‘A bomb thrown into the middle of science': Trump cuts hurt Australian medical research
Australian medical research institutes are suspending projects on malaria, tuberculosis and women's health, as well as laying off staff, as they reel from the Trump administration's multibillion-dollar science cuts.
The situation has drawn condemnation from Australian scientists.
Burnet Institute director Professor Brendan Crabb likened the cuts to 'having a bomb thrown into the middle of science'.
'The world of science and research in all its forms … is undergoing a global seismic shift as a result of what the US is doing,' he said. 'I can't think of another circumstance since the end of World War II where things have been upended so profoundly.'
Preliminary estimates from the Burnet Institute show that the US cuts have left a $1.2 million funding shortfall across the organisation's global health programs and collaborations. A spokeswoman said this had led to the suspension until 2030 of research projects involving malaria, harm reduction, tuberculosis and women's and children's health.
Loading
Professor James Beeson, a world-renowned malaria researcher from the Burnet Institute, said the cuts would put millions of lives at risk.
Beeson pointed to research by the Malaria Atlas Project, which estimates that a complete freeze in US funding would lead to 15 million additional cases of malaria every year and 107,000 deaths.
Maternal deaths, stillbirths, tuberculosis and HIV rates throughout the Asia-Pacific region and parts of Africa would also increase substantially over the next few years unless the funding cuts were reversed or replaced by other funding sources, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
12 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Patients seek reassurances after IVF mix-ups at Monash
Alarms firing off in an IVF lab as work grinds to a halt may sound like the start of a technology meltdown but at many of Australia's major fertility clinics it's actually a sign safety systems are kicking into gear. Known as electronic witnessing, the mechanism prevents tissue mix ups and involves multiple layers of identity-document checks by humans and computers. While rarely needed, it's a safeguard standard that's becoming the norm in an industry suddenly needing to win back public trust following revelations of two devastating errors at one of Australia's biggest facilities. The first saw a mother give birth to another couple's biological child after she was impregnated with the wrong embryo at Monash IVF in Brisbane some years ago. The other involved a woman incorrectly receiving her own embryo instead of one from her same-sex partner as requested, which happened at the company's Melbourne clinic earlier in June. Trust 'eroded' The bungles have sparked a rush of patients reaching out to fertility clinics seeking reassurances about their own sperm, eggs, embryos and children. 'At the moment, the trust in the industry has been eroded,' says Connect IVF scientific director Lauren Hiser. 'It certainly opened up the conversation again. 'I do believe those questions inherently are always there but it's probably made patients verbalise it a little.' She's found explaining electronic and human witnessing practices at her own facility in Sydney have put patients' minds at ease but knows it will take time for confidence to return. Monash IVF has repeatedly apologised and vowed to introduce additional verification processes over and above normal practices. About 40 IVF-related rules Official probes into what happened are under way, with the company yet to offer explanations for how the mix ups occurred beyond two ASX announcements. Pink Elephants Support Network chief operating officer Jen Tupaea is among many Monash IVF patients wanting to know more. She's noticed a general sense of uneasiness set in among IVF parents across Australia and believes patients need more reassurances that all due diligence is done. 'There's already a lot of uncertainty and worry and sort of lack of control and I think this just adds another element to that,' Ms Tupaea says. 'Patchwork' is a term often used to describe the 40-odd pieces of legislation affecting IVF in Australian states and territories. There's variations on anything from how long embryos can be stored to how many families can use the same sperm donor and even certain states banning overseas donor eggs. Until now, the industry has largely been left to regulate itself through yearly accreditations but the mix ups spurred health ministers including Victoria's Mary-Anne Thomas to unite behind a push to explore national regulation. It's something Pink Elephants supports, with Ms Tupaea describing IVF regulation as 'a bit of a black box'. Add-on treatments She's aware of parents worried about what would happen if a similar devastating mix up occurred at a smaller clinic that doesn't have ASX reporting requirements. 'The main concern when something like that comes up is, why are we hearing about it now, and what are we not hearing about?' she says. Australia's first IVF baby was born 45 years ago and now some 20,000 babies conceived through IVF are born here each year. Greater regulation is also something clinicians want, Ms Hiser explains. 'We regulated ourselves because no one enforced it upon us and because we saw the need for patient safety,' she says. 