March 2008 Archives

Flipping a Nation

The press, scientists, and commentators were instinctively indignant yet unsurprised by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new ozone rules, which of course came out below science and public health recommendations. The agency changed the ozone levels from 84 parts per billion (ppb) to 75 ppb, although scientists said that 60-70 ppb would decrease deaths and smog levels dangerous to children, the elderly, and those with asthma and respiratory disease.

Of course industry and the Bush administration weighed in on the matter killing a secondary standard that EPA staff had recommended, which would have allowed agency discretion in setting standards in certain conditions like weather, to protect vegetation and wildlife from ozone exposure during growing seasons. Despite the agency's flaccid ruling a press conference gave EPA brass an opportunity to beat their brave, intrepid, heroic chests as Administrator Stephen Johnson marketed the inadequate standard as "the most health-protective eight-hour ozone decision in the nation's history".

A New York Times editorial focused on another thing Johnson said during the conference:

"The big surprise was Mr. Johnson's proposal to rewrite the Clean Air Act to allow regulators to take costs into account when setting air quality standards. Since this would permanently devalue the role of science while strengthening the hand of industry, the proposal has no chance of success in a Democratic Congress."

What? The Bush administration whittles away government regulation? It marches "forward" privatizing various common assets like air, natural resources, forests and health that it inherited at little cost? Shocking. So all the spin we hear about the redistribution of this resource bonanza as the principled, constitutionally sound, economically ideal (market driven) thing to do is -- well, spin? Surprise.

We can count the ways that our government ignores science in its decisions -- astute observers attend to this problem. The EPA itself attempts to gut the Clean Air Act at every opportunity, for instance after Hurricane Katrina (pdf). But to the editor's point, is Johnson's cost/benefit proposal outlandish? Not a chance of passing?

The EPA Saves Living Things: Species and Documents

In his March 12th comments Johnson called the Clean Air Act a "living document" that needed to be "refurbished", "overhaul[ed] and enhance[ed]", "modernize[d] and upgrade[d]". Johnson announced his four "principles" for a Clean Air Act, including, to"allow decision-makers to consider benefits, costs, risk tradeoffs, and feasibility in making decisions about how to clean the air." The Clean Air Act was not "a relic to be displayed in the Smithsonian", he said.

The Times editor pointed out that Johnson's proposal would "cut to the very heart of the Clean Air Act", which was written to protect science from special interests by mandating rulemaking based solely on health, not economic costs. As most people can attest, when the first hint of pollution regulation arises, any energy company worth its salt begins wailing about "technology not being available", about the exorbitant cost of the proposal, and about all the risks of complying on account of scientific uncertainty. Companies did just this when they held the nation in a decades long trance while they chanted about global warming uncertainty. Recognizing this, and knowing how Johnson's incredulous suggestion would put estimates about cost and feasibility squarely in industry's park to the detriment of clean anything, we should become alarmed, perhaps leap to action, maybe phone our legislator.

However the NYT editor's tone soothed, calling Johnson's pronouncement a "revelatory moment", one that signaled the administration's "cry of frustration at being largely unsuccessful in undoing three decades of environmental law".

Like the wolf frustrated in mid-hunt? One last guttural, spine chilling howl before giving up its prey -- and the fawn darts into a thicket of brambles just in the nick of time, a small defiant flick of its white tail? Can we argue optimistically, as the editor did, that the Bush administration attempts have been "largely unsuccessful"? Knowing that standards should be set according to science can we be assured that, "the proposal has no chance of success in a Democratic Congress"? We love this view, can we share the optimism?

Ozone Decisions, Sunset Regulations and the Doyenne of Death

In Johnson's ozone ruling he said he followed the letter of the law and ignored "costs, net benefits and implementation challenges of more stringent standards" as required by the Act. Despite his words, scientists say that his new 75ppb standard was in deference to industry. Rogene Henderson, who chairs the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, told Platts Energy: "I think [Johnson] is responding to the pressure of the industrial groups about the cost". The record also shows influence from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and President Bush.

A series of memos between Susan Dudley, the OIRA administrator, and the EPA detail the Administration's influence in crafting the rule (available online www.regulations.gov). Over a couple of exchanges the EPA refused to back down on the secondary standard. Then administrator Dudley issued a 'President-says-so' order March 12th: "The President has concluded that, consistent with Administration policy, added protection [Orwellian doublespeak?] should be afforded...by strengthening [more OD?] the secondary ozone standard and setting the secondary standard identical to the new primary standard..." The EPA was over-ruled.

Before Susan Dudley was chosen by Bush to head the OIRA, she distinguished herself by attacking what she saw as over-regulation, and she decried the diminished role of the OIRA and OMB in overseeing the regulations that agencies enacted. In the 1990's she roundly criticized the effect of a Clinton executive order, which shifted regulation out from under executive control to science agencies like the EPA. Dudley said the OIRA and OMB under Clinton had been made impotent and she urgently advocated for cost benefit analysis, especially for ozone and particulate matter rules. She chafed at how OIRA had lost its standing as the "watchdog for social welfare". (Regulation, Fall, 1997) As Reagan and H.W. Bush did before him, the current Bush administration has now spent the last 8 years pulling authority back into the executive branch. Dudley's interests are clearly aligned the administration's

When Bush considered Susan Dudley to run OIRA according the the Washington Post in 2006, "'Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch called Dudley 'a true anti-regulatory zealot' who 'makes John Graham (previous OIRA head and Mercatus executive) look like Ralph Nader.'" In 2006 Public Citizen and OMB Watch published a report about Susan Dudley on the eve of her appointment to the OIRA, titled "The Cost Is Too High: How Susan Dudley Threatens Public Protections". The two groups argued against Dudley's appointment to the OIRA -- because her approach to regulation, they argue, was laden with "extreme-antiregulatory ideology". Public Citizen and OMB Watch went on to detail her background at the neoliberal Mercatus Center and her dedication to "embedding cost considerations in all laws that authorize agencies to protect the public, including...'safety first' laws" (like Clean Air Act).¹

Inevitably cost/benefit calculations involve valuing health, the environment, and quality of life. When considering the cost/benefits of smog then, here's a question: what's an acceptable threshold for the number kids who are forced to stay inside on high ozone days to prevent asthma attacks? Thousands? Millions? At the other end of the age spectrum, according to the OMBWatch/Public Citizen report "Dudley has supported a senior death discount that counts the lives of seniors for less than the lives of the young". While this may be standard actuarial practice,pollution is more dangerous to the elderly, which make her calculations seem savage. For the prospects of regulations protecting our welfare the report pulls no punches in painting Dudley as the doyenne of death.

The report's authors also point out that not all "costs" have the same moral and ethical value. With government doing "regulatory budgeting" they say "industry can knowingly expose the public to grave harms, enjoy the financial benefits of failing to take the steps necessary to protect the public, and then use compliance costs -- the costs of finally doing the right thing -- as a shield against being forced to comply with new protective standards."

Another impediment to forming guidelines for clean air or water, or workplace safety that Dudley favors is sunset regulation, which 'imposes automatic extinction to regulatory policies then puts agencies in the position of having to justify regulations'. As we can see from global warming, environmental damage accrues with indecision. By the time a piece of the Antarctic the size of seven Manhattan's drops off, well, too little has been done too late.

Finally, as Public Citizen notes: "Dudley would impose "regulatory budgets": fictional budgets of industry compliance costs, with a cap. Once an agency like the EPA hits its cap, it would be forced to stop promulgating any new protective standards, no matter how great the need." Sort of the inverse cap and trade.

