The Legitimate face of Pseudoscience in Ghana

Every corner of this world has its fair share of intellectually dishonest people, who peddle pseudoscience for their own agenda. If you are lucky, you can also find a significant number of people with similar exposure and influence, who do their best to challenge the erroneous statements to mitigate the negative effects.

It is no surprise that I have noticed many such people in Ghana. You know, the know it all yet know nothing experts, the I have a phD in Biology from youtube university internet debaters, the I am a health professional/scientist but let me ignore every known fact in my field and say something absolutely wrong based on my personal beliefs or bias etc.

I think this happens because the cognitive dissonance that arises from having your beliefs challenged by facts is definitely something that makes people uncomfortable. And making the effort to be objective and up to date with knowledge in your field is not a process many want to go through even though it is necessary for progress in whatever field or profession you are in, and for the society as a whole.

Also, we have made it almost criminal to say, “I don’t know”. This start in school where saying “I don’t know” is unacceptable.

But really, sometimes you do not know something or unsure and that is ok. Just as it is perfectly okay to just be quiet and learn about it. But people feel compelled to comment and turn out very wrong …and loud.

Even in your field of specialty you cannot have every fact in your head to recall at will. However, one advantage of being educated in that field is to be able to know where to look for info on it and evaluate it.

Ok back to my main point, what alarms me about the situation of pseudoscience in Ghana is that it has a  “legitimate face”.  By that I mean a significant number of the people being intellectually dishonest actually have titles, positions and are found in places that give them credibility. Eg. In academia, government leadership positions, healthcare etc.

And in a country where exceeding reverence is given to degrees and titles, add that to the “mysticism” surrounding science and you have their flawed, obtuse, and erroneous statements easily accepted as scripture.

A perfect example of someone who really should know better but rather make terrible and wrong statements in the capacity of his profession is Ghana’s Chief Psychiatrist Dr. Akwasi Osei. His cringe worthy statements on topics like homosexuality, weed and mental health is indeed stunning.

This September, I took a taxi from Osu to Circle.  The radio was tuned to a program in twi with the presenter talking about HIV. (I did not catch the beginning or end so I am not sure if he was trying to sell something or just speaking on the issue. I suspect the former. It wasn’t a Q&A, he just went on talking, like preachers do but the topic is on HIV).

 This presenter started by talking about HIV and its symptoms. Ok, cool. The next point was how scientists found sex workers in East Africa that are naturally resistant to HIV infection.

It starts getting murky, in his next point he talks about how eating well and exercising help you fight HIV. This is where I start getting confused, if he is saying taking good care of yourself help survival, well that is known fact but why the bit about people who are naturally resistant?

 why mention that unless you are trying to imply the 2 are related (which is not true).

My suspicions were confirmed when he eventually made the implication that doing what he says (taking care of yourself) will make you like “them”(the HIV resistant sex workers).

At this point I was incensed and just kept saying to myself “Wth..this is wrong” many times.

My taxi driver was kind enough to point out that I should take it easy and listen carefully, he is a researcher he knows what he is saying. I tried explaining to him that yes there are people who are naturally resistant but it’s not about what they do and that the presenter's cherry picking of facts( to look legit) and attempt to conflate self-care with resistance to HIV infection is absolute travesty and dangerously misleading.

Now try explaining (in 2/4 twi) HIV virus recognition of cell surface proteins and how mutations or low gene expression is believed to be involved in resistance, to a taxi driver convinced the man on the radio is preaching the gospel. Yeah, I gave up and the taxi driver went back to asking me about how to get a visa to America anyway.

I don’t think these are obscure cases or anecdotes. There are so many instances pointing to the same issue. Of course the good ones exist, but they are in the minority unfortunately.

So whether it is a “researcher” on radio cherry picking facts but using them to draw wrong conclusions, or our dear Chief Psychiatrist, the issue of pseudoscience peddled by people who are supposed to know better is too common for comfort. Because these snake oil salesmen are numerous and are the ones at the helm of affairs, in charge of making and executing policies. And I find this alarming.

GMO in Ghana, & Matters Arising -Part 3

Let’s move on to one very popular study which was heralded by some anti-GMO supporters as proof that GMOs are unsafe, and thereby pressuring governments to place a ban on GMOs in Europe and Africa.  I’m sure people following the debate have heard about it and even seen images of rats with huge tumors all over the internet.  To me, it serves as a typical example of how people can use a study that is inconclusive to make emphatic claims about GMOs that lack scientific integrity. I am talking about the Seralini study. Just how credible is the data? Is it really logical to draw such conclusions or are we just “willfully” confusing correlation with causation just for confirmation bias?

