Youris.com, March 2021
Even with the advent of vaccines, strategies for rapid and affordable testing for COVID-19 are still paramount. The lack of evidence that the current vaccines can completely stop people from being infected and the emergence of virus variants make widespread testing crucial. But what do we mean as a “rapid” test and how do they compare to “standard” ones?
Full text
The main advisory body on the pandemic in Italy includes experts in many fields, but lacks expertise in crucial areas.
Sergio Pistoi
Nature Italy, Feb 2021
Read the full story
Scientific American, February 2020
Remember that when you buy one of those genome testing kits—and eventually, you will
Sergio Pistoi
When I was a young student in Paris, the City of Love, girls at parties would what I did for a living. I still recall their unsettled looks when I answered “molecular biologist,” which would send them running to powder their noses. They never came back. Back in the early 2000s, the only people who could get stuck in a dreary conversation about DNA, Mendel’s peas and alleles were four-eyed genetic nerds who wasted their lives in laboratories. We were undateable, and the level of endogamy amongst us was startling.
Today, the tables have turned. Millions of people are spitting into a tube to get their genes analyzed and share the results on social networks. Genealogy websites, the second-most visited category in the U.S. after porn, are full of enthusiasts discussing chromosome markers like they were at a laboratory meeting. Celebrities get their genes tested during talk shows, and YouTubers upload videos on their spit-into-the-tube experience. Everyone is hungry to learn about their DNA. DNA has become trendy, my social life has significantly improved, and it’s a wonderful time to be a genetic nerd.
Much of the credit goes to direct-to-consumer genomics for shifting the public perception of DNA from “boring stuff” to fascinating, personal journey. Reading our DNA and using it online is incredibly informative and fun, and these tools have engaged the public into genetics to a level that science writers could have only dreamed of. To write my book DNA Nation I tried out at least two dozen applications where I could use my DNA file.
With the pervasive success of this technology, however, also comes a reality distortion field. In the enthusiasm surrounding the progress of genomics, we end up overstating the real nature of our DNA and believing that it is more important than it is. The Oscar for Genetic Ravings goes to Advanced Technologies, an Indian DNA company whose website claims that genetic code is a “Divine Writing,” but genetic determinism—the idea that DNA will determine our fate and identity—is deeply ingrained in our culture. Make a Google search, and you’ll find hundreds of sources (including textbooks and leading scientists) describing DNA as the blueprint of life. It would be a great, easy-to-understand analogy, if it wasn’t wrong and outdated.
DNA is not a blueprint: it’s a recipe coding for thousands of different proteins that interact with each other and with the environment, just like the ingredients of a cake in an oven. Whereas a blueprint is an exact, drawn-to-scale copy of the final product, a recipe is just a loose plot that leaves much more room to uncertainty. Open a packet of cookies: each one was made from the same recipe and baked in the same conditions, but there are no two that are identical. Look closely, and you’ll spot hundreds of little differences: a burn here, a chocolate chip there, bumps and lumps appearing in distinct places, all because of chaotic interactions between the ingredients and the environment.
Take two identical twins: they share the same DNA, and their embryos developed side-by-side in the same uterus. Yet, they have different tastes, characters and attitudes, and make different choices in life. When you read the DNA of twins, you find a duplicate copy of the same recipe, but two distinct personalities. Not what you would call a fixed plan.
We do not inherit specific instructions on how to build a cell or an organ. Our DNA contains a list of biochemical ingredients (the proteins coded in the genes) and the basic rules for their assembly (some proteins are labeled as “master” and can control the activity of others, while others can start a dominolike cascade of events) but the pieces self-organize into biochemical pathways, cells and tissues without reading a manual. The genetic recipe for a cat will not give an elephant, but you can’t read the DNA of an individual and see a Mini-Me of his features.
The long-standing blueprint analogy, with its attached determinism, is a toxic meme we have to fight in the era of genetic consumerism. As long as people will believe that our identity and fate is programmed into their DNA, there will be a market for questionable genetic tests aimed at predicting intelligence, music, reading and math abilities, and even sexual preferences.
DNA testing for talents is especially thriving in China, where the one-child policy in place for decades and a rampant economy have put an enormous pressure on parents to give their offspring a competitive edge. Local clinics offering these tests proliferate, and thousands of Chinese parents are taking into account the results of DNA analyses before selecting a school for their child. Blinded by the blueprint rhetoric, these people believe themselves to be in the vanguard of a new approach in parenting, while they are being bamboozled into costly and inaccurate tests that their children will probably throw in their teeth one day.
