Category Archives: Transhuman News

BOTHELL, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Seattle Genetics, Inc., Inc. (Nasdaq:SGEN) today announced that the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic) has granted approval for TUKYSA (tucatinib) tablets in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine, for the treatment of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, who have previously received two or more anti-HER2 regimens in any setting, including trastuzumab, pertuzumab and trastuzumab-emtansine (TDM1).

The application for TUKYSA approval was reviewed by Swissmedic as part of Project Orbis, an initiative of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Center of Excellence that provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology drugs among participating international regulatory agencies in Canada, Australia and Singapore. On April 17, the FDA approved TUKYSA in the U.S. under the FDAs Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) pilot program, four months prior to its action date, and represented the first new drug approved under Project Orbis.

Were grateful to Swissmedic for their collaboration through FDAs Project Orbis in approving this important new medicine in Switzerland, said Jennifer Stephens, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Seattle Genetics. We're committed to bringing new targeted therapies to patients, and we are excited about this important first step toward making TUKYSA available to patients in Switzerland.

TUKYSA is an oral, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of HER2, a protein that contributes to cancer cell growth.i,ii

The approval is based on results from the pivotal trial HER2CLIMB, a randomized (2:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 612 patients with HER2-positive unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously received, either separately or in combination, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). The study results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in December 2019.

About HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer have tumors with high levels of a protein called human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), which promotes the growth of cancer cells. In 2018, more than two million new cases of breast cancer were diagnosed worldwide, including 522,513 in Europe. iii Between 15 and 20 percent of breast cancer cases are HER2-positive.iv Historically, HER2-positive breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and more likely to recur than HER2-negative breast cancer.v,vi,vii Up to 50 percent of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer patients develop brain metastases over time.viii,ix,x

About TUKYSA (tucatinib)

TUKYSA is an oral medicine that is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the HER2 protein. In vitro (in lab studies), TUKYSA inhibited phosphorylation of HER2 and HER3, resulting in inhibition of downstream MAPK and AKT signaling and cell growth (proliferation), and showed anti-tumor activity in HER2-expressing tumor cells. In vivo (in living organisms), TUKYSA inhibited the growth of HER2-expressing tumors. The combination of TUKYSA and the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab showed increased anti-tumor activity in vitro and in vivo compared to either medicine alone.xi In the U.S., TUKYSA is approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for adult patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who have received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

Important U.S. Safety Information

Warnings and Precautions

If diarrhea occurs, administer antidiarrheal treatment as clinically indicated. Perform diagnostic tests as clinically indicated to exclude other causes of diarrhea. Based on the severity of the diarrhea, interrupt dose, then dose reduce or permanently discontinue TUKYSA.

Monitor ALT, AST, and bilirubin prior to starting TUKYSA, every 3 weeks during treatment, and as clinically indicated. Based on the severity of hepatoxicity, interrupt dose, then dose reduce or permanently discontinue TUKYSA.

Adverse Reactions

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 26% of patients who received TUKYSA. Serious adverse reactions in 2% of patients who received TUKYSA were diarrhea (4%), vomiting (2.5%), nausea (2%), abdominal pain (2%), and seizure (2%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 2% of patients who received TUKYSA including sudden death, sepsis, dehydration, and cardiogenic shock.

Adverse reactions led to treatment discontinuation in 6% of patients who received TUKYSA; those occurring in 1% of patients were hepatotoxicity (1.5%) and diarrhea (1%). Adverse reactions led to dose reduction in 21% of patients who received TUKYSA; those occurring in 2% of patients were hepatotoxicity (8%) and diarrhea (6%).

The most common adverse reactions in patients who received TUKYSA (20%) were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.

Lab Abnormalities

In HER2CLIMB, Grade 3 laboratory abnormalities reported in 5% of patients who received TUKYSA were: decreased phosphate, increased ALT, decreased potassium, and increased AST. The mean increase in serum creatinine was 32% within the first 21 days of treatment with TUKYSA. The serum creatinine increases persisted throughout treatment and were reversible upon treatment completion. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.

Drug Interactions

Use in Specific Populations

For more information, please see the full Prescribing Information for TUKYSA here.

About Seattle Genetics

Seattle Genetics, Inc. is a global biotechnology company that discovers, develops and commercializes transformative cancer medicines to make a meaningful difference in peoples lives. ADCETRIS (brentuximab vedotin) and PADCEVTM (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) use the companys industry-leading antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) technology. ADCETRIS is approved in certain CD30-expressing lymphomas, and PADCEV is approved in certain metastatic urothelial cancers. TUKYSATM (tucatinib), a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in certain HER2-positive metastatic breast cancers. The company is headquartered in Bothell, Washington, with locations in California, Switzerland and the European Union. For more information on our robust pipeline, visit http://www.seattlegenetics.com and follow @SeattleGenetics on Twitter.

Forward Looking Statements

Certain statements made in this press release are forward looking, such as those, among others, relating to the therapeutic potential of TUKYSA including its efficacy, safety and therapeutic uses including the potential use of TUKYSA in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, who have previously received two or more anti-HER2 regimens in any setting, including trastuzumab, pertuzumab and trastuzumab-emtansine (TDM1) and the potential to bring TUKYSA to patients in Switzerland. Actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected or implied in these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause such a difference include reimbursement processes, the extent of reimbursement, the possibility that adverse events or safety signals may occur, the possibility that the ultimate utilization and adoption of TUKYSA by prescribing physicians may be limited, including due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the possibility of difficulties in supplying and commercializing a new therapeutic agent, and the possibility of adverse regulatory actions. More information about the risks and uncertainties faced by Seattle Genetics is contained under the caption Risk Factors included in the companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2020 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Seattle Genetics disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