As part of its regulatory oversight OIRA invites industry to suggest changes to federal rules. The Washington Post reported that shortly into President Bush's first term, when the OMB asked for public input on which regulations should be revised or killed, Mercatus submitted 44 of the 71 proposals the OMB received and the OMB approved 15 of them according to the National Journal. In 2002, 267 regulations were targeted, 80 from business associated organizations and a couple of dozen from Mercatus. As a result, in 2001 and 2002 the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were changed by proposals that benefited industry sponsors like BP Amoco, ExxonMobil and Koch Industries and other Mercatus donors.² The Public Citizen/OMB Watch analysis predicted that when Dudley headed the OMB she "will sit in the catbird seat, overseeing the entire executive regulatory process...able to slow, stall, weaken regulatory proposals" to the detriment of public health and the environment.

Ozone Rulings and Regulatory Agencies

In the end she was appointed by Bush during Congress's recess, and she began to reclaim ever more ground for the OIRA. Specific to the smog ruling, Dudley had long advocated against smog regulations on behalf of industry. In 1997 testimony before the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works on the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety she argued incorrectly as the Vice President of Economists Incorporated that smog was beneficial because it protected individuals from ultraviolet radiation. In the same presentation she asserted preposterously that since research showed that asthma rates were associated with poverty a smog ruling would have the "perverse effect" of costing communities money which would in turn increase poverty and asthma. While she now works for government and on behalf of citizens instead of industry, she employs this line of thinking.

The OMB for its part has the EPA in its sights for what it deems as engaging in misguided rule-making based on unreasonable scientific uncertainty and high costs. In an annual report to Congress The Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations, OMB criticizes the EPA for its determinations of the health effects of particulate matter: "the degree of uncertainty in benefit estimates for clean air rules is large. In addition, the wide range of benefits estimates for particle control does not capture the full extent of scientific uncertainty."

The authors also single out six EPA rules on drinking water which they say cost state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector "over the threshold" of $100 million dollars annually. This was Ted Stevens 1996 amendment directing the OMB to submit to Congress cost benefit analysis of "economically significant" rules. Of course this OMB analysis doesn't expound on the enumerable benefits of clean drinking water free of cleaning agents, disinfectants or arsenic. And for reality's sake, please, a $100 million dollars? High cost for solvent free water? There are houses that Congresspeople reside in that cost nearly that much. And needless to say this is a drop in the bucket compared to the Iraq war, the costs accruing at $341.4 million per day with some mighty uncertain benefits.

The OMB costs and benefits report grounds itself in the philosophy that economically well-off countries have strong property rights and minimal regulation. Even with consideration to the fact this is a draft, the document veers to ideology at times, citing the Heritage Foundation for information and stooping to past arguments about Communism being an example of regulation gone wrong.

In an issue of Regulation in 1997, from her outside view, Dudley wrote about a previous OIRA administrator who had bragged that OIRA was the "biggest kid on the block", so other agencies had to respond to its agenda. She complained that the OIRA under Clinton was the neighborhood wimp, so although Dudley's perch in OIRA may be short-term, she had been preparing for her tenure for decades and strode in to the post with a clear agenda.

To aid Dudley's smooth tenure, executive orders and congressional laws paved the way, for instance in the 1990's, rules such as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (1995), the Government Performance and Results Act (1993), and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) (1996), all addressed regulatory and reporting costs without expanding definitions of benefits. SBREFA for example spares businesses from what could be burdensome regulatory costs. But the idea that agencies need to consider the costs of clean water and air rulings on "small business" can be interpreted in such a way that hobbles the goals of clean air and water. This also leaves small businesses susceptible to lobby manipulation by groups like the National Coalition of Petroleum Retailers, who may officially represent "small business", but whose aims may appeal most strongly to huge business. Look for example, at San Francisco's attempt to limit bisphenol A, and the immediate lawsuit which included BPA manufacturers and local toy stores.

Johnson's proposal to rewrite the Clean Air Act is not out of left field, rather something urged for decades by industry, various government agencies, congressman and lobby groups. Furthermore, it's no more surprising then his smog ruling, if more appalling, since the changes he speaks of have been in the works for years and in fact progress towards the goals he articulated is well underway.

Health and the Environment: The Public's Standing

You'd think Johnson wouldn't even mention to Congress rewriting the Clean Air Act, given the spotlight on the EPA's recent record on the environment and the vocal admonition of members like Senator Boxer (D-CA). But Congress, though recently vocal against the EPA's refusal to move on environmental laws, has at times acquiesced eagerly to business deregulation and cost benefit guided rulemaking. Thus the current ease and confidence of Dudley in thwarting the goals of the EPA. Congress of course touts progress on all fronts, business, environment, and health, but business generally comes out the biggest winner.

Our intent is not to focus entirely on Susan Dudley, anymore that it is to focus on Stephen Johnson, or George Bush. They're all accomplices to a larger agenda which seems outmoded and outdated, and needs to be "overhauled" and "modernized". We are not in competition with Soviet ideology, capitalism is not even ascendant, it's dominant -- so arguments in last year's OMB report to Congress about regulations on Clean Air and Water being nigh to Communism are absurd. We live in a time when kids can't play outdoors because of smog, when business pollutes with abandon then screams about a rule that says mildly, please don't pour oil into streams, and when the UN warns monthly about climate change and rising seas. This is the state of our nation today. This administration's decades old way of thinking deserves only to be encased in Plexiglas in a museum (perhaps the Smithsonian if the Republicans have donated enough for a display).

We live in a time when business calls the shots in Congress, in the White House and in the Judiciary and we should all wake up. Yet voters still respond to "red phone" imagery with a knowing nod and utter naivete. We are the traitorous monsters in our midst. When the phone rings -- red, blue, yellow or green -- in the White House, in your Congressperson's office, or at the court house, it's not some nameless international threat, but an American industry whose TV advertisements you hum to and whose brand you endorse, and the person on the other end is calling to murmur in the lawmaker's ear about less regulation. One hand of the caller is slipping dollars into the decisionmaker's pockets while the other waves fanatically to citizens about the economic doom of Clean Air and Clean Water, about the unemployment that will follow, and balance sheets that will run red. That's what happens when the red phone rings in the White House in 2008. Let's get real.

So what will the elected do for Clean Air? What they always do? Do I have faith that Congress will protect Clean Air and Water? Sure, as long as somehow business benefits. But we have a choice, and always a voice. So we'll veer positive here. The NYT editor's right. The US evolves. Congress will see Johnson's clumsy marionette arms and legs being yanked by the OIRA, his mouth voicing the agreed upon words from the decades old script. And your Congressman will answer the phone when citizens call, skip the form letter reply, and renounce Johnson's quest to rewrite Clean Air considering such things as costs, feasibility, and trade-offs.

-------------------------------------------

¹The report details how during seven years in the 1990's, Koch Industries (a petrochemical company) was found by the EPA to have spilled 3 million gallons of oil (300 unstopped leaks) into waterways in 6 states, and was fined $30 million dollars as a civil penalty (Koch founded Mercatus and is its largest contributor).

² Incidentally, Mercatus donors included Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan Chase, NYSE, Fanny Mae, and Freddie Mac. A quarter of the proposals the Mercatus submitted to OIRA in 2001 and 2002 were for financial services deregulation.

-----------------------------------------

Acronym Required has previously written about the EPA, the environment, and public policy.

BPA -- Here to Stay (In the Environment)

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used in plastic products we all use, everything from dental resins to household products, canned foods, plastic food containers, and baby bottles. Since the chemical gives plastic products useful properties, its ubiquity means that most of us have traces of it in our bodies -- 93% of populations tested have BPA in their blood. Chemists originally developed BPA as a possible synthetic estrogen so it binds to estrogen receptors, is potent at low doses, and as such it can cause deleterious health effects such as decreased sperm count, enlarged prostate, cancers, diabetes, early puberty, and immunological and developmental effects.

Legislators for the city of San Francisco recently proposed bans on bisphenol A and phthalates, however in the final bill, after the legislators had probably duly considered circumstances such as a lawsuit against the city by bisphenol A manufacturers and toy retailers, as well as sustained lobbying from chemical company lobbies, they removed bisphenol A from the bill. The states of California, Maryland and Minnesota all produced bisphenol A bills that died in process. The America Plastics Council rigorously lobbied against all these bills and is relentless in its efforts to convince the public that there's no scientific evidence to support the dangers of health effects of bisphenol A. In fact, there are hundreds of government sponsored research studies showing health effects of BPA.