'We've done a very good job of that up until now, and that's why I'm very curious to find out exactly what went wrong (at Monash IVF) because we're having a hard time ... understanding how it did happen.' IVF researcher and University of Melbourne Senior Research Fellow Sarah Lensen wants any future regulation to also include greater monitoring of 'add-on' treatments. She specialises in evaluating their safety and effectiveness, saying for the most part there isn't a lot of good evidence they help patients. 'The banking industry is highly regulated and I think for the better, so I don't know why we wouldn't accept independent regulation in this space,' Dr Lensen says. City Fertility Group's Victorian Scientific Director Jayne Mullen wants patients to have confidence regardless of how big a clinic is, professionals are bound by strict accreditation and licensing requirements so any mistakes must be reported to health authorities. 'We're continuously monitored and audited, we are obliged to report any serious adverse event,' she says. The scientist is also fielding more calls than usual from concerned parents, offering to take them through laboratories. While fully confident in their use of electronic witnessing and human verification, she says the Monash IVF mix ups still cause her to pause and review protocols. 'Doctors, nurses, scientists, everyone that's working in our IVF industry, we have the best of intentions, we want everyone to walk away with a happy, healthy baby,' she says. 'Mistakes are so rare.' Both Ms Mullen and Ms Hiser find explaining safety controls has put many patients at ease, urging anyone still feeling nervous about treatments to reach out to their providers. 'If they don't, say, have an electronic witnessing system in place ask them why don't you, why do my fees not cover you having this extra layer of security?' Ms Hiser says. 'If you don't have that, fine, that's okay but tell me how you control (safety). 'If you still have questions after that, then maybe ask yourself are they the people that I want to be doing my IVF journey with?'
The Advertiser
15 hours ago
- The Advertiser
AI to help stock our pantries ... and feed astronauts
Stored meats, tomatoes and even onions can't last a few weeks let alone a seven-to-10 month journey to Mars but Australian scientists say artificial intelligence may help bridge the 225 million kilometre gap. Space experiments are among a number of ways AI is being used to investigate the future of food: whether it can be preserved for longer, made to taste differently or grown without the threat of disease. Ultimately, decisions about whether AI-modified foods are ready to feed to distant travellers or grace dining tables will be up to Australian regulators. Meanwhile, government-funded research centre Plants for Space launched in October and is aiming to produce food suitable for consumption during long-term missions to the stars. It has until 2030 - the next time humans are scheduled to rocket to the moon - to come up with the right stuff but is also investigating how to fulfil the dietary requirements of NASA's 2040 Mars launch. It has until 2030 - the next time humans are scheduled to rocket to the moon - to come up with the right stuff but is also investigating how to fulfil the dietary requirements of NASA's 2040 Mars launch. Because foods generally expire within days or weeks of purchase, the team is probing how to make items last long past their expiry date. Genetically modifying and gene-editing foods could be a solution, according to Plants for Space investigator Associate Professor Sigfredo Fuentes. Genetic modification occurs when foreign DNA is inserted into a product to enhance its nutrition profile, improve drought tolerance or reduce the need for pesticides. It's similar to genome editing that rewrites DNA from the original food to enhance its colour, nutritional value or remove diseases. Some foods can also be genetically modified using nutrient-rich water, rather than soil and seeds, which may be helpful when humans start planet-hopping. "(Genetically modified organisms are) basically evolution on steroids - what happened for millions of years to produce a plant or a product that is edible for humans, we can do in a week," Prof Fuentes tells AAP. "Every plant is way different and you need substitute soil, so they need to be modified." Scientifically altering plants can take hours but the scientist, who also works at the University of Melbourne, sees AI as a way to simplify the process and reduce costs. Prof Fuentes is working on 3D-printed artificially intelligent noses and tongues that use sensors to monitor the aroma and taste of objects. Not only could they help deem food safe but accommodate an astronaut's taste, he says. "We obtain all the biometrics, the emotional response, physiological response, heart rate, blood pressure (of people)", he says. "AI can give a certainty using nutritional algorithms, as well, that it is not going to pose any problem." 