Seralini

The aim of the study was to determine long term toxicity of GMOs using rat models. It studied Sprague-Dawley rats for 2 years with one group fed GMO corn from Monsanto and the control group placed on a GMO free diet. They reported 50% of males and 70% of females fed GMO died prematurely compared with 30% and 20% in the control group.

These are a few of my questions that I think undermine claims in the media.

·         People are suspicious of studies released by biotech companies as likely biased. Good, but how about a study released by Seralini, founder and director of an anti-GMO research group called CRIIGEN?

·         During the press conference to announce his findings, he made journalists sign a confidentiality agreement not to contact other scientists before publishing.

·         In a study that is basically learning about toxicology and not about tumor biopsies or morphology, why was it necessary to include graphic images of rats with huge tumors in your paper if not to appeal to sentiments and trigger fear instead of logic of the audience?

            http://parrottlab.uga.edu/parrottlab/Publications/Arjo-et-al-TRAG-2013.pdf This journal review also noted            that rats that develop tumors in experiments are euthanized, why did Seralini’s team allow the tumor to grow to grotesque size and then paraded images to the press? It is unethical.

·         Rat model is inadequate,- You can not translate what happens in rats directly into what will happen in humans. Since it is very unethical to test human directly, models like rats are used to give an idea but in many cases different events are observed in human trials

·         Number of rats (100 in each group) was too small to make a conclusion that is statistically significant.

·         The rat type (Sprague-Dawley) developed tumors spontaneously anyway, at a whooping rate of about 80% as suggested by Suzuki et. Al 1979. Rats in the control group fed non-GMO corn still developed tumors. Also, with a lifespan of 2.5-3.5 years, a 2 year study is really dealing with old rats that are prone to developing tumors.

·         Lastly, some of the rats fed GMO corn outlived the ones placed on the non-GMO diet. So, that further challenges claims made by people that the results proved GMOs can be linked to cancers.

As you can see, even a study has to be analyzed to eliminate other logical reasons that can contribute to the results. The experiment method also needs to be evaluated before the data is given credibility. This criterion should also apply to studies that suggest GMOs are safe.

In research, one way of doing this is peer reviewing. Where scientists are contacted for comments and critique before and even after a paper is published. After publication, there are scientists all over constantly trying to reproduce the experiment or examine the data and conclusion.

The Seralini paper was found inconclusive after it was held to scrutiny. A press release from CRIIGEN admit that “the data are inconclusive, due to the rat strain and the number of animals used” (http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=84http://) The paper has been retracted. Is this a conspiracy to silence anti-GMO activists or an example of an experiment that just did not pass scrutiny and the peer review process? I am of the latter opinion. Further studies are however always welcomed.

Let’s be realistic, are GMOs the silver bullet to end world hunger? I don’t think so. But it can help, food security is however more complex than increasing yields or producing more nutritious varieties. WHO identifies three pillars of food security:

I.            Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.

II.          Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.

III.           Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.

Food security is a complex problem that includes social and economic factors. It takes a dedicated government to identify and address this. There are non-GMO methods that can help, we can also prevent post harvest losses, improve transportation to markets etc. A holistic approach is needed to tackle the issue of food security. Not an eagerness to cut deals with foreign corporations.

GMO in Ghana, & Matters Arising-Part 2

   

Now before I address the last two concerns ( III and IV ), I think it’s important I give an explanation on the difference in perspectives from scientists and non-scientists. I think things get lost in translation because of a misunderstanding of the scientific method or process of evaluating information. I’ll list a few points here:

• ·       Science is not dogma. It’s more of a way of thinking. A self-correcting mechanism that constantly tries to improve.

• ·       Even if your experiment yields results that support your hypothesis (claim) you did not necessarily prove you are right. You just failed to falsify your claim. If your data is falsifiable, testable and reproducible, you have an audience. Even long established “facts” or methods are constantly being tested to see the conditions under which they will fail. Room should always be left for doubt and curiosity. Dissent backed with data is welcome and even rewarded. Every claim or theory can be challenged or improved, nothing should be untouchable.

