#shutdownSTEM

10 years ago, I would have been sat in my University room listening to Billie Holiday. Billie Holiday has always fascinated me, her voice was like no other. It always amazed me how her voice changed from the young 1930s Billie Holiday, to ‘Her Last Recording’ album, when the voice came with every sorrow she had ever felt. Having read her biography, she knew more personal tragedy than I could ever know. I loved her, I still do and what I really liked was how she fought for equal rights in the song ‘Strange Fruit’. However, for an 18 year-old student, the song felt a long way away and a long time ago. I felt as though it was a good reference to a historical issue long put to bed, I listened and left it there. Today, I feel ashamed of myself. 

You’ve probably just read the first paragraph and thought: ‘I thought this was a science blog’. However, today on 10^th June 2020 the STEM community has shut down and has stopped ‘business as usual’ to eradicate racism.  The organisation #ShutdownSTEM and #ShutdownAcademia, a collective of multi-identity, intersectional STEM professionals, have called to the STEM community to stop and reflect on the role STEM plays in sustaining a racist system. I know many scientists will be shocked by the viewpoint that global STEM endeavours contribute to racism. When I worked in science, the international community within the University almost made you feel immune to issues felt by the rest of the world. However, now I stop and think about it, the faces that surrounded me were predominantly white. Then there was the fact that many projects in the cell biology department were using HeLa cells. 

HeLa cells are named after Henrietta Lacks, a black tobacco farmer from Virginia who fell ill with cervical cancer when she was 30, she subsequently died aged 31 on 4^th October 1931 [1]. She was treated at the John Hopkin’s Hospital, one of the few hospitals to treat poor African-Americans. Here, a sample of her cancerous tumour was taken during a biopsy and sent to Dr George Gey. Dr Gey had been collecting cervical cancer cells with little success, but the cells taken from Henrietta Lacks were different, they did not die and doubled every 20 to 24 hours. They have now been used to study cancer treatments and played a crucial role in the development of the polio vaccine. John Hopkin’s University website talks about her legacy, but if you read ‘The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks’, by Rebecca Skloot, Henrietta had no idea her cells were being used for this. 

Henrietta Lacks had no say in her cells being used, she wasn’t even told. Instead the cell line was refined, and unbeknownst to her family, was sold all over the world creating a cell culture market that is worth billions of dollars. It wasn’t until 25 years after her cells were taken that her family knew that they were being used. For her husband, who had the equivalent of a third grade education, this was really confusing, he didn’t know what a cell was and thought his wife was still alive in a laboratory somewhere. Her daughter questioned if it hurt her mother, all the experiments being done on her. What’s more, the family, who were poor and lived in poverty, never saw a penny of the billions of dollars that HeLa cells were being sold for and it consumed their lives trying to claim what they felt they were owed financially. The point has been made that doctors at John Hopkin’s University did not purposely want to harm Henrietta and her family. However, I wonder if they would have so readily taken her cells if she was a rich white woman?  

More recently, the BAME community is at the mercy of science. It is now commonly known that black people are at a higher risk of dying of Covid-19. Some have put it down to medical differences such as synthesis of vitamin D, but look at the statistics and take time to do some research and it starts to clarify itself as a racial difference. In the UK, black people are four times more likely to die from Covid-19 than white people [2]. In the USA, counties with a higher population of black people account for “half of coronavirus cases and 60% of deaths” [3]. In both countries it has been seen that differences in accommodation and working life account for this. In the UK, only 2% of white British families live in overcrowded accommodation compared to 30% of Bangladeshi households, 16% of Pakistani households and 12% of black households. People from ethic minority groups are also more likely to have frontline roles in the NHS [2]. In America, many black people work in low paid jobs, such as meat packing, in these roles people have reportedly been asked to carry on working without adequate protection and risk of unemployment if they do not turn up for work [3]. It is these discrepancies in home and work life which have led to the BAME community not being able to protect themselves and being at greater risk from Covid-19. 

Over the last few days, I have sat and read through information that led me to write this blog. However, I am annoyed with myself as it has it taken me 28 years to realise that I am part of the problem. I grew up in a predominantly white, very privileged, semi-rural community in the North West of England. I read To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, The Colour Purple by Alice Walker and I went to the cinema to watch The Help. I felt as I had done this I had educated myself about racism. However, I grew up thinking that as long as I was nice and didn’t discriminate in my day-to-day actions, that fighting for rights of other people wasn’t my issue. It was best to stay out of it, I didn’t want to offend anyone. If I’m honest, I felt as though racism was an old problem, a problem that surely had been sorted out by the 21^st Century. I was wrong, racism is still insidious in society and to combat this we need everyone’s voice. So, I would like to stand in solidarity with the BAME community and today I have shut down my STEM enrichment activities for my A-level students. Instead, I want to take the time to educate myself and make the space to talk and reflect on how STEM can help to stand against racism and bring an end to injustice.  I hope I can encourage my colleagues in the STEM community to do the same. 

