|
|
Doctors have long scratched their heads over the causes and cures for two common diseases of the digestive system: IBS and IBD. But research out today in Science Translational Medicine takes a leap forward in explaining these conditions, thanks to a major undertaking to sequence the gut microbiomes of almost 2,000 people.
Irritable Bowel Syndrome, or IBS, is thought to affect as much as 20 percent of the world’s population, while its cousin, Inflammatory Bowel Disease or IBD, is less common (fewer than 1 percent of the population) but more severe. The two have similar symptoms, but because one is characterized by its namesake inflammation (IBD) and the other isn’t (IBS), their treatments are very different.
When a patient reports abdominal pain, constipation or diarrhea, doctors conduct invasive tests like blood samples and colonoscopies to look for signs of inflammation. If they find it, the patient has IBD, and treatments are aimed at reducing that inflammation. Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are both types of IBD.
But if doctors find nothing? That’s IBS. IBS is a bit of a catch-all diagnosis for when there’s no inflammation — and really no other abnormalities that might explain a patient’s symptoms. Current IBS treatments revolve around alleviating symptoms and hoping for the best.
Although scientists recently identified a possible genetic trigger of IBD in mice, the root causes of both diseases are currently unknown.
Mounting evidence shows that microbes play a role in gut health, and previous research has showed that IBS and IBD patients have different microbiota than healthy people. That’s why a research team in the Netherlands wondered how the two would compare to each other, and if they could be used for diagnosis.
“We thought, let’s see if the microbiome, or gut composition, can become a biomarker so we can design new tests in order to distinguish these two diagnoses,” says Arnau Vich Vila, computational biologist at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands.
“We would reduce the number of colonoscopies; saving time, saving money and also improving the diagnosis so that the patient doesn’t have to go through this kind of procedure,” says Vich Vila.
The team set about sequencing the microbiomes from almost 1,800 people: 350 with IBD, 410 with IBS, and 1,000 healthy people as a comparison. But to do this, they needed to collect 1,800 microbiomes. That’s a lot of poop.
They found their participants through three different established banks of volunteers with well-established medical information for use in population studies. If you’ve ever peed in a cup at the doctor’s office, you can use your imagination to figure out how fecal samples are collected. But as an added challenge, fecal samples can’t be kept at room temperature, because that would allow certain bacteria to grow, interfering with the study results.
“So we asked all of them to collect the sample at home, put it in the freezer, and then we were driving around the Netherlands to pick up these samples,” says Vich Vila.
They used a genetic tool called shotgun metagenomic sequencing to sequence the DNA of the bacteria living in each sample, a common technique used to identify bacteria species in big samples. But they didn’t just identify the species – they looked at how abundant each was, how fast each grew, and what functions each performs in the gut.
They found that people with IBD and IBS had substantial overlap in which microbes they had in their guts, and both were different than their healthy peers. And Vich Vila says the group was surprised to find such an overlap in the IBS and IBD microbes, because of how fundamentally different the two diseases are.
But the researchers also found consistent microbial differences between IBS and IBD patients, suggesting microbiome analysis could soon be used to diagnose IBS and IBD – and could start to explain the differences in the conditions.
For instance, both IBS and IBD patients had reduced numbers of some known beneficial gut bacteria, while only patients with Crohn’s disease had increases in bacteria like Escherichia, known to invade the gut’s mucus lining and cause problems (you know this one from the “E” in E. coli.) Likewise, there were certain bacteria that only the IBS patients had in increased amounts.
The microbiomes were different in other ways, too. The genetic diversity within individual bacteria species was sometimes different, as were the growth rates. Patients with IBS and IBD also had much more virulent bacteria than people with healthy guts – bacteria that do things like evade or suppress their host’s immune system. And patients with Crohn’s, specifically, had more bacteria that had antibiotic resistance genes than any of the other groups.
They also compared the diagnostic abilities of their new microbiome data to that of a currently used diagnostic test for IBD: whether a patient’s stool contains a biomarker of inflammation called calprotectin. Their microbiome test did better at predicting whether a patient had IBS or IBD than did the old test.
What a bacterium does is programmed in its DNA just like any other living organism. So the researchers also wanted to know if their huge genomic dataset could tell us not just which bacteria are in which person’s gut, but what they are up to – especially if what they’re up to is making people sick. Figuring this out would really blow open the possibilities for understanding these two rather mysterious conditions.
They found many functional changes between the IBS, IBD, and healthy patients. For instance, in patients with Crohn’s disease, there were more bacteria breaking down sugars and fewer kickstarting fermentation. That causes the inflammation. Meanwhile, in patients with IBS, there were more bacteria than normal focused on fermentation and breaking down carbs.
