Prevalence and audiological features in carriers of GJB2 mutations, c.35delG and c.101T>C (p.M34T), in a UK population study

OBJECTIVES: To determine the carrier rate of the GJB2 mutation c.35delG and c.101T>C in a UK population study; to determine whether carriers of the mutation had worse hearing or otoacoustic emissions compared to non-carriers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University of Bristol, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. 9202 were successfully genotyped for the c.35delG mutation and c.101>T and classified as either carriers or non-carriers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hearing thresholds at age 7, 9 and 11 years and otoacoustic emissions at age 9 and 11. RESULTS: The carrier frequency of the c.35delG mutation was 1.36% (95% CI 1.13 to 1.62) and c.101T>C was 2.69% (95% CI 2.37 to 3.05). Carriers of c.35delG and c.101T>C had worse hearing than non-carriers at the extra-high frequency of 16 kHz. The mean difference in hearing at age 7 for the c.35delG mutation was 8.53 dB (95% CI 2.99, 14.07) and 12.57 dB at age 9 (95% CI 8.10, 17.04). The mean difference for c.101T>C at age 7 was 3.25 dB (95% CI -0.25 to 6.75) and 7.61 dB (95% CI 4.26 to 10.96) at age 9. Otoacoustic emissions were smaller in the c.35delG mutation carrier group: at 4 kHz the mean difference was -4.95 dB (95% CI -6.70 to -3.21) at age 9 and -3.94 dB (95% CI -5.78 to -2.10) at age 11. There was weak evidence for differences in otoacoustic emissions amplitude for c.101T>C carriers. CONCLUSION: Carriers of the c.35delG mutation and c.101T>C have worse extra-high-frequency hearing than non-carriers. This may be a predictor for changes in lower-frequency hearing in adulthood. The milder effects observed in carriers of c.101T>C are in keeping with its classification as a mutation causing mild/moderate hearing loss in homozygosity or compound heterozygosity.

How does knowledge relate to political action?

In this paper we investigate the relation between knowledge and political action, focusing on knowledge claims stemming from science that at the same time have relevance in a policy context. In so doing, we will revisit some well-known and some lesser known approaches, such as C.P. Snow's thesis of the two cultures and Mannheim's conceptualization of theory and practice. We arrive at a distinction between knowledge for practice and practical knowledge, which we briefly apply to the case of climate change science and policy. We state as our thesis that policy is ever more reliant on knowledge, but science can deliver ever less certainty. Political decisions and programs have to recognize this fact, either implicitly or explicitly. This creates a paradox that is normally resolved through the political decision and not the dissemination of "truth" in the sense of uncontested knowledge. We use the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an example. © 2012 Copyright ICCR Foundation.