Recently in Public Policy Category

"Did the EPA drop bisphenol A from the list in eight days because of lobbyists? First of all, if the EPA or any government agency reversed a decision like this in eight days it would be a grand miracle on the scale of the Genesis seven day creation myth. Or at least worthy of an Olympic gold medal. Really..."

Post Updated 2/19/10 to include new references.

The EPA, Skewered For First TSCA Action in Decades:

On December 30th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted action plans for four chemicals: phthalates, perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and short-chain chlorinated paraffins. (No really! It gets better :-) ) An action plan signals that the EPA intends possible regulation because the chemical poses a hazard. Chemical companies complained bitterly. The EPA also listed two more chemical action plans in the development process, for benzidine dyes/pigments, and bisphenol A. Scientific American commented at the time:

"This is a big deal because it is the first time since TSCA was passed in 1976 that the EPA has made such a move. To date, the agency has only successfully used TSCA to restrict or ban five of the 80,000-plus chemicals on its inventory"

However this week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel criticized the EPA's December chemical action plans, questioning why bisphenol A wasn't on the top four list: The EPA's "move" was "drawing suspicion", explains the paper:

"the head of the Environmental Protection Agency had been talking tough in one speech after another last fall about the need to protect the public from such chemicals, particularly BPA...but when the agency's list came out Dec. 30, identifying four chemicals that would face stricter labeling and reporting requirements, BPA was not among them..."

Writes MSJ: "Critics say the Dec. 22 meeting might have been why BPA was dropped from the top of the agency's list".

BPA is on the agency's list. But to the Journal-Sentinel's question, why is it not first up in the most recent round of action plans? Did lobbyists pressure OMB/OIRA to change EPA's stance on Dec. 22?

Now, Suddenly, The EPA Turns on A Dime?

The paper cites as the deciding factor a meeting of plastic and chemical lobbyists with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA):

"Eight days after a meeting between chemical industry lobbyists and Obama administration officials, federal regulators put off including bisphenol A on a list of dangerous chemicals that would be subject to stricter regulation"

The Center For Progressive Reform also forwarded the idea that the EPA was influenced to remove BPA from its chemical action plans list in a blog posted January 22:

"on December 22, just before EPA was about to release its first four chemical action plans, activists from American Chemistry Council and representatives of a major BPA producer met with officials at OIRA to plead the case for BPA's safety."

Did the EPA drop bisphenol A from the list in eight days? First of all, if the EPA or any government agency reversed a decision like this in eight days it would be a grand miracle on the scale of the Genesis seven day creation myth. Or at least worthy of an Olympic gold medal. Really.

But, lets look back to last fall, to a much quoted speech given by Lisa Jackson to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. The MSJ quoted the speech in their article. At the time, we wrote in "The EPA Speaks To Me" that Jackson's speech, like the president's sweeping public orations, promised something for everyone:

"The more I read, the more Jackson's speech looked like a veritable public relations jambalaya. She spoke to those committed to wetlands, spotted owls, to asthma sufferers, climate change, to those concerned about coal and gas emissions, to the Clean Air Act, to trash incineration, dioxins, pesticides, green chemistry, research, unions, medical professionals, public health groups, industry, environmentalism, to those who want jobs, fast food packaging, to unborn children, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and postal workers, as well as everyone who emails public comments to the EPA or who's concerned about health care or health..."

I commented at the time that her speech was clearly a "marketing tool and conversation generator but not a public policy statement." We could get mad about a lot of things in her speech, I'm sure, if we took it as public policy commitment.

If Only Talking Made Policy

Of course, in that speech Jackson did mention bisphenol A, saying: "Every few weeks, we read about new potential threats: Bisphenol A, or BPA - a chemical that can affect brain development and has been linked to obesity and cancer..." Or, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel sees it: "The first chemical on her list: BPA." But, writes MSJ: "In the end, though, her agency settled on four other chemicals to target first for the action plans." (emphasis ours)

So as MSJ says, it's true, "first" Jackson did mention BPA. Then she said "pthalates", then "dioxins, then "lead" (each once). One of the Journal-Sentinel's sources labeled EPA's stance as "curious". I'm as cynical as anyone, but lets look at Jackson's rhetorical choices.

