An excerpt (read in full here):

Stem-cell cloner acknowledges errors in groundbreaking paper

A blockbuster paper that reported the creation of human stem-cell lines through cloning has come under fire. An anonymous online commenter found four problems in the paper, which was published online on 15 May in the journal Cell.

Shoukhrat Mitalipov, who led the stem-cell team, told Nature that three were innocent mistakes made while assembling the data. The fourth, he says, was not a problem at all. To many in the field there was an unfathomably rapid rush to publication: just three days from submission to acceptance and another 12 days to publication.

“The results are real, the cell lines are real, everything is real,” says Mitalipov, a reproductive-biology specialist at the Oregon Health and Science University in Beaverton.

Mitalipov says he returned from Europe on Wednesday and found himself swamped with e-mails and calls from editors at Cell, as well as from journalists. “I just got home a couple hours ago. The editors, everyone was going crazy,” he says.

Keep reading…

An excerpt (read in full here):

NZ sniffle hygiene is slipping – survey

Be wary of the next person you shake hands with – nearly 40 per cent of adults New Zealanders have admitted to using their fingers to wipe their nose.

A Colmar Brunton survey of 1018 adult Kiwis found that two thirds admitted to not protecting their sneezes and nearly 40 per cent to using their clothing, fingers or wrist to clear their mucus.

To make matters worse, 11 per cent said they don’t wash their hands after sneezing into them and men aged 18 to 39 were the worst offenders – trumping national averages by up to 27 per cent.

Females aged over 50 were the most hygienic demographic, while professionals and government officials were the worst performing occupation with nearly half admitting to finger, wrist and clothing wiping.

The survey, commissioned by Kleenex, showed hygiene habits have worsened in the last five years. In 2008, the same survey revealed just half of adults didn’t cover their sneezes and only 34 per cent admitted to wiping their nose with clothing, fingers or wrists.

The results were so bad, in-school education programme Kleenex Sneezesafe changed the focus from education children to teaching children how to educate adults.

Keep reading…

Earlier this year, a scientific review raised concerns that double-stranded RNA molecules produced in new genetically modified crops could pose a risk to human health.

The paper’s authors, including Professor Jack Heinemann at University of Canterbury, called on regulators to require experimental evaluations – including bioinformatic sequencing, in vitro tests, animal feeding trials and potentially even clinical trials — before approving any genetically modified foods using the technology.

Further background and comments on the original paper are available here.

FSANZ has now released a report responding to the concerns raised, concluding:

• The weight of scientific evidence published to date does not support the view that small double-stranded RNAs (dsRNAs) in foods are likely to have adverse consequences for humans.
• There is no scientific basis for suggesting that small dsRNAs present in some GM foods have different properties or pose a greater risk than those already naturally abundant in conventional foods.
• The current case-by-case approach to GM food safety assessment is sufficiently broad and flexible to addresses the safety of GM foods developed using gene silencing techniques.

Full conclusions and a copy of the FSANZ report can be found here.

The SMC contacted scientists for further comment on FSANZ response to the criticisms in Heinemannet al‘s article. Feel free to use these quotes in your reporting. If you would like help reaching these or other experts, please contact the SMC (04 499 5476; smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz).

The SMC contacted scientists for further comment on the FSANZ response to the criticisms in Heinemann et al’s article. 

Dr Tony Conner, Science Group Leader, Agresearch. Dr Conner’s research career has focused on the applications of plant biotechnology and genomics to crop improvement and the integration of these emerging technologies into plant breeding programmes. He comments:

“The FSANZ response to Heinemann et al 2013 is well considered and very thorough. It demonstrates that the risk claims in the article are an overreaction based on dubious scientific evidence about the biosafety risks in plants genetically modified with gene silencing approaches.

“The public can take comfort from two key aspects:

1. Double-stranded RNAs do not present a new issue for food safety. They are very common in a wide range of organisms, including many fresh foods that have a long history of safe use in our diet.

2. The current approaches used by regulatory bodies, including FSANZ, are sufficiently robust to address food safety of GM products with dsRNAs.”

Assoc Prof Peter Dearden, Director, Genetics Otago, University of Otago:

“Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) have responded, remarkably promptly, to Prof Jack Heinemann’s review published in ‘Environment International’. Their response is comprehensive, well researched, and dismisses Prof Heinemann’s points entirely.

“Prof Heinemann’s paper suggested that double stranded RNAs produced in GM crops to change the way genes are regulated might pose a human health risk through that RNA passing into human cells and changing the way our genes are regulated. FSANZ dismiss this possibility stating that such RNA molecules are ubiquitous in nature, including in the food we eat, suggesting such molecules do not pose a health risk.  They review the evidence that shows that the development of RNA therapies targeting viruses and other diseases, designed to manipulate genes in just the way suggested by Prof Heinemann, have been unsuccessful, because humans do not easily take up such RNAs. FSANZ then suggest that Prof Heinemann has underestimated the ability of GM food safety testing to detect off-target and unintended effects.

