Learning about nanotechnology here in South Africa has meant learning a lot of new acronyms. I was surprised the other day when a scientist mentioned two familiar acronyms that, at first, seemed somewhat out of context in a discussion about nano in South Africa. But it turns out that FIFA and NIH are extremely important abbreviations when it comes to what influences this scientist's research, and how South African research funds can leave the country.
The scientist's intriguing, alphabet soup of a story mixes agriculture, nanotechnology, health and business and is also emblematic of a larger theme -- how the needs and issues of local poor communities can be overshadowed by the research agendas of more developed countries.
The story starts with one of South Africa's most famous exports -- wine. Wine is big business. South Africa grows 1.25 million metric tons of grapes for wine per year. So perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the top universities in South Africa has several research groups working on grape agriculture and wine production. This can be high tech research. One group works with new areas of biotechnology and nanotechnology to improve wine production, mainly by creating new varieties of vines and yeast.
The scientist we spoke to was a member of this group and told us about a certain virus that does bad things to grape vines. But when this researcher looks at its structure, he sees it not as a virus, but as a potential school bus for molecules. The virus has a long structure that can be manipulated (at the nanoscale) in order to attach any number of molecules to it. This makes it a not a virus at all, but a VLP! I didn't know this acronym, but it means virus-like particle.
Here is where we move from agriculture to health. If one can attach molecules of medicine to the VLP, the VLPs could be used in humans to treat disease. Better still, the molecular interactions can be engineered so that the VLP would deliver medicine only where needed in the body. The virus would no longer act like a pathogen, but as a benign transporter of beneficial medicine, similar to the way other nanoparticles might be used for targeted drug delivery.
Enter FIFA. For you non-soccer fans, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association is the organization that puts on the World Cup, which was held in South Africa last year. Our researcher protagonist in South Africa (who is from Western Europe originally) was visited last year by an American researcher and colleague who came to South Africa largely for the soccer tournament. The American researcher has a lot of expertise in nano-medicine. The two decided to collaborate.
But what disease should they target? Our wine scientist explained that they had some choices here. They could first try to use their VLP to target diseases such HIV, TB, (I trust readers are familiar with these acronyms) or malaria . All of these diseases are so-called diseases of the poor, and all are important to huge parts of the population of South Africa.
In the end, they didn't choose any of those diseases. They chose cancer -- a disease that is more common in more developed countries.
The choice was largely made because the American researcher was focusing on cancer in the US. Her previous decision to work on cancer was highly influenced by the funding priorities of our last acronym, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH invests huge sums of money in finding treatments and possible cures for cancer. In fact, when it comes to nanotechnology research on health globally, our work analyzing nano publications shows that cancer dominates the research agenda. Our data shows that from 2004 to 2009, there were 1100% more publications on cancer than on TB, HIV and malaria combined.
Scientifically, the collaboration of the two scientists is moving along well. They received a modest amount of funding from South African National Research Foundation for the project (ok, I lied, one more acronym, NRF). The technology will likely be tested in animal trials in the future.
Interestingly, only half the grant money stays in South Africa. The other half goes to an American university where the second researcher is based. This might be seen as research resources flowing in the wrong direction. The US ressarch and development budget dwarfs that of South Africa.
This serendipitous story certainly led to positive outcomes. The South African NRF is clearly funding high quality science, not something World Cup planners probably had in mind. But does this represent a good investment for the people of South Africa? Those suffering from TB, HIV and malaria might say no.
About the Author: Matt Harsh is a postdoctoral research associate at CSPO and CNS and a member of the team from the CNS Thematic Research Cluster on Equity, Equality, and Responsibility researching how nanotechnology research and development in South Africa can benefit the poor.
The scientist's intriguing, alphabet soup of a story mixes agriculture, nanotechnology, health and business and is also emblematic of a larger theme -- how the needs and issues of local poor communities can be overshadowed by the research agendas of more developed countries.
The story starts with one of South Africa's most famous exports -- wine. Wine is big business. South Africa grows 1.25 million metric tons of grapes for wine per year. So perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the top universities in South Africa has several research groups working on grape agriculture and wine production. This can be high tech research. One group works with new areas of biotechnology and nanotechnology to improve wine production, mainly by creating new varieties of vines and yeast.
The scientist we spoke to was a member of this group and told us about a certain virus that does bad things to grape vines. But when this researcher looks at its structure, he sees it not as a virus, but as a potential school bus for molecules. The virus has a long structure that can be manipulated (at the nanoscale) in order to attach any number of molecules to it. This makes it a not a virus at all, but a VLP! I didn't know this acronym, but it means virus-like particle.
Here is where we move from agriculture to health. If one can attach molecules of medicine to the VLP, the VLPs could be used in humans to treat disease. Better still, the molecular interactions can be engineered so that the VLP would deliver medicine only where needed in the body. The virus would no longer act like a pathogen, but as a benign transporter of beneficial medicine, similar to the way other nanoparticles might be used for targeted drug delivery.
Enter FIFA. For you non-soccer fans, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association is the organization that puts on the World Cup, which was held in South Africa last year. Our researcher protagonist in South Africa (who is from Western Europe originally) was visited last year by an American researcher and colleague who came to South Africa largely for the soccer tournament. The American researcher has a lot of expertise in nano-medicine. The two decided to collaborate.
But what disease should they target? Our wine scientist explained that they had some choices here. They could first try to use their VLP to target diseases such HIV, TB, (I trust readers are familiar with these acronyms) or malaria . All of these diseases are so-called diseases of the poor, and all are important to huge parts of the population of South Africa.
In the end, they didn't choose any of those diseases. They chose cancer -- a disease that is more common in more developed countries.
The choice was largely made because the American researcher was focusing on cancer in the US. Her previous decision to work on cancer was highly influenced by the funding priorities of our last acronym, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH invests huge sums of money in finding treatments and possible cures for cancer. In fact, when it comes to nanotechnology research on health globally, our work analyzing nano publications shows that cancer dominates the research agenda. Our data shows that from 2004 to 2009, there were 1100% more publications on cancer than on TB, HIV and malaria combined.
Scientifically, the collaboration of the two scientists is moving along well. They received a modest amount of funding from South African National Research Foundation for the project (ok, I lied, one more acronym, NRF). The technology will likely be tested in animal trials in the future.
Interestingly, only half the grant money stays in South Africa. The other half goes to an American university where the second researcher is based. This might be seen as research resources flowing in the wrong direction. The US ressarch and development budget dwarfs that of South Africa.
This serendipitous story certainly led to positive outcomes. The South African NRF is clearly funding high quality science, not something World Cup planners probably had in mind. But does this represent a good investment for the people of South Africa? Those suffering from TB, HIV and malaria might say no.
About the Author: Matt Harsh is a postdoctoral research associate at CSPO and CNS and a member of the team from the CNS Thematic Research Cluster on Equity, Equality, and Responsibility researching how nanotechnology research and development in South Africa can benefit the poor.
