Category Archives: Science Communicators

Global domination of teleost fish

With humans surviving on every continent, it is easy to believe that we are the dominant species on earth. However, humans live on land which takes up only 29% of the earth’s surface. The other 71% of earth is covered by water. Here a different class of organisms dominate, the teleost fish.

What are teleost?

Teleost fish are the largest group of ray-finned fishes with over 26, 000 species. Approximately 96% of fish on the planet are considered teleost.

Teleost fish are the largest infraclass of Actinopterygii, the ray-finned fish. Image taken from Wikimedia.

Teleost fish are often identified by their:

  • Symmetric forked tail structure
  • Moveable upper jaw
  • Swim bladder
  • Unique eye structure

Teleost fish include many well known species such as rainbow trout, piranhas, and clownfish. Some examples of non-teleost fish include the sharks, rays,  sturgeons, and lampreys.

Sturgeon is an example of a non-teleost fish. Image taken by Melissa Shavlik.

Current reserach with teleost

How did these teleost fish win the evolutionary race against other species and dominate today’s oceans? Dr. Brauner, a researcher in the Department of Zoology at UBC, attempted to solve this mystery through his research article, “A novel acidification mechanism for greatly enhanced oxygen supply to the fish retina.”  which was published this August. In this article, Dr. Brauner explains how the presence of a unique blood vessel structure (choroid rete mirabile), behind the eye is lined with a type of protein (vacuolar-type H+-ATPase) that is part of an efficient chemical mechanism in the eye. These factors allow teleost to be more sensitive to light over their competition.

The eyes of the teleost fish have fewer visible blood vessels in the eye compared to other species. Image created by Chris Betcher.

While the cause of teleost dominance has yet to be proven, Dr. Brauner hopes to find answers to this in the future as well as using this research to help better understand how the acidification of the ocean could affect teleost fish. He also noted that oxygen delivery is a hot topic in the cancer research field and that this mechanism could help us better understand and treat cancer in the future.

Fish Physiology series co-editors Dr. Colin Brauner and Dr. Anthony Farrell. Image from UBC Library.

In the following video, Dr. Brauner elaborates in detail on the eye mechanisms of teleost fish along with explanations on the sheer efficiency inside the teleost fish eyes compared to human eyes. 

How the teleost changed over time

The HOOKED podcast segment features a discussion on the significance of teleost dominance, along with additional evolutionary mechanisms that were developed by the teleost fish species. 

Mysteries of the teleost that have yet to be unlocked.

While the true factors which caused the teleost class of fish to become evolutionary dominant remains a mystery, researchers like Dr. Brauner are using various mechanisms to help us try and find these answers. This could ultimately lead to the uncovering of new truths about evolution, the history of fish, how these fish will be affected by climate change, as well as helping us better understand the species which we share a planet with. After all how can humanity plan for the future without understanding those we share the planet with?

– A collaboration by Michelle Huynh, JD Villareal, Gordon Wu, & Yoshinao Matsubara

Additional sources: The Hooked Podcast uses bubble sound effects and congo sound effects from soundbible.com.

A new horizon for cancer research

Unfortunately, even at the time of publishing this article, many people around the world are battling cancer in a fight for their lives. For these people and their loved ones, receiving efficacious cancer treatment is of the utmost priority. It is currently estimated that close to 1 in 2 Canadians will end up developing cancer, and about 1 in 4 Canadians are expected to die as a result of cancer.

Evolution of cancer therapy

Cancer therapy has come a long way, but getting to where we are today would not be possible without the research that started 40 to 50 years ago. In the podcast below Dr. Chris Orvig, a researcher and professor at the University of British Columbia, describes how cancer therapy has evolved over the years and how it has become what it is today.

Concerns of current cancer therapy

Currently, most cancer treatments revolve around chemotherapy, which aims to destroy cancer cells. However, chemotherapy also results in the damage of non-cancerous cells within the body, which causes a host of side effects. The result of this subpar cellular targeting is that patients often experience debilitating side effects such as hair loss, organ damage, and reduction in memory and cognitive ability, just to name a few.

Common side effects of cancer on the body. (Medical News Today)

Targeted Alpha Therapy: A better alternative

In the hopes of finding a more effective cancer treatment with minimal toxic effects, Dr. Orvig and his team of researchers set out to find a viable alternative. In their study published in March 2020, they aimed to determine the effectiveness of targeted alpha therapy, a relatively new form of cancer therapy, using a radioactive metal isotope (actinium-225) and a binding agent for the metal (H4py4pa).

To gain a better understanding of how this mechanism works, the video below has Dr. Chris Orvig going through some of the chemistry behind targeted alpha therapy.

Dr. Chris Orvig and his team found that actinium-225 and H4py4pa are very compatible—in fact, even more compatible than they had hypothesized. Therefore, by coupling actinium-225 and H4py4pa, they were able to have great localization when targeting the cancer cells. However, more research is necessary to confirm the effectiveness of this treatment even though recent trials offer promising results.

