Jack Serle

Since being named deputy editor of Elements Jack Serle has impressed the editorial team with his adequate standards of personal hygiene. His areas of interest include policy, development and infectious diseases. Jack has said he believes Elements will further understanding and appreciation of science for everyone. He looks forward to tearing his hair out and losing plenty of sleep over the site in the coming months.

[email protected]
Follow Jack on Twitter @jackserle
Find Jack’s blog here www.extramural.wordpress.com

High Speed 1 links London to the Channel Tunnel. The Government has launched its efforts to build its sister line High Speed 2

The Government has taken the first step towards building a new high speed rail line linking London and Birmingham.

Journeys could be made on the new route in less than 50 minutes, almost half the present time.

Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Transport, has launched a public consultation on the proposed route called High Speed 2 (HS2).

The consultation period will enable anyone who wishes to offer their opinion to the planning process of the new route.

The public consultation period began on 27 February and will run until 29 July this year.

The second phase of the plan will see the line split, joining Manchester and Leeds to the London to Birmingham route.

The new lines will cut both the London to Manchester and London to Leeds journeys to within 80 minutes.

If plans progress as laid out in the Government proposal, construction of the first phase will not begin until 2015, opening in 2026 at the earliest. Phase two will not be completed until the 2030s.

The length of the process reflects the complexity of passing legislation for large infrastructure projects, according to the Department for Transport (DfT).

The Government proposal also discusses plans to link HS2 with Heathrow airport and High Speed 1 (HS1), the route linking London with the Channel Tunnel.

Linking HS2 with HS1 would take advantage of the integration of the Continental high speed rail network which means trains can run across national borders.

HS2 could eventually mean train services running from Manchester or Leeds to Paris and beyond.

Total costs of the planned routes, including a link to Heathrow Airport and HS1, will be £32bn, the DfT say.

The Government believes the construction programme will create around 40,000 jobs and generate revenues of £27bn.

The nascent route faces opposition from environmental groups and MPs with constituencies along the planed route.

Conservation society the Chiltern Society plans to rebut the HS2 plans. They believe the Chiltern Hills, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), should not be crossed by the new train line.

Campaigners protest at the planned disruption to this green and pleasant landscape

AONB status affords some degree of legal protection to an area, especially in terms of planning and building consent.

The public consultation states that all but 1.2 miles of HS2 track will be either in tunnels, deep cuttings or along the route of an existing main road.

However the Chiltern Society believes the HS2 route will “leave an indelible, ugly scar across one of the most beautiful areas of England”.

If built, the London – Birmingham line would have capacity to take up to 18 trains an hour, each carrying a maximum of 1,100 passengers at speeds up to 225mph.

HS2 would be the first move towards a high speed rail network. France and Spain have been investing in high speed rail for some time and HS2 represents an effort on the part of the Government to catch up.

Mr Hammond believes this plan will “bridge the north-south divide through massive improvements in journey times”.

Images courtesy of Mackenzie London and Garry Lewis

 

The 1,100m deep Boulby mine host to the Rutherford Appleton Underground Laboratory

Britain’s community of astro-particle physicists is in danger of being lost forever. Dr Henrique Araujo, lecturer in astro-particle physics at Imperial College London is realistic about the chances of his field remaining a part of UK science:

“I give one lecture where I sell the experiment [ZEPLIN III], particle physicists sell the Large Hadron Collider and the students choose which experiment they are going to join.”

He continued:

“I cannot hand on heart go to them and say ‘look you should join me to work on ZEPLIN III’ because I don’t know if ZEPLIN III will be working in six month’s time.”

Continue reading »

[slideshow caption=on]

The Wellcome Trust has announced the winners of its annual Image awards.

Every year one of the world’s largest funding bodies rewards the spectacular, the alien and the bizarre.

Picture takers and computer model makers from a multitude of laboratories have submitted to this competition which never fails to produce an array of startling and beautiful images.

The judges this year are Dr Alice Roberts, co-presenter of the BBC’s Coast; Dr Adam Rutherford of Nature; Catherine Draycott, head of Wellcome Images; Dr Robin Lovell-Badge, head of stem cell biology and developmental genetics at the National Institute for Medical Research; BBC medical correspondent Fergus Walsh; Eric Hilaire, assistant picture editor at the Guardian; John Durant, director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s museum; James Cutmore, picture editor at BBC Focus; and Dr Laura Pastorelli, Wellcome’s image coordinator who assembled this panel.

The images will form part of the Wellcome Image Collection, a considerable educational resource licensed for use across the world. The 21 winning photographs will be on display at the Wellcome Collection in central London from 24 February.

Medical needs, legal bills (Photo by Sage Ross (ragesoss.com), from Wikimedia Commons)

British pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has taken a financial wallop to the tune of £2.2 billion ($3.5bn) in legal costs. This blow more than wipes out the company’s 2010 fourth quarter earnings of £1.45bn ($2.3bn).

A portion of the fees have gone towards the resolution of law suits linked to the diabetes drug Avandia. The majority of the charge is thought to correspond to the settlement of an investigation by the Attorney of the District of Colorado into the company’s practices dating back to 1997.

GSK has not broken down how the charge was accrued to prevent lawyers calculating the average amount paid to claims associated with Avandia. Such a figure would be a significant bargaining advantage for future litigators.

Avandia had been one of GSK’s big sellers, netting £1.4bn in 2006. Fears over its safety, specifically its potential to increase the risk of heart failure, and subsequent restriction of sale by European and US regulators meant this income dropped to £771m in 2009.

The investigation by Colorado’s district attorney is burrowing into purported aggressive sales practices including alleged ‘off-label’ marketing: the illegal practice of offering drugs as therapies for conditions they have not been licensed for.

A history of charges

According to a report published by Public Citizen, a US watchdog, GSK tops the drug company league table for penalties paid to the US government. Since 1990 the industry has forked over £12.5bn ($20bn) of which GSK has contributed £2.8bn ($4.5bn), even before this latest charge.

The report describes increasing frequency and scale of charges levied by US government bodies. The watchdog suggests this is due to a higher degree of scrutiny and stringency of US officials and is calling for “a more robust response than the government’s current practice” to combat the rising number of infringements.

As a consequence of significant legal charges, Public Citizen’s calls for greater regulation or the wave of bad publicity that has hit the company, GSK has announced changes in sales practice. US sales representatives will no longer be paid by commission but on the basis of their scientific knowledge, customer feedback and overall performance of their team.

Andrew Jack of the Financial Times believes this is a consequence of the “’arms race’ in aggressive marketing” that has built up between pharmaceutical companies. It is a product of the highly competitive market in the US. This stems from mergers of recent years that have produced enormous corporations like AstraZeneca with a turnover in 2009 of £20.8bn ($32.8bn), GSK, 2009 turnover of £28.4bn ($44.8bn) and Pfizer £31.6bn ($50bn). This has restricted space to manoeuvre in a hotly contested and lucrative market.

Take the hit and stay in the black

Evidently GSK can easily stomach the loss of its fourth quarter income for 2010. The ease with which a company of this size can weather regulatory investigation and litigious consumers does to some degree support Public Citizen’s call for more punitive treatment of transgressions. GSK claims new practices and tougher scrutiny has made their sins a thing of the past.

It is precisely this enormous turnover that enables these companies to invest in drugs in the first place. From wonder weight loss treatments to life-saving vaccines, Big Pharma does not peddle snake oil. Keeping pharmaceutical companies’ balance books in the black will ensure brilliant minds continue to hunt out medical breakthroughs.

The on-going saga of GSK, Avandia, and Big Pharma’s battle with regulation is emblematic of the relationship governments have with all big businesses. Politicians are sure that corporations boost the economy but are keen not to allow criminal acts; corporations stretch rules as far as they can without harming their profits.

For those fortunate enough to live in our ivory tower of the West it is too easy to conflate the argument to a battle between the forces of good in the public sector and the forces of evil in the private sector. You may see commerce as vulgar and the corporate world as cutthroat and dirty but in this global free market the innovation of pharmaceutical companies benefits us as a society and individuals.

An electron microscope image of the bacteria Clostridium difficile

Clostridium difficile from a stool sample (CDC/Lois S. Wiggs, 2004)

Clostridium difficile, commonly known as C. diff, is a species of bacteria generally found in soil where it can remain dormant and survive the worst excesses of the elements. In this non-growing state it is shielded by a thick, protective spore which forms around the bacterium. It is not unusual for the bacteria to live in the gut of healthy people without causing any problems. They dwell in the intestines of people who are oblivious to the messy mayhem their minute bacterial squatters could cause. Infection by C. diff, under certain circumstances, can have painful and sometimes fatal consequences.

