[HN Gopher] Parasites are everywhere. Why do so few researchers ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Parasites are everywhere. Why do so few researchers study them?
        
       Author : sohkamyung
       Score  : 136 points
       Date   : 2024-08-01 12:07 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
        
       | rwmj wrote:
       | If you're ever in Tokyo, the Meguro Parasitological Museum is
       | genuinely worth a visit although maybe don't go straight out for
       | sushi afterwards as we did.
       | 
       | Pictures of parasites:
       | https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/meguro-parasitological-m...
        
         | throwup238 wrote:
         | Now you've got me curious... are parasites part of any
         | culture's diet? I'm assuming human parasites are a hard no
         | since it'd be like mainlining the eggs, but are there any
         | parasitic species that we eat? There's probably more plant ones
         | like huitlacoche but I can't think of any edible animal
         | parasite.
         | 
         | I know there's _Ophiocordyceps sinensis_ which attacks
         | caterpillars but that's more traditional medicine than food.
        
           | xyzzy_plugh wrote:
           | I think you mean parasites that we purposefully eat, but
           | there are parasites everywhere. If you eat raw, or cooked
           | fish, there's a reasonable chance you've eaten (hopefully
           | dead) parasites. But not all parasites are harmful to humans,
           | so you tend to hear less about those.
        
           | philshem wrote:
           | Here are some examples of parasites that are purposely eaten
           | by humans:
           | 
           | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-parasitic-
           | spe...
        
             | Pompidou wrote:
             | Becasse pate with tapeworms in France ??? I m french and
             | never Heard of this. And I can't find anything in french
             | about this on internet. I'm sceptical...
        
               | WillyF wrote:
               | I asked a French friend who comes from a long line of
               | hunters. He'd never heard of it either. There are quite a
               | few French woodcock preparations that include eating the
               | guts, but I've never heard anything about tapeworms. I've
               | also cleaned quite a few American woodcock, and I have
               | never seen a tapeworm in the innards.
        
           | rwmj wrote:
           | There's an excellent answer already, but I would like to add
           | mushrooms, since some of them are parasitic (eg ones that
           | grow on trees). So I think: shiitake mushrooms.
        
             | nick__m wrote:
             | The mushroom that grows in ants are parasitic and scary.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis
        
               | daedrdev wrote:
               | Which itself gets parasitized by other fungi
        
       | lqet wrote:
       | > Parasitism is far from easy living; hundreds of millions of
       | years of evolution have prodded parasites to find and manipulate
       | other animals, just as those animals have evolved their own
       | unique methods of survival.
       | 
       | Parasites manipulating their hosts is something that really
       | fascinates me from an evolutionary point of view. An example
       | given in the article is T. gondii [0]:
       | 
       | > [...] a parasitic protozoan that boasts "Mind Control," because
       | it attracts its rodent host to the smell of cat urine, where the
       | rat spreads the parasite to felines.
       | 
       | Infected mice also have a reduced fear from predators, likely for
       | the same reason.
       | 
       | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii
        
         | shagie wrote:
         | > Infected mice also have a reduced fear from predators, likely
         | for the same reason.
         | 
         | In primates, there's some non-fear of cats too. For humans and
         | domestic felines, this isn't much of an issue. For chimpanzees
         | who share territory with leopards, this is more of an issue.
         | https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/science/a-parasite-leopar...
         | (and the paper - Morbid attraction to leopard urine in
         | Toxoplasma-infected chimpanzees
         | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221...
         | )
        
           | SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
           | Ancestral humans shared territory with leopards, and children
           | were vulnerable (1). Big cats are still dangerous.
           | 
           | Having a leopard stare at you, even through a fence, does
           | raise the heart rate. But I don't know why we regard big cats
           | so relatively favourably, when an evolved innate repulsion,
           | such as to spiders or snakes, would make as much sense.
           | 
           | 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_attack#Leopard_preda
           | ti...
        
             | CuriouslyC wrote:
             | Cats are just aesthetically well put together animals. We
             | probably also like the smaller ones due to 5000 years of
             | them predating upon vermin that like to hang around our
             | encampments.
        
               | thinkingemote wrote:
               | 5000 years isn't that long in evolutionary biology
               | timescales. But culturally we do kinda like the
               | usefulness of the smaller cats.
               | 
               | I would say that the cute cats are domesticated species,
               | like many animals. So they wouldn't exist without humans,
               | and it's in their benefit to behave to survive.
        
