a yeast biosensor. This rings of another biotech project called iGem (igem.org), where teams of undergraduate students work over the summer to create some sort of functional biotech (sensors are a popular option) from a list of ‘biological parts’.

The Cambridge 2010 iGem team made a range of colours of bioluminescent (glowing!) E.coli as part of their project.

My view is that Jorgensen’s biohacker project might actually have some potential to do great things. Professional scientists in the present day do important work, but are often limited by bureaucracy and funding issues – making it very difficult to do science for the sake of science. Every grant proposal has to have a clear benefit for humanity, or in the private sector for the company’s wallet, which isn’t really how science works. The scientists of times gone by were often rich and curious people, who made discoveries by tinkering and questioning the world around them, and even if they did have a particular aim in mind they weren’t constricted to that by the agendas of companies and funding bodies. Biohacking seems to bring the best of both worlds, a space with safety regulations and a moral code that allows anyone to do science for whatever off-the-wall or seemingly inconsequential project that takes their fancy – taking science back to the age of freedom and curiosity.

Why being a masters student is a form of slavery

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Dan Jenkinson

Obviously the title of this post is a vast overstatement, and this is probably one of the biggest first world problems out there, but sometimes it really does feel that way! Okay, slaves don’t get paid for all their hard work and have no rights, but masters students pay thousands of pounds to do a year’s worth of hard work which often doesn’t get credited.

Undergraduate chemists are taught lies about how easy reactions are to carry out, and how reliably everything works if you follow the instructions properly. Experiments in undergraduate teaching labs have been tried and tested literally millions of times around the world, so you have to be a really bad practical chemist to go drastically wrong (I still managed it once or twice, though). The reality is that molecules are massively unpredictable, and when you start doing novel research, nothing tends to work!

Just today I finished a reaction with high hopes of finally getting the molecule I’ve been trying to make for about six months, only to find that no reaction had actually occurred, despite me having followed the protocol to the bone, and all I can do for now is move on and try to use another method. At least if a slave cleans the floor, the end result is that the floor is clean, not that it is just as dirty as it was at the start.

Despite this, though, when things do work in research, the overwhelming feeling of “Take that science! I beat you!!” is strong enough to give you false hope and make you keep going. That is the reason why, despite the challenges I’ve faced doing research this year, I still love chemistry and why I still want to carry on doing research as a PhD student.

Food for the brain: How diet affects mental health

Posted on September 30, 2012 by Rob Hoskin

Is a diet of junk food bad for your mental health?

In a recent article published in the Guardian (originally available on his personal website) George Monbiot looked at recent scientific evidence suggesting a link between ‘junk food’ and Alzheimer’s disease (1). This prompted me to think about the wider subject of nutrition and mental health. It’s an uncomfortable subject to consider especially if, like me, you enjoy a trip to the local takeaway and the ‘occasional’ alcoholic beverage. Nevertheless the availability and popularity of processed foods in modern industrial societies (2, 3) makes the impact of diet on brain function an issue that we all need to seriously consider.

Despite a significant amount of research being undertaken into how diet affects the brain, there appears to be little discussion of the subject in public discourse. This may due to the scientific uncertainties inherent in the study of diet and mental processes, especially when contrasted with the strong influence that the commercial interests of food manufacturers and retailers hold over government decision making. Here I intend to briefly review the difficulties researchers face in studying this topic, and what we know so far about how diet may alter mental health.

The problems of studying nutrition

A major problem with the study of diet is that it is really particular nutrients within food (e.g. vitamins and minerals) that influence our brains, rather than the foods themselves. As people can only really report their diets in terms of the foodstuffs they consume, and as each foodstuff contains a variety of chemicals in varying levels, each of which may be harmful, beneficial or neutral to our health to differing extents, it is not straightforward to map the relationship between foodstuffs and changes in health.

