IBM Creates Macromolecule Used to Combat Drug-Resistant Viruses

Often times in the world of medicine, resolvable conundrums are brought to the attention of doctors and scientists alike, but one particular challenge that medical scholars have struggled with are the drug resistant mutations in viruses. This problem has led to uncontrollable outbreaks of a variety of diseases such as Zika, Ebola, and influenza A, hence leading to rising death tolls and significant economic damage.

International Business Machines (IBM) and Singapore’s Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) may have found a solution.

IBM Research and IBN recently discovered a new macromolecule with triple-play action to assist in fighting virus infection as well as drug resistance.

A specified component of the macromolecule enables strong hydrogen bonds to use electrostatic interactions to attract proteins on the viruses’ surface, consequently immobilizing any viral ability and preventing healthy cells from being infected.

Along with the attraction method, preventative measures are taken as well. The macromolecule’s mannose binds to the healthy immune cell receptors to assist in fighting the infection and allows naturally protective cells to gush throughout the body without restriction.

Finally, basic amine groups in the macromolecule neutralize the pH level within the viral cell, hence disallowing replication.

Dr. Yi Yan Yang from the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, Singapore, empathically spoke of the benefits available in the groundbreaking macromolecule.

“We have created an anti-viral macromolecule that can tackle wily viruses by blocking the virus from infecting cells, regardless of mutations,” Dr. Yang said. “It is not toxic to healthy cells and is safe to use. This promising research advance represents years of hard work and collaboration with a global community of researchers.”

IBM is continuing to make advancements in this research with the assistance of cognitive computing tools such as IBM Watson. Because of cognitive computing, IBM Watson draws connections between disparate data sets, which can rapidly lead to new insights. IBM Watson also can find eligible patients for potentially life-saving clinical trials, leading to efficient patient recruitment. The tools to reach respective patients are available; now the product delivered to the patients must be effective.

This macromolecule has already shown significant results when tested with viruses such as Ebola, dengue, Marburg, influenza, Chikungunya, Enterovirus 71, and herpes simplex. Though it is still early in the testing process, scientists have seen no resistance.

James Hedrick, lead IBM researcher of advanced organic materials, said, "With the recent outbreak of viruses such as Zika and Ebola, achieving anti-viral breakthroughs becomes even more important.

"We are excited about the possibilities that this novel approach represents, and are looking to collaborate with universities and other organizations to identify new applications."

Essential Oils: They Work

Apparently, going natural is the way to go.

Current research shows that Essential Oils (EO's) are extremely useful in treating a variety of health related problems; something that many cultures knew long before us.

The ancient Egyptians were among the first group of people to use EO's in their everyday activities. Whether it was used in their medical practice, beauty treatments, food preparations, or religious ceremonies, the Egyptians found great use for a natural resource. Later, Greeks would use EO's for aromatherapy, and EO extracts were used throughout the dark ages in Europe for its anti bacterial and fragrant properties. Now, scientists are saying that a certain EO extract known as Frankincense can effectively kill ovarian cancer cells, when given at realistic conditions. Wow. It's safe to say that this stuff works. But really, what are EO's?

An Essential Oil is basically the oil extracted from a certain plant through the process of distillation. Complicated, right? The reason that EO's are so effective in the human body is because these oils are composed of very small molecules and can easily, and quickly, penetrate into the cells to aid the damaged area. Also, a lot of plants have their own natural chemicals which help combat many diseases. EO's help humans significantly, but they help plants as well. 

Last year for a research writing class, I was required to find an environment-related topic, write a 10-page paper on it, and present my findings in front of the class. I looked into many different facets of the environmental and agricultural domains to find an interesting topic, and I stumbled upon a study where scientists were using strong doses of EO's instead of pesticides to combat insects. This study found that certain EO's were successful in acting as an insecticide, while also remaining safe for the environment and the health of humans and animals. I found the study extremely interesting, and ended up doing my paper and presentation on it, but I was unaware of how useful EO's are for the human body as well.