i TUKYSA [package insert]. Bothell, WA: Seattle Genetics, Inc.ii Anita Kulukian, Patrice Lee, Janelle Taylor, et al. Preclinical Activity of HER2-Selective Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Tucatinib as a Single Agent or in Combination with Trastuzumab or Docetaxel in Solid Tumor ModelsMol Cancer Ther 2020;19:976-987.iii Breast. Globocan 2018. World Health Organization. 2019. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/20-Breast-fact-sheet.pdf iv Slamon D, Clark G, Wong S, et al. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987; 235(4785): 177-82.v Loibli S, Gianni L. HER2-positive breast cancer. Lancet. 2017; 389(10087): 2415-29.vi Slamon D, Clark G, Wong S, et al. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987; 235(4785): 177-82.vii Breast Cancer HER2 Status. American Cancer Society website. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/understanding-a-breast-cancer-diagnosis/breast-cancer-her2-status.html. Accessed March 9, 2020.viii Freedman RA, Gelman RS, Anders CK, et al. TBCRC 022: a phase II trial of neratinib and capecitabine for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1081-1089.ix Olson EM, Najita JS, Sohl J, et al. Clinical outcomes and treatment practice patterns of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the post-trastuzumab era. Breast. 2013;22:525-531.x Bendell JC, Domchek SM, Burstein HJ, et al. Central nervous system metastases in women who receive trastuzumab-based therapy for metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;97:2972-2977.xi TUKYSA [package insert]. Bothell, WA: Seattle Genetics, Inc.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200512005217/en/

Read this article:
Seattle Genetics Announces the Approval of TUKYSA (tucatinib) in Switzerland for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer...

Scientists have found evidence for mutations in some strains of the coronavirus that suggest the pathogen may be adapting to humans after spilling over from bats.

The analysis of more than 5,300 coronavirus genomes from 62 countries shows that while the virus is fairly stable, some have gained mutations, including two genetic changes that alter the critical spike protein the virus uses to infect human cells.

Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine stress that it is unclear how the mutations affects the virus, but since the changes arose independently in different countries they may help the virus spread more easily.

The spike mutations are rare at the moment but Martin Hibberd, professor of emerging infectious diseases and a senior author on the study, said their emergence highlights the need for global surveillance of the virus so that more worrying changes are picked up fast.

This is exactly what we need to look out for, Hibberd said. People are making vaccines and other therapies against this spike protein because it seems a very good target. We need to keep an eye on it and make sure that any mutations dont invalidate any of these approaches.

Studies of the virus revealed early on that the shape of its spike protein allowed it to bind to human cells more efficiently than Sars, a related virus that sparked an outbreak in 2002. The difference may have helped the latest coronavirus infect more people and spread rapidly around the world.

Scientists will be concerned if more extensive mutations in the spike protein arise, not only because they may alter how the virus behaves. The spike protein is the main target of leading vaccines around the world, and if it changes too much those vaccines may no longer work. Other potential therapies, such as synthetic antibodies that home in on the spike protein, could be less effective, too.

This is an early warning, Hibberd said. Even if these mutations are not important for vaccines, other mutations might be and we need to maintain our surveillance so we are not caught out by deploying a vaccine that only works against some strains.

The scientists analysed 5,349 coronavirus genomes that have been uploaded to two major genetics databases since the outbreak began. By studying the genetic makeup of the viruses, the scientists worked out how it has diversified into different strains and looked for signs that it was adapting to its human host.

In an unpublished study that has yet to be peer reviewed, the researchers identified two broad groups of coronavirus that have now spread globally. Of the two spike mutations, one was found in 788 viruses around the world, with the other present in only 32.

The study shows that, until January, one group of coronaviruses in China escaped detection because they had a mutation in the genetic region that early tests relied on. More recent tests detect all of the known types of the virus.

Last month, an international team of scientists used genetic analyses to show that the coronavirus likely originated in bats and was not made in a lab as some conspiracy theorists have claimed.

Continued here:
Scientists concerned that coronavirus is adapting to humans - The Guardian

As the virus that causes COVID-19 traveled out of China and proliferated across the globe, it developed small mutations that accumulated into distinct versions of the virus. Scientists can now tell these versions apart by peering into the viral genome.

For example, here in the United States, there is the "West Coast" version of the virus that came directly from Asia, and a slightly different "East Coast" version which traveled through Europe.

But is one version of coronavirus more dangerous than the other? And should we be afraid of these new mutations?

The short answer according to virologists, is no.

Viruses are constantly copying themselves, so it's rather frequent that some of those copies will have mistakes, or mutations. These mutations are neither inherently good nor bad and are random.

So far, the novel coronavirus responsible for the global pandemic is mutating normally as virologists expected to see based on their experience with other similar viruses.

"Viruses mutate," said Dr. Nels Elde, Ph.D., associate professor of human genetics at the University of Utah. "That's one of the things that makes them such a successful entity."

"The word 'mutation' to people means something bad because it's got that connotation to it," said Dr. Vincent Racaniello, Ph.D., Higgins professor of microbiology and immunology at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine of CUNY.

This handout illustration image taken with a scanning electron microscope shows SARS-CoV-2 (yellow)also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19 isolated emerging from the surface of cells (blue/pink) cultured in the lab.

"It simply means a change in the genome sequence. It doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad for you at all," Racaniello said. "Plants grow in the spring. Viruses mutate. It's no big deal."

Tune into ABC at 1 p.m. ET and ABC News Live at 4 p.m. ET every weekday for special coverage of the novel coronavirus with the full ABC News team, including the latest news, context and analysis.

But as scientists across the globe learn more about these mutations, many have been eager to use these discoveries to decipher whether the virus is becoming more or less dangerous.

For example, in early March a group of scientists in China identified two different types of the virus, the L-type and the S-type. The L-type was found to be more widespread, leading to early speculation that the virus had evolved into a more infectious version of itself.

More recently, similar research out of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the United States which has not been peer reviewed identified a common mutation in the virus that began spreading in Europe in early February. The scientists suggested this mutation may have helped the virus spread faster and farther because it is inherently more infectious, generating breathless news coverage about a dangerous "mutant" virus.

