theGIST Issue 12

ISSUE 12 SPRING 2020
Lab-grown meat
Deepfake data
A bad influence
Science in the
spotlight

Welcome
References
Check out our QR codes
Join theGIST list
www.the-GIST.org

Welcome
Editorial
"Science in the spotlight"
Deepfake data in the post-truth era
Chernobyl: What is the cost of lies?
Is CGI too advanced for its own good?
A bad Influence
HKPF, you've got some nerve: Exploring
the long-term effects of tear gas exposure
Editors­in­Chief:
Kirstin Leslie and
Katrina Wesencraft
Submissions Team:
Ailish McCafferty and
Desislava Arabadzhiyska
Copy­Editing Team:
Deep Bandivadekar
and Vaiva Gikaitė
Cover Design:
Kilian Kleemann
News
Physical
science
Kirstin Leslie & Katrina Wesencraft
Life
science
Artwork:
Astrid Lea-Mutch
(Instagram: @biblichor_botanist)
Emma Garcia Melchor
George Bell
(www.surrealitycomics.com)
Iona Macwhirter-Harley
Maria Clara Liuzzi
(Instagram: @artbyclara.x)
Technology
Social
science
Any image featured in this magazine
without attribution is public domain.
Opinion

Science in the Spotlight
Chernobyl:
"What is the cost of lies?"
If, like me, you've watched HBO
miniseries Chernobyl, you may have,
as I did, found yourself freaking out.
I started googling frantically. My
panic increased as the nuclear plant
technicians in the show continued to
say: "it isn't possible". Like the "unsinkable"
Titanic, they were evidently
wrong. I wondered if present-day
nuclear safety experts could be
wrong too. A cold sweat began to
form as I realised that the closest
nuclear power plant to Glasgow is
only 37 miles away, easily close
enough to spell my doom (roughly
eighteen times the distance from
Pripyat to Chernobyl, but certainly
close enough to suffer the effects of
a nuclear fallout — or so my panic
led me to believe).
After stressing irrationally for several
hours, I collected my thoughts.
Considering that fear largely comes
from a lack of understanding, I've
decided to learn all there is to learn
(in a short space of time) about
Chernobyl. Why do we use nuclear
power? What went wrong, and what
is the legacy of Chernobyl — on the
people affected, the surrounding
area, and the surprising tourist trade
that has emerged in the exclusion
zone.
Nuclear Energy
We have known about the potential
damage nuclear energy can
cause for longer than we have used
it as a commercial power source. In
August 1945, atomic bombs were
dropped in the cities of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, approximately
60-80,000 people were
killed instantly, though further
deaths from acute symptoms, subsequent
cancers, and illnesses associated
with radiation poisoning led
to over 200,000 deaths by 1950; in
Nagasaki, roughly 140,000 deaths
are estimated [1]. If the bombs had
been detonated closer to the
ground, the death and injury toll
could well have been higher still.
It's had a cultural impact too. The
Japanese language has a word, Hibakusha,
to describe people who
have been affected by the atomic
bombs. All this, six years before
nuclear was ever used as an energy
source and nine years before it was
harnessed for commercial means
[2].
And yet, it is an undeniably efficient
source of energy. According to
the US Office of Nuclear Energy, a
single nuclear reactor can produce
energy equivalent to 431 wind turbines
[3]. It's also a steady energy
source, as wind and solar energy are
reliant on weather that might not always
be predictable or consistent.
Despite economic issues around
disposing toxic waste products (depleted
fuel can have uses in new
types of reactors), it is also far
cleaner than burning fossil fuels and
has very low net CO 2
emissions.
www.the-GIST.org
It's also much safer than you
might think. Writing for Physics
World, nuclear engineer Una Davies
pointed out that "nuclear power has
the lowest number of deaths per
kilowatt-hour of electricity generated"
[4]. This seems totally counterintuitive
to the way nuclear power
is represented in the media, and yet,
when you consider the effects of
fossil fuels on air pollution and climate
change, it makes a lot of
sense. Proportionally, there are also
fewer accidents in nuclear powerplants
compared to those for harvesting
other energy sources. In order
to meet EU pledges of the Paris
Agreement, to cut greenhouse gases
by 40% (compared to 1990 levels)
and to achieve a 32.5% increase in
energy efficiency [5], it may be difficult
to rule out nuclear as an option.
What Went Wrong in
Reactor 4?
The show goes some way to explaining
this in the final episode. The
reactors used in Chernobyl were Soviet
RBMK designs. RBMK stands for
'reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty
kanalny', translated by the World
Nuclear Association to mean 'highpower
channel reactor'. During a
safety check to test how long the reactor
could be sustained in the event
of a power outage, a flaw in the
design led to a power surge, and water
(usually used to cool the system)
reacted with the fuel to create intense
pressure [6]. In The Chernobyl
Podcast which accompanies the
series (I strongly recommend listening
if you too have an unquenchable
appetite for all things Chernobyl),
show creator Craig Mazin tells the
presenter how, when researching the
accident, he was struck by the irony
of the explosion occurring during a
safety test. Human error and flawed

Science in the Spotlight
design were essentially responsible.
Surprisingly, the other three reactors
at Chernobyl continued to run
through the 1990s — a testament to
the demand for efficient energy. In
2000 the final reactor at the site
shut down. There are still, at the
time of writing, 10 RBMK reactors
still in operation [7] but greater understanding
of the potential faults
and higher safety standards should
prevent the likelihood of any repeat
events.
Radiation Exposure
Around the 1980s, there was a
lack of understanding about how to
handle the dangers of ionising radiation
among the general public. Propaganda
in the USSR promoted the
promises of the 'friendly atom', and
there was a widely-held belief that
vodka could decontaminate people
from radiation exposure (sorry, but it
can't. Swigging booze on that longhaul
flight won't protect from the radiation
you'll come into contact with
while you're up in the air).
When reactor 4 blew up, the firefighters
called to the scene believed
it was a fire on the roof, and were
not properly informed of the
dangers. Based on a true story, in
the TV adaptation we see a firefighter
picking up graphite from the exploded
core and becoming injured. It
quickly eats through his glove and
causes catastrophic burns to his
hand. Firefighters on the show also
report tasting metal, which really
happens around intense radiation
due to damage to the taste buds.
Radiation sickness starts after receiving
an instantaneous radiation
dose of 750 milliSieverts, and dose
of between 3,000 - 10,000 mSv will
leave you with a 50% chance of survival
[8]. At the time of the meltdown,
ten minutes of exposure to
the Chernobyl nuclear reactor core
would have exposed you to almost
50,000 mSv and certain death [9].
However, we are all exposed to
low levels of radiation all the time —
from eating bananas to using computers.
The average person is exposed
to roughly 2 mSv over the
course of a year, though this varies
widely. If you live in Aberdeen, you'll
be exposed to higher levels of radiation
from the granite buildings
compared to the sandstone tenements
of Glasgow. It may also be
higher for those who smoke, people
undergoing cancer chemotherapy, or
those who are frequent flyers —
you'd be exposed to around 0.04
mSv on a flight from New York to LA.
However, acute radiation syndrome
(ARS), as we see in the TV
show, usually occurs in four stages
[10]. Initially, it presents similarly to
burns; reddening and swelling of the
skin, along with nausea, vomiting,
diarrhoea, and headaches. This
stage can last anywhere between
minutes and days, depending on the
level of exposure. The second stage,
perhaps cruelly, is characterised by
an apparent lull in symptoms. Again,
the length of time can vary — anything
up to a few weeks.
The third stage is caused by damage
at the cellular level, and will
vary between different types of ARS.
The most severe syndrome causes
damage to blood vessels, leading to
fluid build up in the skull, and causing
death within three days. The
fourth stage is either recovery or, in
the case of severe ARS, death.
Once poisoned, radioactive isotopes
inside or on the victim can
pose a threat to others too. In the
podcast, Craig Mazin tells the story
of a man who, while trying to rescue
a colleague on the night of the explosion,
suffered a burn on his
shoulder in a precise handprint from
the man he had been supporting. In
the programme some of this is incredibly
difficult to watch. Based on
a true story reported in Svetlana
Alexievich's Chernobyl Prayer, we follow
a young couple as the husband,
a firefighter who attended Cherobyl,
becomes increasingly sick. His wife
is told that it is unsafe for her to visit
or touch him, making it impossible
to safely embrace. He dies painfully,
and is buried in a lead-lined grave.