This latter point caught the attention of William Chey, University of Michigan professor and practicing IBS specialist, who was not involved in this study. “It’s something I’ve been wondering about for quite a while,” says Chey, explaining that IBS patients often complain of bloating, and bloating is often caused by fermentation. “A question’s always been, could the microbiome provide an explanation for that?”
“So what they found – alterations in the microbiome which would explain increased levels of fermentation or altered fermentation in IBS patients – is really interesting,” says Chey.
Valerie Collij, co-lead on the study, researches and practices medicine at University Medical Center Groningen. “As a clinician, I would say that this is the base for future treatments,” she says. “We can use this information to get dietary interventions, or pro- and prebiotics, or even fecal transplants that are based on the gut microbiome composition. That would be great. But we are nowhere near there, yet, I would say.”
“But what we are really close to now is using microbiota as a diagnostic tool,” adds Vich Vila.
Chey is excited about where these findings could lead IBS and IBD research in the future. “It’s really been the Holy Grail, looking for the characteristics of the microbiomes that might be linked to the pathology that we see in the clinic,” he says.

Kevin Lafferty emerges from the waters off Anacapa Island near Ventura, California, after spearing fish in March 2018. He’s advising a UCSB PhD student on research to determine if reef fish inside protected marine reserves have more or fewer parasites than depleted fish populations outside the reserve. It’s to test a pattern that has emerged in other studies: that parasites thrive with richness and abundance of marine life. (Credit: Kenneth R. Weiss)
Kevin Lafferty gets more than his share of intimate disclosures from strangers about their anatomy and bodily functions.
Graphic details and pictures arrive steadily via email, from people all over the world — a prison inmate in Florida, a social psychologist in Romania, a Californian afraid he picked up a nasty worm in Vietnam — begging for help, often after explaining that doctors will no longer listen. Do I have bugs burrowing into my brain? Insects poking around under my skin? Creatures inching through my intestines?
Lafferty has learned to open letters and packages carefully. On occasion, they contain skin or other suspect samples in alcohol-filled vials.
“Sorry to hear about your health troubles,” Lafferty wrote recently to one man who asked him to help identify a worm found wriggling in the toilet bowl. “Undercooked fish (and squid) can expose you to many different types of larval parasites that … can accidentally infect humans, sometimes making people sick.”
“The photo that you sent does not look like a tapeworm (or a parasite) to me, but it is not sufficient quality for identification,” he gently informed another, whose email included extreme close-up pictures of a white, bumpy tongue and noted that emergency hospitals keep referring the stricken man to “psychiatry.”
Lafferty is not a medical doctor — he’s a PhD ecologist who studies parasites, mostly in fish and other marine creatures, a fact he’s always careful to explain to his correspondents. He’s sympathetic to these desperate people, even if what ails them is more imagined than real. Parasites, after all, have wormed into every corner of the tapestry of life, including hooking up with human beings in the most unpleasant of ways.

It’s dissection day in the lab at UCSB. Kevin Lafferty examines a slide of a parasitic copepod found in the gills of a horn shark. The copepod had its own parasitic worm attached to an egg sac. “That’s beautiful,” Lafferty says, complimenting PhD student Dana Morton (not pictured), who found the parasites and prepared the slide. “There are not a lot of illustrations of parasites on parasites.” Technician Ronny Young and PhD student Marisa Morse look on from the background. (Credit: Kenneth R. Weiss)
Yet his own view of parasites is more expansive than that of veterinarians, physicians and public health researchers, who tend to vilify these freeloading worms, bugs and protozoans as nasty culprits behind outbreaks of disease. Lafferty reminds us that parasites are not lesser life forms hell-bent on exploiting the weak and degraded, but rather an overlooked, misunderstood and even glorious part of nature. He celebrates them.
“Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to be parasitized and I wouldn’t wish it on others,” he says in his laboratory at the University of California, Santa Barbara. But over three decades of studying parasites he has grown to admire their ingenious and complex lifestyles as they hitch rides on hosts that swim, run, crawl, climb or fly around the globe. He cut his scientific teeth studying parasitic worms that castrate their hosts (and thus, from an evolutionary standpoint, transform them into the living dead). In recent years, he’s become enthralled by tiny parasites that brainwash those they infect, turning them into zombies or pushing the hosts to engage in crazy, life-threatening behavior.
“Many of them are fabulous examples of evolution,” he says, “and sometimes incredibly beautiful in terms of the things they do to make a living on this planet.”
Parasites have an underappreciated importance, he adds — as indicators and shapers of healthy ecosystems. They thrive where nature remains robust, their richness and abundance keeping pace with biodiversity. They can serve important roles in maintaining ecosystem equilibrium. For all these reasons and others, he urges fellow scientists to take a more neutral view of them and adopt well-established theoretical approaches for studying diseases on land to better understand how marine parasites operate. If scientists want to better predict when infections and infestations will recede, remain innocuous or spiral out of control, he says, they need to start thinking like parasites.