But another group of scientists from Arizona State University arrived at a nearly opposite interpretation of the mutations they discovered. Their research led them to believe the virus might become weaker and die off, just like the 2003 SARS outbreak.

So far, the speculation about the virus' infectiousness are guesses, said Racaniello. He said there is no iron-clad evidence that these mutations have made any one version of the virus more contagious, deadlier or more resistant to potential therapies.

That's probably good news for humankind, because it means the vaccines and therapies being tested right now are likely to work against all known versions of the virus.

Scientists are actively monitoring the virus to see if it develops potentially dangerous mutations -- or even if it dramatically transforms into a new "strain" -- a word that has a very specific meaning to virologists but has also been used colloquially to describe the different versions of the virus that exist so far.

A new strain would signal a dramatic event, meaning the virus has mutated so much that it is "functionally different" than its predecessor, Elde said. According to Elde, virologists generally agree there is only one "strain" of novel coronavirus, although there are several versions of the virus in different parts of the world.

In fact, what scientists are observing, in terms of the differences between these viruses, is a phenomenon called viral "isolates," said Racaniello. That's when the genetic material develops slight variations that are not significant enough to make the virus behave in a totally different way.

These small changes happen frequently -- sometimes developing within the same person as the virus spreads throughout the human body.

"You can have different isolates from a single patient, by taking different samples from the respiratory tract and in the lung, for example," said Racaniello. "It does not mean the differences have any significance whatsoever."

"I think the bottom line is we don't really know right now whether mutation signals good news or bad news. It is somewhere in between," said Dr. Jay Bhatt, former medical chief at the American Hospital Association and an ABC News contributor.

"I think we will understand this better in the coming months."

Angela N. Baldwin, M.D., M.P.H., is a pathology resident at Montefiore Health System in the Bronx and is a contributor to the ABC News Medical Unit. Sony Salzman is the unit's coordinating producer.

View post:
Yes, COVID-19 is mutating, here's what you need to know - ABC News

Stone artifacts from the Initial Upper Paleolithic at Bacho Kiro Cave: 1-3, 5-7 Pointed blades and fragments from Layer I; 4 Sandstone bead with morphology similar to bone beads; 8 The longest complete blade. Credit: Tsenka Tsanova, License: CC-BY-SA 2.0

Two studies report newHomo sapiensfossils from the site of Bacho Kiro Cave in Bulgaria. The Bacho Kiro Cave site provides evidence for the first dispersal ofH. sapiens across the mid-latitudes of Eurasia. Pioneer groups brought new behaviors into Europe and interacted with local Neanderthals. This early wave largely predates that which led to their final extinction in western Europe 8,000 years later, says Jean-Jacques Hublin, director at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

An international research team, led by Jean-Jacques Hublin, Tsenka Tsanova and Shannon McPherron of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and Nikolay Sirakov and Svoboda Sirakova of the National Institute of Archaeology with Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia, Bulgaria, renewed excavations at Bacho Kiro Cave in 2015. The most spectacular finds come from a rich, dark layer near the base of the deposits. Here the team uncovered thousands of animal bones, stone and bone tools, beads and pendants, and the remains of five human fossils.

Except for one human tooth, the human fossils were too fragmented to be recognized by their appearance. Instead, they were identified by analyzing their protein sequences. Most Pleistocene bones are so fragmented that by eye, one cannot tell which species of animal they represent. However, the proteins differ slightly in their amino acid sequence from species to species. By using protein mass spectrometry, we can therefore quickly identify those bone specimens that represent otherwise unrecognizable human bones, says Frido Welker, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Copenhagen and research associate at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

To know the age of these fossils and the deposits at Bacho Kiro Cave, the team worked closely with Lukas Wacker at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, using an accelerator mass spectrometer to produce ages with higher precision than normal and to directly date the human bones.

The majority of animal bones we dated from this distinctive, dark layer have signs of human impacts on the bone surfaces, such as butchery marks, which, along with the direct dates of human bones, provides us with a really clear chronological picture of whenHomo sapiens first occupied this cave, in the interval from 45,820 to 43,650 years ago, and potentially as early as 46,940 years ago, says Helen Fewlass of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. The radiocarbon dates at Bacho Kiro Cave are not only the largest dataset of a single Palaeolithic site ever made by a research team, but also are the most precise in terms of error ranges, say researchers Sahra Talamo from the University of Bologna and Bernd Kromer from the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig.

Though some researchers have suggested thatHomo sapiensmay have already occasionally entered Europe by this time, finds of this age are typically attributed to Neanderthals. To know which group of humans were present at Bacho Kiro Cave, Mateja Hajdinjak and Matthias Meyer of the genetics team led by Svante Pbo at the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology sequenced the DNA from the fragmented fossils bones.

Given the exceptionally good DNA preservation in the molar and the hominin fragments identified by protein mass spectrometry, we were able to reconstruct full mitochondrial genomes from six out of seven specimens and attribute the recovered mitochondrial DNA sequences from all seven specimens to modern humans. Interestingly, when relating these mtDNAs to those of other ancient and modern humans, the mtDNA sequences from Layer I fall close to the base of three main macrohaplogroups of present-day people living outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, their genetic dates align almost perfectly with those obtained by radiocarbon, says Mateja Hajdinjak, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Francis Crick Institute in London and research associate at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

The results demonstrate thatHomo sapiensentered Europe and began impacting Neanderthals by around 45,000 years ago and likely even earlier. They brought into Bacho Kiro Cave high quality flint from sources up to 180 km from the site which they worked into tools like pointed blades perhaps to hunt and very likely to butcher the remains of the animals found at the site.

The animal remains from the site illustrate a mix of cold and warm adapted species, with bison and red deer most frequent, says paleontologist Rosen Spasov from the New Bulgarian University. These were butchered extensively but were also used as a raw material source. The most remarkable aspect of the faunal assemblage is the extensive collection of bone tools and personal ornaments, says zooarchaeologist Geoff Smith from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Cave bear teeth were made into pendants, some of which are strikingly similar to ornaments later made by Neanderthals in western Europe.

