Thought Leadership - NYAS

Crystalline nanomaterials viewed under a microscope.

Imagine if we could detect health problems before they become life-threatening.

Published June 04, 2021

By Benjamin Schroeder, PhD

Imagine if we could charge our cell phones by plugging them into our backpack, or if we could build a biocompatible probe that could interface with our cells and detect health problems before they become life-threatening.

Working at nanoscale, scientists are now capable of assembling molecules and atoms into structures that have exactly the desired properties they want a new material to possess. The prefix “nano” is used in the metric system to describe 10^-9 parts of a whole, or 0.000000001—an exceedingly small number. But the term is also used to define an entire field of new and exciting research at a very, very, tiny scale.

We recently interviewed Jess Wade, PhD, a Research Fellow at Imperial College London, about all things nano. Her research is focused on new materials for optoelectronic devices, with a particular emphasis on chiral organic semiconductors. She has also recently written a children’s book entitled Nano: The Spectacular Science of the Very (Very) Small, illustrated by Melissa Castrillon and published by Candlewick.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Many researchers in your field of materials science are drawing inspiration from nature to design new nanomaterials with novel shapes and functions. Why is that such an important consideration?

Because nature has been nailing this for a really long time. We look around and see naturally occurring structures that are super-strong, super-efficient, and in some cases capable of generating clean energy from the sun. I think we—as physicists, chemists, and materials scientists—can learn a lot from looking at natural, biological forms and trying to recreate their desirable properties in our labs.

Nature has evolved to be as efficient and streamlined as it can be, and we’re learning from that and applying it in areas like renewable energy and electronic display research. It is important for us to study those systems because nature has been getting it right for much longer than we have!

Crystalline nanomaterials viewed under a microscope. Photo Credit: Dr. Jess Wade

If nature has perfected processes like photosynthesis and cellular respiration, is it really possible to improve on nature’s design when creating new nanomaterials?

Molecules like proteins and peptides and similar compounds are essential in biological processes, but often have very strict operating requirements: they don’t behave normally when they get too hot or when they get very, very cold or when we put them in electromagnetic fields. So we can look at biological systems, examine what gives rise to their important properties, and ask, for example, “how can we design more resilient materials for technological purposes?”

I think even though nature has really perfected certain materials and processes, it has only really done so for a specific function. We can still improve these natural materials by tailoring them to what we want.

In terms of discoveries that will potentially have a major influence on our daily lives, what are some of the breakthroughs in nano that you anticipate seeing in the next 15-20 years?

In 15-20 years more of us will have solar technologies that result from manipulation of the nanoscale properties of materials. For example, take materials like perovskites: hybrid organic/inorganic crystals that are incredibly efficient at generating electricity when they absorb light from the sun. Once scientists have optimized their nanostructures and fabrication protocols, perovskites will allow us to have flexible, integrated power supplies that can be incorporated into our clothing, our backpacks, and any surface that might be beneficial. I think there will also be a more concerted effort for scientists to work closely with designers to create wearable devices and other technologies that combine aesthetics with cutting-edge science.

You’ve just published a beautifully-illustrated children’s book entitled, Nano: The Spectacular Science of the Very (Very) Small. What was your inspiration to write such a book, and can we expect to see additional children’s books from you covering different topics in science?

I find the science that you’re covering in the upcoming webinar “Finding Inspiration for Functional Nanomaterials from Nature,” and the nanoscience that I get to do in my day job extraordinarily exciting. Parents, students, and teachers don’t get quite as excited about it as they could because it’s not on their radar, and they get intimidated by jargon and buzzwords they do not really understand.

I wanted to write a book that young people read and then think, “chemistry is really cool! materials science is awesome! we can solve the global challenges by thinking from the atom up!,” but also a book that their parents read and think, “hey, maybe I was wrong to hate that so much when I was in school.”

I would absolutely love to create additional children’s books. There are a lot more areas of science that could have kid’s books. Dinosaurs are covered, space is covered, but there could be more and better coverage in physics and other areas, and I am excited about the possibilities.

Lessons Learned: The Aftermath of a Pandemic

Academy President and CEO Nicholas Dirks smiles for the camera.

“… we can use those learnings to prepare a playbook for the next pandemic.”

Published June 1, 2021

By Nicholas B. Dirks

When I was first in discussions in early 2020 to take over the leadership of The New York Academy of Sciences from the retiring Ellis Rubinstein, we could still go out to dinner, attend meetings in person, and enjoy concerts and the theater in closed and crowded spaces. Masks were for surgeons in operating theaters and researchers working in labs. We could still enjoy networking at well attended conferences, traveling through crowded airports and train stations, and planning vacations and holiday family gatherings. Although for years I had always mentioned a pandemic as a primary example of a global challenge that would know no borders and require global cooperation, I also knew that the last such pandemic had happened 100 years ago. I confess I had assumed I was being largely rhetorical.

What a difference a year makes.

Now, more than a year after the lockdowns began across the world and in the U.S., we are at last seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. It will still require a leap of faith to predict when life will return to the way it was in 2019, but significant progress has been made during the past several months.

As with most life-altering events, much can be learned when we can take a hard, practical look at what we did wrong, what we did right, and how, with better planning, we might have changed the course of history. And if we’re smart about it, we can use those learnings to prepare a playbook for the next pandemic.

Accept that pandemics and other global catastrophes are here to stay and plan for them.