On a cold winter day, Lafferty is wading in the black muck of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh, about a 20-minute drive down the coast from his Santa Barbara home and laboratory. Despite the frigid air that has dipped into California, he is wearing his typical uniform: surfer board shorts, flip-flops and a light gray hoodie sweatshirt emblazoned with the logo of the US Geological Survey (USGS), his employer of two decades. Introduced by mutual friends years ago, I’ve gotten to know Lafferty as a friend at dinner parties and as a fellow surfer.
He picks up a handful of horn snails from the sucking mud. Lafferty began collecting these small mud snails three decades ago, and found that about half are chockablock with parasitic flatworms called trematodes, which eat the snail’s gonad and transform the mollusk into a neutered, hard-shelled meat wagon. They ride around inside for the rest of the snail’s natural life — a dozen years or more — feeding on the infertile gastropod while pumping out trematode larvae into brackish waters. The snails in Lafferty’s hands are likely infected with one of 20 different trematode species, he says: “For the host horn snail, it’s a bad outcome, a fate worse than death. For the parasite, it’s an awesome and sophisticated strategy.”

Lafferty collects California horn snails at Carpinteria Salt Marsh, where he has spent decades studying the roles that parasites play in marine ecology. (Credit: Kenneth R. Weiss)
The flatworms in these snails may not be destined for a lowly existence in the mud, though: Their future holds an opportunity to swim, and even fly. Larvae of the most common species go on to penetrate the gills of a California killifish, then attach themselves by the hundreds to the fish’s brain, manipulating the new host to dart to the surface or roll on its side and flash its silvery belly.
That conspicuous behavior makes the infected fish 10 to 30 times more likely to be eaten by a predatory heron or egret. And it’s in that bird’s intestine that the trematode finally matures, excreting eggs that are dispersed with guano all over the salt marsh or in other estuaries — before being picked up, again, by horn snails.
Parasites have altered the way Lafferty sees the salt marsh and beyond. A great egret flies by, flashing its brilliant, white wings. Sure, it’s gorgeous, but it’s a lightweight in this neighborhood compared to the parasites. Lafferty and colleagues once determined that the collective weight — or biomass — of trematodes in this salt marsh and two others in Baja California, Mexico, is greater than the collective weight of all the birds that live in the same three estuaries.
Lafferty spots an osprey in the distance, and trains his spotting scope to watch as the fishing hawk rips apart and bolts down chunks of a mullet held in its talons. “We’re watching a transmission event,” he says. “That mullet had hundreds of larval trematodes in it. It’s like eating a bad piece of sushi.”
By some estimates, nearly half of the species in the animal kingdom are parasites. Most of them remain largely out of sight because they are small, even microscopic. Their ancestors didn’t always start with a parasitic lifestyle: Researchers have so far found 223 incidents where parasitic insects, worms, mollusks or protozoans evolved from non-parasitic predecessors. Some ate dead things. Others killed their prey and consumed it. Then their life strategy evolved because they proved more successful if they kept their prey alive, kept their victims close — so they could feed on them longer. It’s a strategy distinct from those of parasitoids, which outright kill their hosts, Lafferty explains, a glint of mischief in his eye. “Think about the movie Alien. Remember when the alien sock puppet bursts its head out of John Hurt’s chest? That’s a classic parasitoid.”
Lafferty revels in such parasite talk, enjoying the reaction from lecture audiences or gatherings of friends. From personal experience, I can attest that he’s not beyond rolling a pre-dinner video for surf buddies in which one moment he’s landing a five-foot wahoo in the tropical Pacific — and in the next, he’s in the lab extracting thumb-sized, blood-engorged parasitic worms from the fish’s stomach. He squeezes the dark, congealed blood from the worms, fries them up with a little garlic and butter, pops one in his mouth and then, with a smirk, holds out the skillet and dares a grad student to give it a try.
He is also a serious marine ecologist who holds passionately that parasites are worthy of study for how they influence ecological systems and how ecosystems influence them. For years, it was a fairly lonely position to take: “Ecologists have built hundreds of food webs and they haven’t put parasites in them. And what we’ve lost from that is the ability to even think about parasites and their role in ecology,” Lafferty says. Ecology conferences used to struggle with where to place Lafferty’s talks in their schedules, but nowadays the meetings have dedicated sessions on wildlife infectious diseases. And ecologists, especially younger ones, are starting to recognize that they are missing part of the story if the food webs they model don’t include parasites that can influence predator-prey relationships and competition for resources. As illustrated by the trematode in the killifish, Lafferty says, “parasites are determining who lives and who dies in a way that benefits them.”