“FSANZ’s report provides a sensible and well-argued counterpoint to Prof Heinemann’s claims, and I find their report very convincing. The difference of views expressed by FSANZ and Prof Heinemann spring, I think, from one controversial paper (Zhang et al, 2012, Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross kingdom regulation by microRNA. Cell Research 22(107):126). This paper is central to Prof Heinemann’s claims, as it shows that an RNA molecule made by rice can be detected in human serum, and that that RNA can regulate one of our genes. This paper is disputed, as some authors have criticized the techniques used, and other experiments have failed to find evidence of plant RNAs in animals (Zhang et al, 2012, Analysis of plant derived RNAs in animal small RNA datasets, BMC Genomics, 13:381). More pertinently, the paper does not show that the rice RNA, when eaten, regulates a human gene, just that the RNA can be detected, and in cell culture experiments adding a synthetic version of the RNA will change the expression of a human gene. We have no evidence that ingested RNAs from food affect human genes.

“My opinion is that FSANZ have got it right. Their assessment is that the risk to human health of double stranded RNA constructs used in GM plants is negligible, and I agree. I do, however, think that one of Prof Heinemann’s suggestions, that bioinformatic examination of potential human targets of the RNAs made in GM plants should be carried out to ensure that such RNAs cannot affect human genes, is worth doing. In my experience it is possible to design numerous double-stranded RNA molecules to affect the expression of a gene. I would like to think that when designing such RNAs it would be common practice to avoid regions with strong similarity to human genes, just to remove any possibility of an effect on humans. While I firmly believe that the risks of such RNA constructs are negligible, performing this analysis is trivially easy, and thus worth doing.

“The safety of our food is a key issue. I am pleased to see our regulatory agencies responding to scientific criticism and new scientific knowledge. Such criticism and response is vital to ensure we have effective, evidence based, regulation of food safety issues.”

Prof Jack Heinemann, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury (co-author of the original paper), comments:

“Our food safety watchdog, FSANZ, is relying on assumptions instead of seeking evidence when confronted by a newly identified risk in GM foods.

“When FSANZ says it is not “likely” that small dsRNAs in foods will harm humans, it effectively acknowledges this is still possible, and so a risk. Yet it proposes not even testing for that risk until the “weight of evidence” suggests it is doing harm. We say consumer protection should be forward looking – do the tests now: don’t wait for harm to be proven.

“In responding to our peer-reviewed research, FSANZ does not deny that it uses assumptions, rather than scientific testing, to address the risks we identified.

“FSANZ is silent on what specific tests and techniques it uses to guard against unintended effects from the new dsRNA molecules that it is approving as safe for use in GM food crops. What we do know is that it does not require animal feeding studies of any kind. In the approvals that we reviewed, it had never even required tests for detecting dsRNA in the blood of animals, much less required tests that would reliably detect unintended harmful effects from dsRNA. FSANZ does not monitor for effects on people after approval or specify any particular monitoring be done by the developing companies. FSANZ needs to do more than just say its processes work; it needs to be forthcoming on what evidence it relies on to show that all these new dsRNA molecules are no threat to humans.

“To come to its position, FSANZ takes our statements out of context, deflects the issues, and makes misleading assertions.

“The “weight of evidence” it rests its opinion upon is either not appropriate for the testing of new dsRNAs in food, or invokes an absence of evidence when no evidence was ever sought. FSANZ should require this testing as it has the power to in its legislation, it has the option to under international food safety guidelines, and it has a responsibility to the people of Australia and New Zealand to do this.

“Contrary to what FSANZ asserts, there is scientific basis for suggesting that small dsRNAs present in some GM foods may pose a greater risk than those already naturally abundant in conventional foods. Some of these molecules are proven as pesticides. They can have potent effects on animals and should be tested before use on humans.

“RNA molecules are in the food we eat, but to extrapolate from the safe use of food with naturally occurring forms to those that are engineered and unique to new kinds of food is wrong. Proteins of all kinds are also in the food we eat but new proteins are evaluated for the potential to be toxic or allergenic in food. These dsRNA molecules can participate in fundamental biological reactions in human cells and so must be tested to be determined safe.

“Let’s use scientific evidence to see if the new dsRNAs in approved and future foods are safe. Science and public health will then be the winner, whatever the outcome.”