               | CuriouslyC wrote:
               | Interestingly enough, the genomes of wild forest cats and
               | domestic cats have diverged FAR less than other
               | domesticated animals such as dogs/sheep/etc. We
               | domesticated other animals, but up until the 18th century
               | or so I'd say it's more accurate to describe what we've
               | done with cats as "co-evolution"
        
               | shagie wrote:
               | Cats are more "companion" rather than "domesticated" and
               | (until recently) cats weren't bred for specific traits
               | (and those now tend to be aesthetic choices rather than
               | "practical" choices).
               | 
               | Compare this with dogs that are more of a "working
               | animal." We've bread dogs to fill specific roles because
               | they were larger to work with. If humanity had tried to
               | find companionship in the mountain lion instead of Felis
               | lybica (the wild cat).
               | 
               | Also for the how almost-domestic the African wild cats
               | are: https://youtu.be/ZRqlSr1Yp1M
               | 
               | The other part of it (as I understand it) is that cats
               | body form is not as easily selected for when compared to
               | animals that humans have domesticated.
               | 
               | Dogs have a number of body sizes that can be "easily"
               | selected for - https://embarkvet.com/products/dog-
               | traits/traits-list/#body-... and
               | https://embarkvet.com/products/dog-traits/traits-
               | list/#other... (there's even a mutation of
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPAS1 in wolves that was
               | selectively bred into dogs
               | https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/3/734/2843179 )
               | 
               | I suspect part of the lack of range comes also from that
               | the cats of size that don't eat us are not ones that can
               | be crossbred with cats in the wild to introduce new
               | useful genes. Trying to cross a domestic cat a wild cat
               | doesn't produce a new cat that is useful in a new role ( 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felid_hybrids#Confirmed_dom
               | est... ). Compare this with domestic dogs and the various
               | wild dog species.
        
               | nradov wrote:
               | Dogs have twice as many chromosomes as cats. This makes
               | it easier to selectively breed them for desired
               | characteristics.
        
               | CuriouslyC wrote:
               | Dogs also have some features of their DNA that makes it
               | more mutable than some other species.
        
               | zargon wrote:
               | House cats are nearly genetically identical to wildcats.
               | Which is to say, the species has always and still does
               | exist without humans.
        
               | schmidtleonard wrote:
               | > Cats are just aesthetically well put together animals
               | 
               | "They have a mat of messy protein extrusions in place of
               | an exoskeleton, their eyes have no facets, and their
               | thorax is completely indistinct from their abdomen!"
               | 
               | - Insect Aesthetician
        
               | SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
               | "And a ghastly shortage of legs!"
               | 
               | While I subjectively agree about cats, "aesthetically
               | well put together" is downstream of the "evolved innate"
               | factors.
        
               | 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
               | Faceted eyes wear your brain out faster from all the
               | input. Maybe a bug would think they're a feature.
        
               | lo_zamoyski wrote:
               | I don't agree with that kind of aesthetic relativism. It
               | undermines both the nature of the mind as something that
               | can objectively know reality (which undermines the
               | relativistic claim at the same time), and the richness of
               | reality itself. Materialism is bunk, and something that
               | corrupts and replaced reality with some crude reductive
               | imaginary thing.
               | 
               | Beauty is objective. Taste is subjective. Hence why we
               | can say that someone has poor taste, i.e., the subjective
               | fails to align with the objective.
               | 
               | I can admire the beauty of an insect _as an insect_
               | without me being an insect. Similarly, if an insect were
               | intelligent, possessed with an intellect, it could judge
               | the feline as a beautiful creature _as a feline_.
               | 
               | "As _X_ " is important, because it is a matter of how
               | well the specimen realizes the telos of its species.
               | Hence, why defect is ugly. You wouldn't say pi is an ugly
               | integer. You wouldn't say a hammer is a crappy saw. You
               | wouldn't say a fish is a bad mountain hiker, except as a
               | shorthand for "fish do not mountain hike, are not
               | anatomically + physiologically ordered toward hiking".
               | 
               | And of course there degrees of good, and therefore,
               | beauty, based on how much more you resemble the Highest
               | Good and therefore the Most Beautiful, Goodness and
               | Beauty as such.
        
               | nine_k wrote:
               | Cats have large, forward-facing eyes, and a relatively
               | short snout and jaws (especially smaller cats like the
               | domestic cats, caracals, etc). This makes them look less
               | like a typical predator (long jaws, like wolf's) and less
               | like a typical grazing animal (side-looking eyes, long
               | jaws, like a horse or camel). They look close enough to
               | humans to look cute, possibly triggering some if the low-
               | level reactions which human babies trigger.
               | 
               | Arthropods and even snakes are morphologically too
               | distant for that. Nevertheless, people usually find
               | large-eyed geckos more cute than armor-eyed chameleons or
               | tiny-eyed crocodiles.
        
             | Nevermark wrote:
             | The crazy jumping around people do when they are
             | unexpectedly exposed to a proximate spider or snake might
             | not be so adaptive for escaping large cats.
        