The Human Cost
The number of deaths in the aftermath
of Chernobyl is difficult to
accurately state. Fewer than 50
deaths are directly linked to the incident
— almost all of whom were
present on the scene on the night of
blast, either working in the reactor
or as first responders. There is evidence
of an increase of childhood
and adolescent thyroid cancers in
the years following the explosion,
but survival rates for these were
over 90%. The World Health Organization
estimate 4,000 deaths can
be attributed to radiation, but they
also note in their 2005 report that
the traumas of mass evacuation,
extreme poverty, and a "paralysing
fatalism" following myths and fears
www.the-GIST.org
around the incident could have had
as much of an impact on people's
health [11].
While the numbers may not be as
high as some reports state, statistics
cannot capture or rule out the
huge human cost that this disaster
had. Reading Chernobyl Prayer
takes you through this from many
angles: for those who stayed in the
exclusion zone because they
couldn't face leaving their homes;
those who were evacuated and felt
unwelcome or even feared in the
towns they were relocated to; people
who worked in the clean-up operation
and suffered after-effects including
infertility; people who
terminated pregnancies for fear of
the effects the radiation might have;
and those families who did lose children
to cancer or loved ones to radiation
sickness. This toll should not
be ignored.
Legacy
The legacy on the people affected
by Chernobyl may be complicated,
but the legacy in the exclusion zone
from where they were evacuated is
surprising. Recently, one of my
friends told me her brother was going
on holiday to Chernobyl. At first, I
was convinced she must be mistaken
— my understanding was that
the exclusion zone would be uninhabitable
for the next few thousand
years. More fool me. You can go on
a wildlife tour, visit an art installation,
and buy novelty fridge magnets
there now. There's even a Chernobyl
vodka, aptly named 'atomik' [12]. It
is jarring though; after visiting the
concrete 'sarcophagus' that now
covers the reactor site, Guardian
writer Tom Seymour posted a picture
of it on his instagram. A friend messaged
him to say: "That thing killed
my grandmother [...] And now it's a
disco…" [13]. To many, it is still too
soon and too distasteful to make a
novelty out of this tragedy — though
it's worth acknowledging the need
for economic regeneration for those
living in and around the exclusion
zone as an important driver for this.
But there is one shred of silver
lining. Wildlife seems to be thriving
in the zone now that they have been
left free of human activity. Packs of
wolves and herds of bison can be
seen. Badgers, voles, moose, deer,
foxes, and many bird species have
settled into the area, with no obvious
consequences from radiation
exposure. In 1998, the rare Przewalski's
horse was introduced to the
area in an effort to prevent their ex-

Science in the Spotlight
tinction; their numbers have been
increasing ever since [14].
The legacy beyond the bounds
of the exclusion zone is more complicated.
In Sweden, food produce
from the area was affected, and
thousands of reindeer were culled
in the years following Chernobyl
[15]. Over thirty years later, the radiation
levels for some products
are still returning to normal. As
Spiderman learned the hard way,
with great power comes great responsibility.
And when it comes to
nuclear power, failing to respect
that responsibility can lead to dire
consequences.
We are still learning to respect
it. Tokyo Electric Power failed to
take appropriate safety measures
ahead of the 2011 tsunami in Japan,
ultimately playing a role in Japan's
worst ever reactor meltdown
at Fukushima [16]. But in responding
to nuclear catastrophe,
we've learned from the past and,
in some instances, potentially even
over-reacted. Following the
Fukushima incident, some estimates
believe that mass-evacuations
may have led to more
deaths than low-level radiation exposure
would have caused if
people had remained in their
homes. Recently, efforts to prove
the safety of food produced in the
area have caused controversy, and
there has been a furore over the
possibility of 'radioactive food' being
served to athletes at the Tokyo
Olympic Games [17]. However,
thousands of food samples from
the region have passed safety
checks, and the Japanese government
has even stricter standards
than the UK and US for allowable
levels of radiation in food production.
Nuclear fear-mongering may
be detrimental to Japanese agriculture
for years to come.
Chernobyl is an undoubtedly
compelling TV drama, but it's useful
to remember that it is just a
drama. Nuclear energy is controversial
for good reason, but we
may struggle to meet energy targets
without investing in it; the
Chernobyl miniseries certainly
won't help to sway public opinion
toward this option. The show repeatedly
asks "what is the cost of
lies?" and we may need to consider
what we mean by this in relation
to nuclear energy in 2020.
The cost of spreading panic and
continuing to rule out nuclear energy
may be higher than we bargained
for.
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
Step aside Quorn, soy, seitan and
the rest of the fake-meat wannabes.
A future of man-made, environmentally
friendly meat (yes,
real meat) may be on the horizon.
Clean meat, cellular agriculture and
in vitro meat are terms being tossed
around to describe the rising field of
laboratory-produced meat. Cellular
agriculture is the production of
meat, as well as other animal
products, from cell culture in a lab
as opposed to livestock on a farm.
Using established biotechnological
methods, cellular agriculture could
offer a promising alternative to traditional
meat-eaters: one that’s
both cruelty-free and sustainable.
Our diet and consumer habits
have a large collective impact on the
environment, with meat production
representing a huge source of
greenhouse gas emissions. Going
vegan is said to be the single
biggest way you can reduce your impact
on the earth and it’s well
known that this lifestyle choice is on
the rise. In 2016, there were over
half a million vegans in the UK [2]
myself included! However, as I know
all too well, it’s not for everyone and
for many, meat is still an important
part of daily life. Cellular agriculture
promises to fulfil both the food industry’s
shift towards sustainability
and the carnivorous demands of
consumers.
Lab-grown meat is no mere pie in
the sky. In 2013, cellular agriculture
made the news and became a reality
when Mark Post and his team
from Maastricht University unveiled
the world’s first tissue-engineered
hamburger in London. Mark Post
now runs Mosa Meat [3], one of the
many start-up companies that exist
The need for a new way to produce
food is pressing. We’re currently
living on the busiest Earth
ever, with around 7% of humans to
have ever lived residing on the
planet today. And it’s only getting
busier, with the UN predicting that,
in 2050, the world population will
have risen to 9.8 billion people. All
around us, the effects of a booming
population and human-generated
greenhouse gases are difficult to
ignore. 2019 saw a series of natural
disasters. The California wildfires,
flooding in India and Typhoon Hagibis
in Japan were all more severe
as a result of climate change [1].
Climate change is a global emergency
and our window of opportunity
to prevent its worst impacts from
being realised is closing fast. The
way we are living needs to change.
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
in this expanding industry. The process
of cellular agriculture usually
relies on stem cells - cells with the
potential to develop into any other
possible cell of an organism, and
which can be extracted from an animal
in a relatively easy and painfree
procedure. The cells are grown
in a bioreactor on specialised scaffolding
material. Here, cells are given
the precise environment,
nutrients and proteins needed to
grow into muscle, fat or connective
tissue cells. We can effectively
mimic the cell maturation and specialisation
process that would occur
in the development of an animal,
without using the animal itself.
In a recent documentary, Apocalypse
Cow: How Meat Killed the
Planet by George Monbiot (which
you can stream on Channel 4) [4],
the prospect of cellular agriculture
is not only considered, but deemed
absolutely necessary by the environmental
campaigner if we want to
continue eating meat. Consequently,
he calls for an end to agricultural
farming as we know it.
Here’s his case: UK farmland for
grazing livestock and growing grass
takes up a shocking 55% of the
country’s surface [5]. This is undoubtedly
inefficient and environmentally
unsustainable. For
example, comparing emission figures
of long-haul flights from the
UK government to emissions of
meat production, Monbiot has
claimed that producing just 4kg of
beef can have as high a carbon footprint
to a single passenger taking a
return flight from London to New
York. [6] Monbiot explores the idea
of rewilding the land taken up by
livestock in the UK, and looks to a
successful example in Holland.
