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.