John Reeve, Principal Advisor (toxicology) Ministry of Primary industries, comments:

“The method of assessment of GE Foods conducted by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) on behalf of Australia and New Zealand is exactly the same as internationally established as appropriate and used by all the major regulatory authorities in the world. The need for data has been carefully considered to ensure that any genetic modification getting into the human food chain does not pose any unacceptable risk.  The risk assessors involved in the FSANZ process are highly competent and very experienced both domestically and internationally.

“I note the suggestion that clinical testing be conducted on each new food, but this would seem to be quite impractical.  This sort of testing is not required for any current dietary risk assessments systems.  Any risk assessments carried out on foods are always based on the data available at the time, and are never set in stone.

“Thus, at any time, new information on a substance or food will always be considered carefully, and if necessary a risk assessment will be appropriately updated.  Revision of risk assessments is occurring around the world and within the WHO expert committees on a regular basis and the acceptability of foods are constantly being updated. This would apply in the case of any genetically modified food that has an approval.”

An excerpt (read in full here):

Editorial: Crown’s aims for science give focus for research

Science has been a black hole for taxpayers’ money. Governments of all stripes agree that science is something they should fund without knowing very much about it. They maintain Crown research institutes for the needs of primary industries and for studying the country’s weather, geology, minerals and the like. They also fund research in universities and hospitals with few questions asked. The money is scattered around like water on dry soil in the hope that it finds some seeds of inquiry that will turn out to have social and economic benefits.

The present Government is trying something different. It has chosen the benefits it most wants for New Zealand and set aside a good portion of its science budget for research that points in a desired direction. This might not be the way that “pure” science prefers to work but the exercise has been led by a panel of scientists chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, an adviser to the Prime Minister, and appears to be accepted.

The panel nominated 12 objectives for the “national science challenge” and the Government this month selected 10. Some of them are interesting. One is to tackle the illnesses of an ageing population, especially mental deterioration.

That subject suggests the public has contributed more to the exercise than seemed likely when views were invited six months ago. The incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia is devastatingly apparent to families but has not ranked high on public health priorities.

Keep reading…

You can read more from the SMC about the National Science Challenges here.

Updated: A Huge tornado has devastated the US state of Oklahoma killing at least 24 people and injuring many more.

Earlier reports indicated more than 90 fatalities, however this number was revised downward.

Our colleagues at the UK SMC collected the following expert commentary. Feel free to use these quotes in your reporting. If you would like to contact a New Zealand expert, please contact the SMC (04 499 5476; smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz).

Professor David Schultz, Professor of Synoptic Meteorology, University of Manchester, said:

“Tornadoes are unfortunately to be expected in this area of the US at this time of year.  Compared to the 1999 Oklahoma tornado, which was of similar magnitude, yesterday’s tornado sadly led to a greater number of deaths.  This is partly because of the time of day it occurred – at around 3pm, parents were out and about picking up children from school and some children were still in class.  Because people were less likely to be near a television or listening to a radio, they might not have heard warnings and therefore unfortunately might not have been able to take precautions.  In 1999 the tornado hit at around 7pm, when most people were sitting down to dinner or watching the evening news, which would have been reporting live on the track of the tornado.  Sheltering within their homes with their families would have been easier.  Clearly, the time of day that the tornado hits can affect people’s ability to be prepared.

“In the US, the National Weather Service issues outlooks days in advance of anticipated severe weather.  The outlooks highlight regions of the country that face the risk of tornadoes, large hail, strong winds, and lightning.  With possible tornadoes three to six hours away, watches are issued that highlight portions of a state or two.  Tornado warnings are issued when the threat of tornadoes is imminent.  Warnings often appear tens of minutes before the tornadoes hit.  In the case of large and violent tornadoes, such warnings can be quite accurate.  Weaker tornadoes sometimes may happen without warning.  Research within the National Severe Storms Laboratory and the Storm Prediction Center aims to improve the tornado warning process, giving more lead time to the public.”

Dr John Marsham, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, said:

“We do not yet know the full details of this particular event and it is impossible to attribute any one event to climate change. Tornadoes are too small to be explicitly represented in climate models. However, research shows that in much of the USA climate change is likely to lead to increase in the frequency of severe storms, and tornadoes form as a result of severe storms. Climate change therefore may well increase tornadoes, but the effects are expected to be regionally varying and much remains uncertain.”

Dr Andrew Russell, Lecturer in Climate Change, Brunel University, said:

“It is unclear whether tornadoes will become more likely as our climate changes because computer climate models don’t have the power (i.e. high enough resolution) to represent tornadoes. So you can’t just go through climate model data and count the tornadoes that it thinks will occur. It is possible, though, to look at the changes in the larger scale conditions that usually result in tornadoes, but this also gives us a unclear picture: whilst the increased warmth and moisture predicted by climate models will mean more energy would be available to developing tornadoes, the climate projections also shown a decrease in the occurrence of the wind patterns that are needed to form tornadoes. Nonetheless, there is some good evidence showing that reducing greenhouse gas emissions now will reduce the risk of more severe storms and tornadoes in the future.”