For more information on #shutdownSTEM and #shutdownacademia, please use this link: https://www.shutdownstem.com/about

References:

1. SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE, Henrietta Lacks’ ‘Immortal Cells’ [online] SMITHSONIANMAG.com, January 22 2010, Accessed on 9^th June 2020. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/
2. THE GUARDIAN, Black People four times more likely to die from Covid-19, ONS finds [online] theguardian.com. May 7 2020. Accessed on 9^th June 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/07/black-people-four-times-more-likely-to-die-from-covid-19-ons-finds
3. THE ATLANTIC, The Coronavirus was an emergency until Trump found out who was dying [online] theatlantic.com. May 8 2020. Accessed on 9^th June 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/americas-racial-contract-showing/611389/

Why Won’t My Doctor Give Me Antibiotics?

This week my students are looking at the non-specific immune system. As I was planning their lesson I was trying to think of what can they do that will make them think more than labelling different white blood cells? Last week, we studied antibiotics and antibiotic resistance, so I thought let’s mix the two together and have asked them to research: ‘Should we give patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia antibiotics before they become infected with a bacterial infection?’  That’s the question I am going to try to answer by the end of this blog.

What are antibiotics?

To understand what antibiotics are used for, it is important to understand that different microorganisms cause different illnesses and ailments. Microorganisms exist everywhere and many are not harmful, in fact we have trillions that live in our gut helping us digest our food, but some are harmful and these are called pathogens. Within pathogens, there are further categories, these being viruses (Covid-19), bacteria (E. coli), fungi (Athlete’s Foot) and protozoa (Malaria). In my experience, the things that have infected me most are viruses. I have about 3-4 common colds a year and at the moment we are very aware of the affect a virus can have. However, I am not going to talk about viruses today, I want to talk about bacteria.

Bacterial infections can be incredibly harmful, before the accidental discovery of penicillin, by Alexander Fleming in 1928, bacterial tonsillitis (Strep throat), a bad chest infection or an infected wound often resulted in death or caused the patient to become disabled. In fact, during World War I many soldiers died of infected wounds and many legs and arms were amputated to stop the spread of infection. Therefore, you can imagine the advance this made in medicine, suddenly many life-threatening diseases became treatable.

So, why do antibiotics kill bacteria? There are multiple ways that antibiotics can interfere with bacteria causing them to die. Firstly, some antibiotics affect the structure of a bacterium (Figure 1). A bacterium is surrounded by a peptidoglycan cell wall, which gives the structure needed for the bacterium to survive. Some antibiotics, such as penicillin, affect the integrity of this cell wall by stopping or interfering with the synthesis of peptidoglycan. Bacteria, like us, also have a genome, though it is not found neatly in the nucleus like our DNA, but is a made up of a circular loop of DNA. Antibiotics, such as ciprofloxatin, interfere with the copying of this DNA, so the bacterium can’t divide to make new bacteria; whilst antibiotics such as tetracycline stop the bacteria from making proteins.

Figure 1. Structure of a Bacterium. Picture taken from [1].

With the discovery of penicillin we suddenly had the tools in our hands to be able to cure so many life-threatening diseases. Antibiotics became very widely used, in fact you could go to the doctors and ask for them just in case your cold developed into a chest infection. In some countries you could buy them over the counter, just in case. Everything bacterially was sorted, we had solved a huge problem or had we actually created an even bigger problem?

What is antibiotic resistance and where does it come from?   

We thought we had conquered bacteria, but unfortunately for us, bacteria is savvier than we think. Bacteria have a trick up their sleeve, a process called bacterial conjugation. In bacterial conjugation, a donor bacterium forms a bridge between it and a recipient bacterium called a pilus. Through this pilus, the donor bacterium can pass portions of its DNA to the recipient bacterium (Figure 2).  Unfortunately for us this includes sections of DNA (its genes) that code for antibiotic resistance. Once a bacteria has these genes, it means some or all of our antibiotics are useless.

Figure 2. Bacterial Conjugation. Picture adapted from [2].