• ·       With room being left for doubt and new findings, do not expect to get emphatic statements. Neither should people be making emphatic statements especially from inconclusive data. Statements like “We are 100% sure of …” or  “Of course this will work…” only serve as comfort for those looking for assurances and not facts. Doing this is not being true to Science. I think its best to just tell people what the data suggest and to what degree of confidence can be drawn from it.

I understand when it comes to things like food, drugs, life altering technologies people want assurances, but it really serves no purpose.  So I will only tell you what the data suggest and what conclusions I drew from it.

That said, I will respond to III and IV

Consensus - Even scientists are not unanimously on the safety of GMOs. Hence, GMOs cannot be trusted.

Well, I just hope you know by now that majority is not always right. I think even outside science this is true. There are always constant experiments and seminars that test, discuss and challenge new and long held theories. As stated earlier, if you have falsifiable, testable and reproducible data, you get an audience. Many scientific breakthroughs came from people who held unpopular opinions but provided credible data to back their claims. These ‘unpopular opinions’ held after criticisms and after being reproduced by other scientists. So it’s best to stop looking for comfort in majority opinions. Rather, make sure a claim is backed by credible data. Consensus does not lend credence to a claim so point III is a very poor argument.

GMOs are unhealthy, toxic, cancerous, etc.

Remember I mentioned I could only tell you what the data available suggest. Also its best to read further and maintain an honest approach to new information being careful to avoid confirmation bias. Here are a few resources to start from.

 Pro-GMO resources:

·       http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

This publication analyzed about 1783 studies on the safety of GMO foods to humans, animals and the environment. They found little to no evidence that it is not safe.

·       Academicsreview.org is a website by scientists who consider and analyze public claims against peer-reviewed scientific data. It is also a good start for anyone interested in learning about both sides of the debate.

Anti-GMO resources:

·       http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf

Which talks about studies that raise concern about certain GMO crops

·       GMWatch – You can follow them on twitter (@GMWatch). According to their bio, they are committed to countering the propaganda of the biotech industry.

I am concerned when I see the push against GMOs from biotech companies turn into anti-GMO (all products) and the technology of genetic engineering.

Maybe it helps the narrative- “Western corporations pushing deadly seeds on developing countries for profit and to use them as guinea pigs” This makes for a dramatic storyline and easily appeals to emotions, cause fear and quickly garner support. But it is also irresponsible - are the claims really backed by scientific data? And is the data credible or just a case of confusing correlation with causation?

I have spent months reading arguments and studies on both sides, there is more data that suggest GMOs are safe as far as we know. But studies that suggest otherwise deserve a “fair hearing”, I mean they deserve to be scrutinized and further tested like any claim to eliminate other logical causes that can bring about the results.

However, so far I have seen emphatic statements like “GMOs cause cancer, are toxic” which is made from studies that are inconclusive. This is not scientifically sound or socially responsible.

Secondly, evaluation of GMOs should be done on a case-by-case basis. Example, if corn from Monsanto is found not to be as effective or safe as claimed by the company, they need to go back to the lab and improve it. How does that result in a condemnation of all GMOs (including the ones that have passed safety tests) and even the technology of genetic engineering? When science fails, you need more science to correct it. You do not call for a ban on driving or flying when a car or airplane malfunctions.

When polio vaccines were mass tested in the US, there were cases of paralytic polio in children in northeast US, which even caused deaths. It took going back to the lab to find out why, make improvements and now polio is said to be eradicated in the western hemisphere with only a handful cases elsewhere. It’s either that or deaths and epidemics. Let’s not reject good science because we do not understand it and are having a knee-jerk reaction because we trigger words used by alarmists.

There is also the idea that GMOs are inherently harmful because scientists have disturbed the “natural order”, stemming from the belief that nature comes perfect and good. This is fantasy; nature is far from perfect, nature fights against humans sometimes. And when that happens, it takes human intervention to mitigate the effects. Science is an example of human endeavors to intervene. It never promises to be perfect or 100% safe, but Science does the best to limit harmful effects while solving a problem. So, when faced with food security issues, why dismiss a promising technology because we do not understand it, or do not like the companies involved?

I should note however, that there is hardly any long term or epidemiological studies on GMOs as far as I know. Long-term studies will go beyond current safety tests to either further support safety of GMOs or provide evidence to the contrary.

GMO in Ghana, & Matters Arising - Part 1

“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster” --- Carl Sagan

Anytime I watch, listen or observe discussions on the latest hot topic of GMOs, Mr. Sagan’s quote keep coming to mind. It is important for people to adequately inform themselves about issues in Science, but it is also important for scientists to show their work and explain their research without using the technical language found in journals. Both sides do not usually do this even though science in modern times relies on public support just as much as the public relies on the products of science and technology.

