Click here to edit title
abc tv and doctor who discussion site
Forums
| Forum Home > ABC TV & General Discussion > Science News. | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Member Posts: 7839 |
Now for some good news ............ Researchers in Melbourne have made a significant breakthrough in understanding the body's immune response to the influenza virus, which could pave the way for a universal vaccine that provides lifelong immunity against all strains of flu. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-30/lifelong-flu-vaccine-a-possibility-with-new-research/7285520 | |
--
| ||
|
Moderator Posts: 21945 |
Patent it fast ! | |
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 7839 |
Space News: Two-faced alien planet 55 Cancri e has solid and liquid surfaces, maps reveal. Whovians will recognise the artist's impression of 55 Cancri e, it looks like Trenzalore ! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/two-faced-alien-planet-55-cancri-e-has-solid-and-liquid-surfaces/7287638 | |
--
| ||
|
Moderator Posts: 21945 |
Antarctica's melting ice alone could lift sea levels one metre by 2100, doubling previous forecasts http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/antarctica's-melting-ice-could-lift-seas-one-metre-by-2100/7286782 | |
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 4499 |
Just a word of caution - always take care in taking these stories at face value. The claims may be true but ... Deadlines for grant applications for government funding of research are always in March each year and final decisions about who receives funding usually occurs by late September/early October. During the time that the grants are assessed there are periodic culls, i.e. several stages of assessment in which the applications are successively whittled down until you end up with the lucky few. Government expenditure on research has been progressively reduced over time, especially over the last 40 years. Therefore, competition for funding has correspondingly increased. Australian universities have responded in part by marketing the value of their research in the media. The usual message used by the project PR people is that we are on the verge of a major discovery or breakthrough ... but only if we have that extra funding. Sometimes that claim is true, sometimes it is exaggerated, other times one simply does not know if a major breakthrough or discovery is around the corner. But that does not matter to the PR people, because their job is to promote the importance of projects so that grant assessors and the public stand up and take notice. Gone are the days when projects are funded purely on merit. It is also based on who can get the best PR stories picked up by the mainstream media. Media lobbying usually occurs at this time of the year - just after the grant applications have been submitted, again around July when another stage of culling by the grant assessment teams occur, and then in September or October, just before the final funding decisions are made. These are the times when the most science stories appear in the news, especially on the ABC. Trust me on this one. I submit grant applications too! | |
|
--
| ||
|
Moderator Posts: 21945 |
I have no doubt that what you say is true. I don't think I'll live long enough (not that I'm ill) to see many of the exciting discoveries especially in the medical field implemented, and there is obviously a lot of over optimism going on in regards to reasearch. However, it's good to know what sort of research is going on. Somewhere in there could be a gem. | |
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 4499 |
Yes, I agree it is good to be aware of these research projects. The thing I find frustrating is that the claims and predictions by researchers in the scientific literature (journals) are often different or not as bold (i.e they are being truthful) as the claims in mainstream media releases prepared by PR people. | |
|
--
| ||
|
Moderator Posts: 21945 |
A very disturbing article The antibiotics dilemma: Why we're running out of drugs to treat the superbugs | |
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 7839 |
We were warned about this years ago, but very few people chose to listen. | |
--
| ||
|
Moderator Posts: 21945 |
What's disturbing to me is our reliance on the pharma companies to research and produce the drugs. We use to have the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories but Howard sold it off (dickhead) We really need a capability to produce antibiotics without having to worry about profits. | |
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 16431 |
I agree totally with you Photon. I retired just on 31 years ago and before that, working in a chest clinic which had been set up mainly for TB patienrts to be treated, we talked amongst ourselves how TB, then being successfully treated with one drug reserved solely for that purpose, the disease would re-appear in ten years if the drug was used for anything else. We were well out with our calculations. Rifampicin was released for general use and untreatable TB reappeared in five years. TB control was handed over to general medical practitioners and the special clinics were closed. Funding has been cut from the frantic research to find new antibiotics so the bugs are winning and we have no choice but to accept the result of that. Those of us without the required knowledge of the future danger felt entitled to have the new miracle medicine for whatever ailed us, the medical staff obliged, and now here we are with viruses that are smart enough to change and so be able to resist the antibiotics available. A sad story but a true one. | |
| ||
|
Member Posts: 4499 |
