Dark Energy Search Needs Research Funding Boost, Nobel Winners Say


ATLANTA — Solving the cosmic riddle of dark energy will require scientific creativity and funding for fundamental research, Nobel Prize-winning scientists said Monday (April 2).

In this era of tightening budgets and an emphasis on how science can help society, it’s important to invest in basic research that doesn’t have obvious applications, said Saul Perlmutter, one of the 2011 winners of the Nobel Prize in physics during a session here at the April 2012 meeting of the American Physics Society.

Perlmutter, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, helped discover that the universe’s expansion is accelerating — a fact that scientists attribute to a mysterious entity dubbed dark energy. Perlmutter shared the prize with Adam Riess of Baltimore’s Space Telescope Science Institute and Brian Schmidt of the Australian National University.

To figure out just what dark energy is, precise measurements of the distant universe are essential, Perlmutter said. Some of the complex instruments needed for these observations, such as Europe’s Euclid space telescope and NASA’s Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), are now being planned.

“Back 12 years ago when we first asked, ‘OK, what are we going to do about the fact that we’re seeing an accelerating universe?’, it was very clear that it was going to be a good decade in front of us before we could get to the point where we can do these projects,” Perlmutter said. “I’m hoping we now move forward and get to see them produce the data.”

Yet the funding for WFIRST has been cut, and the project delayed, while NASA strains under a diminishing budget.

“Right now with WFIRST delaying so much the Europeans are planning to fly a mission called Euclid, which could move ahead of ours,” Riess told SPACE.com. “We may reach a point where we had all this leadership in this field and we’ve ceded it. And that would be a shame, I think, because we have such a good start on it.”

Perlmutter said that his work leading to the discovery of dark energy would not have been possible without generous funding and freedom granted to him and his team to pursue their research even when immediate results were not forthcoming. [10 Noblest Nobel Prize Winners of All Time]

“The work would not have survived in a conventional funding model,” Perlmutter said. “In our case we did not get the result in the three years we proposed, or in the next three years.”

He and his team spent about 10 years gathering enough evidence to conclude that the universe’s expansion was accelerating. He credited the U.S. Department of Energy’s national laboratory system, as well as funding from the National Science Foundation and NASA, with giving the scientists freedom to push through on their quest.

“I’d say the danger today is, we’re trying to do the same sort of thing in a world in which that’s not as common,” Perlmutter said.”There’s much more micromanaging” of the work that’s carried out under grants today.

He urged funding agencies to support investigations of some of the fundamental mysteries of the universe, even if their immediate applications for society aren’t apparent. After all, Einstein’s investigation into the nature of time ultimately led to his theory of relativity, which now enables the GPS (Global Positioning Satellites) we depend on today.

“There are outcomes of doing very fundamental work that have nothing to do with what it develops for society,” Perlmutter said. “It has to do with the way you energize a group of scientists. You end up with communities of people who are responding to the encouragement to take risks and do these ambitious, difficult projects.”

“You have to energize the scientists in order to get these results, and I’m afraid we may be drifting toward being so safe” that such projects won’t survive,” he said.

You can follow SPACE.com assistant managing editor Clara Moskowitz on Twitter @ClaraMoskowitz. Follow SPACE.com for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.

View the original article here

Stem Cell Therapy Could Boost Kidney Transplant Success: Study


TUESDAY, March 20 (HealthDay News) — A novel technique that uses a kidney transplant recipient’s own stem cells may someday replace or reduce the initial use of anti-rejection medications, new research suggests.

Six months after receiving a kidney transplant, only about 8 percent of people given their own mesenchymal stem cells experienced rejection compared with almost 22 percent of people on the standard anti-rejection drugs, according to the study.

“Mesenchymal stem cells are stem cells that can be differentiated into a variety of cells,” explained Dr. Camillo Ricordi, study senior author and director of the Cell Transplant Center and Diabetes Research Institute at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

“If you infuse mesenchymal stem cells at the time of the transplant, you could replace the use of powerful anti-rejection drugs, and maybe replace immunosuppressants altogether,” he said. This technique could be used in the transplantation of islet cells (in the pancreas) for people with type 1 diabetes, and for other organ transplants, such as the liver, he added.

The people given their own stem cells also had improved kidney function earlier after transplant, Ricordi said.

Results of the study appear in the March 21 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

One of the biggest remaining hurdles in organ transplantation remains the need for powerful anti-rejection and immune-suppressing medications after the transplant.

“Basically, the way we prevent kidney rejections is by putting you on very powerful anti-rejection drugs and immunosuppressive agents to prevent your cells from attacking the foreign organ,” said Dr. Robert Provenzano, chair of the department of nephrology, hypertension and transplantation at St. John Providence Health System in Detroit. “But, the current standard has some problems, like an increased risk of infections and the possibility of creating a cancer.”

The body’s immune system sends out surveillance cells to protect the body against foreign invaders, such as a bacteria, virus or, in this case, a new organ, Provenzano said. The current method of preventing these cells from attacking the new organ is essentially to destroy the surveillance cells. But mesenchymal cells can naturally suppress those surveillance cells so they don’t attack, he said.

To see if this suppression would be enough to prevent rejection, Ricordi and his colleagues, including researchers from Xiamen University in China, recruited 159 people with serious kidney disease who were on dialysis. They ranged in age from 18 to 61.

The study participants all had medically well-matched relatives willing to donate a kidney for transplant.

Each was randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments after transplant. One group got standard treatment with anti-rejection medication (induction therapy) and immune-suppressing medication known as calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs). Another group was infused with their own stem cells and the standard dose of CNIs, while the final group received stem cells plus a lower dose of CNIs (80 percent of the standard dose).

Survival rates for the patients and their new kidney were similar for all three groups at 13 to 30 months, the study found.

But before that, at six months, nearly 21.6 percent of those on standard therapy experienced rejection, compared with 7.5 percent of the stem cell plus standard CNIs, and 7.7 percent in the stem cell plus low-dose CNIs.

Both groups who received stem cells recovered kidney function faster than those on standard therapy. And at one year, the researchers found that the risk of opportunistic infections was reduced by nearly 60 percent in those who got the stem cell treatment.

Provenzano expressed enthusiasm for the new procedure. “I see this as the continued evolution of transplant medicine. It’s very exciting to be able to use your own natural cells instead of more toxic medications,” he said. He added that more studies are needed to confirm these findings and study long-term effects, but said “the data here appears promising.”

Some experts are less impressed. “This is a novel technique, but I don’t think it would be regarded as a significant step forward. It was only significant at six months,” said Dr. Glyn Morgan, the associate director of transplantation at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City. And, he added, “It’s only a change in the induction protocol. Primary immunosuppressant agents are still used long term.”

Other researchers have also been testing the use of stem cells in transplants. The March 7 issue of Science Translational Medicine reported on an attempt to transfer stem cells from the donor to the transplant recipient before transplant, in an attempt to create a hybrid immune system that would accept the new organ. Five of eight patients studied haven’t needed medications to suppress their immune systems, according to the study.

Ricordi said perhaps a combination of stem cell therapies might lead to even more effective immune suppression.

More information

Learn more about the immune-suppressing medications used after a kidney transplant from the National Kidney Foundation.

View the original article here