Taken together, the Bacho Kiro Cave sediments document the period of time in Europe when Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals were replaced by Upper PaleolithicHomo sapiens(the so-called transition period), and the firstHomo sapiensassemblages are what archaeologists call the Initial Upper Paleolithic. Up to now, the Aurignacian was thought of as the start of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe, but the Initial Upper Paleolithic of Bacho Kiro Cave adds to other sites in western Eurasia where there is an even older presence ofHomo sapiens, notes Nikolay Sirakov of the National Institute of Archaeology with Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Bacho Kiro Cave is the earliest known Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. It represents a new way of making stone tools and new sets of behavior including manufacturing personal ornaments that are a departure from what we know of Neanderthals up to this time, says Tsenka Tsanova of the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. The Initial Upper Paleolithic probably has its origin in southwest Asia and soon after can be found from Bacho Kiro Cave in Bulgaria to sites in Mongolia as Homo sapiensrapidly dispersed across Eurasia and encountered, influenced, and eventually replaced existing archaic populations of Neanderthals and Denisovans.

References:

Initial Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria by Jean-Jacques Hublin et al., 11 May 2020, Nature.DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2259-z

A 14C chronology for the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition at Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria by Helen Fewlass et al., 11 May 2020, Nature Ecology and Evolution.DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-1136-3

See the original post:
DNA of Bones Found in Cave Reveals Major Cultural Transition in Europe Took Place Earlier Than Thought - SciTechDaily

this and countless other scientific findings led the President of the American Sociologicalin his 2005 presidential addressto call upon members to, Prepare to defend against the genomic data juggernaut heading their way down the pike.'

Introduction

The 2020 presidential campaign, particularly on the Democratic side, has thus far placed the concept of facts and the science at center stage. When former president Barack Obama endorsed his former Vice President, Joe Biden, for President of the United States on April 14th, former President Obama asserted that Vice President Biden wouldunlike conservativesadhere to the facts and the science in running his administration. Then, on April 28th, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added her endorsement of Vice President Biden. Secretary Clinton indicated her view that it was necessary to have a president, who listened to the science, put facts over fiction. As such, she suggested that Vice President Bidenunlike President Donald Trumpwould be that person.

Secretary Clintons endorsement of the former Vice President was followed almost immediately by The New York Times podcast When Science Is Partisan in which Frank Bruni stated: From the very start of his administration President Trump has shrugged off expertise, he has outright mocked experts, and he has shown special disregard for science. Even more dangerous he has frequently presented fiction as fact. So, again and again, Democrats have asserted that their Republican counterparts flagrantly ignore the research findings of experts, thereby regularly running afoul of reality. As I will argue, this Democratic line of argument is simply not correct, and I will trace each groups actual willingness to follow the facts and the science, wherever they might lead.

Failings When It Comes to Science

Conservatives, admittedly, either ignore or reject the well-demonstrated theory of evolution. Simply stated our planet (and all of its many species) were not created in six days. Our Universe is at least 14 billion years old, and the sphere on which we live congealed about 4.5 billion years in the past. But, in 2013, roughly 48% of conservative voters believed that creation according to The Book of Genesis is factual. This is as compared to the 67% of Democrats and 65% of Independents who believe humans evolved over time. As such, rather than alienate this large segment of the Republican electoral base, if a reporter asks a conservative candidate if he or she believes in evolution, the candidate will frequently duck the question. This position is a violation of both the facts and the science, and these Republican politicians should be ashamed of themselves for not endorsing the truth. This is a well-known example of conservatives choosing to ignore the evidence.

Turning to progressivesand the subject of abortionwe find that those on the Left either ignore or reject the scientific facts. In an October, 2019 Quillette article I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Was Not Popular, Steve Jacobs reported that he had polled 5,337 biologists asking each of them when life begins and 96% answered, at conception. Only 240 (4%) disagreed. Interestingly, 89% of these biologists self-identified as liberal; 85% said they were pro-choice; 63% were secular, and 92% were Democrats. The bottom line is that the scientific consensus does not materially influence their position on the question of life.

Many on the Left also deny the facts and the data regarding the allegation that rising inequality is occurring in the United States. The statistics that rebut this claim can be found in my article published in Merion West entitled In Reply to McManus: Harping on Income Inequality Ignores the Data.

Now we move on to the hard part. Ever since the polymath Francis Galton coined the term Nature Versus Nurture in the second half of the 19th century, the nature-nurture debate has raged on. As Nstor de Buen wrote in Merion West (When We Debate Biological Differences) this past July, All of these cases have one common thread: the Right will argue that differences between human groups (i.e. men and women, or Caucasians and African-Americans) are explained by biology, while the Left will argue that they are largely the result of socialization and historic circumstances. de Buens essay approaches the genes versus environment question from the Left, while my following arguments all spring from the biological side of this basic disagreement.

The first rejection of the idea of genes and human development (often called scientific racism) came from anthropologist Franz Boas. In his 1938 article entitled An Anthropologists Credo, he wrote,It is my conviction that the fundamental ethical point of view is that of the in-group, which must be expanded to include all humanity. This egalitarian bent was formalized in 1942 by one of Boass students, Ashley Montagu, in his book Mans Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. About this book, Aldous Huxley wrote that where most assume that facts speak for themselves, [Montagu] makes it clear that the facts are mere ventriloquists dummies, and can be made to justify a course of action that appeals to the socially conditioned passions of the individuals concerned.

Both men and much of the world were shocked and horrified by the countless travesties of Nazi Germany; as such, this social scientific idea spread far and wide. In his famous and extremely influential 1970 book, The Struggle of the Scientific Revolution, Thomas Kuhn reported:

Spending a year in a community composed predominantly of social scientists confronted me with unanticipated problems about the differences between such communities and those of the natural scientists among whom I had been trained. Particularly, I was struck by the number and extent of the overt disagreements between social scientists about the nature of legitimate scientific problems and methods [] Somehow, the practice of astronomy, physics, chemistry, or biology normally fails to evoke the controversies over fundamentals that today often seem endemic among say, psychologists or sociologists.