Here, they have restored natural
ecosystems by reintroducing native
animals and plants and letting
nature take its course. Could Britain
do the same if we ditched farming
and turned to biotechnology to produce
meat for our Sunday roasts,
ham toasties and sausage rolls?
Fewer farmed animals, lower environmental
costs, and the re-expansion
of natural habitats and wildlife
make growing meat in the lab an exciting
prospect. This new approach
to farming meat is not on the
shelves just yet; hurdles including
regulation, cost, scalability and public
perception still have to be overcome.
However, embracing cellular
agriculture could be one of the
most pivotal ways in the 21st century
we reduce our negative impact
on the Earth. With the increasing
risk of climate change wiping us all
out in the future, humanity is at
steak!
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
Do animals mourn?
In 2013, a video [1] taken in the
Kenyan Samburu National Reserve
showed a group of elephants inspecting
the carcass of a dead
matriarch – the female leader of a
herd of elephants. The manner in
which these creatures lingered
around the body and touched the
bones sparked a debate: are these
creatures really grieving? This case
has not been the only one. The increase
in reports of mourning animals
and the ever-growing fight for
animal rights have led to an open
discussion on this subject. If they
truly are mourning, how could this
change the way we view grief and
animal emotions?
One of the first documented examples
of an animal appearing to
mourn was in the late 19th century.
Two chimpanzees in the Philadelphia
Zoological Garden had
lived together for many months and
developed an intimate relationship;
they never fought, often put their
arms around one another, and defended
each other. One morning,
one of the chimps passed away. The
naturalist Arthur E. Brown described
how distressing it was to witness
the other's acts of anger and grief.
It demonstrated rage-like behaviours
involving tearing its hair and
violently trying to rouse the other
chimp. The yells eventually became
a mourn-like cry which the keeper
assured they had never heard before
[2]. Another striking example
comes from a detailed account by
Jane Goodall (the world's leading
authority on chimpanzees who studied
them for over 50 years) that describes
how a young chimpanzee
was unable to cope with the death
of his mother in Tanzania's Gombe
Stream National Park. He grew lethargic,
refused food, fell sick, and finally
died a month later [3].
On another note, some of the
most impactful cases of grieving
have been documented in cetaceans.
In August 2018, images of a
mother orca carrying her dead calf
for two weeks went viral after scientists
at the Center for Whale Research
witnessed and documented
the harrowing event off the shore of
Vancouver Island [4] [5]. Dr Joan
Gonzalvo of the Ionian Dolphin Project
(a group focused on Research
and Conservation of Dolphins in the
Ionian Sea, Greece) also described
an occasion where an entire pod of
dolphins struggled to keep a dying
calf afloat and then remained in the
area for a period of time after the
body finally sank [6] [7].
Although these examples (and
most media stories) feature large
mammals, these aren't the only
creatures that have been reported
to mourn. Man's best friend has
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
long been a source of such stories,
including Greyfriars Bobby and
Hachiko as well as books which
delve deeper into the psychology
and science of grieving in dogs.
Marc Berkoff, Professor Emeritus of
Evolutionary Biology at the University
of Colorado Boulder and author
of the book Canine
Confidential: Why Dogs Do What
They Do, stated that dogs don't understand
the concept of loss or
death but do recognize that a companion
is missing. In response, they
show behavioural changes such as
a lack of appetite, sleeping more
than usual, or withdrawing from
people and other pets – a collection
of symptoms that sounds
rather familiar. Even if dogs do not
comprehend the metaphysical implications
of the death, their
change in behaviour implies at
least a minimal understanding of
loss.
All of these examples describe behaviour
that can be interpreted as
grieving or mourning; but what are
the definitions of these terms? The
Cambridge Dictionary defines both
grieving and mourning as "to feel or
express great sadness, especially
because of someone's death". Furthermore,
Barbara J. King, an emeritus
professor of anthropology and
author of How Animals Grieve (a
book I highly recommend for those
interested in this subject), defines
grief and mourning as "significant
deviations from usual routines displayed
by survivors after the death
of a significant companion animal".
In her terms, there's no distinction
between grieving and mourning as
both result in a change of behaviour.
However, it is known that grieving
and feeling grief are intricately related.
Therefore, if we assert that
animals can mourn, can it be stated
that grieving animals actually feel
grief? Since the empirical definition
of mourning limits itself to objective
observations but the act of feeling
grief is impossible to measure. On a
more scientific basis, a study in baboons
observed a large increase in
the concentration of stress hormones
in their blood after losing a
close companion or child. This
proves that baboons feel stress as a
result of these losses [8].
It is difficult to ascertain whether
it's grief or curiosity that drives an
elephant to touch a dead body or if
a dog that "grieves" its companion
does so out of a sense of loss or
because he simply misses the act
of playing with his companion.
Presently, there are few studies that
focus on the feeling of grief in animals
due to the challenge of studying
animal emotions. Several problems
arise when investigating this topic:
the inability of animals to communicate
their feelings, the possibility
of anthropomorphising (attributing
human characteristics to animals)
their behaviour, and the variety of
mourning behaviour found across
the animal kingdom.
Among other reasons, a fear of
anthropomorphising has led scientists
to be reluctant to describe the
behaviour of any animal towards
one of their dead as "grieving". Perhaps
this is because we fear we are
projecting highly complex human
emotions onto animals or perhaps
because animals don't comprehend
the loss of a companion. Nonetheless,
the increasing number of observations
and anecdotal reports
prompt the scientific (and non-scientific)
community to begin to reconsider
grieving as an exclusively
human experience. Although humans
experience grief in a more
visible way (according to ourselves),
it might be that animals also experience
grief, but in a simpler form. As
Barbara King suggests, perhaps the
only thing that differentiates human
and animal grief is "[Homo Sapiens]
unique ability to fully anticipate the
inevitability of death (…) and to express
our losses in a thousand glorious
or ragged ways".
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
Deepfake data in
the post-truth era
Jordan takes a look into the world of
AI-generated images, and investigates
the ugly side of data manipulation.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine
learning are amazing tools
and valuable assets to businesses
and laboratories worldwide. As a
microscopist, I've used image analysis
tools, like Trainable Weka [1],
that use machine learning. These
tools make it remarkably easy to
segment images and save time
trawling through datasets. Some
advanced image analysis tools use
neural networks – algorithms that
are designed to work in a similar
way to the brain (at least conceptually
speaking). These algorithms
have the ability and plasticity required
to learn and change behaviours
based on ground truth and
have countless useful applications.
From my own experience, I've realised
that with adequate training,
these tools can separate cellular
structures within images just as
well as a human can (and in some
cases, even better).
What has followed, however, has
been interesting. This approach has
been used to create 'Deepfakes' –
convincing computer generated images
and video clips based on real
faces and voices. Deepfakes are
everywhere, you only need to type
that word into Google or YouTube
and you will be assaulted with a
barrage of fake videos, featuring
celebrities and politicians, all built
from sophisticated neural networks.
Alarmingly, there have even been
several instances of Deepfake porn
using celebrity faces.
What these things all have in
common is that they change data
rather than completely making it up.
Making you look older is easy
enough and with enough images
and audio clips of someone's face
and voice, you can then make them
perform fake speeches. The data is
believable because it's based on
ground truth.
As part of his presentation, Dr
Horváth showed us one of the problems
faced in image processing: the
lack of readily available datasets to
train machine learning tools. Vast
datasets are required to train the algorithms
and this data isn't always
accessible. For example, if you want
to teach a computer how to identify
tumour cells, you need to show it
lots of examples of what a tumour
cell looks like. However, patient data
like this is fiercely protected and difficult
to obtain. We can't possibly
hope to use artificial intelligence to
identify damaged cells if the programme
has never seen one before.
To overcome this, Réka Hollandi
from the Horváth group took the limited
data available and used image
style transfer – a fancy technique –
to produce super realistic images
that are completely separate from
the training data [4]. It's a bit like
me showing you some pictures of
Turns out, machine learning isn't
just good at analysing data – it's
also pretty good at manipulating it.
Assuming you haven't been living
under a rock, you'll remember the
2019 internet craze of FaceApp.