Moreover, parasites are a useful way to explore broader ecological questions: How does energy flow through those food webs? What forces maintain ecological stability and keep one species from overrunning all others? What are the implications of robust and healthy biodiversity on human health? Ecologists debate all sorts of competing theories, Lafferty says. What’s clear to him and other like-minded parasitologists: “We cannot answer these questions if we are going to ignore the parasite part of the equation.”
But first, a scientist needs to overcome the ick factor — just as Lafferty did 30 years ago. He calls himself an “accidental parasitologist” to this day.
Born in Glendale, California, in 1963, Kevin Dale Lafferty was raised in nearby La Cañada, the son of a mother who wrote a book and taught classes on earthquake preparedness and a father who was an aeronautical engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He fell in love with the ocean during boyhood vacations in nearby Newport Beach and Laguna Beach.
He bodysurfed. He snorkeled. He caught mackerel off the pier and pried mussels and crabs off its pilings — matching his discoveries to those described in Ed “Doc” Ricketts’ classic guidebook, Between Pacific Tides. At 13, he knew his destiny: become a marine biologist. At 15, he learned to scuba dive and, while in high school, built underwater camera housings out of Plexiglas.
Once enrolled in aquatic biology at UCSB, he learned he could walk from the dorms with a board under his arm to surf. Tanned and fit, he modeled bathing suits (“It was a good way to meet girls”) and wasn’t a particularly serious student until he reached the more interesting upper-division courses in marine ecology.

A rare giant sea bass surprised Lafferty while he was collecting fish to look for parasites in waters off Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands National Park. Lafferty says the close encounter with this protected giant fish made this one of his Top 10 dives. (Credit: David Kushner/National Park Service)
His youthful passions most certainly did not involve parasites. But while on a student field trip to nearby mudflats, he met UCSB parasitologist Armand Kuris. Kuris was so impressed with Lafferty’s smarts and their easy flow of conversation that he tracked Lafferty down on campus and recruited him to join his lab as a PhD student. Lafferty agreed on one condition: He would study marine ecology, but not parasites. “I found them disgusting.”
The Santa Barbara campus, situated on a cliff overlooking the Pacific Ocean, has a powerful allure to marine scientists, beach lovers and surfers. It has three premier surf breaks, substantial waves in the fall and winter, and glorious weather nearly year-round. It also has a laid-back style that makes even the most hard-charging professors more collaborative than cutthroat.
Graduate students, particularly those in the marine sciences who surf, never want to leave. Those who manage a rewarding surf-adjacent career can be the targets of considerable envy. When Lafferty’s work, years after his student days, was featured in the Canadian television series The Nature of Things, video images showed him catching and riding a wave with a classic surf rock song, “California Baby,” filling the soundtrack. Show host David Suzuki introduced him this way: “Kevin Lafferty… has a rough life.”

Lafferty holds a California horn snail, Cerithideopsis californica, which has an even chance of being infected with one of 20 species of parasitic flatworms called trematodes. As parasitic castrators, these trematodes consume the snail’s gonad and then ride around in the host for the rest of its natural life. (Credit: Kenneth R. Weiss)
Suzuki didn’t know the half of it. Not only did Lafferty manage to stay at UCSB after grad school (by snagging a job with the USGS that permitted him to work from the university), but he ultimately took up residence in the only home on a 170-acre protected area next to campus, the Coal Oil Point Natural Reserve. And it just happens to have an unobstructed view of 30 miles of coastline and unrivaled access to the surf he loves so much (he self-published a guidebook, The Essentials of Surfing, in 2013). “It looks like he has it all, but he did it piece by piece,” says Kuris, who has now collaborated with Lafferty for nearly three decades. “You only do that if you have a high level of self-confidence. Kevin was committed to his geography. I knew he was serious when he gave up a two-year postdoc in Cambridge.”
One critical life piece fell into place soon after Lafferty joined Kuris’s lab to pursue his PhD. It so happened that the only job available to fund his graduate work was as a teaching assistant in the parasitology class, the topic that so revolted him. As he was learning about parasites so he could teach the course, he realized that all of the marine creatures he thought he knew so well — ever since his boyhood curled up with Between Pacific Tides — were full of parasites. And in many cases, the parasites were having their way with his beloved abalone, sea stars and sand crabs.
It hit him that here was an opportunity to break new ground. “Although lots of people had studied parasites for their own sake, or as problems to be solved, it seemed like an open playing field to start asking how parasites fit into natural ecosystems,” he says. He spent the next two years cracking horn snails with a hammer to collect trematodes in estuaries from San Francisco to Baja. His work solidified how the parasites were affecting the snails’ abundance and evolution — finding, for example, that snails in areas with high infection rates have evolved to mature and reproduce early, before they get castrated.