San Francisco was the first in the nation to attempt action on bisphenol A and phthalates. Jackson was at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club talking to (I guess) some commoners -- not chemists or policy wonks. "Bisphenol A" and "pthalates", "dioxin", and "lead" would be recognizable and appreciated by the crowd. True, she didn't explicitly mention "polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) including the commercial versions of pentabromodiphenyl ether (c-pentaBDE), octabromodiphenyl ether (c-octaBDE), and decabromodiphenyl ether (c-decaBDE)" -- the flame retardants in the first batch of four EPA action plans. But had she, the crowd, eyes glazing over, probably would have slumped into trance instead of thinking the EPA was their friend and ally. Whether you view this as PR or marketing or just common sense, its elementary communication. And as an aside -- why no concern about the EPA's omission of lead or dioxin in the first batch of action plans?

Sept. 29th: EPA Announces Four Chemical "Action Plans". Sept. 30th: Names Chemicals

As for the EPA's choice of which chemicals would be targeted first, on September 29, 2009 , the EPA issued a press release" right after Jackson's speech, announcing its intention to issue four action plans in December:

"The EPA has identified an initial list of chemicals for possible risk management action and anticipates completing and posting an initial set of four action plans in December. It will complete and post additional chemical action plans in four-month intervals thereafter."

On September 30, 2009, the EPA issued another press release, naming the four chemicals of top interest, the same ones that it produced action plans for in December:

"EPA today announced a series of actions on four chemicals raising serious health or environmental concerns...The agency's actions represent its determination to use its authority under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the fullest extent possible...In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing today are short-chain chlorinated paraffins, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA.

So in a September 30th press release, the EPA named the same four chemicals that were in the December 30, 2009 action plan announcement. Then did the American Chemistry Council (ACC) really sway the EPA's BPA decision in a meeting December 22nd with OMB/OIRA, eight days before the EPA's action plan announcement?

The Chemical Lobby, BPA & The EPA: Economics Factors?

To me, aside from the overly conspiratorial premise of the article, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and CPR valuably point the public's attention to some enviable industry access. The ACC sent five representatives to meet with four OMB,OIRA staff; and SABIC, a Saudi BPA manufacturer, sent two. The ACC apparently sent a letter requesting the meeting dated November 3rd. This is news: If you're a chemical lobby group or a Saudi BPA manufacturer, you can get a meeting with OMB/OIRA in a month and a half.

ACC also submitted a slim bibliography(.pdf) of research sources. The ACC submissions show the industry's dedication to a relentlessly one-sided messaging on chemical safety.

Six of fifteen studies in the bibliography have ACC's Steve Hentges (meeting attendee and ACC lobby spokesperson, who has relentlessly messaged about BPA safety) listed as the senior author (not unbiased). Three industry related studies intend to prove that BPA degrades quickly, which is an important criteria for EPA action plans. At least four other studies with various aims are authored by groups sponsored by plastics, BPA or chemical foundations. It's true, as the MSJ writes, most of the studies authors have industry affiliations. There are hundreds of other studies to choose from which wouldn't bolster the ACC's arguments one tiny little bit. (Although to be fair, the ACC is a chemical lobby group -- not an unbiased journalist, a point I'd hope the EPA recognizes)

But the ACC included one study from Ryan et al published in Toxicological Sciences (Online October, 2009), that is an EPA study conducted by EPA employees. This study concludes that low-dose bisphenol A does not alter puberty, fertility, or anatomy and sexual behavior in rats, compared to the estrogen control. Several groups dispute this study because, for one, the strain of rat is not as sensitive to low-dose estrogen" (.PDF Update 02/19/10). However the study's sponsoring author has disputed their claims (which are longstanding) to Trevor Butterworth of Stats.org, which has been doing PR on behalf of the bisphenol A industry. We previously discussed Stats.org's role in several posts.