Using neural network-based AI, this
novelty app could make you look
older or younger, and even show
you what you would look like as the
opposite sex – with scarily believable
results in some cases. For a
short time, the app even had features
to make you "hotter", although
this was swiftly removed due to racial
discrimination [2]. The app was
entertaining and I used it extensively
myself, although it quickly lost
its novelty factor.
However, what happens when AI
becomes so smart that it can completely
make up believable images?
I first learned about this while at a
talk given by Dr. Péter Horváth - a
multidisciplinary computational cell
biologist from the Institute of Molecular
Medicine Finland [3].
Dalmatians, then asking you to draw
a Dalmatian from memory. Yes, I've
trained you with some prior knowledge,
but the Dalmatian you draw
will be completely unique. Now imagine
that I did the same with a computer
- and the picture it drew
looked exactly like a real photo of a
never-before-seen Dalmatian. That's
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
what this technique achieves but
with microscopy pictures of cells.
When these augmented computer-generated
images were shown
to pathologists, they were largely unable
to tell the difference between
them and the real data. By generating
these training sets, the information
gap between academics and
clinicians is bridged – all without violating
patient data protection. A
images are so similar to real data
that they slip through the net?
I contacted Péter Horváth and
Réka Hollandi to ask them their
thoughts about this and they share
my concerns. They showed me how
easily the data is generated and
commented on how researchers
with questionable practices could
use this to their gain. According to
Dr Horváth, big papers like Nature
Sadly, this is something we are
going to need to prepare for. As analysing
data gets easier, so does
fabricating it. Hopefully, scientific
magazines can train their own networks
to spot fake images and can
stay a step or two ahead in the cat
and mouse game. People will always
find a way to cheat. So, remain
critical and challenge data
you don't think looks right. In this
post-truth era, seeing isn't always
believing.
great innovation, with practical
applications for the medical
community.
Though ever being the cynic, I
don't see it that way. What Réka Hollandi
has achieved is to be praised -
let's be clear on that - but I worry
what this kind of software may be
used to achieve among the rogue
scientists in the community. All too
often, papers are retracted when
someone notices that they contain
manipulated data – but usually the
authors try to do this in Photoshop
(and god forbid, some of it looks like
it was done in MS Paint). But what
can we do when these pixel-perfect
will have their own filters to spot
fakes but he seriously doubts they
would be able to pick up data generated
in this way.
With technology like this, rogue
scientists could produce a
manuscript with realistic images
without ever even having to set foot
in the lab. Up until now, data manipulation
usually occurred when the
results just weren't good enough, or
when they didn't fit the hypothesis in
mind. Data was changed, not created.
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
How is measles
motivating
policy
change?
In August 2019, the UK lost
its 'measles-free' status. More
recently, the first case of polio in
27 years was documented in a 3-
year-old boy from Malaysia. There is
concern that we will see a rise in
frightening news headlines like
these if appropriate action isn't
taken. These cases have fuelled discussions
about the decline in uptake
of vaccines (which could
prevent these reported cases) and
the possibility of introducing new
vaccine policies which may help
stop preventable problems like this
happening in the future. Strikingly,
the World Health Organization
(WHO) has stated that vaccine hesitancy
is in the top 10 list of global
threats. So what does it really mean
to lose the 'measles-free' status?
This is appointed by the WHO and is
defined as an area or a country that
has had no regular transmission of
the infection in that designated area
in 12 months [1]. The UK was given
it's 'measles-free' status in 2016,
successfully maintaining it for less
than four years.
"the World Health Organization has stated
vaccine hesitancy is in the top 10 list of
global threats"
The rise in measles cases, and
the loss of the 'measles-free' status
in the UK, Greece and several other
countries in Europe and around the
world, may have been caused by
multiple factors. Firstly, with
measles 'under control', it is
thought that people have forgotten
how serious and life-threatening
measles can be. The measles virus
is, in fact, one of the most infectious
diseases on the planet. Symptoms
include fever, light sensitivity
and a rash, which in most cases
subside in a week to 10 days [2].
However, in some individuals, there
can be complications which can
prove fatal. Additionally, measles
infection has a significant impact on
the immune system in the short
and long-term. In the first instance,
measles decreases the number of
white blood cells in the body. It is
these cells which are responsible for
fighting other infections. This means
during measles infection, individuals
will be more vulnerable to other
pathogens. In the longer-term, a recent
study has shown that measles
can impact immunological memory
[3].
This study involved sequencing
antibody genes from children before
and after measles infection. It was
found that memory immune cells,
trained to recognise and fight secondary
infection, were absent from
the blood in children after measles.
It was also found that the immune
system was more immature postmeasles
infection which means other
diseases the child had not yet
been exposed to would also be more
difficult to develop immunity against.
This study has shown that a vaccine
against measles infection is not only
protection against measles itself, but
against the many other infections a
person may be exposed to in their
lifetime.
It is also important to remember
that it is the most vulnerable populations
in society that are at the
highest risk of getting infected.
Young babies, the elderly and people
who are immunocompromised, who
cannot get vaccinated themselves,
are reliant on the rest of the population
being vaccinated and keeping
the disease in the population low.
Another reason attributed to the
rise in measles cases is the misinformation
and disinformation
spread surrounding the safety and
efficacy of vaccines. Research
from the Netherlands demonstrates
the exponential damage a
rise in measles can have and the
importance of large vaccine coverage
in a population. The MMR vaccine,
protecting against measles,
mumps and rubella, is 97% effective
after 2 doses, and 93% after
only 1 dose [4]. Yet, a discredited
study from 1998 regarding this
seems to stick in people's minds.
Andrew Wakefield published a paper
in a well known medical journal
linking the MMR vaccine to
autism. There have been many articles
since showing there is no link
and the paper has been retracted,
with Wakefield being found guilty
of fraud. Additionally, a lot of mistrust
may come from disproportionate
reporting in the media.
Up until recently, measles cases
were rare and therefore the frightening
symptoms were not talked
about regularly. Yet a rare side effect,
such as an allergic reaction
from a vaccinated child, could gain
a lot of media coverage and fuel
the anti-vaccination movement. In
the case of the Wakefield study, it
gained a lot of media coverage at
the time, despite the very small
sample size in the study as well as
other questionable methods used.
20 years on, social media makes
the spread of misinformation and
disinformation even easier. One
study has revealed that 50% of
parents with children under 5
came across negative messages
regarding vaccination online [5].
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
And another study has reported that
much of this messaging comes from
online bots, that can churn out an
alarming rate of misinformation per
hour [6]. With the levels of misinformation
appearing only to be on
the rise, something needs to be done
"a vaccine against measles
infection is not only
protection against measles
itself, but against... many
other infections"
to counteract the damage. One such
method that has been suggested to
tackle this, is a change in vaccine
policy.
In the UK currently vaccines are
not compulsory, however, the policies
surrounding vaccines have varied
considerably over the last 2 centuries
[7]. In 1853, a vaccine against smallpox
was made compulsory for all
children under 3 months. Non-compliant
parents were subject to a fine.
This rigorous vaccine campaign was
hugely successful, resulting in the
elimination of smallpox first from the
UK, and globally in 1990. As such, in
1873, all vaccination was made compulsory,
with fines or even risk of arrest
for parents who did not comply.
Yet, records suggest that the compulsory
nature of vaccination discouraged
parents. In the 1870s,
anti-vaccination movements began to
rise, with an anti-vaccination rally in
Leicester in 1885 attracting over
100,000 people. Leicester was
chosen as the rally site based on the
fact people believed the locals had
an alternative strategy to vaccination.
This involved quarantine of those affected
and the healthcare professionals
in charge were vaccinated
themselves, providing a protective
gate effect. The reasons parents
were wary about vaccination varied,
from the use of cow protein in the
vaccines, which was a difficult
concept for people to understand scientifically
and religiously, to mistrust
about how smallpox was transmitted
and therefore the need for vaccination
at all [8].
From a health point of view, vaccination
in the 1800s was certainly
more dangerous than it is now due to
the technology available and legislation
around health care providers and
people did die as a result. However,
as is true now, the benefits for most
far outway the risks. After years of
protests from Leicester and beyond,
in 1898 there was an amendment
made to the vaccination act that removed
the fines for non-compliance.