After that class, I had completely forgotten about the subject of EO's, but recently I ran into a woman who was a spokesperson for the company doTERRA. This company is one of the largest in the world when it comes to Essential Oils manufacturing. She told me about its effectiveness in everyday activity, and how many hospitals use it as well. 

I found that over 50 hospitals nationwide use EO's in their treatment methods, ranging from fighting germs to helping battle depression. It actually makes sense that these EO's are more effective than some antibiotics. Sometimes, antibiotics tend to kill beneficial bacteria, which leads the way for more harmful bacteria to enter. Also, in some cases, the bacteria may recognize the antibiotic and mutate, essentially developing a form of drug resistance. EO's have such a complex nature that it is unrecognizable to bacteria. 

I don't know about you, but I'm convinced. 

Addressing Racial Inequality in STEM: Numbers at a Glance

Martin Luther King's Day marks the historic celebration of the life of Martin Luther King Jr, a revolutionary in the civil rights movement that advocated for non-violent protest in order to achieve civil equality. The dream that Dr. King espoused throughout his life was one of racial equality and justice for many decades of mistreatment. 

Yet, many, many years after Dr. King's historic speech standing on the footsteps of the Lincoln Memorial, racial equality has not been achieved - specifically in the sciences. The importance of diversity cannot be overstated in the sciences. Though certainly the process of science is the pursuit of the truth, diversity helps science to ask the myriad questions. Our backgrounds, culture and life experiences shape the way we pose scientific questions regarding topics that are important to us. This not only helps us to accomplish more, but also helps the scientific community to check itself internally. 

Below, I've compiled a series of important figures that help show the racial divide in the United States as it relates to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) jobs. These jobs are including Professorship/graduate studies, jobs in technology-based companies, etc. 

The Figures:

 

Figure 1: A comparison between the resident typical workforce population distribution to the Science and Engineering workforce. As evident, white males are over-represented to their population distribution, with 51% representation even though they are 32% of the population. Females overall are more underrepresented, with Hispanic females represented at 2%, even though they compose 8% of our population. African American males also experience a 2% difference in representation.  The remarkable over representation of white males and females often justifies setting quotas when it comes to hiring in the sciences.

Figure 2: A comparison between Racial representation in STEM jobs compared to the overall workforce. As is evident, people identifying as 'Only White' compose of 67% of the overall workforce, which is also disproportional compared to the population statistics in Figure 1. STEM jobs also over-represent this population. Asians are also over-represented, as 5.5% compose the total workforce, though 14.5% compose the STEM jobs. Native Americans are largely under-represented in both sectors. Hispanic/Latinos are also under-represented in STEM jobs, similar to African Americans and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders.

Figure 3: A distribution of identification in Science and Engineering. To note, this graph doesn't does not graph all STEM, but only that pertains to Science and Engineering. Percentage does not graph overall percentage, rather percentage within subset of net population workforce. This shows that approximately 47% of Asians/Pacific Islanders have jobs within the Science and Engineering Sector. Asians also continue to dominate throughout many other science fields, including Engineering and Biological science. African American involvement in Engineering is disproportional, as well as involvement in Biological and Computer Sciences. Social Sciences and Psychology seem to be the most equal subjects, with nearly equal percentage involvement.

Figure 4: Racial distribution of STEM Wage adjustment Premiums. The percentage change compares average income for that population to the STEM income for the particular population. Nonhispanic White STEM workers have 22% higher wages compared to their non-STEM counterparts. Non-Hispanic African Americans have on average a 39% higher wage compared to their non-STEM counterparts. This graph does not show original wage, however.