As early as 1945, Alexander Fleming was stressing that the overuse of antibiotics would lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria becoming prevalent. Antibiotics speed up the evolution of bacteria, by the process of Natural Selection. It is commonly known that in Natural Selection the strongest of the species go onto reproduce. If you are taking antibiotics you kill the ‘weakest’ in the population and leave only the ‘strong’ bacteria which are resistant to antibiotics. These strong bacteria go onto to reproduce, doubling their number every 20 minutes, until very quickly the bacteria have evolved into a new species of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is further exacerbated by bacteria passing on their resistant genes through bacterial conjugation. Eventually, you will have an infection which can’t be treated with antibiotics. We have already seen the effects of this with infections such as MRSA causing fatalities in hospitals.

This is why your doctor will not prescribe you antibiotics when you have a cold or the flu, no matter how ill you feel. They will not work and if you do have a small underlying bacterial infection, which your body can fight easily, the antibiotics would leave you with only the resistant bacteria, making you even more poorly. Taking antibiotics when you do not need them is detrimental to your health!

It’s not just in treating ourselves that we have overused antibiotics, but in agriculture as well.  Animals that are farmed, particularly intensively farmed animals, are routinely given antibiotics to prevent outbreaks of disease. However, this has lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria reproducing in farm animals. Also, the ways that animals are given antibiotics have led to increased resistance. To be able to administer antibiotics to multiple animals at once, antibiotics are often added to the water or feed that the animals eat or drink. In some cases, it has been found that these antibiotics run into the watercourse after the food or water is slopped away. If other animals, including humans, then ingest these antibiotics it furthers the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

This is a massive problem, it is estimated that worldwide 750,000 deaths are caused each year by antibiotic resistance [3]. This will only get worse as resistance starts to grow. Therefore, antibiotic resistance is a public health emergency and we need to stop the overuse of antibiotics as soon as possible.

Are there any circumstances in which you should give people antibiotics to prevent an infection?  

The answer to this is yes. There are some diseases that affect the immune system, which means that a small number of vulnerable patients might benefit from receiving antibiotics as a precaution. One of these diseases is acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is a type of blood cancer which affects the white blood cells, these are the cells that destroy any pathogens that enter our bloodstream. Without these white blood cells, patients are more prone to life-threatening bacterial infections. Therefore, a doctor may decide that as a precaution, this small number of patients would benefit from the help of antibiotics. However, I am not a doctor and there will be many other factors involved in this decision including if the antibiotics will make that person ill or if they will interfere with treatment.

Take Home Message

Overuse of antibiotics has caused, is causing and will continue to cause major problems in the treatment of bacterial infections. For small groups of specific patients, they can be a good precautionary measure, but for the majority of us some Lemsip will do the trick. Therefore, as individuals we must make sure we respect antibiotics by only taking them when we really, really need them and making sure we complete the course of antibiotics given, even if they’re giving us tummy trouble, we don’t want to leave any bacteria and give them the chance to become resistant.

References

1. MEDICAL-LABS, Bacteria-Cell Structure [online] 2014. Accessed on: 4^th May 2020. http://www.medical-labs.net/bacteria-cell-structure-1061/
2. SCIENCE DIRECT, Bacterial Conjugation [online] Elsevier, B.V 2020. Accessed on: 4^th May 2020. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/bacterial-conjugation
3. REACT, The Global Threat of Antibiotic Resistance [online] Sida, Uppsala University. Accessed on: 4^th May 2020. https://www.reactgroup.org/antibiotic-resistance/the-threat/

 

 

It’s all in your genes, but does it have to be?

In 2014, I wrote a post on mitochondrial DNA replacement therapy. In 2018, the technique was legalised in the UK. Now legalised, it means that mother’s who have mitochondrial disease can have healthy children with their own nuclear DNA, so with their characteristics. I think we can all agree that this is a breakthrough and a huge relief to these patients, but what if I told you we could do the same to the nuclear DNA. The DNA that makes your baby, your baby, would you argue for gene therapy then?

What is DNA?

We hear the term DNA all the time, on the news they show fancy graphics with double helices twisting around, distracting you from the actual story. Spiderman spouts out some clever DNA related phrases as you fly through New York on the PlayStation. You can test your genome for free online, meaning you can open your results whilst having breakfast without an inconvenient, but probably appropriate trip to the doctor. This means that really we should all be experts on DNA, but pause now and tell me what is the definition of DNA?

Life has been on Earth, coded for by DNA, for 4 billion years, but until the mid-20^thCentury, we had absolutely no idea how our traits were inherited. Darwin had come up with his theory of evolution, though there was one major flaw, he couldn’t tell you how it worked. A German monk called Gregor Mendel shed some light on this by breeding different pea plants together, but it wasn’t until Crick and Watson published ‘Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid,’ in 1953, that we could work out how these traits were passed on. Here, I feel the need to mention that they did this on the back of Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray techniques and in the sexist world of the 1950s she didn’t get the credit she deserved.