This policy gave parents the right to
choose what they deemed safe for
their child. This was subject to an application
to magistrates to gain an
exemption certificate, which had to
be approved before a child was 4
months old. However, there were often
delays, or exemptions not granted
which meant in 1907, another act
was passed that removed the need
for an exemption certificate making it
even easier for parents to make the
decision not to vaccinate.
The WHO is not responsible for
suggesting the means by which
countries can increase the vaccination
uptake and different countries
take a variety of approaches. Australia
offers a financial incentive for
complying with vaccines – parents
choosing to vaccinate their children
will be given two payments of $129
Australian dollars when children
complete their vaccinations in 2 age
brackets [9]. Within the US, policies
vary from state to state. Vaccines are
compulsory, however, exemptions are
granted on various grounds including
religion or philosophical beliefs as
well as medical reasons. Studies
have shown that the easier it is to file
for an exemption from mandatory
vaccination, the more people will apply
for such exemption. Slovenia also
has compulsory vaccination programmes
yet this country is a good
example that demonstrates the benefits
mandatory vaccination can
have on compliance. Vaccination
against 9 diseases, including polio
and tuberculosis, are compulsory and
the country has achieved a 95%
compliance rate. Conversely, the human
papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination
is non-mandatory and
unfortunately has a compliance rate
of less than 50%.
It appears that the vaccine policy
landscape across the globe is extremely
varied and it's not a one size
fits all approach. So what approach
should the UK take? There have been
discussions in the last year with the
health secretary that there will be a
take on a 'no jab, no school' policy.
This would mean children without
compulsory vaccines, for diseases including
measles, would be unable to
attend school (where diseases like
measles are likely to spread). France
has implemented a policy similar to
this – children have 11 compulsory
vaccines, without which they cannot
attend school. This was mandated in
2018, an increase in 9 compulsory
vaccinations. Non-compliance can
result in a fine or imprisonment.
Italy, who suffered 37% of all
measles deaths in Europe between
January 2016 and June 2017, also
has a policy which states school attendance
is reliant on vaccine compliance.
[10]. When enrolling children
www.the-GIST.org

in preschools or schools run by the
state, proof of vaccination will be required.
If this can't be provided, parents
will be fined. The success of
these campaigns has been difficult to
establish so far. In France, there is no
central hub for collecting data on
vaccine uptake, so it may take some
time before success can reliably be
measured. In Italy, since the compulsory
vaccine mandate, vaccination
rates for MMR and polio have increased.
However, there are concerns
about access to vaccines
across the country which may require
improvements in infrastructure and
funding, if the mandate is to be a
true success.
A recent study has tried to answer
the question of the effectiveness of
these policies on vaccine uptake and
disease prevention in high-income
countries [11]. This study noted that
these countries pose a significant
challenge, as there is a higher proportion
of elderly individuals than in
lower-income countries. This means
there is a higher level of the popula-
Science in the Spotlight
tion susceptible to measles or other
diseases if there is an outbreak,
meaning high vaccine coverage is
crucial. The research took the approach
of computationally modelling
the levels of measles immunity in
seven countries between 2018 and
2050 based on various methods to
increase vaccine compliance. They
showed that the numbers of
measles-susceptible individuals
would increase in all countries studied
if no changes to policy were
made. The results from this study
suggested that by adjusting current
methods measles would be eliminated
in the UK, Ireland, the US and
Italy but not Singapore and South
Korea. The research also suggested
that focusing efforts on implementing
policies for compulsory vaccination
was not enough and educational
programmes for adults would be
needed.
The response to the UK initiating
such a mandate has left people divided.
Some believe that it is necessary
if cases of measles are not to
increase. However, some people think
it is not yet time for requirements
from the government, and parents
believe it is their right to choose what
happens with their children's health –
mostly stemming from their mistrust
in vaccines. For those unsure about a
government mandate, suggestions for
an alternative to policy change would
be to provide suitable time slots for
vaccination, and allowing sufficient
time for any questions from concerned
parents to be answered, despite
the inconvenience of
appointment times only being a negative
factor for a small proportion of
parents [12].
At the moment, the measles virus is
gaining increasingly more power. Vaccines
themselves are incredibly effective
if they are used, there just
needs to be a better way to enable
this. So whether it be a new policy,
adult education programmes, a way to
stop misinformation spread or a combination
of all of these, let's hope that
a successful strategy is found sooner
rather than later.
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
A bad influence?
When Kim Kardashian posted a
sponsored advert for appetite-suppressant
lollipops on Instagram
last year [1], she most likely
thought it was just another day in
the life and career of a social media
influencer; after all, it wasn't
the first post she had made promoting
a weight-loss product, and
she was far from the only influencer
to do so. This time, however,
she was met with heavy criticism –
most notably from Jameela Jamil,
British actress and founder of the 'I
Weigh' body positivity movement –
because it was felt that this particular
product targeted children.
To date, Kardashian has over
150 million followers on Instagram,
so most popular news outlets spent
days reporting on her lollipopthemed
saga. Three months prior,
much less media attention was
paid to the publication of NHS data
showing that hospital admissions
for eating disorders increased by
191% over the previous six-year
period [2]. With the biggest increase
shown in teenage patients,
and with research demonstrating
that social media affects body image
in adolescents, it is understandable
and justified that diet
products aimed at such at-risk
groups receive this kind of condemnation.
It begs the question,
however – when eating disorder
rates are increasing for adults too,
why don't adverts targeting this
demographic receive the same
level of contempt?
Perhaps it's assumed that
adults have the capability to make
completely informed
and independent decisions,
free from the
effects of marketing
campaigns. This ignores
the strong effects
of popular media
culture on our
choices, even on those who believe
themselves to be unaffected [3]. As
modern technologies such as TiVo
and AdBlocker allow users to bypass
more traditional advertising
methods, marketers have sought
out new ways to reach target audiences,
leading to the rise of influencer
promotions. While traditional
marketing sells a product, social
media influencers essentially sell a
lifestyle. They share so much of
their lives online that followers feel
as if they know them. This makes
their promotions feel
like recommendations
from a trusted friend.
The result is that whilst
traditional adverts are
seen as an annoyance
to be avoided, 1 in 4
people in the UK have
purchased something
based on an influencer's
promotion and 1 in 5 say they actually
like seeing sponsored posts
from influencers [4].
On the other hand, it's perhaps
assumed that since they are being
publicly advertised, these products
are safe to use. Unfortunately,
that's not necessarily the case.
Here in the UK, over-the-counter
anorectic drugs (also commonly
known as appetite suppressants)
are not regulated by the Medicines
and Healthcare Products Regulatory
Agency (MHRA) and their history as
a prescription product highlights
their potential dangers.
Until 2010, anorectic drugs were
prescribed by the NHS to people over
a certain BMI. Doctors were able to
look at patients' existing conditions
and medications: they understood
when it was appropriate to offer a
prescription and when it wasn't. This
practice stopped entirely upon the
discovery that sibutramine hydrochloride
monohydrate, the active ingredient
in the most popular
anorectic drug of the time, was associated
with increased risk of heart
attack and stroke. Products containing
this active ingredient were
promptly banned by the European
Medicines Agency (EMA) and were
withdrawn from NHS prescription as
a result. It was an example of regulatory
bodies working well to ensure
product safety and suitability.
In comparison, people purchasing
products via social media adverts
are rarely fully informed about the
potential risks associated with their
personal circumstances. With a correlation
established between depression
and poor body image [5],
one concern is that people taking
antidepressants may be more likely
to purchase these products, not
realising the risk attached to combining
their medication with weightloss
supplements.
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
Many anorectic drugs work via
what is known as a serotonergic effect:
they work to inhibit the reuptake
of the neurotransmitter
serotonin, leading to increased
serotonin levels in the brain. Serotonin
has been associated with an
increased feeling of satiation; the
higher the amount of this neurotransmitter
in your system, the
longer you feel full on a smaller
portion of food. This isn't its only
effect however. Higher levels are
also linked with feelings of happiness
and calm, which is why antidepressants
called selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SS-
RIs) work to achieve the same result.
