Known for his work in plant aquaporins, Dr. Menachem Moshelion has published many papers concerning his research. He has been running a lab for the past five years at Hebrew University’s Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture located in Rehovot. Moshelion’s interest in science began at the age of five, “I’ve always been interested in science. I knew it, somehow… I didn’t have excellent marks [in school], but in Biology – I always got an A.” Moshelion “always knew” he wanted to be involved in the biology field. Although he started in animal science, one course in plants was enough to change his direction. After completing all of his degrees at Hebrew University, Moshelion did his post-doctorate in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium – a small city 30 kilometers from Brussels.

Dr. Moshelion first began his study of aquaporins in plants toward the end of his PhD. Aquaporins are membrane channels in a cell that allow water and other small substances to go through. He continued with this subject during his postdoctoral research. Once he returned to Hebrew University and opened his lab, Moshelion enlarged and expanded his research by moving from specifically the cell to the whole plant’s water relations. His main question was how plants can survive in rough or harsh environments, where they may or may not have water. “My question always began at the cellular level. I wanted to understand how a cell can control the whole plant’s water regulations and what are the cellular mechanisms involved in this process,” Moshelion explains, “Aquaporins are a main part of this. I was sucked into the question of how could we improve a crop’s stress resistance.” He found that by modifying some plants aquaporins, a lot can be learned about cellular regulation and the plant’s adjustment to stress resulting in either more or less yield.

Moshelion’s lab focuses on molecular modification where they use a lot of genetical engineering to change specific aquaporins in the cell and modify them. In the beginning, Moshelion and his students, studied aquaporins the cellular level measuring the physiological impact on the cell – the RNA level, protein levels, and so on. Today, he has gradually begun to spend more time going out to the fields and greenhouses to see how the whole plant physically expresses the modified aquaporin.

The lab’s model crop is tomatoes. They also work with arabidopsis, which Moshelion explains is not a crop so it doesn’t provide any economic yield. However, one can assume, under a certain amount of doubt, that if something works with arabidopsis, it should also affect crops the same way. Most of the time, experiments are first done on arabidopsis because the plant is very easy to grow, transform, work with, as well as genetically manipulate it. Once he thinks he found something, Moshelion and his students will try the same procedure out on the tomato. Of the 37 aquaporins in the tomato, Moshelion and his lab are focusing on 2 which they found had the most impact on water balance.

So far, Dr. Moshelion has found that aquaporins are changing the water balance in plants. He compares water balance in plants to balancing your bank account. A person has a specific income and certain expenses and his goal is to find the ideal middle to live. Plants absorb water from the soil and they lose it via transpiration. He explains that, “Transpiration is a side effect of photosynthesis. During photosynthesis a plant opens tiny pores in the leaf which allow CO₂ to get in, while at the same time water is going out. It in the best interest of the plant to open the stomata as wide as possible in order to maximize the CO₂ , but it loses water and water is the limiting factor. Deciding when to leave the stomata open and when to close it is a very very complex and gentle play.” When certain aquaporins are expressed, the plant can start losing all of its water and become completely dried out. Other aquaporins block the stomata, so the pores stay closed all the time and no water is released. Moshelion has realized that expressing different aquaporins has a direct effect on the plant’s water balance. “What we are looking for is to find a specific aquaporin, expressed in a specific place, in a specific time. We want to change the water balance to be more efficient, more economic to the plant. In this way, we can maximize the photosynthetic results by either minimizing the loss of water or spending more water in the hopes of maximizing photosynthetic profit.” Moshelion compared plants to gamblers. Plants have a certain amount of water and they have a choice to spend it wisely or unwisely. Some act conservatively and lose the minimum amount of water possible, however they aren’t growing so fast. Others plants, which Moshelion refers to as “risk takers” spend a lot of water. “We have found that many of the crops we are growing are risk takers. During evolution humans taught plants to be profitable, so we breed them to lose water and gain CO₂ . We are unsure whether these kinds of plants will survive in the field. Nobody knows exactly what is happening here, we are just looking at the outcome. We are looking at the plants and its measurements and ultimately are trying to learn how the aquaporins’ mechanism works.”

Moshelion is involved with research collaborations within Israel as well as abroad. His main collaboration is with others in the Soil and Water Department in Hebrew University, specifically Dr. Rony Wallach and Dr. Uri Shani. Although their questions are based around what happens to the plant’s root in the soil – collaboration is easy as both Moshelion, Wallach, and Shani’s interests are in the water. Moshelion has other collaborations with people studying aquaporins and other stress related genes. Additionally, he collaborates with other researchers working on sugar metabolism, flowers and other aspects of plants.

Moshelion’s message to those interested in starting in the Science Research field: Be ready for a lot of hard work, frustration and disappointments.

“Whether you are a PhD or even a masters student, you must know that scientific research is a very hard job. You are your own boss. Research is really independent work and while you can think together what is the best approach to ask questions, nobody can tell you what is the best way to find the answer. A PhD is a philosophy doctor and your job is to ask questions. There are many ways to ask the same question and many experiments that might answer these questions. Many times you think you have the right question and the right experiment – and its very frustrating to find out that the answer is not what you expected. You know where you want to get – but you never know where you are going. Sometimes you get different results than you expect – and it takes you out of the way – so you have to be ready for disappointment… Science is really demanding – especially when you work with living creatures because you have to make sure everything is working all the time – you can’t just leave something and go.

Science is addictive. Come to the lab at 4 AM and there is a good chance you will find people working here, sleeping here. It doesn’t feel like you are coming to a job because we are always trying to answer new questions and solve new problems. On one hand it can be fun and interesting, but on the other hand – research can be really frustrating and demanding. I always tell people – if you like research – go for it! Don’t hesitate! But, know it will be very hard.”

Dr. Moshelion loves the academic freedom that comes with academic research. He says that with biotech industrial research, “the business is the motivation, so you have very little freedom of action… You must go according to a stiff schedule and the business program… I think the whole point [of science] is not the experiment you do, its not the lab work – because its pretty boring – its the questions you ask and then the results you get back, the thinking you do.”

To learn more about Dr. Menachem Moshelion visit his website.

Oprah Winfrey is The Media Queen. On the air for over twenty years, Oprah’s self-named syndicated talk show has roughly forty million viewers weekly. Aside from her television success, the media mogul has a steady monthly following of 2 million readers for her O magazine, has her own satellite radio channel, and an extremely popular Web site. Oprah’s personal fortune has been estimated by Forbes to be $2.7 billion – and yet her media empire is continuing to grow. Oprah recently signed a deal launching The Oprah Winfrey Network, a cable television channel that will feature Oprah-approved programming on health and living well. On May 28, CNBC aired “The Oprah Effect,” a documentary illustrating the power and influence she holds, specifically when a product or service is mentioned on her television show or in her magazine. While it is hard not to respect her as a talented and savvy TV host and businesswoman, many take issue with Oprah’s frequent promotion of a wide variety of dubious medical practices, pseudoscience, and mysticism on her show (see Newsweek ).

One of Oprah’s guests, Jenny McCarthy, former Playboy model and actress turned autism activist, has been promoting the vaccine-autism controversy. McCarthy’s campaign drew coverage in the Fall of 2007 after she was invited by Oprah to promote her first book about “curing” autism. McCarthy insists that her son, Evan, developed autism from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination he received as a baby. Along with supporters of her campaign, McCarthy believes that the increase in the number of shots given to children coupled with the chemicals used to preserve vaccines have created an epidemic of autism. Furthermore, they believe that doctors, the government, the media and drug companies are hiding or ignoring the truth. Despite repeated rejection by the scientific community, the theory has generated a movement, resulted in thousands of legal claims, and has even elicited occasional harassment and threats against scientists whose research proves otherwise.