Dr Andrew Barrett, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading (commenting on the frequency and strength of tornadoes), said:

“Tornadoes are quite common in the Great Plains in May, averaging about 3-4 per day (often in clusters) – but not usually as strong as this one, and not usually in urban areas. Only 2% of tornadoes in the USA reach EF4 status (scale EF0 to EF5), with winds over 165mph.

“Tornados can occur in many places across the globe, but tornado alley of the Central Plains of the US is most famous. Central Plains in US is ‘Tornado Alley’ because it sees frequent collisions of warm, moist air from the south and cold air from further north and has no major east-west mountain range to block air flow between these two air masses.

“Moore, Oklahoma has been hit by significant tornadoes four times in the last 15 years (1999, 2003, 2010 and yesterday) including most intense storm ever with winds of 317 mph. The size of the tornado was not unprecedented, but at larger end of scales (widths vary from: 100m – 3 km).”

Dr Suzanne Gray, Senior Lecturer in Weather Systems, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading (commenting on climate change and tornadoes), said:

“Tornados are too small scale for current climate models to simulate, so it is not possible to say very much about how strength and occurrence might alter under climate change. But climate change means warmer temperatures and more moisture and that is providing more energy for the types of storms that produce tornadoes in a warmer climate.”

Dr Pete Inness, Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading (commenting on tornadoes in the UK), said:

“The geography of the US High Plains is unique in creating the perfect environment for tornado formation. In the UK we simply don’t have the right set of circumstances to generate the intense storms in which big tornadoes form.

“According to the UK Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO) the UK experiences 30-40 tornadoes per year, although these are all far weaker and shorter lived than their US equivalents and most cause little or no damage to property. Recent occurrences include a small tornado in Oxfordshire in May 2012 which was tracked using Doppler radar by researchers at the University of Reading.

“In July 2005 a tornado hit Birmingham where damage to trees, houses and cars was widespread across an area to the south-east of the city centre. This was one of the few UK tornadoes to cause significant damage (estimated at 40 million pounds) and 19 people were injured.”

Dr Matt Watson, Lecturer in Natural Hazards, University of Bristol, said:

“Springtime in Oklahoma is pretty much prime time and place for tornadoes, therefore sadly this is not particularly unusual.  It is virtually impossible to attribute single events like this to climate change.”

Professor Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards, UCL, said:

“While there is no discernible upward trend in the number or strength of tornadoes in the US, I would not be surprised to see more in the way of the most powerful tornadoes as the world continues to warm. As climate change tightens its grip, extreme weather of all types is likely to be the order of the day.”

From the AusSMC:

Professor Dale Dominey-Howes, Natural Hazards and disaster management expert at the University of New South Wales, comments:

“Today’s tornado in Oklahoma is at the upper end of the magnitude scale of tornados. Given its size and the wide area of impact, searching for and rescuing survivors will stretch emergency services. Further, treating the injured and reuniting families will be extremely challenging. The response and recovery effort will require both State and US Federal resources and important questions must be asked about the effectiveness of early warnings and the building standards of property that are constructed in places where tornados like this occur.”

Dr Todd Lane, ARC Future Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, comments:

“Tornadoes form below a class of severe thunderstorms known as supercells. Supercells feature intense upward moving columns of air that rotate, as the wind near the surface is drawn into those columns it begins to rotate and forms the tornado vortex. The damage attributed to tornadoes is caused by the strong winds in the vortex and flying debris.

“Oklahoma sits within an area of the United States commonly referred to as ‘tornado alley’ – this area is amongst the most frequent locations of tornado occurrence in the world. At this time of year, the warm and moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and cool and dry air from above the Rocky Mountains come together to make tornado alley the perfect environment to spawn supercells and tornadoes.

“Preliminary reports of damage from the Oklahoma tornado suggest it was of EF-4 intensity, which is the second highest intensity rating. EF-4 tornadoes have wind gusts between about 265 and 320 kilometres per hour.”

The study is the the largest of it kind and includes data from almost 1,500 SIDS cases across Europe, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

In the article, published in BMJ Open, authors conclude: “88% of the deaths that occurred while bed sharing would probably not have occurred had the baby been placed on its back in a cot by the parents’ bed.”

The researchers do note that there is no risk from having an infant in bed for feeding or comfort provided the infant is returned to his or her own cot for sleep.

“SIDS remains a major cause of death among babies under one year of age in New Zealand and other high income countries,” said author Professor Ed Mitchell, from the University of Auckland in a media release.