Chem Link Love: BPA-->EPA--> FDA--> APC--> RTI--> PPG

Now Congress has taken interest in Bisphenol A. The U.S. House of Representatives and Committee on Energy and Commerce chaired by John D. Dingell (D-MI), and its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, launched an investigation of Bisphenol-A in January. The subcommittee is focusing on BPA found in products made for infants and children like infant formula, where BPA is used in the epoxy liners of cans.

The subcommittee has sent out a series of letters requesting more information about the safety of BPA from the makers of infant formula, the EPA, the FDA, and others, including the consulting firm the Weinberg Group. The manufacturers of infant formulas responded variably that BPA was not found in formula, was found at levels considered safe, and/or BPA epoxy was the only option for lining cans*.

In a letter to the FDA the subcommittee questioned what evidence the FDA used to deem BPA safe, to which the FDA wrote back citing two studies both "sponsored by the American Plastics Council". Both of these studies were done by Research Technologies Inc. (RTI) and scientists have cited problems with at least one of the studies' methodology's. (The president and CEO of RTI Victoria Haynes coincidentally cut her teeth at Monsanto, rising to the post of director of their plastics division. In addition to her RTI post she was an adviser to the Homeland Security Advisory Committee and is a director at several companies, including PPG Industries, a company whose products include epoxy resins for cans as well as *'non-epoxy liners for the European market.')

Government and Industry Consulting, a Lucrative Formula Perhaps?

Last year Acronym Required wrote about Sciences International Inc. (SII), a small consulting firm that was fired for conflicts of interest from its contract running the NIH Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction's (CERHR) assessment of Bisphenol-A's safety for neonates and infants. We wrote that SI's mission included public education, such as publishing their own research on chemical safety in their own scientific journal headed by their own company executives. They cited this as "peer reviewed" research on their website and in white papers perhaps to increase their scientific credibility and assure people of chemicals' low safety risks.

The Sciences International website touted the company's abilities to leverage government contacts for corporate benefit, and their history of producing favorable regulatory outcomes and public opinion. For example SII described their risk analysis work used to influence lower regulatory standards for clean air for the EPA. On one version of their site, SII wrote: "Sciences' methods development work is often sponsored by public agencies, such as the U.S. EPA, while applications work is most often for the private sector where agents of particular concern need to be addressed."

In that post in 2007, Acronym Required wondered about the nature of regulation in Washington when the company NIH chose to assess the safety of BPA for neonates and infants that seemed to be more focused on industry objectives: "[Sciences International scientists]...have applied a biologically-based model approach to coke oven emissions for the industry and derived an alternative cancer potency factor which has been accepted by the EPA. We believe that our ability to utilize accurate dosimetry and pharmacodynamic models in tandem in risk assessments provides unique opportunities to the chemical industry",

Acronym Required is heartened to know Congress is paying attention. Similar to the SII example, the subcommittee explored the marketing website (since removed) of the chemical industry consulting company the Weinberg Group. As per the subcommittee's quotes in their request for more information, the Weinberg site was a virtual rodomontade of feats pulled off by Weinberg on behalf of chemical companies versus government regulatory agencies, all of which seemed to skew scientific integrity in favor of client "results".

The subcommittee sent a letter to the Weinberg Group asking about a series of case studies that included verbiage about various projects, such as swaying an FDA decision on a drug with "life-threatening adverse events", and being "at the forefront" of public relations addressing endocrine disrupting chemicals "leaching from food containers", and contained in "children's toys". (the latter sounding a lot like bisphenol A.)

The subcommittee requested information on details of another letter from the Weinberg Group to DuPont de Nemours referring to their work on the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a carcinogenic chemical used to manufacture Teflon. Weinberg says they produced scientific papers on "PFOA, junk science and the limits of medical monitoring", handled scientific testimony and expert witnesses for court cases, and "[reshaped] 'the debate by....analyzing existing data, and/or constructing a study to establish not only that PFOA is safe over a range of serum concentration levels, but that it offers real health benefits.'" PFOA Dupont has been fined by the EPA and sued for its PFOA activities including suppression of safety information for 20 years.

The committee has now widened its scope beyond BPA. Their letter to the EPA's Stephen Johnson requested information about the dismissal of Dr. Deborah Rice as the chair of an external review panel that was investigating a type of polybrominated dephenyl ether (PBDE), decabromobiphenyl ether (deca) used as a flame retardant. Rice's sacking followed a letter the EPA received from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) complaining that she had testified for the State of Maine on the dangers of deca. The ACC called her expertise a "conflict of interest". The subcommittee's letter challenged the EPA's firing and included 9 incidences of people from industry who testified on various EPA chemical safety panels despite real conflicts with obvious pecuniary connections in the chemical industry.

It will be interesting to see where this goes beyond the obvious -- subcommittee members burnish their environmental credentials while giving companies serving both government and chemical industries another lesson on the pitfalls of producing zealous marketing material for the company websites. We remain optimistic that the inquiry will produce results and anyway, the public outing of information is always useful. Happy belated Sunshine Week.

-----------------------

Acronym Required wrote about bisphenol A in the following posts:
"Phthalates and Bisphenol A: Media and Politics" (November, 2007)
Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC (July, 2005)
"Bisphenol-A and Phthalates Bill in California" (January, 2006)
"San Francisco Bans Bisphenol A, Phthalates" (July, 2006)
"San Francisco Phthalates & Bisphenol A Ban" (November, 2006)
"Sports Retailers Stop Selling Polycarbonate Bottles" (December, 2007)
We wrote about PFOC in these posts:
"PFOC: Likely Carcinogen" (January, 2006)
"Dupont, The Teflon Company" (December, 2005)
"Slick Company Stands behind Teflon"(July, 2005)

Lung Cancer, No Worries?

The New York Times reported today that a study promoting CT scans for early lung cancer detection published in the New England Journal of Medicine was supported in part by a cigarette company. Funds for the research came from the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention & Treatment, a group funded by $3.6 million dollars from the Vector Group, the parent company of the Liggett Group.

The New England Journal of Medicine published the study by Dr. Henschke et al, "Survival of Patients with Stage I Lung Cancer Detected on CT Screening The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators" in 2006. The authors concluded that "annual spiral CT screening can detect lung cancer that is curable", which was optimistic on two fronts. 1) The idea that lung cancer is detectable would be well received by doctors and patients because lung cancer is not usually detected in time for successful treatment. 2) If lung cancer were treatable, that is if Stage I cancers were "curable", as the authors concluded, this was very positive news considering that the mortality rate for all lung cancer is high. Both of these ideas could quell fears of some concerned smokers and health workers. More and more, cancer is considered a chronic disease not necessarily a fatal one, but lung cancer is still one of the deadliest.

The study results, if repeatable, could potentially change (some people's) perceptions about the dangers of smoking, and the paper got a lot of attention. The study authors compared CT scans to mammography scans and concluded that you could prevent 80% of deaths from lung cancers in at risk populations. If the results were that significant, if CT scans helped treat cancer, and if policy followed from the authors' conclusions, one might see an increase in the number of routine CT scans performed in the US.

Not. But What About a CT Scans?

As with most science everyone wants to see more studies done, especially since eyes are on Cornell-Weill study's methodology and conclusions. The idea to test greater numbers of people from risky populations also has also interests doctors and public health practitioners. But doctors have also expressed concern that if its recommendations were enacted patients could risk overdiagnosis since the testing produces false positives and there are concerns about exposing populations to CT radiation. To this end the NIH is funding the a $200 million dollar National Lung Screening Trial which tracks 50,000 smokers using CT scans through the agency's National Cancer Institute, .

