This fall, two graduate students in the Wilson lab have defended their thesis projects and graduated with an M.Sc. Degree. The most recent, Lana Shaya, defended her thesis today. Both students are focused on cytochrome P450 enzymes but their approaches, techniques, and species of interest are quite different.

Lana’s research has focused on two important model fish species, zebrafish and medaka. Both are small fish used in toxicology studies. They have similar and important advantages as model fish species: a short generation time, asynchronous and continuous breeding, large clutch sizes, clear embryos that allow direct observation of their development, short development, and a completed genome. Lana has studied the expression of cytochrome P450 family 3 (CYP3) genes in both species. The CYP3 genes in fish are diverse. Compared to mammals, there are many novel genes and the function of these genes is not known. CYP3 genes in mammals are very important for drug and contaminant metabolism and we presume they have a similar function in fish. Lana examined the expression of multiple CYP3 genes from a variety of organs in each species. Most interestingly, her research highlights relatively high expression of some of these genes in olfactory rosettes, an organ in the fish nose that is important for odorant sensing. Her work also clearly shows significant differences in expression patterns of CYP3 genes between males and females.

Contrary to Lana, whose research is at the bench doing molecular biology, Chris’ uses computers to do all of his research. Chris used bioinformatics tools to examine the CYP genes in the polychaete worm, Capitella telata. Chris annotated all of the CYP genes in the genome of this species and in the process has found 24 novel CYP families. Chris completed phylogenetic analyses of the Capitella CYP genes to aid in naming the genes and to understand their evolution. Capitella telata is a very interesting species for the study of CYP genes. First, these worms are found in high density in highly contaminated marine sediments including areas impacted by oil spills. Research has shown that they can metabolize polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), common contaminants from oil and combustion processes. This function is typically mediated by CYPs in other species. Indeed, studies have shown two CYP genes with elevated expression with PAH exposure. Second, these worms produce the steroid hormone estradiol. CYP genes are very important for the production of steroid hormones, including estradiol, in vertebrates. Chris’ research has raised some important functional hypotheses for the CYPs found in the worm genome.

I am currently in Tokyo on day 2 of a 3 day workshop on sustainable water quality hosted by my funding agency, NSERC, and Japan’s JST. The workshop has involve approximately 20-25 people and we have used this opportunity to identify major issues facing both countries in Water quality.

As an aquatic ecosystems health person, I spoke of our work about pharmaceuticals and personal care products. The discussions have been fruitful and we now have a list of priority funding areas for the April call.

The jet lag has been severe, and the schedule very full, but they feel like it is important for the two counties.

Our Annual Whitefish Meeting was held in Kincardine last week and was a great success.  We spent 2 days in deep discussion of Lake Whitefish stable isotopes, population genetics, heat shock responses, growth and hatching, and stressor impacts.

Our research on whitefish is interdisciplinary and involves a number of collaborators.  From the University of Regina, the labs of Drs. Chris Somers and Richard Manzon study whitefish population genetics and heat shock responses, respectively.  Both have some great new students that have joined our research group this year.  We are very happy to have Katie Sessions join Dan Stefanovic as graduate students on this project in Richard’s lab.  Carly Graham joins Becca Eberts in Chris Somer’s lab this year as well.  Chris’ lab is collaborating with Sean Rogers at the University of Calgary; Jon Mee is a postdoc working in Sean’s lab on Whitefish genomics.  Of course, in the Wilson and Boreham labs, we have 3 new postdocs this year.  Jen Lemon is based in the Boreham lab and will be studying oxidative damage in whitefish embryos in response to stressors such as temperature, radiation and chemicals.  John Eme and Casey Mueller will focus on temperature effects on respiration and cardiovascular function in these fish.

Besides an update on our research progress, we spent part of our time discussing research plans for this year.  It will be an exciting year as we plan to expand our studies to round whitefish, a species reported to be more temperature sensitive than lake whitefish.

Kincardine was a great spot to hold these meetings, right on the shores of Lake Huron where our field sampling takes place.  The leaves were just beginning to turn and it was a great fall research retreat.

Here is our group out at dinner and at our meetings!

Team Whitefish out for dinner

Team Whitefish

Scientists in every country will always argue that the funding situation in their country is not sufficient. But that is not what I am going to discuss here. The amount of money, the investment per capita or by GDP, is something that can be argued and debated endlessly. Do I think we invest enough money in science? No. But that isn’t the big funding worry I have. It’s not about the amount but where it goes and how funding decisions are made that bothers me most of all right now.

Science funding comes in several forms. First, there is infrastructure funding which can include bricks and mortar but more typically focuses on equipment and facilities. On the small scale that would include all the equipment in each person’s laboratory. On a moderate scale it includes our animal facilities for the university. On a larger scale it includes our marine stations and the experimental lakes area; places not owned by a single university but shared resources for faculty across Canada and even the world. Second, there can be scholarship and fellowship funds that pay for salaries, typically aimed at our trainees such as graduate students and post doctoral fellows. Third, are the operating grants, the bread and butter of a lab. With these funds we pay for our chemicals and consumables, pipet tips and reagents, travel to conferences, and page charges for publishing our papers.

