Skip to main content

David Miles - Five way interview

David Miles is an infectious disease immunologist who spent ten years researching diseases of childhood in Africa and the vaccinations that protect against them. He now tutors on the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's online MSc course.  David is author of How Vaccines Work and Sneeze: The History and Science of the Common Cold.

Why science?

I find myself existing in an enormously fascinating and enormously complicated universe. I want to align my understanding of all that complexity with its objective reality, and nobody’s come up with a better way to do that than the scientific method.

Why this book?

Everybody is familiar with colds and everybody hates them but, after a couple of decades in infectious disease research, I realised I didn’t know much about them. The only people who do are the unsung few who research them. Yet if you mention colds in a bus stop queue, you’ll hear plenty of very firmly held opinions on how to avoid them and how to treat them.

I wanted to take a deep dive into the last century of cold research to find out what we really know about colds and how we came to know it. I also wanted to know how much bus stop wisdom – if I may put it that way – is supported by evidence and how much is not.

All of which led me to write Sneeze.

Many years ago, there used to be talk of ‘a cure for the common cold’ - leaving aside immunisation (which is prevention rather than cure), was this just a pipe dream?

That was indeed many years ago, before colds were understood as a class of diseases rather than a single disease. We now know that colds can be caused by over 200 very different viruses, so there’s never going to be a single antiviral agent that clobbers all of them.

An alternative approach is to suppress the symptoms. The common feature of colds is that whichever virus causes the infection, the grottiness is caused by an overstimulated inflammatory response that does nothing to tackle the virus. Pharmacies sell several over-the-counter remedies that suppress that inflammation – and a lot more that don’t – although none that are anywhere near good enough to be called a cure.

That those remedies do anything at all suggests that at some point, someone might come up with a way to suppress the symptoms so effectively that we could call it a cure. It’s a nice idea but it’s unlikely to happen any time soon.

Right now, a cure is a theoretical possibility that may be realised in the future. It’s a little more than a pipe dream – but only a little.

What’s next?

The research groups that focused on colds have all closed now, so I expect cold research to progress more slowly than it has over much of the last half-century. Having said that, there’s still a lot of ongoing research on the big bad three cold viruses that are most likely to cause serious complications: influenza, COVID-19 and RSV. A lot of the findings will apply to colds caused by other viruses.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

There are a couple of research areas that look particularly exciting.

One is the relationship between colds and long-term debilitation. The research is mostly driven by ‘long Covid’, which affected around two million people in Britain alone at the last count, but it’s opened the door to a broader understanding of cold viruses as a trigger for chronic fatigue syndromes. We’re some way from that research leading to effective treatments but at least there’s movement toward them.

The other is the resurgent interest in ‘air hygiene’, which is the idea that we should be able to breathe the air of our shared indoor spaces without getting infected. It’s led to some practical approaches to achieving that through ventilation and filtration, which offer a way to reshape our shared environment so we spend less time being ill. Who doesn’t want that?

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

How to Keep a Plane in the Sky - Alex Davies ****

If there's one big gap in the science writing sphere, it's popular engineering (you can quibble over whether engineering is science, but where else would you put popular engineering?). Alex Davies does the field a real service with this insightful introduction to the world of test engineering. The concept is simple. If we build something and sell it, we need to test it to make sure that it won't fail in a way that's dangerous to the consumer. The most obvious example is airliners, which feature at some length, but this applies to everything from cuddly toys to hair straighteners: someone needs to predict what could go wrong and to put the product through its paces to see if it will survive under any reasonable circumstances. When Davies is telling a story of test engineering in action, the book is a delight. He opens with the way that real bears are used to test if bears can get into coolers and trash cans - and the impressive ways these animals can  circumvent human in...

On the Equality of All Things - Carlo Rovelli ****

There is a wide gulf between the worldviews of physicists and philosophers. Many physicists present a rather sweetly naive, child-like view of the world, where philosophers bring a distinctly more adult, cynical tone. This being the case, it can be a little worrying when a physicist dips a toe into the philosophical mire. Infamously, in The Grand Design , Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow told us that philosophy was now dead because science could deal with anything it had previously been needed for. Thankfully, Carlo Rovelli is not trying to do away with philosophy, though it has to be said that when he veers into the topic that physicist's naivety can make it feel like the philosophising of an earnest eighteen-year-old. Take the opening paragraph, which tells us 'electrons and minds, stones and laws, judgements and galaxies do not essentially differ in nature from one another. They are notions that illuminate each other'. I almost expected a Pink Floyd soundtr...