But that study has also been dogged by some concerns. The Wall Street Journal wrote an article last October suggesting that two of the researchers in the multicenter study also had conflicts of interest for work they had done for tobacco companies testifying about the safety of CT scans. The Lung Cancer Alliance wrote letters to the NIH calling their attention to possible bias. The Lung Cancer Alliance is supported by donations and grants including $100,000 from General Electric, the company that makes CT scanners.

Two researchers, Dr. Denise Aberle of UCLA and Dr. William Black of Dartmouth, each testified on behalf of tobacco companies in state lawsuits. The defendants in the cases wanted the tobacco companies to pay for CT diagnostic screens. Aberle earned $30,750 from American Tobacco by testifying against the state of Louisiana, saying that CT scans were "reckless or irresponsible to promote". Black reportedly earned $700 from Phillip Morris for testimony for that company against the state of New York. He said CT screening "may do more harm than good."

The NIH asks that researchers involved with government studies report conflicts of interest to the institutions that employ them. Most of those institutions, as Acronym Required has discussed before, refuse to impose restrictions on research funding sources, and in fact aren't eager to divulge their policies on controversial funding from industries like tobacco. CT scanning is a powerful tool, but the most appropriate use for lung cancer detection is still under study. With the forthcoming NIH study results due next year, the investigation of these important research questions is clouded by contentions of conflict of interest on both sides.

PZ Goes to The Mall of America

PZ Myers of Pharyngula got booted from the line of registered guests to see the movie "Expelled", a creationist production about intolerance towards religion. In an act of abject poltroonery the movie's producer ejected PZ while the rest Myers family and his other companions, Richard Dawkins and staff, were allowed to stay. The "Expelled" producer, perhaps charmed by the English accent, said he allowed Dawkins to watch the movie because he was a 'guest to our country' and had probably 'flown a long way'. (Better than saying he didn't recognize him). In this amusing YouTube video Myers and Dawkins explain what happened.

"Expelled" is a flick of reportedly dubious quality not to mention phantasmagorical content that showed at the Mall of America. (There's the religion we know and love.) Dawkins, in good form, calls the movie "shoddy", "boring", and "bad in every possible way", filled with "Lord privy seal" moments and attended by a completely "sycophantic audience." He calls the whole production "second rate in film-making and public relations", to which Myers suggests that "second rate" might be a tad complimentary.

PZ Goes To The Apple Store

Mild mannered PZ, albeit with the ferocious quill, appeared in the movie at the request of the filmmakers. Then for his contributions, whambo, out on his 'arse, whereupon he whiled away some time in an Apple store blogging. Meanwhile, in the movie showing across the way, the helpful Myers explained that he wishes to increase science literacy and make religion a "side dish rather than a main course", something 'to do on weekends'. His tone is notably conciliatory, comparing religion to knitting, as in -- "we're not going to take their knitting' needles away".

His is a charming analogy. There is a 21st century knitting revival and as many religious people in the US as ever. I used Google's totally unreliable "Trends" to compare "religion" to "knitting" here, and if you squint carefully you can see an inverse relationship. (Either that no relation whatsoever or the two trend together.)

The Economics of Antediluvian Intolerance

Coincidentally, I'm reading Dawkin's "The God Delusion" now, along with "Christopher Hitchen's "God is Not Great". You've got to be impressed with how Hitchen's waves his pen around, regardless of what he says, and while Dawkin's book is milder, he has little tolerance for my tolerance or anyone else's. Serious books with bits of entertainment, and I'm sure good screedy profitable fun for the authors.

------------------------------------------

Acronym Required wrote about science and religion in "Science Faith and Books", in "Dover: Science Prevails over Intelligent Design: Judge Doesn't Monkey Around", in "Evolution v. Not Evolution" among others. We looked at quests for fame and PZ Myer's reception for Stuart Pivar versus Lynn Marguis in "Science Fame: Million Dollar Minutes" and mentioned Hitchen's writing in "FISA: Turning Orwell On His Ear".

Sequoia Systems sent Princeton professor Ed Felten an e-mail, warning that if Felten's lab proceeded to analyze the security and/or hackability of Sequoia's voting machines, the company would consider its intellectual property infringed. The move followed disturbing reports about Sequoia voting machines in New Jersey, for instance that 10,000 voting machines were uncertified by the state, that February primary officials noted irregularities in the vote records, and that Princeton professor Andrew Appel bought a few Sequoia machines at a state auction site and managed to program them to misappropriate votes.

The Sequoia Systems' letter warns that the company "retained counsel to stop any infringement of our intellectual properties, including any non-compliant analysis". Felten produced a demo last year showing how to hack a Diebold machine in one minute, and recently published a paper on the Diebold machines' vulnerabilities.

---------------------------------------------

Acronym Required also mentioned voting machines in this post.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernacke, in the midst of financial meltdowns, struggles with federal monetary policy, or as bloomberg.com put it "Plays `Whac-A-Mole' With Turmoil in Markets". Meanwhile his predecessor Alan Greenspan pens oft-quoted editorials offering policy hints and cryptic foretelling of the economy's prospects. Today he looked in his crystal ball and wrote in the Financial Times the future looked "most wrenching".

Greenspan seemed dismayed: "Those of us who look to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder equity have to be in a state of shocked disbelief." Shocked, shocked shocked. Greenspan's own "self-interest", is as an adviser to Deutsche Bank, Pimco, and Paulson & Co, a hedge fund company that has "posted stratospheric gains" by betting on credit crises.

Throughout his tenure, as indicated by this speech back in 2005, Greenspan advocated deregulation, along with "innovation and structural change in the financial services industry", which were critical to "providing expanded access to credit". As he concluded in his 2005 speech: "this fact underscores the importance of our roles as policymakers, researchers, bankers, and consumer advocates in fostering constructive innovation."

Greenspan didn't shy from acknowledging his influence then, but now in 2008, he pops up with sage words but quickly scuttles away from responsibility. Using this tactic he also blamed the federal debt and the housing crises on aberrant circumstances. In today's editorial titled: "We Will Never Have a Perfect Model of Risk", Greenspan abdicates responsibility and lets "the model" take the blow. Once he accomplishes that neat abstraction, he rallies for more of the same, warning against regulatory changes in the market that would "inhibit our most reliable and effective safeguards against cumulative economic failure: market flexibility and open competition."

Krugman, writing in today's article "The B Word", doesn't buy it. "Between 2002 and 2007, false beliefs in the private sector -- the belief that home prices only go up, that financial innovation had made risk go away, that a triple-A rating really meant that an investment was safe -- led to an epidemic of bad lending. Meanwhile, false beliefs in the political arena -- the belief of Alan Greenspan and his friends in the Bush administration that the market is always right and regulation always a bad thing -- led Washington to ignore the warning signs." Krugman thinks a bailout is inevitable.

My House or Yours?

One evening about 5 years ago I learned of "chicken pox parties". There on a news group, a dozen people chatted about sending their kids to a "party" with such nonchalance you'd have thought they were planning holiday shopping and $5.95 lunch special afterwards. Perhaps they'd spent hours thinking over the pros and cons. But on the public forum those do-it-yourself infectors didn't question the public health risks, the possible complications, or the ethics of purposefully exposing your kids and family to highly infectious diseases that fortunate people in western countries get immunized against. If they had doubts they masked them with derring-do.

I was taken aback by this parental concept of fun and thought it some new and bizarre fad. Naturally I was curious. How would it work? "OK kids, now we're going to pass the communal drink cup around, then we'll play the kissing game..."? (I also rethought my entire childhood in a positively idyllic way, though I never forgot the sting of merthiolate.¹)

These modern parental dalliances with infectious disease seem ironic. Public health's largest successes include the vaccination campaigns that eradicated or significantly reduced loathsome diseases such as smallpox, polio, yellow fever, measles, diphtheria, and tetanus. The UN reported last November that measles vaccination efforts, especially in Africa, have helped decrease measles deaths by two-thirds across the world since 2000.