Much of the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. can be traced to the lack of a cohesive national response. Poor communications also did not help. Mixed messages from public officials and health experts created confusion, and worse, disbelief that COVID-19 should be taken seriously. “It’s no worse than the flu” was one such frequent comment, along with “something that only old people get,” and the “cure or shutdowns cannot be worse than the problem.” Then there are the “hoax” believers, and the bizarre “treatments”—all fueled by misinformation and conspiracy theories running rampant on social media. We can’t predict what new crises are on the horizon, but it is incumbent upon all government officials to have emergency response plans ready for quick implementation. Aside from the obvious—i.e., having the necessary medical equipment and public health protocols already in place—understanding that social behavior needs to be addressed is just as important as medical intervention in meeting the crisis.

Look at challenges as opportunities for new ideas to blossom.

Like many other organizations whose core business is based on live in-person events, The New York Academy of Sciences had to quickly pivot to virtual forums when we could no longer host actual gatherings. But we have found that our online webinars and virtual conferences have broad appeal to our members—especially those who do not live within easy access of our physical conference location in downtown New York. At some point the in-person meetings will resume, but we will continue to offer the virtual options that will open up our programs to all our members and others across the globe.

Shutdowns have had some benefits.

The past year has been disastrous for many of us, with death and disease rampant both in the U.S. and globally, and with devastating economic effects on certain sectors and populations. At the same time, we learned what we can do with the technological tools on our laptops and in our phones, seen clear skies in polluted cities from Delhi to Beijing, as well as nature venturing out into the deserted streets. The YouTube video of a kangaroo hopping down an empty street in Adelaide was especially poignant. Of course, we cannot keep things shut down forever—we not only miss our social life, we depend on it. But as we consider not just the effects of a pandemic but the escalating threat of climate change, the past 12 months have provided a clear view of how our natural environment can quickly improve if we give it room to do so. We don’t all agree on everything, but we do all live on the same planet — and as the late Carl Sagan pointed out — “Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.” It will serve humanity well in the future if we could use the lessons of the last year to develop much bolder plans to take on the significant global and planetary challenges before us.

As we look forward to life returning to normal, it is worth remembering that despite all our scientific and technological progress, we were blindsided by a microscopic virus that was exacerbated by polarized politics, and a lack of public understanding and trust in science. It is also clear that the massive disparities of our society and our economy have been magnified by this public health crisis. Scientists must work not only with each other but with social scientists, humanists, and many others, as we seek to find more effective ways to translate our knowledge into enlightened public policy that takes on the full complexity of the human condition.

Fortunately, for the past 200-plus years, The New York Academy of Sciences has been committed to working to bring the best and brightest minds together to develop solutions for our global challenges. It’s a mission I’m proud to embrace as the Academy’s president and CEO.

Nicholas B. Dirks

Promising Immunotherapies over Toxic Chemotherapies

Macrophages can eat leukemia cancer cells when the cells are exposed to anti-CD47 antibodies.

Cancer immunotherapies utilize an individual’s immune system, providing alternatives to toxic chemotherapies.

Published April 22, 2021

By Ben Ragen, PhD

Cancer immunotherapies utilize an individual’s immune system to fight off or even prevent cancers— shifting the paradigm for cancer treatment and providing alternatives to toxic chemotherapies. Since the first immunotherapy cancer treatment was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in the mid-1980s, scientists have continued to explore the potential of drugs and other biomedical technologies to manipulate cytokines, neoantigens, immune cells, and stem cells to treat and even vaccinate against cancer.

Irving Weissman, MD, is a Virginia & D.K. Ludwig Professor of Clinical Investigation in Cancer Research at Stanford University and the Director of the Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. He has been studying cancer since 1957 and is a leader in the field of stem cell biology. Dr. Weissman will give the Keynote address at the upcoming 8^th annual Frontiers in Cancer Immunotherapy conference, to be held by The New York Academy of Sciences on May 12-14, 2021.

The Academy recently spoke with Dr. Weissman about his entrance into the field of cancer immunotherapy and the advances he has made in treating leukemia by utilizing his groundbreaking findings of the link between cancer and the CD47 protein.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

You have been researching stem cells and cancer for decades. What was your introduction to these fields?

I actually started in high school in a pathology laboratory in Montana where I was learning about immunogenetics in the context of normal tissue transplants and tumor transplants. So, from the age of 16 on, I’ve been thinking about the field.

My interest in stem cell biology came out of the idea that if you had immune rejection of a transplant, it turned out that it was the thymus, and T cells derived from the thymus, that were the main effectors of rejection.

My interest then shifted from T cells to bone marrow. I set up several experiments to find cells within the bone marrow and was able to isolate blood-forming stem cells from mice. Within two years of starting SyStemix, Inc., a company which I co-founded, we isolated the human blood-forming stem cell.

How did your stem cell research lead you to study cancer?

By 1996 we were treating cancer patients by giving them lethal doses of a combination chemotherapy and were then saving them by rejuvenating their blood-forming system with their own cancer-free stem cells. These treatments were done in women with metastatic breast cancer, which made me think more and more about cancer and how we could understand which cells might become malignant in acute myelogenous leukemia.

We had gotten samples from the Hiroshima Hospital Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which has frozen banks of live bone marrow cells belonging to people who developed leukemia after the atomic bomb. Reseachers found we could isolate the human leukemia stem cell from those samples.

We could then look at the gene expression differences between two types of purified cells: the leukemia stem cells and then either the same stage cells from normal bone marrow or from hematopoietic stem cells. It wasn’t until we had completed all of that work that we could say, for the first time, which genes leukemia stem cells were overexpressed and which ones were underexpressed.

Red blood cells express CD47 on their surface to prevent macrophages from eating them.

Were there any specific genes that warranted further investigation?

One of the first genes we observed was called CD47. So, I looked it up in the literature, and it said that CD47 was an integrin-associated protein. But CD47 is not only associated with integrin in the cell membrane. When another research group knocked out the Cd47 gene in mice, they could keep the mice alive, but when they looked at their red blood cells and transfused the red cells into healthy animals of the same antigenic type, those red blood cells had a two-hour lifespan instead of having a normal two- to three-week lifespan. This discovery showed that immune cells—called macrophages—found in the bone marrow, the spleen, and liver were “eating”, or destroying, these red cells prematurely.

How did the discovery of CD47 and its role in red blood cell lifespan extend to your research on cancer?

CD47 is a “don’t eat me” signal on red blood cells—that’s how it extends red blood cell lifespan—but when the expression of CD47 normally fades, then the red blood cells can be eaten. So, we said, “well, if it is a ‘don’t eat me’ signal for red blood cells by blocking macrophages from eating them, why does every mouse leukemia and every human leukemia that we study have upregulated expression levels of CD47?”

So, we obtained and then made anti-CD47 antibodies. We showed that we could incubate the anti-CD47 antibodies with the human patient leukemia stem cells that we had isolated, along with human macrophages. The anti-CD47 antibodies relieved the blockade, and the macrophages started to eat.

Within two hours, each macrophage that ate was stuffed full of five to ten leukemia cells; you let it go two days, and there’s no leukemia cells left on the dish. So, it was pretty clear that we were dealing with a system of macrophage recognition and that we had developed an immunotherapy.

How close are we to seeing anti-CD47 antibodies as an available cancer treatment?

We have finished a Phase 1 and a late Phase 2 trial for acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome, which is a disease that will often turn into acute myelogenous leukemia. We found that the anti-CD47 antibody alone didn’t eliminate the tumor.

When we added azacytidine—the drug used to hold myelodysplastic syndrome and some acute myelogenous leukemias at bay for a short time—we found that tumors regress in nearly 100% of patients with elderly-onset acute myelogenous leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. So far, we see over 50% complete regression, and it’s been two years.

Also read: Advancing Vaccines and Cancer Immunotherapy.

A New Approach to Sustainable Plastics and Polymers

Sunset over petrochemical plants in Lake Charles, Louisiana

Adrienne Hollis, PhD, JD, the Senior Climate Justice and Health Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, explains the role scientists must play in mitigating the harm caused by plastic waste and pollution from polymer production.

Published March 4, 2021

By Stephen D. Albright, PhD

Sunset over petrochemical plants in Lake Charles, Louisiana. (David Wilson from Oak Park, Illinois, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

New scientific discoveries often have profound impacts beyond what researchers can initially imagine. Polymers, and plastics derived from them, are an instructive example: the plastics that were once heralded as cheap, durable, and functional have also created an environmental crisis. Plastic waste and pollution from polymer production are significant hazards for communities around the world.

Adrienne Hollis, PhD, JD, the Senior Climate Justice and Health Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), recently answered some questions about the impact of plastics and the role scientists have in mitigating their harms. Before joining UCS, Dr. Hollis served as a section chief at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an agency within United States Department of Health and Human Services, and as an Associate Professor at the Florida A&M University Institute of Public Health.

How would you define environmental justice and why should basic science researchers care about it?

Hollis: To me, basic science research focuses on gaining a fundamental understanding of the natural environment and how natural resources are transformed. Environmental justice talks about the adverse effects on communities from exposure to the unnatural transformation of the natural environment, through actions like air or water pollution. A specific focus of environmental justice is the disproportionate impact of exposure on disadvantaged areas and communities of color. But I would defer to communities and community organizations for their definition. That is what matters.

Outside of moral and ethical considerations of fairness, researchers are urged to follow the Precautionary Principle, based on the concept of “Do No Harm” in the medical profession. It states that if anything has a suspected risk of harm, to either the public or the environment, scientists should immediately engage in actions to prevent harm, even in the absence of complete scientific data identifying risk. These actions are at the core of environmental justice, and should apply across all areas of basic science research.

One of the most striking examples of communities of color and/or low socioeconomic status being disproportionally affected by environmental hazards is a stretch of Louisiana along the Mississippi River. Called by many “Cancer Alley,” it is home to a high density of oil refineries and petrochemical plants, key steps of polymer and plastic production. What have been some of the hazards and illnesses documented in this region?

Hollis: I would first state that community members would be the best source of information on health effects because of their historic knowledge and community data on this issue. What I can say is that high rates of many health conditions—miscarriages, cancer, heart problems, respiratory problems like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and others—are present and well-documented in this region.

A perfect example of a hazard is the 2020 fire at a Lake Charles, Louisiana chlorine plant after Hurricane Laura. During and after the fire, residents were ordered to shelter in place, close all windows, and not operate air conditioners to prevent chlorine exposure. Amidst a pandemic and summer heat, the situation could have been so much more devastating—widespread COVID-19, heat stroke, or chlorine poisoning were all real possibilities. And yet, facilities keep coming!

Researchers in polymer chemistry are working towards developing polymers and plastics that can be more sustainably produced and disposed of. What kinds of changes to a polymer’s life cycle would be most impactful for communities hit hardest by industrial pollution?

Hollis: People living in places like Cancer Alley deal with facilities that release traditional air pollution as well as greenhouse gases while making plastics. Changes that would be impactful include ceasing the extraction of fossil fuels for polymer production and changing the plastic production processes that generate pollutants like ethylene oxide, styrene, and benzene. Processes that exclude the use of these chemicals would be optimal.

But the most impactful step would be to get rid of those facilities. Hopefully, as new processes are developed to improve plastic recycling and reuse, there will be decreased demand for facilities that produce virgin plastics. In the meantime, research and development of alternatives to biopolymers and petroleum-based products—both of which lead to adverse health effects—would also be a great intermediate step.

What actions could scientists and engineers take during the research process to mitigate and prevent adverse impacts when their research translates into products? What should research practices that incorporate environmental justice look like?

