WINTER 2019
CANYON CREST ACADEMY’S
catalyst
ISSUE 1
SCIENCE MAGAZINE
catalyst
WINTER 2019
CCA— Welcome to the incredible 11th issue of Catalyst. Our amazing team of writers, editors, and designers has been hard at work to bring you this latest edition of our science magazine. In this issue, we explore some of the biggest moments for science in the past few years (“The New Face of Organ Transplants”), but we also examine the problems we still face in 2019: read about saving the bees in “The Decline of Pollinators” and serious, yet overlooked infections in “Neglected Tropical Diseases: The Unknown Killers.” And thanks to our piece on open-access publishing, you’ll learn more about the history of scientific publishing and the latest efforts in making research accessible to all. Getting hungry reading all these articles? Take a look at “You are What You Eat,” where you’ll read about the controversy over genetically-modified food. And, if you find yourself in dire need of a bit of shut-eye during the day, make sure you read our “Guide to Napping” to optimize your next power nap. Finally, if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email us at ccacatalyst@gmail.com. Check us out on our website ccacatalyst.wordpress.com to see our archive of past issues as well as our monthly blog. Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/catalystsciencemagazine to stay updated! Enjoy! Aida Razavilar and Victoria Li Presidents of Catalyst Science Magazine
PRESIDENTS Victoria Li & Aida Razavilar VICE PRESIDENTS Jeanne Zheng & Susan Lee FINANCE DIRECTORS Ashley Zhang & Alex Shahla EXECUTIVE EDITORS Christina Lee & Judy Qin SUPERVISING EDITORS Alisha Sandhu & Emily Kang EXECUTIVE LAYOUT Anjali Gopinathan ADVISOR Michael Gaughen EDITORS Ruchi Agashe, Faith Zhang, Lydia Zhong, Christopher Caligiuri, Johnny Ren, Joshua Charat-Collins, Alyssa Cho, Gabby Kang, Mason Lee, James Chang, Trevor Cai, Michaela Chang, Sarina Hegli, Isabella Vierling, Paul Zhang, Jessica Li, Trisha Yanduru, Joanne Lee, Dhylan Patel LAYOUT Katie Sheng, Michelle Cheng, Karen Bei, Victoria Chen, Faith Zhang
ISSUE 1
contents WINTER 2019, ISSUE 1
Christina Lee
1
Medicine NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES: THE UNKNOWN KILLERS Three diseases, explained.
Alex Shahla
3
Current Events THE DECLINE OF POLLINATORS
Susan Lee
5
Student Life A GUIDE TO NAPPING
Alisha Sandhu
6
New Innovations THE NEW FACE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTS The rise of full face transplants.
Johnny Ren
7
Hot Topics YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT (AND BELIEVE) GMOs, debunked.
9
Current Events OPEN-ACCESS PLAN How research could become more accessible.
James Chang and Paul Zhang
ccacatalyst.wordpress.com facebook.com/catalystsciencemagazine EMAIL ccacatalyst@gmail.com MAIL 5951 Village Center Loop Rd, San Diego, CA 92130.