Many people will not think to
mention over-the-counter supplements
or diet products to their doctor
as they don't think of them as
medicine. This unintentional withholding
of information can lead
doctors to prescribe a higher
dosage of SSRIs than is safe and
may potentially increase a patient's
risk of serotonin syndrome, a set of
worrying symptoms linked to an
overproduction of serotonin. While
rarely observed, in some extreme
cases it can be fatal.
These are just the occasions
where anorectic drugs interact with
other drugs or existing conditions. It
doesn't touch on the many potential
side effects that can occur based
purely on anorectic drugs taken by
a healthy individual, which include
pulmonary hypertension, vision loss
and increased risk of stroke. Most
people don't expect these to be the
risks when purchasing a publicly
advertised product. Some progress
has been made, albeit very slowly.
The Advertising Standards Authority
(ASA) recently banned promotional
posts made by reality stars Lauren
Goodger and Katie Price, stating
that photoshopping their body
shape in images whilst promoting
weight loss products was irresponsible
and misleading. It's a
positive step forward to see the
harmful and disingenuous effects
of photoshopping being formally
addressed. However, the product
being promoted by Goodger and
Price contained the active ingredient
glucomannan. This has been
found to have no real effect on
weight loss and has been linked to
pulmonary hypertension. In fact, it
is specifically not recommended for
diabetics as it may interfere with
blood sugar control. Interestingly
enough, even though neither of the
banned promotions had thought to
mention that, that wasn't a factor in
their ban.
Unfortunately, regulation of social
media promotions seems limited.
The ASA will crack down on promotions
making unfounded health
claims (such as saying a product
will promote weight loss when there
is no research to demonstrate that)
and they insist that if an influencer
is being paid for a promotion, this
must be disclosed. However, the
only disclosure required is the inclusion
of a small “#ad” at the end
of each post. With no official regulation
addressing the issue, it is
common for promotions to be posted
without warnings of potential
side effects.
Perhaps this is where real change
needs to begin: with stricter regulations
of social media advertising. If
diet supplement advertisements
on social media were required to
state the side effects clearly, it
might not only make the followers
think twice about buying it,
but also make influencers reconsider
their promotions; because
after all, if readers aren't getting
the whole story from brands,
who's to say the influencers are?
Further, if the sponsored nature
of influencer posts had to be declared
clearly at the start of the
post, rather than via a two letter
hashtag nestled in amongst
multiple others, it would prevent
people from assuming these are
personal recommendations that
can be blindly and wholly
trusted.
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
HKPF, you’ve got
some nerve:
Exploring the long-term
effects of tear gas exposure.
The 2019 Hong Kong protests
were sparked by the attempted introduction
of the extradition law: a
bill which would allow extradition of
accused criminals to places where
Hong Kong currently doesn't have
extradition agreements. This meant
that people accused of crimes
could have been sent to mainland
China, a place that is known for its
lack of human rights. On June 9th
2019, more than one million people
marched against this bill, but to no
avail.
The government paid no notice to
the will of the people and proceeded
to pass the bill. So, on June
12th following the second reading
of the amendment, protestors
gathered outside the Legislative
Counsel (LegCo) which led to unrest
between them and police. This was
the first incident where the police
fired rubber bullets and tear gas.
The protests were held every
Sunday and had been occurring
with increasing frequency until the
outbreak of the novel coronavirus.
The protests caught worldwide news
headlines when there was a standoff
between protesters and riot police
in the Chinese University of
Hong Kong [1].
When used within the recommended
guidelines, tear gas is merely a
tool for dispersing crowds and has
minor and short lived side effects. It
is a nerve agent known for making
its victims experience tears, skin irritation,
rashes, coughing and
wheezing. The Geneva protocol allows
for the use of tear gas to disperse
crowds in riots. However, since
the protestors wear gas masks they
do not feel the immediate effects
and it is rendered useless. The excessive
use by the Hong Kong Police
Force (HKPF) in retaliation to the
wearing of gas masks is extremely
dangerous.
Hong Kong is very closely packed
together with high skyscrapers and
narrow roads, meaning that when
tear gas is fired, it has no place to
go. Tear gas just sits stagnant on the
streets with little airstream to move
it. One of the only directions to go is
up and into air conditioning units or
through poorly sealed windows, affecting
those not taking part in the
protests. The HKPF have also been
known to fire tear gas into MTR stations
(Hong Kong's railway system)
where tear gas cannot escape.
Tear gas is also very dangerous if
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
Most countries who use tear gas
as a riot control tool thoroughly deusing
expired canisters, which can
be chemically unstable. Using expired
tear gas greatly increases the
risk of producing dangerous levels
of cyanide, which is normally produced
in small and not dangerous
amounts. A Reddit user claiming to
be a protester posted a photo of an
expired tear gas canister, allegedly
fired by police. While this is difficult
to verify, the post was widely circulated
online [2]. The Hong Kong
Free Press reported that the police
have admitted to using expired canisters
in the past, however the police
have failed to respond to this
latest incident.
From Studio Incendo: 'A photo taken at a protest
event of the anti-extradition bill, showing an expired
tear gas "03/2016" (three years ago).'
Before the coronovirus pandemic,
protests were held every week and
the police continued to use excessive
volumes of tear gas. Upwards of
85% of Hong Kong's citizens have
now been exposed to tear gas.
Since protests began, doctors in
Hong Kong have seen a rise in respiratory
infections (bronchitis), lung
inflammation (pneumonitis) and
coughing up blood (haemoptysis).
However, there is currently no citywide
registry for such cases to be
recorded.
contaminate areas in which it has
been fired to prevent long term
damage to its citizens. Hong Kong
does not. The blatant lack of care
for their own citizens is concerning
and the excessive use of tear gas
will continue to have long term
health effects on both protestors
and bystanders. It is time that governments
worldwide stand up
against police brutality in Hong
Kong, lest we end up responsible
for a generation with serious health
conditions and the eventual loss of
a great nation to a tyrannical dictator.
There is a demand for one to be
created by healthcare professionals
to log hard evidence on the effects
of tear gas and protect the citizens
of Hong Kong, many of whom are
not partaking in the protests yet are
still being affected. This includes
the very young and the very old,
both of whom have increased sensitivity
to tear gas. Babies have small
lungs; exposure to a given amount
of tear gas can produce more damage
than in an adult. Similarly, the
eyes and skin of a baby have thinner
layers of protection.
A part of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests,
the Tsuen Wan March took place on August 25, 2019.
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
The Modern
Space Race
Miriam explores the new space
race to the moon and beyond.
Space races are exciting, there's
no denying it. However, unlike the
iconic space race of old between
Cold War rivals, a slew of billionaires
are vying to come out on top
of this new competition. With 2019
marking 50 years since the Apollo
moon landing, nothing seems to
have captured public attention
more than this historic event. Having
said that, the space sector is
currently undergoing a renaissance.
In this era, coined "New Space"
[1], NASA has obtained a reduced
role. It's not countries that will be
sector leaders but business leaders
instead. And in the near future, it
may well be that anyone with a big
enough chequebook can become a
space tourist [2]. In the golden age
of spaceflight, widely considered to
be the Apollo era, it would be difficult
to imagine that NASA's supremacy
would be diminished.
However, with strict budget cuts and
private companies like SpaceX
showing that they can launch rockets
as well, the tides are changing
[3].
You might think that a space trip
is the top answer to a billionaire's
mid-life crisis. Nevertheless, these
projects have been in the pipeline
for many years and when they have
that much spare cash to burn, who
could blame them [4]?
Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and
Jeff Bezos are together pushing
boundaries with, to all appearances,
an unlimited budget. But
what goal are these billionaires trying
to attain? Jeff Bezos, the
founder of Amazon, was the first to
emerge onto the private scene with
his company Blue Origin in 2000.
The company believes that "in order
to preserve Earth, our home, for our
grandchildren's grandchildren, we
must go to space to tap its unlimited
resources and energy" [5].
Blue Origin is well known for their
work developing the New Shepard
rocket, named after Mercury astronaut
Alan Shepard. New Shepard is
a suborbital rocket that travels high
enough to reach the edge of outer
space without having the energy to
achieve orbit. This incorporates a
crew capsule with the aim of carrying
future paying customers for
suborbital space tourism. Decembber
11th of 2019 marked New
Shepard's sixth space flight. It has
carried numerous experiments over
its multiple missions [6].
