Mane event: horse placenta has been used to treat footballers’ injuries. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The placenta is a marvel that scientists can’t match

Nothing we can engineer has come close to replicating the placenta’s ability to act as the kidney, lungs, hormone source, nutrition channel and waste disposal unit for a growing foetus.

The unwritten rules of journalism will ensure that, for the next month, few stories will be able to string together more than 500 words without mentioning the World Cup. Luckily, Spain’s Diego Costa has used horse placenta to treat an injury; this, he claims, allowed him to recover in time for the Champions League final and be fully fit for Rio. It’s also why we can now discuss the idea for the Human Placenta Project.

At the end of last month, placenta experts (research scientists, not people who drip horse placenta extract on to desperate athletes) gathered in Maryland in the US. Their aim was to establish a project to learn how this most understudied of organs works – and what to do when it doesn’t.

Questionable medical applications aside, the placenta is a marvel. You wouldn’t be here without it. Although scientists have been trying for decades to create artificial versions, they have failed miserably. Nothing we can engineer has come close to replicating the placenta’s ability to act as the kidney, lungs, hormone source, nutrition channel and waste disposal unit for a growing foetus.

That said, not all placentas are created equal. And yet we have no scientific definition of the ideal placenta, which makes it very hard to diagnose a faulty one. Placentas that have nurtured babies who have been born weak or sick often look entirely normal. Abnormal-looking placentas are frequently associated with healthy babies. The devil, it seems, is in the detail.

The placenta grows from a layer of cells that surrounds the early foetus. These cells attach themselves to the wall of the uterus and then develop a network of tiny blood vessels that tap into the uterine blood supply, while also maintaining a barrier between the two organisms to stop the foetus from triggering the mother’s immune system. The mother-foetus connection doesn’t always work perfectly. Sometimes the placenta doesn’t attach properly or is too small to provide all the nutrition the baby needs, which can cause a range of medical problems for the mother-to-be and the foetus, often necessitating early delivery.

It can take years for some results of placental problems to manifest. Studies have shown that an abnormal placenta is linked to health issues in later life such as heart disease and diabetes. That’s because if the foetus gets too little nutrition, it builds budget versions of vital organs and tissues. Kidneys will have fewer of the nephrons that do its filtering work. The heart will have fewer muscle cells and the pancreas will skimp on insulin-producing ones.

The Human Placenta Project might do more than lead to healthier births. Understanding exactly how the placenta keeps the foetus from rejection by the pregnant mother is of great interest to the field of transplant surgery, for instance.

It could also help in the fight against cancer. Many cancers contain proteins created by a gene called PLAC1. In normal tissue, this gene is inactive; it is usually switched on only in placental tissue. PLAC1 has been found in tumours taken from breast, ovarian and prostate cancer cells and has recently been found to be active in tumours – mainly stomach cancers and lymphomas – caused by the Epstein-Barr virus. We would do well to find out why.

The answers to this and other questions about the placenta are most likely to be found through closer study of an organ that hospitals (excluding horse hospitals, it seems) routinely send to the incinerator. 

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 18 June 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Islam tears itself apart

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA