Gene Therapy for Pediatric Cancer: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

While modern treatments have led to a dramatic improvement in survival for pediatric malignancy, toxicities are high and a significant proportion of patients remain resistant. Gene transfer offers the prospect of highly specific therapies for childhood cancer. “Corrective” genes may be transferred to overcome the genetic abnormalities present in the precancerous cell. Alternatively, genes can be introduced to render the malignant cell sensitive to therapeutic drugs. The tumor can also be attacked by decreasing its blood supply with genes that inhibit vascular growth. Another possible approach is to modify normal tissues with genes that make them more resistant to conventional drugs and/or radiation, thereby increasing the therapeutic index. Finally, it may be possible to attack the tumor indirectly by using genes that modify the behavior of the immune system, either by making the tumor more immunogenic, or by rendering host effector cells more efficient. Several gene therapy applications have already been reported for pediatric cancer patients in preliminary Phase 1 studies. Although no major clinical success has yet been achieved, improvements in gene delivery technologies and a better understanding of mechanisms of tumor progression and immune escape have opened new perspectives for the cure of pediatric cancer by combining gene therapy with standard therapeutic available treatments

The Remitting Patterns of African Migrants in the OECD

Recorded remittances to Africa have grown dramatically over the past decade. Yet data limitations still mean relatively little is known about which migrants remit, how much they remit, and how their remitting behavior varies with gender, education, income levels, and duration abroad. We construct the most comprehensive remittance database on immigrants in the OECD currently available, containing microdata on over 12,000 African immigrants. Using this microdata we establish several basic facts about remitting patterns of Africans, and then explore how key characteristics of policy interest relate to remittance behavior. Africans are found to remit twice as much on average as migrants from other developing countries, while those from poorer African countries are more likely to remit than those from richer African countries. We find male migrants remit more than female migrants, particularly among those with a spouse remaining in the home country; that more educated migrants remit more than less educated migrants; and that while the amount remitted increases with income earned, the gradient is quite flat over a large range of income. Finally, we find little evidence that the amount remitted decays with time spent abroad, with reductions in the likelihood in remitting offset by increases in the amount remitted conditional on remitting.Remittances, Migration, Africa

Use of functional near-infrared spectroscopy to evaluate cognitive change when using healthcare simulation tools

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by BMJ on 01/11/2020, available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8936993/ The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Background The use of brain imaging techniques in healthcare simulation is relatively rare. However, the use of mobile, wireless technique, such as functional nearinfrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), is becoming a useful tool for assessing the unique demands of simulation learning. For this study, this imaging technique was used to evaluate cognitive load during simulation learning events. Methods This study took place in relation to six simulation activities, paired for similarity, and evaluated comparative cognitive change between the three task pairs. The three paired tasks were: receiving a (1) face-toface and (2) video patient handover; observing a simulated scene in (1) two dimensions and (2) 360° field of vision; and on a simulated patient (1) taking a pulse and (2) taking a pulse and respiratory rate simultaneously. The total number of participants was n=12. Results In this study, fNIRS was sensitive to variations in task difficulty in common simulation tools and scenarios, showing an increase in oxygenated haemoglobin concentration and a decrease in deoxygenated haemoglobin concentration, as tasks increased in cognitive load. Conclusion Overall, findings confirmed the usefulness of neurohaemoglobin concentration markers as an evaluation tool of cognitive change in healthcare simulation. Study findings suggested that cognitive load increases in more complex cognitive tasks in simulation learning events. Task performance that increased in complexity therefore affected cognitive markers, with increase in mental effort required