Looking forward

Around the world, researchers like Dr. Orvig are constantly working on advancing our understanding of cancer and cancer therapy through novel and innovative solutions. Targeted alpha therapy has become an emerging therapeutic option for cancer patients, and leaves future scientists with many possibilities to develop and expand upon the topic. Currently, there is a lack of effective cancer treatments that result in minimal side effects. As scientists continue to investigate and understand the complex nature of cancer, hope is the sustaining force in this inquiry.

Written by Alessandra Liu, Harman Sandhu, Mehdi Mesbahnejad, Tae Hyung Kim

Failure to Communicate

Introduction 

Right now communicating science to the general public is more important than ever, and we are failing. Less than 50% of Americans say they would receive a vaccine for COVID-19. This shows the eroding trust that the public has for their once highly esteemed scientist. This is the result of breakdowns in the scientific method that have led to conflicting information being shared with the public.

Mask  Wearing

Perhaps the most notable slip up was the controversy surrounding masks.  While recommended now, it was not until April 3rd, three months into the pandemic, that the CDC began recommending the general public to wear a mask. This was in direct conflict with their earlier statements that only healthcare workers needed masks.  Scientists rushed conclusions that could not be properly verified before being shared with the public. The public demanded answers from a process that can take years, in a matter of weeks. By caving in to public demand, the CDC and World Health Organization were inevitably set up for failure as the pandemic progressed and more data was collected leading to new developments. Tweets from the U.S surgeon general like this

Tweet by Surgeon General Feb 29

only serve to fuel distrust when compared with tweets he makes a few months later.

Tweet by Surgeon General June 14

 

I do not fault scientists for changing their opinion as new data became available, but I do fault (some) scientists for stating their answers with confidence when the proper research and review had not been conducted.

 

Treatment

Image: flickr

Scientists have been under enormous pressure to find treatments for COVID-19 that can reduce mortality and infection rate. This has created haste in the scientific method and has allowed some treatments to receive emergency authorization from the FDA such as remdesivir. Even these emergency authorizations are accompanied by randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that assure treatments are safe. These methods for testing were not present in the study of Hydroxychloroquine that led to its eventual emergency authorization.  The original study involved only 26 patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine that were compared to 16 untreated patients at a different hospital. Later studies conducted on Hydroxychloroquine would question its effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 and thus the scientific process was able to correct itself and the FDA revoked the use of Hydroxychloroquine. However, the public once again lost its trust in doctors. This opened the door to rumors and conspiracy theories to dominate the public view. In a pandemic where time is everything the spread of misinformation costs lives

By allowing leniency in the scientific method, we have opened the flood gates to all types of information being thrust onto the pedestal once reserved for the conclusion from the scientific method. Your uncle’s Facebook post about the healing power of Clorox bleach carries as much weight as the cutting edge research on COVID-19. Scientists have lost credibility with the public. This is not the first time this has happened, but it may be the most damaging.

 

Dylan Chambers

COVID-19: Environmental Impacts of the Masks

Have you ever thought that the masks we are wearing everyday might be polluting the environment? With the rise of COVID-19 pandemic, usage of masks have become such a natural and crucial part of people’s lives. However, as production and disposal of masks increase, environmental consequences of used masks are starting to be observed.

Corona, Mask, Waste, Coronavirus, Covid-19, Pandemic

Corona Mask Waste“, by Roksans96, licensed under Pixabay

Why are the masks being environmental threat?

Among many different types of masks currently produced, the most commonly used one are the surgical masks. High usage of surgical masks is due to safety provided by anti-droplet polypropylene filter layer of the masks. Since COVID-19 is known to be a droplet-borne disease, polypropylene filter layer became favorable feature to many individuals, especially to those working in hospitals and medical field. Given the fact the medical field workers are needed more than ever before with increasing number of infected individuals, production and disposal of surgical masks and polypropylene filter layer became inevitable.

File:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.jpg

“Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic“, by Paladin Zhang, licensed under CC BY 2.0

The concern lies in that surgical masks are mostly disposed after a single use because of possible bacterial cross-contamination upon multiple usage. Polypropylene is not readily biodegradable, which means as its usage escalates rapidly, its disposal might end up being long-lasting environmental concern.

Impact on marine ecology

Some of the environmental issues regarding mask wastes are already observable in some parts of the world. One of the first countries to face the environmental consequences of mask litter was Hong Kong, which was one of the first countries to face COVID-19 outbreak.

YouTube Preview Image

Description: Soko Island in Hong Kong polluted with COVID-19 mask waste.

Video Credit: South China Morning Post

Many of masks litters ended up in the coastal areas, where the wastes appeared to be serious threat to the marine ecology. Many marine predators might swallow mask wastes confusing the masks with their preys, and birds that live near coastal area are often entangled by disposed mask wastes.

pollution drina plastic waste free photo

“Pollution Drina Plastic Waste Free Photo“, by geraldsimon00, licensed under Pixabay

How is this issue being addressed?