Figure 1.Image taken from: Bitlanders, Structure of a Cell, [online] June 27 2014, Accessed March 27 2020. https://www.bitlanders.com/blogs/structure-of-cell-pari1/245511

So, what did Crick and Watson discover: DNA is the information-carrying molecule of your cell. In our eukaryotic¹, animal cells, most of our DNA is found in the nucleus  (Figure 1). The question is, how can a molecule made of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and hydrogen define who I am? It is all about order and arrangement. DNA is made up of nucleotides (Figure 2). Each nucleotide is made up of a pentose sugar (a sugar with 5 carbons in it), a phosphate and a nitrogenous base. Between the nucleotides the nitrogenous base can differ, either having an adenine, cytosine, guanine or thymine base. However, as biologists are lazy and as the human genome is already 130 very big volumes long, they are referred to as A,C,T and G. The order of these bases codes for the structure of a protein and these proteins are what make your characteristics, you are in effect a well-designed big lump of protein.

Figure 2. Picture taken from: Biology Dictionary, Nucleotide Definition, [Online] 2020. Accessed on 27 March 2020. https://biologydictionary.net/nucleotide/

Crick and Watson proposed their DNA structure and it was widely accepted. However, there were a few sceptics. Firstly 4 bases, seemed too simple and convenient, but that’s how it is, simple and convenient.  Secondly, when you put all the DNA in your cells together, end to end, it’s length would be equivalent to travelling to the sun and back 70 times, so how on Earth does it fit in a tiny organelle inside my cell? This is where the double helix comes in (Figure 2). To form a double helix, the bases conveniently fit together, so that A fits with T and C fits with G. This forms a double strand which then twists and folds into a double helix. With the help on some proteins called histones, the double helix folds into chromosomes allowing a huge amount of DNA to fit nicely into your cell nucleus.

So, that is nuclear DNA, that is what makes you, you. Nuclear DNA determines hair colour, eye colour, how clever you are, your Dad’s smile, that gesture your Mum makes when she’s flustered. Why would anyone want to change you?

Should we change DNA in our children?

This argument is a hairy one, one that can be overshadowed by the dark days of eugenics and the thought of genetic enhancement.  I think we can all agree the world is better when we are all unique and different. However, used wisely we could cure cystic fibrosis, reduce the risk of early onset dementia and the predisposition to certain types of cancer. Furthermore, we have messed about with DNA for years with selective breeding in animals and not so long ago, certain classes only marrying people within their class. Today, we do it clinically with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis can help if you are a potential parent who knows that there is 50% chance of having a baby with a genetic disease which will affect theirs, and let’s be realistic, your quality of life. You could spend pregnancy worried, you could spend their early childhood worried, when they are old enough to make the decision they could refuse treatment. It is an incredibly worrying time. However, there is a possibility that you could have your embryo’s DNA checked and a definitely healthy embryo could be implanted back into your womb. You now know that your child has the same chance of being healthy as any other child, reducing the worry and allowing you to think about things like putting their name down for a good nursery before they are even born. At the end of the day, it all boils down to personal decision, and sometimes, personal belief, but I know what I would choose.

It is important to note, that in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis you are changing nothing, you are just choosing which embryo to implant. The genetics in that embryo are still the random mix of Mum and Dad you would get when a sperm naturally fertilises an egg, but you choose the one which doesn’t have the gene that causes illness. This isn’t the case in Germline² Genome Editing.

In Germline Genome Editing you can use a technique which cuts out a gene and replaces it, such as CRISPR technology³. This means that you have changed the genes in your embryo and this is where people start to feel uncomfortable. Where do you draw the line? What is an illness? What would we change? For example, would you change the gene for being deaf? I’m sure if you speak to many deaf people they wouldn’t change themselves as they are living an independent, successful life, so why should they? It’s a contentious issue as it could be a technique that produces our designer babies. Plus, we don’t seem content to stop with us; it has been mooted that we could change the DNA of the endangered African Elephant to reintroduce the Woolly Mammoth, Jurassic Park style. To me, this proses multiple questions: Is this really right? Do we really need this? Are we playing God?

Here is the take home message, genetics is amazing and in 70 years we have come such a long way. However, like with all new technologies there are brilliant breakthroughs and there are aspects that make us uncomfortable as they affect all of us. So, that is why I have written this blog, I want you to think, where should we draw the line?