3D printers can also create proteins, fats and carbohydrates and these space experiments could also solve food production challenges on Earth. "We are looking into how to reduce food waste and try to increase the usability of 100 per cent of the resources we have," Prof Fuentes says. "In really harsh environments like the desert, Antarctica, war-torn countries as well underground, using vertical farming, all those problems are ... being solved from our way of thinking on how to produce food in space." AI is also being used to predict the outcome of crossbreeding plants, says British molecular biologist and SynBioBeta chief executive John Cumbers. Large-language models can be used to find patterns and relationships within foods, he says, allowing researchers to develop proteins and enzymes that can reduce food pollutants. "Let's say a farmer is trying to cross a tomato that has a large body of fruit with a tomato that has a rich-red colour," Mr Cumbers explains. "They take the male plant and the female flowers ... and they're doing the cross pollination of the plants. "Instead of guessing what the tomato is going to produce, at a molecular level you can now look at the sequence of DNA of the tomato. "You can make a new tomato that might have a red colour through genetic engineering, rather than through a random process of selection which is what traditional farming does." The CSIRO is also investigating ways to expand AI's role in the food production industry but but is strictly bound by safety and policy outcomes. The removal of cells and proteins is a complex task, as it is hard to identify and isolate the safe characteristics of plants. Bananas, cotton, canola, Indian mustard and safflower are the only genetically modified foods allowed in Australia, while in the US, potatoes, corn, apples and sugar beets can be modified. "As more datasets become available and tools mature, we expect broader uptake across the sector," a CSIRO spokesperson tells AAP. "Farmers, breeders and researchers use AI to model climate impacts, optimise fertiliser use, predict crop yields, accelerate traditional crop breeding and develop new food products based on nutritional or functional properties." Elsewhere, Australia's food production sector is variously using AI to identify wine berries affected by smoke and eradicate weeds from native crops. At Delungra in northern NSW, farmer Martin Murray expects AI will be increasingly adopted as more advanced solutions arise. "Genome sequencing is a bit like when you go to buy a car," he says. "You're not involved in the design and testing of the HiLux, you just go to Toyota. "At the end of the day, it's just another tool that plant breeders are using to help them breed better varieties that help us grow more grain and make us more profitable." Although genome edited or genetically modified food may become a future reality for farmers and scientists, one question persists: will people eat it? Mr Cumbers says research proves there are health benefits but it will be up to governments to regulate the safety of products. "There's a lot of other things that can cause negative harm to your health from food, like eating too much sugar, drinking alcohol, eating food high in sodium," he says. "I don't really think there's any evidence there's any negative effects from genetically modified food .. as it has been around for a number of decades now." Stored meats, tomatoes and even onions can't last a few weeks let alone a seven-to-10 month journey to Mars but Australian scientists say artificial intelligence may help bridge the 225 million kilometre gap. Space experiments are among a number of ways AI is being used to investigate the future of food: whether it can be preserved for longer, made to taste differently or grown without the threat of disease. Ultimately, decisions about whether AI-modified foods are ready to feed to distant travellers or grace dining tables will be up to Australian regulators. Meanwhile, government-funded research centre Plants for Space launched in October and is aiming to produce food suitable for consumption during long-term missions to the stars. It has until 2030 - the next time humans are scheduled to rocket to the moon - to come up with the right stuff but is also investigating how to fulfil the dietary requirements of NASA's 2040 Mars launch. It has until 2030 - the next time humans are scheduled to rocket to the moon - to come up with the right stuff but is also investigating how to fulfil the dietary requirements of NASA's 2040 Mars launch. Because foods generally expire within days or weeks of purchase, the team is probing how to make items last long past their expiry date. Genetically modifying and gene-editing foods could be a solution, according to Plants for Space investigator Associate Professor Sigfredo Fuentes. Genetic modification occurs when foreign DNA is inserted into a product to enhance its nutrition profile, improve drought tolerance or reduce the need for pesticides. It's similar to genome editing that rewrites DNA from the original food to enhance its colour, nutritional value or remove diseases. Some foods can also be genetically modified using nutrient-rich water, rather than soil and seeds, which may be helpful when humans start planet-hopping. "(Genetically modified organisms are) basically evolution on steroids - what happened for millions of years to produce a plant or a product that is edible for humans, we can do in a week," Prof Fuentes tells AAP. "Every plant is way different and you need substitute soil, so they need to be modified." Scientifically altering plants can take hours but the scientist, who also works at the University of Melbourne, sees AI as a way to simplify the process and reduce costs. Prof Fuentes is working on 3D-printed artificially intelligent noses and tongues that use sensors to monitor the aroma and taste of objects. Not only could they help deem food safe but accommodate an astronaut's taste, he says. "We obtain all the biometrics, the emotional response, physiological response, heart rate, blood pressure (of people)", he says. "AI can give a certainty using nutritional algorithms, as well, that it is not going to pose any problem." 