Neglected Tropical Diseases: The Unknown Killers By Christina Lee
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. You’ve probably heard of these infectious diseases and learned about their prevalence and deadliness throughout your life. They are some of the most dangerous diseases that affect people today. But have you heard of leishmaniasis, Chagas disease, or African trypanosomiasis? It is highly unlikely that you have. This is because these diseases are neglected tropical diseases (NTDs): a group of 20 diseases that span throughout 149 countries and affect more than a billion people. They are equally as deadly as AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; however, they are not as known due the population they affect. NTDs are most prevalent in isolated, undeveloped areas that have little means to administer the necessary countermeasures to fight against the disease. These areas usually are suffering from extreme poverty and do not have adequate sanitation, making them extremely susceptible to these pathogens. NTDs are virtually unheard of, since they do not affect people in more developed countries, such as the United States. They are most commonly found in South America, Africa, and southeastern Asia, causing over 530,000 deaths annually. Although the diseases are treatable, problem is that the available treatment methods are usually not suitable for those living in areas of extreme poverty. Those affected by NTDs are unlikely to have access to facilities that can administer certain drugs or to be financially capable of affording expensive treatments, such as chemotherapy. Since they do not seem as relevant or economically profitable, there is also a lack of research being conducted on these diseases. There is currently a deficit of new drugs being produced to fight against NTDs, for the drug discovery process is an extremely long and arduous process. It can cost pharmaceutical companies up to $2.6 billion to put a drug on the market. Thus, it is not surprising that so little interest is being taken regarding NTDs. Despite the economic disadvantages, it is crucial that people take interest in preventing and eradicating NTDs. As long as these diseases still exist, they have the potential to spread even further and cause wide-scale epidemics. Some of the most prevalent and deadly NTDs will be featured in further detail in this article. 1
LEISHMANIASIS
Leishmaniasis is an infectious disease caused by the parasite, Leishmania. This parasite is spread to humans through the bite of a sandfly vector, called the phlebotomine sandfly. The Leishmania parasite is known to exist in 2 different stages: an amastigote and promastigote form. When inside of the sandfly vector, the parasite exists in its promastigote stages, in which it is elongated and has a flagellum. This allows the parasite to be motile, permitting it to actively invade human immune cells, such as macrophages, after the sandfly has bitten the human. Once the parasite has invaded the macrophage, it undergoes a transformation into its amastigote stage, where the parasite loses its flagellum and has a more circular shape. Normally, the macrophages are able to degrade and eradicate pathogens, but Leishmania is able to withstand the harsh digestive enzymes inside the macrophage. The amastigote skillfully hides itself from other immune cells that could potentially eradicate it by residing in the macrophage, where it reproduces. Once the parasite has reached its capacity of multiplication, it bursts open its host macrophage and moves on to affect other tissues. The tissue that the parasite manifests itself in is what determines the clinical form of leishmaniasis: cutaneous, mucocutaneous, or visceral. Cutaneous leishmaniasis, the most common form of leishmaniasis, affects the skin of the person, causing skin lesions that look similar those caused by leprosy, another NTD. These lesions can last up to years, often leaving scars on victims. Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis is caused by the spread of cutaneous leishmaniasis to mucosal areas, causing the destruction of mucosal membranes of the mouth, nose, and throat cavities. The most dangerous form of leishmaniasis is visceral leishmaniasis (also known as kala-azar or black fever), which occurs when Leishmania parasites migrate to visceral organs such as the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. When left untreated, visceral leishmaniasis is almost always fatal. Image Credit: (left) Flickr @ Michael Wunderli, (middle) Wikimedia Commons @ CDC, (right) Flickr @ Kent MacElwee
From left to right: Leishmania amastigotes, the form of the parasite that replicates in the host fly; a phlebotomus sandfly; and in Belize, a sign warning people to beware of Chagas flies.
CHAGAS DISEASE
Chagas disease is caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, a parasite found in the feces of the triatomine, also known as the “kissing” bug. These bugs are able to transfer the parasite to people after defecation in areas where they have bitten the person. The parasite enters human cells and multiplies through binary fission. Once the parasite bursts open its host cell, it spreads throughout the body through the bloodstream. The parasite can also be transmitted through blood transfusions or organ transplants. Chagas disease often occurs in two stages: an acute and chronic stage. When first infected, victims often do not notice a difference in their health or have minor, non-specific symptoms such as fever, body aches, and muscle pain. The most indicative symptom of Chagas disease in the acute stage is the Romaña’s sign, a swelling of the eyelids. The acute stage may last from weeks to month before transitioning into the chronic stage. Around 20 to 40 percent of patients with chronic Chagas disease will develop severe and life-threatening symptoms, which include damage to the nervous system, heart, and digestive system.