In short, the social sciences were rejecting on ethical grounds the findings of the hard sciences.

Then, in 1972, the Left altered course by asserting that the genetic findings of the hard sciences were simply wrong. Richard Lewontins paper The Apportionment of Human Diversity concluded that 80-85% of the variation within human populations is found within local geographic groups and the differences attributable to traditional race groups are a minor part of human genetic variability and thus race had to be a social construct. This idea that there exists no scientific basis for human races spread quickly through the academy and through much of the media.

Next, in their 1984 book Not in Our Genes, Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin added a purely political goal: equal economic outcomes. In their own words, We share a commitment to the project of the creation of a more socially justsocialistsociety. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society. Their egalitarian goal was now obvious. Diminishing their stature was the recollection of Robert Trivers, a top-notch evolutionary biologist in his own right, who remembered in Vignettes of Famous Evolutionary Biologists Large and Small that Lewontin would lie openly and admit doing so. Lewontin would sometimes admit [] that some of his assertions were indeed fabrications, but he says the fight was ideological and politicalthey lied and so would he. Further deflating Lewontins image was his 1985 book, The Dialectical Biologist, which he co-authored with Richard Levins. In The Dialectical Biologist,they asserted that there was nothing in Marxist or Leninism that could be contradicted by objective reality.

In 1994, Richard Herrnstein & Charles Murray published The Bell Curve, and the battle was truly joined. A number of books written by social scientists were rushed into print all criticizing The Bell Curve, and a rebuttal to this onslaught was signed by over 50 experts regarding the science of intelligence and published in The Wall Street Journal in December of 1994, as an op-ed entitled Mainstream Science on Intelligence. This article stated in part that Intelligence can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. (These IQ tests) are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments.

Among the books that attacked The Bell Curve was an effort by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman, who published in 1995 The Bell Curve Debate. Their book contained two essays by Leon Kamin. In one of these essays, he engaged in some initial backpedaling. In The Pioneers of IQ Testing Kamin offered that, There is, of course, the theoretical possibility that the genetic theorists are correct. IQ is highly heritable and perhaps differences between races [] are in large measure due to heredity. There are serious scholars who have assumed this, and who have labored to adduce supporting evidence. Their data ought not to be ignored, and they deserve careful scrutiny.

Things remained relatively quiet until 2000 when the project to synthesize the human genome was completed (after which genetic research took off). Also, in 2003, A.W.F. Edwards struck an important blow against the nurture side of the genes/environment debate by publishing a scholarly paper entitled Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontins Fallacy. In this paper, he found that:

It is therefore been proposed that the division of Homo Sapiens into (ethnic or racial) groups is unjustified by genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.

This was followed in 2005 by Richard Dawkins writing in The Ancestors Tale that However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics, as there are, highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance. And, thus, any vitality remaining in Lewontins 1972 paper was dissipated.

Then, in 2004, the highly regarded scientific journal, Nature Genetics, devoted an entire special edition (Genetics for the Human Race) to the question of whether human races exist, and the journal found that they did. Next, in a March, 2005 op-ed in The New York Times A Family Tree in Every Gene, Armand Marie Leroi asserted that the consensus regarding social constructs was unraveling and that the new genetic data show that races exist. (Note: Lerois book Mutants: On Human Variety and the Human Body, isby farthe very best book that I have read regarding the role of genes in human development. It is readable, short and persuasive.) One of the 2004 papers that appeared in the Nature Genetics special edition was by Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding entitled Genetic Variation, Classification and Race.' It found that Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.

As quoted in Philosophy of Race Versus Population Genetics Round, this and countless other scientific findings led the President of the American Sociologicalin his 2005 presidential addressto call upon members to, Prepare to defend against the genomic data juggernaut heading their way down the pike.

The scientific evidence supporting nature over nurture continued to roll in. For example, in a 2007 article by Tarmo Strenze entitled Intelligence and Socioeconomic Success: A Meta-Analytic Review of Longitudinal Research, it was found that, The relationship between intelligence and socioeconomic success has been the source of numerous controversies. These results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success This sent the progressive lefts claim that economic success is due to privilege down in flames. Even African-American academics joined the fray. In the Winter 2008/2009 edition of The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, the article Why Family Income Differences Dont Explain the Racial Gap in SAT Scores appeared, and it reported that, For Black and White students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 in 2008, there still remains a huge 149-point gap in SAT scores. Even more startling is the fact that in 2008 Black students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored LOWER (emphasis in the original) on the SAT test than did students from White families with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000.

In the interim, neuroscientists had joined the debate. Using functional MRI (fMRI), they were confirming what the geneticists had been discovering. In 2010, Ian J. Deary, Lars Penke, and Wendy Johnson published a paper entitled The Neuroscience of Human Intelligence Differences in the journal Nature Reviews: Neuroscience. They found that, Neuroscience is contributing to the understanding of the biological bases of human intelligence differences [] Quantitative genetic studies have established that there are additive genetic contributions to different aspects of cognitive abilityespecially general intelligenceand how they change through the lifespan. They continued, The brains of some people are more efficient than those of others. The biological foundations of these differences are of great interest to basic and applied neuroscience. There are already some well-replicated general findings. Thus, the differential neuroscience of human intelligence, therefore, has a strong mandate and a firm foundation from which to proceed. Later the authors added, The first adequately powered genome-wide studies of intelligence are in progress.