Footnotes

1. Eukaryotic refers to an animal, plant, protozoa or fungal cell which has its DNA stored in a nucleus and has membrane bound organelles.
2. Germline refers to sex cells which pass on genetic information. In humans, these are sperm and egg cells.
3. To learn more about CRISPR technology please refer to my previous blog: ‘I Hate Plants, They’re Boring… Or are they?’.

I Hate Plants, They’re Boring… Or are they?

Every class I teach is the same, I have a plethora of extremely intelligent, extremely bright, young people sat in front of me. Some have offers for medicine, one for dentistry, two for veterinary, many want to do biomedical science to go onto become medical researchers. All is going well, until I say, ‘today’s lesson will be about photosynthesis.’ Well, there is mutiny, ‘Ah Miss, I hate plants’; ‘Miss, do we have to?’; ‘I want to be a doctor, why do I need to know about plants?’ Well let’s start with that question.

Where do you think drugs come from? Admittedly, many will be made synthetically in factories, but the first drugs came from plants and we still use them today. For example, aspirin, or acetylsalicyclic acid, is one of our oldest medications. It has been used since the times of Hippocrates and the Ancient Egyptians, who used willow bark, containing salicylates, to treat fever and pain. A more recent use is in the treatment of heart disease as it can stop platelets sticking together, preventing the artery-blocking clots that can lead to a heart attack. In fact, if you ever find yourself stuck up a mountain with someone who is having a suspected heart attack, if a first aider or medical professional is with you, provide them with aspirin it could save their life.

Medicinal drugs are great, but let’s be honest they are secondary to feeding ourselves, which plants are also great for. How important food is has been exemplified this week, you only have to wander around your local supermarket to see that, when we all panic, we very quickly bleed the shelves dry. Therefore, wouldn’t it be great if rather than import potatoes from Egypt we knew more about plants and could be more self-sufficient? For this, you could start foraging, but beware going foraging if you didn’t pay attention when we covered taxonomy and classification! In the UK, the top of the list for foraging is blackberries (Rubus fruticosus), I personally make jam out of them, but beware of deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna), which looks like a blackcurrant and is actually a member of the potato family. Belladonna means beautiful lady in Italian and the name comes from the risky practice in which women used the juice to dilate their pupils to look prettier. Drink too much and you can expect fever, fast heart rate, hallucination, inability to sweat, convulsions and eventually coma. I think we can all agree this wouldn’t be ideal.

If you classify correctly and make a few dietary changes, you could help in the fight against climate change. In the US, it is estimated that 8 tonnes of yearly greenhouse gas emissions per household are from the grocery shopping [1]. The worst offenders are meat, cheese and eggs, none of which are plant based. I’m not saying don’t eat meat, cheese and eggs, I personally love a bacon and cheese omelette. However, if we cut down on animal products and ate more plant based food, we would reduce greenhouse gases which, in turn, would slow down climate change.

Foods wise, we have the massive problem of how are we going to feed nearly 10 billion people in 2050? Already, a vast amount of people are undernourished as they can’t afford or have access to food and this will only get worse. To feed us all we need to produce 30 percent more food on the same land space, so how can we do this? It’s contentious and often argued against, but actually used well, the answer could be GM crops. Now, I love ‘Day of the Triffids, by John Wyndham’ and I loved the television adaptation with Eddie Izzard. However, John Wyndham may have a lot to answer for in our hate for genetic engineering. It is very unlikely that we will produce a triffid, which is a tall, man-eating plant, but it is very likely that genetic technology could allow us to increase crop yield. Gene editing can even allow us to grow crops where we haven’t been able to before, such as in the arctic tundra. One method of doing this is by using CRISPR gene editing, in which an enzyme, acting as DNA scissors, can cut a piece of DNA allowing the desired gene to be neatly slotted into the DNA sequence (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Image taken from: JULIE DEERING, Who owns CRISPR? [online] Seed World, November 16, 2018. Accessed March 20, 2020. https://seedworld.com/who-owns-crispr/.

The more plants we can grow in one area and the more we reduce our intake of animal products, the more we can stop land clearances. Therefore, places such as the Amazon Rainforest can stay as intact as possible.  Now, many of you are thinking, I know where this is going, the Amazon produces 20% of the world’s oxygen. No it does not, there is not enough carbon dioxide in the world for all the trees on Earth to make 1/5 of the world’s oxygen.  It is actually phytoplankton, in the ocean, that produces most of our oxygen. However, the Amazon and other rainforests are incredibly important for maintaining biodiversity and clearing rainforests can lead to mass extinctions of many plants and animals. Also, whilst it might not be the oxygen producer you were dreaming of, the Amazon rainforest is brilliant for absorbing carbon dioxide which reduces global warming and climate change. Therefore, it is completely counterproductive to clear it by burning the forest.