DRACUNCULIASIS
Dracunculiasis is caused by a parasitic roundworm called the Guinea worm. It is one of the NTDs that are close to global eradication. The parasite enters the body when a person drinks water contaminated with water fleas that are infected with D. medinensis larvae. After being ingested, the larvae infiltrate the victim’s abdominal cavity and mate. The male worm dies after mating, while the females migrate to the leg. The females then dig through to the surface of the skin and emerge, causing painful blisters. When the victim steps into water, the female is able to release her larvae and spread the parasite to more water sources. There are no drugs available on the market that can treat dracunculiasis. The most common treatment method is to remove the worm by slowly extracting it from the body, centimeter by centimeter. This removal can take anywhere from days to weeks due to the massive length of the worm—the female worm can be up to 2 to 3 feet long.
The most effective preventative measure for this disease is filtering drinking water. Filtering water through something as common as a cloth can drastically decrease the chances of infection. Due to increase in knowledge about preventative measures and improved technology to treat contaminated water, the number of dracunculiasis cases as gone down significantly, with only 22 reported cases of the disease in 2015. It will most likely be the first NTD to be completely eliminated.
Perhaps the most hopeful fact is that these diseases can be treated and stopped through the collaborative effort of researchers, policymakers, and pharmaceutical companies. There have been many major advances towards freeing the world from NTDs. On January 30, 2012, pharmaceutical companies and organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Pfizer, an Johnson & Johnson came together and signed the London Declaration on NTDs, which set the goal to control and eliminate at least 10 of the 20 NTDs by 2020. Since then, many advances have been made: Dracunculiasis has been eliminated from 6 countries, African trypanosomiasis cases have hit an all time low, and preventative measures for NTDs that are accessible and affordable for people in areas of poverty are being developed. Organizations such as the World Health Organization are spreading knowledge to affected countries about sanitation and hygiene methods that can lead to elimination of these diseases. Major pharmaceutical companies have promised to distribute 14 billion doses of pharmaceutical drugs to help fight against them. An abundance of education on these disease is equipping countries with better methods to prevent and treat these diseases. We have come a long way. Not only are we helping the impoverished fight against infectious diseases, we are making sure that our world is becoming physically and economically healthier. In order to keep this upward trend, it is crucial to keep people aware and educated about NTDs. Only then, can we take the word “neglected” out of neglected tropical diseases. ■ 2
The Decline of
Pollin
T
here is no doubt about that bees are a nuisance. They buzz around in their plump little threatening bodies, always appearing as if they are trying to attack. In fact, yesterday at a picnic, one descended upon you as you frantically whipped it away. “Good riddance,” you thought. Once again, it dove onto you like a kamikaze pilot, its stinger ever so threateningly close to you. You could almost feel the sharp pain as the poison sliced into your veins, and the painful itching and redness that lingers for hours after. This is a typical encounter many people experience with these creatures when they go outside, especially on a spring day. It may appear as if there are too many bees in the world, and that bees are the last species that are going to go extinct. However, bees too (like many other species) are declining in numbers at a staggering rate. This phenomenon, which started roughly ten years ago, of a declining population, has been termed colony collapse disorder. It occurs when a majority of the worker bees in a colony disappear, leaving behind the queen bee, immature bees, and plenty of honey. Between 1972 and 2006, the number of honey bees in the wild declined dramatically, due to various factors including urbanization, parasites, and pesticide usage. However, in 2006, the number of domesticated honey bees used for agriculture began declining precipitously as well. This unusual decline became known as colony collapse disorder, and it has continued to this day. Despite the bad reputation bees get, they are agriculturally and economically crucial to humanity. Their most significant role is in pollination—one-third of farmland is dependent upon bees for pollination. In fact, any crop with flowers relies upon pollination to at least some extent. In addition to feeding the planet, bees contribute to economic growth. A study on the effect of pollinators showed that they provide around £400 million to the British economy, which translates into around $515 mil-