  Concluding Thoughts:

 

The racial divide that exists in this country has not been completely eliminated. Caucasian STEM workers are definitely over-represented in many areas of STEM work, as Figure 3 points out. Furthermore, African Americans experience under-representation for the population ratio of our workforce. In order to bridge this gap, there should be important change. Policy changes should focus on the following:

• Primary Education Science Investment: One of the first ways to improve STEM involvement and representation is to increase educational interest in STEM. Schools need to invest in science and technology education. In my last post, I referenced a study by the Cato institute that showed that the increase in educational investment did not result in an increase in test scores. However, investments should be towards certain areas. Many experts have recommended to shift focus from basic sciences with a sub-focus on applications to an application oriented learning when it comes to engineering. This sort of involvement could facilitate a better prepared workforce in STEM.  
• Job Training: Many adults who are interested in STEM jobs often don't have the technical skills to pursue those jobs. Thus, it's vital to bridge the gap between capacity and the desire to join the STEM workforce. The Hamilton Project, a program that provides job opportunity and education for unskilled workers by the Brookings Institution, argues that job training programs on the whole are largely effective. In a longitudinal study, they showed that adults that underwent their job training curriculum increased income by several thousands of dollars across the socioeconomic and racial spectrum. However, they did not isolate STEM training - if anything, this is an area of investigation.
  

There are a myriad of other researched solutions. Hopefully, the scientific community along with the government can come together to make a viable difference in the aforementioned racial disparity.

The State of Our Union: Comparing Claims about Progress with Data

President Obama presents the Brain Initiative - an effort to provide impetus for neuroscience research across the country. Image Courtesy of the Washington Post. 

Introduction: The Divided House

Before the State of the Union speech by President Barack Obama started, Speaker Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden could be seen on the podium mingling and posing for pictures. Their faces fronted fake smiles as the loud clattering of camera shutters was audible. The awkwardness between the standing Speaker of the House and the Vice President accurately represented the tension between the two parties. Forced to be on the same stage, none backing down; instead, slowly backing away from each other.

Yet, President Obama's entrance into the hall drew a faint applause from both sides of the Isle. This was a president that had put remarkable emphasis on pragmatic policy making, some that didn't completely resonate with his own party. For ten whole minutes, President Obama walked through the applauding audience, greeting smiling individuals with handshakes and embraces. He walked the middle path to the podium, a symbolic gesture demonstrating his effort to bridge the parties together. 

President Obama began his speech in jest regarding the election season. Indeed, elections have consumed Washington for decades. Congressmen and congresswomen are either running for reelection or preparing to run for reelection. Despite this, Obama was optimistic - discussing the need to fix a broken immigration system, addressing gun violence, and the minimum wage.

The more interesting part of the speech, in my view, was the President's elucidation of our goals for scientific achievement in the future. "How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?" Before being engulfed into any party politics, I think it's important to objectively grasp the data, and what has been collected. Below, I've compiled important figures and graphs from a variety or sources that provide a good indication of how our expenditures in the sciences have changed.

Investment Trend in Scientific Research:

Over the past eight years, President Obama has had strict words for members of congress when it has come to increasing budget allocations for research and development. With the exception of research in Energy and Space Exploration, these increases in funding have largely been granted (Figure 1A). An easy explanation for this deficiency is largely explained by the political divide when it has come to climate change. Research in energy and space are often thought to conflict with many congressmen's perception of climate change. When the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe, attempts to throw a snowball to disprove climate change, something in the political atmosphere has deeply failed the people. 

Figure 1: An analysis of the trends in Scientific Research, including Federal R&D subsidies and expenditure in a variety of organizations. A) Federal R&D Trend from estimates taken from the AAAS. B) A Visual depiction of military spending compared to spending in scientific research, either in NIH and NASA. C) Non-defense R&D Budget spending breakdown into Health, Space, Energy, and other spending areas.  

What's even more disturbing is the comparison between research spending and overall military spending. Blogger Steven Haroz compiled an interesting chart using data provided by previously released budgets (Figure 1B). This graph shows that in 2011, science spending, specifically National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Health (NIH), NASA, and the Department of Energy all received a ridiculously small fraction of total spending. In fact, Haroz's graph shows that NASA spending combined since the inception of the program in 1958 to 2011 was still less than military spending in that particular year. Note, however, that more efforts isn't necessarily being invested in building smarter military technologies. In fact, data shows that military defense R&D federal allocations have actually gone down over the past several years by nearly $20 Billion (Figure 1A). 

