American Scientist

In the July–August issue, we published a call for letters asking scientists to give brief explanations of their research and why it is important. We hope that these letters will bring awareness to the vital work of scientists and to the need for continued research funding. If you would like to submit a letter, please keep it to 300 words or fewer and email it to editors at amscionline dot org with the subject line “Science Is Important.”

My Science Is Important

To the Editors:

Imagine this: You’ve decided to bake a really fancy, really delicious cake. You fundraise to buy the ingredients: premium butter, cage-free eggs, and artisanal flour. You sift together the dry ingredients, stir in the wet, pour it all into a greased pan, and bake it. Once the cake is cooled, you whip up a batch of icing and pipe on an intricate design. You lovingly set the cake on a beautiful stand—and then put the cake on a card table on the sidewalk and just walk away.

Sure, maybe a crowd of appreciative dessert enthusiasts will happen upon your cake. Or maybe your cake will fall victim to squirrels, weather, or simple obscurity.

That metaphorical scenario is why my work as a science communicator matters. Defaulting to traditional academic communication strategies means that insights about important topics such as addiction, environmental toxins, and food insecurity can become buried in esoteric journals and conference proceedings. I help my clients get their research into the hands of people who can implement their results, such as policymakers and service providers. Together, we develop plain-language briefs, attractive infographics, and compelling presentations that reach beyond the scientific academy.

Unfortunately, when researchers face funding cuts, communication is the easiest part of the scientific process to eliminate. Scientists are funded to conduct research, so they plan studies, collect the data, and analyze results; however, they may not have room in their budget to support comprehensive, effective dissemination of their work.

When research doesn’t reach the people who can apply it, the study is ultimately useless. Sufficient funding for all stages of the research process, including communication, is crucial for the well-being of humans and of our planet.

Lori Palen

Data Soapbox

To the Editors:

I have been a scientist for more than 50 years and have spent 46 of those years as a faculty member at City University of New York (CUNY). I taught thousands of New Yorkers, both natives and immigrants; some of them are now famous and some are rich. I solicited and administered more than $30 million in federal grant money for labs at CUNY. Because of our diverse student body, much of our support came from diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

About $5 million supported my research group, which focused on yeast cell walls and biofilm adhesins. Those subjects seem laughably academic and therefore a potential waste of the taxpayers’ money. Nevertheless, we made discoveries that have led to commercial development and billions of dollars in corporate profits.

For example, our 1993 paper showed how yeast cells put antigens on their surfaces. In 1997, other scientists used that knowledge to invent a way to display any protein or antigen on a yeast cell. Molecular biologists and pharmaceutical companies use that technique for drug discovery hundreds of times each year to find treatments for cancer and other diseases (as shown in this example below).

In 2012, a pharmaceutical startup discovered a new drug class that would block that pathway and kill yeast. Today, one such drug is awaiting the results of phase 3 clinical trials. A chemical with the same effect is being tested to fight a fungal contamination that ruins crops and poisons food. These discoveries would not have been made without the insight of our diverse workforce as well as continued federal support. Our research has been an essential part of progress for the betterment of all of us.

Basic science is essential for us and for our children. Many of my parents’ generation died from infections or from contaminated food. Penicillin injections and tetanus vaccines saved my own life several times when I was a kid. We are safer today because sustained research has led to new treatments for emerging and drug-resistant infectious agents.

Peter Lipke

Biology and Biochemistry (emeritus)

City University of New York

To the Editors:

Sex specific metabolites (SSMs) are endogenous compounds that create differences between the sexes, and SSM enzyme systems create a few but important sexual physiological divergencies. However, our metabolic knowledge is based almost exclusively on males due to an old assumption that male and female metabolites are all structurally identical and only vary in concentration, as with sex hormones.

SSMs are not well known, because, as the saying goes, “It’s hard to find what you are not looking for.” They are found in insects, blue crabs, and highly inbred mice. In these mice, SSMs constitute less than 10 percent of total metabolites.

A normal man is genetically 99.9 percent identical to other men, and the same is true for women to women; however, men’s genes are only 98.5 percent identical to women. The sex difference is 15 times greater than the divergence within a sex, leaving sufficient genetic room for metabolic differences.

Women are afflicted with lupus at seven times the male rate, and men are six times as likely as women to have autism. Why do certain drugs work for only one sex? Are there few, but important differences in biochemical pathways?

Mass spectrometry is an excellent technique for finding SSMs in tissue extracts. The technique is extremely sensitive and can simultaneously detect thousands of metabolites. As sex patterns are recognized, sex– specific diagnoses can lead to personalized medicine.

Robert Kleps

Pharmacognosy

University of Illinois at Chicago

To the Editors:

I work on ready-to-use (RTU) injectable medications, which are revolutionizing contemporary healthcare by offering prefilled, premeasured pharmaceutical formulations that eliminate the need for on-site reconstitution or dilution. These formats, typically delivered in prefilled syringes, auto-injectors, or ready-to- administer intravenous bags, significantly streamline drug administration workflows and bolster both clinical and operational efficiency.

One of the most profound benefits of RTU injectables is the substantial reduction in medication errors. According to a 2014 study published in Clinical Pharmacology: Advances and Applications, medication errors represent 19 percent of all adverse events, account for up to 7,000 deaths annually, and occur more frequently in ICUs. RTU formats mitigate these risks by removing manual preparation steps such as drawing, measuring, and mixing, thereby minimizing the potential for incorrect dosing, microbial contamination, or particulate introduction.

In addition to improving patient safety, RTU injectables deliver significant efficiency gains across healthcare systems, which allows clinical staff to focus more on patient-centered care activities. From a patient perspective, RTU formats simplify at-home administration, leading to improved medication adherence and therapeutic outcomes.

Niravbhai Patel, PhD, FRSC

Nivagen Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Davis, CA