So, for what it’s worth, I’m reposting my feelings in 2008 from the 19th anniversary of my dissertation defense. (How quaint to see that I was using a Palm Treo back then!)

This post appeared originally on 13 November 2008 at the ScienceBlogs home of Terra Sigillata.

For whatever reason, I woke up really depressed and exhausted today – pretty much for no reason, I think.

I checked my schedule on my Treo – today marks 19 years since my dissertation defense.

I remember being really depressed throughout writing my dissertation thinking, “is this all I have to show for this many years of public support for my training?”

My defense was on a Monday so I spent most of Sunday practicing my seminar in the room where I’d give it – it sucked so badly that I couldn’t even get through it once.

When the time came, it was the most incoherent performance I had ever given or ever would.

I was a blithering idiot during my oral exam. There was a great deal of laughter in the room as I stood outside in the hall.

How in the hell did they give me a Ph.D.?

Several of my friends, and even those who were not exactly friends, said it was the best talk I ever gave.

One of my committee members took his turn during the questioning to note this was one of the clearest dissertations he had read in awhile. I picked him specifically because he was outside of my field but was a scientist who I respected greatly and continue to admire.

I was the first graduate student of my mentor – he was promoted with tenure six months later.

Funny, the difference in my perception and reality.

It still wasn’t great – I only got two papers out of it. One was in a pretty decent journal, although not Cell, Nature, or Science. I ended up with a few postdoc offers, several in great institutions that were also great places to live. Somehow I got a faculty position. Somehow I mentored a few folks to do the same.

I’m still feeling pretty miserable today, still not really knowing why, and I really didn’t celebrate or anything.

Instead, thinking about today 19 years ago reminded me how much anguish and self-doubt comes with doing a Ph.D.

It also reminded me how one’s view of oneself is not always how others see you.

How was it for you?

Turns out that our classmate Cristy Gelling has been recognized by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) as the editor’s choice winner of their “Science in Stanzas” poetry competition.

The competition was launched by Angela Hopp, Editor of ASBMB Today, and to recognize the other types of creativity possessed by scientists attending the upcoming Experimental Biology 2012 meeting in San Diego starting next weekend (April 21-25). The judges were themselves rather accomplished poets and humorists in science.

Gelling’s lovely poem is entitled, “Consistent with this, cell extracts from the iba57Δ strain showed virtually no aconitase activity (Fig. 2A),” and is only slightly longer than the title.

Cristy Gelling at Bandolier National Park, New Mexico. Credit: Ashley Luthern

Cristy is currently a postdoc at the University of Pittsburgh studying alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. She’s been in the States since she earned her PhD at the University of New South Wales, Australia, in 2008 for work on a maturation factor in iron-sulfur enzymes like aconitase. Gelling also blogs at The Blobologist and was recently named an editor for ScienceSeeker.org, a curated aggregator of the best in science blogging.

So as to drive as much traffic as possible to the ASBMB site, I am telling you to go to the link here to read Cristy’s work of art.

And while you’re at it, go to these links to see and read the works of all of the prize winners:

First place: Lost in Translation, Andrew Brown

Second place: Angiogenesis, Cheryl Ainslie-Waldman

Third place: Ode to the Lab, Jesus Manuel Ayala Figueroa

Honorable mention: Song of Sanger, Gail S. Begley

Honorable mention: How … Understanding, Karen Hecht

Brian Malow, new Curator of the SECU Daily Planet. What's the Daily Planet? Click on the image.

RALEIGH, NC – Although it’s personal day job news, I’m certain this announcement will be of interest to C&EN readers in the Research Triangle area and others in the science communications community.

Brian Malow, Earth’s Premier Science Comedian, has been named Curator of the SECU Daily Planet at the new Nature Research Center (NRC) of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences.

Currently residing in San Francisco, Malow produces science videos for TIME magazine’s website and is a contributor to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s StarTalk radio show.

The SECU Daily Planet is the iconic centerpiece of the new 80,000 square foot wing of North Carolina’s flagship natural science museum.

The NRC addition will open to the public with a 24-hour program of Grand Opening events beginning at 5 pm on Friday, April 20.