In Canada, there are funds for larger scale infrastructure funds up to very large projects which are typically located at one university, through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. We have had smaller funds available for equipment, the research tools and instruments grants, that a single or small group of researchers can apply for. There has also been funding for a few larger research stations. These funds are under great pressure. Indeed, with little notice, the research tools and instrument grants were going to be stopped completely. Fortunately, with a large outcry from the science community, these have been reinstated but with a lot less money. Think of this. You buy a car and use it for years but eventually, it stops working and you have to replace it. Science equipment is like that. It doesn’t last forever and it will need to be replaced. These grants make sure we have access to funds to get new equipment when we need it. But as that money disappears, we will be sitting in labs with aging equipment and no way to really replace it. How can we do science without functioning labs? I have no idea. Claims that we can fit this need into our existing operating grants is simply not true. A graduate student stipend could cost 10-15 thousand dollars a year, if they are partially supported by teaching assistantships. The research tools and instruments grants are in the few to 10s of thousands of dollars. If we divert money for expensive equipment there won’t be money for graduate student support in the grant. And we need both the students and the equipment to do science.

At the other end of the spectrum are the large research stations. These must have federal support because a single institution can’t support one on their own. Researchers from many institutions will go there for unique access to equipment, environments, and/or species. The money for these are being choked off and that is a shame. The experimental lakes area, or ELA, is a primary example of this problem. The ELA is unique in the world as an area to do whole lake experiments. The data coming out of this research station has contributed to changing policies on acid rain and nutrient inputs. It was at the ELA that Karen Kidd’s team demonstrated that low levels of estradiol can wipe out a whole fish population. The data from this place are very convincing because you can manipulate a whole lake- no more extrapolation from small tanks!! Yet, funding was unceremoniously yanked so quickly that researchers with ongoing projects weren’t sure if they could get their project done. Luckily, provincial governments have stepped in to save this but large facilities should not face quick decisions on funding cuts without consultation. And in both these examples, funding for small equipment and our largest research stations, we see a problem. Lack of consultation and lack of long term planning. No apparent understanding of the impacts for the science community.

The other big funding issue has not been a fast change but a slower onslaught that is eroding basic research. The operating grants have always included funds for basic science, curiosity driven science. This may seem like unimportant work but this is the driver of innovation. Listen to Nobel Laureates talk about their research and they mostly say it is curiosity that drove the big discovery. Fundamental discoveries don’t come from applied science but from basic science. But science funding in Canada is more and more tied to to partnership programs. In these cases, researchers must convince an industry or governments agency that their research will be directly useful to the partner. Often it requires the partner to put up some money or in kind service to demonstrate their interest. This can produce some great applied research. Full confession here, I have applied research funding and I am not philosophically opposed to it at all. What I am opposed to is our current balance in these funding streams. Partnership programs are being so well supported it has come at the cost of basic science funding. As our basic funding is eroded so is our chance at truly remarkable discoveries and after all, isn’t discovery what science is really all about?

Yesterday marked a day of protest with rallies in several major Canadian cities and a flurry to tweets. The protests were about evidence based policy decisions and the erosion of support for science in Canada. From my perspective, there are at least 3 major and worrisome problems with the current national government policies with regards to science. One is downright alarming. And if you don’t think this matters to you because you aren’t a scientist, you are totally wrong. In a couple of blogs, I thought I’d outline what my concerns are and WHY they matter outside of the hallowed halls of a university…

It isn’t often that science policies in Canada make international news. But after an interview request by the Swedish public radio, I realized that Canada is making science news in a bad way. The muzzling of governmental scientists may seem like a minor issue, after all they aren’t guaranteed academic freedom like tenured professors are. Yet, their ability to discuss their research is critical for public policy decisions. This new practice, put in place by our current government, is what is really behind Stand Up for Science but I think this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of a government anti-science climate.

Government scientists work in major agencies (think Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada..) but perform research in service of government policy needs. They are funded by the Canadian government and produce good quality science. Like university professors, they do research, attend conferences, publish papers. But their focus does not include teaching and instead they focus on real world problems that Canada needs to deal with. Think water and air quality guidelines, for example. Their research and expertise is meant to provide Canada with the tools to make sound policy decision that protect our health, environment, natural resources, and economy. Important right?

One way that government scientists help with public policy is when they speak to the public. This is often done through media interviews and contributions to news stories. This discourse helps inform the public, who in the end have a voice in our government policies. Yet, the government has instituted media policies in place that inhibit that exchange and in some cases, appear to block government scientists from speaking about their research.

Democracy Watch and the Environmental Law Clinic at UVic have, based on a report issued from the clinic, have filed a complaint with the federal Information Commissioner. The complaint is currently being investigated. The effects of these new policies are chilling. Government scientists don’t feel that they can speak freely about their work. But here’s the catch – TAXPAYERS are the ones who PAY for the research so why can’t they hear about the results? I really don’t get it. How bad is it? Well in my own field, aquatic toxicology, we have an international society that brings together industry, government and academic (university based) researchers. At a recent annual meeting, the government scientists from Canada were given some directions in answering questions. One reply? “I am a scientist. I’m not in a position to answer that question, but I’d be happy to refer you to the appropriate spokesperson”. Personally, I don’t want to hear some canned answer from a spokesperson. I want to hear from the person doing the research. In the end, they know it best.

So why should the public care? Beyond the fact that this is a democracy, that the public paid for the research, the public should be interested in finding out about the science performed by the government research labs. This will help frame the public discussion about major policy decisions, help the public understand major issues needing attention, and clarify what science knows about these issues. And the public will not be reading science journal, they will not be attending science conferences but they do read the news. It is silly to think they could get the information otherwise, but then again, it seems like that is the point. And that is why everyone should care.

Interested in this? check out Democracy Watch: http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/tell-harper-to-stop-muzzling-scientists/

The UVic Environmental Law Clinic and Democracy Watch report and request to the Information Commissioner:

http://www.elc.uvic.ca/press/documents/2012-03-04-Democracy-Watch_OIPLtr_Feb20.13-with-attachment.pdf