Scientists publishing in the journal The Lancet today have detailed how they used patients’ own cells to grow urinary tubes in the lab and use them successfully to replace damaged tissue in five young boys.

The researchers found: “Tubularised urethras can be engineered and remain functional in a clinical setting for up to 6 years. These engineered urethras can be used in patients who need complex urethral reconstruction.”

Journalists seeking a copy of the paper can contact the Science Media Centre or log into the SMC Resource Library.

Our colleagues at the UK Science Media Centre gathered these comments on the research from scientists:

Professor Malcolm Alison, Professor of Stem Cell Biology and Leader of Centre for Diabetes, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, said:

“Keeping the drainpipes open but not leaky.

“The urethra is a tube that connects the bladder to the outside world; constriction of this tube is not a pleasant experience! However, many people suffer this affliction through genetic inheritance or traumatic injury. Simply inserting a plastic tubular connection will not suffice in terms of controlled urinary output. This new study by Anthony Atala and colleagues from North Carolina reports that the condition can be cured by the science of ‘Tissue Engineering’.

“They constructed an artificial tube (scaffold) that would be dissolved in time by the body’s own enzymes, but not before they had ‘seeded’ the scaffold with the patient’s own cells that would naturally line the internal and external (muscular) surfaces of the urethra. In the five boys treated with these artificial urethras, the urethras have behaved perfectly for up to 6 years with no symptoms of incontinence. This success story follows a similar approach (also reported in the Lancet), pioneered in Spain, in which a section of a constricted windpipe was replaced by a graft coated with the cells of the recipient patient. Thus, cell therapy is becoming a reality that is benefiting patients now, not a distant promise so common in the reporting of ‘scientific breakthroughs’.”

Professor Chris Mason, Chair of Regenerative Medicine Bioprocessing, Advanced Centre for Biochemical Engineering, University College London, said:

“Totally grown in the laboratory, these urethras, living tubes which convey urine from the bladder, highlight the power of cell-based therapies. When an organ or tissue is irreparably damaged or traumatically destroyed, no amount of drugs or mechanical devices will restore the patient back to normal. If the goal is cure, then cell-based therapies are the answer.

“Using living cells as ‘medicines’ is a major step-change in clinical practice. Cell-based therapies complement drugs and devices by aiming to cure the large unmet medical needs of our generation including: blindness, diabetes, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease and stroke.”

Professor Anthony Hollander, Arthritis Research UK Professor of Rheumatology and Tissue Engineering and Head of The School of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, said:

“This is an exciting and important tissue engineering breakthrough that is particularly impressive because the patients were followed up for a long time, showing clear benefit of the technique for 3-6 years after implantation. The study shows us once again the power of regenerative medicine to transform the lives of patients with serious diseases.”

STUDY SHOWS TISSUE-ENGINEERED URETHRAS CAN BE USED FOR COMPLEX URETHRAL RECONSTRUCTION IN BOYS AND CAN LAST 6 YEARS OR MORE (The Lancet)

Lancet kills MMR paper 10 years on

The move by London-based medical journal The Lancet to retract a ten year old paper that suggested a potential link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children effectively ends one of the longest running medical controversies of recent decades.

The retraction from The Lancet editor Richard Horton follows a damning General Medical Council ruling last week that found the author of The Lancet paper, Dr Andrew Wakefield, acted unethically in the way he carried out the research. Numerous peer-reviewed studies in the years since Wakefield published his research suggest there is no link between MMR and autism, however the resulting public health scare led to immunisation rates falling around the world.

Scientists in the UK and New Zealand this week reflected on the ruling and the impact of the research.

Listen out for a discussion on the topic on Graeme Hill’s Radio Live weekend show at 12.45pm this Sunday.

Open season on IPCC climate report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is facing intense scrutiny worldwide as errors uncovered in its influential 4th Assessment report are dissected in the media and presented as evidence of a lack of scientific rigor in high level climate science publications which governments rely on to set environmental policies.

Editorials from both the New Zealand Herald and the Dominion Post examined the issue this week, drawing largely on reports published in British newspapers.

New Zealand scientists approached by the Science Media Centre, many of whom helped author sections of the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report, say the mistakes are relatively minor and don’t undermine the science on climate change.

Professor Martin Manning, Director of the Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University said, “…while there have been mistakes made in the Working Group 2 report, if the framework that has been set up jointly by scientists and governments for collecting and distilling key information on climate change was properly recognised, then much of the debate would fade away.”

Environment Minister told Radio New Zealand this week he wouldn’t tolerate errors in research reports generated locally.

“I’ve made it quite plain to the New Zealand scientific fraternity that those sorts of slip-ups will not be tolerated and they need to make sure the advice they are giving myself and my cabinet colleagues is straight science and robust science, because the credibility of the climate change problem gets into question even when you get these quite small issues on the fringe where errors have been made,” he said.

Big month for science gatherings

Conferences covering everything from biochar to superconductors are scheduled over the next three weeks, featuring international experts and new research likely to make newsworthy copy.