The remitting patterns of African migrants in the OECD

Recorded remittances to Africa have grown dramatically over the past decade. Yet data limitations still mean relatively little is known about which migrants remit, how much they remit, and how their remitting behavior varies with gender, education, income levels, and duration abroad. This paper constructs the most comprehensive remittance database on immigrants in the OECD currently available, containing microdata on more than 12,000 African immigrants. Using this microdata the authors establish several basic facts about the remitting patterns of Africans, and then explore how key characteristics of policy interest relate to remittance behavior. Africans are found to remit twice as much on average as migrants from other developing countries, and those from poorer African countries are more likely to remit than those from richer African countries. Male migrants remit more than female migrants, particularly among those with a spouse remaining in the home country; more-educated migrants remit more than less educated migrants; and although the amount remitted increases with income earned, the gradient is quite flat over a large range of income. Finally, there is little evidence that the amount remitted decays with time spent abroad, with reductions in the likelihood of remitting offset by increases in the amount remitted conditional on remitting.Population Policies,Remittances,Gender and Development,Debt Markets,International Migration

US Legislative Update: The King Amendment

Abstract In early 2018, the US House of Representatives voted down the farm bill, which contained an amendment to preempt all meaningful state farm animal welfare laws, including Massachusetts’ 2016 ballot measure and California’s planned 2018 ballot measure. The amendment, named after its odious author Rep. Steve King (R-IA), won the support of farm state Republicans, who voted to insert it into the must-pass once-every-five-years farm bill. And although the farm bill was defeated last week — for reasons unrelated to King’s amendment — the House is likely to reconsider it by June 22. So what’s going on and what can we do about it

10 Years of Progress for Farm Animals

It’s hard to be a farm animal advocate. Most of the world’s problems — poverty, war, disease — are getting smaller, if always too slowly. But factory farming is getting bigger: the number of animals suffering in factory farms globally has more than doubled in the last two decades alone. Worse, it often feels like we’re not making progress. After decades of veg advocacy, just 5% of Americans self-identify as vegetarian, while 86% say they “actively try to include” chicken in their diet — two numbers that have barely changed in two decades of Gallup polls. A 2019 Eurogroup poll of 7,000 people in the seven biggest EU nations found just 1% identified as vegan, and only half of the self-identified “vegans” said they never ate chicken. Add in the rapid growth of factory farming around the world — on current trends, factory farms a decade from now will confine 4.2B more land animals and 18.5B more fish than they do today — and from a distance it can seem like there’s little to celebrate

Animal Agriculture and Climate Change

Earlier this year the prestigious EAT-Lancet Commission called on the world to eat less meat to slow climate change. Three other reports in the last year echoed that message, including two published in Science and Nature, and one produced in partnership with two UN agencies and the World Bank. Even the normally cautious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted in its October report the “increasing agreement that overall emissions from food systems could be reduced by targeting the demand for meat and other livestock products.” This marks a major change. The climate movement long ignored the inconvenient truth of meat’s greenhouse gas emissions — so much so that a hit documentary alleged a Cowspiracy between environmentalists and the meat industry. PETA activists grew so frustrated at Al Gore’s evasion of the issue that they trailed him in chicken costumes in a hummer, accusing him of being “too chicken to go vegetarian” (he later went vegan, though it’s unclear what role the chicken costumes played). A lot has changed since then. Major environmental groups, including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund UK, World Resources Institute, and Friends of the Earth, now encourage people to eat less meat. Even the UN’s Environment Program and the World Economic Forum have highlighted animal agriculture’s contribution to climate change, as did The New York Times in a major feature this week. This is welcome news for the climate. Animal agriculture contributes a substantial share of greenhouse gas emissions — though the best estimates peg it at 14.5%-16.5% globally, not 51%, as some activists claim based on one unpublished study. (The US percentage is lower, mainly because US total emissions are so large.) The Nature study’s authors warn that a global shift to a “flexitarian” diet is “essential” to keep temperature rises under the 2C cap by 2050. This also sounds like welcome news for animals. Some animal advocates now argue that the global attention on climate change offers the best hope to end factory farming. So could we help farm animals by focusing more on the climate