3
lion. This is not to mention the obvious fact that bees are the producers of honey, which is consumed on a daily basis all around the world. Unfortunately, many of the benefits that we take for granted are threatened by colony collapse disorder, whose cause is multifactorial, as stated above. Industrialization of agriculture, with its loud mechanics and its practice of transporting bees from farm to farm across the globe, puts additional stress on bee species. Bees are usually closed into boxes without ample room, loaded on a truck, and then sent to distant places. In the many hours they sit in their boxes, stress and excrement both pile up, causing hives to lose up to many hundreds of worker bees. In addition, transporting bees across ecosystem boundaries introduces new diseases and invasive species that hitch a ride. Farmers would be required to spray pesticides on bees and crops in greater amounts. If anything, these pesticides likely have the greatest effect on the decline of a multiple of bee species. These pesticides diminish the productivity of bees as its toxicity decreases cognitive performance among bees. For example, a study conducted in 2012 by the European Union showed that even low levels of pesticides in bees’ diets can decrease their cognitive function by almost 30%. This and many other studies caused the European Union to swiftly ban the most offensive pesticides, and decrease the usage of others. Unfortunately, corporate interests in the U.S., such as from Monsanto, have prevented similar much-needed measures. Some bees were even affected to the extent that they were unable to remember where their hives were. The effects on bees’ memory are far-reaching, as most of a bee’s work while foraging requires memory. For example, the bee needs to remember the most effective foraging routes, which plants to pollinate in which season, which flower they’ve already visited (as not to waste time), and much more. All of these are crucial to a bee’s job, but even a
Image Credit: Free Stock Photos @ johnny_automatic
nators By Alex Shahla
minor dose of pesticides harms the bees’ ability to remember these, thus decreasing their efficiency. In addition to its cognitive effects, pesticide usage is lethal to bees. The more toxic pesticides, such as neonicotinoids, cause acute toxicity in bees even within their recommended dosage as provided by pesticide companies and the USDA. Acute toxicity produces symptoms such as agitation, wing paralysis, vomiting, and sting reflex in bees. Multiple events of acute toxicity eventually kills bees. Currently, the USDA’s guideline states that farmers should use pesticides under lethal levels; however, sublethal levels still affects a bee’s health, accumulating until the bee dies and causing colonies to gradually depopulate. Another scathing report on the harmful effects of pesticides on bees species has recently shown that Monsanto’s famous weedkiller, glyphosate, is also taking part in the decline of bees and other pollinators. Specifically, glyphosate damages the beneficial bacteria in the bees’ gut, compromising bees’ immune system, and thus their ability to fight off deadly pathogens. Studies have found a link between glyphosate exposure and slower growth rates and higher death rates. Glyphosate has been deemed partially in fault to the increasing death rates among bee colonies. Monsanto, despite the mounting body of evidence proving otherwise, adamantly denies that their products may be causing colony collapse disorder. Nature, too, requires pollinators. The pollinators in nature are far more diverse species-wise than in agricultural and developed areas, ranging anywhere from the majestic monarch butterflies to the endangered rusty-patched bumblebees, to scary wasps and the annoying mosquito, to the colorful hummingbird and the unlikely moth. Sadly, nature’s wide range of pollinators are also threatened by many of the same factors, including some additional factors, causing the decline of natural pollinators. ■
Image Credit: Wikimedia @ Pearson Scott Foresman
4
A Guide to Napping By Susan Lee The first thing most people crave after school is a nap. The drowsiness of the afternoon hits us like a brick, and before we know it, we’re out like a light. But instead of feeling well-rested and refreshed for the day, most of us wake up groggy, cranky, and still tired. Why is this? And how do we achieve the “perfect nap”? Sleep is a fundamental part of human life. We spend a third of our lives just sleeping. It allows for the development of memories, the release of hormones, and the strengthening of neuronal connections, and it is essential for daytime function. In fact, without sleep, humans have a higher risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, depression, high blood pressure, obesity, and infections. It all begins in the hypothalamus, a structure in the brain that acts as a control center for sleep and arousal. The suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), located inside of the hypothalamus controls the circadian rhythms, or the “body clock.” Circadian rhythms are the regular changes in mental, physical, and behavior that occur over the course of a day. In a nutshell, circadian rhythms are why you feel drowsy at night. When it’s dark, light sensitive nerve cells send signals to the SCN, which then signals to the pineal gland to release melatonin, a hormone that causes you to feel sleepy at night. There are several stages of sleep that cycle through multiple times during sleep. The first stage is a very light sleep that occurs within the first 10 minutes of sleep. Heartbeat, breathing, and eye movements begin to slow and muscles begin to relax. Theta waves, a type of brain wave that is present when a person is drowsy, are prominent in this stage. Hypnic myoclonia, or hypnic jerks, can occur in this stage. Hypnic jerks are involuntary twitches that are sometimes accompanied by a falling sensation. They can happen because of irregular sleep schedules, although they sometimes appear randomly in healthy people. Hypnagogic hallucinations can also occur as a person transitions from wakefulness to sleep; they are characterized by sensory events such as hearing voices or seeing images at the corners of one’s vision. When we sleep, we are most likely to be in stage 2 of the sleep cycle. Stage 2 acts as a transition period from light to deep sleep; in this state, the heartbeat and breathing continue to slow. The body temperatures drops and eye movements stop. The brain waves also begin to slow, but bursts of electri-
5
cal activity, called sleep spindles, periodically interrupt this slow pattern. Although research is ongoing, sleep spindles are believed to be produced when the brain inhibits mental processing to maintain the body’s sleeping state. Research has indicated that a person with a high frequency of sleep spindles requires more external activity (such as noises) to be woken up. Another kind of activity in the brain is known as the K-complex. K-complexes, unlike sleep spindles, are larger brain waves that happen automatically, also because of outside stimuli. For example, a knock on the door will result in a K-complex in a sleeping person. In stages 3 and 4, the body enters a deep sleep, also known as slow wave sleep or delta sleep. Delta brain waves, which are slower than theta waves, are dominant in this stage. It is extremely difficult for the body to wake up in this stage; if a person is woken up in this stage, they experience sleep inertia, a state of mental impairment that can last for 30 minutes. This is also the groggy feeling that people experience after napping for too long. Last is REM sleep, sometimes referred to as stage 5. REM stands for rapid eye movement, a phenomenon that takes place when dreaming occurs in this stage. REM sleep is also characterized by an increased respiration rate, brain activity, and theta wave productions. In addition, heartbeat and blood pressure rise almost to waking levels. While brain activity increase in this stage, the voluntary muscles become paralyzed to prevent acting out a dream. During sleep, a person cycles through stage 1, 2, 3, and 4 before going back to 3, 2, and then REM sleep. After REM, we usually go back to stage 2, before the whole cycle repeats about four to five times in a normal night of sleep. REM usually occurs about 90 minutes into sleep, and as sleep progresses, each stage of REM becomes longer and longer. In conclusion, the perfect, short nap should last less than 30 minutes, which will allow you to avoid deep sleep and that awful groggy feeling. Or, if you have enough time, sleeping for an entire cycle of 90 minutes will put you through light and deep sleep, improving memory, decision making, and making you feel well-rested! But we all know that as high schoolers, we just don’t have time. A power nap lasting from 15 to 30 minutes should energize you and give you that boost you need to go on with your day. Stay strong CCA! ■
Illustration by Karen Bei
The New Face of Organ Transplants By Alisha Sandhu
FACIAL EXPRESSION is one of the most prominent elements of nonverbal communication. Something as simple as a smile or a frown can be crucial in determining conversational feedback and establishing human connection. Not only do our faces provide important visual cues for others, but they also play a huge role in our sense of self, giving us a physical image we can attach to our identities. Imagine looking in the mirror and not being able to discern a nose, lips, or cheeks. For some, this is a reality—devastating accidents have left countless patients disfigured and impeded their ability to speak, eat, and convey emotion. Fortunately, advancements in the field of reconstructive surgery have opened up an entirely new realm of possibilities for these individuals. Face transplants recently made headlines back in August, when National Geographic featured a story about Katie Stubblefield, who in 2017 became the youngest person to receive a face transplant at the age of twenty-one. A gunshot wound from a suicide attempt left Katie with severe facial trauma in 2013, and she was on the waitlist for a new face for over three years after the incident. The thirty-one hour operation, which was initially going to be only a partial transplant, ended up replacing a hundred percent of Katie’s facial tissue. Cleveland Clinic, where Katie was treated, is a pioneering institution in the specialty of face transplantation. Only forty face transplants have ever been performed worldwide, three of which have taken place at the Cleveland Clinic. Their face transplant team, consisting of experts in fields ranging from dentistry to psychiatry, employed a host of innovative technologies to prepare for Katie’s procedure. Surgeons used a Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons @ Albert Herring
mixed reality headset called Hololens, which shows wearers holograms amidst their actual surroundings, to repeatedly practice the operation on an intricate model of the patient’s face. Specialists at the clinic also made use of 3D modeling during their preoperative planning. Doctors were able to build Katie a new jaw from the bone in her leg using a 3D computed tomography (CT) scan of her sister’s bone structure as a model. Face transplants are a relatively new practice, often a last resort for those who have already undergone extensive reconstructive surgery. The first ever partial face transplant took place in France in 2005, and the first successful full transplant was accomplished in Spain in 2010. In less than a decade, the procedure has made leaps in progress. Just this year, a French man by the name of Jérôme Hamon became the first patient to ever receive a second face transplant, after his body began rejecting his first transplant. As with other organ transplants, the demand for faces is much greater than the supply, and patients can end up on the waitlist for years before finding a match. Donors must have not only matching blood and tissue type, but also gender, skin tone, and face size; additionally, their families must give special authorization for their faces to be donated, limiting the small pool of donors even further. Still, advancements in transplant technology have restored hope for many suffering from facial disfigurement. In years to come, we can expect the field of face transplantation to continue making tremendous breakthroughs and improving the lives of patients around the world. ■ 6
YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT (AND BELIEVE) by JOHNNY REN
ACROSS AMERICA, in upscale grocery stores (where you are certain to find kombucha in the beverage aisle and artisanal yogurt in the next), there lies a familiar sight—items labeled in bright bold lettering with buzzwords that have now become gastronomical cliché: organic, free-range, all-natural, and nonGMO. To the unassuming consumer, these words are appealing. Certainly, we want our food to be “natural.” To think that our food is “artificial” conjures images of test tubes, frothing chemical concoctions, and if your imagination is particularly wild, the conniving mad scientist. But what exactly do words like “natural” mean in the context of our food? How do we tread the line between unfounded paranoia and legitimate concern? The answer, or lack thereof, lies in our language. Let us first consider a case study in gastronomic linguistics concerning the aforementioned
7
term “natural”. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration, in order for a food to be deemed “natural”, it must not include anything “artificial or synthetic...that would not normally be expected to be in that food.” This definition is not overtly wrong, but it is problematic nonetheless. The issue is in its ambiguity. By tautologically defining “natural” as not “artificial”, the FDA fails to create an actually useful standard for consumers. Is food grown with pesticides considered natural? And what about the products that are artificial derivations of natural food (eg. high-fructose corn syrup, which is made from corn)? The FDA does have some answers to these questions (for example, high-fructose corn syrup is not considered natural), but they often times only emerge after someone sues a food company, and the agency is forced to clarify in order to help settle the
Image Credit: Flickr @ Natalie Maynor