In 2014, a study by Mark Horowitz entitled Whither the Blank Slate? A Report on the Reception of Evolutionary Biological Ideas Among Sociological Theorists was published in the journal Sociological Spectrum. His paper caused quite a storm in the community of social scientists. Horowitz found that, Sociology is a house divided. Just over half of the (sociological) theorists in our sample deny the role of natural selection in shaping a range of human tendencies. Many more are unwilling to acknowledge the plausibility of evolutionary argument applied to sex differences. (Does this not sound at least a little bit like the beliefs held by Evangelical Christians who also deny evolution?) Progressive social scientists lashed out at this study, but both Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker rushed to Horowitzs defense. As Jonathan Haidt wrote in his article Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Studies:

When facts conflict withsacred values, almost everyone finds a way to stick with their values and reject the evidence. On the Left, including the academic Left, the most sacred issues involve race and gender. So thats where you find most direct and I would say flagrant denial of evidence. I think the results of this study do clearly show that political concerns influence the willingness of sociologists to consider a major class of causal factors in human behavior.

To this point, Steven Pinker, in an op-ed in The Washington Post entitled Liberals Deny Science, Too, added that Im not surprised by the findings of this study. Sociology itself is a divided discipline, with radically diverging views on the role of science in general and of course evolution and genetics in particular. Nor am I surprised that gender is the bloodiest shirt. Together with race, gender has always been the biggest impetus for believing in the blank slate, and since the Larry Summers affair almost a decade ago, that has only intensified.

Another uproar came in 2014 with the publication of Nicholas Wades bookTroublesome Inheritances: Genes, Race, and Human History, which asserted that, race has a biological basis, one that is found in the subtle quality of allele frequency. This claim is far more likely than the alternative, that evolution has played no role whatever in shaping present-day societies. (Note: Wade clearly pointed out in the preface of his book that the first half was factual, and the second half was speculation. However, this did not stop 139 geneticists from signing a letter to the editor in The New York Times insisting that the latter portion of Wades book had not yet been demonstrated conclusively.)

A year later, science took a sharp turn away from nurture and toward an almost totally deterministic impact of genes. In an article entitled Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies, J.C. Polderman examined all of the twin studies from 1958 through 2012 (numbering 2,748 separate research projects that looked at 14,558,903 twin pairs, as well as 17,804 human traits). Poldermans meta-analysis was published in the journal Nature Genetics. These scientific researchers found that the observed pattern of twin correlations is consistent with a simple and parsimonious underlying model of the absence of environmental effects shared by twin pairs and the presence of genetic effects that are entirely due to additive genetic variation.

Richard Haier, former editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Intelligence, published a book entitled The Neuroscience of Intelligence in 2017, which found that researchers using functional MRI (fMRI) have concluded that:

Everyone has a notion about defining intelligence and an opinion about how differences among individuals may contribute to academic success and life achievement. Conflicting and controversial ideas are common about how intelligence develops. You may be surprised to learn that the scientific findings about these topics are more definite than you think. The weight intelligence from neuroscience research is rapidly correcting outdated and erroneous beliefs.

He continued, if you already believe that intelligence is due mostly to the environment, new neuroscience facts might be difficult to accept. Denial is a common response when new information conflicts with your prior beliefs. The older you are, the more impervious your beliefs may be. Santiago Casal, the father of neuroscience, once wrote: Nothing inspires more reverence and awe in me than the old man who knows how to change his mind.'

In 2018, Harvard geneticist David Reich published the book Who We Are and How We Got Here, bringing with it the following thoughts: Reich allows readers to discover how the human genome provides not only all the information a human embryo needs to develop but also the hidden story of our species. Reich delves into how the genetic revolution is transforming our understanding of modern humans and how DNA studies reveal deep inequalities among different populations, between the sexes, and among individuals. Even more compelling was the op-ed How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of Race that Reich wrote for The New York Times in March of 2018. According to Reich, it was found that with Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing [we now know that] differences in genetic ancestry that happens to correlate to many of todays racial constructs are real. Later, Reich followed by writing, I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist, I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among races.' He concluded: I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations (races) are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.

In 2018, a group of sociologists decided to confront head-on this question, and they published the book Reconsidering Race: Social Science Perspectives on Racial Categories in the Age of Genomics. The forward to this tome was penned by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and it offered:

For decades most [social science] scholars and even the general publicat least in the United Statesgenerally accepted the story that races are socially constructed [but] after the initial completion of the genome [project] around the year 2000, some in the scientific community began unearthing vestiges of debates and questions around the science-race linkage. Even prominent scientific journals such as Science and Nature published articles that seemed to reassert the existence of categories that match the traditional understanding of racial groups. These developments have forced social scientists to reconsider race: To ask whether there is any credence to the natural science arguments that there might be a biological and genomic foundation to racial categories.

On January 28, 2020, Charles Murrays latest effort Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class hit bookstore shelves, and another blow was struck against the soft sciences orthodoxy of social construction. According to Murray, All people are equal [but] all groups of people are not the same. Murray also writes:

advances in genetics and neuroscience are overthrowing an intellectual orthodoxy that has ruled the social sciences for decades. The core of the orthodoxy consists of three dogmas: gender is a social construct; race is a social construct and class is a function of privilege. The problem is that all three dogmas are half-truths. They have stifled progress in understanding the rich texture that biology adds to our understanding of the social, political, and economic worlds we live inWhy the resistance? Because social scientists have been in the grip of an orthodoxy (gender, race & class) that is sacred stiff of biologyThe core doctrine of the (gender, race & class) orthodoxy in the social sciences is a particular understanding of human equality.

It is not, for Murray, equality in the sense of Americas traditional idealall are equal in the eyes of God, have inherent dignity, and should be treated equally under the lawbut equality in the sense of sameness. in a properly run society, people of all human groupings will have similar life outcomes. (Emphasis in the original) Individuals might have differences in abilities but groups do not have inborn differences in the distribution of abilities. Inside the cranium, all groups are the same.

I firmly believe that all of the aforementioned scientific evidence, findings, and data lead to the conclusion that many members of the progressive left are failing to accept the clear cut truth on a number of issues, thereby doing precisely what they accuse their conservative counterparts of.