Documentaries for Farm Animals

The Game Changers has celebrities talking about plant-based diets. Backed by a star-studded list, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jackie Chan, the film’s premiere attracted NBA stars, Dr. Oz, and Serena Williams. The captain of the Indian cricket team even promoted the documentary to his 34M Twitter followers. Google search data suggests the film drove a global uptick in searches for plant-based diets (see chart below). The Game Changers is just the latest documentary to raise the profile of factory farming and plant-based diets. Eating Animals (2018) drew glowing reviews, won awards, and attracted national media attention. The more factually-challenged What the Health (2017) inspired Formula One legend Lewis Hamilton, NBA star Kyrie Irving, and fashion designer Tom Ford to go vegan, and likely also boosted Google searches. Blackfish (2013) is credited with causing SeaWorld to cease breeding captive orcas entirely. After CNN aired the documentary on repeat, SeaWorld attendance plunged, bands canceled performances there, and a communications representative privately described the park’s reputation as “positively radioactive.” When SeaWorld finally acknowledged the “Blackfish Effect,” its share price fell by a third. Two years later it settled with the SEC over its failure to disclose to investors the documentary’s impact. So should we double down on documentaries to end factory farming

Animal Agriculture and Climate Change

Earlier this year the prestigious EAT-Lancet Commission called on the world to eat less meat to slow climate change. Three other reports in the last year echoed that message, including two published in Science and Nature, and one produced in partnership with two UN agencies and the World Bank. Even the normally cautious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted in its October report the “increasing agreement that overall emissions from food systems could be reduced by targeting the demand for meat and other livestock products.” This marks a major change. The climate movement long ignored the inconvenient truth of meat’s greenhouse gas emissions — so much so that a hit documentary alleged a Cowspiracy between environmentalists and the meat industry. PETA activists grew so frustrated at Al Gore’s evasion of the issue that they trailed him in chicken costumes in a hummer, accusing him of being “too chicken to go vegetarian” (he later went vegan, though it’s unclear what role the chicken costumes played). A lot has changed since then. Major environmental groups, including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund UK, World Resources Institute, and Friends of the Earth, now encourage people to eat less meat. Even the UN’s Environment Program and the World Economic Forum have highlighted animal agriculture’s contribution to climate change, as did The New York Times in a major feature this week. This is welcome news for the climate. Animal agriculture contributes a substantial share of greenhouse gas emissions — though the best estimates peg it at 14.5%-16.5% globally, not 51%, as some activists claim based on one unpublished study. (The US percentage is lower, mainly because US total emissions are so large.) The Nature study’s authors warn that a global shift to a “flexitarian” diet is “essential” to keep temperature rises under the 2C cap by 2050. This also sounds like welcome news for animals. Some animal advocates now argue that the global attention on climate change offers the best hope to end factory farming. So could we help farm animals by focusing more on the climate

The 2018 Elections and Farm Animals

Animal advocates have always emphasized passing legislation that will protect animals but it is not obvious that, in the farmed animal area, such a focus is worth all the effort. The US Congress has never passed a law protecting animals in factory farms (the last attempt, in 2010, secured just 40 cosponsors). Even the most progressive state legislatures — California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — have rejected basic farm animal welfare bills. And advocates have had more success by other means, for instance by securing corporate animal welfare policies that exceed the strongest state laws. But even if legislators won’t help farm animals anytime soon, they can still do great harm. State legislators in factory farming states have restricted common plant-based food labels (Missouri and North Carolina), banned undercover investigations via “ag-gag” laws (Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, and Utah), and even forced grocers to sell caged eggs (Iowa). But, In the longer term, politics might also present an opportunity for positive reforms. In three separate polls this year, 41% of US respondents said they care more about animal welfare than any other cause, 47% agreed that “animals deserve the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation,” and 47% even agreed that “I support a ban on slaughterhouses.” This may suggest broad popular support for reforms — or simply that novel survey questions elicit odd answers; 77% of US respondents told a 2012 survey that there are signs that aliens have visited Earth. It is suggested that looking at the farmed animal issue as a traditional Republican versus Democrat conflict may be the wrong approach. Instead, advocates could be better served by working with urban legislators. Legislative reform is traditionally a slow process so patience and perseverance will be essential