Visualizing the Medical Isotope Crisis

Information graphics help to clarify a little-known but critical challenge to the health care industry

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


The impending repeal of the Affordable Care Act is not the only threat to health care these days. Another crisis, one you may not have heard of, concerns a radioactive isotope called technetium 99. This obscure atom is used in a medical imaging technique called single-photon emission computed tomography, or SPECT, used to diagnose millions of patients every year. As the few nuclear reactors that produce technetium 99 prepare to shut down due to age and risk of breakdowns, doctors are increasingly worried about shortages. In the February issue of Scientific American, journalist Mark Peplow discusses the details of this challenge and how scientists are attempting to address it. 

This being a somewhat obscure (and let’s face it—potentially boring) topic, it stands to benefit from graphical explanations in addition to verbal ones. As graphics editor for Peplow’s article, I felt it was most important to visualize what is at stake from an average reader’s perspective: how many patients rely on technetium 99, and what sorts of conditions do they have? The graphic below breaks down the numbers.

Credit: Amanda Montañez
Source: Natural Resources Canada. Presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources, June 2, 2009


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But there are other visualization opportunities here as well. For example, where does the existing technetium 99 come from? How is it currently produced, and what new technologies might be deployed going forward? The graphic below, from a 2013 story in Nature, uses clean, friendly visuals to answer these questions in an accessible way.

Credit: Nature News
Source: NEA/OECD

I encourage you to read both stories for an in-depth look at the medical isotope crisis. But if you’re looking for a quick primer, these information graphics offer a decent summary of the topic—with minimal reading required.

Amanda Montañez is senior graphics editor and been at Scientific American since 2015. She produces and art directs information graphics for the Scientific American website and print magazine. Montañez has a bachelor's degree in studio art from Smith College and a master's in biomedical communications from the University of Toronto. Before starting in journalism, she worked as a freelance medical illustrator. Follow her on Bluesky @unamandita.bsky.social

More by Amanda Montañez

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe