Science Communication

| Shane MacLaren | Fourth Year Honours | Biochemistry |

[megagametophyte]

       Since the emergence of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, many rumors began circulating surrounding preventative measures, modes of transmission, and treatments/cures. Some people are taking this outbreak less seriously than others comparing it to past pandemics and/or other viruses that affect humans such as the flu. One common statement that has been surfacing online is that this whole situation is being blown out of proportion, as more people die each year from the flu. If this is true, why must we take such drastic measures such as social distancing and self isolation? The flu has certainly never forced us to take such precautions, so what is different with COVID-19? We are still learning more and more about corona viruses everyday, but we are limited by the few examples of this class of viruses that have affected humans in recent years. How does this new disease, COVID-19, compare to other past viral outbreaks, and how can we use that data to our advantage?

       It is true that many people die annually due to complications from being infected with the flu virus. Though comparing the flu and COVID-19 is a comparison between two viruses, it is not really a fair comparison to make. Strains of influenza have been studied for decades, and patterns of transmission and infection have become much more predictable as a result. This is not the case for corona viruses. Human corona viruses were not discovered until the 1960s with severe strains surfacing only within the past 20 years. This makes their behaviour difficult to anticipate. How do the different strains of influenza viruses compare to corona viruses in terms of mortality/morbidity from the current available data? The percentage of infected individuals in need of hospitalization is ten times higher than individuals with the flu. Only 1-2% of flu cases become severe whereas 20% COVID-19 cases become critical. That number may still seem low, but under the current circumstances, many already over-burdened hospitals are not equipped to handle that volume of cases which makes the drastic measures taken more important. Hospital stays are also twice as long on average for COVID-19, which puts even more strain on the healthcare system. Finally, COVID-19 seems to be spreading much faster for multiple reasons. It is not seasonal like the flu, humans have no built-up immunity to the virus, and there are currently no vaccines available. Though viruses all fall under the same class of infectious agents, they are so different in the way they behave and propagate, it is like comparing cats and dogs. Sure, they’re both animals, but ultimately, they must be handled very differently, just like these two classes of viruses.

           In terms of comparisons, it is more effective to look at previous corona viruses and determine what we have learned from these past infectious outbreaks. Previous corona virus outbreaks that have largely affected humans include, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS). In November of 2002, SARS emerged in China and developed over the subsequent months through to April when the World Health Organization (WHO) released a travel advisory requesting people to postpone travel unless completely necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. Over 8000 cases have been documented with a 10% mortality rate. Additionally, SARS has a higher transmission rate than COVID-19 from the currently available data. For every person infected with SARS they will, on average, infect 2-4 people, whereas every person infected with COVID-19 will infect 2-3 people. In September of 2012, MERS had emerged. WHO released an alert soon thereafter though as time went on, it seemed as if the virus was not able to spread from person to person as efficiently as SARS. For every person infected with MERS they would, in turn, infect only 1 or fewer people. Over 2000 MERS cases have been confirmed with the disease leading to a 37% mortality rate. It is also worth noting that these corona viruses all originated from animals with SARS arising from bats, MERS arising from camels, and COVID-19 likely also arising from bats. It is unclear how MERS got transferred from camels to humans; however, it has been accepted that SARS and COVID-19 most-likely originated from live markets in China where exotic animals were being sold for food.

           With COVID-19 appearing in China 17 years after SARS first appeared, health officials were able to use what they had learned from the first corona virus outbreak and implement it during this current epidemic. In contrast to the SARS outbreak, the Chinese government reported the existence of a new virus, COVID-19, soon after its discovery, where they did not report the existence of SARS until 4 months after it had emerged. Once COVID-19 was discovered, immediate action was taken to shut down the live markets from which SARS had originated. Finally, China’s immediate action in notifying international leaders of COVID-19 allowed for the DNA of the virus to be analyzed in mere days compared to the 5 months it took for SARS. They found that the DNA of COVID-19 was 70% similar to the SARS virus. Experiencing SARS has enabled us to take what had happened during previous outbreaks and ensure that the same mistakes were not repeated.

           The development of several vaccines for COVID-19 is underway, though it is estimated that it will be many months to a year before any vaccine will be approved. Considering vaccines, treatments, and diagnostic tests, what have we developed for SARS and MERS that can be used as potential starting points for the development of new drugs for COVID-19? Healthcare professionals were able to release a diagnostic test for COVID-19 so quickly because they developed a test using DNA sequence data they had obtained from the SARS virus. Being a close relative to COVID-19, testing developed during the SARS pandemic could act as a sufficient means of testing until they gathered more information about this new coronavirus. In developing treatments, antivirals used to combat the effects of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) had been effective in treating some aspects of SARS, and so they have also been investigated for use against COVID-19. Similarly, for vaccines and other treatments, computational research is being done on drugs used for SARS that can also hopefully shine light on some options for treating COVID-19 as well.