Scientists and doctors toil to develop vaccines for ugly scourges like HIV and malaria, which are each responsible for mortally infecting up to 30% of some populations and when a recent AIDS vaccine trial failed, the collective global dismay was palpable. For diseases where vaccinations aren't available, citizens in developing countries latch on to promises from the public health community that millions of people's lives will someday be saved by immunization. Against this backdrop, suburban parents in western countries shun vaccinations, because in their country, in this day and age, the injections themselves seem more dangerous than the diseases.

It's tempting to think of these "chicken pox parties" as the privileged reserve of parents of a certain age who never saw the ravages of disease that previous generations knew intimately. Maybe if they saw a man crippled by polio; maybe if they had lived through the smallpox epidemics in New York at the end of the 18th century, where one in five victims died and in milder cases victims were left left blind. Maybe their mother or grandmother never described what it was like caring for a family during an outbreak of chicken pox as it swept through infecting each of six children.

But doubts about vaccines are perennial. Now parents air their vaccination suspicions via the web. Before the web, they talked on the phone, or at work, or in between hauling water from the well. This is not the fad of a select cohort of modern parents, convinced that a case of wild chicken pox is safer than a vaccine because they've never known anyone who died of the disease.

These unique "social events" seem shocking when they appear in your inbox. Go to any online article about any part of the whole wide topic of vaccination and peruse the comments section for horrifying rumors, misunderstandings, and cavalier-bordering-on-criminal pronouncements about never vaccinating kids. It's enough to make anyone shudder -- doctor, scientist, parent or casual reader. It's easy to see how those who claim that thimerosal is responsible for every imaginable childhood tic are dangerously misguided. It's less acceptable to question an authority who tags as crazy anyone who questions any aspect of vaccinations.

For Your Own Good -- Smallpox in New York

Naturally, vaccinations have an interesting and controversial history, like much of medicine. The tussle between public health campaigns and fearful citizens is part and parcel of that history. The first vaccinations introduced a wound with a sharp implement of some sort, then infected the area with a bit of virus from a sick neighbor or perhaps some pox in a jar. Vaccination became more sanitary, but the concerns about safety persist as with all cutting-edge medicine.

Along with the health worries, there has always been questions about the government's power to compel vaccination. When vaccinations arrived in the US from England in the early 1800's, people balked at what they saw as encroaching boundaries of government. At the time, American public health initiatives were more about trying to convince people not to do things, like "[let] their privy overflow into the street" says James Colgrove in "Between Persuasion and Compulsion:Smallpox Control in Brooklyn and New York, 1894-1902 (Bulletin of the History of Medicine 78.2 (2004)). As Colgrove's book title indicates, public health officials walked a fine line between persuading, cajoling and forcing public compliance, for many years without legal authority.

Health officials contained smallpox outbreaks by vaccinating households within a circumference of an infected household. If someone refused to receive the vaccine, authorities would station couple of policemen, the "Sanitary Police", to enforce a quarantine on the household. There are stories of people who made involved escapes from quarantined New York residences, only to be caught in New Jersey and hauled back for punishment.

While libertarians thought the government was overstepping, even when vaccinations became safer there were concerns about the deleterious effects of vaccinations. During several outbreaks of smallpox in New York in the late 18th century and early 19th century, rumors spread that the vaccine contained tetanus, despite significant efforts by health professionals to dispel such notions.

Arthur Allen writes in "Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Greatest Lifesaver" that "Raggedy Ann", was named for a rag doll handed down from writer Johnny Gruelle's grandmother to his daughter Marcella and memorialized in Gruelle's books. Marcella died at 13 after receiving two smallpox vaccinations in school -- some fears were justified. According to Allen, the Raggedy Ann doll then became symbol for the anti-vaccination effort.

At the beginning of the 20th century, anti-vaccination advocates successfully brought two high profile cases to court to challenge the government's right to make vaccinations compulsory. In 1904, the New York state court decided in Viemeister v. White that the state could mandate laws curtailing individual liberties in order to protect public health. In 1905 the Supreme Court decided that all states have the right to legally enforce public health measures, in the infamous Jacobson v. Massachusetts precedent. This helped solidify government authority, and continued medical advances and quality control assured safety. However real and perceived hazards remain.

The same issues (legal, moral, individual liberty, public safety, medical safety) churn in the public arena today as during the smallpox vaccination campaigns of 100 years ago. People erroneously think modern issues are unique to our era but the underlying questions are the same. Is HepB really necessary for newborns they ask? Can I infect my own child with chickenpox? Can I skip vaccinations altogether and depend on herd immunity? States struggle with how to keep populations safe.

Additionally, people understand the profit incentives of pharmaceuticals and ask questions like: Is a cervical cancer vaccination really necessary for my 9 year old daughter? Since so many vaccinations are enforced by law there's an uncomfortable nexus of profit motives (pharmaceutical companies), individual health concerns (what are the risks of taking or not taking the vaccine), and public health concerns (how to prevent scourges and keep the public safe).

While vaccination is one of medicine's greatest coups there are still many issues and questions about vaccinating. Nevertheless among all the doctors, commentators and public health authorities who speak out, there's always one subset of the chorus who authoritatively treat all questions and concerns with the same universal knee-jerk dismissiveness. Is their approach the best public health strategy?

"Same, Same But Different" - Polio in Nigeria

Vaccination doubts are not the exclusive domain of "naive" westerners. Polio persists in countries like India, Afganistan, Pakistan and Nigeria where many people know first hand the crippling effects of the disease, yet still occasionally resist vaccination. In 2003, Nigerians in some northern states thought that polio vaccines contained HIV virus and/or sterility drugs, and began refusing vaccinations. Here's how the CDC described the problem (brackets mine):

False rumors about OPV [oral polio vaccine] safety adversely affected SNIDs [Subnational Immunization Days], with the greatest impact in Kano, where 25% of all Nigerian WPV [wild polio virus] cases occurred in 2003. Citing vaccine safety concerns, state authorities in Kano (which last conducted a SNID in April 2003) decided in August 2003 to suspend all SIAs [supplementary immunization activities]. Statewide suspension of SIAs at different times during 2003--2004 also occurred in Kaduna, Zamfara, and (to a limited extent) in Niger state. As a result of these rumors, public health managers and frontline health-care workers found it increasingly difficult to improve microplanning, training, and implementation of SIAs.

Unlike the New York Times, the CDC is not in the business of humanizing disease. The agency categorized the events but of course gave no hint as to where the false rumors may have come from. However it's worth looking at because Nigeria's history with vaccinations provides some insight into the quandary of public resistance to vaccination. For instance take these three recent events:

1) As Western AIDS denialists like Peter H. Duesberg influenced South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, some say a book by Edward Hooper published in 1999 called "The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS" (Little, Brown) fed rumors throughout Africa that AIDS was spread to humans via a related simian virus contained in a oral polio vaccine (OPV) given to populations in the 1950's. Hooper theorized that OPV was developed when scientists used primary chimpanzee kidney cells as a substrate for the vaccine. The polio vaccine was tested in mass trials across Africa, Poland and Russia, but Hooper claimed that in Africa OPV led to HIV.

Hooper's book was well received. Reviewers from most major newspapers gave the book good reviews, and even more skeptical reviewers gave partial accolades. Robin Weiss of Science called the book "a towering achievement; right or wrong in its main conclusion, there is much to learn from Hooper's exposition" (Vol. 286. no. 5443, pp. 1305 - 1306). John Moore, in a Nature review called the book, "in many ways, superb. It is scholarly, thoroughly researched, well (if densely) written and deserves, indeed demands, to be taken seriously." ("Up The River Without a Paddle", 401, 325-326 (23 September 1999) | doi:10.1038/43778) However both journals disagreed with the central tenet of the book because Hooper based his conclusion on circumstantial evidence. Shortly thereafter no less than three research groups disproved Hooper's hypotheses in research that was published in Nature and Science. Nevertheless there's enough residual interest and belief in Hooper's book (and he continues to publicize and update his hypotheses), that the ideas he introduced persist today.