Closer to home. I am currently self-isolating due to the Corona Virus, I’m not ill, but rather asthmatic. Those who know me will tell you that I am not good at being in the house; I like to be up a mountain somewhere. However, this doesn’t look likely for some time. I was getting a bit down in the dumps, when a family member sent me her gardening column. It really inspired me to use my own green space, which I am fortunate enough to have. So, yesterday evening, I went to peruse my overgrown garden and started tending it. I felt so much better and the fresh air in my lungs allowed me to sleep better. This is anecdotal I know, but sometimes, when work or studying gets you down, the best thing you can do is get out, listen to the bees collecting nectar, watch the wood pigeons nesting in the trees and absorb your own bit of nature. If you don’t have a garden, see if you can find a local park. You cannot deny that these plant-based areas are good for your mental health!

So, to my students and all those studying biology, I hope you found this enlightening and let me never hear you say plants are boring again!

References:

1. GREEN EATZ, Food’s Carbon Footprint [online] Green Eatz. Accessed on March 20, 2020. https://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html
2. JULIE DEERING, Who owns CRISPR? [online] Seed World, November 16, 2018. Accessed March 20, 2020. https://seedworld.com/who-owns-crispr/.

 

Why Are Pandas So Beguiling?

There is no better animal to get people through a zoo turnstile than a giant panda. WWF’s logo is a panda and the panda is one of China’s national icons but what is it about the panda that makes them so popular?

The answer may lie in their eating habits. It is a commonly known fact that giant pandas feed almost exclusively on tough bamboo stalks. This has led to the necessity for a strong jaw and enlarged jaw muscles giving pandas their distinctive friendly round face.
Their bamboo eating habit also makes them appear gentle. A panda after all is a bear but, as it is mostly vegetarian it seems far less vicious than the polar bear, with its innate taste for human flesh, or the salmon catching grizzly; which makes them, probably unwisely, feel more approachable.

Furthermore, the panda’s unusual colouring adds to an element of mystery making them all the more interesting. The true reason why pandas are black and white is unknown. Tibetan folklore tells of four shepherdesses who were killed when they tried to save the completely white panda from a leopard. In honour of the dead they attended the funeral wearing black armbands. The tears they cried in sorrow caused the armbands to run creating their distinctive black markings.

Scientists have multiple different theories as to why pandas are black and white. One theory is that pandas are black and white so that they stand out in the forest enabling them to easily find a mate. Conversely, others have argued that their black and white colouring acts as camouflage making them hard to find in treetops or areas of bamboo.

The panda’s elusiveness also tantalises our curiosity. The first European didn’t see a panda until the French Priest and Naturalist Armand David saw one in 1869. Furthermore, in China there is mention of panda like animals but, there are no pandas sketched, painted or glazed onto imperial vases. Consequently, the relative novelty and the rarity of seeing a panda led to huge interest in the late 19th and early 20th century.

This didn’t necessarily prove beneficial for pandas. Many naturalists used local hunters to provide panda skins and skeletons to allow the anatomical study of a panda. What’s more, as with everything in the Western World of the early 20th Century, the game was on to ultimately conquer this coy beast and be the first westerner to shoot one; a task which was completed by Theodore Roosevelt’s sons, Theodore Jr. and Kermit, on 13th April 1929.

This practice heightened the mystery surrounding this fabulous bear as specimens sent back to Europe and the USA caused an intense debate as to whether the panda was a bear or not. When Armand David sent his panda to the Muséum National de Histoire Naturelle in Paris he sent a note with it calling it a “black and white bear”. However, Parisian zoologist Alphonse Milne-Edwards thought it instead bore resemblance to the red panda. Therefore, instead of grouping the panda with the bear family, Urisidae, he classed it with the red pandas in the Ailuridae family. This debate wasn’t solved until as recently as 2010 when a paper published in Nature showed that data obtained from sequencing the panda genome proved the panda to be, inarguably, a bear.

So a panda’s good lucks, gentle nature and mystery make it appealing but, we also have a sense of responsibility towards pandas. This may be because the panda is now the face of conservation thanks to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) logo. However, the panda does have a definite cause.

Destruction of habitat and increased human population have led to there now only being between 2500-3000 pandas left in the mountains of Western China. This has led to huge conservation efforts such as loans of pandas from China to zoos to fund protection for those left in the wild. For this reason many individuals paying for tickets for zoos, such as Edinburgh, are paying in part for the upkeep of the captive pandas, associated breeding programmes and conservation efforts. Moreover, many people (including myself) choose to donate to the pandas cause less passively by sponsoring pandas through charities such as WWF.