Hollis: In my opinion, it is not really about making production better and safer. It is about the Precautionary Principle, which all scientists should adhere to: do no harm. This means taking preventive action when you suspect harm could occur and most importantly, increasing public participation in decision making. Scientists and engineers must, at the outset, identify the communities that may be impacted, work with those communities early and often to identify concerns, and move forward together. Scientists and engineers must ask themselves if they would want to live in a place that produces these products, and whether the processes they are developing to mitigate and prevent harm are good enough for them or their families.

Also read: Avoiding Bias and Conflict of Interest in Science

Avoiding Bias and Conflict of Interest in Science

A dramtically lit gold justice scale backlit an a dark background - 3D render

“[C]onflict of interest is about more than money….it can come from political pressures and ideological pressures.”

Published February 18, 2021

By Melanie Brickman Borchard, PhD, MSc

Arthur Caplan, PhD
Professor, NYU Grossman School of Medicine

Arthur Caplan, PhD, says scientists, physicians, and their employers, must be on guard to ensure that quality research and good patient care remain front-and-center in a healthcare system rife with rewards for bias. Dr. Caplan is a professor of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He advises presidents, government agencies, patient groups, and international organizations on bioethics.

He is a prolific researcher and author. We spoke with Dr. Caplan recently, and he shared five things doctors and medical researchers should keep in mind to help guard against bias in their work.

1) Demand transparency and be transparent.

As an employer or administrator, there are steps you can take to guard against bias in members of your staff. You can reward behavior that reduces opportunities for conflicts of interest.

There are a number of things we can do to manage conflict of interest. One is to demand transparency. Make sure that people tell us what their jobs are, what their responsibilities are, so you can assess whether they’re overworked or not doing enough of what they’re supposed to be doing. Many schools require those disclosures. Some prohibit taking a second job, some don’t let doctors moonlight, because they think it makes them too tired or it distracts them from their primary responsibilities.

In other situations, you can simply rule out certain relationships and say, ‘look, if you have a relationship with a company or a startup, and you think you’re making a useful medicine or vaccine, then you shouldn’t study whether it works or not. Farm that out to a third party.’ The process will be more independent and objective. If possible, you shouldn’t study what you own.

2) Recognize that transparency about ties to industry is important, now more than ever.

You can’t do anything with vaccines unless you’re talking to industry. They have the manufacturing capabilities. Plus, most of the basic science gets done in areas like vaccines with industry support, not through public or academic grants, or the work of academic institutions. So, in some sectors, there is no escaping the industry tie. You have to be transparent about that. You have to teach people how to manage that. You have to make sure that scientists and doctors understand they are going to be evaluated on the legitimacy of their work, not telling happy news to their funders. I think also we need more oversight. There should be more systematic review and challenging questioning by administrators, for more accountability. And you’ve got to beef up peer review. It is your best weapon against subtle, unconscious bias or deliberately fudging things to make them look good for increasing your salary or enhancing equity.

3) And speaking about peer review…. strengthening it must be a priority.

We need to bolster peer review. Peer review is getting weak. People don’t spend enough time teaching junior academics how to do it. The amount of resources and reward that come from doing peer review is somewhere between non-existent and nothing. But peer review is biomedicine and science’s best protection in looking at whether studies, evidence and information can be trusted. But if it’s just done pro forma, or people pass it off to ill prepared, overworked graduate students, or no one actually rewards you in terms of promotion for getting involved with it, then the best protection we have to verify evidence and verify that claims being made are true, is weakened significantly. And I do worry that the peer review system is not doing the job anymore to control for bias because it’s under-resourced.

4) Be cognizant of small favors, and factors other than money. As a doctor or scientist, don’t kid yourself about susceptibility to bias resulting from small incentives. And be aware that conflict is not always about money.

You have situations where doctors are prescribing medicine, and they say, ‘well, I prescribe the best medicine. I don’t believe that just because people take me to lunch, I’m going to start prescribing their medicine.’ But in fact, study after study shows that, subtly, small gifts, free lunches, free gas, and tickets to sporting or cultural events, have influence that really drive behavior. So, we may deny that small gifts can influence us, but time and again, psychology and behavioral science proves that they do.

Also, conflict of interest is about more than money. I know we ‘follow the money’ in thinking about conflict of interest and we tend to see people saying, ‘well, it’s money that generates conflict of interest problems.’ But I think it can come from other forces, too. I think it can come from political pressures and ideological pressures. I think we can see conflicts generated in the drive to succeed, the drive to be first, the drive for fame and honors. These things can create conflicts, too. So, in managing conflict of interest, it isn’t just figuring out where the money’s going, although that’s probably 85% of it. There are other forces we need to pay attention to as well.

5) Help the public understand how science works, with better science communication and with better teaching.

I think people will be more alert for conflicts of interest if they understand how science works. They won’t necessarily just say, ‘okay, I trust what you were telling me.’ They may want to get more than one opinion. They may want to go to more independent and trustworthy sources, and not just accept the views of somebody who’s trying to sell them a particular potion or nostrum.

There needs to be more effort made in the medical and scientific communities to train people to be communicators, and if you are good at it, you should be encouraged and make that part of your career. And we’ve got to get better science teaching into our schools. We need elementary and secondary school teachers who can communicate effectively about science. The public is not going to make good decisions about how to weigh opinion and evidence if we don’t have good communicators in the classroom.

Read more about Dr. Caplan’s work: The Need to Accelerate Therapeutic Development: Must Randomized Controlled Trials Give Way?

Strong Vaccine Science Advances COVID-19 Research

A shot of a syringe and dose of COVID vaccine.