Pursuing parasites in the lab: Step one: discard the filet from this ling cod. Step two: place the gills, gonad, liver, intestines and other organs on glass plates to be squashed for examination under the microscope. Parasites are ubiquitous in nature; many of these freeloaders hitch a ride without seriously impairing their host. (Credit: Kenneth R. Weiss)
Another life piece emerged in his second year of grad school, when a new PhD student arrived from Brazil. She’d recently completed a master’s on social spiders that cooperate to weave webs the size of volleyball nets. Cristina Sandoval moved into the office across the corridor in Noble Hall, which housed the usual assortment of beach-casual grad students studying ecology and evolutionary biology. She showed up every day wearing high heels, stockings, gloves and pillbox hats. “No one knew what to make of her,” Lafferty recalls. She needed help to learn English. He volunteered.
One marriage, two children and three decades later, they live in a blufftop doublewide trailer in the Coal Oil Point reserve. Sandoval, a PhD evolutionary biologist, has spent more than 20 years as the reserve’s director, managing a small army of docents and volunteers who protect the shoreline, dunes, estuary and the western snowy plover, a fluffy little shorebird threatened with extinction. She’s celebrated for innovative approaches, such as grabbing marauding skunks by the tail before they can eat plover eggs. Once hoisted aloft, skunks are incapable of spraying. Or so she says.
In addition to the USGS job, Lafferty codirects the Parasite Ecology Group at UCSB, which provides him an office and lab space. Although he doesn’t teach regularly, he mentors a half-dozen PhD students and a couple of post-doctoral researchers. The USGS, which once tolerated his parasitology work, now embraces it because of its value in managing natural resources, including rare and threatened species such as abalone, sea otters and island foxes in the nearby Channel Islands National Park.
Lafferty’s day begins at dawn as he walks the family dog, Hubble, and checks the surf from the bluff. Forget that image of the slacker surfer: Lafferty is as disciplined with his surfing as he is with his science. At age 55, he surfs more than he did when he was 40. He knows this because he tracks every surf session, as well as every session in the gym, and every pound of weight he’s carrying, in an Excel spreadsheet. Pie charts and fever graphs reveal, through an elaborate point system, if he has met his goal for the week, the month, the year. He refuses desserts with sugar. Beer gets banished any time he tips the scale above 160 pounds. His wife finds his discipline a bit strange; his colleagues find it enviable, an extension of his intense work focus.

Lafferty catches a wave near Santa Barbara, California, where he lives and works studying marine creatures from microscopic parasites to great white sharks. (Credit: Kenneth R. Weiss)
Colleagues point to how Lafferty can quickly size up the science, map out the fieldwork and then plow ahead without distraction. “I’ve worked with finishers before, but he’s quite remarkable,” says Peter Hudson, a wildlife disease ecologist at Pennsylvania State University. “He does it. He finishes it and he publishes it. He’s a machine.”
All told, Lafferty has published more than 200 articles in Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and other peer-reviewed journals. Much of his work focuses on parasitology. He and colleagues worked out how to halt an epidemic of schistosomiasis in Senegal by reintroducing freshwater river prawns that eat the intermediate host of the blood fluke that causes the disease. He discovered how the eradication of rats on Palmyra Atoll in the Central Pacific had a second benefit: the local extinction of the Asian tiger mosquito, a vector for the dengue and Zika viruses. His work often veers into other topics of marine ecology and conservation biology, such as recently detecting the presence of white sharks near Santa Barbara by collecting seawater samples with telltale environmental DNA.
Hudson and other collaborators say that Lafferty is an astute naturalist as well as a solid scientist who understands theory and how to design an experiment that will yield the data needed to test a hypothesis.
“He’s one of the top people in both areas, and that is rare,” says Andrew P. Dobson, an infectious disease ecologist at Princeton University. “We have had tremendous fun together. It’s as much fun writing down equations on a blackboard as it is digging through the mud looking for creatures.”
Lafferty also is one of the few federal researchers to be promoted to senior scientist in the USGS, with a rank and pay grade similar to that of a brigadier general in the Army. “He’s unusual as a federal scientist,” says James Estes, a former USGS researcher and emeritus ecologist at UC Santa Cruz. “There are not many as creative and productive. He’s a top scientist by any metric.”
Although he comes across as even-keeled and dispassionate, Lafferty’s not afraid of calling out a faulty scientific argument, or sticking up for the lowly parasite. Many marine-disease experts come from veterinarian or wildlife-welfare backgrounds. Their mission, as they see it, is to minimize the impact of parasites on wildlife. Lafferty, as an ecologist, views parasites as part of nature, not a scourge to be wiped off the planet.