           Living in such a globalized world has made it extremely easy for infectious diseases like this to spread across nations. Having experienced pandemics in the past has given us insight into handling situations like the one we are currently facing with COVID-19. Aside from travel restrictions and social distancing practices, given time, the hope is that adequate vaccines and treatments can be produced more efficiently with help from the knowledge we have gained from past pandemics.

Further Reading:

Zhou, Y., Hou, Y., Shen, J. et al. Network-based drug repurposing for novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2. Cell Discov 6, 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41421-020-0153-3

https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/20/815408287/how-the-novel-coronavirus-and-the-flu-are-alike-and-different

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu

https://www.ynhhs.org/patient-care/urgent-care/flu-or-coronavirus

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/10/905405/flu-vs-coronavirus-6-differences/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-vs-the-flu-its-just-like-other-viruses-and-we-should-go-about-our-normal-business-right-wrong-heres-why-2020-03-09

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-do-sars-and-mers-compare-with-covid-19#MERS

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/coronavirus-comparing-covid-19-sars-mers-200406165555715.html

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/covid-19

Nkengasong, J. China’s response to a novel coronavirus stands in stark contrast to the 2002 SARS outbreak response. Nat Med 26, 310–311 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0771-1

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-020-00002-4

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/phac-aspc/publicat/sars-sras/pdf/sars-e.pdf

[megagametophyte]

The Smog is Clearing

           The emergence and spread of the novel coronavirus has been jarring and frightening for all. Admittedly, it was far easier to digest when it was a mysterious virus happening on the other side of the world, but now that it is in our own backyard, it is an adversity that is universally shared by all humans. Amidst all the drastic preventative measures and changes we all must make to our lives, is there something we can learn from this? It is hard to believe there might be some good to come out of this global pandemic. It turns out that the appearance of this virus and the resulting quarantine of many cities has given us insight into the almost immediate benefits of taking climate action.

           The world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, China, is coincidentally also the place that the novel coronavirus originated in January of this year. Later that month, after escalation of the situation, nonessential businesses and services began closing in China to decrease the spread of the virus. This means no cars or public transit and much less emissions from industrial plants as people are ordered to stay home. Within a month of this lockdown, satellite images from NASA show a huge decrease of greenhouse gas emissions. Gases such as carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 25% and nitrogen dioxide emissions were eliminated almost completely. China hasn’t seen an increase in air quality such as this for quite some time. One study shows that the reduction in air pollutants has “likely saved 20 times more lives than have been lost due to this viral infection”.

This data is significant for various reasons. The self-isolation and city lockdowns are clearly not sustainable climate change options; however, it is evident that if we adjust the way we are currently doing things, we could be seeing the positive effects almost immediately. This virus is truly a tragedy with innumerable casualties and other economic deficits. With that in mind, it is also time to consider that there is another global emergency looming over humanity. It may work slower than a virus, but the risk of ignoring climate change may come at a much higher cost.

References:

https://eacnur.org/blog/cuales-los-paises-mas-contaminantes/

https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/top-5-most-polluting-countries/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/16/asia/china-pollution-coronavirus-hnk-intl/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-climate-change.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/health/china-air-pollution-coronavirus-deaths-intl/index.html

[megagametophyte]

[megagametophyte]

       What comes to mind when you’re driving past a farm and you get a whiff of something unpleasant, to say the least? You’re probably not thinking about the impact of cow farts on climate change, but instead, how much it reeks. Cow farts and burps contain a harmful gas known as methane that is a profound contributor to the progression of global warming as we know it. Who knew cow farts could have such an impact? This gas is one of the “greenhouse gases” and is responsible for a process known as the greenhouse effect. Typically, the greenhouse gas we all think about is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is produced from fossil fuels and other similar industrial processes such as cement production. Of the greenhouse gases that have the strongest effect on our planet, however, methane gas is one of the more controversial. Some support the belief that methane production is largely a natural process. After all, we can’t control cow farts and burps! Are the emissions of these harmful gases mostly caused by human activity?  Perhaps the environmental fallout is the result of natural processes (such as cow farts), and humans account for only a small minority of the aftermath. Unfortunately, the science does not come to this conclusion. According to NASA, before the industrial revolution, many of the effects of global warming could be attributed to radiation from the Sun and the release of volcanic gases. In the present day, we are now seeing trends in warming that simply do not coincide with the natural activity of the planet. Historical climate data has been studied (various fossil records), and the science disagrees with the conclusion that nature is the main cause of global warming.