So there are many reasons why we love pandas and it is a good job we do; as if these wonderful bears weren’t so beguiling I’m not sure our children would get to enjoy them too.

What is a “three-person baby”?

The UK is likely to be the first country to allow the creation of babies via the three-person IVF technique but, what is three-person IVF and why is it necessary?

Why do we need three-person IVF?

Your body is made up of trillions of cells with each cell being specialised to perform a specific function. To do this cells need organelles, just as your whole body needs organs. One such organelle is a mitochondrion (plural mitochondria) which is often referred to as the power house of the cell as it is responsible for taking sugar from our food and converting it into energy.

This energy is created in the form of a molecule called ATP. ATP is vital for everything we need to do. We need it to breath, we need it to move and we even need it for our brain to function properly.

To be able to efficiently produce ATP mitochondria have their own genetic information which is passed down to the next generation via a mother’s egg cell. Mutations in these genes making it so that the mitochondria aren’t as proficient at producing ATP lead to mitochondrial diseases which are estimated to affect 1 in 6500 new born babies.

As mitochondria play a huge role in the cell you can imagine how devastating these diseases can be with symptoms including epilepsy, diabetes, deafness, blindness, muscle weakness and many more. Therefore, a woman who has a mitochondrial disease and wants to have children is faced with a massive dilemma.

Professor Doug Turnbull, director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research, at Newcastle University, said: “Patients get progressively worse and many die so prevention is one of our priorities. Treatment is a long way off but, if we are able to use these techniques we can prevent these diseases now.”

How do you create a “three-person baby”?

There are two methods by which a “three-person baby” can be created: embryo repair and egg repair.

Diagram showing the method of embryo repair.

In embryo repair two embryos are created by fertilising both the mother’s and the donor’s egg cells. The pronuclei, containing the parents’ genetic information, are then removed from the embryos. The donor pronuclei are destroyed whilst the parents’ pronuclei are transferred into the donor embryo which can then develop into a child with healthy mitochondria.

Diagram showing the method of egg repair.

In egg repair the mother’s and the donor’s nuclei are removed from the egg cells. The mother’s nucleus is then transferred into the donor egg cell. This can then be fertilised using the father’s sperm to create a healthy embryo.

“Slippery slope”

A child born via three-person IVF will contain DNA from three people with donor DNA accounting for 0.1% of the overall genetic information. For some this is worrying as they feel that it could be the start of a “slippery slope” leading to the genetic engineering of babies and the start of a new eugenics.

In response to this Prof. Turnbull said: “This technique has been put through a rigorous process which started in 2010 and it is now 2014. It has been put through public consultation, ethical review and scientific review.” He also added that he did not “want to go down a slippery slope” and to avoid this it was being looked at carefully.

Is it safe?

There is still the question of safety to answer. Prof. Turnbull said: “Anything first into man has got to be a risk. What we must always remember and weigh up is the risks of a woman having an unhealthy child.”

So far the three-person IVF technique in rodents and primates has had “very positive outcomes” however, there are still some hurdles to overcome. Embryos made using this technique need to be assessed to check they develop normally. Moreover, the technique is yet to be tested to check it is efficient as if only 1 embryo out of 100 survives this technique will not be considered “good enough.”

When will three-person IVF be licensed in the UK?

Work is ongoing to get three-person IVF licensed to be carried out in the UK however, there are still a couple of procedures to go through before this can happen. The first is that three-person IVF needs to be approved by UK parliament. Secondly, any unit that wishes to carry out three-person IVF needs a license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to make sure it is as safe as can be.

Considering all these factors Prof. Turnbull said: “one can hope that this technique will be feasible in the next couple of years.”

We Are All Scientists

I took today’s blog title from a newspaper headline. Admittedly I didn’t read the article despite it sounding intriguing as I was trying to stuff my lunch down my throat so that I could get back to the lab. However, it got me thinking about how science really is in everyone’s life even if it doesn’t appear directly.

The example we can all relate to is that we are human. We are animals made of trillions of cells- not including microbes. There are 7 billion of us fighting for our ecological niche in a world which will still don’t fully understand. Moreover, we use science to safely raise our families. This is demonstrated in the story of Adelaide Hoodless who was part of the formation of the first Women’s Institute in Stoney Creek, Canada to educate women about hygiene after her son died from “summer complaint” which could have been prevented if she had known how to safely store milk.

I personally find all these things fascinating hence why I’ve decided to take on the rewarding, yet sometimes frustrating, task of trying to decipher the human brain. It’s a task that I can promise you I won’t finish in my lifetime but, I have to say I am comforted by that thought as I love questions so it would make for a miserable retirement if there wasn’t anything to ask or answer.