One interesting trend observed is the dramatic increase in health research over the span of the past 20 years, where it has nearly tripled (Figure 1C). It's unclear what is defined as health research. Defining these allocations would be disputed in of themselves. The real question to ask here is: are outcomes in the health sciences being improved? Does increasing spending towards health research yield better health outcomes? Without data, those questions are tough to answer. What is clear is that the dramatic increase in science research that has been discussed by the President hasn't really occurred yet. Instead, non-defense R&D has simply stagnated around the same area.

Comparing Investments and Outcomes in Science Education:

The United States is a country that spends a tremendous amount of money in our education system. The 2016 budget, whose summary can be found here, has allocated over $145 Billion in mandated education policies through the Department of Education, and nearly $71 Billion in discretionary spending. One metric that is often used is the comparison of per student expenditure compared to GDP. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) puts the United States at nearly the top of this comparison as well (Figure 2C). Under President Obama, the role community colleges play in education have also expanded. When comparing education outcomes, however, the importance of K-12 education cannot be understated. While certainly it's true that people cannot get science-related jobs unless having completed a degree, developing the passion for the sciences must be accomplished during K-12 years.

Figure 2: Analyzing the trends  in Science Education. A) Data From the Cato Institute on % change in Federal spending in K-12 education per student compared to % change in test scores (Pew Research) B) Global Standing in education based on PISA scores. C) Federal spending per 17 year old student versus GDP, showing linear relationship. Data is from the OECD.

The data suggests that our efforts to improve outcomes has been largely misguided. Research by Cato Institute shows that we've seen a 375% increase in federal spending in education. This was measured by looking at inflation-adjusted expense on an average 17-year old student. Yet, over this period of time, reading, math and science tests scores haven't changed significantly (Figure 2A). There are many critiques to this study - one argues that test scores are arbitrary, and measuring learning is more abstract. Even so, the incredible lack of improvement in many aspects of school is startling, and points out that more must be done. It's important to note that the data covers until 2009. One could argue that it's not clear what these impacts are under President Obama. 

Though I haven't seen longitudinal data suggesting improvement or a depression in scores, the Pew Research Center published global standing of the United States in Math and Science as of 2012 (Figure 2B). The data was largely obtained by the OECD, and their standard of measurement - the PISA. This graph puts the United States in average territory, with many countries ahead, including some that actually spend less than the United States. This largely dispels the myth that spending more money will increase our outcomes. I think what's needed is increasing the efficiency of that spending and focusing on methods that have worked elsewhere. It seems as though the United States is incredibly hesitant to model their systems after other countries. It's possible that without looking at working models, our educational outcomes in the sciences will not improve. What it definitely shows is the dramatic need to rethink the national approach to K-12 education.

Cancer - The Moonshot

One of the big themes behind President Obama's speech was how the United States should aim to cure cancer. He juxtaposed our current philosophy towards the sciences to the golden age of Space exploration. He announced that Vice President Joe Biden had secured a tremendous amount of funding to help end cancer. When I first heard this in the speech, I was largely skeptical. The data confirms this skepticism. According to the National Institute of Health's Cancer research center, funding has actually declined over the past several years (Figure 1A). This funding decline is largely hidden, because the blue line shows an increase in funding. However, the red line is the inflation adjusted/purchasing power adjusted data, which largely shows that funding has actually declined by approximately $ 500 Million dollars over the past several years. 

Figure 3: Trends in Cancer Research and Outcomes. A) Inflation adjusted federal spending on cancer research.  B) National trends in pediatric cancer diagnoses for a multitude of types of cancers. C) National trends in pediatric cancer mortality.  

That, however, doesn't mean our outcomes have declined. According to a meta-analysis by Ward et al in 2014, they point out that while the rate of diagnosis has gone up for most pediatric cancers, mortality rates have actually decreased dramatically. Diagnosis rates going up could be a slew of good and bad. It's possible that increased rate of diagnosis is a positive step to identifying patients with cancer. However, it could also mean that regulation of carcinogenic products has declined. The study didn't discuss the potential causes of these trends, though they recognized that isolating specific causes was challenging due to many confounding variables. This same discussion applies to a decrease in mortality.