So here is my attempt to explain and state my opinion on the topic. I try to cover as much as possible without being too technical. But this post is not intended to be a one-stop-shop for everything on the topic so further individual reading will be needed.

    

What are GMOs?

Genetically Modified Organisms as the name suggest refers to plants, animals or microorganisms with altered genes using the technique of genetic engineering.

Some argue that changing the DNA of organisms is nothing new and point out selective breeding methods used by farmers for centuries as an example. With biotechnology, we now have greater control of the process. Genetic engineering has become one of the techniques that is invaluable to science and widely applied in research, medicine, industry and agriculture.

The issue of GMOs has taken center-stage in Ghana because of a bill before parliament called the Plant Breeders Bill. The conversation is needed, critique is valuable and mobilization to address concerns by activists is impressive.  In discussions about GMOs some of the main concerns I have come across include: 

I.               GMO seeds from corporations will put our food security in the control of these corporations. It will limit the ability of farmers to own or save seeds and freely grow it.

II.             GMOs and the technology of genetic engineering is a “new” method that requires time and more testing     before we can try it.

III.           Consensus - Even scientists are not unanimous on the safety of GMOs. Hence, GMOs cannot be trusted.

IV.            GMOs are unhealthy, toxic, cancerous, etc.

I will address these concerns with the information I have available and opinions formed on the topic.

GMO seeds from biotech corporations will put our food security in their control. It will limit the ability of farmers to own or save seeds and freely grow it.

                                       

This to me is simply connecting the dots. If the history of biotech companies in other fields is anything to go by, then worrying about seeds becoming unaffordable and restrictions being placed on their use are legitimate concerns. The biotech companies might claim ownership of their technology and be unwilling to share it at reasonable cost, when that happens it is the poor farmers who suffer.

Examples can be cited from the pharmaceutical industry, research and medicine with several cases of unreasonably high-priced drugs, reagents and antibodies that make diagnostic tests and experiments very expensive. After all, they are not “non-profits”. They are for profit and invest millions (even billions when it comes to drug development) to develop their technology. A return on that investment is expected. We would know better than to do business with self-seeking multinational corporations while we claim to be a poor country that is trying to help rural farmers. If an economics expert thinks otherwise, I would appreciate the insight. While I am yet to hear from an economics expert on that regard, I do not think it a smart move.

Secondly, we do not have to “outsource” to foreign biotechnology corporations when we have local agencies like SARI (Savannah Agricultural Research Institute). They have exhibited their competence in this field even with the challenges they face. SARI is mandated to improve agricultural technologies. They have made progress even in developing genetically modified cowpeas, and conducted field tests in northern Ghana. If the government conducts a complete evaluation and is convinced GMOs can help, why deal with foreign biotech companies instead of local research agencies? The latter I argue is better informed on the specific issues our farmers face and can develop more effective, tailored solutions.

GMOs and the technology of genetic engineering is a “new” method that requires time and more testing before we can try it.

Some argue the science hasn’t been done, there is not enough evidence to suggest it is safe, they are not tested, etc.  However, the use of genetic engineering is not new to science. Neither is its application in agriculture. The technology is about 30 years old. There is significant research in the field with thousands of published studies from biotech companies, government agencies and independent research groups. It is one of the most well researched areas in science. Which is not to say there is nothing new to learn, but for now we know a lot about it.

The Issue of patenting Human Genes.

The U.S Supreme Court on Thursday 13, 2013, ruled that naturally occurring genes cannot be patented. From my twitter timeline, many people were surprised that genes could even be patented and some wondered what exactly a gene is and why/how it is patented. I will attempt to explain these questions then discuss why I am of two minds on this issue.

Let’s start from the basics…

What is a gene?          

 A gene is basically a sequence (or stretch) of DNA (or RNA) molecules that encode or can be “read” to produce a product which function in the organism. By products, I’m talking about enzymes, hormones, etc. So generally speaking, we can say a gene is a template in the body’s factory to make products.

We all have genes that are supposed to code for the same products, but whether it will code for a product or not, or produce a different form of it is determined by the slight genetic variations within our genome (whole set of genes) as a result of evolution.

It is this template in every human that biotechnology companies and universities have patented making millions of dollars out of it. A 1980 Supreme Court ruling paved the way for gene patenting by allowing genetically modified organisms to be patented. So why decide against patenting now?

Patenting a gene can have different meanings or give the holder different rights depending on how it is drafted of course. I am no lawyer so I’ll just stick to the science aspect here. Usually, a patent provides the holder with rights to exclude others from using, making selling, conducting research, testing etc for that gene for a particular period of time.

This after all is what patents are meant to do right? But why genes? Something shared by all humanity. Why does a company want the sole rights to control it? Doesn't it in a way give them ownership over humans?

On the other hand, you don’t really need your genes outside your body in your day to day activities except to stay in there, function properly and keep you alive and healthy, and it’s not like they came to extract it from your body, so what’s the big deal?

Let’s examine a few arguments from both sides…..

Opponents of gene patenting identify its potential to hinder research as one of their reasons. When one company holds the rights to exclude other scientists from researching on a gene it impedes the collective effort research is all about.  And I am sure many people care more about finding better treatments for diseases than which company came up with the findings.

A second reason, one that affects many directly, scientist or not is the issue of high costs. See, holding patents over a gene can also give you the right to dictate what tests can be done and for how much. Not everyone can afford the usually high price when they need to make diagnostic tests in order to take life saving medical decisions. (Eg. Angelina Jolie undergoing mastectomy to reduce her risk of breast cancer after diagnostic tests showed she had a very high chance because of her genes.)

These are the main reasons that led the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to combine forces with some scientists and health professionals and present a case against Myriad Genetics; a biotechnology company that held patents for many genes including two breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Myriad Genetics argued that the genes are their invention once it is outside the body (I’m guessing this is because it is through their research that located the genes in the genome and devised ways to extract and carry out tests on it).

Well, the Supreme Court concluded that a naturally occurring gene is not an invention; there is no invention in the discovery or isolation of it. This ruling goes beyond just the two breast cancer genes and affects 1000’s of patented human genes. ACLU hails it as great news, it definitely sets precedence and will discourage monopoly and the negative effects of capitalism in research.

So why am I of two minds on this issue?

First of all let me just say that I do agree with the ruling, monopoly can impede research. Then is the issue of costs, screening for the breast cancer gene is said to cost about $3000. Not many people have that kind of money or medical insurance to cover it, meanwhile time sensitive life saving medical decisions need to be made. The high price usually discourage such tests and results in cancer that is bound to kill the patient without much you can do about it. So some regulations to avoid this is fine by me.

On the other hand, as a scientist working in a Biotechnology company, I am well aware of the laboring and demanding job that is research. Only a small percentage of ideas work and you have to sink in millions of dollars into that idea with no guarantees. Let’s take the drug discovery process for example; it costs between $500 million-$1.2 billion dollars. And the chances of it failing are enormous. Only about 20 drugs are approved every year and they are usually just modifications of old ones.

So basically, research is very expensive, you need money, and you need investors. Investors, well... want a return on their investment. Let us also not forget that money is a strong motivation for innovation and a very effective way to attract the “best and brightest” as they say to a particular field. Patenting is just a way to make some profit off their product and get much deserved reward for innovation and hard work.

But whiles innovation is involved in identifying and isolating a gene, because it is still “as is” generally speaking from the body, I agree naturally occurring genes should be left out of patenting. But anything done with that gene, any further processing or utilization, should be patented because it is at least a “method” patent and it is innovation.

This is probably why the Supreme Court compromised and said cDNA (which they classified as artificial genes) can be patented. The ACLU objects and claim cDNA is not really different from a naturally occurring gene, it’s a “mirror copy”, so that makes the ruling a placebo; not changing much. Well, yes and no. The cDNA is a mirror copy of “processed” mRNA which is a copy of the gene. But the processing step is what specifies what product will be made. So if a scientist designs a cDNA from a gene, there is tremendous innovation in that they have a specific product in mind and have succeeded in figuring out the template to make it. The cDNA gene is not “as is”, so in my opinion that justifies patenting.

I think the patent argument will go beyond human gene patents to plants (hint; Monsanto) and microbes. And at the end of the day, I hope a balance can be made between creating the right environment for research and innovation and being “fair” to people, the latter believe it or not, is a gray area, something we never seemed to be able to agree on in bioethics class. But that, including the issue of Monsanto and their plant gene patents is another post. Thanks for reading and stay tuned.

Image:(www.american.com)