We are a naturally inquisitive species who are not just happy with knowing, we want understanding too. This is seen in children asking their parents endless questions of why- apologies Mum and Dad. Children also provide another perfect example in the miniature, often meticulously planned experiments that they run whilst us adults sit and look perplexed as they set ants on fire with a magnifying glass.

Socially unacceptable experiments don’t just stop with children though. A lot of scientists have stood on many people’s toes throughout history. Galileo was imprisoned after boldly stating that the earth was not at the centre of the solar system and Charles Darwin still doesn’t go down too well with Creationists today. Some experiments have even led to grave consequences with fears associated with clinical trials and certain methods of warfare casting a dark shadow over science.

As with everything though we learn from our mistakes and go forward so that science can be used to create a more comfortable world to live in- without using too much of its resources. This is why it is so important to educate people about science. I was lucky, I had fantastic science teachers at my school which I believe set me up brilliantly for my career so far. In Britain we are also well provided for with free museums, science in the media and most people having access to the internet.

However, some fundamental science basics are still lacking. I was surprised to learn that many people don’t know what a mitochondrion is (for those of you who don’t know I’ll tell you in my next blog). This may seem trivial now but it isn’t for someone who has been diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder. People diagnosed with heart disease would also benefit from a basic knowledge of how the circulatory system works and there are many more examples not just relating to the medical sciences.

Therefore, we still have work to do to provide all of us with fundamental scientific knowledge. So, we should keep children asking questions and we shouldn’t be afraid of the questions we can’t answer. After all if you can’t answer the question it’s either because you don’t know or nobody knows, and when nobody knows that when it gets interesting.

Let Us Not Make The Same Mistakes Again!

I am lucky enough to be a member of the national trust and have grown up near many of their wonderful houses with my personal favourite being Dunham Massey. The reasons for this preference formerly being the gorgeous fallow deer and the humongous scones however, as the years have progressed – and I have had to take more care for my waist line – the emphasis for me has changed and I now find the main attraction of visiting this property to be the history. As with many of England’s other great houses, Dunham Massey has seen many changing times of which it has had to adapt this being demonstrated in its transformation into Stamford Auxiliary Hospital as it was in World War One.

I have known about World War One for longer than I can remember, I have read about it and analysed sources under the beady eye of my history teacher but, never has the reality of what happened in those four years really sunk in until yesterday. I have always noticed the suffering and the conditions endured by the men in the trenches but my thoughts had always been left on the continent in a foreign world which I could never truly imagine. Whereas, now I realise that injured men were transported home and the thought of having sustained a compound fracture, and much worse, to have to then travel on a rickety train and a boat with no real pain relief I find unbearable but, these conditions were frequently endured!

Let us also, not forget the staff who worked tirelessly to provide the appropriate care needed for men returning from the grim reality of war. The stress upon them too was enormous causing the matron, Sister Catherine Eva Bennett, to drive herself to exhaustion. This forced the Stamford family to temporarily close the hospital to allow her a holiday which she spent studying to improve her practice. It was while reading her story that found I myself recalling a quote said by Miss Lintott in the play The History Boys: “History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket.”

As terrible as the horrific injuries and the stress placed upon the hospital staff was, the thing that shocked me the most however, was the lack of preparation given to young soldiers. I found a copy of a manual for going to war written by Sir Robert Baden-Powell which was no more comprehensive than my Brownie Guide Handbook. It was flicking through that book that made me truly realise the power propaganda has. Reading about how to build a shelter, and so on, made the First World War sound like a grown up version of a famous five adventure and it was no wonder that so many men volunteered willingly with no idea of the fate that awaited them.

I find it no coincidence that my Brownie Guide Handbook has echoes of that old war manual considering that Sir Robert Baden-Powell founded the Scouts and his wife Lady Olave Baden-Powell founded the Girl Guides. Throughout my youth I was a proud member of the Guide Association and I found a rather sour taste in my mouth yesterday afternoon that the sense of belonging that I once held so dear could be associated with one of history’s great travesties. However, this morning I remembered that despite this the Scout and Guide Associations have also done a lot of good in providing children with experiences that they would not have elsewhere and in its strong sense of community.

Therefore, I will carry on endeavouring to find my place as a leader of a group of lovely 7-10 year old Brownies where instead of them making them doing their hostessing badge- which even at the tender age of 7 I found rather sexist- I will help them to grow their own sense of social justice. In doing this I hope future generations will never be aggressive but, will actively discourage aggression and if they find that Britain ever needs to defend itself they will ensure that it will be done with dignity and honesty rather than false promises.