Though for many types of cancer the United States has a long way to go, progress has been made. However, the President's mission to 'cure' cancer is still abstract. CNN interviewed Dr. Otis Brawley, the Chief Medical officer of the American Cancer Society, articulated that there was no real way to "cure" cancer, but we could cure more people. It's no scientific mystery that cancer isn't a homologous disease that has a catch-all treatment. The President still means well, and many experts agree that investing more in the effort to find better treatments for many kinds of cancer will help us progress closer to President Obama's abstract goal.

Reinvigoration Renewable Energy:

President Obama's final discussion about improving the sciences was developing better renewable energy resources and removing dependencies on fossil fuels and harmful substances. It's important to know that President Obama has made landmark movements towards his time in office. In the Climate Change summit in Paris, President Obama led many important state and non-state actors to put in place measures to cut carbon emissions and reduce air and water pollution. Under his presidency, the United States has made important changes in policy.

Figure 4: Trends in Renewable Energy developments. A) Breakdown of Renewable Energy expenditures, as cited by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. B) Breakdown of U.S. Electricity generation by Source, cited from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. C) Renewable energy comparative to subsidies (Department of Energy) D) Tax Breaks compared to origin of energy. 

However, we still have a long way to go - something President Obama also stressed in his speech. One bridge that must be crossed is better coordinating subsidies with electricity-sources that are actually used. For example, Wind Energy receives a vast majority of our energy subsidies, but is perhaps one of the least used energy resource. Coal, however, receives a small subsidy package, but accounts for over a third of our energy consumption (Figure 4C). This has been a point of contention by the Republican Party as well, albeit for different reasons. A study at Harvard University in 2009 explained that given the appropriate conditions, wind energy could sufficiently power five times the worlds global energy needs. This means that wind energy needs more policy support to adequately take more of the weight when it comes to energy consumption. So far, wind energy has increased the most out other modes of energy. Geothermal energy and biomass energy have stagnated. Hydropower energy hasn't experienced any recent breakthroughs, and solar energy is slowly increasing its prevalence (Figure 4A). For non-renewable resources, we have seen a decline. Coal energy and petroleum energy have decreased significantly where natural gas has increased (Figure 4B).

Conclusions & Final Thoughts

After President Obama's speech, many people were disgruntled. The Republican response to the speech characterized Obama as a hollow puppet that has in fact done little to make a difference. Judging by the statistics, though, it's hard to make the case against that claim. This doesn't mean that things would have been better under a different President. If one party can't acknowledge the existence of climate change and the capacity to make a difference, there's little the scientific community can do about it. 

President Obama walked down the isle one last time, glancing all around him, smiling at people, shaking hands. A moment before he left the room, he turned around, gazing at the floor of chamber one last time. Hopefully he realized that the last State of the Union didn't mean that he had lost all opportunities to continue to make meaningful change. 

The Genetically Modified Future: A Rebuttal

(Response to Jay Ahuja's post)

Around the world, consumers are not well aware of the dreadful effects that genetically modified foods (GMOs) have on their health and especially on the health of the future generations to come. As an effect, they are regularly consuming more foods that are high in pesticides and herbicides. On a large scale, genetically engineered foods are easier and cheaper to produce than organic foods, therefore making it more affordable for consumers to buy modified foods over organically grown food. Some of the current negative effects include increased toxicity, decreased nutritional value, and increase in antibiotic resistance, and food allergies. 

As a Chemical Engineer, it’ll be my responsibility to use different techniques, learned inside and outside of class, to make products and techniques that not only decrease the negative effects, but also increase public awareness. For example, by developing advanced materials and techniques used for chemical and heat sterilization, advanced packaging, and monitoring and control, I can help ensure that the food being produced in highly automated facilities is safe for the public to consume. 

Chemical and heat sterilization is a procedure using appropriate amount of air pressure, super heated water and chemical preservatives in order to destroy any bacteria and viruses present. This procedure makes the food safer to consume, and also minimizes the chances of people being diagnosed with food allergies. Advanced packaging is accomplished by compromising the internal atmosphere of the packaged foods by using safe gases like oxygen and carbon dioxide in order to extend the life of the food, but still making sure the food stays fresh, maintains its natural texture, and most importantly does not lose its nutritional value.  As an effect, as a Chemical Engineer, I can help ensure that the current and future generations become safer when consuming foods that are genetically modified.