Here’s the SMC picks for some of the highlights: (see details in the Events section at the bottom of this newsletter).

Scientific Research Colloquim: An annual event looking at agricultural science made all the more topical this year as it follows the formation of a global alliance led by New Zealand with the aim of researching methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Will feature Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman.

SKANZ: What’s the latest news on the Square Kilometre Array project – the science the massive radio telescope will undertake, the design of the pilot project and New Zealand’s involvement in what could potentially be the biggest scientific instrument to be built since the Large Hadron Collider.

Superconductivity Industyr Summit (ISIS): Industrial Research and experts from New Zealand universities and overseas research organisations will discuss the latest technological developments in the world of high-temperature superconductors which are used in everything from power stations and transmission grids to mass transit systems. Can New Zealand make a lucrative export industry out of developing this technology?

New Zealand Biochar workshop: Researchers from Massey University and form across the Australian and New Zealand biochar researchers network will discuss the latest research into biochar methods, which are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the quality of the soil we plant our crops in. The will also be firing up a mini-pyrolyzer to demonstrate the process.

3 News covers the formal retraction by prestigious journal The Lancet of Andrew Wakefield’s controversial paper claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

There are still concerns, however, that even this step will not convince parents that the vaccine is safe.

(See video here)

Prestigious medical journal The Lancet has formally retracted the paper in which Andrew Wakefield, the doctor behind claims that the MMR vaccine can be linked to autism, first claimed such effects.

The MMR, or measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, came under scrutiny in the late 1990s when Andrew Wakefield, a British doctor, wrote a paper for The Lancet saying that he had linked the vaccine with autism.

The controversy caused a significant drop in vaccination numbers worldwide, with corresponding increases disease outbreaks such as measles (as seen here in New Zealand last year).

The retraction comes in the wake of the UK’s General Medical Council finding last week that Wakefield and two colleagues were guilty of a range of serious breaches in a failure to practice case.

The UK and NZ Science Media Centres have gathered comment from experts.

Helen Petousis-Harris, Director of Research at the Immunisation Advisory Centre and Senior Lecturer in the Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care at the University of Auckland, comments:

“We are pleased to see the strong and clear ruling by the General Medical Council against Andrew Wakefield for his unethical practices and ‘callous disregard’ for children while acting ‘dishonestly’ in carrying out his research. The groundless controversy that followed his media statements around the MMR vaccine has resulted in many preventable cases of disease both internationally and New Zealand. There have been measles outbreaks in NZ as recently as last year. New Zealand still has relatively low uptake of the MMR vaccine with only around 70% of children receiving it at the recommended age. There are still many parents who are concerned about the Wakefield claims. We hope that this news will add further reassurance that the MMR vaccine is not associated with autism or any other developmental problems.

“To quote Jonathan Swift, ‘Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after; so that when men come to be undeceived it is too late: the jest is over and the tale has had its effect.’”

Prof Terence Stephenson, President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), comments:

“Measles, mumps and rubella vaccines have all been shown to be safe and UK families are fortunate to have free access to these, which is not true of many parts of the world. The false suggestion of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine has done untold damage to the UK vaccination programme.

“The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health hopes the withdrawal of this publication on scientific grounds helps improve uptake of the MMR vaccine for the UK’s children.

Dr David Elliman, Consultant In Community Child Health at the Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children, comments:

“I feel this is a very reasonable decision. To be fair to the Lancet, they did publish a commentary at the time urging caution that wasn’t picked up. I think the reality of the world today is that academic papers on major public health issues do not remain the property of academia. Therefore it is incumbent on us all in science, in journals and in the media to be very certain of the strength of a study before rushing to publish, and to be aware of the potential effects.”

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, GP and author of two books on autism and the MMR scare, comments:

“Good news – only ten years late!”

Prof Adam Finn, Professor Of Paediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School, comments:

“This is not before time. Let’s hope this will do something to re-establish the good reputation of this excellent vaccine. And I hope the country can now draw a line under this particular health scare and move onto new opportunities for vaccination.”

Further Information

To talk to any of the experts quoted above contact the Science Media Centre on tel: 04 499 5476 or email: smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz.

Notes to Editors

The Science Media Centre (SMC) is an independent source of expert comment and information for journalists covering science and technology in New Zealand. Our aim is to promote accurate, bias-free reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community. The SMC is an independent centre established by the Royal Society of New Zealand with funding from the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. The views expressed in this Science Alert are those of the individuals and organisations indicated and do not reflect the views of the SMC or its employees. For further information about the centre, or to offer feedback, please email us at smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz.

So what happens to the traditional cycle of publishing scientific research in journals when a major player like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology decides to go open access for its research papers?

Perhaps very little, but if the trend continues it could mean a sea change for the way new scientific discoveries are communicated, a new way of doing things that places less emphasis on getting researchers published in major scientific journals like Nature, Science and The Lancet.