case. Effectively, the FDA has become a reactionary agency, which responds to consumer outcry rather than looking for ways to prevent the issue in the first place. In recent years, the food-labeling debate has become even more convoluted due to increasing public concern over food standards. Consumer vigilance is at an all-time high, and a victim of this increased stringency has been genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. But what exactly are GMOs, and why is there concern over them? Most simply put, genetically modified organisms in food are products that have undergone genetic engineering to confer some desired trait. For example, a scientist could transfer a gene for cold resistance that originally comes from a fish into a tomato crop to increase its endurance for harsher climates. Of course, altering our food isn’t a new phenomenon. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have been selectively breeding crops and animals such that it becomes bigger and more bountiful. But genetic engineering in the GMO sense differs in that it allows a much higher degree of control over traits; it also has
“How do we tread the line between unfounded paranoia and legitimate concern?” the potential to create much more improbable gene combinations. Researchers could never get a fish and a tomato plant to copulate. But what they can do is transplant a gene from one to other without the need for complete reproductive compatibility. This is why GMOs are exciting, and precisely why they are also controversial. The anti-GMO movement is spurred, in large part, by concern of the unforeseen consequences of genetic engineering. Consumers are concerned about whether gene transplantation may unpredictably induce allergic reactions or physiological harm.
Illustrations by Victoria Li
We have reached an unprecedented level of genetic mastery, and the uncertainty of such an endeavor leaves many afraid of what GMO foods may bring. The other side of the anti-GMO movement is that non-GMO food is simply “better”. The logo of a leading anti-GMO organization, the Non-GMO Project, is reflective of this sentiment: a butterfly perched on a lush blade of grass. The symbol conforms with the general portrayal of non-GMO foods as more healthy, more nutritious, and, dare I say it, more natural. If science has anything to say about it, GMO foods are not nearly as threatening as anti-GMO groups make them out to be. Time and time again, studies have shown that GMO foods pose about as much of a threat as their non-GMO counterparts. Scientists are still cautious—allowing one GMO food does not mean allowing them all, and testing ought to be done on a case by case basis—but the overwhelming consensus among professionals is that GMOs in their totality are a good thing. In places where malnutrition is an issue, vitamin-rich GMO fruits and vegetables have helped minimize disease and mortality rates. And from an economic standpoint, the production of GMO agriculture has helped create more robust crops and higher yields come harvest season. The issue with the anti-GMO movement, in effect, may be that legitimate humanitarian and economic efforts could inadvertently be stifled by mounting public animosity towards genetically modified food. Consumers are right to be cautious. There is a certain validity in the interest groups and lobbyists who demand that food be labelled correctly. But we have to be savvy about it. And part of this savvy, part of the act of being a well-informed consumer, is being wary of the deficiencies of food-labelling. There may not be a mad-scientist behind these labels, but there is someone behind them, be it a marketing agency or a lobbyist group. And the words on our packages, though intended in part to inform us, are perhaps in even greater capacity attempting to entice us, luring us to purchase and peruse a product, whatever your views may be. ■
8
By James Chang and Paul Zhang
Open-Access Plan Open Access If you want to read up on the latest scientific research, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll have to pay. For many journals in which scientists publish their research and findings, access comes with a price—and it’s not exactly cheap. A single paper from the prestigious journal Nature costs around $30. In Iran, a graduate student figured that he would have to pay $1,000 to get the papers he needed— for a single week. Even scientific institutions, which pay multiple subscription fees to access relevant papers, have trouble keeping up with costs. Locking papers behind paywalls is also
9
damaging to scientific literacy. How is the public supposed to understand the latest and greatest in science if it comes at such a price? So what’s the solution? Open access: the promise that scientific research can be free to read, sometimes with permissive reuse licenses added. Progress has been made in publishing papers under open access, but it has so far has been slow. Currently, only 15% of journals publish under complete open access. But that might change—European funding agencies recently started Plan S, an initiative to make open access a universal reality.
A Brief History of Open Access Open access dates back to the late 1990s. University librarians were faced with the problem of rising subscription costs to journals, which became known as the “serials crisis”. Many libraries, even Harvard, were increasingly forced to drop some journal subscriptions to manage their budget. As the serials crisis developed, a potential solution showed up: the Internet. Though still nascent at the time, the Internet provided a relatively easy way to widely disseminate information. At first, pre-
print repositories like arXiv appeared, which allowed scientists to share their research without first publishing it in a journal. This became known as green open access. When the 21st century rolled around, completely free journals like the Journal of Medical Internet Research and PLOS Biology were born. Finalized articles published for free were known as gold open access. Government support also manifested through PubMed Central, a database of open access papers, and BioMed Central, an open access publisher. In December of 2001, supporters made open access official with the Budapest Open Access Initiative. It recognized the importance of open access and, most importantly, defined the concept of open access. Open access provides “free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to” distribute and reuse in many ways, with constraints only to protect integrity and preserve the right to acknowledgement. Today, only about 15% of all journals are gold open access. Subscription-only journals represent 38%, while less permissive open access journals like delayed and hybrid make up the other 47%.
Image Credit: Hindawi @ Catriona MacCallum, Affiliated Physicians & Employers Health Plan @ Cigna Open Access Plus National Network
For publishers, open access is a threat. Publishers receive a tremendous profit from the fees scientists pay to submit papers and read them, with the scientists getting little or no cut of that money. And the costs of accessing these papers rises much faster than inflation. A 2012 memo from Harvard, a university you have undoubtedly heard of, complained that their budget “could no longer afford the price hikes imposed by large journal publishers.” The total bill? 3.5 million dollars.
aPlan
S
At the beginning of September this year, a group of European funding agencies banded together and formed Plan S: an ambitious initiative to publish all research funded by European agencies under liberal open access terms by 2020. Besides the stipulation that research must be free to read, papers must be published under a Creative Commons license, allowing anyone to reuse the work. Plan S is unprecedented; no other strategies for science publishing maintains such a broad
level of open access while operating at the scale of Plan S. Previous open access initiatives, like PLOS, have failed to catalyze rapid change in the scientific publishing industry. If Plan S works, it has the potential to dramatically alter the landscape of scientific publishing. Publishers were blunt in criticizing Plan S. The publication company Springer Nature stated that Plan S “potentially undermines the whole research publishing system.” Elsevier CEO Tom Reller said, “If you think information shouldn’t cost anything, go to Wikipedia.” Aside from publishers, some scientists are also concerned about the way open access publishing would be funded. Low-income countries might not be able to afford those costs. Open access might get the catalysis it needs from Plan S. The large scale of Plan S and the liberal open access policy it would enforce could possibly revolutionize the realm of scientific publishing. ■
10
join INTERESTED IN SCIENCE, JOURNALISM, OR ART & DESIGN?
THEN JOIN OUR TEAM!
Catalyst’s mission is to cultivate a lasting passion for the sciences and promote scientific literacy in both students and the general public. We publish on a semiannual basis, once per semester. Meetings are Tuesdays at lunch in F206 or B102. Reach out to us via our email, website, or Facebook for more information!
EMAIL FACEBOOK MAIL
ccacatalyst@gmail.com facebook.com/catalystsciencemagazine 5951 Village Center Loop Rd, San Diego, CA 92130
“Neuroblastoma” by Andrea Liu (‘19). From 2017–2018, Issue 2.
READ PAST ISSUES LIKE THESE ONLINE AT:
ccacatalyst.wordpress.com
2017–2018, Issue 2.
2016–2017, Issue 2.
WINTER 2019
CATALYST SCIENCE MAGAZINE
ISSUE 1