The Genetically Modified Future

Is ignorance truly bliss? Millions of people around the world accept and believe information simply because it is easy to understand and seems to make the most logical sense; even if science says the exact opposite.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO's) are frowned upon within society as many people think that GMO's are poisonous and dangerous for the environment. Recent research shows us that genetically modifying crops leads to an increase in food production as well as longer sustainability of the crop itself. Also, nutritional benefits have been found in GM crops. Any arguments against GMO's have been dismissed with concrete evidence, which I will discuss later in the blog.

Despite the science and research evidence available, a survey taken in the US found that 57% of people believe GMO's are unsafe, while only 37% agreed that GMO's are safe. A staggering 88% of Scientists from The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) believed that GMO's are safe.

A possible reason as to why so many people are anti-GMO is simply because of a lack of awareness as to what GMO's truly are, how they are created, and their purpose in society.

A GMO is created when a crop is inserted with DNA from another crop, bacteria, or a virus. This could lead to enhancements within the crop, such as an added resistance to pests, a longer shelf life, or an adjustment to the taste of the crop. One of the biggest advantages with GM crops is that farms are able to produce at a much faster rate because the crops are resistant to diseases and insects, as well as drought. This is extremely necessary considering the rapid population growth occurring. By 2050, when there is an estimated two billion more humans on the earth, how else will we able to feed everyone? An ignorance towards this subject, as demonstrated in the past, doesn't bode well for society. People are fighting against the very thing that can save us. We're screwed. Science up, people.

There are three main arguments against GMO's: The environmental aspect, the health aspect, and the possibility of insect resistance.

Recent research was conducted observing environmental and agronomic changes over the past 15 years in regards to GM crops, and the results show that GM crops have had a positive impact in developing and developed countries alike. There have been increases in yield per-unit area due to crops' resistance against insects, and the overall decrease in insecticide use has vastly benefitted the environment. Surface and groundwater contamination from pesticides has declined and, as a result, health problems related to pesticides have also decreased. There has also been speculation that GMO's can cause cancer and/or a resistance to antibiotics in humans, but no studies have been able to support this hypothesis.

The chances of insects becoming resistant to the GM crops IS definitely high, so the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is helping farmers grow conventional non-GM crops near the GM crops. These non-GM crops contain insects that aren't in contact with the GM crops that contain the insect resistance. Basically, the non-resistant insects continue to breed, and when it comes in contact with a resistant insect and both insects breed, the dominant gene of non resistance transfers over. This process ensures that the non resistant gene continues to be passed down from generation to generation. It sounds complicated, but it is truly an ingenious idea.

GMO's are the future. It's literally as simple as that. There is so much research that supports them, compared to the minimal evidence against GMO's. I can't lie. I used to be strongly against GMO's as well, but all my opinions on the subject came from others telling me THEIR opinions. When I ended up doing my own research and spent hours reading different research articles, I realized how beneficial GMO's are. Your turn.

Change Football at the University of Minnesota

It’s time to change the way we play football at the University of Minnesota

We need to start taking more precautions to ensure that football is a game safe for its players.

 In a football game, the quarterback barks out the next play. Players get into their positions. Once “hike” is called, the crash of helmets and bodies resonates past the raucous roar of the crowd. The wide receiver charges in the open field, calling for a catch. Just moments after the ball touches his fingers, the other team immediately bulldozes him. We hear the deafening chants of students — endless chants of “We Hate Iowa” and “Ski-U-Mah.”

Put aside the school pride, and I’ll tell you what has just occurred. The linemen that charged into each other likely smashed into each other at an incredible force of around 10 to 100 gs.[AN1]  The bulldozed wide receiver was likely hit with the same force. Neither of them reports a concussion. Yet the damage is already done. 