Anthony Fauci says vaccine developers can build on many years of research to stay ahead of SARS-CoV-2 variants

Published February 02, 2021

By Alan Dove, PhD

Coronavirus Covid-19 Protection and Vaccine. Doctor drawing up solution from vaccine bottle and filling syringe injection for patient vaccination in medical clinic, Coronavirus in background

Anthony Fauci, MD
Dir., National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

As concerns swirl around the emergence of novel variants of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, points to reassuring results from both clinical and laboratory tests, and underscored the ability of scientists to adapt rapidly to the evolving pandemic.

The new variants, one first isolated in the UK and one in South Africa, carry mutations in the gene encoding the spike protein that all of the currently approved and candidate vaccines target. Preliminary experiments have shown that some of the antibodies patients raise in their bodies against the spike protein don’t bind as well to the variant forms.

Speaking at a New York Academy of Sciences symposium, The Quest for COVID-19 Vaccines, Fauci explained that “the diminution [in binding] is about five or six fold,” but remains within the range expected to be protective. He added that real-world clinical trial data backs that up, with the latest results from Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine showing 85% efficacy in preventing severe disease even in a South African cohort where most of the cases involved one of the feared variants.

Building Upon Decades of Previous Research

At the same time, decades of prior work have positioned vaccinologists well to respond quickly if the virus does evolve to circumvent vaccine-mediated immunity. Indeed, the COVID-19 vaccine development effort to date has already illustrated how fast that response can happen. Less than a year after the first genome sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus was published, millions of people around the world were receiving highly effective vaccines, a result Fauci calls an “extraordinary historic accomplishment.”

Putting this astonishing achievement in perspective, Fauci compared it to previous vaccine efforts. “Even as we developed more technologies, measles, for example, took ten years, hepatitis B took sixteen years, but…COVID-19 took 11 months,” said Fauci. The new pandemic vaccines were in fact decades in the making, building on a scientific legacy that is also helping researchers prepare to address new viral variants.

Tracing the history of the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines back to work on HIV vaccines in the 1990s, Fauci described the basic and applied science that built a system spring-loaded to respond to a pandemic. “Then along came SARS-CoV-2, and again, [through] that same work that dates back years, the marriage between vaccinology and structure-based vaccine design” quickly revealed the most promising antigen target for COVID-19 vaccines.

Structure-Based Design

In structure-based design, scientists begin with the atomic structure of an antigen, and predict how modifications to it could enhance its potency. For SARS-CoV-2, that process identified a specially modified version of the virus’s spike protein as the best antigen; that antigen is now the basis for nearly all currently approved and candidate COVID-19 vaccines. A parallel body of work had shown the capabilities of modern vaccine platforms such as messenger RNA, recombinant proteins, and genetically engineered viral vectors.

As the new vaccines finished preclinical trials early in 2020, their developers already had access to an established network of clinical trial sites.

“The extraordinary investments that were made decades ago in putting together the HIV clinical trial network was immediately adapted, by using many of these sites [as] part of the COVID-19 Prevention Network,” said Fauci, adding that the first phase 1 clinical trial began just over 60 days after the release of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence, a head-snapping speed for clinical development.

Effectively Combatting New Variants

Turning to the new variants originally seen in the UK and South Africa, now known as B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 respectively, Fauci added that the nature of the new vaccines’ underlying technologies will also make them relatively straightforward to update if necessary.

“Multiple companies…are now doing an upgraded version of their vaccines, which would likely serve as a boost,” said Fauci.

Regulatory authorities are already pondering how to handle such booster vaccines, but they may be able to accept an abbreviated approval process similar to the one used for seasonal flu shots. In that approach, the new boosts “would be considered by the FDA as literally a strain change,” subject to only two phases of safety and immunogenicity tests instead of full-scale phase 3 trials, said Fauci.

Efficacy versus Effectiveness

The vaccine effort also now faces obstacles that are harder to address through science and technology. Fauci contrasted the ideas of efficacy and effectiveness of a vaccine. While the former can be calculated from clinical trial data, the latter stems from how widely a community adopts the vaccine; a highly efficacious vaccine that few people get will fail to curb the virus’s spread.

“One of the challenges that we are facing [is apparent] if you look at the intent to get COVID-19 vaccines,” said Fauci, pointing to surveys that show that significant numbers of Americans remain hesitant about vaccination. “We need to respect that, but we need to try and convince them of the importance, for their own safety and the safety of their family and the American public, to get vaccinated,” he added.

Though he has made a preliminary estimate that “herd immunity,” or overall protection of the population, could require vaccination of 70-85% of the population, Fauci cautioned that those figures are just an educated guess; only long-term monitoring of infection rates will reveal when the country is effectively protected.

Also read: The COVID-19 Pandemic at Year Four: The Imperative for Global Health Solidarity

Teaming Up to Advance Brain Research

An illustrated graphic of two brains working together.

The New York Academy of Sciences and Aspen Brain Institute celebrate a decade of collaboration.

Published May 1, 2020

By Melanie Brickman Borchard, PhD, MSc

***Glenda Greenwald*** *President and Founder, Aspen Brain Institute*

Bringing together some of the world’s greatest thinkers is no small accomplishment. But a decade ago, a seemingly chance meeting in Aspen led to a partnership that would bring some of the world’s leading figures from science, politics and entertainment to landmark events in the field of neuroscience, early childhood development and STEM education.

Such innovators as Edward Boyden (MIT), George Church (Harvard), Christof Koch (Allen Institute for Brain Science), Philip Low (NeuroVigil), Helen Mayberg (Emory University), Andrew Schwartz (University of Pittsburgh), Nora Volkow (NIH) as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, First Lady of New York City Chirlane McCray, and iconic film star Goldie Hawn, Founder, The Goldie Hawn Foundation, have all been guest speakers at programs developed by the New York Academy of Sciences and the Aspen Brain Institute.