This is only one (albeit a signifcant) part of the story, it is more complicated than this. Please forgive my indulgence ... There's scientific evidence to suggest that some populations of viruses and bacteria are evolving to become less potent, but at the same time becoming more infectious. There are two types of pathogens (organisms that cause infections): 1. Those that are highly contagious and infect and kill the host (infected animal or plant) before it has a chance to reproduce. The host infects other individuals through close contact, ensuring the long-term survival of the pathogenic population. That is, the population survives by spreading through the same generation of host individuals. 2. Those that are not as potent (i.e. has a low probability of killing the host before it has a chance to reproduce) but still highly contagious (infectious), allowing the pathogen to be transferred from one generation to subsequent generations through host reproduction. Pathogens in Group No. 1 have a high chance of extinction if they are too potent because killing their host before it has a chance to breed may cause the host to become extinct or at least reduce host population sizes to the extent that fewer individuals come in contact with each other and the chances of a pathogen infecting new individuals are significantly reduced. Pathogens in Group No. 2 have a lower chance of extinction because they make their hosts sick, but not sick enough to kill them before they've had a chance to breed. Therefore, pathogen has a chance to infect individuals in the same generation, as well as being passed onto the offspring of the host species. The more infectious and less potent the species of pathogen, the greater the chance of it being passed from one host individual to another, hence the greater the chance that the pathogen species survives and evolves. Antibiotic drugs kill pathogens that are in both Groups 1 & 2, but a proportion of the pathogens survive because they are naturally resistant to the drugs. However, death of pathogens through the use of antibiotics has the same effect as a host dying before it has a chance to breed or infect other host individuals, i.e. an increased risk of pathogenic extinction. Therefore, natural selection favours individuals within a pathogenic population that are not only resistant to the antibiotics, but also individuals that may not be resistant but are more contagious (i.e. have the ability of spreading to other hosts before a specific host is treated with antibiotics). This is what is happening with bacterial staph infections (one group of superbugs) in hosptials today. Antibiotics still jump-start the immune systems of patients to fight the staph infections, but the staph bacteria are evolving to become more contagious and less potent. That is they are becoming more infectious and taking longer to kill patients (if the patient does indeed die) so that more patients (hosts) become infected, reducing the risk of the bacteria becoming extinct. | |
|
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 4499 |
My apologies, I have just reread what I wrote above and concluded that I wasn't clear with the punch line at the end. The point I am trying to make is one can create more antibiotic drugs, but if the superbug has the ability to infect new hosts before the new drug stimulates the host's immune system to fight it (i.e. the superbug has evolved to be more infectious and move more quickly through the host population), then the new antibiotics aren't going to be that effective. | |
|
--
| ||
|
Moderator Posts: 21945 |
Silly question, but why can't we evolve drugs that modify themselves to fight bacteria that have modified themselves, if you follow me; ie the drugs automatically change as the bacteria they are fighting change ? | |
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 4499 |
I suppose it is difficult to predict ahead of time how pathogens will evolve over time and thus produce drugs that are "programmed" to respond to those changes. The number of possible genomic changes (mutations) that can occur in a pathogen, even a simple one, are endless, it would be impossible to design a single antibiotic that would respond positively to every change. Moreover, each new drug has to be tested experimentally to make sure that it does not have any significant detrimental health effects on humans. There's no guarantee that a drug that modifies itself would not have a detrimental effect on human health. | |
|
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 16431 |
I quite understand what you are telling us Tardis. What I wrote was only one example of what happened all these years ago. The answer then was that six months treatment with three drugs, one of which was Rifampicin, and a person was CURED, not merely made sufficiently better and safe to be in the community, but obviously that assessment proved to be wrong. Some showed the disease reactivated. The fact is the bugs can and do change more quickly than humans can produce more antibiotics that are safe to use. Unfortunately this is , in part, due to financial restraints put on the scientists who are trying their best to give us what we need. | |
| ||
|
Member Posts: 7839 |
Researchers from the University of Queensland have partnered with Aboriginal rangers at Camooweal near the Queensland-Northern Territory border to farm spinifex grass for the commercial manufacture of the world's strongest, thinnest condoms. It is hard to imagine the spikey, prickly grass would ever be pleasant to touch, but the unique research project found it contained long fibres that dramatically increased the durability of plastics and rubbers. So remember guys: If its not on, Its not on ! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-03/researchers-indigenous-rangers-partner-to-farm-spinifex-condoms/7292098 | |
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 7839 |
Researchers from the University of Queensland have partnered with Aboriginal rangers at Camooweal near the Queensland-Northern Territory border to farm spinifex grass for the commercial manufacture of the world's strongest, thinnest condoms. It is hard to imagine the spikey, prickly grass would ever be pleasant to touch, but the unique research project found it contained long fibres that dramatically increased the durability of plastics and rubbers. So remember guys: If its not on, Its not on ! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-03/researchers-indigenous-rangers-partner-to-farm-spinifex-condoms/7292098 | |
--
| ||
|
Moderator Posts: 21945 |
NASA releases 3 million photos of Earth
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/nasa-releases-3-million-photos-of-earth/7302686
| |
--
| ||
|
Member Posts: 7839 |
Well those were some impressive happy snaps weren't they. Best of all, not one hipster or bogan in sight ! | |
--
| ||
You must login to post.