Make no mistake: some traits are indeed genetically programmed, and some diseases are deterministic: people with a pathogenic mutation in the CFTR gene will develop cystic fibrosis regardless of their lifestyle. Even abilities once considered only a matter of upbringing like language, abstract thinking and many behavioral traits have a significant genetic component. But it doesn’t mean that DNA always has the upper hand. The opposite is true: an overwhelming majority of our traits depend on the blending of many genetic and nongenetic factors and therefore are hard to predict from DNA.
If we are a slow-baking cake, the world surrounding us is a capricious oven changing every minute. Science can peek through the glass and check if something looks funny inside the oven, but it cannot predict what our life, experiences and luck will bring tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
Powered by petabytes of data and intelligent algorithms, the genetic profiles of the future will be mighty, and their breadth will be frightening. Yet, no test will ever be able to predict our personalities accurately, not to mention our fates, because a significant part of what we are is not written into DNA.
When the postman knocks at your door with the DNA kit you bought online (because you will definitely buy one eventually), promise to relax for a minute and repeat to yourself: “DNA is not a blueprint. And my genes are not destiny.”
Sergio Pistoi is a science writer with a PhD in molecular biology. His latest book, DNA Nation: How the Internet of Genes is Changing your Life (Crux Publishing, 2019), is an account of the emerging world of consumer genomics and DNA social networks.
This article originally appeared on the Scientific American website.
Using naked boobs to disseminate science? The Tumblr blog Boobs for Science has just proved it’s no joke. The blog requires volunteers to send photos of themselves naked or wearing underwear, together with a sign featuring a scientific statement of their choice. Some pictures are then published with a concise scientific explanation on the chosen topic.
The initiative was born in Italy, where the parent blog Tette per la Scienza has already made a splash and the Facebook page has gathered more than 20,000 fans since late October 2014. Following a few complaints of sexism, the blog has also started to welcome photos of male models.
It’s easy to get attention with naked bodies on the internet, but the blog is not just another click bait: its goal is actually to foster discussion about scientific topics. Does it actually work to engage people in science?
I spoke on the phone with Lara Tait, a 30-years old web marketer with a background in paleoanthropology. She created the blog together with her boyfriend from Milan, Italy. Below is an edited version of our interview:
Read on for my full written review and, yes, other spicy photos.
(Originally published on Euroscience)
Photo courtesy of Boobs for Science
Sergio Pistoi for The Euroscientist
In the successful Italian comedy, Smetto quando voglio (I can quit whenever I want), a group of young and talented scholars with no career perspective turns into a successful drug-dealing mob. The story is imaginary—a surreal rendition of Breaking Bad—but it is also the portrait of Italian academia.There, the shortage of funds, baronies, and scant meritocracy hamper the careers of many endowed scientists. This fiction is not that far from reality.
Now, as an attempt to change their working conditions, Italian researchers are planning a protest movement in October, to take a stand against budget cuts and political apathy. There is no doubt that such movement is justified, but there is also a need for academics to run their universities better.
Read the full story here:
http://www.euroscientist.com/blog/2014/09/25/italian-scientist-protest-budget-cuts-crocodile-tears-included/
Note: This post first appeared on the California Stem Cell Agency’s (CIRM) website.
In 2012, I attended a meeting on human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) at the EU parliament in Brussels. The room was packed with members of the parliament and other influential decision makers. Top experts came to present their (really) exciting results with hESCs in an understandable way. It was clearly a lobbying effort to support the funding of hESC studies, which was under ferocious discussion at the EU parliament (eventually, the parliament voted to continue funding under the Horizon2020 framework program).
The first speaker, a prominent stem cell expert, showed beautiful microphotographs of a blastocyst (the early-stage embryo that provides the original material for hESC lines) and asked the audience to reflect on whether it could be labeled as a “human life.” That was fair and effective. People had an opportunity to look at the real, pin-point-size human cell-ball (a blastocyst contains only 200-300 cells) and make up their own mind without any bias. So far so good.
Unfortunately, seconds later the same speaker went on with elaborate scientific arguments to demonstrate that using those cell balls does not equal to a “destruction of human life”. On a personal ground, I agreed with him. But as a communication professional, I started smelling an incoming disaster. And I didn’t have to wait for long.