Climate Change

But what about climate change? I now turn to that topic, and readers will quickly see why I saved global warming until the end. First, here is an overview of the alleged scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Three surveys of climatologists have determined that 97% of these scientists believe in AGW. This finding has been repeatedly reported in the media. However, what many media outlets never mention is that a nationwide poll taken of meteorologists in 2016 found that Nearly half of weathercasters (46%) are convinced that the climate change over the past 50 years has been primarily or entirely due to human activity, and nearly one quarter (22%) think it is more or less equally caused by human activity and natural events. About one quarter (24%) think the change has been primarily or entirely due to natural events. But 46% is nowhere near 97%. And, far too frequently, media outlets fail to tell the complete story of scientific findings on climate change. As such, I have included below a non-exhaustive list of findings from climate science that might appear very surprising to those who have exclusively followed certain popular treatments of the issue.

Scafetta et al (2017) concluded that The severe discrepancy between observations and modeled predictions found during the 1922-1941 and 2000-2016 periods further confirms, according to the criteria proposed by the AGW theory advocates themselves, that the current climate models have significantly exaggerated the anthropogenic greenhouse warming effect. According to AGW theory advocates own criteria, a divergence between observations and climate models occurring at a bi-decadal scale would provide strong convincing evidence that the global climate models used to support the AGW theory are severely flawed. Thus the models are not able to reproduce the natural variability observed in the climate system and should not be trusted for future planning.

Cerrone & Fusco (2018) the results herein indicate that a progressive cooling has affected the year-to-year climate of the sub-Antarctic since the 1990s.

Kim et al (2018) the Yellow and East China Seas are widely believed to have experienced robust, basin-scale warming over the last few decades. However, this warming reached a peak in the late 1990s, followed by a significant cooling trend.

Morner (2018) The concept of an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2 is compared to the concept of a natural global warming (NGW) driven by solar variability. The application of the AGW concept only rests on models, whilst the NGW concept rests on multiple observational and evidence-based facts. Even more so, the long-term solar variability predicts a new Grand Solar Minimum with severe climatic conditions (type Little Ice Age) to occur in 2030-2050. This violates all talk about an increasing, even accelerating, global warming. Similarly, there is no true treat of a future sea level rise flooding lowlands and islands.

Shen et al (2018) The results showed both future climate change (precipitation and temperature) and hydrologic response predicted by 20 global climate models were highly uncertain, and the uncertainty increased significantly over time.

Abbott & Marohasy (2018) While general circulation models are used by meteorological agencies around the world for rainfall forecasting, they do not generally perform well at forecasting medium-term rainfall, despite substantial efforts to enhance performance over many years. These are the same models used by the IPCC to forecast climate change over decades.

Scafetta et al (2018) Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed.

Lean (2018) Climate change detection and attribution have proven unexpectedly challenging during the 21st century. Earths global surface temperature rose less rapidly from 2000 to 2015 than during the last half of the 20th century, even though greenhouse gas concentrations continued to increase.

Scafetta & Wilson (2019) The climate warming hiatus observed since 2000 is inconsistent with CO2 AGW climate models [citations omitted].CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) climate models [citations omitted]. This points to a significant percentage of the observed 19802000 warming being driven by TSI variation [citations omitted]. A number of other studies have pointed out that climate change and TSI variability are strongly correlated throughout the Holocene including the recent decades [citations omitted].

Pei et al (2019) During the period of 0-10,000 years before present, Chinas temperature has closely followed the solar forcing. The correlation is as high as 0.800 (p less than 0.01) for Empirical Orthogonal Function-based reconstruction.

Paudel et al (2019) On a global scale changes in cloud cover were found to be significantly related to changes in solar activity through its effect on the flux of cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere [citations omitted] suggesting changes in solar emissions could be related to those in cloud cover and global radiation at the Earths surfaceAnalysis by stepwise regression indicated that since 1970 changes in cloud cover accounted for 61% of the changes in Egwhile the major increase in local fossil fuel consumption, serving as a proxy for anthropogenic aerosol emissions, only accounted for an additional 2% of the changes.

Varotsos & Efstathiou (2019) Based on these results and bearing in mind that climate systems are complicated and complex with existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.

Kauppinen & Malmi (2019) The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high because the strong negative feedback of clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans (cite omitted), according to Henrys Law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. The last 100 years the temperature was increased by about 0.1 degrees C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01 degrees C.

Mao et al (2019) In science, when there are two or more ideas to be employed to explain the recent global warming, we always trust which can fit perfectly all the observed monthly anomaly of GLST from 1880 to now. Until now, no one claims that he can fit perfectly the observed monthly anomaly of GLST from 1880 to now as we do The function with best verification result has also been employed to predict the future behavior of the monthly anomaly of GLST; we can see that the downward trend for the monthly anomaly of GLST had already begun; it will reach the lowest point at 0.6051C in 2111.

Conclusion

Given all of this, it appears that both progressives and conservatives ignore or reject the facts and the science when it suits their ideological need to do so. That said, as I have argued, it appears that the Left is actually more guilty of these transgressions against the truth than the Right. Given this reality, perhaps certain Democratic politicians and media outlets should cease and desist slandering their political adversaries with the mostly false allegation that conservatives regularly reject or at least ignore the facts and the science. Regardless of what the Left decides on that matter, one should always remember what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said on Real Time with Bill Maher in April of 2011: The good thing about science is that it is the truth whether or not you believe it..

Richard W. Burcik is a retired economist and attorney.

See original here:
Conservatives Are Not the Only Ones Who Ignore Facts and the Science - Merion West

Wayengera is behind the country's effort to manufacture test kits. Courtesy photo

Testing is key for diagnosing and tracking the magnitude of the disease to know how many people have been infected or could infect others.

While people in Uganda have been asked to stay at home to contain the spread of the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19), a few others must continue working to find answers to the pandemic.