A second problem is that the impact of individual nutrients is likely to be mediated by other factors, such as the nutrient’s baseline level in the body, or the presence or absence of other nutrients. For example nutrients that are known to be beneficial to human health when consumed in food often fail to produce positive results when consumed in supplementary form (e.g. vitamin pills) an effect that is most likely due to the absence (in supplements) of naturally co-existing chemicals that facilitate the body’s uptake of the nutrient when it is consumed via foods (4). Likewise other factors that are independent of diet, such as age, genetics, and the level of physical activity, are likely to influence the effect of nutrition on health (e.g. 5). It is unethical to systematically control and manipulate a person’s entire diet over the period of time necessary to identify changes in mental processes likely to be triggered by diet. It is also impossible to fully control for the influence of other non-diet factors over a similar time frame. Therefore it is not possible to establish causality between individual foods and health outcomes with any certainty. Of course it is possible to perform such experiments on laboratory animals, but as such animals lack many of the cognitive functions that are disrupted in neurological diseases such as dementia, such studies are of limited use when considering the impact of nutrition on mental health in humans.

In light of these problems, the effect of nutrition on health is often studied via ‘cohort studies’, where large numbers of people are surveyed as to their dietary habits and health over an extended period of time. Such studies are not only expensive and time-consuming to complete, but also rely on potentially unreliable self-report measures (see (6) for a discussion). Alternatively, the influence of individual nutrients is sometimes studied by giving one group of participants supplements containing the nutrient, and others a placebo. This approach lacks the ecological validity of cohort studies, but allows a tighter control over the intake level of the nutrient involved, thus allowing its effects to be isolated. Neither method however overcomes the previously mentioned problems regarding establishing causality.

What we do know?

Given the complex relationship between food and nutrition, and the imprecision of self-report measures, diet is often characterised in cohort studies in broad terms. One relative common distinction that is used is between the so-called ‘Mediterranean Diet’ and the ‘Western Diet’. The former involves the high intake of fruit, vegetables, fish, cereals and unsaturated fats (e.g. the type of fat that tends to be found in nuts and seeds). In contrast the ‘Western Diet’ involves the frequent consumption of foods with high levels of saturated fats, such as red meats, dairy products as well as other processed foods such as confectionery and ‘convenience’ foods. Studies tend to show that those who have diets that more closely resemble the Mediterranean Diet have lower instances of both dementia and mild cognitive impairment, even after confounding factors like age, socio-economic status and physical activity are controlled for (7). More specifically it has been shown that high intake of fruit and vegetables, as well as omega-3 fats (dietary rather than through supplements) predict a reduced likelihood of dementia (8); dementia levels in those with diets high in fruit and vegetables being 2.6%, compared with 5.7% for those with diets poor in fruit, vegetables and omega-3 fats.

The neurological effects of diet are not just restricted to dementia however. There is increasing evidence that diets high in saturated fat and sugars may contribute to behavioural problems in children and adolescents, including ADHD (9, 10). Similarly artificial food additives, such as the colourings and preservatives commonly added to confectionery and soft drinks, appear to increase hyperactivity in children (11). For example in a double-blind placebo trial (12) it was found that children regularly given a drink containing additives became more hyperactive (as measured by parent and teacher ratings, and through performance on a computerised attention task) than those given a placebo drink with the same frequency. This effect was present in both 3 year old and 8 year old children, suggesting that the influence of additives is not restricted to one particular stage of development.

Evidence also exists which suggests that deficiencies in a variety of vitamins and minerals within the body may encourage depressive symptoms. For example double-blind placebo trials consistently show that Thiamine supplements improve mood (13) while other studies have suggested that low levels of vitamins B6 and E are implicated in depression (14). The effect of diet on mood may be self-reinforcing as depressed individuals often turn to ‘comfort eating’ (13) which is likely to involve foods that are high in saturated fats, and which in turn may promote obesity which could further depress mood and self-esteem over the long term.

In what way do nutrients affect the brain?