             | formerly_proven wrote:
             | Probably not the only one who finds spiders
             | interesting/curious/useful but most insects kinda
             | disgusting/ugly/dirty.
        
               | seanw444 wrote:
               | I've grown quite fond of spiders. I don't have the same
               | aversion I used to when I was younger. There are so many
               | hobo spiders on the exterior of my house, but I leave
               | them be unless they're in my way, because they've
               | noticeably reduced the populations of every other
               | nuisance bug. As long as they keep to themselves and
               | don't invade my space, I'll let them chill. And I just
               | relocate them if they wander in. Killing them is just
               | sad.
               | 
               | Wolf spiders are welcome in my basement though. They are
               | smart enough and have good enough eyesight that the
               | likelihood of getting bit by one is super low. They hunt
               | down all the pests in your home.
               | 
               | What makes them extremely cool is that they're kinda like
               | nature's hydraulic robots.
        
               | nine_k wrote:
               | Humans have even less aversion towards marine arthropods.
               | A lot of people would find eating beetles gross, but eat
               | gladly shrimp, and find a lobster a delicacy.
        
               | hapidjus wrote:
               | I don't think this is universal for all cultures.
        
             | BurningFrog wrote:
             | Big cats look adorable on a screen.
             | 
             | In person they can produce a different reaction.
        
               | marcosdumay wrote:
               | > In person they can produce a different reaction.
               | 
               | A couple of years ago, a jaguar climbed from its habitat
               | on the local zoo here, and put its paw over the fence to
               | "play" with the humans.
               | 
               | A really unexplainable amount of people did not have a
               | different reaction.
        
             | thaumasiotes wrote:
             | > Ancestral humans shared territory with leopards, and
             | children were vulnerable
             | 
             | For a long time I've been interested in the fact that
             | children are afraid that, if they are left alone, they will
             | be eaten by monsters.
             | 
             | In the ancestral environment, this is absolutely true. But
             | the belief is obviously innate and not learned. What's
             | interesting is that the innate belief is correct in the
             | details, as opposed to being something that is not
             | necessarily true but nevertheless produces the correct
             | behavior.
        
             | digging wrote:
             | I've read, and like, a theory that their unpredictable
             | movement is a big driver in the fear of spiders and snakes.
             | I just found this with a quick search, for some evidence
             | (it's not what I read originally, years ago): https://journ
             | als.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20438087231151...
             | 
             | Of course, I'm not an expert in anything so this could be
             | bunk.
        
           | trte9343r4 wrote:
           | Some people lost fear from other predators: aggressive dogs.
           | They even force family members to live in dangerous
           | situation, where they get attacked and injured regularly.
           | 
           | Mental illness or brain parasite is the only possible
           | explanation for dog owners behavior.
        
           | workincircles wrote:
           | A fascinating video of a leopard attacking baboons[1]. The
           | big cat achieves a scratch on one baboon and then runs away
           | from the troop. Enough to infect and then later pick off an
           | errant victim? To my eye, the baboons are sad at the
           | expectation that they will soon lose a friend.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5wnKEXs6YM
        
         | calepayson wrote:
         | Check out "The Extended Phenotype" (if you haven't already). I
         | think you'll love it!
        
         | mc_maurer wrote:
         | I did my PhD studying manipulative parasites and in general,
         | impacts of parasites/parasitoids on host behavior.
         | 
         | This is my absolute favorite example:
         | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
         | 
         | A parasitoid lays multiple eggs in a caterpillar host. The
         | larvae eventually hatch out of the host's body, but do NOT kill
         | it. They then need to pupate outside the host, which leaves
         | them vulnerable to predation. Their former host, the
         | caterpillar whose body they just violently erupted from, will
         | then act as a BODYGUARD. It will body slam any insects that
         | approach, knocking them away from the pupae. Truly the stuff of
         | science fiction.
        
           | mc_maurer wrote:
           | Another one of my favorite papers of all time:
           | https://www.jstor.org/stable/29779588
           | 
           | There's a nematomorph parasite that infects crickets, and
           | part of its life cycle is aquatic. It will induce crickets to
           | jump into water and drown themselves (there are some crazy
           | videos of this on YouTube). This study found that the
           | allochthonous input (land to water) coming from the crickets
           | jumping into a Japenese stream was a large part of an
           | endangered trout species' diet. In short, his trout was kept
           | alive because of a parasite driving crickets to drown
           | themselves.
        
             | thaumasiotes wrote:
             | > This study found that the allochthonous input (land to
             | water) coming from the crickets jumping into a Japenese
             | stream was a large part of an endangered trout species'
             | diet. In short, his trout was kept alive because of a
             | parasite driving crickets to drown themselves.
             | 
             | The summary doesn't seem to follow from the finding. The
             | fact that you mostly just eat crickets that walk up and ask
             | to be eaten doesn't immediately imply that, if the crickets
             | stopped doing that, you'd starve to death. It should be
             | easy to understand the choice to go with a low-effort
             | option even if there's also a higher-effort option
             | available.
        
               | mc_maurer wrote:
               | There's an inherent cost to foraging, so a high-quality
               | food item that requires little effort is a much greater
               | net energy benefit. When we're talking about an
               | endangered species whose margins are quite slim to begin
               | with, this can be a big difference maker. A couple dead
               | trout reduces the population size, increases inbreeding
               | depression, things aren't looking so good. I certainly
               | oversimplified the mechanisms here, but a change in 60%
               | of an organism's diet is not easily dismissed.
        
           | mc_maurer wrote:
           | Ok one more, I can't help myself.
           | 
           | This one isn't really a manipulative parasite, but there is
           | an isopod that will eat a fish's tongue:
           | https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2022/04/28/tongue-
           | eating-l...
           | 
           | What's weird is that it then... basically acts like a tongue?
           | It doesn't seem to be massively detrimental to its host, but
           | it's absolutely insane to see a fish's mouth open and then
           | there's just like, a little guy hanging out in there.
        
             | kome wrote:
             | crazy, and terrible!!!
        
             | burnished wrote:
             | Jesus fuck. I knew about these guys but did not know they
             | perform this by hanging out in fish gills until they get a
             | breeding pair, them one crawls from the gills to the tongue
             | to clamp on and replace the damned thing, and later they
             | reproduce and spread young from the gills!
        
           | throwanem wrote:
           | Don't you think you're underplaying your hand here a little?
           | The mechanism of this behavioral modification is in itself
           | both beautiful and extremely spooky:
           | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracovirus
        
           | digging wrote:
           | I'm loving your contributions to these comments.
           | 
           | Tangentially: assuming I had the drive + health to make the
           | change, do you feel it would be a particularly challenging
           | move for a software engineer to abandon their career to go
           | back to school and study insects or other arthropods? I'm not
           | a competitive person at all, and I saw your other comment
           | above about the field, but I still imagine the money
           | available for studying bugs is a tiny fraction of that for
           | writing them.
        
         | thrownblown wrote:
         | Toxo comes into the picture by way of an old wives' tale
         | forbidding mothers from having cats around during pregnancy.
         | Basically the only spot that toxo can reproduce itself is
         | within a cat's stomach. The toxo then goes out with the feces
         | (which is where the caution comes from) and rodents eat the
         | feces. Toxo's mission is to get that rodent back into the
         | stomach of a cat.
         | 
         | Rodents themselves are genetically wired to fear cats. A rat
         | that smells cat urine will go the other way. However, get that
         | same rodent infected with toxo and it will suddenly be
         | attracted to the scent. Thus it checks out cat urine and
         | becomes more likely to find itself in the stomach of a cat.
         | 
         | So you'd think toxo is wreaking havoc with all sorts of
         | elements within the rat, turning it into a deranged rat. Nope.
         | Everything else remains and functions normally - olfaction,
         | social behavior, learning and memory, and even fear behaviors
         | all stay the same.
         | 
         | It takes about 6 weeks for toxo to migrate from the gut to the
         | brain. In the brain it forms cysts in multiple locations, but
         | mainly in the amygdala region. The amygdala is the brain's
         | center for fear and anxiety. It is also the brain center for
         | forming predator aversion pathways. Once in the amygdala toxo
         | is able to take dendritic nerve cell endings and cause them to
         | shrivel up.
         | 
         | Shrivel up the dendritic spine, shrivel up the fear pathway.
         | 
         | Taking the creepiness up several notches, recall that other
         | fear/anxiety based behaviors remain constant. The parasite is
         | actually locating and unwiring the very pathway it needs to
         | destroy.
         | 
         | Amazingly, it does not stop there. Toxo wants to make cat urine
         | attractive and it is able to do so by hijacking another well
         | known pathway; sexual attraction. Part of the neural connection
         | for sexual activity passes through the amygdala. This gets
         | rewired and a rodent infected with toxo will no longer have a
         | fear response to the urine but it will have activation of this
         | sexual response pathway, resulting in attraction to the scent.
         | 
         | Eau de merde. C'est fantastique! They are mapping out the toxo
         | genome. One curious element discovered is that this protozoan
         | parasite has two genes for tyrosine hydroxylase. This is
         | responsible in part for the production of dopamine, which is
         | all about rewards and the anticipation of rewards (really it's
         | the thing that gets you to do the thing needed for the reward).
         | It acts as a catalyst in the conversion of L-tyrosine into
         | L-DOPA, which is in turn a precursor for dopamine.
         | 
         | So at the right moment, the parasite secretes the enzyme, thus
         | driving the neurons to create dopamine at the time the toxo
         | wants them to, thus associating dopamine with the neural
         | pathway that toxo wants used!
         | 
         | Do other parasites that are closely related to toxo share this
         | gene? No. Strangely it does not have genes for other common
         | hormones - just this one that allows it to plug into the key
         | for mammalian reward systems. And it starts generating it after
         | it has penetrated into the brain and formed cysts, especially
         | cysts in the amygdala.
         | 
         | For humans the current clinical dogma is that it's a disaster
         | for a fetus but otherwise runs its course and goes latent.
         | However, a small literature exists suggesting that males in
         | particular become more impulsive after a toxo infection and
         | that people who are toxo infected are 3-4 times more likely to
         | be killed in car accidents that involve reckless speeding.
         | 
         | He quips that this is a protozoan parasite that knows more
         | about the neurobiology of fear and motivation than 25,000
         | neuroscientists standing on each others' shoulders.
         | 
         | And it's not alone. The rabies virus knows how to control the
         | neurobiology of aggression. It makes the animal more likely to
         | bite and pass on the rabies infection.
         | 
         | from: http://www.robertsapolskyrocks.com/toxoplasmosis.html
         | 
         | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29906469/
         | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC117239/
         | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/13/2/593
         | 
         | Martin Shkreli is still getting raked of the coals over his
         | deraprim pricing shenanigans
         | 
         | https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...
        
           | unaindz wrote:
           | I have been fascinated by Toxo since I discovered it and this
           | is the most well put and complete explanation I have seen.
        
         | scns wrote:
         | One crazy thing about Toxoplasmosis: Humans infected get less
         | inhibited.
         | 
         | More often busted for breaking the speed limit.
         | 
         | More often founding a company.
        
       | pcdoodle wrote:
       | This should be some interesting discussion since parasites are
       | kind of the hackers of the biological world.
        
         | randcraw wrote:
         | I thought that honor belonged to viruses.
        
       | pydry wrote:
       | I've often thought that the economics profession could do with
       | more cross pollination with biology. Modeling the economy as a
       | living ecosystem with, for example, a network of parasites and
       | symbiotes would be more illuminating than the default
       | neoclassical mode that almost treats it like a sanitized gaseous
       | system where you turn a dial labeled "interest rates".
       | 
       | I'm pretty sure there's a lot of conceptual overlap between
       | parasitic/symbiotic organisms and economic relationships, too.
       | E.g. I'm pretty sure this kind of thing happens all the time in
       | scamming ecosystems:
       | 
       | >Often, in an effort to travel between host animals, parasites
       | will expose their hosts to new predators, like the tapeworm
       | Ligula intestinalis, which grows so large it changes the buoyancy
       | of the fish it inhabits, causing the fish to swim closer to the
       | surface and get eaten by birds.
        
         | bflesch wrote:
         | great idea, why don't you follow it?
        
           | 015UUZn8aEvW wrote:
           | It is in fact a good idea, and it would probably generate a
           | lot of insight. But it would be very politically dicey.
        
         | CuriouslyC wrote:
         | Sounds cool, if you can define economic "symbionts" and
         | "parasites" in a rigorous way I'm sure it would make an
         | interesting blog post.
        
         | bedobi wrote:
         | I don't disagree with you but economists are well aware of
         | economical parasitism. (rent seeking, negative exernalities,
         | game theory etc etc)
         | 
         | The whole point of the field of economics is not as popularly
         | believed to shill neoliberal, neoclassical free markets, it's
         | kind of the opposite - to study all the ways in which economics
         | models (and markets in general) fail (both in the abstract and
         | in the real world) and how to fix that. (and the solutions have
         | been known for decades at this point, but policymakers don't
         | implement them)
        
         | graphe wrote:
         | It has been, it's a field called sociology.
         | https://youtu.be/exPOPm8qQsY luhmann has something in it called
         | systems theory.
        
       | fipar wrote:
       | This is an excellent book for anyone that finds this subject
       | interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_Rex
        
         | bediger4000 wrote:
         | Second this recommendation! Great book, lots to learn in it.
        
       | gtmitchell wrote:
       | I immediately Ctrl-F'd for 'funding'. There's your problem right
       | there. If there's no money to support graduate students, you're
       | never going to get enough researchers to replace the ones you
       | have.
       | 
       | Additionally, graduate students tend to avoid selecting research
       | areas they dislike or find disgusting. The most disturbing
       | presentation I've ever watched was a slideshow given by a
       | parasitologist in which I saw worms in parts of the human body I
       | never imagined it possible for worms to be in. No wonder students
       | aren't lining up to spend years of their life working with them.
        
         | nemo44x wrote:
         | The best way to get funding is for your idea to either have
         | economic potential or to be politically useful. Both of those
         | outcomes generate power. Ideas that don't generate power go to
         | the back of the line when it comes to funding.
        
         | thaumasiotes wrote:
         | > The most disturbing presentation I've ever watched was a
         | slideshow given by a parasitologist in which I saw worms in
         | parts of the human body I never imagined it possible for worms
         | to be in.
         | 
         | I read an essay once by someone who intentionally incubated
         | some kind of fly in himself, and wrote that, after all the
         | effort of being infected and incubating the fly, it chose to
         | emerge while he was at a baseball game, where, he lamented, it
         | was immediately killed by horrified fans over his protests.
         | 
         | The fans were clearly in the right.
        
         | 082349872349872 wrote:
         | During the most disturbing* presentation I ever watched, the
         | simultaneous translation went dead for a good 15-20 seconds; I
         | assumed the translators had muted their mikes to cover the dry
         | heaves?
         | 
         | * one could always spot the reconstructive surgeons at these
         | conferences; they were the ones who could wander around the
         | poster session, all while calmly nibbling away at their hors
         | d'oeuvres.
        
       | rng-concern wrote:
       | I remember listening to the radio (I believe on cbc canada), and
       | one issue of studying any living thing is, whether your
       | animal/creature of choice is in vogue currently or not. People
       | below have mentioned funding which ties into that, but, if you're
       | studying birds it's a lot easier to publish, there's more of an
       | ecosystem and conferences, etc... than if you were to study some
       | insect that nobody has heard of. Even within existing conferences
       | you might not get "top-billing", even if you're presenting.
       | 
       | Pity as the things nobody has ever heard of are probably the most
       | interesting.
       | 
       | I wish I remembered more details so could link something.
        
         | mc_maurer wrote:
         | It's a pretty widely known thing that studying charismatic
         | megafauna gets you lots of money. However, they're also
         | generally WAY more of a pain to study. Fewer individuals,
         | larger home ranges, expensive permits, etc. A good friend
         | studies basking sharks and the shark research world is insanely
         | competitive, full of crazy type A folks. Compared to the insect
         | ecology world (where I come from), which is full of pretty
         | chill stoners and weirdos.
        
           | insane_dreamer wrote:
           | My takeaway is that to be an ecological researcher one must
           | be crazy, weird, or stoned :)
        
             | mc_maurer wrote:
             | Plenty of variability within that subset though! Lots of
             | stereotypes based on your study system lol
        
             | solardev wrote:
             | "Or"? ;)
        
               | humanfromearth9 wrote:
               | Logical or is the default or, which allows for either
               | one, either other, or one _and_ other
        
               | fuzztester wrote:
               | 3 bi-di logical implications (between those 3 adjectives)
               | is the right thing here ;)
        
           | Biganon wrote:
           | I wonder if the group studying an animal slowly evolves to
           | resemble this animal
        
       | photochemsyn wrote:
       | Generally research follows funding, not intellectual curiousity.
       | So the single-celled eukaryotic malaria parasite is pretty well-
       | studied. This also highlights the often arbitrary nature of
       | division of labor in academics - all viruses and many eubacteria
       | could reasonably be classified as parasites, but are instead
       | handed off to virology and infectious microbiology (which tends
       | to exclude parasitic eukaryota, even single-celled protists, from
       | its domain).
       | 
       | Out in nature, things get more complicated - there are many
       | reports of viruses infecting parasites which in turn infect
       | animals, for example.
       | 
       | https://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2011/07/viruses-th...
        
       | hammock wrote:
       | Isn't there a lot of parasitic research at DARPA facilities, for
       | example Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain spotted fever?
        
         | harry_ord wrote:
         | I think Lyme disease is caused by a bacteria rather than
         | parasite (I always assumed the two are different)
        
           | hammock wrote:
           | Yeah, maybe ticks are the parasite in that scenario
        
         | pvaldes wrote:
         | I understand that the question here is why nobody studies
         | parasite biodiversity.
         | 
         | Well, this is a false claim. Sort of. Nobody notices or nobody
         | cares about this researchers, is not the same as nobody
         | studies.
        
       | ekidd wrote:
       | The book _Parasite Rex_ (2001) by Carl Zimmer is fantastic, and
       | it inspired quite a few researchers to go into the study of
       | parasites: https://www.amazon.com/Parasite-Rex-Bizarre-Dangerous-
       | Creatu...
       | 
       | The book manages to be gross and fascinating and occasionally
       | beautiful.
       | 
       | Given the age, I'm sure some of the science is outdated, perhaps
       | even by people who grew up reading the book. But it remains one
       | of my favorites, and it's an accessible read. If not always a
       | comfortable one!
        
       | scientator wrote:
       | The tradition in parasitology of self-experimentation --
       | swallowing unknown larvae to see what they do to your body --
       | perhaps might deter new recruits from entering the field.
        
