| Newborn babies should not be given sugar as pain relief, says study Research in The Lancet warns that existing medical practice does not work and may cause brain damageDoctors should stop giving newborn babies sugar to relieve the pain of minor medical procedures because it does not work and may damage their brains, new research in The Lancet warns today.The study says that small doses of oral sucrose do not reduce the pain which a baby feels when its heel is pricked to yield a blood sample or it has a drip put in to receive antibiotics.Its conclusions directly challenge existing medical practice. Infants are routinely given tiny amounts of sugar in hospitals, both in the UK and around the world, as a way of limiting the pain they feel when they undergo short but painful procedures. Sick babies who receive sustained treatment in the early weeks of their lives may receive many doses to help them cope with repeated invasive procedures, which also include having an injection or having blood taken from a vein."Our findings indicate that sucrose is not an effective pain relief drug. This is especially important in view of the increasing evidence that pain may cause short and long-term adverse effects on infant neurodevelopment," said Dr Rebecca Slater, who led the Medical Research Council-funded study at University College London. "While we remain unsure of the impact sucrose has, we suggest that it is not used routinely to relieve pain in infants without further investigation."Babies are usually given a dose of one-tenth of a gram of sucrose, a concentrated sugar solution, into their mouths before a procedure starts because doctors believe that it reduces, but does not remove, the pain involved. Many previous studies have found that the practice works, including a review of all the existing medical literature on it published earlier this year by the authoritative Cochrane Review.But those studies were flawed because they relied on the change in the baby's facial expression upon receiving the sugar, from puckered-up to relaxed, as proof that it works, the new study says.Instead, using different ways of measuring babies' reactions to the procedures, it has found that infants continue to feel pain, despite receiving the substance, as shown by measurements of the levels of pain activity in their brains and spinal cords after 59 newborns had undergone a routine heel prick test. Examination of the babies' leg reflexes also indicated that they felt discomfort despite receiving the sugar.Neena Modhi, a professor of neonatal medicine at Imperial College London and a vice-president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: "This is an important study. Sucrose is given because it seems to work. If it's confirmed that sucrose doesn't work, we have a problem because we don't have any effective treatments for acutely painful procedures in newborns."But Modhi added that a bigger study, involving more babies, was needed and drug companies should speed up the development of treatments .Medical researchChildrenHealthDoctorsDenis Campbellguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Tourists told to keep distance from mating turtles Tourists visiting Western Australia's Pilbara are being told to give mating turtles plenty of space. abc.net.au |
Dengue scientists monitoring mosquito adaptations A medical entomologist at James Cook University (JCU) at Cairns in far north Queensland says mosquitos carrying dengue fever may eventually find their way around a new control measure. abc.net.au |
Scientists lobby parliament to halt cuts Researchers fear science has been branded an expense instead of an investment in the future, says Dr Hilary LeeversIt's rare to see the largest committee room at the House of Commons packed with constituents demanding to meet their MPs. It's rarer still for those constituents to be mild-mannered scientists and engineers.But that's exactly what we had yesterday when well over 100 constituents came to parliament to lobby their MPs about the importance of science funding.Many of them had never been to parliament before, and some had come from as far afield as Norwich and Pembrokeshire, to do so.One slight hiccup was that Vince Cable couldn't make it – he was in the chamber of the Commons making a statement on the Browne review and student finance. But more than 20 MPs came to listen to their constituents concerns, and yet more sent along their staff.The lobby was organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) as part of the Science is Vital campaign – to show the political price that would be paid for cuts to the UK's research funding, and to drive home core messages about what such cuts would mean.Bluntly, there are two ways we can get rid of the deficit: cutting spending, or building growth. CaSE is worried that, due to an inexplicable misunderstanding, the Treasury has put investment in science and engineering in the wrong pile. Money spent on science and engineering is an investment for the future, with a historically proven high rate of return, rather than a "spend" that should be up for cuts. Cuts to science and engineering would be the ultimate false economy.The lobby complements the raw mass of nearly 35,000 signatures on the Science is Vital petition, and the crowd of more than 2,000 people who attended the Science is Vital rally outside the Treasury last Saturday.The petition has attracted high profile signatures from the science and engineering community, including the current and future presidents of the Royal Society, university vice-chancellors, industry leaders and high profile figures like Professor Brian Cox.But it is perhaps the people who are not scientists and engineers that make the petition more powerful – these include priests and police officers, musicians and artists, doctors and nurses. It also includes many who are looking to science for an answer, like the sufferers of motor neurone disease or cancer, and those who care for them or have been bereaved.The need to support and capitalise upon the UK's strength in science and engineering should not be politically divisive, not least because of their ability to drive economic growth.Indeed, the lobby, petition and a corresponding parliamentary early day motion that MPs can sign to show their support (66 have already done so), have all secured cross-party backing.And there was a good representation of MPs across the political spectrum at the lobby yesterday. Three MPs hosted the event: Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat) and David Morris (Conservative) who spoke at the lobby, and Chi Onwurah (Labour), who arrived just after being elected to Labour's shadow team for Business, Innovation and Skills.Dr Jenny Rohn, spokesperson for Science is Vital, and Imran Khan, director of Campaign for Science & Engineering, both spoke about the importance of securing science and engineering for the UK's future prosperity, and Professor Colin Blakemore made an impassioned call for a reinvigoration of our support for research.Professor Adrian Smith, the director general for Science and Research and one of the most important civil servants for science and engineering, attended the lobby and read out a statement from Cable conveying his and David Willetts's views.Cable said his colleagues across Whitehall and the Treasury valued the productivity and efficiency of UK research and the success of its universities. But there was a worrying inconsistency between rationale and policy: "It is not possible to predict the benefits of specific pieces of research in advance, or to anticipate the growth sectors of the future in which to invest the marginal pound. However, we will have no choice but to prioritise even more than we do now in what is a fiercely competitive environment for funding."He warned that "not every academic, department or institution can necessarily continue to expect public research funding". He ended: "Science, research and innovation are vital to this country's future growth, and we must plan a future together that makes the most of the UK's competitive advantages in these financially difficult times."Both Smith and Huppert said they had been asked to report the lobby to Cable. We are confident that the huge number of people who came into the heart of our parliamentary democracy to emphasise why they think science is vital means the message will get through to Cable, and from him to the cabinet negotiations.If you missed the lobby, there is still time to make your views known to your MPs – write to them and try to meet them in parliament or their local surgeries – it is their responsibility to hear your views. It is vitally important that MPs understand the essential role that science and engineering need to play in building the UK's future prosperity. That's true not only in advance of the publication of the comprehensive spending review's publication on 20 October, but is also critical for the battles we will keep having to fight for science and engineering in the future.Hilary Leevers is assistant director of the Campaign for Science and EngineeringScience policySpending review 2010Tax and spendingguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Amber yields ancient bug haul More than 700 new species of ancient insects, preserved in 50-million-year-old amber, were found in India. bbc.co.uk |