Due to the aforementioned complexities in identifying the contribution of different nutrients, it has proven difficult to identify the exact mechanisms by which the under or over abundance of certain nutrients might affect the brain. However two interrelated systems are thought to be most vulnerable to dietary factors; the neuroinflammatory response of brain neurons, and the processes surrounding insulin signalling within the brain (15). Neuroinflammation is the immune response to neuron damage. It acts to preserve the damaged neuron and promote its recovery, but it can also cause damage to surrounding neurons. It is thought that the beneficial effect of diets high in fruit and vegetables may partly be due to the polyphenols present in plant matter working to limit neuroinflammation in the brain (e.g. 16). In terms of the second system, Insulin is involved in regulating the uptake of glucose by neurons, as well as maintaining their function and structure (17). Diets that are high in saturated fats appear to promote ‘insulin resistance’ which reduces the body’s ability to utilise Insulin (hence the association between obesity and type II diabetes). This in turn negatively impacts on the ability of neurons to function properly and to adapt to changes in the signalling patterns of other connecting neurons. This leads to reduced neural plasticity and an increased likelihood of chronic, maladaptive neuroinflammation, both of which are likely to interfere with normal cognitive functioning. This may be the mechanism by which frequent consumption of junk foods leads to a greater risk of dementia (1).

Should I change what I eat?

While it is never possible to rule out the influence of confounding factors, the basic message one can take from these studies seems pretty intuitive. We are better off eating foods that can be thought of as ‘natural’ for humans to eat. Throughout history the human race have presumably mainly relied on fruits, vegetables, nuts and cereals, supplemented with small amounts of fish and meat. It therefore makes sense that these foods would be conducive to both our physical and mental health, as research seems to suggest. In contrast the convenience and affordability of seemingly unnatural foods such as confectionery, processed meats and ‘ready meals’ belies their damaging impact on our health. We could do our future selves a favour by avoiding the temptation these foods provide, and making the extra effort to eat healthily.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Image courtesy of www.freedigitalphotos.net

References

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/09/10/the-mind-thieves/ (retrieved 24/09/2012).
Popkin, B. M. (2004). The nutrition transition: An overview of world patterns of change. Nutrition Reviews, 62(7), S140-S143. <link>
Thow, A. M. (2009). Trade liberalisation and the nutrition transition: mapping the pathways for public health nutritionists. Public Health Nutrition, 12(11), 2150-2158. <link>
Morris, M. C. (2012) Nutritional determinants of cognitive aging and dementia. Proc Nutr Soc, 71(1), 1-13. <link>
Dauncey, M. J. (2009). New insights into nutrition and cognitive neuroscience. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 68(4), 408-415 <link>
http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/uncategorized/the-dangers-of-self-report/ (retrieved 24/09/2012)
Sofi, F., Abbate, R., Gensini, G. F., & Casini, A. (2010). Accruing evidence on benefits of adherence to the Mediterranean diet on health an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92(5), 1189-1196. <link>
Barberger-Gateau, P., Raffaitin, C., Letenneur, L., Berr, C., Tzourio, C., Dartigues, J. F., et al. (2007). Dietary patterns and risk of dementia – The three-city cohort study. Neurology, 69(20), 1921-1930 <link>
Oddy, W. H., Robinson, M., Ambrosini, G. L., O’Sullivan, T. A., de Klerk, N. H., Beilin, L. J., et al. (2009). The association between dietary patterns and mental health in early adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 49(1), 39-44 <link>
Howard, A. L., Robinson, M., Smith, G. J., Ambrosini, G. L., Piek, J. P., & Oddy, W. H. (2011). ADHD Is Associated With a “Western” Dietary Pattern in Adolescents. Journal of Attention Disorders, 15(5), 403-411 <link>
Schab, D.W & Trinh, N.T. (2004). Do Artificial Food Colors Promote Hyperactivity
in Children with Hyperactive Syndromes? A Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind
Placebo-Controlled Trials. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25(6), 423-434 <link>
McCann, D., Barrett, A., Cooper, A., Crumpler, D., Dalen, L., Grimshaw, K., . . . Stevenson, J. (2007). Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: A randomised, double-blinded, placebo controlled trial. Lancet, 370, 1560-1567. <link>
Benton, D., & Donohoe, R. T. (1999). The effects of nutrients on mood. Public Health Nutr, 2(3A), 403-409. <link>
Soh, N. L., Walter, G., Baur, L., & Collins, C. (2009). Nutrition, mood and behaviour: a review. Acta Neuropsychiatrica, 21(5), 214-227 <link>
Parrott, M. D., & Greenwood, C. E. (2007). Dietary influences on cognitive function with aging: from high-fat diets to healthful eating. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1114, 389-397. <link>
Lim, G. P., Chu, T., Yang, F., Beech, W., Frautschy, S. A., & Cole, G. M. (2001). The curry spice curcumin reduces oxidative damage and amyloid pathology in an Alzheimer transgenic mouse. J Neurosci, 21(21), 8370-8377. <link>
http://www.thealzheimerssolution.com/insulin-brain-function-and-alzheimers-disease-is-insulin-resistance-to-blame-for-alzheimers/ (retrieved 28/09/2012)