3D printers can also create proteins, fats and carbohydrates and these space experiments could also solve food production challenges on Earth. "We are looking into how to reduce food waste and try to increase the usability of 100 per cent of the resources we have," Prof Fuentes says. "In really harsh environments like the desert, Antarctica, war-torn countries as well underground, using vertical farming, all those problems are ... being solved from our way of thinking on how to produce food in space." AI is also being used to predict the outcome of crossbreeding plants, says British molecular biologist and SynBioBeta chief executive John Cumbers. Large-language models can be used to find patterns and relationships within foods, he says, allowing researchers to develop proteins and enzymes that can reduce food pollutants. "Let's say a farmer is trying to cross a tomato that has a large body of fruit with a tomato that has a rich-red colour," Mr Cumbers explains. "They take the male plant and the female flowers ... and they're doing the cross pollination of the plants. "Instead of guessing what the tomato is going to produce, at a molecular level you can now look at the sequence of DNA of the tomato. "You can make a new tomato that might have a red colour through genetic engineering, rather than through a random process of selection which is what traditional farming does." The CSIRO is also investigating ways to expand AI's role in the food production industry but but is strictly bound by safety and policy outcomes. The removal of cells and proteins is a complex task, as it is hard to identify and isolate the safe characteristics of plants. Bananas, cotton, canola, Indian mustard and safflower are the only genetically modified foods allowed in Australia, while in the US, potatoes, corn, apples and sugar beets can be modified. "As more datasets become available and tools mature, we expect broader uptake across the sector," a CSIRO spokesperson tells AAP. "Farmers, breeders and researchers use AI to model climate impacts, optimise fertiliser use, predict crop yields, accelerate traditional crop breeding and develop new food products based on nutritional or functional properties." Elsewhere, Australia's food production sector is variously using AI to identify wine berries affected by smoke and eradicate weeds from native crops. At Delungra in northern NSW, farmer Martin Murray expects AI will be increasingly adopted as more advanced solutions arise. "Genome sequencing is a bit like when you go to buy a car," he says. "You're not involved in the design and testing of the HiLux, you just go to Toyota. "At the end of the day, it's just another tool that plant breeders are using to help them breed better varieties that help us grow more grain and make us more profitable." Although genome edited or genetically modified food may become a future reality for farmers and scientists, one question persists: will people eat it? Mr Cumbers says research proves there are health benefits but it will be up to governments to regulate the safety of products. "There's a lot of other things that can cause negative harm to your health from food, like eating too much sugar, drinking alcohol, eating food high in sodium," he says. "I don't really think there's any evidence there's any negative effects from genetically modified food .. as it has been around for a number of decades now." Stored meats, tomatoes and even onions can't last a few weeks let alone a seven-to-10 month journey to Mars but Australian scientists say artificial intelligence may help bridge the 225 million kilometre gap. Space experiments are among a number of ways AI is being used to investigate the future of food: whether it can be preserved for longer, made to taste differently or grown without the threat of disease. Ultimately, decisions about whether AI-modified foods are ready to feed to distant travellers or grace dining tables will be up to Australian regulators. Meanwhile, government-funded research centre Plants for Space launched in October and is aiming to produce food suitable for consumption during long-term missions to the stars. It has until 2030 - the next time humans are scheduled to rocket to the moon - to come up with the right stuff but is also investigating how to fulfil the dietary requirements of NASA's 2040 Mars launch. It has until 2030 - the next time humans are scheduled to rocket to the moon - to come up with the right stuff but is also investigating how to fulfil the dietary requirements of NASA's 2040 Mars launch. Because foods generally expire within days or weeks of purchase, the team is probing how to make items last long past their expiry date. Genetically modifying and gene-editing foods could be a solution, according to Plants for Space investigator Associate Professor Sigfredo Fuentes. Genetic modification occurs when foreign DNA is inserted into a product to enhance its nutrition profile, improve drought tolerance or reduce the need for pesticides. It's similar to genome editing