COVID-19 is wreaking havoc across the world. Uganda, just like most countries globally, is relying on aggressive screening and testing as the best approach to determine whether the virus is present in communities, and how far it has spread.

Testing is key for diagnosing and tracking the magnitude of the disease to know how many people have been infected or could infect others.

But, the high global demand for testing kits has strained supply.

Production and delivery of testing kits to meet demand is short. In turn, it has led to a rise in fake kits and a race to develop standardized, rapid, and accurate diagnostic tests.

Currently, Uganda is able to conduct over 2000 tests daily, and over 40, 000 tests have been carried out in total, which is much higher than tests conducted by any other East African country. But in South Korea alone, nearly 20,000 people are tested daily.

But not to worry, the number of tests could soon go much higher as Dr. Misaki Wayengera a Clinical Geneticist, Immunologist, and Virologist along with a team of other Ugandan scientists, are developing a cheaper COVID-19 testing kit that could deliver results in a minute or two. For him, it is about offering a homegrown solution to the testing gap.

Love For Science and Country

The innovation is not the first for Wayengera, he also developed the pan-filovirus rapid diagnostic test, a paper-strip test that can detect the Ebola and Marburg viruses in five minutes.

Wayengera is a towering and vibrant figure among his peers. He does not hesitate to share knowledge when he gives his time and is always happy to talk about science.

When I joined medical school, my friends were reading books to pass, I wanted to bring about change, he told a Ugandan television in an interview.

He is patriotic, and always talks about how his works should benefit the country, and develop Africa for Africans. His patriotism is rare to find among professionals, says Ian Peter Busuulwa a digital communications officer with Science Stories Africa and a biotechnologist who engages in agricultural research and science.

He is also passionate about sharing knowledge. He could be in some leading global pharmaceutical company earning lots of money, but Wanyengera finds it necessary to stay in Uganda, working with Makerere University to pass on knowledge to young scientists, he adds.

Who is Dr. Wanyengera

Wayengera is a medical doctor with graduate training, Masters of Science (MSc), Fellowship, and Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in a diverse array of scientific fields including Immunology, Vaccinology, Clinical Microbiology, Genetics, and Filovirology.

It was in 2000 while a medical student, that he picked interest in studying filoviruses that can cause severe hemorrhagic fever in humans and non-human primates.

In 2007 while studying genomes of filoviruses, Wayengera focused his energy on the understanding of Ebola and Marburg viruses with targets for both vaccine and diagnostic development. He successfully developed a rapid testing kit for both viruses.

Wayengera also holds expert skills-training in Bioentrepeneurship and Research and Development.

Serving, Breaking Boundaries

Over the past 10 years, he has served as In-Charge of the Unit of Genetics and Genomics (a super-specialized referral centre for children and adults born with rare, Mendelian disease at the Mulago National Reference and Teaching Hospital Complex, Kampala, Uganda.

He is also In-Charge of the Unit of Genetic and Genomics, Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology at School of Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences at Makerere University.

Wayengera is also a member of the African Society for Human Genetics (AfSHG) and Ex-Chair of the Education and Coordinated Working Group (ECTWG) of the H3Africa Consortium that empowers African Researchers to be competitive in genomic sciences and nurtures effective collaboration.

My research interests center on pathogens (virus, bacterium and other microorganisms that can cause disease) with a focus on identifying new its molecular targets (minute particles) for research and development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines, he says.

Together with his team, Wayengera has not only built the necessary expertise and experience but also established a network of partners from across the academia, industry, and public-private partnerships.

For this work and its impact on the 2013 to 2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, Wayengera was listed as the 57th of the 100 most influential Africans of 2015.

Last year (2019), his team won the 1st Prize for the World Health Organisation (WHO) innovation Challenge (Product Development), and he was nominated as REACH Award Finalist - Reaching the Last Mile (REACH/RLM).

Wayengera is currently (2019-2020) The World Academy of Sciences Sub Saharan Africa Regional Partner (TWAS-SAREP) Young Scientist award winner (Infectious Diseases).

He is also the Chair of the COVID-19 scientific committee in Uganda leading the response to the coronavirus.

Providing Solutions

I am excited Dr. Wayengera and his team are in the process of developing a testing kit for COVID-19. There is a huge challenge globally for testing kits. We look forward to this innovation closing this gap. He did the same for Ebola, says Professor Rhoda Wanyenze a Physician, Public Health Consultant, and Dean Makerere University School of Public Health.

It is always good to see scientists use their knowledge to develop innovations that address the critical aspects of health for our society. We keep getting epidemics. Right now besides COVID-19, neighbours DR Congo also have Ebola in the town of Beni, she says.

Professor Wanyenze says Wayengera is working on critical matters developing diagnostics. The STDS-Agx (swab tube dipstick agglutination) COVID-19 test kit developed by Wayengeras team can produce results in a minute or two, compared to the four-to-six hours it takes to get results from the WHO accredited Reverse transcription-polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) based tests that quantitate changes in gene expression, now in use.

Each kit will cost an estimated US$1.07 (about sh4,000), making testing affordable. It is intended for use in rural settings, which often lack laboratory capacity or expertise, says Wayengera.

It is a home-based solution to the evident scarcity of resources for the management of this pandemic globally. Everyone is running to the market and the difference in economic prowess means poor countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa are left with nothing. We must innovate around these shortages to fight the pandemic, he says.

The Makerere University research team expects to have a prototype ready to be put into use next month, pending expert validations.

Three versions of the test kit are being developed. The tests will work by generating solid particles from the reaction of the virus with antibodies or vice versa.

The work has been seed funded by about US$22,000 from the Makerere University Research and Innovation Fund.

Wayengera says an estimated $272,000 will be required to develop a prototype and over $ 0.5million will be needed to mass-produce the kits.

Additional costs will also be incurred for regulatory approval, intellectual property protection, and commercialisation.

Continue reading here:
Dr. Misaki Wayengera: The Man Behind Uganda's Covid 19 Test Kits - New Vision