2) Africa has long been a place where clinical trials are conducted unlike the way they are in the US. When these trials don't work out the fallout hurts subsequent public health efforts. For instance take the recent example of Pfizer's Nigerian clinical trial of Trovan in 2006. Half the kids were given the antibiotic Trovan (Trovafloxacin) during a meningitis outbreak, and half were given ceftriaxone, the drug normally used to treat the disease. Kids from both groups died, but the focus was on the eleven of the kids in the trial on the test drug and others in the experimental cohort who remain permanently impaired.

The Washington Post covered the story in a series called the "The Body Hunters". Marcia Angell also outlined the trial in a New York Review of Books article, also called "The Body Hunters". Investigators who followed up on the clinical trials charged that the company breached medical ethics and said the trial wouldn't have been allowed in the US because it's unethical to do a trial of an unproven drug during an active epidemic. Among other issues, doctors gave inadequate or no informed consent to patients, and the dosage for the established (control) treatment was reportedly too low, which could have made the experimental drug (Trovan) look better.

National outrage over Pfizer's actions brought a group of Nigerian plaintiffs to New York where they unsuccessfully attempted to try the case in the US. Nigeria's suit against Pfizer continues to this day, and a lawyer for Nigeria recently testified about the US red tape complicating his attempts to summon to Pfizer executives.

3) In 2003 the idea that vaccine campaigns were nefarious sterilization efforts gained momentum after scientists reported that polio vaccines contained estrogen. A Muslim leader, Dr Ibrahim Datti Ahmed, secretary general of the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria, claimed he had research proving western goals to "depopulate" Africa and introduce "adulterated" vaccines. Throughout history, the west has championed family planning, which has elicited abject suspicion, and led to occasional rumors about devious plots by western forces to decimate populations via birth control and vaccinations. Public health workers have diligently tried to solidify trust of vaccinations among Nigerians for decades.

But in 2003 the Nigerian polio vaccination program was forced to shut down so that politicians could test the vaccines suspected of being birth control agents and provide public proof of their safety. Such an interruption can have devastating health consequences. Vaccination rates fell to 30%. and the disease spread to Muslim communities around the world. Muslims tended to mount resistance to vaccinations people say, because they were wary of the war in Iraq and perceived animosity from the US to Muslims. Eighteen countries previously declared polio free incurred polio flare-ups and countries that hadn't seen polio since the 1980's had outbreaks.

Any of these incidents could have help spread fears about vaccinations. Hooper's ideas have been dispensed with and Trovan may have not have caused deaths, but the effect of these incidents has a far-reaching negative impact. Furthermore, when clinical trials are conducted in countries under circumstances that wouldn't be legal in the US, suspicion is not without foundation.

10 Billion Doses, 200 Side Effects.

During the interrupted 2003 polio vaccination effort, many Nigerians went unvaccinated, and the population became susceptible to another uncommon occurrence. The polio vaccine, made of attenuated virus, can occasionally mutate to a wild non-attenuated virus that causes infection. But the chance of this occurring increases when a large number of unvaccinated people give the virus more opportunity to replicate and mutate to the wild form.

The journal Nature reported that an outbreak of this type last fall ended up paralyzing 69 children. This is a rare occurrence -- the WHO expert interviewed by the journal pointed out that "10 billion doses of oral polio vaccine...administered worldwide were implicated in 9 outbreaks, accounting for fewer than 200 cases of disease" (Michael Hopkin, "Health officials fear Nigeria Polio setback" 12 October 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2007.163). Despite how rare these occurrences, or the fact that they often occur when many people refuse to get vaccinated, the incidents feed suspicion.

Time reported that Nigeria's 2007 outbreak due to the wild-type virus was contained via collaborative public health messaging between religious, health and political leaders. However sometimes mischievous anti-immunization authors, politicians, organizations or religious leaders stir trouble by either malevolently or innocently blaming such an outbreak on vaccinations.

There are risks to vaccinations. There are risks to clinical trials. There are mistakes, and sometimes medical malfeasance. And there's a public disconnect when it comes to understanding risk, 200 side effects in 10 billion doses is very safe, but no one's content when their child has the adverse reaction. There's always the possibility that a few aberrant reactions to a vaccination can innervate fears in hundreds of people and derail a whole vaccination effort.

Some percentage of the population will always distrust vaccinations, no matter how good the messages. But another percentage of civilians have legitimate concerns. Public understanding of reasonable risks is further complicated by public health, pharmaceutical and political hesitation to admit errors for fear that people will shun vaccinations (or pursue litigation). So what do these suburban American families have to do with Nigerian villagers? People harbor distrust of government mandated vaccinations produced by for profit pharmaceutical companies. If all resistance, chicken-pox parties as well as questions about the necessity of cervical vaccines receive the same reception from authorities, as they do sometimes, this can lead citizens to distrust public health authorities and more vehemently shun vaccinations, ironically.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

¹ Merthiolate is a trade name for thimerosal and was widely used as a topical antiseptic for children. You'd fall down scrape your knee, and then into the wound mom would pour this reddish-orange-pink stuff, a toxin, as it turns out that really burned and smarted. Barbaric.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Consumer Product's Bill Includes Phthalates Amendment

The Senate and House are both working on bills to provide more oversight for imported toys. The bills follow several toy recalls last year that resulted in the deaths of children exposed to lead laden toys, and seeks to raise the civil penalty caps from thousands to millions of dollars. The legislation also aims to bolster the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) and establish a public database of consumer complaints.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and several Democrats have called for the ouster of CPSC head Nancy Nord, who opposed the bills to strengthen the CPSC despite the surge in product recalls. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) told reporters unsurprisingly: "She's an acting chairperson, but we've seen more inaction than action."

The Senate Bill also contains an amendment by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would ban phthalates in children's toys and products. Following California's state law last year Feinstein vowed to work nationally to get phthalates out of kid's products.

No Christmas, Just Chunks of Coal to Kick Around

Following California's vote to limit phthalates last year, several states have followed suit, including Washington. The press predicted that the senate wouldn't pass the bill. One lawmaker, worse than Ebenezer himself, had warned in a vile deceit that Christmas would be canceled, and the Toy Industry Association spent $50,000 at the last minute working to undermine the bill. The state senate bill passed March 7th, 40-9.

Europe and other countries have banned phthalates, and Walmart, Toys-R-Us, Target, and other stores have volunteered to stop selling toys with phthalates. The chemical makes toys pliable and their are alternatives to its use.

In the meantime, the research on phthalates continues to pile up. Researchers last month found that infants had elevated levels of phthalate metabolites in their urine when their parents self-reported using baby lotions and shampoos, and that the link was strongest in the youngest infants.

-------------------------------------------------------

Acronym Required also wrote about phthalates in the following articles:

Phthalates and Bisphenol A: Media and Politics" (November, 2007)

Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC (July, 2005)

Bisphenol-A and Phthalates Bill in California (January, 2006)

San Francisco Bans Bisphenol A, Phthalates (July, 2006)

San Francisco phthalates & Bisphenol A Ban (November, 2006)

The House voted 213 to 197 to expand the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But it did not give retroactive legal protection to telecoms. Instead the bill proposes that companies present their case arguments before a judge when state secrets are at stake.

The Republican Party spent considerable time organizing a secret session yesterday, only the fifth since 1825, to convince the Democrats of the bill's necessary aspects. A two hour security sweep of the House chamber was conducted before the GOP presented classified information that in the end failed to impress the Democrats."We probably could have gone and eaten together at McDonald's...", Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) told the Washington Post. Bush has said he would veto the bill.

