Flaws in scientific studies and science reporting

John Oliver is well worth a listen at any time, but I am seriously impressed at this segment. He takes down poor studies and abysmal science journalism, but he doesn't fall into the trap of relativism - quality science is the bedrock of modern civilisation and good science journalism can and is being done. Too often I feel that pieces on errors in science "forget" to mention the overwhelming success and dominance of good science. We need to fix science communication, but the way to do that is not to damage confidence in science further.

 

...and yet we still have kids

Great job by PhD student in the lab, Dean Frankaert, on VTM news last night - Belgian TV star! 

Our research on the shaping of the human immune system has also had a lot of international media attention the last few days. New Scientist has a great article on the work, and I have to give a special call out to the Daily Mail, since the journalist who wrote this article was savvy enough to ask about Pathogen-Associated Molecular Patterns. It is also fun to read quotes from yourself in German or Italian. My personal favourite, however, would have to be the Australian media:

If you had to rate how hard parenting is, where would you put it on a scale from "perfectly fine" to "worse than suffering from extreme vomiting and diarrhoea"?

If you answered "somewhere in between", you might be surprised to hear the truth is even more extreme – because new research has discovered that parenting hits your immune system harder than travellers' gastroenteritis.

Yes, that's right – raising children is as hard on your body as projectile vomiting in a foreign airport.

It's funny because it is true.

Een kind verandert alles, vooral je immuunsysteem

Voor welke ziektekiemen we vatbaar zijn, hangt af van onze genen, ons gewicht en hoe goed we ons in ons vel voelen. Maar het belangrijkste effect hebben kinderen.

Het immuunsysteem beschermt ons tegen ziekten. Tegen welke ziektekiemen het lichaam precies gewapend is, verschilt sterk van persoon tot persoon. Een onderzoeksteam van de Leuvense tak van het Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie en het Britse Babraham Institute vond in het bloed van 670 proefpersonen aanwijzingen dat mensen elkaars immuunsysteem sterk beïnvloeden. Adrian Liston leidde het onderzoek.

Professor Liston, veel jonge ouders worden ziek, zodra hun kindje naar de crèche gaat. U hebt vastgesteld dat een kind grootbrengen het immuunsysteem van de ouders verandert. Ten slechte?

‘Niet per se. We zien dat personen die samenwonen, op den duur immuunsystemen hebben die sterk op elkaar lijken. Terwijl voorheen de ene misschien zeer vatbaar was voor bacteriële ziektes en minder voor virale aandoeningen, kan hij van de ander de weerbaarheid tegen virussen overnemen. Hij is dan voortaan wel, net als zijn partner, kwetsbaar voor bacteriën. Het risico op bepaalde ziektes neemt dus door het samenleven toe, het risico op andere dan weer af.’

‘Samen een kind grootbrengen blijkt dat effect te versterken. Ons onderzoek bij kinderen en volwassenen uit België en het Verenigd Koninkrijk toont aan dat een kind voor je immuunsysteem zelfs een belangrijkere rol speelt dan je genen, je gewicht, je geslacht of hoe je je voelt.’

Hoe komt dat?

‘Als je gedurende tien seconden kust, wissel je zo’n 80 miljoen bacteriën uit. Op een gegeven moment draag je dus dezelfde bacteriën als je partner en daar reageert je immuunsysteem op. Als twee volwassenen samen voor hun kindje zorgen, wisselen ze ook via het kindje bacteriën en virussen uit.’

Als de ene ouder ziek wordt, is de ander dus ook buiten strijd?

‘Ja. Maar dat is op zich niet zorgwekkend bij personen die voor de rest gezond zijn.’

‘In een rusthuis is dat iets anders. De bewoners hebben geen intieme relatie met elkaar, maar ze wonen wel allemaal samen. Mogelijk lijken hun immuunsystemen sterk op elkaar en is de groep zeer vatbaar voor uitbraken, bijvoorbeeld van griep. Dat zouden we graag in detail verder onderzoeken.’

Courtesy of De Staandard

Think twice before you have kids!

Prof Michelle Linterman, co-lead author on our recent study on the effect of children on the immune system, has been hitting the airwaves today:

Interested? Listen here for a recap of the BBC World Service (conversation runs from 08.53-12.40), or here for the Today show (45.07).

Thesis edits

Seems accurate...

Another school class inspired...

... I just hope Annemarie and Dean warned them that science is a lifestyle choice, not a career.

You are never too young to become an immunologist

Many thanks for Annemarie van Nieuwenhuijze and Dean Franckaert for designing and implementing a school outreach program. 

Hints on scientific writing

My advice for writing a scientific article (for a top-tier journal).

Likewise, how to write a cover-letter.