A highly distasteful therapy has been devised that could herald the development of a useful weapon against this pervasive and potentially deadly bacteria. The treatment is faecal transplantation; taking a morsel of matter from a healthy gut, liquidising it and pumping it into an infected gut.

C diff infection (CDI) is associated with people who spend time in hospital, receive antibiotic treatment or somehow have a compromised immune system. It is most commonly found in over-65s, a group of the population more likely to be admitted to hospital and receive antibiotics because their immune system, as a result of ageing, is not as substantial as it once was. CDI is more a problem in developed than developing countries because the fruits of economic and social advance mean the populations of Europe, North America and Japan are aging. Their hospitals are filled with the decrepit and wrinkly consequence of industrialisation: lives artificially prolonged by medical science beyond any point prior generations could have thought possible

CDI’s association with hospitals and antibiotic treatment is intrinsically linked to the microorganisms’ biology and the contents of a human’s gut. CDIs are not often picked up outside the hospital walls because a healthy person has a vibrant community of bacteria living in their guts. This is the gut micro-flora and these non-harmful bacteria are called commensal bacteria.

The micro-flora of a healthy gut is a complicated ecosystem in itself, with limited space and limited food. This results in intense competition between the microorganisms that live there. Therefore any invading organism must somehow dominate this established population before it can cause the human host any harm.

C. diff is resistant to a number of antibiotics and when cocooned in its spore many cleaning products and detergents cannot kill it. As a result C. diff can spread around hospitals and nursing homes, carried by the hands of a patient, a visitor, or the staff from the loo to a light switch or door handle and then to the patients. The alcohol-based hand gel that you see all over medical centres are about as effective as a sandbag full of sugar – the alcohol gel selectively kills pretty much everything on your hands except C. diff.

Once established C. diff produces toxins which cause serious inflammation of the gut wall. White blood cells rush to the thin layer of cells that coat the inside of the gut, called the epithelium, to defend against the effects of the toxins. This can lead to the epithelium breaking in tiny ruptures and the white blood cells and the contents of the bursting epithelial cells flood into the central passage through the intestines called the lumen. This causes the characteristics symptoms of C. diff infection; protracted and painful diarrhoea sometimes described as “green and foul-smelling”.

The diarrhoea can develop into a much more serious condition called toxic megacolon, where the gut lumen swells and bloats even though it is not blocked. This can lead to peritonitis, where the gut lining bursts causing the contents of the intestines to spill out into the body cavity. Without immediate treatment peritonitis leads to massive infections throughout the body and a painful death.

Currently CDIs are treated with antibiotics however this is not guaranteed to clear all the C. diff from the gut. It does kill off much of the surviving gut microflora which only serves to reduce the C. diff bacteria’s competition. This can make the situation worse, enabling the infection to return after a few months hiatus. This happens in roughly one third of cases.

Faecal transplant involves taking 30 grams (1oz) of faeces from a close relative or cohabitant so that, because of similar diet and living environment, the donor and recipient share gut-flora characteristics. This modest contribution is diluted to produce a “faecal fluid”; 30 millilitres, a little more than two tablespoons, of which is then pumped down a tube inserted, via the patient’s nose, into the large intestine.

Dr Alisdair McConnachie of Gartnavel General Hospital in Glasgow has produced a 75 per cent success rate for treatment of recurrent C. diff infection. Others have reported more than 90 per cent success. There are full clinical trials recruiting patients in Canada and the Netherlands. The Dutch study is accepting CDI sufferers from across Europe – apparently even the supposedly scatological Lowlanders are a bit iffy about the idea of this transplant.

Professor Ian Poxton of the University of Edinburgh explains where faecal transplants could lead us: “It proves without doubt that you can give people a bacterial cocktail that will prevent relapse” he said. “Now we need to identify the components [of the gut-microflora] that does the protecting.” The faecal transplants have proven the principle that replenishing the gut microflora is an effective treatment. This could be translated into a probiotic that actually cures recurring CDI.

Memberships

Member Button linking to the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW) - an association of science writers, journalists, broadcasters and science-based communications professionals - many of whom are available for freelance work