that rewrites DNA from the original food to enhance its colour, nutritional value or remove diseases. Some foods can also be genetically modified using nutrient-rich water, rather than soil and seeds, which may be helpful when humans start planet-hopping. "(Genetically modified organisms are) basically evolution on steroids - what happened for millions of years to produce a plant or a product that is edible for humans, we can do in a week," Prof Fuentes tells AAP. "Every plant is way different and you need substitute soil, so they need to be modified." Scientifically altering plants can take hours but the scientist, who also works at the University of Melbourne, sees AI as a way to simplify the process and reduce costs. Prof Fuentes is working on 3D-printed artificially intelligent noses and tongues that use sensors to monitor the aroma and taste of objects. Not only could they help deem food safe but accommodate an astronaut's taste, he says. "We obtain all the biometrics, the emotional response, physiological response, heart rate, blood pressure (of people)", he says. "AI can give a certainty using nutritional algorithms, as well, that it is not going to pose any problem." 3D printers can also create proteins, fats and carbohydrates and these space experiments could also solve food production challenges on Earth. "We are looking into how to reduce food waste and try to increase the usability of 100 per cent of the resources we have," Prof Fuentes says. "In really harsh environments like the desert, Antarctica, war-torn countries as well underground, using vertical farming, all those problems are ... being solved from our way of thinking on how to produce food in space." AI is also being used to predict the outcome of crossbreeding plants, says British molecular biologist and SynBioBeta chief executive John Cumbers. Large-language models can be used to find patterns and relationships within foods, he says, allowing researchers to develop proteins and enzymes that can reduce food pollutants. "Let's say a farmer is trying to cross a tomato that has a large body of fruit with a tomato that has a rich-red colour," Mr Cumbers explains. "They take the male plant and the female flowers ... and they're doing the cross pollination of the plants. "Instead of guessing what the tomato is going to produce, at a molecular level you can now look at the sequence of DNA of the tomato. "You can make a new tomato that might have a red colour through genetic engineering, rather than through a random process of selection which is what traditional farming does." The CSIRO is also investigating ways to expand AI's role in the food production industry but but is strictly bound by safety and policy outcomes. The removal of cells and proteins is a complex task, as it is hard to identify and isolate the safe characteristics of plants. Bananas, cotton, canola, Indian mustard and safflower are the only genetically modified foods allowed in Australia, while in the US, potatoes, corn, apples and sugar beets can be modified. "As more datasets become available and tools mature, we expect broader uptake across the sector," a CSIRO spokesperson tells AAP. "Farmers, breeders and researchers use AI to model climate impacts, optimise fertiliser use, predict crop yields, accelerate traditional crop breeding and develop new food products based on nutritional or functional properties." Elsewhere, Australia's food production sector is variously using AI to identify wine berries affected by smoke and eradicate weeds from native crops. At Delungra in northern NSW, farmer Martin Murray expects AI will be increasingly adopted as more advanced solutions arise. "Genome sequencing is a bit like when you go to buy a car," he says. "You're not involved in the design and testing of the HiLux, you just go to Toyota. "At the end of the day, it's just another tool that plant breeders are using to help them breed better varieties that help us grow more grain and make us more profitable." Although genome edited or genetically modified food may become a future reality for farmers and scientists, one question persists: will people eat it? Mr Cumbers says research proves there are health benefits but it will be up to governments to regulate the safety of products. "There's a lot of other things that can cause negative harm to your health from food, like eating too much sugar, drinking alcohol, eating food high in sodium," he says. "I don't really think there's any evidence there's any negative effects from genetically modified food .. as it has been around for a number of decades now." Stored meats, tomatoes and even onions can't last a few weeks let alone a seven-to-10 month journey to Mars but Australian scientists say artificial intelligence may help bridge the 225 million kilometre gap. Space experiments are among a number of ways AI is being used to investigate the future of food: whether it can be preserved for longer, made to taste differently or grown without the threat of disease. Ultimately, decisions about whether AI-modified foods are ready to feed to distant travellers or grace dining tables will be up to Australian regulators. Meanwhile, government-funded research centre Plants for Space launched in October and is aiming to produce food suitable for consumption during long-term missions to the stars. It has until 2030 - the next time humans are scheduled to rocket to the