----------------------------------------------

We also wrote about FISA here in "FISA: Turning Orwell On His Ear", and here in "FI-HISSS-SA".

Microhoo, Forward to the Future

Microsoft's Chief Technology Officer Ray Ozzie talked at a Las Vegas technology conference recently about the company's plans to build a "seamless mesh" computing infrastructure, inclusive of online applications and mobile devices. Microsoft is of course looking to extend its reach and in keeping with this goal aggressively proposes to merge with Yahoo. In public relations efforts focused on its Yahoo offer the company spins out comforting nuggets of merger wisdom. Ozzie told the Financial Times Monday: "'Technology companies, if they dive in and just smash things together for smashing them together's sake, it's reckless, it's just simply reckless.'" ("Microsoft in No Rush to Merge Yahoo Technology.") The message for investors, employers and customers is that Microsoft understands the risks of large mergers.

Meanwhile, as Mr. Ozzie spews sage adages about the heedless smashing together of things, Microsoft contends with product fallout from its latest operating system. In "They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know", the New York Times describes Vista's incompatibility problems and quotes three top executives who make disparaging on-the-record remarks. Granted they don't sling zingers worthy of Democratic presidential campaign staff, but one Microsoft executive who bought a "Vista Capable" PC, then thrashed through reckoning with its limited functionality told the Times: "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."

According to the story, many users refuse to upgrade and instead run XP because of Vista's reputation for various issues like: "[t]he graphics chip that couldn't handle Vista's whizzy special effects. The long delays as it loaded. The applications that ran at slower speeds. The printers, scanners and other hardware peripherals, which work dandily with XP, that lacked the necessary software, the drivers, to work well with Vista." All these problems after multiple launch delays. Is Vista a "smashed together" product?

Trash From The Past

If Vista had been launched at another time in history, like after any one of its proceeding operating systems -- MS-DOS, Windows 1.0, 2.0, 286, 386, 3.0, or Windows for Workgroups 3.1 or 3.11, for instance, these users might be duly appreciative. Today's new operating systems are comparatively customer friendly. Mind you today's customers have every right to complain heartily -- but lets get some perspective from the systems of yore.

Once operating systems didn't come bundled on PCs and setting them up took hours. This was often a collaborative group effort, as individuals all over the world, through trials and tribulation, would acquire tricks for easing the process then share their expertise on websites or via newgroups. Here's how one set of instructions for installing Windows for Workgroups 3.11, circa 1995, touted the new operating system from the Redmond company: "WFWG 3.11 is a real product with a real manual and Microsoft support. If there is a problem installing it, then there are many other sources of information available for troubleshooting the problem." Hard to overemphasize the importance of other sources back then.

If you weren't blessed with a CD-Rom, you'd do the installation by floppy, and so for Windows for Workgroups you'd get your pile of installation floppy discs and settle down at your computer for some fun. Four steps in, the guide offered some advice on the part, "add network protocol"

"With a bit of luck, the TCP/IP-32 protocol will be in the list. If not, then it is an "Unlisted or Updated Protocol" which is the first choice. Unfortunately, even if the TCP/IP protocol is listed, WFWG generally doesn't really know where to find it. It may invent a plausible but incorrect directory...No matter what choice is made, be prepared to fill in a dialog box with the letter and directory where the Microsoft TCP/IP distribution directory is found. Once the files are located, WFWG will copy them into the WFWG system and will add the protocol to the list in the Network Drivers and Network Setup panels. Back out by clicking the various OK buttons."

That's how it went, not mind-boggling, but tedious. If the installation was successful it was a great moment, but you'd keep that pile of floppies close at hand because who knew? If soon after you tried to install some software in an order that the operating system found offensive or if the computer for no apparent reason ceased to function in a predictable way, often your only recourse was to "reinstall". Vista is a system with today's problems, as all Microsoft operating systems have had age appropriate glitches for perpetual cutting edge user demanded technologies.

Crash To the Past

Vista problems were accompanied by a less than straight-forward marketing scheme with confusing (some say deceptive) advertising. In order to market Vista to lower end computers, the NYT says, Microsoft changed the label on new PC's. from the definitive "Vista Ready", which it wasn't, to the more wishy-washy "Vista Capable", a dubious distinction that many customers assumed meant "able", but actually meant "unable", and "incapable" of running any version of Vista except the scaled down one called "Home Basic", missing many of Vista's advertised features. There's the catch.

The judge in the lawsuit against Microsoft granted the case class-action status, so the plaintiffs who bought a PC labeled "Windows Vista Capable" could seek compensation for the company's deceptive marketing aimed at increasing demand. Microsoft appealed the class-action status, saying since customers had "different information" they weren't all in the same class, and because, "[c]ontinued proceedings here would cost Microsoft a substantial sum of money for discovery and divert key personnel from full-time tasks." But doesn't Microsoft systematically buck for court proceedings in lieu of nicer, profit-curtailing behavior? What better use of key personnel then?

They DOS Protest Too Much

Sure, some key personnel -- top executives -- spend time complaining to the New York Times about Vista. The paper quoted Microsoft VP Mike Nash saying "I personally got burned", which is interesting because VP's usually don't get "burned" on operating systems they (buy?) at steep employee discounts, especially when they have a stake in the company's rising stock. But still, when your executives go on the record with such admissions it can't be good -- or can it? Since key personnel are unlikely to join the class action suit, maybe their playing the we're all in it together card?

Some key personnel also make soothing sounds about the future and Microhoo, and some more stay busy shaking off the past and a chaffed EU, which seethes over MS refusals to share code and play nice. Last month the EU fined Microsoft 1.3 billion Euros for interoperability issues. The company has 3 months to pay off the fine which increases daily as the value of the dollar sinks.

Some complained that the fine was staggering, but to keep this in perspective -- Microsoft is worth hundreds of billions of dollars. No company likes piles of cash to whither away but this relatively small fine is also an important piece of the business model, balanced by profits rendered from the same strategies that peeved the EU. Yes, Microsoft has promised to be less secretive and more open in the future but it will no doubt will appeal the decision.

The company may express yearning to be free on the internet and in mobile devices, but its bread and butter is embedded in its desktop products -- its software, its browser and its operating system -- mainframe as that may seem. Steve Balmer commented that the fines were for past issues now behind the company. But the company's profit is in proprietary systems and maintaining market share by shutting down competition. So what to expect? Naturally, Microsoft will continue to conduct business "competitively", as usual.It will build impressive backwards compatible software and strategize about how to squeeze profit out of some of Yahoo's services. To do this still more "key personnel" will be the large teams of razor-teethed lawyers, ready, no doubt, for many court bouts. Brussel's just initiated two new antitrust investigations against the Microsoft.

In an essay on how to pronounce the surname of the Putin's presidential successor Dmitri Medvedev, Serge Schememann writes of English speakers vexed by the Russian language, and gently mocks language teachers who guide them. The author quotes a bilingual journalist from the Moscow Times, who once tutored an American actress how to pronounce the consonants T,D, and N: "the tongue must touch the upper teeth, not the alveolus like in English".

Schememann adds, "Russians have their own problems with American names". I bet. He writes, "I never touch the upper teeth with my tongue nor anything that comes up when I google 'alveolus'". Which is unfortunate, since I hear Ringley Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus salaries are somewhat comparable to journalists'.

"Alveolus", is simply a "a small cavity or hollow", and often refers to the pulmonary alveoli (plural) in the lungs, which function during respiration to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide to and from the blood. Accordingly, the Russian reporter's alarming suggestion -- tongue to alveolus -- might actually constitute a medical emergency. "Alveoli" also refers to other hollows, such as the sockets in which the teeth are rooted.

If a Tree Falls in a Forest, 364 Days a Year, Does Anyone Hear It?