Elon Musk's SpaceX came to light
just two years after Blue Origin. His
company aims to "revolutionize
space technology, with the ultimate
goal of enabling people to live on
other planets". In 2010, they became
the first private company able
to return a spacecraft from a low
Earth orbit. Since then they have
gained global recognition for their
achievements. They were the creators
of the Dragon spacecraft which
delivered cargo to and from the International
Space Station successfully.
Commercially, this spacecraft
was the first of its kind. In recent
years, they began launching their
Falcon Heavy, "the world's most
powerful operational rocket" [7].
Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic
is attempting to be the first to offer
commercial human spaceflight.
Their mission involves "using space
for good" by trying to open up space
to everyone [8]. However, current
attempts have not been without
agony. Five years ago VSS Enterprise
scattered pieces of itself over
the Mojave Desert during a test
flight. The result was the death of
the co-pilot, a father of two [9]. This
is a sobering reality of spaceflight
but something astronauts and
space sector employees understand
as a risk of the job.
Years on, they have regrouped.
As the company prepares for commercial
flights, it has been able to
raise $450 million by going public
on the New York Stock Exchange.
They haven't given a date for their
first planned commercial flight, but
it's presumed that it will be sometime
in 2020. Their crews have, on
previous test flights, entered space
twice. In anticipation of commercial
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
flight, Virgin Galactic have transferred
development and production
staff to Spaceport America from
their site in the Mojave desert [10].
Competition remains the essence
of every race. But where does this
race leave the big players like NASA
and ESA? The US Senate not long
ago confirmed General Jay Raymond
to lead the brand spanking
new US Space Command. US Space
Command is part of 11 commands
in the Department of Defense and
focuses on defending the interests
of the US in space. General Raymond
recently met Branson, Bezos
and Musk [11] and seems excited
about the possibilities of how space
command can benefit from strides
made by the private sector. Given
that these two entities have different
priorities it may be that they will
work well hand in hand.
It's no surprise, given news over
the past few years that NASA's next
long term goal is to send humans to
Mars. But don't begin the countdown
just yet. There are still many
technological barriers that need to
be broken down first. Many believe
that it would be prudent to first
send humans back to the moon
with NASA aiming to be the first to
do so. Where Mars could be nearly
a year-long trip, the Moon is just a
few days away [12].
NASA has a budget of $22.75
billion for 2020. This is an increase
on previous years to account for the
Artemis program, with plans to land
the first woman and the next man
on the moon by 2024 [13].
However, despite this increase in
budget, it would make sense to
harness the benefits that these
private companies can offer. In this
case, competition may give way to
collaboration.
The agency's plans for reaching
the moon involve 'commercial and
international partners'. Including
private space companies in this
current moon bid offers up a way of
sharing costs. It looks like NASA
and these companies will work together
on future moon missions.
This will, in turn, provide an excellent
opportunity to test equipment
and technology that will eventually
take humans to Mars.
It seems that the way forward for
the space sector as a whole is for
the federal agencies like NASA and
ESA to work in collaboration with
the likes of Musk, Bezos and Branson.
The attention of governments
and their budgets are unfortunately
only a finite resource. By
working together, there is hope
that a sustainable lunar economy
can be created and maintained. It
has been argued by some that billionaires
and private companies
have no place in space exploration
due to its importance. However, it
cannot be disputed that these
three tycoons are increasing the
rate at which we progress.
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
It's July 2019, I'm sitting at my office
computer when my friend
rushes over to my desk. "Have you
seen the new Cats trailer?". He
grabs the mouse, opens a new tab,
and for 2 minutes and 48 seconds I
sit transfixed. An eternity passes.
The trailer finally ends and I'm left
speechless, staring at my screen.
What the hell did I just watch?
For those unfamiliar with Andrew
Lloyd Weber's back catalogue, the
source material for Cats is completely
bonkers, but these CGI cats
are taking it to the next level. The
trailer makes for uncomfortable
viewing; I've absolutely no desire to
watch the whole film. I'm reminded
of a disturbing movie I saw as a
child – The Polar Express (I still can't
bear to watch it). Maybe I've got a
low threshold but I find creepy CGI
deeply unsettling. I look at Twitter
and confirm I'm not the only one
who hates 'digital fur technology'.
Cats was freaking people out.
The CGI cats were repeatedly compared
to the stuff of nightmares.
Entertainment journalist Kristy
Puchko tweeted that the trailer
made her eyes bleed. People were
equal parts confused and horrified;
the producers' miscalculation was
spectacular. Don't get me wrong,
the animators achieved exactly
what they set out to do – they've
created convincing cat-human hybrids.
But perhaps these cats are a
little too convincing.
Producers should know by now
that people can find photorealism
disturbing. Let's return to The Polar
Express, the creepiest animated film
of the B.C. era (a.k.a. the period
'Before Cats'). Some of the worst
critic reviews focused on the "unnervingly
smooth" humans, calling
them "glaring impostors" and "as
blank-eyed and rubbery-looking as
moving mannequins -- the stuff of
nightmares, not dreams" [1]. The
nightmare comparison always
crops up. It's as if almost-realism
trips a switch in our brains; an
alarm goes off, alerting us that
something's not quite right. While
this is a relatively new issue for animators,
roboticists have been
grappling with this effect for
decades.
This phenomenon, coined the
'uncanny valley', was first described
by Japanese researcher Masahiro
Mori in 1970. Now, for those who
work with humanoid robots, it's
common knowledge that people
find designs creepy once they approach
a certain degree of anthropomorphism.
There's a balance to
be struck; we feel familiarity, even
empathy, for robots with faces [2] –
we find them cute (think of Pepper,
the customer service robot) – but if
the face is too human-like, we become
unsettled and distrustful. The
same rule applies in animation.
Empathy drops. That uneasy feeling
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
builds in the pit of your stomach.
Your brain is trying to tell you that
something's off (hint: it's Taylor
Swift's furry cat boobs).
While the uncanny valley can be
exploited for horror and sci-fi
movies, producers often stray into
uncanny territory by accident. It ruins
films – the effect creates discomfort
at inappropriate moments
and prevents audiences from connecting
with the characters [3]. The
phenomenon doesn't just apply to
human shape or facial features; unnatural
human motion, however
slight, accentuates the unsettling
effect (though it's probably not the
only reason that zombies were
deemed creepier than corpses in
Mori's study).
ing the colour to give them a greyish
complexion and creating a mismatch
between their head and body
proportions. Perhaps unsurprisingly,
the study participants liked these
least of all. I can't help but feel bad
for those volunteers.
Psychologists suspected that uncanny
valley is triggered when a human-like
object fails to meet our
expectations. We have an innate
sense of what constitutes 'normal'
human shape and motion. So if we
recognise an object as 'human' and,
on closer inspection, we realise that
its behaviour or movement is beyond
this scope, it could elicit a
sense of unease.
The fMRI scans showed that part
of the brain that decodes visual information
was tracking the pictures.
This wasn't that surprising, however,
they noticed the activity pattern
changed depending on how human
the object appeared. This created a
"spectrum of human-likeness" in the
participants' brains. The scans also
confirmed that our uneasy, uncanny
valley feeling is created by circuits in
the brain that evaluate social cues.
While I suspected that I find humanoid
robots – and Cats – more
repulsive than the average person,
this study was the first to show
In 2019, almost 50 years after
Mori's discovery, researchers based
in the UK and Germany may have
discovered the underlying uncanny
valley brain mechanism. Using an
imaging technique called fMRI
(which highlights active brain areas
by detecting changes in blood flow),
subjects were shown pictures of
various robots, humans, and 'artificial
humans'. The participants rated
their likeability and human-likeness,
while the researchers kept track of
their brain activity.
Side note: I assumed 'artificial
humans' was code for those realistic
sex robots (if they don't trigger
your uncanny valley, I don't know
what will). But the way that researchers
induced ultimate uncanny
valley is even weirder. The
'artificial humans' were created by
taking pictures of volunteers who've
had 'extreme' plastic surgery, edit-
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
definitively that people experience
uncanny valley to differing degrees.