“Parents need to know the risks from bed sharing, especially for babies under three months.

“Health professionals have a duty to inform them. Innovative strategies such as the wahakura and pepi-pod provide alternatives to bed sharing, and are attracting interest overseas.”

Our colleagues at the AusSMC collected the following expert commentary. Feel free to use these quotes in your reporting. If you would like to contact a New Zealand expert, please contact the SMC (04 499 5476; smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz).

Professor Paul Goldwater, Senior Consultant, Microbiology & Infectious Diseases at SA Pathology (North Adelaide) and University of Adelaide School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health

“The paper’s authors are well known to me (two are co-investigators with me on an international SIDS study) and have experience with large studies on the epidemiology of SIDS.

“Their findings are not surprising and confirm that co-sleeping is particularly dangerous for babies under three months of age. The main message is that co-sleeping (with or without other risk factors such as alcohol, other drugs or smoking) should never occur, but it is OK to breast feed in the parental bed and then to put the baby to sleep “face up” in its own cot (with clean linen) in the same room as the parent(s).

“The study pre-supposes that accidental smothering is the reason for these deaths while providing no autopsy evidence to that effect. The paper does not discuss the role of bacterial infection and only briefly alludes to it peripherally in terms of thermal stress (overheating) and the release of lethal toxins. In my view, it is likely that the theory of respiratory compromise due to smothering accounts for only a very small minority of cases.

“Many people will ask why the parental bed or sofa represents a dangerous sleeping surface; both of these are heavily contaminated with bacteria such as E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus, which are equipped with a variety of lethal toxins. A baby sleeping in such a contaminated environment could inhale or ingest shed skin cells covered in these bacteria. A genetically susceptible baby is at risk in the co-sleeping situation. This risk is further increased with every additional risk factor.”

Dr Mark Kohler, Lecturer at the Centre for Sleep Research, University of South Australia, comments:

“The opinion as to why bed sharing is a risk factor for SIDS is largely based on the likelihood of smothering the infant in some way and increased exposure to toxins. This thinking is highlighted by UK and Australian recommendations that types of parents place infants at greater risk than others – for example, those who smoke, are intoxicated, or take drugs/medication that alter awareness, cognitive ability and/or consciousness.

“The finding by Professor Carpenter and colleagues, which are hard to deny given this is the largest study of its kind, that bed sharing with any parent increases the risk of SIDS fivefold shows us that there are still important factors in our understanding of SIDS that have been missed. These may include overheating, exposure to pathogens in the bedclothes, changes in the child’s arousal response, amongst others.

“Similarly, the fact is that when adults are asleep their awareness and state of consciousness is altered, irrespective of whether drugs or alcohol have been taken. One important consideration of the study methods is that it does not answer the question as to why parents were bed sharing with their infant to begin with. Someone might say “always trust a mother’s intuition”, and while that someone is usually the mother, it begs the question as to why there was a felt need to bed share initially. Perhaps there was something about the infant the parent was sensing that if explored can help explain the true “type” of parent (and infant) at greatest risk.

“Combined, current bed sharing practises, particularly in western culture, still appear to place children at risk of SIDS and research should continue to provide greater understanding of why in order to avoid the devastating consequences.”

The findings, resulting from a broad international collaboration of scientists, have just been published in Nature Geoscience. Researchers used the most up-to-date information on temperatures, energy flows and energy accumulation in the climate system, to re-assess climate models.

Our colleagues at the UK SMC collected the following expert commentary. Feel free to use these quotes in your reporting. If you would like to contact a New Zealand expert, please contact the SMC (04 499 5476; smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz).

Dr Richard Allan, Reader in Climate Science at the University of Reading, said:

“This work has used observations to estimate Earth’s current heating rate and demonstrate that simulations of climate change far in the future seem to be pretty accurate. However, the research also indicates that a minority of simulations may be responding more rapidly towards this overall warming than the observations indicate.”

“Sunlight reflected back to space by aerosol pollutant particles, which offsets some of the heating from greenhouse gases, is difficult to measure, as is the heating rate of the deep ocean. Both make it difficult to estimate the most realistic rate of future global warming, but they don’t change the overall picture and certainly don’t give us cause for complacency.”

“It is important to understand how much the planet will warm up in response to radiative forcing from rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This is often quantified as the total warming experienced in response to a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration: how sensitive climate is to this heating effect (climate sensitivity).

“However, since the total response of the climate system can take hundreds of years to reach its final resting place (or equilibrium), more useful for making policy decisions involving adaptation strategies is the journey to this final resting place, or how quickly the climate responds (transient climate response).