Currently, publishing in these big journals is a bit of a two-edged sword for scientists. Getting a paper accepted for publication in a journal is a major coup – the peer-review process is very thorough so it shows that the research is credible and considered to be worthy of a global audience. New Zealand university scientists place huge value on getting published in the likes of Nature, Science and Royal Society Proceedings, because it is taken into account in their Performance Based Research Fund measurements and sees them gain fleeting international exposure. The spin-off benefits include being invited to conferences and to participate in other research projects.

But it also means researchers pass control over how and when their research is presented to the journals, while some researchers are even forced to hand over the copyright to their research to the journal publishing their findings.

In reality, there are probably more pros than cons for most researchers, especially New Zealand scientists seeking global exposure for their research (like the ANDRILL paper published in Nature last week which was co-authored by scientists at Victoria University and GNS Science). The standard of review and presentation in the biggest journals is very high and the release process is designed to garner maximum media exposure for the new research.

But often, once the media spotlight has faded, the research remains locked up in a digital silo, available only to those with a subscription to the scientific journal.The public, who ultimately fund much of the research, often don’t get the opportunity to read the research papers.

Now MIT has decided to have its researchers publish their papers on Dspace, an opensource repository for academic work developed by MIT Libraries and HP Labs. As MIT explains it:

“In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to MIT a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit, and to authorize others to do the same.

“The policy will apply to all scholarly articles written while the person is a member of the Faculty except for any articles completed before the adoption of this policy and any articles for which the Faculty member entered into an incompatible licensing or assignment agreement before the adoption of this policy.”

Researchers will have to give a written explanation if they want to go the traditional route and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. In theory it means you can kiss goodbye to seeing MIT researchers published in the big journals – instead you’ll get an email or RSS feed alerting you of new publications on Dspace. But if the opt-out clause is used by researchers will anything really change? Exactly how the DSpace publishing process works is still unclear. Will going the DSpace route generate the buzz about MIT research that the journals are able to with their global reach and media contacts? For the big institutions it should work well. MIT has legions of PR people pushing their researchers’ output. But it certainly seems that some researchers get noticed simply because they are lucky enough to get selected for the journals.

It’s fairly easy to predict how the scientific journals feel about these types of arrangements – this Wired interview with incoming Science editor Bruce Alberts shows his lack of enthusiasm for the open access model, which has also been adopted by Harvard University.

“The vote is a signal to the world that we speak in a unified voice; that what we value is the free flow of ideas,” said Bish Sinyal, chair of the MIT Faculty and the Ford International Professor of Urban Development and Planning in announcing the open access move. Just how successful snipping the apron strings to the journals is is yet to be seen. But if other institutions follow in the footsteps of MIT and Harvard we could see a radically different academic publishing landscape emerge in the next few years, one which will encourage public participation and engagement in the research scientists are undertaking.

An audio briefing for journalists undertaken at 2pm today (September 19, 2008) hosted by the Australian Science Media Centre. The briefing features Dr Richard Beasley, director of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, explaining the findings published in Lancet of a major study looking at the association between paracetamol use in infancy and childhood and the risk of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema in children aged 6 – 7 years.

lancet-beasley

ONLINE MEDIA BRIEFING – Friday 19 September at 2pm (NZT) – online (in collaboration with the Australian Science Media Centre)

Giving children paracetamol during their first year of life can increase their risk of developing asthma according to New Zealand-led research to be published in Lancet. Currently over 600,000 New Zealanders have asthma and incidence has been increasing over the last 50 years but we don’t exactly know why.

This study found that use of paracetamol in the first year of life and in later childhood, is associated with increased risk of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema at age 6 to 7 years. The study also found a strong dose-dependent association, as the risk of asthma symptoms was three-fold higher with frequent paracetamol use. The study included over 200,000 six and seven year-old children from over 30 countries, as part of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) programme.

To obtain a copy of the research which is under strict global embargo until 11am (NZT), Friday September 19, please contact the Science Media Centre.

SPEAKERS: · Professor Richard Beasley, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand

BRIEFING DETAILS:

DATE: 19 September 2008 START TIME: 2pm (NZT)

DURATION: Approx 20 min

VENUE: Online

JOINING ONLINE: Journalists can follow the briefing online via audio and video streaming. Each presenter will speak for 5-7 minutes followed by questions. Journalists will have the opportunity to ask questions online.

1. Go to the AusSMC briefing web portal by clicking here 5 minutes before the start time or anytime during the briefing. Alternatively go to www.aussmc.org and follow the links.

2. Enter your name and email address

3. Click “Join”. (System requirements: You will need a broadband connection and speakers/headphones to hear the event. Allow 1-2 mins for your computer to be configured correctly, install ActiveX, if asked)

*Note* some journalists may not be able to access the briefing online due to a firewall issue and may need to join us over the phone instead. For phone only access please call: toll free 0800 448 307.

Enter meeting number 821 249 073 press #. Wait for the prompt and press #. Radio stations can also record the briefing over a phone line. Audio files will be posted on the AusSMC website at www.aussmc.org as soon as possible after the event.

For further information, please contact the New Zealand SMC on 04 499 5476 or email smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz