Can a good tree bring forth evil fruit? The funding of medical research by industry

Reviewing the association between aluminum adjuvants in the vaccines and autism spectrum disorder

The manuscript reviews the association between aluminum adjuvants (AlAd) in vaccines and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Aluminum (Al) is neurotoxic. Infants who have received AlAd in vaccines show a higher rate of ASD. The behavior of mice changes with Al injection. Patients suffering from ASD have higher concentrations of Al in their brains. Thus, AlAd is an etiologic factor in ASD. Immune efficacy led to the use of the AlAd in vaccines; however, the safety of those who are vaccinated with such vaccines has not been considered. The mechanisms of action of AlAd and the pharmacodynamics of injected AlAd used in vaccines are not well-characterized. The association between aluminum adjuvants in the vaccines and autism spectrum disorder is suggested by multiple lines of evidence.

Effects of e-cigarettes and vaping devices on cardiac and pulmonary physiology

E-cigarette aerosols are exceedingly different from conventional tobacco smoke, containing dozens of chemicals not found in cigarette smoke. It is highly likely that chronic use of e-cigarettes will induce pathological changes in both the heart and lungs. Here we review human and animal studies published to date and summarize the cardiopulmonary physiological changes caused by vaping. In terms of cardiac physiology, acute exposure to e-cigarette aerosols in human subjects led to increased blood pressure and heart rate, similar to traditional cigarettes. Chronic exposure to e-cigarette aerosols using animal models caused increased arterial stiffness, vascular endothelial changes, increased angiogenesis, cardiorenal fibrosis and increased atherosclerotic plaque formation. Pulmonary physiology is also affected by e-cigarette aerosol inhalation, with increased airway reactivity, airway obstruction, inflammation and emphysema. Research thus far demonstrates that the heart and lung undergo numerous changes in response to e-cigarette use, and disease development will depend on how those changes combine with both environmental and genetic factors. E-cigarettes have been advertised as a healthy alternative to cigarette smoking, and users are under the impression that vaping of e-cigarettes is harmless, but these claims that e-cigarettes are safer and healthier are not based on evidence. Data from both humans and animal models are consistent in demonstrating that vaping of e-cigarettes causes health effects both similar to and disparate from those of cigarette smoking. Further work is needed to define the long-term cardiopulmonary effects of e-cigarette use in humans.

Genome Editing for Rare Diseases

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Significant numbers of patients worldwide are affected by various rare diseases, but the effective treatment options to these individuals are limited. Rare diseases remain underfunded compared to more common diseases, leading to significant delays in research progress and ultimately, to finding an effective cure. Here, we review the use of genome-editing tools to understand the pathogenesis of rare diseases and develop additional therapeutic approaches with a high degree of precision.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several genome-editing approaches, including CRISPR/Cas9, TALEN and ZFN, have been used to generate animal models of rare diseases, understand the disease pathogenesis, correct pathogenic mutations in patient-derived somatic cells and iPSCs, and develop new therapies for rare diseases. The CRISPR/Cas9 system stands out as the most extensively used method for genome editing due to its relative simplicity and superior efficiency compared to TALEN and ZFN. CRISPR/Cas9 is emerging as a feasible gene-editing option to treat rare monogenic and other genetically defined human diseases.

SUMMARY

Less than 5% of ~7000 known rare diseases have FDA-approved therapies, providing a compelling need for additional research and clinical trials to identify efficient treatment options for patients with rare diseases. Development of efficient genome-editing tools capable to correct or replace dysfunctional genes will lead to novel therapeutic approaches in these diseases.

Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, open science has become central to experimental, public health, and clinical responses across the globe. Open science (OS) is described as an open commons, in which a right to science renders all possible scientific data for everyone to access and use. In this common space, capitalist platforms now provide many essential services and are taking the lead in public health activities. These neoliberal businesses, however, have a problematic role in the capture of public goods. This paper argues that the open commons is a community of rights, consisting of people and institutions whose interests mutually support the public good. If OS is a cornerstone of public health, then reaffirming the public good is its overriding purpose, and unethical platforms ought to be excluded from the commons and its benefits.

Rare Opportunities: CRISPR/Cas-Based Therapy Development for Rare Genetic Diseases

Rare diseases pose a global challenge, in that their collective impact on health systems is considerable, whereas their individually rare occurrence impedes research and development of efficient therapies. In consequence, patients and their families are often unable to find an expert for their affliction, let alone a cure. The tide is turning as pharmaceutical companies embrace gene therapy development and as serviceable tools for the repair of primary mutations separate the ability to create cures from underlying disease expertise. Whereas gene therapy by gene addition took decades to reach the clinic by incremental disease-specific refinements of vectors and methods, gene therapy by genome editing in its basic form merely requires certainty about the causative mutation. Suddenly we move from concept to trial in 3 years instead of 30: therapy development in the fast lane, with all the positive and negative implications of the phrase. Since their first application to eukaryotic cells in 2013, the proliferation and refinement in particular of tools based on clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) prokaryotic RNA-guided nucleases has prompted a landslide of therapy-development studies for rare diseases. An estimated thousands of orphan diseases are up for adoption, and legislative, entrepreneurial, and research initiatives may finally conspire to find many of them a good home. Here we summarize the most significant recent achievements and remaining hurdles in the application of CRISPR/Cas technology to rare diseases and take a glimpse at the exciting road ahead.