A member of the European parliament from Slovakia, with whom I have had some small talk before, suddenly interrupted the speech. “How dare you to come here and tell us when human life begins?” he heckled. The guy was intending to provoke—he was a notorious opponent of using hESCs. But he was damn right. There little scientific ground in telling at which stage of development a human life begins; it’s a matter of personal belief, not biology.
Avoiding communication screwups
By uttering scientific statements on the topic, the speaker had exposed his flank to strong criticism. Worse, he was totally unprepared to face such reaction. As a result, he was grilled on the spot by the Slovakian, who had piles of EU documents supporting his own view and made an easy way into muting the hESC-supporting scientist. The organizer, a British MEP, was embarrassed.
I personally know most of the scientists that spoke that day: they are great researchers and honest, unassuming persons who are strongly engaged in society and dissemination. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure that some people in the audience were left thinking that those “experts” might be just a bunch of arrogant eggheads.
Such a pattern of good-intentioned-and-yet-abortive communication is common and may sound familiar to many readers. The Brussels communication screw-up was just one out of dozens that I have witnessed. And I am still counting.
The reason for such failures is often obvious to the trained eye: total lack of strategy. As it turned out, none of the speakers in Brussels had discussed a simple plan beforehand with their colleagues, the organizers, or a communication professional. Had the first speaker consulted a bona fide communicator, he would have been advised about the risk of being roasted. Just for starters.
Of plumbers and scientists
It’s amazing how many good scientists overlook the importance of strategic communication. I could make a list of top researchers who think that they don’t need to waste time and money on a communication plan, or believe that their DIY plan is perfect (which I find even more worrying). These people would call an expert with degrees to fix the air-conditioning of their labs, but will never bother to hire a professional to get some advice on communication. I know it sounds like the old, bleak squabble between journalists and scientists but, believe me, it isn’t. I was a researcher myself and, actually, there is no squabble. There are good scientists and good communicators and they should team up against the poor ones in each category.
Enter this week’s Nature editorial about a new petition that aims to stop funding hESCs research in the EU. According to the EU rules, any petition signed by at least 1 million citizens automatically prompts a formal parliamentary hearing. This mechanism sounds like democratic heaven but, in fact, says Nature, it gives to a minority of people (1 million is 0,4% of the EU population) the power to endlessly restart the debate on topics that were already voted by the Parliament. The editorial states:
“When it comes to complex, highly emotional issues, passionate minority groups can easily and quickly drum up well-supported petitions in a way that scientists cannot,” which, the editorial states prompts researchers to continue “(presenting) their work as necessary to the well-being of all members of society however they may vote.”
I agree in principle with Nature’s article, but there’s another side to the story that we should not forget. Some of those noisy minorities are also very good at planning and implementing their own communication strategy, while scientists are not.
Free tips for communication
That’s why I beg to differ a bit from Nature’s prescription. Scientists should definitively present the utility of their work to the lay public, as Nature says, but do so with a communication strategy. Presenting exciting results was exactly what my egghead friends were doing at the Brussels meeting. Clearly, it didn’t work alone.
So, dear scientists, let me add a few modest communication tips on top of Nature’s:
Addendum by Don Gibbons (CIRM):
[Two colleagues at CIRM did an informal review of the use of social media by opponents and proponents of embryonic stem cell research. What they found backed up Sergio’s contention. Those opposed have a more organized strategy and are better at “staying on message.” That study was published as part of the World Stem Cell Summit in 2011.]
Tom Yulsman, an expert in environmental communication and a blogger for the Discover Magazine website, makes an interesting comparison between two recently-launched communication tools on climate change. Yulsman praises a White House data-driven interactive platform in contrast with what he calls an “embarrassingly ineffective report” issued by the Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
[the AAAS report, Yulsman writes] was, at its heart “We’re scientists, so listen to what we say” effort. In contrast, the [White House initiative] treats people like grownups and gives them powerful tools to learn for themselves what’s happening.
Yulsman is better placed than me to comment on climate change topics, and I personally share some of his trenchant critics towards the AAAS approach. However, I only partially agree with him. Sure, the White House platform is a million times cooler and more appealing than the old-school AAAS stuff. The AAAS made a clumsy attempt to add some visuals to what is basically a written report and the results are far from glorious. Their concept of “hearing from scientists”are video clips featuring talking heads. An old formula which, I agree with Yulsman, is hardly effective.
In short, the .gov platform is great. And the AAAS report is, well, a report. Plus some video that could be spared .