Teaming Up to Advance Brain Research

The partnership began when President Emeritus of the New York Academy of Sciences, Mr. Ellis Rubinstein, attended a dinner hosted by Aspen Brain Institute Founder and President, Glenda Greenwald at her Aspen home in the spring of 2009. They quickly discovered their mutual passion for bringing scientific knowledge to the wider community, so when Mrs. Greenwald asked President Rubinstein if he would like to partner on a global brain research conference, he promptly said yes and a partnership was born.

Since that meeting the New York Academy of Sciences and Aspen Brain Institute have brought together the most innovative, important and inspiring individuals together to discuss topics on the cutting edge of science.

“The seeds were planted between the Aspen Brain Institute (ABI) and the New York Academy of Sciences at that dinner,” said Glenda Greenwald, “and the partnership is still very much blossoming and bearing fruit.”

The Most Important Advancements in Science

In the years that followed, the two organizations developed scores of scientific symposia, public programs, podcasts, and e-Briefing multimedia reports that highlighted the most important advancements in science.

“Thanks to Glenda Greenwald’s personal participation as well as the generous support of the Aspen Brain Institute, we jointly convened a number of significant conferences that engaged some of the greatest innovators in science today,” said Ellis Rubinstein.

These joint symposia have focused on such notable topics as:

Cracking the Neural Code: Exploring how the activity of individual neurons and neuronal circuits gives rise to higher order cognition and behavior, with talks on areas like mapping neural networks;
Accelerating Translational Neurotechnology: Exploring innovative scientific, clinical, and organizational models for advancing the translation of neuroscience research into technologies for neurological and psychiatric disease;
Shaping the Developing Brain: Exploring the latest discoveries from cognitive neuroscience and experimental psychology regarding typical and atypical development of human learning and memory, emotion, and social behavior in early life; and
The Enhanced Human — Risks and Opportunities: Exploring existing and emerging enhancement technologies, with a focus on gene editing and artificial intelligence as examples of technologies with broad capabilities and ethical concerns.

“These conferences and public programs were not only scientifically outstanding, but also often awe-inspiring,” Rubinstein commented. “For me, the most moving moment was in the Bionic Skeletons and Beyond program. Watching Amanda Boxtel — a long-time paraplegic — walk across the stage thanks to a wearable bionic exoskeleton, was truly remarkable.”

Part of the Academy’s Global STEM Alliance

In 2017 the ABI began supporting the Academy’s Global STEM Alliance (GSA), a coalition of more than 250 organizations united in their commitment to increase the number and diversity of students in the STEM pipeline. For two years, the ABI sponsored a Social Impact Challenge for young, high-achieving STEM students from around the world.

“I fell in love with the GSA concept of a global, online peer network of high school students collaborating on solving world problems,” said Greenwald. “The global aspect, the STEM aspect, and the brilliant innovation of the kids were all phenomenal.”

“In working with The New York Academy of Sciences, I have appreciated their wide open vision — the ability of the organization to stay topical and timely so that we could highlight the most current and exciting research, as well as bring in the highest level scientists at our conferences,” said Greenwald.

Both organizations anticipate that their decade-long partnership will extend well into the future, with many more years of progressive and collaborative programs to come.

Good Teachers Yield Promising Returns for Confident Students

A teacher and students inside a high school science lab.

Developing a strong future workforce starts with training teachers to be confident in their instruction of computer science, starting in students’ early school years.

Published May 1, 2020

By Ravi Kumar S.

Ravi Kumar S
President, Infosys Ltd. and Chairperson Infosys Foundation USA

Over the past few years, there has been growing acknowledgment that it is important to make computer science a core component of K-12 education. And how could there not be? With 500,000 jobs currently available in the computing sector and projections that these jobs will grow at twice the rate of others, there is no ignoring that computer science is not just the future of work, but very much the present.

K-12 education should be setting our children up for postsecondary success, but multiple studies show that if students are not meaningfully exposed to STEM subjects by middle school, especially girls, they will never take an interest in them later on. How do we ensure that our children study these subjects early and continue them into their careers?

The answer is training teachers. Too often we bypass these critical members of our workforce, but that is a mistake. The average teacher will reach thousands of students throughout their career so their potential for impact in the classroom is huge. Developing a strong future workforce starts with learning computer science at a young age, and that means training and retaining confident teachers.

Here are five ways to make computer science professional development effective for teachers:

1. Offer multi-day trainings through multiple channels

Computer science can be challenging and intimidating. In order to get teachers more comfortable and familiar with the material, professional development should be sustained for multiple days rather than a one-day meeting or a single intervention seminar so they gain the confidence and competence to stand in front of their classes and teach the subject. Additionally, in-person trainings should be supplemented by online resources and coursework so teachers can continue to develop their skills and increase their facility with these concepts. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) outlines specific requirements for professional development and underscores the importance of sustained Professional Development (PD).

2. Create a community

Creating a community is key when it comes to teaching computer science, especially for teachers who are new to the subject. Successful PD should foster peer networks through online forums that encourage teachers to connect with one another, ask questions and share best practices so that success is shared across schools and states, and pain points can be worked through collaboratively.

3. Keep it collaborative and hands-on

Computer science is collaborative, so learning how to teach it should be as well. Beyond the hard-technical skills that are gained from the subject, students and teachers alike will benefit from a wide array of soft-skills — creativity, critical thinking, problem solving and collaboration. And these skills are necessary for all disciplines, so the applications are much wider than just the computing space. Furthermore, group learning helps to strengthen the community that teachers will walk away with once the PD is over.