Time for complete transparency about conflicts of interest in public health nutrition research

We are a group of researchers and academics with decades of experience in the protection and promotion of public health. We are writing to raise our concerns about how conflicts of interest are reported in public health nutrition research. We highlight examples of why it is important to accurately declare such conflicts, as well as providing examples of situations in which conflicts of interest have been inadequately reported. We call on researchers, and others, to be transparent about conflicts of interest in research. Journal editors in particular have an important responsibility in fully understanding how conflicts of interest can impact on research findings and interpretations. They need to agree and adopt clear guidelines on conflicts of interest and ensure that authors abide by these to facilitate trust in the scientific process and the credibility of published articles.

Time for complete transparency about conflicts of interest in public health nutrition research

We are a group of researchers and academics with decades of experience in the protection and promotion of public health. We are writing to raise our concerns about how conflicts of interest are reported in public health nutrition research. We highlight examples of why it is important to accurately declare such conflicts, as well as providing examples of situations in which conflicts of interest have been inadequately reported. We call on researchers, and others, to be transparent about conflicts of interest in research. Journal editors in particular have an important responsibility in fully understanding how conflicts of interest can impact on research findings. They need to agree and adopt clear guidelines on conflicts of interest and ensure that authors abide by these to facilitate trust in the scientific process and the credibility of published articles.

Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good

This paper considers the tensions created in genomic research by public and private for-profit ideals. Our intent is to strengthen the public good at a time when doing science is strongly motivated by market possibilities and opportunities. Focusing on the emergence of gene editing, and in particular CRISPR, we consider how commercialisation encourages hype and hope-a sense that only promise and idealism can achieve progress. At this rate, genomic research reinforces structures that promote, above all else, private interests, but that may attenuate conditions for the public good of science. In the first part, we situate genomics using the aphorism that 'on the shoulders of giants we see farther'; these giants are infrastructures and research cultures rather than individual 'heroes' of science. In this respect, private initiatives are not the only pivot for successful discovery, and indeed, fascination in those could impinge upon the fundamental role of public-supported discovery. To redress these circumstances, we define the extent to which progress presupposes research strategies that are for the public good. In the second part, we use a 'falling giant' narrative to illustrate the risks of over-indulging for-profit initiatives. We therefore offer a counterpoint to commercialised science, using three identifiable 'giants'-scientists, publics and cultures-to illustrate how the public good contributes to genomic discovery.

Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity

BACKGROUND

The avalanche of commentaries on CRISPR-Cas9 technology, a bacterial immune system modified to recognize any short DNA sequence, cut it out, and insert a new one, has rekindled hopes for gene therapy and other applications and raised criticisms of engineering genes in future generations.

SOURCES OF DATA

This discussion draws on articles that emphasize ethics, identified partly through PubMed and Google, 2014-2016.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

CRISPR-Cas9 has taken the pace and prospects for genetic discovery and applications to a high level, stoking anticipation for somatic gene engineering to help patients. We support a moratorium on germ line manipulation.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

We place increased emphasis on the principle of solidarity and the public good. The genetic bases of some diseases are not thoroughly addressable with CRISPR-Cas9. We see no new ethical issues, compared with gene therapy and genetic engineering in general, apart from the explosive rate of findings. Other controversies include eugenics, patentability and unrealistic expectations of professionals and the public.

GROWING POINTS

Biggest issues are the void of research on human germ cell biology, the appropriate routes for oversight and transparency, and the scientific and ethical areas of reproductive medicine.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The principle of genomic solidarity and priority on public good should be a lens for bringing clarity to CRISPR debates. The valid claim of genetic exceptionalism supports restraint on experimentation in human germ cells, given the trans-generational dangers and the knowledge gap in germ cell biology.

Conflicts of interest among committee members in the National Academies' genetically engineered crop study

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) publishes numerous reports each year that are received with high esteem by the scientific community and public policy makers. The NASEM has internal standards for selecting committee members that author its reports, mostly from academia, and vetting conflicts of interest. This study examines whether there were any financial conflicts of interest (COIs) among the twenty invited committee members who wrote the 2016 report on genetically engineered (GE) crops. Our results showed that six panel members had one or more reportable financial COIs, none of which were disclosed in the report. We also report on institutional COIs held by the NASEM related to the report. The difference between our findings and the NASEM reporting standards are discussed.