       What is the greenhouse effect and what are the long-term consequences of having these gases in our atmosphere? The Sun’s rays penetrate through our ozone layer and heat the Earth. Some heat is reflected into space (off the water and white snow/ice), while some is absorbed into the Earth. This process is very similar to the way a greenhouse stays warm. Sun shines into the greenhouse throughout the daytime, and the glass prevents the rays from escaping which keeps the temperature consistent throughout the year. The same way it keeps plants warm, the greenhouse effect keeps organisms on Earth warm. The absorption of the Sun’s heat is essential for life; keeping it temperate for organisms to evolve. The problem arises when greenhouse gases fill the air and prevent an excess amount of rays from reflecting into space, resulting in the overall temperature of the globe to increase. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases (manmade gases containing fluorine) have the most profound effect on the environment. These gases accumulate when they are released into the atmosphere, perhaps from a cow fart, and cannot discharge into space due to Earth’s gravitational pull. Just like the glass of a greenhouse, the thicker it is (the more concentrated the gases are in the air) the more heat will be trapped. According to the Government of Canada’s 2017 national report, carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, methane accounts for 13%, nitrous oxide accounts for 5%, and fluorinated gases account for 2%. While carbon dioxide is by far the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, the effect of methane should not be overlooked. Methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; in fact, 25 times more heat! Let us investigate the ways in which methane is produced and what percentage of that is caused by humans.

Figure 1: Mechanism by which methane increases absorption of heat energy from the Sun.

       The largest natural source of methane comes from wetlands. In this environment, microorganisms known as methanogens thrive. In wetlands, oxygen is scarce, so methanogens have adapted in such a way that they produce methane as a metabolic by-product when breaking down organic material. Another common habitat for these microorganisms is in the stomachs of a class of organisms known as ruminants which includes animals such as cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc. Methanogens even live inside human digestive tracts! These microorganisms help break down difficult-to-digest plant matter, and in doing so, a chemical reaction takes place known as fermentation. This process ultimately results in the production of methane gas which is then released from our bodies by farting and burping. Methanogens in cattle digestive tracts behave in the same way. Many consider this to be a natural cause of methane production, and it is easy to see why it might be considered as such. Cows inhabit the Earth just as any other animal, but their domestication for agriculture is where the real problem arises. The diary and beef industry are a huge source of methane pollution, outputting approximately 188 million tons of methane globally each year. According to the Global Carbon Project (an organization whose aim is to evaluate the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted and from where), agriculture and waste management is the single highest producer of methane, even in comparison to natural production. Farming produces 5% more methane than the highest natural cause of methane production.

       Another source of methane production is the burning of vegetation. “Biomass burning” releases smoke contains methane that diffuses into our atmosphere because of the chemical compound’s volatile nature. Of course, humans can be attributed to a portion of this, but what about wildfires that occur naturally? While there are wildfires that occur naturally from lightning, the frequency and duration of these events have increased over time as a result of global warming.

       On top of these examples of seemingly natural origins of methane emissions, there are even more human-caused sources. Rice paddies, for example, are semi-aquatic crops that produce up to 100 million tonnes of gas annually. Coal mining, landfill gases, and fossil fuel production are additional ways humans contribute to methane production. Approximately 60% of the methane we see in our atmosphere is due to human activity, leaving the remaining 40% originating from nature.

       Another popular opinion among climate change skeptics is that nature can mitigate the methane being produced. To an extent, that is true. Chemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere and in the soil can process most of the methane and convert it to water and carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, more methane is being produced than can be consumed, and the by-product of the conversion reaction is also a greenhouse gas (CO2). Currently, there is research being done to mitigate these emissions more than just relying on natural “sinks”. Several different approaches to lessen the emissions in cattle agriculture include breeding and genomics, feeding strategies, and infrastructure management. Selective breeding for cows that produce more milk and less methane is an example of a genetic approach. Giving cows antibiotics, vaccines, and nitrates is said to reduce methane by 5-20%. Supplementing their diets with oils and fats reduces methane by 15-20%. Finally, adding other natural supplements to their feed such as an experimental red algae supplement called “Future Feed” claims to reduce methane by an astounding 80%.

       So, while it is true that there are sources of natural methane production and natural methane “sinks”, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released an estimate of global methane emissions based on several studies in 2001. The researched focused on both natural and manmade causes for methane emissions. The results of these studies showed undeniable agreement that most of the methane has been created by humans, and nature cannot manage it all. It is so important to consider all the potential sources of greenhouse gas emissions. As inhabitants of this beautiful planet, it is in our best interest to explore ways in which we can reduce our negative impact on the climate and bring awareness to these pressing issues. Maybe next time you’re driving past that farm, you’ll consider not only the stench from cow farts, but also their unanticipated impact on climate change.