The researchers asked participants
whether they would accept a gift
from the robot or 'artificial human' in
question. Those most likely to reject
gifts from the human-like objects
showed more activity in their amygdala
(a brain area associated with
emotional responses, including fear
and anxiety) [4].
by your personal experiences (so
maybe I've been scarred by The Polar
Express). Perhaps these animators
have spent so long with their
designs, they no longer see their
sinister side. After the Visual Effects
Society claimed animators were
scapegoated for the poor Cats reception,
stating that "The best visual
effects in the world will not compensate
for a story told badly", I suspect
this to be the case.
take the risk to be the first. Cats'
director actually waited for 'digital
fur technology' so he could bring
his vision to life. We're seeing rapid
advances in computer power and
graphics processing; true
photorealism is on the horizon. I
just hope animators will learn their
technical prowess cannot compensate
for the gut-wrenching,
skin-crawling sensation I get when
I see a furry Judi Dench wearing a
fur coat. Does anyone else get the
impression it's made from the skin
of other cats?
While some animators may enjoy
the challenge, it's possible that
those who favour photo-realism lack
the uncanny valley response. Your
brain's valuation system is shaped
Either way, I believe the temptation
to use new CGI technology is
just too strong for some producers,
despite peer-reviewed research –
and poor box office takings – showing
that audiences don't really want
it. There's always someone willing to
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
The antibiotic
resistance crisis:
Why researchers are going
back to the drawing board
There's an old adage that says 'it
takes two generations to forget'. This
is certainly true when it comes to infectious
diseases and remembering
a time before antibiotics. A diminishing
number of people are alive today
who experienced the penicillin therapeutic
revolution of the 1940s and
even fewer who witnessed the horrors
of infectious disease treatment
that came before.
The normalisation of successful infection
control has led to it not only
being taken for granted but expected.
A sort of desensitisation to the wonderful
therapeutic advancements
that are antibiotics. Advancements
that mean if you get a persistent
chest infection, you don't hunker
down in a sanatorium by the sea with
your last hope being to "take the sea
air". Instead, you can expect some
antibiotics from your GP and should
begin being relieved of your symptoms
within 48 hours.
It is clear that antibiotics are one
of the greatest success stories of
medical science. This is reflected in
their use at every level of the healthcare
setting from prescriptions in
primary care, to use prophylactically
in routine operations and intravenous
administration for medical emergencies
such as meningitis.
However, this broad use isn't
without its problems and has meant
antibiotics have become a victim of
their success. Ever since the introduction
of the first widely used antibiotic
penicillin, we
have been careless
with their administration
and
have adopted a
laissez-faire attitude towards antibiotic
consumption, safe in the assumption
that the next medical
science phenomenon is around the
corner to cushion our fall.
There are problems in paradise.
Antibiotic resistance arises from
'selection' of resistant bacterial
cells in a bacterial population. So, if
you administer an antibiotic at a
dose not high enough to kill the
population as a whole, those bacterial
cells with some resistance
are selected for; they survive and
thrive without competition. The
emergence of resistance was
something Alexander Fleming predicted
in his 1940 Nobel lecture,
warning that "there is the danger
that the ignorant man may easily
underdose himself and by exposing
his microbes to non-lethal quantities
of the drug make them resistant"
[1].
These resistant strains can then
pass on antibiotic survival information
in the form of a plasmid, which
allows other bacterial species to
become resistant and persist. For
example, in the case of Klebsiella
pneumoniae, its population can accumulate
these resistance plasmids
and act as a reservoir of
resistance; a sort of library for other
bacteria to acquire instructions
on how to survive clinically relevant
antibiotics. In recent decades, this
has led to the emergence of MDR
strains (multidrug-resistant), with
some presenting resistance to almost
all known antibiotics. In other
words, if you catch one of these,
there is little a doctor can do to treat
you and, alarmingly, the incidence of
these cases is increasing.
To make matters worse, pharmaceutical
companies have woken up
to the business plan screw up that is
antibiotic resistance. The average
cost of bringing a novel drug candidate
through clinical trials to bedside
is around $2.6 billion USD. Understandably,
recouping this in drugs
sales whilst the clinical environment
is riddled with resistance would
likely reduce profit margins on antibiotics
that become ineffective
quickly. As a result, pharmaceutical
companies have diverted research
and development efforts away from
antimicrobial drug discovery.
This becomes a two-pronged problem
in the clinic with no new classes
of antimicrobials entering the market
in the last 40 years and resistance
to the current drugs continuing
to gather pace. Therefore, there has
been a narrowing of treatment options
for some infections. The World
www.the-GIST.org

Science in the Spotlight
Health Organization has described
resistance as "one of the biggest
threats to global health" and it has
been predicted that antibiotic resistance
will kill 10 million people a year
by 2050 in a 'post-antibiotic era' [2].
With this sobering thought in
mind, what is being done to prevent
(or at least mitigate) an impending
antibiotic back out of the bacteria
and proteins involved in the entry of
antibiotics into the cell [3].
The most successful, widely used
class are β-lactamase inhibitors,
like clavulanic acid (which was introduced
in the 1980s and is still
used clinically today), in combination
with amoxicillin as Co-amoxantibiotics.
These warnings fell on
deaf ears from policymakers for
many decades so, until recently,
there hasn't been a concerted effort
from the government to tackle antibiotic
resistance. It has become
clear that scientists communicating
research and public health concerns
with potential voters directly is most
effective.
antibiotic resistance apocalypse?
Researchers have gone back to the
drawing board to investigate new
strategies; alternatives to just creating
more antibiotics that quickly become
obsolete and to search for that
light at the end of the tunnel.
One strategy comes in the form of
antibiotic adjuvant therapies. Adjuvants
are drugs that are administered
alongside antibiotics to
'block' resistance pathways. If administered
alone they are unable to
kill bacteria, but with antibiotics, they
act to enhance their effect. This
means that if an antibiotic becomes
ineffective due to a resistance mechanism,
an adjuvant returns it to being
able to kill bacteria.
Current adjuvant drug classes in
use include β-lactamase inhibitors,
efflux inhibitors and membrane permeabilisers.
In short, these target
the most common resistance mechanisms
to clinically relevant antibiotics;
enzymes produced to degrade
antibiotics, proteins that pump the
iclav. Due to selection of bacteria
that produce other β-lactamase enzymes,
a new class of β-lactamase
inhibitors are currently being
tested, with a drug called Relebactam
having entered phase
three trials in 2019 [4].
Another recent strategy involves
enhancing the innate immune system
against infection. The innate
immune system is your first line of
defence against infection, comprising
macrophages and neutrophils,
which engulf and hydrolyse
pathogens. A quick response here
circumvents the need for full-blown
immune system activation. Understanding
what factors are involved
with the interaction between host
immune cells and pathogens during
this process could allow drugs
to be designed that aid in enhancing
the effect of the immune system.
Fighting an infection can be a
tricky business particularly if you
are immunocompromised, so tipping
the scales in favour of host
immune cells could help
clear infections faster and
crucially, all without the
need for antibiotics. Although
there are no drug
candidates for this
strategy yet, it remains an
exciting topic of research
that could provide effective
therapies not affected by
antibiotic resistance mechanisms
[5].
The public is becoming increasingly
informed on antibiotic stewardship
with it being taught in schools
and covered in the general media.
Like anything in the public sphere,
this knowledge places pressure on
policymakers to change and encourages
people to vote accordingly. It
also pushes large corporations, like
pharmaceutical companies, to exercise
more social responsibility, and in
recent years, antibiotic resistance research
portfolios have seen an increase
in investment. As always,
researchers are producing innovative
ideas to tackle the science behind
resistance, but this is only part of the
solution. In the meantime, without a
continued multidisciplinary response,
it would be worth imagining what the
world was like without antibiotics. It
may just come back to bite.
Is it all too little too late?
As exemplified by Alexander
Fleming's Nobel Lecture in
1940, scientists have been
warning of resistance emergence
since the conception of
www.the-GIST.org

News
What's new with theGIST?
Cover art
Meet the team
designed by Kilian
Kleemann
www.the-GIST.org

The back page
theGIST
Crossword
Created by Ailish McCafferty
www.the-GIST.org

Cover art designed
by Kilian Kleemann