More than just transferrable skills

Posted on September 29, 2011 by Martin Turner

Today is the eve of the 2011/12 intro meeting, it’s that time again to recruit fresh and enthusiastic new members to the ranks of Science Brainwaves, to continue to grow the organisation and reach out to new audiences. It’s also a good time to reflect on past successes and to contemplate why Science Brainwaves is such an amazing group to be part of. This is especially pertinent to me because I am the last founding member to leave, and like the other founders, Jenna Stevens-Smith, Beki Hill and Michaela Livingstone, I am heading for an exciting new career which would not be open to me if it were not for my involvement in Science Brainwaves.

Science Brainwaves isn’t even two years old yet. And yet we’ve gained international recognition for our activities. We’ve been approached by the European Society of Gene and Cell Therapy and the Royal Statistical Society for help with outreach, we’ve been sent pre-release books by American pop-science publishers to review for our website and members of our committee have been asked to give a presentation on how we operate to the British Science Festival. Just this weekend I was at a party where I met last year’s “science communicator of the year” and she had heard of Science Brainwaves, and was very impressed. The sky is the limit for Science Brainwaves, or perhaps not!

It is then, an excellent thing to have on your CV. And well worth the time for the benefit it brings to the public and the student body. We founded Science Brainwaves with the aim of bringing “science to the masses”, and I think every month we have achieved that in one way or another.

If you’re interested in any form of science communication, perhaps being a journalist, a museum curator, an events executive or a policy advisor, then believe me, you’ll need much more than a degree or even a PhD. Science Brainwaves will give you the experience, the recognition and the contacts to get into these highly competitive fields. And even if you intend to stay in academia, all research grants nowadays require you to show how you are communicating your research to the wider public. Scientists are no longer allowed to hide away in their labs and not talk to anyone. Indeed the most successful scientists know how to explain their research – that’s how they get the multi-million pound grants.

So tomorrow go to the meeting and talk to the team. You may only be able to help out at the odd event or you may be willing to commit to the managing committee. Either way you’ll be welcomed and appreciated.

I’ll miss Science Brainwaves, it’s been a huge honour to be part of it and I’d like to thank members of the past and of the future for all their help and support and wish the new committee the best of luck with their future plans.

Martin Turner

Director 2010-2011

Sense About Science at the British Science Festival

Posted on August 17, 2011 by Dominic Swain

Public engagement and animal research

Posted on July 21, 2011 by Martin Turner

This week the Home Office announced that it will implement two coalition promises on animal testing: to ban the testing of household products and to continue to reduce the use of animals in scientific research.

