Fruit Flies, Astronomy, DNA...There Goes The Economy.

When Sarah Palin took a rhetorical whack at a research grant worth $211,000 last week scientists angrily reacted to her characterization of research as "pork". Palin's tip came from CAGW, who in 1997 raised funds to rid the taxpayer of science research expense and "target agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Agency". The group enjoys a collaborative relationship with John McCain and was also the source of McCain's comments on grizzly ecology research and planetarium equipment. Why does olive fly research rate special attention from CAGW? Does any of this matter if McCain isn't elected?

Science Jokes for Dummies

As Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin put it: "Sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!" The audience snickered. Palin's fruit fly joke continued the comedic run that McCain began with his "grizzly bear DNA" comment, and his "overhead projector" joke. They could author a book.

Part of this is theater, some say. McCain always talks like this but doesn't even vote against the measures. Adler Planetarium's equipment grant got rejected but McCain still goes on about it. That the GOP campaign team's relegates science to political joke fodder used to misinform the masses, doesn't endear them to Acronym Required as we previously commented. Will electing Obama put an end to this silliness?

Entomology Etymology

The "fruit fly", as every science blogger pointed out -- (and, on a positive note, so did tons of non-science bloggers, writers, and reporters) -- refers to the Drosophila melanogaster, an important model organism that's furthered research in such things as human development, disease, and genetics by leaps and bounds. Scientists reacted ferociously to Palin's statement .

However what Palin was talking about was the olive fruit fly. The olive fruit fly is indigenous to the Mediterranean and an invasive species of California. The olive fruit fly arrived on California soil in the late 1990's and poses an economic threat to California's olive crops. Olive trees are generally protected from olive fruit fly with insecticides. Scientists now know of at least six natural predators to the olive fruit fly. The research station in France gives researchers the opportunity to study the fly in its native territory, where scientists have dealt with its threat to crops for years. The research will explore ways that these predators could be used as an alternative or extension of insecticides.

Confusingly, some scientists tried to interrupt the angry chorus of explanation about Drosophila melanogaster, to point out that those weren't really a "fruit flies". Scientists probably initiated the "fruit fly" moniker sometime in the early 20th century. Or maybe Aristotle started it. Anyway, now "fruit fly" is the part of the scientist and lay person vernacular -- even the staid Entomological Society of America calls them "fruit flies". The real point was that Palin was referring to the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) -- a tephritid -- not scientists favorite: THE "fruit fly".

Of course Palin supporters swarmed all over the fruit fly labeling mix-up, and went on about how scientists didn't do their research. The naysayers miss the fact that scientists that disengaging the Drosophila melanogaster from its common label "fruit fly" would be "absurd". Acronym Required doesn't want to diminish the importance of accuracy, but in the larger context at the heart of Palin's comment, this is a superfluous detail. ¹

Plus de hits, Plus de fun

With her remark, Sarah Palin combined two things a segment of the population claims to dislike, science and the French. Unfortunately for the short term, scientists don't have comedy prank team at a radio station like CKOI ("Plus de hits, Plus de fun") at our disposal -- alas. ² Beyond the McCain campaign team playing enfant terrible to scientists and science, however, which might be short lived, there's a very popular ideology at work here that will not die with an incoming Obama administration.

Getting past the supposed misnomers, why does CAGW label this use of 200,000k for olive fly research wasteful? This gets to the heart of the problem for scientists. Palin's example came from "Citizen's Against Government Waste"¹ The group is the lobbying arm for the Council For Citizens Against Government Waste. CAGW, with their catchy anti-government hotline --1-800-BE ANGRY -- receives corporate donations in turn for targeted lobbying efforts.

Among the thousands of campaigns CAGW runs, occasionally the media uncovers the source of funding, as in the Northrup Grumman case, or in the Microsoft funded lobbying and astroturfing in the anti-open source and Massachusetts's cases when the media connected the dots, even though the information wasn't explicit.

When they do, sometimes you'd have never guessed who's behind the lobbying. Bill Adair of the St. Petersburg Times's did a series of investigative stories on CAGW in April, 2006. In "For Price, Watchdog Will be an Advocate", Adler described how $100,000 from the Mexican avocado growers motivated a public relations effort against the California Avocado Commission's resistance against the import of Mexican avocado's.

In another case, Public Citizen revealed that CAGW worked with PhRMA, a lobbying group for the pharmaceutical industry, against any government health care plan.

However for thousands of other campaigns, the donors, if any, remain unknown. St. Petersburg Times article in December, 2006 described how the CAGW's defacto corporate lobbying role is hidden by their tax-exempt status. The IRS code allows them to keep from the public records of who funds them (which is tax deductible) and other important details.

Clearly the French olive industry isn't behind the lobbying. Despite the fact that Palin said we "loved" the French, CAGW -- entwined with the McCain campaign -- wasn't very charitable. The bottom link is we can't tell you the real story of who, if anyone, is behind the attack.

