Jr., Donald G.
Mcneil. "Malaria Vaccine Candidate Produces Disappointing Results in
Clinical Trial." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10
Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/health/malaria-vaccine-candidate-produces-disappointing-results-in-clinical-trial.html?ref=science>.
Donald G. McNeil’s article, “Malaria Vaccine Candidate Gives Disappointing Results,” reports on the recent results of the GlaxoSmithKline Company’s malaria vaccine. The vaccine was given to children in seven different African nations and it has been administered through three shots, known as RTS, S. Last year, the vaccine was found to protect 55 percent of children against detectable malaria and 47 percent against severe malaria. This year, those numbers are down to 31 percent for detectable, and 37 for severe. Malaria is a disease caused by mosquitoes infecting people with a deadly parasite. To further protect the test patients, the company supplied all of the families with protective nets, and all but 14 percent of the families used them. Although people wished that these results had been more promising, Moncef Slaoui, the chairman of research at Glaxo, said, “… if a million babies were vaccinated, we would prevent 260,000 cases of malaria a year. This is a disease that kills 655,000 babies a year — 31 percent of that is a very large number.” Therefore, the company wants to continue its research. The Gates foundation, which helps fund the project through the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, also plans to continue funding the project (at least until 2014, or when this set of trials ends). Bill Gates understands that, “…developing a vaccine against a parasite is a very hard thing to do.” The reason for this is that the parasite changes its form as it travels through the body. Also, it is hard to develop immunity against this deadly disease.
This article
is very important, for malaria kills over half a million people every year. So
far, there is no vaccine that can prevent people from being infected by the
disease. Two New York University scientists, Ruth and Victor Nussenzweig, were
the first to find RTS, S. These are proteins, which are on the parasite’s
surface that provokes an immune reaction. Many were hoping that this latest
trial would have more positive results, for that would mean that we were closer
to finding a cure. With these less hopeful results, though, scientists are once
again going to have to reevaluate the vaccine, and hopefully find something more
successful. Although scientists have found cures to many different diseases,
there are still many that are beyond science’s current reach, such as HIV and
cancer. This article reminds the reader that the field of science still has a
lot of work to do, for there are still many unsolved puzzles in our world.
This
article was very informative and well written. I liked that it had links to other
articles that were related to this topic. For example, it had a link to an
article that was published on October 12, 2011 that talked about previous
results from the vaccine trials. My main critique, however, with this article,
was that it did not mention any reasons for why there was a change in data from
2011 to 2012. Based on this article, the only difference between the two trials
was that in 2011 it was administered to children up to 17 months old, but in
the 2012 trial, it appears that only babies younger than 12 weeks old were
given the vaccine. It would have been interesting to see if researchers had any
idea why the same vaccine had two different results in the two years.
This review does a good job of summarizing the importance and difficulty of finding a vaccine against malaria, which kills half a million people each year. Although great improvements have been made in the field of science over the last couple of decades, the vaccine against malaria remains a challenging task because of the nature of the parasite to evolve quickly. Another thing that Mary did well was identifying the future of the research. She clearly states that the organizations that have helped fund this research will continue to do so, at least until 2014. The knowledge that research will continue despite current hardships makes me feel more secure. Finally, Mary does a great job pointing out the weakness of the original article, by pointing out that it does not mention why there was a change data from 2011 to 2012. As there was a significant drop, I would like to know what caused it.
ReplyDeleteAdding how the vaccine process currently works would enhance the quality of Mary's review. For instance, I would like to know exactly what this vaccine that they are giving out to African children consist of, and what safety measurements were taken before this vaccine was tested on humans. Secondly, it would have been nice if she elaborated further on the proteins RTS, S, because I am not sure what is meant by 'provokes an immune reaction.'
Although the article mainly focuses on the disappointing results of the vaccine, I was still impressed by the success of it. As Moncef Slaoui points out, that they achieved 31% protection against detectable malaria and 37% against severe malaria is still good. I was very glad to learn that these charity organizations are involved to solve an issue that plunges Africa as a whole. It's nice to know when science has practical applications, and even more when it is philanthropic.
This review was very informative on the current situation with Malaria. The review reflects the fact that Malaria is a deadly disease in many countries and scientists are trying to create a vaccine against it. GlaxoSmithKline Company produced test trials for the malaria vaccine, for it to be administered in different regions in Africa. The vaccine was administered to children in three shots, known as RTS, S. Last the malaria vaccine was found to protect protect fifty five percent of the children with detectable malaria and 47 percent with severe malaria. However, this year the vaccine only protected 31 percent for detectable malaria and 37 for severe malaria. I found that to be very interesting that the number of children the vaccine protected decrease since last year. I thought that it was a great idea for the Gates foundation to still fund for the research until 2014, because until then more research can be done to create a better, more efficient vaccine. The review clearly explained the results of the experiment that was conducted in Africa. Also, I thought the review well explained why it is very difficult to find a cure for malaria because the antigen on it continuously changes in the human body, not allowing for one specific vaccine to prevent it or stop it from worsening.
ReplyDeleteI thought the review could have mentioned what is in the vaccine that was experimented and why the positive results decrease over the year. I would have wanted to know in what environmental factors the experiment was conducted and what variables were being tested. Also, I would have learned about the future plans that the company would have to conduct more experiments and research for malaria.
I was surprised to learn that malaria kills over half a million babies every year and that researchers have not yet discovered a way to treat malaria. I would have thought with many other diseases that have been researched and found a cure that malaria would be one of them. I was pleased to learn that the Gates foundation is continuing its support for the research and possible cure for malaria.
--Nastaran Soroori