He doesn’t mind ruffling feathers. In 2015, he wrote a paper, “Sea Otter Health: Challenging a Pet Hypothesis,” that questioned a well-publicized scientific theory that polluted urban runoff carrying domestic cat feces was infecting the adorable, button-nosed otters with toxoplasmosis. The data showed the opposite was true: More otters were infected with toxoplasmosis along the lightly populated Big Sur coast than near the city of Monterey. “I expect,” Lafferty admonished, “that future directions in sea otter health research will continue this recognition that marine diseases are part of nature, and that sea otter parasites might, ironically, indicate wilderness, not a dirty ocean.”
Lafferty has a particular affinity for Toxoplasma gondii, the single-celled protozoan behind toxoplasmosis. It’s his favorite, he says, among the hundreds of parasites known to hijack the brains of their hosts. T. gondii tricks rats into being unafraid and even aroused by the smell of cat urine, which seems to make them more likely to get eaten by a cat. This phenomenon, dubbed “feline fatal attraction,” allows the protozoan to reach its primary host, where it can reproduce and complete its lifecycle.

An image of a cyst of Toxoplasma gondii, taken with a transmission electron microscope. Within the cyst, one can see the parasites developing. T. gondii infects many warm-blooded animals, including human beings, usually without obvious symptoms. The parasite alters the behavior of infected rodents; Lafferty is among those investigating whether asymptomatic infections might affect human behavior as well. (Credit: CDC)
T. gondii infects warm-blooded animals of all kinds, including as many as two-thirds of the human population in some countries, and nearly no one in others. In the United States, about one in eight is infected. It encysts in the human brain and, although it can cause serious eye and brain damage in a human fetus, is mostly asymptomatic in adults with healthy immune systems.
Or is it? Some studies have suggested that the parasite may have subtle, mind-manipulating effects on unintended human hosts — on traits such as guilt or impulsiveness. Other studies have noted slower reaction times or diminished ability to focus, suggesting these may be why infected people have a nearly threefold higher chance of being involved in a car accident. Lafferty has run with this idea to ask if parasite-triggered personality traits might explain differences in cultures around the globe. He concludes, for example, that T. gondii might explain a third of the variation of neuroticism among different countries.
Lafferty explored these ideas in a TEDx Talk, “A Parasite’s Perspective,” delivered in California’s Sonoma County in 2016. He ended with a personal note that his blood test was negative for T. gondii, but that about 100 members of the audience were likely infected. How would they react if they were? “You’ve just learned that in your brain is a parasite that would like nothing better than for you to be eaten by a cat,” he deadpanned. “How do you feel about that shared personality?”

In his UCSB office, Lafferty holds a plush-toy anglerfish knitted by former post-doctoral researcher Julia Buck. The toy is sufficiently anatomically correct to show how the tiny parasitic male anglerfish, colored red, implants himself into the female’s body. The male feeds off his mate’s circulatory system while supplying sperm. (Credit: Kenneth R. Weiss)
Off the stage, Lafferty says he recognizes that these can be considered wild ideas but he finds them a good way help people think about the role parasites play in the broad ecological picture. He has a healthy skepticism about extrapolating effects in rodent brains to humans, and well understands that correlation between parasites and behaviors does not equal causation. “It’s hard to prove,” he says. But what if there were something to the car crash data? “If that’s true, that’s a big deal. We are talking about thousands of deaths around the world.”
Lafferty is acutely aware that he has a privileged, wealthy worldview of parasites, making it too easy to enjoy such thought experiments or view them as cute little study subjects. “I’ve never lost a child to a parasitic infection or suffered a debilitating illness because of one,” he says, horrible circumstances that occur too often in poor countries.
Still, he hopes that, at least in scientific circles, attitudes toward parasites will evolve the way they have for other threatening creatures such as sharks, wolves and mountain lions — ones that, until recently, we rushed out to exterminate without considering the ramifications.
In an “us versus them” view of the natural world, parasites will usually be put on the other team, he says. But that’s not the only way to think about it. “The key to doing science is you don’t want to be rooting for a team, because it takes the objectivity away,” he says.
“That’s how we are going to understand them: by not taking a side.”
10.1146/knowable-121218-1
Kenneth R. Weiss, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, writes and surfs from his home in Carpinteria, California. @KennethWeiss kennethr.weiss@gmail.com
This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews.

Two sides of a tag from ~3,100 BC Mesopotamia describing the transfer of 25 female and 5 male goats. The crossed circle is the symbol for goat, the circles and semicircles represent numbers and the fish symbol indicates a lord involved in the exchange. (Credit: Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History; photo by K. Wagensonner)
About 5,000 years ago, 30 goats changed hands between Sumerians. To record the transaction, a receipt was carved onto a clay tag, about the size of a Post-it. Simple geometric signs represented the livestock and purveyor. The indents of circles and semicircles denoted the quantity exchanged.
Imagine how surprised these people would be to learn their receipt is now held in a museum. Read More
Humans have a tendency to litter wherever we go. Whether it’s the local park, a music festival, or Mt. Everest, we’re just not good at cleaning up after ourselves. And space is no exception.
Space is pretty big. Infinite, in fact. But the same can’t be said of low-Earth orbit (LEO) and, in particular, the most popular orbital lanes used by Earth-sensing and communications satellites. We’re launching more objects skyward every year and not, in many cases, cleaning up when we’re done with them. So the space around us is starting to fill up. Read More
For many people, the holiday ritual of baking cookies isn’t complete without also eating some of the raw dough. In my family, questions like “Who gets to lick the beaters?” and “Can I grab a piece of dough?” were always part of the cookie-making experience.
Yet, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly issued warnings about the dangers of consuming raw dough. Specific statements have included: “The bottom line for you and your kids is don’t eat raw dough,” “Don’t give your kids raw dough or baking mixes that contain flour to play with” and “Don’t make homemade cookie dough ice cream.”
In fact, the commissioner of the FDA tweeted a rhyme on the topic on Dec. 10, 2018: “You can not eat it in a house. You can not eat it with a mouse. We do not like it here or there. We do not like it anywhere.”
While Commissioner Scott Gottlieb’s “#FDA we are” rhyme was a fun reference to the “Sam I am!” of the Dr. Seuss’ original “Green Eggs and Ham,” the FDA’s message understandably raised confusion and concern among dough-loving consumers.
So, this leads to two questions:
1) Are there really risks of eating raw cookie dough?
2) Is it appropriate for public health officials to imply that no one should eat cookie dough (something that I, and apparently many others, enjoy) because of this risk?
To answer the first question: Yes, there are indeed at least two kinds of potential risks related to consuming raw cookie dough.
First, when most people think about health risks and cookie dough, they think about raw egg. Eggs can be contaminated with salmonella bacteria, and food safety recommendations encourage people to cook eggs until the white and yolk are firm in order to kill any bacteria.
However, anyone making cookies can do things to reduce this risk by using pasteurized egg products. When my kids and I make cookie dough, we never use regular eggs. Instead, we use shell eggs that have been pasteurized to kill any harmful bacteria without actually cooking the egg itself. (A great public health innovation, if you ask me!) As a result, we don’t have to worry about the eggs in the cookie dough.
The other, often underappreciated risk of raw cookie dough is the risk of the flour itself. While contamination of raw flour is rare, it can happen. Wheat grows in fields close to animals. When they “heed the call of nature,” as the FDA put it, wheat can become contaminated. In 2016, there was a nationwide recall of flour found to be contaminated with E. coli bacteria that led to dozens of people getting sick. Some were even hospitalized, and one went into kidney failure.
Such recall notices are extremely important. When we know that a product is contaminated, we can and should make absolutely sure to get rid of it. As soon as I read the recall notice, I checked whether my extra flour was recalled. It wasn’t. If it had been, or even if I hadn’t been sure, I would have thrown it out, no questions.
But, this takes us to the second of my questions: If we take steps to minimize risk (such as using nonrecalled flour and pasteurized eggs), do consumers really have to stop eating cookie dough because of these risks?
I’m the last person to say that communications about public health risks are unimportant. Public health officials have a duty to warn people about the health risks associated with raw egg and even raw flour. When we have evidence that specific people are at risk, public health officials need to actively promote the actions that those people can take to minimize the identified risk. Doing so supports both public health objectives and individual decision-making.
By contrast, when a public health agency unequivocally states “Don’t eat raw dough” (regardless of whether flour or other ingredients were affected by a recall or not), it is implying (falsely) that no one could rationally disagree.
Well, I’m a public health faculty member, and I disagree.
I know that some public health officials will be horrified by my statement. They will believe that I am undermining their message and giving people permission to put themselves at risk unnecessarily.
But the key word of the previous sentence is “unnecessarily.” Whether something is necessary or not is not a scientific judgment. It is a value judgment. An FDA official may personally believe that eating raw cookie dough isn’t important and choose to never eat it. That is their choice. At the same time, I can believe that eating cookie dough (made from flour known to be not part of the recall and pasteurized eggs) is something that I enjoy enough that I’m willing to put myself and my children at (a very small) risk to do.
As public health experts, we don’t want people to treat food recalls like math problems and estimate their likelihood of getting sick. If you have affected food, you need to act. Period.
But if I know that my flour is not recalled, then there is no specific reason to believe that the flour is not OK to eat raw. The only risk is the very small, baseline risk – for example, that the flour has been contaminated by a different and as-of-yet unknown source.
We can’t pretend that we live our lives without risk. I put myself and my children at risk every time we get into our car. Every time we eat sushi or rare hamburgers. Every time one of us takes medications. Every time we ride a bike or play soccer.