Discover Magazine’s article titled “Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On?” explains the history of this heated debate,

“The decadelong vaccine-autism saga began in 1998, when British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues published evidence in The Lancet suggesting they had tracked down a shocking cause of autism… In a dramatic press conference, Wakefield announced the findings and sparked an instant media frenzy. For the British public, a retreat from the use of the MMR vaccine—and a rise in the incidence of measles—began. (Update 2/2010: Revisiting ‘Autism, Vaccines, and The Oprah Effect’)

In the United States, meanwhile, fears would soon arise concerning another means by which vaccines might induce autism. Many vaccines at the time contained thimerosal, a preservative introduced in the 1930s to make vaccines safer by preventing bacterial contamination. But thimerosal is 50 percent mercury by weight, and mercury is known to be a potent neurotoxin, at least in large doses. In 1999 new federal safety guidelines for mercury in fish stirred concerns about vaccines as well.

The U.S. government responded by ordering that thimerosal be removed from all vaccines administered to children under age 6, or reduced to trace amounts. (Some inactivated influenza vaccines were exempted.) The step was described as a “precautionary” measure. There was no proof of harm, government researchers said, just reason to worry that there might be. Meanwhile, scientists launched numerous studies to determine whether thimerosal had actually caused an autism epidemic, while some parents and their lawyers started pointing fingers and developing legal cases…

Epidemiological studies have cast grave doubt on Andrew Wakefield’s MMR hypothesis—and so have subsequent scandals. Nearly all of Wakefield’s coauthors have since retracted the autism implications of their work; The Lancet has also backed away from the study. A series of investigative stories published in The Times of London unearthed Wakefield’s undisclosed ties to vaccine litigation in the U.K. and, more recently, suggested he fabricated his data (which Wakefield denies).”

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. ruled that vaccines do not cause autism in each of three critical test cases handed down on February 12, 2009. The court particularly denied any link between the combination of the MMR vaccine and vaccines with thimerosal and the range of disorders linked to autism.

On the Oprah show, McCarthy’s theory went virtually unchallenged as Oprah lauded McCarthy for her bravery, and did not invite a physician or scientist to represent the many studies contradicting the vaccine-autism link. Oprah merely read a short statement from the Centers for Disease Control stating that there is no science to prove a connection and the problem is under continued government examination. McCarthy responded, “My science is named Evan, and he’s at home. That’s my science.”

“That’s right.” David Gorski, a cancer surgeon who blogs at Respectful Insolence, a top medical blog known for its pro-vaccine stance, writes, “Science doesn’t matter. Only McCarthy’s poorly informed ideas formed by the misinformation she found about autism on the Internet do.”

“If I had another child,” McCarthy wrote on Oprah.com, “I would not vaccinate.”

Gorski explains in his blog that parents like McCarthy “misunderstand science and expect scientists to prove that vaccines don’t cause autism. Unfortunately, conclusively proving a negative is not possible in science. We can assign probability based on data, and numerous studies tell us that the chances that vaccines contribute significantly to autism is vanishingly small, but non-scientists think that it’s possible to prove that vaccines don’t cause autism and become suspicious when scientists qualify their statements.”

Since parents started to deny their children vaccines, the spread of epidemics and newly unfettered infectious diseases has risen. Scientists at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health recently found while investigating whooping cough outbreaks in and around Michigan that, “geographic pockets of vaccine exemptors pose a risk to the whole community.” Those that have been skeptical about vaccines may be forced to realize that a number of potentially deadly diseases are just a plane ride or playground away. Ironic, isn’t it? Vaccine skepticism and not the vaccines themselves are now beginning to be the true public-health threat.

A year after her first appearance on the Oprah Show, McCarthy was invited back to continue to discuss and expand on her views and claims about the connection between vaccines and autism. Since then she has become a semi-regular guest on the show. In May, Oprah announced that her production company had signed Jenny McCarthy, for a talk show of her own as well as various other media projects

Oprah denied any endorsement of any of her show’s guests in a statement to Newsweek,

“The guests we feature often share their first-person stories in an effort to inform the audience and put a human face on topics relevant to them. I’ve been saying for years that people are responsible for their actions and their own well-being. I believe my viewers understand the medical information presented on the show is just that – information – not an endorsement or prescription. Rather, my intention is for our viewers to take the information and engage in a dialogue with their medical practitioners about what may be right for them.”

I think that Gorski’s conclusion says it best, “The bottom line is that, whatever good Oprah may have done with her money, when it comes to medicine and science, on balance she does far more ill than good. Her intentions may be the best in the world, but that is only why she is the living embodiment of the the belief that feelings trump science, and as such she has no mental filter of critical thinking to keep out pseudoscience and quackery. Couple that with her great influence and power, and the result is the Oprah-fication of the popular discourse about medicine in the media… Indeed, Oprah is one of the most potent forces in American for the undermining of critical thinking and science-based medicine in existence.”

• Discover Magazine – “Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On?”

• Newsweek – “Why Health Advice on ‘Oprah’ Can Make You Sick”

• Respectful Insolence blog – “Combatting the Oprah Effect” and “Oprah and Jenny McCarthy: A woo too far”

• The Lancet – Andrew Wakefield’s Paper

Referred to as “the most significant scientific discovery of recent time,” Darwinius masillae also referred to as “Ida” has created quite a media frenzy. “The Missing Link,” Ida is a 47-million-year old female adapid primate discovered in the well known Messel deposits in Germany. The discovery has resulted in a flurry of promotional activity beginning with an elaborate event at The American Museum of Natural History, as well as a History Channel documentary, book release, and a web site. A television teaser’s slogan proclaims, “This changes everything!” and has compared the discovery to landing on the moon. Ida has also been referred to as the holy grail of paleontology, the lost ark of archeology and has even been compared to the Rosetta Stone.

“Any pop band is doing the same thing,” said Jorn H. Hurum, a scientist at the University of Oslo who acquired the fossil and assembled the team of scientists that studied it. “Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.” While Hurum may think the extensive media coverage is positive, many in the science field disagree.

Professor Matthew Nisbet of the School of Communication at American University acknowledges that normally it would be very exciting to have so much attention turned towards science. He explains that complications arise when this kind of media hype is directed to a single study rather than the whole area of research. At the same time, when the media submits the public to this kind of hype, public trust as well as important communication between scientists and journalists is put as risk. Many scientists are cautioning the pubic that the significance of this discovery may not be known for years.

Others in the science field, such as John Wilkins, are adamant that this primate is being misrepresented by calling it a “missing link.” Wilkins resolutely states in his blog, “There is no missing link.” Instead, he explains Ida is one missing branch among an “an indefinite number of missing branches.” Evolution is often referred to as a tree – not as a chain and so it is inaccurate for Ida to be promoted as the missing link.

With all the hype around Darwinius masillae, one has to realize that the peer reviewed article presenting Ida contains no promises or expectations of what this discovery can lead to. It concludes, “Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past.”

* Science Blogs – There is no Missing link
* Science Blogs – More Darwinius masillae Buzz: Ida Goes Google Logo
* Follow Ida on Twitter – @IdaTheLink

This post is not about biology or research but it is about promoting change. I do think it can be of interest to our readers. I watched today Seth Godin’s T.E.D talk about creating tribes and how the internet can help create movements of change. As always Seth is an inspiring presenter. In his talk he says and I quote:

“…That most movements, most leadership that we’re doing is about finding a group that’s disconnected but already has a yearning. Not persuading people to want something they don’t have yet…”

He gives several examples how being passionate about a real cause can work by finding and joining together the true believers of your cause.

I really like the tribe concept, the word tribe has its own power. Something basic I can easily relate with.

I highly recommend you watch his presentation, and follow his request. We do.