“Are climate simulations, used to project future changes in climate, realistic in both of these respects?  To answer this question, Otto et al combine knowledge of the extra energy entering the climate system due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and other factors (radiative forcing) with observations of surface temperature and of how heat is building up (primarily within the oceans).

“Despite the slow rate of surface warming in the recent decade, energy has continued to build up within the oceans and the authors find that the inferred sensitivity of climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations based on these observations (1.2-3.9 C total warming) is more or less consistent with the range from climate simulations (2.2-4.7 C).  However, the observations suggest that the rate of warming up to the point of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations over the coming decades may be slightly lower than predicted by a few of the climate models used to make future projections.

“The authors caution that uncertainties in the observations and the cooling effects of aerosol pollutant particles mean that it is difficult to precisely anticipate the most realistic rate of climate response over the coming decades, but with work like this our predictions become ever better.”

 From the AusSMC:

Professor Steven Sherwood, co-Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, comments:

“These authors have looked at recent warming and ocean heat content data, and found that the oceans are sequestering heat more rapidly than expected over the last decade. By assuming that this behaviour will continue, they calculate that the climate will warm about 20% more slowly than previously expected, although over the long term it may be just as bad, since eventually the ocean will stop taking up heat. However, there is other research pointing out that this recent storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El-Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not imply what the authors are suggesting. So while their conclusions are interesting, they need to be taken with a large grain of salt until we see what happens to the oceans over the coming years.”

Dr Steven Phipps is a Research Fellow in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of New South Wales, comments:

“This new study refines our estimates of the Earth’s sensitivity to increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Using the latest observations of temperature and heat uptake, the authors calculate the short-term and long-term warming that follows a doubling of the CO₂ concentration. Their “best estimate” of the short-term warming is slightly lower than previous results. The most likely short-term response to a doubling of CO₂ is a global warming of 1.3ºC, while the most likely long-term response is a warming of 2.0ºC. Once uncertainty is taken into account, these new estimates are consistent with previous work.

“However, by including observations from the past decade, this study provides the most accurate estimates yet of the climate sensitivity. The extra precision confirms what we have long known: that our planet faces a very uncomfortable future if our emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated.”

Walk into the office of any psychiatrist or psychologist and one item is guaranteed to be on the book shelf: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Often called the ‘psychiatric bible’, the DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and contains descriptions, symptoms, and other criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. These criteria for diagnosis provide a common language among professionals who treat patients with mental disorders.

The Manual’s fifth edition, DSM-5, is to be launched at a press briefing at the APA conference in San Francisco this Sunday (NZT).

Some of the proposed changes likely to be included in the new DSM — which hasn’t been updated since 2000 — have gathered considerable criticism from both experts and the public. Controversial revisions include:

• Re-classifying Asperger Syndrome under the broader  Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis.
• Removal of certain exclusion criteria separating bereavement grief and depression.
• A broader definition of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
• A reshuffle of diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

An open letter criticising some of the DSM-5 revisions has so far gathered gathered more that  14,000 signatures.

Ahead of Sunday’s launch of the DSM-5, the SMC contacted New Zealand experts for comment on the new edition and its implications for NZ. Feel free to use these quotes in your reporting. If you would like to contact a New Zealand expert, please contact the SMC (04 499 5476; smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz).

Peter Coleman, President of the New Zealand Psychological Society, and Kerry Gibson, President Elect, comment:

“We, like many psychologists around the world, are concerned that the changes in the DSM are not supported by clear research evidence.  As is generally recognised, DSM has always been a consensus document and in part reflects changes in social norms and beliefs (e.g. homosexuality was once listed as a mental disorder) as much as empirical research.

“The fact that the DSM-5 has lowered the threshold for some diagnoses and added a number of additional diagnoses raises the risk of giving a mental health diagnosis to someone who may simply be experiencing normal problems of living.  In DSM IV, for example, a diagnosis of depression specifically excluded people who had lost a loved one up to two months previously. The removal of this criterion in DSM-5 creates potential for people suffering understandable grief to be diagnosed with depression and treated with antidepressants. In another change, Aspergers Syndrome disappears and has been absorbed into a uni-dimensional Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

“Whilst such changes might be confusing for many people, psychologists are trained to use their clinical judgement rather than blindly following a diagnostic manual in working with their clients and it is unlikely that their day-to-day practice will be affected by such diagnostic changes.”

Associate Prof David Menkes and Prof Graham Mellsop, Department of Psychological Medicine, Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, comment:

“The launch of DSM-5 this weekend will rightly attract media interest from around the world. Mental disorders are common in New Zealand, as everywhere, and because of their complexity, are challenging to understand both for mental health professionals and the public.

“Systems of classification, such as DSM-5, are important because they shape our understanding of what constitutes illness and, in large measure, what we can do about it.