       | londons_explore wrote:
       | Perhaps because we have probably already discovered pretty much
       | every parasite that infects humans, at least those with
       | widespread impact in the western world?
       | 
       | Parasites tend to be multicellular and relatively large (you can
       | see them all with an optical microscope), and therefore hard to
       | miss.
       | 
       | On the other hand, there are plenty of bacteria and viruses that
       | are out there still to be discovered, many of which directly
       | impact humans.
        
         | mschuster91 wrote:
         | > Perhaps because we have probably already discovered pretty
         | much every parasite that infects humans, at least those with
         | widespread impact in the western world?
         | 
         | The thing is, discovering them is not enough, not by far. We
         | know how to avoid a few of them - say, by washing hands,
         | regulatory agencies requiring meat be controlled for parasites
         | (in Germany and possibly EU, against trichinella [1]), or by
         | heavily suggesting pregnant people not handle cat litter (to
         | prevent toxoplasmosis). We know how to treat a few of them
         | (mostly worms).
         | 
         | But we don't know how to treat a lot of them, for some of them
         | (particularly in the veterinarian world) we're dealing with
         | resistency developing. And a few of them remain utterly and
         | completely deadly (Naegleria fowleri).
         | 
         | The problem is, as always, a lack of funding. No one wants to
         | spend much money on parasitology (as you said: we know about
         | most of them), and since most parasitic infections are rare in
         | Western countries that have the money, there is not much money
         | for treatment R&D - no matter how many people die each year
         | worldwide (400k for worms, 600k for malaria alone).
         | 
         | [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinenuntersuchung
        
           | nine_k wrote:
           | Malaria in particular is a target of constant attention.
           | Latest breeds of generically modified mosquitoes are unable
           | to carry the disease [1] or that turn the carried mosquito
           | populations infertile [2]. I'd say that malaria will be
           | eradicated in 30-50 years. Hopefully, Guinea worm will be
           | eradicated, too [3].
           | 
           | Neither malaria nor Guinea worm affect "Western" (rich,
           | industrial) countries directly, but people from these
           | countries most actively work on the eradication, chiefly
           | financed by charitable funds.
           | 
           | [1]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/239931/mosquitoes-that-
           | cant-...
           | 
           | [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18974
           | 
           | [3]:
           | https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/index.html
        
         | markovs_gun wrote:
         | Is that true that most parasites are multicellular? My
         | intuition would suggest that single celled parasites would be
         | more numerous, even if they are less clinically significant.
         | Malaria is one of the most significant diseases in the world
         | and it's caused by a single celled parasite, for example.
        
       | hello_computer wrote:
       | We can acknowledge the effects on rat sexual arousal, but to
       | extend this research into human behavior is just asking to get
       | your funding cut and be excommunicated.
       | 
       | https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro1687
        
       | fsckboy wrote:
       | FTA:
       | 
       | > _Why do so few researchers study them?_
       | 
       | > _In the fall of 1985, Scott L. Gardner found himself standing
       | over his toilet bowl, fishing around in the squishy output of his
       | empty bowels with a chopstick._
       | 
       | fsckboy's law of headlines: If the headline asks a question,
       | check if the first sentence has your answer
       | 
       | > _...Gardner was prescribed an antiparasitic pill, and the next
       | morning, he pooped out his intestines' inhabitant--all 12 inches
       | of it._
       | 
       | irl, my brother got a parasite once, a tapeworm. This was all
       | without leaving an upscale suburb of Boston. Only "noticed" it
       | when he, a well-built vigorous athlete, lost a lot of weight out
       | of the blue. It was eating his lunch, so to speak.
        
         | kardos wrote:
         | > It was eating his lunch, so to speak
         | 
         | How does that work. A tapeworm is pretty small relative to your
         | brother (eg by mass), one would think it's caloric needs are
         | similarly small and it would just use a small fraction of his
         | food. Can a tapeworm really consume a significant fraction of
         | an adult's food?
        
           | fsckboy wrote:
           | there are different types of tapeworms that infect different
           | hosts. cattle tapeworms can grow to 12 feet and much more. It
           | doesn't take much googling to find claims of 100 feet.
           | 
           | google "tapeworm symptom loss of weight" and you will get the
           | recommendation "time to see a doctor"
        
             | gwern wrote:
             | So the explanation would be that growing is just very
             | metabolically expensive and _that_ is where the deficit
             | goes to?
        
               | fsckboy wrote:
               | I'm no expert on invertebrate metabolism, but it does not
               | need to be more expensive than host metabolism, it's
               | simply a redivision of the pizza-pie with more slices
               | going to the growing worm, and fewer slices for the host.
        