One day a year we celebrate Arbor Day by planting trees, then we have the other 364 days that aren't Arbor Day. (We'll disregard Christmas, the sort of a pro-logging holiday.) Of course the general mood of the world is plant trees. Plant trees to keep the cities shady, plant trees to keep the forests thriving, to provide shelter and food for birds and bugs and animals, and to capture CO2, which in turn helps reduce global warming. Saving trees is the choice of the day, the prudent much ballyhooed choice. But day in and day out, people are compelled to cut trees down.

Brazil's rate of deforestation increased last year despite efforts to stop illegal logging. The rate of deforestation in the 1990's was 7,000 square miles per year. Starting in 2000, the rate was ~9,500 square miles per year. Then the rate seemed to decrease in the last couple of years until the last 5 months of 2007, when loggers cut 7000 square miles. What happened?

The environmental minister told the Financial Times in last week's article, "Brazil takes battle to the Amazon", that the rate of deforestation had temporarily decreased because of government crackdowns and the arrests of corrupt officials. Brazil is in the midst of renewing its forest protection efforts.

But some say that Brazil's deforestation due to illegal logging results from a more complicated mix, including public policies and populist local politicians which encourage logging. Others tie the rate of deforestation directly to commodity prices. According to this account the recent rise of illegal logging occurred when farmers, especially cattle ranchers, cleared land to meet the demand and to profit as food prices rose. So we can see that arguably, rising food prices might be a reason to cut down trees.

There are many other reasons why people fell trees besides for food. In each case there's a logical, rational reason. Here are some recent examples:

• To Protect Your Truck: A mailman in Vancouver, Washington hacked at more that 30 fruit trees along his route because the city wouldn't trim them and he wanted to protect his truck.
• For Your Solar Panels: For six years two neighbors in Sunnyvale, California engaged in a legal battle to resolve whether a resident who wanted solar panels could force his neighbor to cut down some redwoods. The 30 year old Solar Shade Control Act outlines the rules governing neighbors trees and solar panels.
• For Aesthetics: Every so often a corner estate gets sold and the new owners begin refashioning it as their home. First the old toilets get discarded curbside. Last, despite the opposite trend in places like Miami and LA to replace non-native palm trees with shade trees, in some neighborhoods in California quixotic homeowners owners replace shade trees with exotic palm trees. Tequila sunrise in hand perhaps. I've seen this happen.
• To Confront the Rebels: The president of Chad cut down "centuries-old trees" so that the leader could "be adequately protected". Said one bicyclist watching the trees fall: "When I was a child, soldiers used to stop us touching the trees...[n]ow they are being destroyed."

While Chad acted in the name of terrorism, the US for some reason didn't deploy that reasoning when it moved forward to develop its national forest areas. Last week the state of California sued the U.S. Forest Service, which wants to open more than 500,000 acres of California national forest for roads and oil drilling. The state wants to keep these forests free of roads.

State Attorney General Jerry Brown told the Los Angeles Times "I find it kind of ironic that the federal government won't let us clean up our cars and they now want cars going through these forests." California accuses the Forest Service of violating the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act by moving ahead with development plans and disregarding the state's laws. California enacted a moratorium on road construction in "pristine areas of its national forests" in 2006, according to the LA Times. But sometimes federal governments make the National Forests earn their keep, come hell or high water.

And so each new day gives a fine reason to chop a tree.

You're so Sad, We're So Happy

Antidepressants have taken a beating over the past couple of years with a steady stream of difficult news, some of it contradictory -- about studies biased by doctors interests, potential dangers of the drugs for children, limited effectiveness as a result of selective reporting, and patients struggling to withdraw from the drugs. Regardless of the news, many patients critically depend on antidepressants and pharmaceutical companies invest heavily in their development.

Last week Wyeth announced the approval of Pristiq, an antidepressant they're marketing to succeed Effexor XR. Effexor was the first of the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), followed by Eli Lilly's Cymbalta. Wyeth won FDA approval for the drug's use as an antidepressant and is hoping to get the drug approved for menopause. This is a savvy move. With the HRTs in decline because of cancer risks Pristiq is the first drug to be marketed as a non-hormonal option for menopause "symptoms".

Eating Your Own Dog Food?

Some doctors question whether "Pristiq", a metabolite of Effexor, is an improvement over any of the drugs currently on the market. Regardless of doubts, the drug is a lithe marketing confection, starting with the name, "Pristiq", which summons to mind "pristine", as in, that is the cleanest most crystal clear pristine lake you've ever seen, and "mystique", as in, wow, he/she has that certain je ne sais quois -- mystique. Ergo "Pristiq". Just saying it makes you want to hop out of the chair, dress well, smile brightly, finish a report, wrap up a business meeting, or throw a dinner party -- tonight, for 50 friends.

With Effexor coming off patent, Wyeth is happy to have Pristiq in the wings. As Gino Germano, Wyeth's president of pharmaceuticals told the New York Times, doctors and patients need to have options. The Times' print edition featured a photo of the beaming Germano, perhaps elated over the FDA approval news and definitely projecting a certain unique Pristiq mystique. Some analysts predict $1.5 billion in sales by 2012.

FDA Leader Criticized

We wrote the "State of the FDA" about a couple of reports documenting FDA management shortcomings compounded by budget shortfalls that compromise the health and safety of US citizens. Now Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who heads the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the House Energy and Commerce Committee has called for FDA commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to be replaced. Eschenbach has been in the post a little over a year.

In a press release Feb. 1, 2008 on the FDA, Stupak said the agency was no longer a "pending" crisis, but rife with problems and fresh off a formidable record of "378 recalls last year on everything from peanut butter to pet food to drugs". Stupak's goal "is to help identify what went wrong and implement changes to minimize negative health effects on the American people." Stupak even has a replacement candidate in mind according to the Wall Street Journal.

Firecracker Appointees

However some politicians see the Michigan Democrat as a little too aggressive. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) says that firing the commissioner is a bad idea and told the journal that Dr. von Eschenbach is a "dedicated public servant," who has "certainly not done anything unethical or illegal". (Gold Star commendable these days, but shouldn't we be throttling for a higher standard?)

Some news agencies scurvily suggest that the death of Stupak's son from suicide, a reaction to the acne drug Accutane, motivates his attention to the FDA's problems. However the congressman points out that while the incident gave him insight into the FDA, if people knew how little oversight the agency had on some products they'd be "marching in the streets." (like the Sixties?)

It's too bad Stupak wasn't in on the Senate confirmation hearings in August, 2006, since perhaps he could have guided the leadership choice at the beginning of the process. The Senate deliberated during von Eschenbach's confirmation hearings, voicing reservations about his suspected attention to politics over science. The commissioner is a family friend of President Bush's who had what Newsweek at the time called "a history of generating controversy".

Prior to his FDA tenure he worked at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where he "introduced prayer to commission meetings", unrealistically set a goal of eliminating death from cancer by 2015, and was called a "disaster" by some staffers. Senators Murray and Clinton balked on his confirmation over the stance the FDA was taking on Plan B, the birth control pill. In what seemed like a sort of a quid pro quo deal, once Plan B got passed von Eschenbach got confirmed.

The interesting thing about Bush's political appointees to science agencies is that the lifecycles between Senate confirmation and given appointees' agencies' disasters has become quite short, in a way that nicely matches the current pace of news. The predictability and familiarity of it all gives us a sense of reassurance in a day when little else is predictable. Reporters aren't like - von Eschenbach who? It's just - oh yeah, that guy everyone worried about a year and a half ago.

But again, as with many of the science agencies it's not all about the commissioner. Stupak acknowledges that the FDA has entrenched problems that preceded Eschenbach's short tenure.

--------------------------------

Acronym Required wrote about von Eschenbach's confirmation hearings in "The FDA'S 'Medical Ideology'"

We wrote "Resuscitating The FDA", about the FDA in the wake of various fiascoes.

"FDA -- Calling Off The Dogs", is about Plan B and FDA staff turnover.

"Ethics- The NIH and FDA", discusses conflicts of interests among scientists in these two agencies.