Posted on by ScientistSim

You will never influence the world trying to be like it

In October 1927, the Solvay conference (a prestigious invite-only Physics meeting) was in session. In one room were Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Planck and even Erwin Schrödinger. 17 of the 29 attendees would go on to win Nobel prizes, with Marie Curie achieving that honour in two fields. Pictured below is the historic photo (recently colourised by Sanna Dullaway) to serve as proof that those coffee breaks must have been the greatest in history.

Solvay conference

 

These individuals would decide the course of quantum physics at this meeting, what was to come and what the field is now was down to them.

Why do we oooh and ahhh at the guest list of the Solvay conference? People have an obsession with genius. And as scientists, perhaps we have a wish to emulate them. One of the ways to do this is to look at those individuals that have managed to completely distinguish themselves from all other scientists by winning the Nobel Prize.

So what are the trends? Well for a start, it is best not to be a woman. Of the 900 Nobel laureates, only 49 are of the fairer sex. Furthermore, it’s best to be an American, as a whopping 257 individuals have been born there (29%, as compared to 1% of the winners being South African). It is also best if you have a birthday on 21 May or 28 February and happen to be 61 years old at the time of the award. Oh, and be a Harvard affiliate (26 were). The Curie family had 6 Nobel Prizes in the extended family (Marie received 2, Pierre her husband, shared one with her in 1903; their daughter Irène Joliot-Curie and her husband Frederic shared one in 1935 and in 1965 Marie’s second daughter’s husband received the Nobel Peace Prize. There have been 5 married couples, 1 sibling and 8 parent-child pairs of laureates – so perhaps working with family is the best thing to do. Basically, your best chance of winning a Nobel Prize, statistically, is to be a 61 year old male physicist who works for Harvard or Caltech (who have so many Nobel laureates they have their own parking space) and is related to a Curie.

What one must consider is that out of the estimated 108 billion people that have ever lived, only 900 have won this prize. Clearly this is not the best indication of genius. There must have been a good number of other inventors and problem solvers that have lived throughout our time, and not all of them were 61 year old Harvard alumni. It is interesting that humans always look at the exceptional, when really everything we currently understand about human intelligence is based on the average. We tend to think genius is based on how much you’re above the average IQ. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking had MENSA IQs of 160. But Richard Feynman, widely regarded as a genius, only had an IQ of 120. In addition, last year, a 12 year old girl got an IQ score of 162. Does this mean she will develop the next theory of relativity? Unlikely. Child protégés do not typically remain that way as IQs change over time. In a great article “What your IQ score doesn’t tell you”, the writer goes on to describe that the test doesn’t tell one about the ability to perform tasks or make things work – a pretty big part of life really. IQ is not the same as “common sense” and is certainly not the same as intelligence.

“Intelligence” as defined by Dr Robert Sternberg is made up of 3 facets: analytical skills, practical ability and creativity. You need some common sense to make that IQ work. But perhaps what truly distinguishes genius is not just a Nobel prize, crazy hair and marrying your cousin (something Einstein did) but how creative you can be with the world around you. Einstein and Max Planck were accomplished musicians (violin and piano respectively), Richard Feynman was an acclaimed artist and Marie Curie, well she liked to cycle. Creative people are generally polymaths, they have a wide variety of knowledge and skills and potentially we should focus more energies on other creative pursuits than just work. And while you certainly can’t learn to be a Caucasian bearded man, one can encourage creative behaviours. While some imagine that the coffee breaks during the Savoy conference were packed with Physics, its highly probable that Albert whipped out his violin and Max joined in on piano, while Erwin Schrodinger made a few bits of furniture for his latest dollhouse, Marie went for a brisk cycle and Niels Bohr played a bit of footie.

You will never influence the world trying to boost your exceptional IQ, or fitting into the “workaholic” mould. Be different; feed your creative side. Heck, keep pigeons if you have to; it worked for Tesla (well sort of)!Tesla Oatmeal

An excerpt from “The Oatmeal’s” cartoon“Why  Nikola Tesla was the greatest geek that ever lived”, a truly great read!