After direct environmental impacts of mask wastes were observed, the need for more eco-friendly masks was highlighted. Therefore, scientists started working on development of mask materials that can replace polypropylene while keeping the strong anti-droplet effect of the filter layer.

One of the approaches were made by BioProducts Institute at the University of British Columbia. The research team attempted using wood fibers from local trees to make filter layer. Wood fibers are easily biodegradable, so even if mask litters end up in the environment, it would not be an environmental threat.

Another approach was made by Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The research team in the university used laser to induce properties of graphene on the mask. Graphene is hydrophobic, which means that it is effective in repelling droplets. Also, graphene has photothermal property, meaning it heats up under extensive exposure to sunlight. In this process, mask can be sterilized, and this antibacterial activity allows multiple reuse of masks. In this way, the amount of mask disposed will decrease significantly.

The ideal crystalline structure of graphene is a hexagonal grid.”, by AlexanderAlUS, licesned licensed under CC BY 2.0

However, all of the scientific technologies are still in developing stages. There are still some concerns in applying them to commercial masks yet. Still, with many scientist putting efforts to overcome this issue, I believe the solution will be found soon.

– Tae Hyung Kim

How America’s Scientist Failed to Communicate Science

Right now communicating science to the general public is more important than ever, and we are failing. With less than 50% of Americans saying they would receive a vaccine for COVID-19 if it were approved today shows the eroding trust that the public has for their once highly esteemed scientist.

 

Where did we go wrong? Perhaps we can trace this back to the article published in 1998 by the Lancet linking autism and vaccines. However, in the January before COVID-19  a poll found that only 10% of Americans believed that vaccines caused autism. This cannot explain the nearly 50% of Americans who fear a potential COVID-19 vaccine just 4 months later. I believe the seeds of mistrust were sown during this pandemic. The line of communication between scientist and the public, once pristine, has been scarred by misinformation and rushed conclusions.

Perhaps the most notable slip up was the controversy surrounding masks.  While commonplace (and in many cases mandatory) now it was not until April 3rd,3 months into the pandemic, that the CDC began recommending the general public to wear a mask. This was in direct conflict with their earlier statements that only healthcare workers needed masks. The rush of the pandemic has upended the scientific process. Scientist rushed conclusions that could not be properly verified before being shared with the public. The public demanded answers from a process that can take years, in a matter of weeks. By caving in to public demand, the CDC and World Health Organization were inevitably set up for failure as the virus progressed and more data was collected leading to contradicting statements. This trial and error is an important part of the scientific method, but it is rarely shared with the public in real time as viable information. So tweets from the U.S surgeon general like this only serve to fuel distrust when compared with tweets he makes a few months later. I do not fault scientist for changing their opinion as new data becomes available, but I do fault (some) scientist for stating their answers with the same confidence as answers that result from years of work and scrutiny from peers.

 

As the race to find a vaccine has taken off, so has the search for a treatment. Scientist have been under enormous pressure to find treatments for COVID-19 that can reduce mortality and infection rate. This has created haste in the scientific method and has allowed some treatments to receive emergency authorization from the FDA such as remdesivir. Even these emergency authorizations are accompanied by randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that make sure these treatments are safe. These studies involved hundreds of patients of varying backgrounds and age groups. None of these sound scientific methods for testing were present in the study of Hydroxychloroquine that led to its eventual emergency authorization.  The original study that sparked interest in Hydroxychloroquine involved only 32 patients. 26 were treated with Hydroxychloroquine and 16 were not. The researchers concluded that despite their small sample size “our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19“. Despite its merger sample size and lack of randomization, the study was enough to propel Hydroxchloroquine past the normally rigorous FDA approval process. Later studies conducted on Hydroxychloroquine would questions it effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 and thus the scientific process was able to correct itself and the FDA revoked the use of Hydroxychloroquine as treatment for COVID-19. However, the damage was done. The public once again lost its trust in doctors. This opened the door to rumours and conspiracy theories to dominate the publics view. Social media has only exacerbated this spread of misinformation. This allowed the spread of a rumour that drinking bleach could cure you of COVID-19 which led to 4% of respondents of a CDC survey saying that they had drunk or gargled bleach.

 

This graph published by American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. shows the number of rumours, conspiracy theories, and stigma surrounding COVID-19 starting from January 21 and continuing until April 5th.  We can see a steady increase starting in February and hitting its peak in march. Its worth noting that Hydroxychloroquine was approved in February and began to receive doubt in March from the media and scientist alike for its unproven effectiveness. This coincides with the spike we see in rumours happening in late February and continuing into March. This possible correlation cannot be overlooked as we continue to learn more about how to treat COVID-19. The spread of misinformation can be as damaging to the public as the virus itself.

 

By allowing leniency in the airtight scientific method, we have opened the flood gates to all types of information being thrust onto the pedestal once reserved for conclusion from the scientific method. Your uncles facebook post about the healing power of Clorox bleach carry as much weight as the cutting edge research on COVID-19.  “Todays Propaganda has become tomorrows truth“. Scientist have lost credibility with the public. This is not the first time this has happened, but it may be the most damaging.