The brain is essentially a big wad of soft, crumpled-up tissue floating in cerebrospinal fluid in the skull. When a player is hit, the brain rattles in the skull. This rattling causes neural damage. In the average life of a spectating football fan, this rarely happens. However, college football players themselves often sustain many hits of this magnitude during practice alone.

According to researcher Dr. Guskiewics of the University of North Carolina, a 100-G hit is equivalent to the force of being hit in the head by the windshield after driving your car into a brick wall at 25 miles per hour without a seatbelt.

Without making any exaggerations, each one of the players in that collision got into what is the equivalent of a car accident during that play.

To make matters worse, this wasn’t the player’s first hit in a game. Dr. Guskiewics found the players he studied were hit on that magnitude 32 times that day in practice. Throughout the season, one player is hit in the head an average of over 1,000 times. [AN2] When looking at repeated hits of this high of a magnitude, plastic padding and helmets are simply not enough to protect the brain. [AN3]

The University of Minnesota takes its concussion protocol seriously. According to Dr. Bradley Nelson[BR4] , the Director of Medicine for the University’s football team, each player gets a “personal trainer,” and everyone on staff gets annual education about concussion therapy.[AN5] 

The University’s concussion management protocol involves “computerized neuro-psychological testing,” using testing methods like the SCAT-3 once a concussion has been diagnosed.[AN6] 

I can appreciate the dedication of the University’s post-diagnosis mechanisms, but it is simply not enough. We must do more to research specifically what is happening to the students who play football and what impact it has on their brains in the long run.

Repetitive subconcussive trauma — trauma that isn’t strong enough to give a player concussion — is the real problem. [AN7] Studies done by Boston University and the Department of Veterans Affairs showed that 96 percent of the NFL players examined and 79 percent of total football players, including college football, had a neurodegenerative disease called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

The broad consensus of researchers is that this condition is caused by repetitive subconcussive trauma. Its symptoms range from depression to memory loss and dementia. [AN8]

A huge problem with this disease is that it’s nearly impossible to get a definitive diagnosis from a MRI or CT scan of a living person. But the end result is horrid. Looking at a picture of a player with advanced CTE, their brain looks incredibly smaller. People with this condition experience a tremendous shrinkage of gray matter in their cortex and a significant depletion of thalamic volume.[AN9] 

Another problem with football’s safety is that only a small percentage of concussions actually get reported. A study by Harvard University and Boston University found that less than 4 percent of possible concussions were reported. When surveyed, many players, especially linemen, felt that the hits that they took daily were part of the routine, so they didn’t report them.[AN10] 

One possible way to explain this is to look at how they educate players on concussions. The current University protocol says that “all student athletes will be provided with a fact sheet” and other materials and that they will be required to sign the material and return it. This leaves them with the burden to learn about the potential damages to their health. [AN11] 

I would argue that these forms serve more to cover liabilities than to actually educate the players. Forty percent of the college athletes studied in the Harvard-Boston study said they didn’t remember their safety material at all.[AN12] 

With that in mind, the annual training that athletes are receiving here at the University may not be enough. In fact, nationwide, more than 15 percent of football players who experience a concussion severe enough to cause a loss of consciousness return to play the on the same day. [AN13] 

Before we are an NCAA Division I football school, we should be a top-tier research institution. The sheer purpose of public higher education institutions is to ensure that students are better prepared for the work force.

Abiding by the national standards is simply not good enough. It’s the national standards that result in the 4 percent reporting of concussions, and huge percentage of former football players with advanced CTE.

The University of Minnesota football program needs to take important steps to ensure its players’ safety. First, the school ought to invest in quantitative tracking and force trackers that don’t rely on reporting by players. This will give clear and direct feedback on how often players are actually hit. A system called HITS measures the exact force and location of every blow the player receives.[AN14] 

Next, the football program needs to fund research to biometrically track the progression of CTE. Finally, the University needs to teach all athletes a more thorough and current scientific curriculum regarding the risks they face. These things aren’t that expensive — but even if they were, we should spend the money. If we can afford to pay our football coach $2.1 million annually, we should be willing to spend a lot more making sure the physical well-being of our players is guaranteed. That way, it won’t just be University students cheering during football games.