The Grand Opening will be preceded by a formal Gala and After Party on the evening of Friday, April 13. Tickets for the Gala and After Party are on sale here but admission to the April 20th public grand opening – and every day afterward – is free.

Building upon a 130-year history of showing visitors what we know about the natural world, the Museum’s NRC will engage visitors in-person and online to experience the scientific process in action: how we know what we know.

And what exactly is the Daily Planet?

Brian Malow and yours truly outside the SECU Daily Planet as its satellite imagery skin is applied. 27 March 2012. Credit: Tara Lee.

This three-story, 42-foot-high immersive high-definition multimedia theatre will host rich science visuals, on-site discussions and global town hall presentations from scientists in the field and at sea. This and other programming will bring the process of scientific discovery and its societal impacts to Museum visitors, K-12 classrooms, universities and research institutes locally, nationally, and internationally. In addition to seating on the first floor of the theatre, visitors can also view programming from sweeping balconies on the NRC’s 2nd and 3rd floor.

Malow will lead these and other presentations, such as K-12 teacher workshops, science book author events, and science cafes. He is already booked to host a two-hour cafe in the NRC’s new “science sports bar” from midnight to 2 am at the April 20-21 grand opening.

Malow also has visions for a science talk show and other interactive audio and video features. Together with Museum scientists and education experts, Malow will work on providing broader impact activities for National Science Foundation grantees at our local partner universities and elsewhere. Malow will also conduct science communication workshops for students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty as he has done for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), NSF, and National Research Council Canada.

“The Museum has always been a very fun place to go to, but now it is going to be SuperFun – absolutely perfect match between the job and the person,” says Bora Zivkovic, Blog Editor for the Scientific American blog network and Chapel Hill, NC, resident. “I can’t wait to see Brian in action at the Daily Planet!”

NRC Director and tree canopy conservation biologist Dr. Meg “Canopy Meg” Lowman says, “We’ve already hired some rockstars as scientists at the NRC. Brian Malow is totally over the top to complete our team. His sense of humor, science expertise and passion for science communication will inspire millions of visitors, both virtual and real.”

Enthusiasm for this match is certainly mutual.

Malow reflects, “This really feels like the culmination of so many separate threads in my career – live performance, video and audio production, and helping scientists communicate their message to the public . . . but on a much grander scale and with these amazing resources – not just the technology but an incredible team of scientists and educators.”

“I’m a little bit excited,” Malow laughs.

To request an interview with Brian Malow, please contact me (David Kroll), NRC Director of Science Communications, at (919) 564-9564 or david.kroll [at] ncdenr [dot] gov.

More information:
Brian Malow: sciencecomedian.com
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: naturalsciences.org
NCMNS Nature Research Center: naturesearch.org

Read the text below but here’s what I find interesting as a pharmacologist who plays well with chemists: the call for applications is not for analytical methods for designer drugs. Rather the announcement solicits novel methods for detecting some biochemical or pharmacological endpoint of these agents (a bioassay, in old-speak) that doesn’t require new method development every time a new structural analogue pops onto the market.

Other areas of substance abuse are also fair game but Melody thought the Spice and bath salts angle would be of greatest interest to our readers here at Terra Sig.

Here’s the text directly from NIDA – I can’t find an exact RFA to link to, however: (see update below)

NIDA seeks innovative solutions from small businesses, including developing new tests for designer drugs such as Spice, Bath Salts

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is seeking new ways of detecting “designer drug” use (e.g., “K2/Spice” or “Bath Salts”) by promoting the development of biofluid drug screens based on pharmacological activity (how the drug works in the body) rather than chemical structure. Because these “designer drugs” are constantly evolving, they frequently evade currently available structure-based drug screens.

NIDA is also seeking solutions to a variety of other drug abuse issues. Specific topics of interest could include, but are not limited to:

• Human Brain Neurochemical and Molecular Imaging
• Discovery of New Chemical Probes
• Nanoscience-based Design of Therapies for Substance Abuse Treatment
• Drug Discovery – Chemistry and Pharmaceutics
• Preclinical Drug Development
• Clinical Drug Development

High priority will be given to research that seeks to (1) develop innovative technologies, methods or tools or (2) apply emerging and existing methods to develop medications to treat addiction.