               | fsckboy wrote:
               | I thought of a refinement to my previous: tapeworms
               | attach themselves to the host intestinal wall only to
               | secure themselves; however, they feed directly from the
               | food in the digestive tract; they do not "suck nutrients"
               | from the host's bloodstream.
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | That's part of it, but intestinal parasites also
               | interfere with normal digestive processes. Their presence
               | and secretions (waste products and the compounds they use
               | to prevent being digested) can cause a lot of problems.
               | It's common for people with intestinal parasites to have
               | reduced appetite, intestinal inflammation, and digestion
               | issues.
               | 
               | The weight loss isn't just a result of the parasite
               | competing for nutrients, though that doesn't help.
        
           | derf_ wrote:
           | At the Meguro Parasitological Museum [1], they have an 8
           | meter long tapeworm [2] extracted from a human. Yes, that is
           | an extreme example and still less mass than a person, but
           | they _can_ get large.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.kiseichu.org/e-top
           | 
           | [2] Visible in the tall blue case here: https://static.wixsta
           | tic.com/media/079dcd_843c7597ef244423aa...
        
           | pvaldes wrote:
           | Apart of eating your food directly, anything that can make
           | you bleed internally can cause anemia.
        
       | randcraw wrote:
       | There's not much profit in treating parasites, and profit funds
       | research. Like bacterial infection (before the rise of resistant
       | bugs), you treat a parasite with a few doses and you're done. No
       | more disease means no more revenue. So unless a really large
       | fraction of the high income world gets a parasite, or the
       | parasitism is chronically incurable, there's too little financial
       | reward to justify studying or treating it.
        
       | bordercases wrote:
       | If parasites were widespread amongst human beings, would those
       | infected humans have incentive to study them?
       | 
       | We are likely biased and can't imagine how we are biased because
       | of the infection! Yet the over-under for an individual is clear:
       | try the medication and find out!
        
         | dsign wrote:
         | >> would those infected humans have incentive to study them?
         | 
         | Plenty of diseases get us and most of us don't have an
         | incentive to study what we know is statistically likely to kill
         | us :<< . Which I think is a shame.
        
       | pvaldes wrote:
       | The amount of grants that you receive in modern zoology is
       | directly proportional to the sweetness in your discourse, the
       | size of the eyes and the density of the fur in your subject
       | 
       | > Housed in a few modest rooms adjacent to a botanical collection
       | and the floor's only bathroom, the laboratory is the world's
       | largest university collection of parasites.
       | 
       | > the Manter Lab only receives enough funding to employ the two
       | men
       | 
       | This explains why perfectly. Researchers that choose this live
       | basically in poverty, so why would you to encourage your son to
       | follow that career?.
       | 
       | This and the two billions of videos of cats on internet that
       | everybody consumes actively all the time. Try to earn sympathy
       | and views with a samba dancing flatworm compilation instead. It
       | only works one or none times.
        
         | a_wild_dandan wrote:
         | Maybe we could try a hybrid pitch? "We need to protect these
         | cute, furry little dudes...from parasites. Giv money pls."
        
       | morninglight wrote:
       | TWiP: This Week in Parasitism A podcast about the tiny creatures
       | that live on and inside us. New episodes the 1st and 3rd Friday
       | of each month.
       | 
       | https://www.microbe.tv/twip
        
       | hinkley wrote:
       | Someone did a book like the Secret Life of Trees but just for
       | Oaks. There are a thousand critters and microbes adapted to oak
       | habitation and/or parasitizing.
       | 
       | The tannins in oak are an arms race to slow many of them down. As
       | is the thick epidermis on mature leaves. And then there are the
       | adaptations to prioritize roots over leaves when young, which
       | both helps them tap into the wood wide web but also I suspect
       | helps them deal with deer. Stay small until you can get tall and
       | then jump out of reach as fast as you can.
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | I recommend the funny and gross book, "New Guinea Tapeworms and
       | Jewish Grandmothers: Tales of Parasites and People" by Robert S.
       | Desowitz. Basically a bunch of horrible parasite diseases, some
       | with a bit of detective story to figure out.
        
       | blueprint wrote:
       | because they're oh so disturbing
       | 
       | the same reason why so many other disturbing things go unstudied
       | 
       | like certain risks to our survival, for example
       | 
       | i think it's a vuln humans have
        
       | eigenrick wrote:
       | >Why do so few researchers study them?
       | 
       | Because they're the ones funding medical research! nyuk nyuk!
       | 
       | Seriously though, as a health nut who tries to stay on the
       | science side of things, I still see a lot of "It's Parasites!"
       | stuff from the pseudo-science health community. As well as
       | bizarre cures. Walnuts, Cloves and electric shock seem to come up
       | the most.
       | 
       | I have tried to find any practical advice regarding detection,
       | symptoms and such, and beyond tapeworms, heartworms and
       | hookworms, there isn't much information.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-08-01 23:01 UTC)