Clinton wrote this …
Updated 8:47 a.m. EDT Oct. 27, 2008
Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin made reference to fruit fly research in a broad statement about wasteful earmark funding that has “little or nothing to do with the public good.” She specifically mentioned work in Paris, France. You can see a video of her comments here.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann reported this, and mentioned, specifically, (Drosophila) fruit fly research at the University of North Carolina (“which is not in Paris,” Olbermann noted) that has led to advanced understanding in autism research. You can see a video of Olbermann’s comments here.
The work at UNC was led by neuroscientist Manzoor Bhat, Ph.D., and autism researcher and clinician Joseph Piven, M.D., director of UNC’s Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities.
Their work was published in Neuron in September 2007.
This morning (Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008) Dr. Bhat and Dr. Piven made these comments about the importance of fruit fly studies in the realm of autism research:
In addition, here’s a passage from a UNC press release:
Neurons, or nerve cells, communicate with each other through contact points called synapses. When these connections
are damaged, communication breaks down, causing the messages that would normally help our feet push our bike pedals or our mind locate our car keys to fall short.
Now scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have shown that a protein called neurexin is required for these nerve cell connections to form and function correctly.
The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism.
“This finding now gives us the opportunity to see what job neurexin performs within the cell, so that we can gain a better insight into what can go wrong in the nervous system when neurexin function is lost,” said Dr. Manzoor
Bhat, associate professor of cell and molecular physiology in the UNC School of Medicine and senior author of the study.
The study … is the first to successfully demonstrate in a Drosophila model the consequences that mutating this important protein may have on synapses.
The research was supported in part by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Mental Health and funds from the state of North Carolina.
Thanks to the Coturnix — where’s there’s been a lively discussion — the DTH and others for picking up this message.
14 Comments
October 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm
[...] Clinton Colmenares, public affairs specialist at UNC Healthcare, posts his response on the UNC Healthcare blog, strongly defending fruit fly research at [...]
October 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm
[...] UNC health care weblog [...]
October 25, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I heard Palin make this comment during her “policy speech” on Friday and heard Keith Oberman explain the research Friday evening. I have watched MNBC off and on today (Saturday) and have heard absolutely no mention of this lack of knowledge by Palin. Can’t you spread the word to news media, at least to let the country know the truth?
October 25, 2008 at 10:13 pm
The French fruit fly research she ridiculed concerns the Olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae, not Drosophila sp.
Nevertheless since the two species are close, the results of the French research may well lead to advances in understanding Drosophila and may bring similar medical advances.
To say nothing of the damage she has done to the public perception of fruit fly research in general.
October 26, 2008 at 8:21 am
northbritain: thanks for the clarification. Do you have another reference to the specific Olive fruit fly work? It would be nice just to know more about it.
October 26, 2008 at 8:25 am
Dean: Drs. Bhat and Piven will have more to say about their research (we’re apolitical, of course) and it’s importance, and I think they might comment about how important it is for the good public to be aware of science’s value to society, how something as seemingly insignificant as a fruit fly is the basis for greater understanding, etc. More this afternoon and Monday. Ironically, this is an educational opportunity.
October 27, 2008 at 3:18 am
[...] organisms such as fruit flies. Of course now Gov. Palin has made this election a very personal issue for every single one of those researchers that work with fruit flies. Add them to the bear [...]
October 28, 2008 at 12:08 am
[...] is, in fact, unrelated to Autism. I have no way of knowing what she meant, so I’ll link to UNC Health Care’s post, “In defense of fruit flies and basic medical research” and proceed on the assumption that no matter what the woman was trying to refer to, she’s [...]
October 28, 2008 at 4:10 pm
You asked about the France-based. US-funded fruit fly research. Here is one blog post on the subject, including a link to the Salon article that discusses it in greater detail.
http://ucanr.org/blogs/anrnews/index.cfm?tagname=olive%20fruit%20fly
One presumes Gov. Palin’s crack investigative team found the research at the site of Citizens Against Government Waste, where its location in France was mis-stated and its value was clearly not understood:
http://tinyurl.com/2ykd6l
But see California Rep. Thompson’s rationale for seeking the funding for this research:
“The Olive Fruit Fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the U.S. olive and olive oil industries,” he said. “I secured $748,000 for olive fruit fly research and irradiation in the (fiscal year 2008) appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA will use some of that funding for their research facility in France. This USDA research facility is located in France because Mediterranean countries like France have dealt with the Olive Fruit Fly for decades, while California has only been exposed since the late 1990s. This is not uncommon; the USDA has several international research facilities throughout the world, including Australia, China and Argentina.”
Here is the source of the Thompson quote in The Napa Valley Register, whose readers have much reason to fear the olive fruit fly:
http://tinyurl.com/5t9f5e
Finally, no one defends earmarks as the best way to fund science, or bridges, for that matter. But when Congress repeatedly seeks to fund science through the normal appropriations process in response to budget requests from agencies and then that research funding is killed along the way in negotiations with the Executive Branch, or simply by administrative refusal to fund the program, earmarks happen.
One of the greatest departures from reality in the current campaign is the successful conflation of earmarks and pork-barrel spending. All earmarks are not pork and not all pork is accomplished by earmarks. But that is another conversation. BG
October 30, 2008 at 8:00 pm
[...] University of North Carolina Healthcare blogger (this one is probably the most informative and reliable) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Science, schmience, part 2 [...]
November 4, 2008 at 1:31 pm
[...] Syndrome: Link and link and link and [...]
August 27, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Fruit Flies and basic medical research should be continued since it’s a great research point in my point-of-view. keep it up ! 100% agreed !
MASTODI REPORT
September 3, 2009 at 10:56 am
Cool site, love the info.
September 28, 2009 at 11:57 am
Many thanks Bill. We appreciate your support.