The M.O.D. Squad

In an accompanying article: "When Tobacco Needed a Voice, CAGW Spoke up and Profited" the St. Petersburg Times described how the tobacco industry donated at least $245,000 to CAGW to fight against tobacco regulation, especially by the FDA.

The group has long worked with the tobacco industry. In 1997, Citizens Against Government Waste lobbied the Tobacco Institute for $25,000 for the production of a publication called "Weird Science." The goal of CAGW, according to internal Tobacco Institute documents was to:

"...'expose federally "taxpayer-funded research projects that have little or no scientific merit.' The group will target agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to researching agency spending, the publication will look at the issue of risk-assessment."

The Tobacco Institute memo recommended giving CAGW $5,000, instead of $25,000, because in the "wide array" of subjects CAGW proposed, "our story could get lost in the mix." You can find anti-regulatory rhetoric about tobacco and alcohol on CAGW's website.

The goal to target "meritless" science research government agencies was consistent CAGW founder Peter Grace's ambitions. W.R. Grace, a chemical company famous famous for polluting and environmental damage (as well as not paying taxes). Jonathan Harr grippingly chronicled one of their pollution debacles in A Civil Action, a landmark case now studied by lawyers A Civil Action. President Reagan appointed Grace for an internal agency to decrease government and this turned into CAGW. CAGW has attacked teenage alcohol education, science education programs and lots of research.

Defining Cynicism.

In their annual 1995 "Pig Book Summary", the group nominated Senator Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, as one of the 14 worst offenders their so-called "Oinkers", for securing a $400,000 grant through the EPA to study algal blooms in Hawaii. Senator Byrd, also called out that year by CAGW, said of the report: "It is old propaganda. It is a yawn and a boar." (an intentional mispelling) It may be a bore, but it's a persistent one. CAGW has only increased it's influence in the last 13 years, working hand in hand with John McCain, as well as some illustrious lobbyists.

A senate report by Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), condemned Citizens Against Government Waste as one of five tax exempt groups

"who violated their tax exempt status 'by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light.."

At the time the Washington Post noted: "The e-mails show a pattern of CAGW producing public relations materials favorable to Mr. Abramoff's clients."

CAGW denied the charges. And when Senator Steven's (R-AK) was found guilty of accepting $250,000 in bribes last week, Citizens Against Government Waste sent out a press release that read: "The Stevens trial will go down in history alongside the trials of lobbyists Jack Abramoff...as just another sad, but not surprising spectacle of corruption and cynicism in the nation's capital."

McCain, Swindler, CAGW....

CAGW has worked very closely with John McCain since at least 1990, when they collaborated to initiate a presidential line item veto. From all accounts its been a fruitful collaboration. Orson Swindle, a fellow Vietnam veteran, works for both CAGW and the McCain campaign.

Earlier this year, Democrats, labor unions and concerned Americans criticized McCain for snubbing Boeing (headquartered in Chicago) by awarding a $40 billion contract to Northrup Grumman and European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company EADS. McCain struck back at his Democratic critics through CAGW.

John McCain mentioned "Citizens Against Government Waste" in each of the three presidential debates. In return, the group's political action committee called McCain a "taxpayer hero" in TV ads airing in Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. A PAC, the CCAGW associated with CAGW ran TV ads for a presidential candidate.

Does It Matter?

If John McCain isn't elected does it matter? Clearly I'm not going to say no. In our last post we quoted Studs Terkel, who once said, "given the facts and an opportunity to act, the body politic generally does the right thing." If Congress doesn't ensure that the people can get the facts, then we have no chance of doing "the right thing".

Acronym Required agrees that not all science research is beneficial -- for the economy, for science, or for education. Furthermore, who could malign CAGW's ostensible mission? As people have said before us, who does support government waste? And while earmarks may be an expeditious route to funding, should we all pay for that? But if CAGW's projects are motivated by donors, who's to say which of the group's targets is fair and which are not? It's masked public relations.

On its face, why is $200,000 fruit fly research so outrageous? You know that Goldman Sachs set aside $6.85 billion for this year's employee bonuses right? According to CAGW, the downside of the bank bailout was that it would "draw socialist vampires to Washington for decades to come."

Does the story just contain certain poll-tested key words -- "fruit fly", "French", "California" that Palin can throw out to elicit an audience reaction? Or shall we go out on a limb and try to guess the insecticide manufacturer is behind it the attack?

CAGW has been around since the 1980's and their work will continue unless unless we change the laws and demand greater transparency. There's been only occasional chatter about discontinuing the veiled lobbying, despite the knowledge of Senator Byrd and others that "it is old propaganda."

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

¹ A commenter on one blog suggested calling them "Freedom Flies".

² Palin's naivete about the latter bit her later when she didn't recognize the Canadian comedy team's faux President Sarkozy, with his faux Fraauunch accent -- even when he asked Palin to take him up hunting by helicopter: "I just love killing those animals. Hmm-hmm. Take away a life, that is so fun." "Kill two birds with one stone", she responded gamely. Palin exclaimed to "Sarkovy" "we love [the French]!".