Further Reading:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-climate-change-what-you-need-know

https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter02.pdf

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0145/8808/4272/files/A4131-01.pdf

https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/methanebudget/index.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/AF/Areas/Food-security/FutureFeed

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farming-reducing-methane-emissions-cattle-using-feed-additives

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/news-from-agriculture-and-agri-food-canada/scientific-achievements-in-agriculture/reducing-methane-emissions-from-livestock/?id=1548267761377

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html

https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/calling-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel-is-alarmingly-deceptive/

https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/methane-climate-change-co2-on-steroids/

https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/study-methane-life-cycle-critical-pacific-northwest/

http://www.zeroco2.no/capture/sources-of-co2/stationary-point-sources-of-co2#industrial-sources

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions/sources-sinks-executive-summary-2019.html

[megagametophyte]

Climate change now detectable from any single day of weather at global scale

Detection and attribution typically aims to find long-term climate signals in internal, often short-term variability. Here, common methods are extended to high-frequency temperature and humidity data, detecting instantaneous, global-scale climate change since 1999 for any year and 2012 for any day.

Global warming? But it’s cold outside!

One of the most common misconceptions I have witnessed when scrolling through #ClimateHoax is the fallacy that weather can be equated to climate change. It can be scarily easy to fall victim to these ideas, especially during these harsh Canadian winters. I myself often think, “If the earth is really getting warmer, then how can we have record breaking cold temperatures in some areas of the world?”. Over the years, scientists have tried to make the distinction between weather events and climate change. We have even transitioned from calling it “global warming” to “climate change” in an attempt to clarify the true meaning behind the change in the world’s atmospheric conditions. There is a notable difference between the variability of localized weather patterns in comparison to the long-term effects climate change will have on a global scale. Sippel et. al. take a very different, yet interesting approach and aim to uncover if there is any evidence for climate change when studying local weather patterns on a day-to-day basis.

Right off the bat, I have an answer to my previously stated question. They found that temperatures may fluctuate up to 30o due to variable weather, “This substantial variation implies that despite an overall warmer climate, cold anomalies or even cold records can still occur and are to be expected”. Through statistical analysis and the available data, they found that “forced climate change”, i.e. climate change that is the result of human activity and other external forces, can be detected on a daily basis from the early 2000s onward with greater than 97.5% confidence (Sippel et. al. 2020).

This is certainly a study I encourage skeptics indulging in #ClimateHoax to investigate. The historical data shows that all the evidence for climate change is out there and being rigorously analyzed by scientists! Now we can also consider the idea that there are notable trends in daily weather suggesting the rising temperatures of the earth in addition to the large-scale trends we often see reported. To the untrained eye, discrete weather events may not be a good indication of the reality of climate change, however, science provides us with the tools to uncover the truth!

[megagametophyte]

Introduction

Who can you trust? Have you put any thought into this question? Perhaps you trust your family members or your friends, but what about people you don’t know? How can you differentiate between information is trustworthy and information that is completely made up for some ulterior motive? How can you possibly decide what information is reliable and from what sources you should obtain your knowledge?

Hi there! You might be wondering what this blog is all about and why I have posed you with so many ominous questions. We’ll get to that, but for starters, let me introduce myself. My name is Shane MacLaren and I am in my fourth year of the Biochemistry honours program at the University of New Brunswick. I am especially passionate about the environment, organic chemistry, and human rights! Some of my personal hobbies include playing video games and board games, makeup and fashion, reading, and being outside in nature. If you are looking for me, I can most certainly be found mulling about in the chemistry building participating in deep philosophical discussions with my colleagues in the office, having a laugh with my peers, or working away in the chemistry lab on my latest reaction!

By now you may be on the edge of your seat questioning everyone you have ever trusted. As a science advocate, being inquisitive and thinking about these things is a very important practice. There is never a good reason to blindly trust anything anyone says without the proper analysis and evidence. This is a very widespread theme across the topic this blog focuses on, which is climate change. Climate change is a well-studied issue yet continues to be scrutinized by a large group of people, in particular, “climate-deniers”. The main goal of this blog will be to explore the thought-process behind these beliefs and to gain context for why these anti-science campaigns have become such a popular trend in the last few years.

Let us take an in-depth look into these issues and come to our own conclusions about the reliability and consistency of the scientific method. Thank you for your time.

-Shane MacLaren