Going upstream in the scientific process, literally.

My latest post for Wired Playbook reports on a new idea that two UK researchers have proposed for keeping tabs on which Olympic athletes are using performance-enhancing drugs.

Rather than having the athletes pee in a cup or get blood drawn just before competition, the researchers believe that searching for drug metabolites in the wastewater that flows from the Olympic village might be more effective, especially if used in conjunction with current screening methods.

As I wrote:

These studies indicate that fancy chemical analysis techniques can indeed detect drugs in wastewater, but claiming that some fraction of Olympic athletes uses PEDs, based on data showing traces of illegal substances in the sewer water? Well, that wouldn’t make Olympic officials blink. Unless researchers can hone in on who was using them, the idea simply won’t fly.

Katsoyiannis admits that while solid research supports their theoretical claim, the actual practice of monitoring wastewater in an Olympic Village to specifically target illicit drug use hasn’t been tested. But he plans to harness localization techniques developed during years of environmental research that could isolate the origin of certain organic pollutants that contaminate water supplies through rigorous sample collection and old-fashioned detective work.

I went "upstream" on this piece, and not just in the, er, wastewater vernacular sense. But upstream in that it's reporting science at the beginning of the process, when the idea was just that, an idea. No data had been collected. No analysis completed.

Most science coverage waits until the end of the study to simply relay results. But in an effort to try new formats and techniques, I decided to cover the very early stages of discovery.

A budding theme from the Science Online conference in North Carolina last month was how to improve science journalism. John Rennie challenged the crowd to fight the "paper-of-the-week" model that resounds through most media outlets, where the same big paper -- most often touted by press release (another problem I'd like to cover in more detail soon) -- is more or less covered in the same way by multiple sites, with only minor changes in words or tone differentiating one from the other.

This was my humble attempt to try something new, to challenge the status quo. On one hand, it could stimulate cool discussions about the growing possibilities of this research, or even spark conversations about its challenges. For instance, the privacy concerns of a system that constantly monitors people's pee for illicit drugs is, well, kind of sketchy. Even the researchers themselves joke that the system is like "Big Brother".

On the other hand, because there are no results presented here for this exact system, there's still a lot of speculation. But I still have to wonder, as long as it's sparked the conversation, does it really matter?

Photo courtesy London 2012

Katsoyiannis A, & Jones KC (2011). An anti-doping sampling strategy utilizing the sewerage systems of sport villages. Environmental science & technology, 45 (2), 362-3 PMID: 21142144

Schröder HF, Gebhardt W, & Thevis M (2010). Anabolic, doping, and lifestyle drugs, and selected metabolites in wastewater--detection, quantification, and behaviour monitored by high-resolution MS and MS(n) before and after sewage treatment. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 398 (3), 1207-29 PMID: 20652555

Zuccato, E., Chiabrando, C., Castiglioni, S., Bagnati, R., & Fanelli, R. (2008). Estimating Community Drug Abuse by Wastewater Analysis Environmental Health Perspectives, 116 (8), 1027-1032 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.11022

Behavior Change, On the Road

It’s my first trip to London, or to the UK for that matter.  The city itself has the distinctive, quintessential, old-world charm I pictured, yet it’s blanketed with the expected conveniences of modern technology.  My office for the past two days has rotated between a few wifi-enabled local pubs, a scene that may in fact be the clearest example of the integration of the old and the new. Some simple trip stats thus far:  Days in London: two.  Number of times I’ve ordered fish and chips as a meal: two.  Number of close calls I’ve had with speeding cars after looking in the wrong direction while crossing the street: four (This is in spite of the clearly marked ‘Look Left’ or ‘Look Right’ warnings pasted in the crosswalk).

Being born on the east coast, and having frequent access to the hustle and bustle of New York City, the past four years in laid-back San Francisco has redefined my view of city life.  But London makes San Francisco look like a city of hardasses.  Here, everything is toned down a bit.  Even the beer is easygoing.  An IPA in California will knock your socks off with its alcohol content (some of them upward of 7% ethanol), and bowl you over with the bitter taste of hops.  But here the IPA is actually an enjoyable experience for most, smooth and mellow.

If I ever did a stint living overseas, I think I’ve found my city.

Indeed, the past two weeks have been insane as we took PLoS Blogs from a pipe dream to a fully-functional website.  Lack of sleep, not eating properly, and the constant adrenaline rush that follows building the next great science communication platform definitely took its toll on me.  I still got a fair amount of running in these past days, but nothing fast, nothing crazy.

Following the stress of the past few days and the abundance of fish and chips in my belly, going for a run was the number one priority for today.  I opted, however, for a much safer treadmill jaunt rather than navigating the city streets and traffic patterns that flat out confuse me.  I only intended to get a quick 3- or 4-miler in, because I had a great deal of work to do, and was still trying to slay the seemingly insurmountable jet-lag beast.

But today’s run was easier than expected, if not easier than usual.  Instead of an obligatory run where I count off the seconds until I’m done, I had to force myself to stop after nearly 6-miles.  Why was it so much easier today?  More than likely, the difference was all in my head.  Was I still caught in the adrenaline rush that preceded the launch of PLoS Blogs?  Was I still riding the dopamine wave from our success and the congratulatory emails?  Perhaps.  But the difference may have also, at least in part, been due to the equipment itself.

When I run, there’s no doubt a small dopamine burst somewhere in my head every time I hit another mile marker.  There’s just something about whole numbers that resonates with my reward system.  With the mileage tracked in kilometers, those dopamine bursts occurred more frequently, which may help explain the increased enjoyment of today’s run.

Another feature of this treadmill was its display, which charted your progress around an outdoor course or circumnavigating a 400m track.  For me, watching a small red dot hop along this computer-generated scenery certainly tops either blankly staring at a wall or even watching TV while using a treadmill.

Both Thomas and I have written before on this blog about how technology can change behaviors.  And admittedly, I’ve often blindly thought that change means initiating new behaviors.  But today, technology also seemed to help me keep those behaviors going longer than usual, an equally important aspect to healthy living.

While my scientific “study” (playing it fast and loose with the word “study”, I know) is riddled with holes and confounders, it’s compelling to think about the consequences of small rewards in behavior change.

When I get back to reality, I’ll see if I can dig up some scientific studies on this idea.  But for now, I’m off to a pub with some friends.

Cheers.

photo via Flickr/anirudh koul