moon - to come up with the right stuff but is also investigating how to fulfil the dietary requirements of NASA's 2040 Mars launch. It has until 2030 - the next time humans are scheduled to rocket to the moon - to come up with the right stuff but is also investigating how to fulfil the dietary requirements of NASA's 2040 Mars launch. Because foods generally expire within days or weeks of purchase, the team is probing how to make items last long past their expiry date. Genetically modifying and gene-editing foods could be a solution, according to Plants for Space investigator Associate Professor Sigfredo Fuentes. Genetic modification occurs when foreign DNA is inserted into a product to enhance its nutrition profile, improve drought tolerance or reduce the need for pesticides. It's similar to genome editing that rewrites DNA from the original food to enhance its colour, nutritional value or remove diseases. Some foods can also be genetically modified using nutrient-rich water, rather than soil and seeds, which may be helpful when humans start planet-hopping. "(Genetically modified organisms are) basically evolution on steroids - what happened for millions of years to produce a plant or a product that is edible for humans, we can do in a week," Prof Fuentes tells AAP. "Every plant is way different and you need substitute soil, so they need to be modified." Scientifically altering plants can take hours but the scientist, who also works at the University of Melbourne, sees AI as a way to simplify the process and reduce costs. Prof Fuentes is working on 3D-printed artificially intelligent noses and tongues that use sensors to monitor the aroma and taste of objects. Not only could they help deem food safe but accommodate an astronaut's taste, he says. "We obtain all the biometrics, the emotional response, physiological response, heart rate, blood pressure (of people)", he says. "AI can give a certainty using nutritional algorithms, as well, that it is not going to pose any problem." 3D printers can also create proteins, fats and carbohydrates and these space experiments could also solve food production challenges on Earth. "We are looking into how to reduce food waste and try to increase the usability of 100 per cent of the resources we have," Prof Fuentes says. "In really harsh environments like the desert, Antarctica, war-torn countries as well underground, using vertical farming, all those problems are ... being solved from our way of thinking on how to produce food in space." AI is also being used to predict the outcome of crossbreeding plants, says British molecular biologist and SynBioBeta chief executive John Cumbers. Large-language models can be used to find patterns and relationships within foods, he says, allowing researchers to develop proteins and enzymes that can reduce food pollutants. "Let's say a farmer is trying to cross a tomato that has a large body of fruit with a tomato that has a rich-red colour," Mr Cumbers explains. "They take the male plant and the female flowers ... and they're doing the cross pollination of the plants. "Instead of guessing what the tomato is going to produce, at a molecular level you can now look at the sequence of DNA of the tomato. "You can make a new tomato that might have a red colour through genetic engineering, rather than through a random process of selection which is what traditional farming does." The CSIRO is also investigating ways to expand AI's role in the food production industry but but is strictly bound by safety and policy outcomes. The removal of cells and proteins is a complex task, as it is hard to identify and isolate the safe characteristics of plants. Bananas, cotton, canola, Indian mustard and safflower are the only genetically modified foods allowed in Australia, while in the US, potatoes, corn, apples and sugar beets can be modified. "As more datasets become available and tools mature, we expect broader uptake across the sector," a CSIRO spokesperson tells AAP. "Farmers, breeders and researchers use AI to model climate impacts, optimise fertiliser use, predict crop yields, accelerate traditional crop breeding and develop new food products based on nutritional or functional properties." Elsewhere, Australia's food production sector is variously using AI to identify wine berries affected by smoke and eradicate weeds from native crops. At Delungra in northern NSW, farmer Martin Murray expects AI will be increasingly adopted as more advanced solutions arise. "Genome sequencing is a bit like when you go to buy a car," he says. "You're not involved in the design and testing of the HiLux, you just go to Toyota. "At the end of the day, it's just another tool that plant breeders are using to help them breed better varieties that help us grow more grain and make us more profitable." Although genome edited or genetically modified food may become a future reality for farmers and scientists, one question persists: will people eat it? Mr Cumbers says research proves there are health benefits but it will be up to governments to regulate the safety of products. "There's a lot of other things that can cause negative harm to your health from food, like eating too much sugar, drinking alcohol, eating food high in sodium," he says. "I don't really think there's any evidence there's any negative effects from genetically modified food .. as it has been around for a number of decades now."