Since 1998 it has been illegal in the UK to test cosmetic products on animals and soon the same will be true for household items, but with only 24 procedures being performed in 2010, and only on rats, this is a small step for animal welfare.

Recent figures have shown that scientific procedures on animals rose 3% last year, with the total at 3,724,726. Of this figure, 81% were on rodents, mostly mice, and 18% fish, amphibians, reptiles or birds. Just 0.8% were small mammals (excluding rodents) like rabbits, 0.4% were large mammals like cows and 0.07% were primates, mostly marmoset and macaque monkeys. Despite a significant drop in the use of animals in scientific research since the 1970s the UK is still one of the highest users of animals in the world, a reflection of the pioneering position the UK enjoys on the global scientific stage. Estimates of the number of procedures conducted by other scientific behemoths such as the USA and Japan claim 20m and 5m are used in each, respectively.

Animal research is still a controversial and emotional subject, scientists shy away from the topic and I know many who would not want to do it themselves. I even know of one person who turned vegetarian to compensate for her experiments using rats! Although extremism has largely been extinguished in the UK it is not uncommon to see stalls in shopping centres campaigning: the debate is still very much alive and one that is important to the British public.

We are after all a nation of animal lovers. Victorian legislature to control animal cruelty was introduced before even the first children’s cruelty acts and today our scientific research is subject to the strictest regulation in the world. Indeed EU Directives come with caveats to prevent the downgrading of standards in countries such as ours where we are above the European standard. For the public to maintain faith in our scientific community it is imperative that we maintain and respect those high standards.

Government research has found that one in three (29%) British adults do not trust the regulatory system however, and only 54% trust scientists not to cause unnecessary harm or suffering. In the same report 76% of interviewees said that they can accept animal research as long as it is for medical purposes, and 54% were happy for animal use in any type of research, as long as there was no alternative.

I work on yeast and my research is not medical (although one day I hope it might contribute in a tiny way to medical understanding) but I still use the products of animals in my research, such as antibodies from mice, rabbits and goats and enzymes from cows. It is not easy to define what research will contribute to human health and which won’t and many members of the public do not understand the concepts of related biological systems and model organisms, which underpin basic research. It is important that these concepts are communicated to the public when discussing the use of animals in research.

The case for animal research is perhaps the most important public battle scientists face, and it is a shame that it is one that many shy away from. And clearly from the government figures, we still have some way to go to convince the public that we’re trustworthy. For those who are interested, Understanding Animal Research runs training for scientists who wish to run school workshops on the subject and closer to home Sheffield’s Fish For Science have excellent outreach activities on their website. Pro science campaign groups are doing a great job but I think it is time for more open and unashamed inclusion of animal research in science outreach. In my personal experience people are very supportive of science when you talk to them about it and, given the facts, I believe the public supports animal experiments.

Through more outreach to address people’s ligititmate concerns and further refinement of the way we use animals in research to gain more public trust, we can garner greater public support for research that is improving our understanding of biology and saving lives.

Research is meaningless if it’s not conducted fairly

Posted on June 6, 2011 by Martin Turner

A report on the sexualisation of young girls and how the government intends to prevent it has been hitting the Headlines of all the major newspapers in recent days. The new rules that the Coalition have announced today are separate from the report by Reg Bailey but coincide with its publication, also today. They include tougher restrictions on the 9pm watershed, certification for music videos and a ban on inappropriate clothes sold to children.

The report was commissioned by David Cameron to be conducted by Reg Bailey of the Mother’s Union, a Christian charity. The approach taken by Mr Cameron in this instance is a good example of how politicians can missuse evidence to support policy. I’m not taking issue with the content of the report – it is probably quite valid – or the Mother’s Union, but more the reasons and method of the report’s instigation.

The purpose of the Mother’s Union is to promote traditional family values; it is a lobby group with a clear and obvious agenda. Is David Cameron therefore right to commission them to do research on behalf of the government when it is clear what the outcome will be? In other words, is this not just manufacturing “evidence” in support of his policy?