If you get that far - how to interpret the editor's rejection (and you will be rejected) and then how to rebutt it.

Scientific writing for the biomedical sciences

Professional writing is something that is absolutely critical for becoming a scientist, yet it is typically just assumed that students will pick it up somehow during their research. 

Here are my tips for writing papers, but the most important of them is very simple - read a lot of papers of the type you would like to publish.

Advice on applying for an ERC Start Grant (part 3)

I was asked to give some advice on ERC Start Grant applicants, as a current grant holder. As this has come up several times I thought I would write a series of blog posts covering my hints and tips. Partly, this advice is specific to the ERC grant system, although most points are valid across any grant. In a previous posts I gave advice about the written application - Part B1 and Part B2. In this final post I will deal the interview portion of the grant.

The Interview

The interview is not simply an oral version of your written application. There is a panel of around 15 panel members, each of these panel members will be experts on maybe 5 applications and more-or-less bystanders on the other 15 applications.

• Experts. Your chance to impress the experts was your written application, and if you made it to the interview stage than you already succeeded here. The experts are familiar with your work from reading your 30 page dossier; they do not expect to learn anything new from the talk. Instead they will be waiting for the question time to hit you with any issues they have.
• Additional panel members. These are people who are within your general area of research, but outside your specific discipline. They only glossed over your proposal, if they looked at it at all. Design your talk as if they haven’t read your application and focus on importance and strategy. Don’t get bogged down in experimental details and don’t think they really care too much about your discipline – explain to them the advantage in the knowledge that you propose to generate. Focus on the importance and novelty, and why your approach will succeed while others have failed.

Question Time

The questions you get asked will vary based on your project and your application. Have you been wildly ambitious? Expect to get a lot of questions on feasibility. Have you stuck very close by your existing research? Expect to get questions about competitiveness. The experts should ask most of the questions, any technological or methodological concerns they have will be raised here. Generally these will be along the lines of “X is risky, what will you do if it doesn’t work?” or “this is a highly competitive field, how will you compete?” If there is enough time you may get some standard questions from chair or other panel members, such as questions about your long-term career plan and so forth. A few general points apply across the different questions you will get:

• Listen politely to the full question, never assume where it is going or interrupt to answer
• Your tone and attitude matter as much as your words – a grant application is a sales pitch!
• Being right is less important than having a clear articulate message and sounding competent. Even if the expert is wrong there is little benefit in arguing – it certainly comes off badly to the rest of the panel. That said, you can still disagree – “based on my experience the approach is feasible, but in case we do hit a roadblock there is an alternative strategy that we can take...” is completely reasonable response.
• Don’t waffle. It wastes time and it makes it look like you have not thought about the question before. A clear and concise answer reassures the entire panel that you are aware of the issue and have already got a strategy in place. You don’t need an answer for everything, but you need to look like you are capable with dealing with anything.
• Sometimes this involves thinking quickly on your feet and bluffing

On the Day

• Talk clearly and smoothly
• Do not waste time
• Know what you are going to say
• Make every sentence count
• Look at the panel
• Be calm and confident
• Exude gravitas
• Be polite rather than adversarial

On the day of the interview you will arrive at the ERC building, show your passport and be given a visitors badge to enter. You then need to go and upload your talk and deliver ~15 copies of a printed version of your talk before being shown to the waiting room. The room will be full of the other candidates that are being interviewed that day and the wait can be several hours. When your interview is approaching you will be shown up to second waiting room where you will be alone, at this point there is only 10 minutes or so. You will then be led into the interview room. There will be no introductions of the panel members, your talk will already be on the screen and you will be expected to essentially go straight into your presentation.  

Behind the scenes of a panel discussion

In a typical panel, such as the ERC, only a fraction of the applications are read by each panel member. All the panel members are active scientists and all want to support good science. Typically, when going into a panel meeting, each member has a handful of application that they are really keen to push forward – and invariably there is not enough money available to cover all of these applications. In the discussion the experts will take up 90% of the time talking about each grant, but the decision making is split evenly between the panel members. It is not unusual to see an expert trying to convince the rest of the panel that their favourite project is more deserving than your favourite project. In the ERC you have a unique chance to help out the experts on your side, by pitching your talk to the non-experts. If it is dry and technical they will basically ignore it. As an immunologist who regularly sits on an immunology-biochemistry panel I almost fall asleep when there is an application by a structural biologist to find the structure of protein X. So if you are a structural biologist don’t waste your time describing purification strategies to the experts who already read your application – instead use this opportunity to tell the non-structural biologists why this gene is important and what you will be able to do with the structural information (eg, the role of the gene in disease, solid examples of how structural knowledge can be used for rational drug design – perhaps you have a collaboration with chemists?).

Click here for a download of my full set of ERC Start Grant hints and tips.