Yet, many of us choose to do those things anyway, while minimizing risk when we can (for example, by wearing seat belts and bike helmets). We choose life and risk over safety and a life a little less enjoyable. It is not irrational to treat cookie dough the same way.
So, to my fellow public health practitioners: Let’s keep working on informing the public about health risks that they may not anticipate or appreciate. Motivating people to take immediate action about specific food recalls. Encouraging people to minimize risks.
At the same time, let’s all please remind ourselves that our goal is not to minimize all risk, no matter the cost. Our goal is to maximize life. Sometimes maximizing life means warning people that their flour is contaminated and making sure they throw it out. Sometimes maximizing life means letting them enjoy some (carefully prepared) cookie dough without shame.
There is risk in eating raw cookie dough. Nonetheless, as I noted in my Twitter reply to Dr. Gottleib’s rhyme: “… if raw dough makes you rejoice, accepting risk might be a choice. … But it’s your choice re what to do. Neither FDA nor I are you.”
This is an updated version of an article that was published originally on July 14, 2016.![]()
Brian Zikmund-Fisher, Associate Professor of Health Behavior and Health Education, Associate Director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Environmentally conscious consumers often ask me whether a real Christmas tree or an artificial one is the more sustainable choice. As a horticulture and forestry researcher, I know this question is also a concern for the Christmas tree industry, which is wary of losing market share to artificial trees.
And they have good reason: Of the 48.5 million Christmas trees Americans purchased in 2017, 45 percent were artificial, and that share is growing. Many factors can influence this choice, but the bottom line is that both real and artificial Christmas trees have negligible environmental impacts. Which option “wins” in terms of carbon footprint depends entirely on assumptions about how long consumers would keep an artificial tree versus how far they would drive each year to purchase a real tree.
Forget meditation, forget ayahuasca ceremonies and mindfulness practice. Today, knowing yourself is as easy as swabbing your cheek. Home genetics tests like those offered by 23andme are becoming readily affordable — just $69 for a test kit — and they offer an unprecedented look at our personal blueprint.
It’s even possible today to study the genetics of your potential offspring before they’re born. So-called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis analyzes DNA from an embryo when it’s nothing more than a few cells. Even at that stage it’s possible to divine the unique set of genes that will shape a person’s life.
The tests are currently used for parents at risk of passing on dangerous genetic conditions, but they could conceivably do much more. Studies have picked out groups of genes associated with intelligence, academic achievement, criminal activity and other life outcomes. It now seems possible to chart your children’s lives before they ever emerge into the world. Read More
When Adam Nash was still an embryo, living in a dish in the lab, scientists tested his DNA to make sure it was free of Fanconi anemia, the rare inherited blood disease from which his sister Molly suffered. They also checked his DNA for a marker that would reveal whether he shared the same tissue type. Molly needed a donor match for stem cell therapy, and her parents were determined to find one. Adam was conceived so the stem cells in his umbilical cord could be the lifesaving treatment for his sister.
Adam Nash is considered to be the first designer baby, born in 2000 using in vitro fertilizaton with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, a technique used to choose desired characteristics. The media covered the story with empathy for the parents’ motives but not without reminding the reader that “eye color, athletic ability, beauty, intelligence, height, stopping a propensity towards obesity, guaranteeing freedom from certain mental and physical illnesses, all of these could in the future be available to parents deciding to have a designer baby.”
The designer babies have thus been called the “future-we-should-not-want” for each new reproductive technology or intervention. But the babies never came and are nowhere close. I am not surprised.
This summer, in the introductory course I teach on the evolution and biology of human and animal behavior, I showed my students a website that demonstrates how to identify frog “genders.” I explained that this was a misuse of the term “gender”; what the author meant was how to identify frog sexes. Gender, I told the students, goes far beyond mere sex differences in appearance or behavior. It refers to something complex and abstract that may well be unique to Homo sapiens. This idea is nothing new; scholars have been saying for decades that only humans have gender. But later that day I began to wonder: Is it really true that gender identity is totally absent among nonhuman species — even our closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos?
Before tackling this question, it is necessary to define “sex” and “gender.” Sex refers to biological traits associated with male and female bodies. Sex isn’t a perfect binary, but it is relatively simple compared to gender.

Most scientists think language emerged in stages, as our ancestors evolved the necessary adaptations for speech. (Credit: Sergey Uryadnikov/shutterstock)
Humans have language and other animals don’t. That’s obvious, but how it happened is not. Since Darwin’s time, scientists have puzzled over the evolution of language. They can observe the present-day product: People today have the capacity for language, whether it be spoken, signed or written. And they can infer the starting state: The communication systems of other apes suggest abilities present in our shared ancestor.
But the million-dollar question is what happened in between. How did we transition from ape-like communication to full-fledged human language?
Read More