Grant application deadlines are April 5, August 5, or December 5, 2012. For more information, see the Omnibus Solicitation, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbirsttr1/2012-2_SBIR-STTR-topics.pdf. For more information on NIDA’s SBIR/STTR Program, including tips to improve a grant application, go to: www.drugabuse.gov/funding/funding-opportunities/science-education-grants-contracts/sbirsttr/about-national-institute-drug-abuse-sbirsttr-progra.

Here’s an update I received from NIDA Deputy Press Officer Sheri Grabus:

Hi, David. We read your post (http://cenblog.org/terra-sigillata/2012/03/15/nida-seeks-sbirsttr-apps-on-spice-bath-salts/), and we greatly appreciate your getting the word out to your readers. You mentioned in your post that you could not find the RFA. This was part of a large “omnibus” solicitation – one that covered various agencies at HHS.

The link to the Omnibus Solicitation can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbirsttr1/2012-2_SBIR-STTR-topics.pdf. NIDA’s portion starts on page 53. The part specific to developing assays for “designer” drugs of abuse starts on page 57.

Thanks, Sheri!

Well, the news is actually worse as judging from this 8 pm Friday press release:

Bionovo, Inc. (OTC Link Platform: BNVI.PK) today announced that it will need to obtain substantial additional funding to achieve its objectives of internally developing drugs. The Company reduced its workforce by over 90%. The remaining management of the Company will receive reduced cash compensation until either adequate financing can be obtained or the Company is sold.  The Company can not make any assurances about either of these events.  As previously announced, management and the board of directors are continuing to explore strategic options for the Company.  Management is currently reviewing the status of the ongoing clinical trial for Menerba.

The Company does not currently have adequate internal liquidity to meet its cash needs.  If sufficient additional funds are not received in the near term, the Company may not be able to execute its business plan and may need to further curtail or cease operations.

Bionovo has been the rare superb example of a company that’s been trying to develop FDA-approvable drugs based on Chinese traditional medicine. Led by Isaac Cohen, a UCSF guest scientist and Doctoral of Oriental Medicine, and chief medical officer, Mary Tagliaferri, Bionovo took a hard, science-based approach to identifying herbal extracts for cancer and women’s health issues. Cohen and colleagues at UCSF and elsewhere examined Chinese herbal medicines for their biochemical and cellular effects based upon their traditional use.

Some of their early work was with a molecular endocrinology physician-scientist Dale Leitman, then at UCSF. Leitman has a solid track record in the transcriptional regulation of estrogen receptor-beta (ERβ), particularly by natural products such as soy isoflavones. Leitman led the group that reported in 2007 that a 22-herb extract, Bionovo’s MF101 (Menerba), had selective ERβ agonist activity with the potential for treating menopausal symptoms without increased risk of breast cancer. This extract advanced to Phase III trials last October.

The Emeryville, CA, company has been developing traditional Chinese medicines as FDA-approvable drugs for women's health indications.

Even more interesting to me was Bionovo’s extract of Scutellaria barbata (BZL101, Bezielle). Given the recent enthusiasm in searching for drugs that targeted the aerobic glycolysis phenotype of many cancers, BZL101 was exciting because it had these effects in cell culture and was formulated into an oral preparation with good bioavailability.

(I should make the disclaimer here that my wife, a former Duke University breast oncologist, enrolled patients in a Phase I trial of BZL101 and was co-author of a 2008 ASCO abstract on the results. However, she received no personal compensation for this work and we have never owned stock in Bionovo. We just admire what they are trying to do in women’s health.)

Bionovo has made a significant commitment to the field of pharmacognosy and ethnomedicine in trying to bring forward traditional remedies to approved botanical drugs. They invested in the hires of several excellent natural products chemists, including some of our own colleagues. And those folks that I’ve met from Bionovo, especially Isaac Cohen, are delightful people dedicated to using crosscultural knowledge to improve human health. You couldn’t help but pull for them to be successful.

But even with the FDA’s accelerated Botanical Drug Guidelines, the financial sustainability of Bionovo has only allowed it to get one drug as far as Phase III.

With a stock price as high as $29.50 in April 2007, Bionovo closed at $0.09/share on Friday before the formal announcement. I hope that an entity with a similar mindset on botanical drugs picks up the intellectual property of Bionovo and continues with the work they have pioneered.

Best wishes to everyone affected by these changes at Bionovo.
 

Natural or synthetic?

Two interesting reports came across the interwebs over the last couple of days.

Earlier this week, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter (press release) to makers of Aeroshot brand of inhaled caffeine. No, it’s not an asthma medicine (although oral theophylline is). It’s billed as a non-caloric caffeine delivery system, 100 mg per hit. That’s roughly the amount in two 12 fl oz/355 mL cans of Mountain Dew or one gulp more than a 8.4 fl oz/250 mL can of Red Bull energy drink. However, the company claims that only 15-25 mg are delivered – perhaps half the amount in a Coca-Cola.

The FDA has concerns about the dual promotion of the product for swallowing and inhalation, the relative safety of inhaled caffeine, and the potential for children and adolescents to use the product in combination with alcohol. The company’s FAQ specifically notes that the product is not marketed for use in children. Readers will recall that Four Loko caffeinated alcohol drinks were withdrawn from the market in late 2010 and replaced with alcohol-only versions.

From Zhang et al., doi:10.1021/ac203197d

On another front, Analytical Chemistry published a paper by a group led by Maik Jochmann at Essen, Germany on an isotopic ratio method for determining whether caffeine in a consumer product is derived from plants or synthetically. While public demand for naturally-caffeinated products doesn’t seem to be especially a big deal in the US, the FDA only requires listing of caffeine content for products with added synthetic caffeine.

(Note: I only just found out this afternoon that C&EN Online had covered this paper back on February 29th. My apologies to all for not linking to it. That report is here.)

The authors show here that ¹³C ratios can indeed be used to determine the source of caffeine. In general, ¹³C represents 1.11% of Earth’s carbon. However, plants incorporate less ¹³C in making caffeine via C3 carbon fixation from atmospheric carbon dioxide. I’m still a bit unclear as to whether the method can determine the difference between naturally-occurring caffeine from products spiked with purified, plant-derived caffeine (I don’t think so).

Behold Planet Earth's carbon isotope standard. Credit: Phil Tyden (click picture for source).

In the paper, I learned something new and of relevance to the American South (where I live): the international standard for ¹³C/¹²C ratios is Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB).

In 1957, the late Scripps Institution of Oceanography geochemist Harmon Craig, defined terrestrial carbon isotope ratios from a fossilized cephalopod in the Pee Dee limestone formation of South Carolina. Although none of the original specimen remains, secondary standards are now used for calculations.

To complete our history lesson, you should know that the Pee Dee River is named after Native Americans who once populated this river basin that runs from the North Carolina Piedmont into South Carolina.

Hopefully you don’t need any extra caffeine after getting to the end of this post.

Ohio State Senator Nina Turner. Credit: Official website.

I’ve been rather quiet here as of late, Dear Reader. Between my new day job and trying to finish my book chapter on natural toxins while fighting an overall bout of writer’s block, these pages have been devoid of pixels.

But I couldn’t resist posting this news that came across my screen from various sources:

State Senator Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) announced legislation today that would protect men in Ohio from the risks of PDE-5 inhibitors, drugs commonly used to treat symptoms of impotence.  Turner’s legislation would include provisions to document that the symptoms are not psychological in nature, and would guide men to make the right decision for their bodies. Physicians would be required to obtain a second opinion from a psychological professional to verify that a patient has a true medical malady before the medication could be prescribed.

“The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues—the least we can do is return the favor,” Senator Turner said. “It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs.”

No, this is not from The Onion.

This is a press release from State Senator Turner’s website.

And the closer:

“We must advocate for the traditional family, protect the sanctity of procreation, and ensure that all men using PDE-5 inhibitors are healthy, stable, and educated about their options—including celibacy as a viable life choice. This legislation will do just that.”