And it has worked very well. Every newspaper article cites the reasons stated in the report on why new policies are needed. And quite rightly, each article also states that the research was arranged by Mr Cameron so the motives should be clear, but do the public see it? Do they care?

In my opinion, it is a waste of money and it is a PR stunt. If David Cameron wants to improve the situation for young Children would he not be better off commissioning fair independent research to identify the problems and suggest solutions based on evidence, rather than religious ideology? Last year the Home Office commissioned a review by an academic that reached the same conclusions as Mr Bailey and the year before that Ed Balls as Education Secretary commissioned a review, again by a trusted academic, which was slightly less alarmist but nonetheless recommended changes. So why do it again? Because it’s something new (by which I do not mean original) that will help with the media coverage.

Evidence-based policy is important, and research to back up the claims and positions of politicians is fundamental to democracy, it ensures transparency. For us to be able to trust research we must trust who does it and know why they are doing it and that it was conducted fairly; this is why published scientific papers come with a disclosure of conflicts of interest.

If any government wants to be trusted and respected they should avoid cheap tricks and follow the wealth of academic research conducted by universities and other institutions. Politics is often polarised and debates passionate, but that is all the more reason to commission dispassionate research to identify the facts from the sensationalism designed to scare. By all means consult think tanks and lobby groups, I believe they are there for a good reason (albeit a biased one), but to commission research in such a bias manner cheapens your policy and is an insult to the public’s intelligence.

So I have a Ph.D.

Posted on April 15, 2011 by Martin Turner

Well I don’t yet, but soon, hopefully soon, I will. But what will I do next? Therapy probably.

Today there has been an online chat forum on what to do with a Ph.D and yesterday the THE website ran an article about deluded young scientists thinking they’re going to become permanent academics. So what use is a Ph.D. and what should we expect to be able to do with it?

Ph.D.s can be done on all sorts of crazy things but for clarity, I’m talking about science doctorates here.

Only 30% of Ph.D. graduates get post doc positions, according to a report by the Royal Society. Now I know many students, including myself, who have been put off academic research but this figure is amazingly low and is set to get lower as funding dries up and jobs become scarcer.

Most students don’t realise what they’re getting themselves into when they sign up to a Ph.D. and most have dreams of becoming an eminent leading expert in their field. And on the face of it that’s all you need a Ph.D. for: it’s not a vocational qualification and very few jobs outside academia require one so why start if you’re not intent on getting to the top in research?

The reality is that in the long run 90% drop out of academia and move on. Now I don’t think that is because these people didn’t reach the top. Everybody wants career progression but I think it’s unreasonable to think you deserve to become a lecturer/Principal Investigator just because you’ve worked in research for many years – however horrible that experience has been. How many people in other professions get to the very top? Academia is a pyramid like almost all other workplaces.

The problem as I see it is that science is full of short contracts. Young scientists are expected to move around the world to experience different specialist areas of their field and master many different techniques in order to become a fully equipped research scientist. This creates instability which puts many people – especially women – off. It’s very hard to settle down, get a mortgage and start a family when your contract expires after three years.

Luckily Ph.D.s are valued in many areas outside academia: from the pharmaceutical industry through to teaching (the most popular destination for graduates) and even in government. Since the Roberts’ Report universities have got a lot better at broadening the training that a Ph.D student receives so that the graduate leaves equipped with skills that are valued in the big bad world outside of academia. Amongst others I think it proves better than any other piece of paper that the individual is determined, a Ph.D. is long and not easy after all!

I’ve been looking at job advertisements and many state a post-graduate qualification as desirable and I know of lots of people who’s bosses have been very keen for them to get those two distinguished letters in front of their name asap. Because a Ph.D. impresses people, it’s relatively rare in the employment market and it sets you out from the crowd.