4. Offer variety

Just like math, science or history, computer science covers a multitude of skills and subject areas, so there is no one-size-fits-all course when it comes to PD. In order to successfully integrate computer science principles across grade-levels and skill-levels, there needs to be a diverse offering so every teacher can find something that is relevant to their grade, ability and comfort-level.

5. Make it classroom relevant and contextual

PD should go beyond abstract theories and concepts, and the content should be relevant for the context in which it will be used. This means teachers should receive tools, such as lesson plans, teaching guides and other resources to support classroom instruction, and the materials should be adaptable to real-life scenarios and common core subjects so all students can take interest in what they are learning.

Underinvesting in the PD of teachers hinders the growth of our students. But if we ensure that teachers have the confidence and tools they need to bring the principles of computer science into the classroom, it will reverberate through to their students and help to light a spark in all students and build a healthy pipeline of tech talent for the future.

New Age Therapeutics: Cannabis and CBD

CBD has become the ingredient driving a billion-plus dollar market of consumer products — researchers are sorting the hype from the hope.

Published May 1, 2020

By Sonya Dougal, PhD

Image courtesy of Gelpi via stock.adobe.com.

Enter any drugstore, vitamin chain, big box store, e-commerce site, gas-station convenience store or street corner bodega and you’ll find CBD products — in shampoos, oils, vapes, gummies and even treats for people and pets. Many of these products come with creative claims of the therapeutic benefits of CBD, true or not.

Such mass market hype and wishful thinking aside, Epidiolex®, an FDA-approved breakthrough treatment for rare drug-resistant epilepsies, is currently the only CBD product (cannabidiol) demonstrated to be effective by controlled studies in people.

CBD was previously known as the non-intoxicating sibling of the psychoactive intoxicant THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) — both cannabinoids produced in the marijuana plant. Traditional medicines have used cannabis for millennia, yet the United States first placed legal restrictions on its use in the 1920s and 1930s. In 1970, marijuana became illegal under Schedule I of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act.

CBD, though, received an enormous boost when the Farm Act of 2018 allowed the legal growth and sale of hemp products which include CBD. However, THC remained illegal, along with CBD produced from marijuana. These changes have only added to the ambiguity of CBD’s status from the perspectives of both law and science.

Imagine You’re a Caveman: The Human Endocannabinoid System

In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers identified cannabinoid receptors in humans (CB1 for THC and CB2 for CBD). What they were uncovering was the human body’s own endocannabinoid system (ECS).

“It’s a system as ancient as our immune system and our central nervous system. They co-evolved and our endocannabinoid system acts as a bridge between the two,” says Yuval Cohen, CEO and Director of Corbus Pharmaceuticals. “It’s designed to help us recover from trauma and is absolutely essential to life.”

To illustrate his point, Cohen said: “Imagine you’re a caveman and you just got mauled by a saber-toothed tiger. You are injured, you’re bleeding, you’re going into shock, you’re scared, you’re in a ton of pain; the wound is swollen and tender. You’re a hot mess. And that is where your endocannabinoid system kicks in. Without it, you’re going to die in that cave. It’s that simple.”

He is describing what many CBD promoters claim as general benefits of CBD in any form: pain management, seizure control, physical and psychological trauma relief, and tissue healing. Cohen, himself, sees the endocannabinoid system as an increasingly more explored therapeutic target for new treatments of disease.

Corbus is rationally designing synthetic signaling molecules to target the human ECS receptor molecule CB2 more selectively than a plant molecule could. Corbus’ lead product candidate, lenabasum, is designed to resolve chronic inflammation and fibrotic processes without interfering with the central nervous system.

Patient-Driven Advances

***Yuval Cohen****, **Ph.D**.*
CEO and Director, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Photo: Corbus Pharmaceuticals

Elizabeth Thiele, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Pediatric Epilepsy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, has firsthand experience with the pain and courage of parents who have exhausted existing medical options for treating extremely ill children. “I think what has really set this whole CBD story apart is that it was the patient community that drove the interest. It wasn’t big pharma saying ‘Here’s this drug we had in trials’,” she said.

Dr. Thiele has direct knowledge of a couple of related cases. One family moved from Maine to Colorado so they could access a CBD product for their daughter’s debilitating, treatment-resistant

epilepsy. A second family, from California, became interested in medical marijuana when their son had trouble with the restrictions of dietary therapy. But they encountered the same difficulty many experience with extracts: consistency of the product. Eventually, the California boy became patient one for Epidiolex in the United States.

“When I first got involved with this, one of my colleagues told me I was risking my career and another that I was wasting my time,” said Thiele. “But my approach has always been that I get parents who are desperate for treatments for their child and I need to support them.”

Still, Thiele firmly warns against trying CBD products whose contents you cannot confirm: “Right now, the only data we have is that purified CBD can be effective in helping children with refractory epilepsy. Parents should be very leery of claims of CBD curing or being good for everything.”

Above and Beyond Caveat Emptor

***Margaret Haney, Ph.D.***
*Professor of Neurobiology at Columbia University Medical Center*

When states legalize something, people assume it is safe. But experts at government agencies and university-affiliated research institutes continue to seek accurate data about potential health risks associated with cannabinoids, especially for people who may be more vulnerable because of age, neurological development, pregnancy, or interactions with other medications.

THC can affect fetal and adolescent neurological development, but CBD’s effects are still being determined. Data collected during studies of Epidiolex, for example, revealed that CBD affected availability levels of the antiepileptic clobazam, requiring dosage adjustments.

Scientists are actively studying the therapeutic potential of CBD with the removal of hemp from Schedule I.

Among her responsibilities, Susan Weiss, Ph.D., National Institute on Drug Abuse, Director, Division of Extramural Research, represents NIDA in talks on cannabis, marijuana and CBD. “Our goal is to get a better understanding, to get more knowledge and to be able to present evidence in an unbiased fashion,” she said. “We are also interested in developing therapeutics for cannabis use disorder.”