The State Senator is my new hero.

But I couldn’t listen to this week’s invocation of a semi-synthetic natural product pharmaceutical without weighing in.

Foster Friess’ Bayer aspirin comment on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell, for which he has now sort of apologized, is here for those who may not have heard it – from ThinkProgress.org:

Asked if he worried that Santorum’s Puritanical views on sex and social issues could hurt the candidate in the general election, Friess offered a more home-spun family planning scheme:

FRIESS: On this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s so inexpensive. You know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.

Andrew Rosenthal at The New York Times has more commentary and the complete context of the quote which he notes, “defies summary.”

Many, many pixels have been spilled by my blogging colleagues on the heartless, misogynistic, insensitivity of such a joke being made about an issue central to the civil rights of women. I could go on about this – and I’d venture to hypothesize that my female colleagues at C&EN with whom I share this blog real estate would like to strangle Friess. It’s exactly these types of “jokes” that create the unfriendly environment of many laboratories and departments toward our women trainees and colleagues.

But my question here at CENtral Science relates to the issue of Friess specifically mentioning Bayer aspirin (The Wonder Drug – yes, at wonderdrug.com) and not just, “an aspirin.”

How does a company handle the issue of their product name being used in such an offensive manner? I’ve noticed that some media outlets have chosen to use, “Baer aspirin,” either for commercial reasons or because they just had a poor copy editor.

From a corporate standpoint, my guess is that Bayer would just let this one pass its way out of the news cycle. But it certainly makes me wonder if Bayer PR and marketing people are convulsing in a conference room somewhere.

A brainy, free, and fun online and radio chat-type call-in show on all things science. Hosted by Desiree Schell and edited by K.O. Myers. Awesomesauce. From Canada, of course.

Well, if you’re looking for something to do during Super Bowl halftime than watch Madonna, you’re welcome to join me online for the wildly-successful science radio show, Skeptically Speaking.

With Edmonton-based host Desiree Schell (@teh_skeptic) and her US-based producer K.O. Myers (@KO_Myers), we’ll be discussing the secret lives of fungi, particularly as related to the synthesis of secondary metabolites that we use as therapeutic agents.

If you’re able to join us live, we’ll be at this UStream.tv page at 8 pm Eastern, 6 pm Mountain. On the chat bar at the right of the page, you can follow the online discussion and submit questions of your own.

I hope that you can dial us in. If not, the complete podcast will be downloadable on the evening of February 10.

A woman called 911 soliciting help for actress Demi Moore, whom she said was “convulsing” and “burning up” after “smoking something,” according to a recording of the call obtained Friday from the Los Angeles Fire Department.

[. . .]

“She smoked something — it’s not marijuana, but it’s similar to incense. And she seems to be having convulsions of some sort.”

Reports of tremors and seizures have been accumulating in association with synthetic marijuana products. These products are generally composed of an herbal material that is spiked with one or more synthetic compounds that act at cannabinoid CB1 receptors.

The “burning up” described by the 911 caller in the story would be consistent with some reports of serotonin-like syndrome associated with synthetic marijuana use.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency is currently regulating some of the psychoactive compounds as Schedule I substances, illegal for use or sale as they are deemed as having no medical value. Individual states have also issued bans on compounds containing even more related compounds in these products. However, marketers have been skirting laws by using compounds not expressly deemed illegal in state or federal statutes.

Moreover, analytical crime laboratories across the nation have suffered extensive budget cuts making it difficult to keep up with the demands in determinig which products are illicit.

On a personal note, the synthetic marijuana story that DrugMonkey, dr_leigh, and I have been writing about for two years is growing increasingly disturbing. I just received my second reader email in three months from a father whose son shot himself to death while allegedly addicted to synthetic marijuana products. We’ve been in touch with the US DEA to inquire as to whether similar cases are currently under investigation.

Just as DrugMonkey wrote awhile back (I have to find the post), adverse drug effects with celebrities are usually required before aggressive government action is taken against illicit drugs (death of University of Maryland basketball player Len Bias from cocaine and a congenital cardiac abnormality).