So what use is a Ph.D. and what should we expect to be able to do with it?

Everything and anything. But at the end of the day it’s just another qualification and it is you as a person who will get a job and become a success if you deserve it.

Model Organisms

Posted on February 26, 2011 by admin

For my research into RNA metabolism I work on yeast, S. Cerivisiae; when I tell people this I’m often asked why I’m not using human cells for my experiments which, my inquisitor believes, would be much more medically useful.

I think this is a common misconception, which stems from non-biologists not realising the connectedness of different life forms. Indeed, Sarah Palin enraged and amused the global scientific community in equal measure a few years back when she used the tale of Parisian geneticists studying fruitflies as an example of how scientists waste the public’s money.

But of course it’s important – as I have said many times – that the public understand why we scientists do the things we do with their money. So with that in mind I’ve come up with a clever little analogy that you can use next time you’re round at your Nan’s house to explain why we use simple model organisms like yeast to gain an insight which will be useful to medical science.

Imagine you want to learn how a car works and you have access to two cars: a shiny new Mini made by BMW and one of those lovely old reliable classic Minis. You may have guessed that the new Mini represents the advanced human cell and the much loved old Mini the humble yeast.

Now to find out how the car works you are allowed to open the bonnet and tinker away, this is like a molecular biologist who deletes genes or pulls proteins out of the cell to see what they do. So you open the new Mini up and see some shiny chrome and a lot of black plastic, it all looks a bit boring and you really can’t see how it might work or even how you might start taking it apart to figure out what it does. Now you look in the old Mini, it’s dirty but you can see wires, tubes and things that move when you turn the engine on.

So it’s clear to see which one will be easiest to start mucking around with to find out what all those bits do. The refined Mini made by BMW doesn’t like being played with, its engine is too complicated and inaccessible and all the moving bits are hidden away. The old mini however can be bashed around and is simply built, meaning you can tell what each part does relatively easily. Equally, playing with the old Mini is cheaper and you have more tools at your disposal thanks to the scrap yard!

Now you know how the old Mini works: what a carburettor looks like and what the transmission is for. Through tinkering with an easily manipulable model you not only know how an old Mini works but a lot of what you’ve learnt can be applied to any car.

What you’ve learnt about the old Mini now informs how you approach finding out how the new Mini works, you come across the carburettor, which you know it is because it looks like the carburettor in the old Mini, you don’t need to pull it out – which as we have said is very difficult in a modern car – to see what it does because you’re already done that in the old car.

So you can see how studying a simpler, more manipulable version of what you’re really interested in can be advantageous to the researcher. Of course this is all possible because the Mini’s are both cars and yeast and human cells are both eukaryotes (one of the three classes of life forms on earth) and therefore share huge similarities which allow us to make generalisations of function and mechanisms.

The Nuclear Debate

Posted on February 3, 2011 by admin

We can see from the last article that Nuclear power has proven to be an attractive path to take in order to counteract the issues presented by the depletion of non-renewables. I was intending to present the cons of Nuclear power in this article, however I recently attended a three day conference in Buxton during which a debate was held discussing the positives and negatives of nuclear power and I felt this would be a perfect article to place to tie between the pros and cons, therefore the cons article would shortly follow this. The debate was lead by two very knowledgable, highly trained individuals holding very high positions in the nuclear industry. This was Mr.P.Wilkinson and Prof.G.Butler, below is an overview of both their contributions to the nuclear and environmental industry:

Supporting Nuclear Power:

Gregg Butler

Deputy Chief Executive, BNFL

Leader of a change management programme at the UK nuclear fuel manufacture Springfields site

Negotiated a complex £4Bn fixed price deal with Scottish Nuclear, now part of British Energy

Developed and patented, on behalf of BNFL, a method of density control for uranium oxide nuclear fuel, still in worldwide use.