The Age
19 hours ago
- The Age
Ozempic in a pill? The next generation of weight-loss drugs emerges
'The development of GLP-1 and incretin-based drugs has revolutionised the space. It has carved out the biggest class of drugs ever. And it has the power to truly revolutionise our health-span,' said Associate Professor Garron Dodd, head of the Metabolic Neuroscience Research Laboratory at the University of Melbourne and founder of Gallant Bio, which is developing its own obesity drugs. 'It's a glorious dawn, but it's just the start.' Weight loss in a pill Much as our eyes and ears sense the world and send data to our brains, our digestive tracts need ways of sending back data on what they are eating, and how much. They do this, in part, by secreting various chemical signals – hormones. Glucagon-like peptide-1 is secreted by the intestines and triggers the pancreas to produce insulin. The first GLP-1 drugs took advantage of this to become powerful treatments for diabetes. But GLP-1 has much wider effects beyond blood-sugar control. Receptors for the hormone spread throughout the body, even in the brain, where they trigger a feeling of fullness and decrease appetite. A once-weekly dose of semaglutide, plus lifestyle changes, led volunteers in a phase 3 trial to lose 14.9 per cent of their body weight over 15 months. GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy essentially copy that human hormone. That makes them fragile. They need to be kept refrigerated, and injected subcutaneously rather than taken by mouth – as the stomach's acid would quickly break them down. An oral version of semaglutide has been developed, but only 1 per cent of the drug actually makes its way to the target receptors, and it appears less effective than the injectable version for weight loss. Loading Researchers at Japan's Chugai Pharmaceutical Co figured out a way around this problem. They designed a small molecule that can bind to the same receptor as GLP-1 and trigger it. It mimics the effect without mimicking the structure. 'It's a development I never would have thought feasible,' said Professor Michael Horowitz, a University of Adelaide researcher who authored a commentary on the drug in the Lancet. Chugai licensed the molecule to US-based Eli Lilly in 2018. Last week, the company reported participants on the highest dose in a clinical trial lost 7.9 per cent of their body weight over 40 weeks. The full details of the trial have not yet been reported, and whether the weight loss is maintained over the longer term is unclear. More than a quarter of patients reported diarrhoea, 16 per cent nausea and 14 per cent vomiting. The preliminary results are 'close enough to broadly call it similar' to semaglutide, said Professor Jonathan Shaw, who led the Australian arm of Lilly's trial at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne. 'I don't think we can confidently say it's better or worse. It's definitely in the same ballpark.' It's also not known if the drug will offer the range of other benefits that GLP-1 inhibitors provide in addition to weight loss, like reductions in cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer's risk (and maybe even addictive behaviours). Horowitz said the efficacy data was promising, but he wanted to see more information about adverse effects, which he said were understated generally across semaglutide trials because they relied on patients to report their own side effects. 'It hasn't served the interests of pharma to quantify how well this is tolerated.' Pfizer was developing a similar once-daily GLP-1 pill but cancelled the program in April after a patient in a clinical trial suffered liver damage. A pill should, theoretically, be cheaper and easier to make than an injector – Novo Nordisk, maker of Wegovy and its diabetes drug antecedent Ozempic, has struggled to keep up with demand for semaglutide – and dramatically easier to transport. At present, the drug must be kept refrigerated right from European factories to a patient's home. 'That all adds to the cost,' said Shaw. There could also be cost benefits from increased competition as more drugs are approved – possibly pushing the price down far enough for governments to consider subsidising it. Lilly expects to apply for regulatory approval for the drug later this year. While orforglipron has attracted the most excitement – Eli Lilly's shares have surged since they announced the trial results – it is just one of several new drugs in late-stage development. These drugs might be of particular value to 15 per cent or so of people whose bodies do not seem to respond to semaglutide. And people don't seem to stay on the injectable drugs – less than half are still using them a year later, per a study 2024 study – despite the fact weight rebound is likely if you stop using them. 'Is it the injection? Is it the cost? Or is it due to adverse effects? We don't know,' said Horowitz. The new drugs might also offer weight-loss benefits. Mounjaro, for example, mimics both GLP-1 and the gastric inhibitory polypeptide, which increases metabolism and appears to lead to better weight-loss results. The new drugs, like Lilly's retatrutide, target even more receptors, with the hope of even greater effects. It's all good news for Rochelle McDonald. She does not mind taking a weekly injection – 'the stabby-stab' – now she's found ways of coping with the side effects. But paying $240 a month for her current dose of the medicine is 'a commitment in itself'. 'I think a daily pill would be good,' she said. 'If it comes in at a good price point.'