The Legal Hurdles

But NIDA research is not immune to legal ambiguity, jurisdictional conflicts, and their consequential impact on science. “Our researchers can’t actually purchase products from dispensaries because they would be in violation of federal law,” Weiss said. “As a result, NIDA must depend on people self-reporting what they’re using. But we don’t have access to those products to get a good sense of their dangers.”

Margaret Haney, Ph.D., Professor of Neurobiology, Columbia University Medical Center, is a leading researcher on cannabis use disorder but also explores the science behind specific areas of therapeutic value for THC and CBD. “I feel like there’s an anti-science moment right now where people are just believing,” she said. “They’re distrustful of pharma but not of the person selling them CBD at the farmer’s market. People aren’t aware that it’s just snake oil all over again.”

According to Haney, what most stands in the way of large-scale rigorous clinical studies is the DEA Schedule I status for cannabis and cannabinoids, which essentially shuts down the ability to conduct these studies. “If scientists could treat cannabis and its constituents as Schedule II, that would open things up tremendously,” she said.

The Entourage Effect

Ziva Cooper, Ph.D., Research Director of the UCLA Cannabis Research Initiative and Associate Professor in the Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, understands the strong arguments for the purity, precision and predictability that synthesized THC or CBD molecules can provide in a rationalized drug design approach. But as a pharmacologist she wonders if potential benefits may be lost the further away a drug molecule moves from the whole plant.

“You want to know what the individual constituents do, but then there is this idea that the whole plant can offer greater therapeutic potential because it has all these different chemical components — some call this the entourage effect,” said Cooper.

“This hypothesis hasn’t really been tested in the clinic yet. We’re hoping to begin studying that very soon to determine if these different molecules in the plant work together to improve the potential therapeutic effects of cannabis. Will the combination of these chemicals be effective? What can we expect it will do? What are the risks we should be aware of? I’m confident that over the next 10 to 15 years we’ll actually be able to answer some of these questions,” said Cooper.

Dan Zenowich, a freelance health writer, contributed to this story.

Also read: What Near-Death and Psychedelic Experiences Reveal about Human Consciousness

A Professional Case for Effective Networking

An illustration of a woman networking with people on the computer.

Networking is a skill that needs to be practiced. Here’s how to overcome the self-imposed barriers that may be standing in the way of becoming good at it.

Published May 1, 2020

By Srikant Iyer, PhD

No one knows who first coined the popular saying “It’s not what you know that counts so much as who you know …” although there is some evidence it was first used in 1914 in The Electrical Worker, a publication of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union. Origins aside, there is a good deal of truth behind these words, and most career guidance experts will agree that the most effective way to advance one’s career is by leveraging a network of contacts.

Networking helps cultivate relationships that pave the path for our future. However, many STEM professionals just starting out find the idea of networking daunting. Thoughts like “I don’t feel comfortable asking for help”, “I don’t want to bother people”, “My research is very niche and I can’t dumb it down” become self-imposed barriers towards shaping one’s career journey and often prevent individuals from exploring new career opportunities and connecting to potential colleagues.

Make It Easy for People to Remember You

Networking is defined as the exchange of information and ideas among people with a common profession or special interest, usually in an informal social setting. Shruti Sharma, Program Manager at Stony Brook University moved from India to the U.S. for her Ph.D.

“In the U.S. the culture of being a self-promoter felt foreign to me,” she said. “I was raised in a culture where one’s work is supposed to speak for itself.”

She identified networks like the Academy’s Science Alliance Leadership Training (SALT) where she found the safe space to navigate the cultural differences.

“I realized that for my work to speak, I needed to communicate my skills and achievements to build a community of allies and advocates,” adds Sharma. This helped her leverage both the individualistic and community-based cultures to her advantage.

Satish Rajaram (SALT Alum), Engineer and Scientist at TRI Austin, says, “It is important to articulate your story for your personality to show, and to separate yourself from others with similar backgrounds.” As a Graduate Writing Consultant and mentor to undergraduate students, Rajaram recommends the value of being specific about one’s experience — it provides context to conversations and makes you more marketable — an important trait when applying for a job.

Success Takes Time and Effort

Effective networking requires strategic preparation and being mindful of leveraging assertive ways to succeed when building relationships. Arthee Jahangir, Assistant Director, Postdoctoral Affairs at New York University School of Medicine, believed that by being a consistent high performer the merit based system would reward her, and her gender would not be a hindrance. But despite being a lead entrepreneur, Jahangir, like many women in science, experienced systemic barriers of being overlooked in favor of her male colleagues at networking events and pitches.

“I started to become [aware of] unconscious bias and micro-aggression that permeated the bubble I lived in, and learned strategies to counteract it by controlling my own narrative,” says Jahangir.

Getting others to talk about their own career path facilitates conversations and builds relationships. Monika Buczek (SALT Alum), Business Development Manager and Scientific Project Leader at Champions Oncology Inc., used the “identify common ground approach” to connect with, and cold contact, individuals on LinkedIn. In her informational conversations Monika would ask such questions as: “If you could change anything about your path what would you change?” and “What would you tell yourself at the beginning of your journey?” to cultivate relationships.

Networking is a skill that needs to be practiced. Regardless if you are an introvert or an extrovert, practicing talking to your immediate circle, e.g. friends, colleagues, supervisors and even vendors, is a first step to building your network.

Join professional associations and attend conferences to build a portfolio of people you’d like to meet. Cultivate your narrative to feel confident about approaching people. Email leaders in your field you admire and request a meeting. You may not always get a positive response, but it’s a “no” if you don’t ask!

Older posts

Newer posts