But besides real-world data, the White House platform is also loaded with simulations that –just like the AAAS report – will work only if we believe the scientists. One of the coolest link found in the platform, Yulsman notes, is an interactive map showing the NYC areas that would become inundated by rising sea levels. I share his enthusiasm for this app. However, this kind of tools are hardly aimed to the sceptic. A denialist will question the underlying forecasts in the first place, and will make a joke of the resulting maps like they were disaster-movie special effects. So, at the end, you still have to believe the science behind the app. That’s where the AAAS report, with its clear-cut, science-backed arguments, comes in handy.
What if I had to choose between the two approaches? Weighting in the impact on the public, and the coolness factor, I would probably go for the White House website . But in the real world we are not obliged to choose.Data-driven interactivity is great, but we still need old-school reports to make sense of complex topics. That’s why I don’t share Yulsman’s total disappointment about the AAAS report. We have two complementary tools for a communication strategy. So why can’t we just take them together?
Here’s the definitive rock playlist that will split the ears of your creationist friends.
Brace yourself, it’s the Darwin day!
Do the Evolution- Pearl Jam
I’m ahead/I’m a man/ I’m the first mammal to wear pants yeah!
More high-energy than the lightning inside a Miller-Urey flask. It’s evolution, baby!
Survival- Eminem
I am not a rapper I am an adapter/ I can adjust.
So you’re an adapter. Sure, yo, that’s what the motherf**ka dinosaur said.
Darwin- Third Eye Blind
The chromosomes divide/multiply and thrive/ And the strong survive
That’s pretty much what happens, in fact.
750.000 anni fa…l’amore?- Banco del Mutuo Soccorso
Io non posso possederti/fuggiresti via da me (I can’t have you/you would run away from me)
Pretty lame lyrics uh? Wait until you find out who’s speaking is a Neandertal who just fall in love with a female of Homo sapiens. The story wasn’t just platonic, it appears. At some point of our history wild sex with the red-haired Neandertals happened, according to recent studies.
Note: The legendary Italian prog rock band Banco del Mutuo Soccorso holds a record for releasing the first (and the only, to my knowledge) concept album about the theory of evolution, which they aptly entitled Darwin (1972). —Addendum: as it turns out, I totally ignored this entire opera based on Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species” that was recorded in the late ‘2000s. Thanks Marco Boscolo for the suggestion.
The Big Bang Theory Theme-Barenaked Ladies
The bipeds stood up straight/ The dinosaurs all met their fate/ They tried to leap but they were late
As a fan of TBBT I could not leave this one out. Plus, it features the only occurrence of the word “autotrophs” in the entire history of rock lyrics.
Darwin avait raison-Fèloche
Darwin avait raison/Je ne suis plus un primate/Si je suis à quatre pattes/C’est pour les relations
Darwin was right. Even in French. R.I.P Lamark.
Countdown to Extinction- Megadeth
All are gone, all but one. /No contest, nowhere to run.
This is it. It’s the countdown to extinction, after all.
Less is more- Motel Connection
The lyrics have little to do with Darwin, but this latest hit from the Italian electro band Motel Connection may have got the title right off the instruction booklet of the evolution game. Natural selection is parsimonious: useless, energy-hungry genetic traits are usually wiped out during evolution. When it comes to make your genes survive, less is really more. Does the Occam’s Razor ring any bell, folks?
Evolution- Korn
Close up to get a real good view/ I’m betting that the species will survive/Hold tight, I’m getting inside you
Try this as an opener at your own risk. Look, it may work, who knows? Biology rules after all.
The Mother We Share- Cvrches
The mother we share is a woman who lived roughly 100-200.000 years ago. It’s the so-called mitochondrial Eve and no, she has nothing to do with the one featured in the Bible. (to be precise, the mitochondrial Eve applies to all humans that are not of African origin, because they descend from a group of sapiens that migrated out of Africa). The trendy Cvrches’ track do not even remotely relate to such genetic concept, or to Darwin. But the title was suggestive. And I like the song, OK?
You will find the complete playlist (with more tracks) here on Spotify. Your suggestions are welcome!
Exposure to sub-lethal doses of neonicotinoids may have a long-term effect on bees. One of Italy’s top bee researchers recommends a ban on insecticide-coated seeds and in reintroducing rotating cultures against pests invasion.
http://www.youris.com/Bioeconomy/Food/Genetic_Testing_In_The_Steak-House.kl
DNA analyses may help select the best breeds by predicting how beef will taste once it reaches our palate
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