Posted on by ScientistSim · 1 Comment

Exciting times for HIV vaccines, less exciting times for the virus

On International HIV Vaccine Awareness Day (the 18th May 2016) at the HIV Vaccine Trial Networks (HVTN) meeting, it was announced that for the first time in 7 years and the first time in Africa, a HIV phase 3 vaccine trial will be taking place. In addition to this the world’s first HIV antibody infusion trial started with its first South African participant in Soweto.

Slowly we seem to be completing a puzzle. Perhaps the most complicated one ever pieced together.

Science is a developing story. Every study, no matter how mundane, adds a puzzle piece to the picture. Sometimes it’s an edge piece, that forms the basis for studies to come and sometimes it’s a middle piece that doesn’t really help anyone at the time but will be imperative to complete the picture. In some cases though, in order to progress, scientists stop fitting in pieces to the main puzzle and start their own. This is a risk because the evidence is leading the field in a particular direction and this direction is fairly certain because multiple people have determined the same thing. Sometimes though, the risk of deviating is worth it. Risk shakes up the field; breaks down dogma and enforces flexibility. And that is what this trial could mean for HIV vaccinology.

I am beyond excited that we are having our first trial in seven years and I’m even more excited that it is happening in South Africa. Capacity building has happened over the last couple of years, allowing for South African clinicians and scientists to run these trials. This means much more opportunity for young scientists, collaborations, funding and all round focus. We are finally in the spotlight. The findings of trials always mean that interest in the field surges again. New ideas will be emerging from unexpected places.

The most recent vaccine trial regimen that showed any protection was the U.S. Military HIV Research Program-led RV144 clinical trial in Thailand completed in 2009. This regimen showed that protection was mediated by something we did not expect. All our data in the field up until that time suggested that antibodies (called broadly cross neutralizing antibodies) that could bind and coat lots of different HIV viruses (preventing entry into cells) would be our best shot at a vaccine. But protection (bear in mind it was only 31%) was achieved by antibodies that weren’t able to block infection of a cell. Instead they are able to bind to an already infected cell and call for backup. Other cells with the ability to secrete substances that pop the infected cell heed the call and come to destroy the infected. Think of the broadly cross-neutralizing antibody as Batman (pretty capable

robin batman 1
http://www.quotesgram.com

of a fight on his own) and these other antibodies as Robin. The vaccine was tested in Thai people who have a very different epidemic to the part of the world that bears the greatest burden, Southern Africa. So the HVTN has run a series of small trials in South Africans using a vaccine that would be more appropriate for our situation. And now, we are paving the way to HVTN 702 (not to be confused with the talk radio station); the phase 3 trial guaranteed to rock the boat of science.

 

A phase 3 trial is a big deal. A wide range of criteria need to be fulfilled in order to proceed to one and the criteria that were set for HVTN 702 have all been met. However there is much talk in the field that we are progressing for progress’s sake. Many feel like we are creating a vaccine that has both arms tied behind its back and we are expecting it to win an arm wrestling contest. We are expecting robin to win Batman’s fight.  We are pushing a vaccine through that does not create the antibodies we know are going to protect people and are based on historically unimpressive antibodies. Should we be doing trials on things we know are not optimal or should we take the risk and acknowledge that there are clearly things we do not understand? Perhaps what now seems like an arbitrary puzzle piece will start off a new and exciting puzzle.

hero sidekick5400 South Africans will be enrolled from November 2016 and we will know the outcome by 2020. It’s a long time to spend on something that may not work again. What would going back to the drawing board mean for new infections? The bottom line is we have not yet managed to summon Batman to fight for our cause. We have lots of ideas on how to get him there but so far nothing has worked. Should we give up on Robin just because he is not what we expected?

Most vaccines have taken between 25-50 years to develop, so technically 30 years in, we aren’t doing too badly: we have drugs that are very effective at keeping AIDS patients well, which our government has now pledged to provide free of charge to everyone infected; we have drugs that can be used to prevent infection (pre-exposure prophylaxis) and we have lots of ideas bout what will protect people in a vaccine setting.

For me, the proof will be in the pudding. By 2020 we may have even brighter ideas about what we need and how to get there. And potentially the pessimistic view of the current phase 3 if irrelevant if it goes on to form new dogma. If all this phase 3 trial does is encourage bright and motivated young people to tackle arguably one of the most perplexing problems the world has, it will be a win. Either way, now is not a good time to be HIV.