Director, UK Nirex

Member of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC)

Managing Director, Pangea Resources Australia Pty Ltd

Chairman, Westlakes Scientific Consulting

Opposing Nuclear Power:

Peter Wilkinson

Co-founder of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK

Campaigns Director Greenpeace UK

Member of the original Board of Greenpeace International

Antarctic expedition leader over six years

Member of the Sizewell Site Stakeholder Group, reviewing and providing informed challenges to the operations on and plans for the Sizewell site.

Member of the HSE Transition Advisory Group

We were able to ask several questions, however I have condensed the main issues covered and summarised the answers, the discussion was highly informative and very entertaining at times, especially when certain people got a bit carried away and were practically told to ‘shut up’.

The first issue addressed was the suitability of nuclear energy as an actual solution for the UK’s looming energy crisis. According to Peter, this was not a very cost effective approach, he stressed that there are other solutions out there, however they are being ignored. He also went on to explain that aside from the problems introduced when building new plants, the older nuclear power plants are still causing waste issues, for example the Sellafield plants are currently polluting the local air with plutonium. To counteract this Gregg explained that it is a relatively new technology, and with all early stages in technologies there is going to be problems, the important thing is to develop a learning curve. This is where the UK are having issues, because there is no consistency and data logging of the nuclear industry progress, there are no learning curves and therefore problems tend to reoccur rather than get resolved. He also went on to reinforce the point I mentioned in the last article, that nuclear power can also be used to produce energy indirectly in producing biofuels. However Peter thinks biofuels are inefficient.

We then went on to look at the issues faced within geological disposal of nuclear waste and whether it is wise to put into practice stakeholder engagement. Geological disposal simply means that the nuclear waste will be buried hundreds of meters below the ground in a stable geologic environment. Stakeholder engagement allows any individual, community or organisation that may be affected by the waste disposal to have meaningful opportunities to express their views, which will be then be taken into consideration in the decision making process. Gregg fully supports this idea and believes that it promotes democracy, stating that consultation of the locals is very important. However Peter counteracted this stating that firstly people are presented with insufficient information in order to make their decisions, and somethings are being held back from them. He also explained that nuclear waste outlasts humans and therefore the people of today will be making a decision for future generations who will have to accept the decisions by default. Furthermore he also went to explain that science isn’t always right and therefore there could be some serious consequences for the locals’ health,and he finally added that the UK has proven to be geologically unsuitable for nuclear waste disposal. Gregg replied to this by stating that the stakeholders would regulate the scientific inaccuracies, and that rather than using the UK negotiations could be struck with other countries.

We discussed the impact government has on the nuclear industry. Greg explained that the government were in favour of nuclear power simply because it cuts CO₂emissions significantly. However Peter stated that this is because they are not educated properly on the technology and are blindly following it. He then went on to explain that allowing people holding bachelors of arts and business degrees to read, analyse and understand scientific reports in order to make decisions regarding nuclear energy isn’t exactly the most confidence inspiring method. This results in the government ignoring the uncertainties and doubt regarding low dose radiation with regards to how dangerousit actually is. The government also fully support the reprocessing of nuclear waste streams to produce one spent fuel, which Peter explains only cuts 20% of the fuel and increases operating costs by 20% stressing that economically it is a very bad option. Gregg explains that reprocessing waste streams allows us to deal with one spent fuel rather than several different waste streams.

Finally we concluded on the topic of public perception and how information and science reports are tailored to favour nuclear energy introduction, Peter explained. He states that there is no transparency in information and that the public should be able to access all information available in order to have faith and trust nuclear research. However Gregg responded to this by explaining that some information needs to be keep confidential for the safety of the country to avoid terrorist threats etc…

It can be seen from this brief summary of the debate that it is difficult to conclude whether or not to adapt nuclear energy within the UK. The positives of this technology have been looked into and the debate was inconclusive, so all that remains is to ask ‘What are the serious disadvantages to this technology that are pushing people such as Mr.Wilkinson to take such a strong stance against it?’