“There are both benefits and harms that can come from use of a classification system, and DSM-5 is no exception.  It’s important to keep the benefits in mind but also to be fair and honest in the criticism of such systems. With regard to DSM-5, the main criticisms are likely to centre on ‘overdiagnosis’, the process by which medical diagnoses are applied inappropriately and/or harmfully. For example, using DSM-5 criteria, normal human sadness following bereavement (or being forced to resign from parliament) may be inappropriately labeled as a medical illness “major depression”. Such labels may not help clinicians understand their patients, nor do they necessarily provide guidance on what intervention — if any — is appropriate.

“On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that diagnosing depression can also be useful, even life-saving, in many cases. Human beings are complex, and a simple criterion-based or ‘checklist’ diagnosis may not be as valid as that offered by a perceptive, skilled and highly-trained clinician.

“There is also the issue of diagnostic complexity. DSM-5 contains approximately 400 separate diagnostic entities. Surveys of New Zealand and overseas psychiatrists showed that most would prefer simpler (and arguably more valid) classifications with less than 100 entities.  Related to DSM’s complexity and the problem of overdiagnosis is the concept of ‘comorbidity’, where multiple mental disorders may coexist in the same individual at the same time. Many experts believe that DSM-5 will foster such needless labeling when the real issue is the complexity of the underlying disorder.

“Many of the diagnostic categories in DSM-5 are based on symptoms reported to the clinician. Such symptoms are subjective and of doubtful validity in many cases. The results of clinical trials, for example of antidepressants, are also often based on improvement in the same subjective symptoms. Recently there has been increasing emphasis on function as a criterion of illness, need for treatment, and as a marker of recovery. Unfortunately DSM-5 seems to do little to support this important development.

“Finally, DSM classifications were developed in North America in part to determine Americans’ access to treatment and how psychiatrists are paid.  This is of questionable relevance to the needs of New Zealanders and our smaller, more efficient healthcare system.”

New research describes a breakthrough in IVF technology that proponents claim will significantly increase live birth rates in fertility clinics.

The technique uses precision time-lapse imaging to more accurately distinguish developing embryos with normal and abnormal numbers of chromosomes.

The study found that embryos with too many or too few chromosomes typically reach specific growth milestones several hours later than those with 23 (the usual number). Researchers then applied these findings to screen embryos ahead of implantation, identifying those with a higher likelihood of successful continued development.

The news is based on a study published in the journal Reproductive BioMedicine Online.
(A second related study can be found here)

Our colleagues at the UK SMC have rounded up the following expert comments on the research.

Sue Avery, Director of Birmingham Women’s Fertility Centre, said:

“This is an interesting piece of science which has successfully identified a factor that is associated with improved implantation. Unfortunately the study does not compare this exciting new approach with standard practise in embryology in which embryologists already look for the best embryos to place in the womb. Until the new technique is compared to current practise we cannot know whether different embryos are being chosen. The IVF community needs a prospective randomised controlled trial to prove that the new approach delivers better results before it can be recommended to patients. Until then this study is an interesting piece of science but not clinically significant.”

Mr Stuart Lavery MRCOG, Consultant Gynaecologist and Director IVF at Hammersmith Hospital, said:

“Time lapse imaging of the early development of human embryos offers the exciting potential of a novel and non-invasive way of selecting the embryo with the greatest chance of implantation. The authors suggest that using a retrospective analysis against a predictive model of chromosomal abnormality, this new approach could provide accurate and reliable information to allow selection without the need for invasive biopsy and expensive chromosomal analysis. To confirm this a prospective randomised trial using time lapse imaging in comparison with standard embryology selection techniques as well as chromosomal screening would be necessary. Several IVF units around the country have already adopted time lapse photography into their clinical service, this research adds to the evolving evidence base supporting its use.”

Dr Allan Pacey, Senior Lecturer in Andrology, University of Sheffield, and Chair of the British Fertility Society, said:

“This paper is interesting because we really do need to make advances in selecting the best embryos created during IVF. The idea of monitoring embryo development more closely is being used increasing in clinics around the world and so it is good to see the science involved submitted to peer review and publication. All too often developments in IVF are trumpeted as advances when they remain unproven. In this case, whilst this is a good piece of science, before we splash this on the front page it should be subject to full randomised control trials.”

Sheena Lewis, Professor of Reproductive Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, said:

“This may well be the technique we have been waiting for to improve embryo selection and thus success in fertility treatment. It is certainly timely to develop new ways of looking at embryo health since we have been basing embryo choice on just cell number and shape since IVF began. Time lapse imaging provides the opportunity to give continuous, detailed information on how the embryo is growing. However, this is a small study with just 46 embryos being followed through to birth. Much more research will be needed before this becomes a routine clinical tool. “

$130 million of funding has been committed to boosting R&D efforts in companies and start-ups, $107m of which will come from the Government’s internationally focused growth package, with $23m re-prioritised from elsewhere in the science and innovation vote.

Detail about the new grants scheme that will account for the new funding is detailed here.

Additionally, changes to tax rules were announced that would allow loss-making start-up companies investing heavily in research and development to take advantage of tax breaks. Eligibility criteria for the scheme will be released next month ahead of public consultation.

Previously announced and reallocated

Elsewhere, previously announced Budget allocations, such as the National Science Challenges which receive $73.5 million in funding over the next four years, and funding for newly-formed Callaghan Innovation account for the bulk of changes on the positive side of the ledger within the science and innovation vote. The Marsden Fund receives an increase in funding ($46.8 million to $51.8 million),

“Realising the benefits of innovation” receives a $17.5 million allocation, and is described as “activities that build the level of, and returns from, science and technology-driven innovation through providing tailored brokerage and access to advice, technical services and facilities, and creating linkages, projects and collaborations between business and industry and Research Science and Technology providers”. Allocations for the KAREN advanced network ($4 million) and New Zealand access to the Australian Synchrotron $7.5 million) are also included.

Decreases in allocations include ”high value manufacturing”, which reduces from $187.5 million to $61.1 million year on year, Fellowships for Excellence ($13.4 million to $8.6 million) and Crown Research Institute core funding ($215.5 million to $201.6 million).

The SMC is gathering reaction to the Budget science and innovation allocations and will publish comments received here on the SMC website.

A fantastic data visualisation tool that lets users explore in-depth changes to the budget over time has been created by ChewyData’s Keith Ng.

UPDATED: Prof Shaun Hendy, President of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, comments:

“This is a pretty neutral budget for science, with an increase in spending that is slightly ahead of inflation. A focus on improving business R&D support is good to see — we need some imagination here, because our businesses spend considerably less on research and development than their counterparts in other advanced economies.

“One big caveat: although I am pleased to see an increase in the Marsden fund, this is still considerably down on the level of support it enjoyed a few years ago, especially once you take inflation into account. Basic science is something that really struggles in New Zealand and there are many excellent projects that will go unfunded this year.

“So overall, not a bad budget for science, but the sector needs a series of very good budgets if we are to catch up with the rest of the world in science and technology. Increases like those we have seen over the last few years really just see us standing still in this increasingly competitive world economy.”

Vote Science and Innovation appropriation estimates for 2013-14 are outlined here

Departmental appropriations consisting of:

• just under $30 million for advice and support to shape the science and innovation system, including policy advice, public consultation and engagement on National Science Challenges, contract management and strategic leadership in the Science and Innovation sector.

Non-departmental appropriations consisting of:

• under $202 million for Crown Research Institutes (CRI’s) to provide greater financial certainty to deliver outcomes for the benefit of New Zealand and to assist the CRI’s to contribute to the outcomes in their statement of core purpose

• just over $303 million for research and research applications in the areas of high value manufacturing and services, biological industries, health and society, environmental, hazards and infrastructure and energy and minerals

• under $145 million for Research and Development Growth Grants multi-year appropriation (MYA), Targeted Business Research and Development Funding MYA, and Repayable Grants for Start-Ups

• just over $42 million for National Science Challenges to fund specific research projects in seeking answers to the most pressing issues of national significance facing New Zealand

• under $19 million for services by the Crown entity Callaghan Innovation for development and maintenance of strategic capabilities required to meet immediate and future needs of business and industry

• under $52 million for the Marsden Fund for excellent fundamental research

• under $9 million for fellowships and grants to support the development of future research leaders

• under $13 million for contract management services with regard to research, science and technology contract with organisations or individuals

• just under $9 million for engaging New Zealanders with science and technology

• just over $16 million for the advice, brokerage and networking services provided by Callaghan

Innovation

• over $6 million for Research Contract Management

• under $6 million for providing specified standards to meet the needs for traceable physical measurements in New Zealand, and

• under $7 million for the development of skilled people and organisations undertaking research that supports the four themes of Vision M?tauranga.

Non-departmental other expenses consisting of:

• under $38 million for grants to organisations in New Zealand and overseas which ensures infrastructures and projects that have system-wide benefits or are too large for any one institution to fund, but are of benefit to New Zealand, can take place, and

• a total of $135,000 for membership to the Convention du Metre.

Non-departmental capital expenditure consisting of:

• just under $32 million to support the establishment and development of an advanced technology institute as the Crown entity Callaghan Innovation.

Departmental capital expenditure: please note that as a result of the formation of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment all departmental capital expenditure is now under Vote Economic Development.