If anything might dissuade the EPA from acting on BPA it would be its own studies (which they didn't need the ACC to highlight.) The senior author on the study, L. Earl Gray Jr., also testified before the EPA in 2008, emphasizing that his level of "concern" (an agency measure of potential harm) about bisphenol A exposure was less that his level of concern for phthalates exposure. Industry groups have touted Ryan's and Gray's work. If the Ryan and Gray's study methodology is in question, no activist has been too public about it (Update 02/19/10: A letter in Toxicological Sciences published 02/17/10 explains the problem with rat strain.) Perhaps more media focus should be placed here, on the EPA's own study.

The ACC letter requesting the meeting asks for chemical industry participation in the EPA decision making process (a request that seems rather unnecessary given the easy access industry does have). The letter also asks EPA to "be sensitive to the potential and foreseeable negative effect on the marketplace...the market impact on bisphenol A demonstrates this is a serious and real concern." Of course this is the primary goal of ACC, to urge the EPA not to impact any one of 80,000 chemicals' markets.

The EPA, in contrast, has said that its priority is to "review all chemicals against safety standards that are based solely on considerations of risk - not economics or other factors." (emphasis ours). It will be interesting to see how the EPA decides on bisphenol A, and whether its considerations to "risk" will include industry consideration to economic factors - or not. However just the fact that OMB and EPA were willing to sit with the ACC lobby group shows a willingness to listen to their (always) economic arguments.

The EPA -- Total Pushover?

I don't think I'm particularly naive in these matters, we've been following industry influence on policy for a while, especially BPA, which we've been following since 2005. We've specifically written about EPA apparently backing off of regulation under pressure from OIRA/OMB several times before.

But I'd be surprised if the EPA turned their intentions for BPA around based on this meeting. First, it appears from their press releases that they had already concluded back in September which four chemicals were first up for action plans. The idea that they would be so swayed is practically absurd, given the transparently, almost lazily, self-interested documents submitted by industry. Somehow I have more confidence in this EPA then to think they changed action plans based on those almost disrespectful pleas. But they do, now, have their own scientists saying that BPA isn't as dangerous as phthalates.

Clearly the EPA is not quite committed to regulating BPA as activists want. But it has put $30 million towards EPA research. It's also conducting its own studies. Hundreds of science studies provide evidence that BPA is harmful, but there are enough impacts from EPA decisions on industry that the agency needs to continue its BPA investigation. However, consider dioxins, another chemical the EPA mentioned in its Commonwealth Club speech. Dioxins are proven to be carcinogenic, a far more damning research finding than has to date been applied to BPA, but the EPA is still struggling to contain their use. On BPA, I'd be the first to say that there's enough research, as would many states and communities. But federal policy-making is not science. So is it more than poppycock to suggest that the EPA was singularly pressured by one ACC meeting to change its mind on BPA?

Being that it's a slow day in the weekly cycle I should just kick back and peruse the glossy weekend magazine "How To Spend It", from the Financial Times' -- choose some baubles and get-ups to distract me, and lavish African safaris to amuse me. But a post is overdue. So some notes:

• Runaway Cars: Toyota's "Poppycock"

  Since 2003 the National Highway and Transportation Safety Authority has been investigating safety problems with Toyota vehicles. And apparently, in an effort to "ward off" too much investigation, Toyota hired two former NHTSA workers who helped forestall action government action and inquiry into the failures. Joan Claybrook, formerly of Public Citizen and the NHTSA, spoke about the company's duplicity in dealing with the issues:

  "Toyota came in on the floor mat issue and they said this is not a safety-related defect, but we're going to do it any way. And we're going to obey all of the rules and regulations that you have for carrying out a defect, but this is not a safety-related defect. This is poppycock and they should never have tried to get away with that."

  The company has apparently tried to frame a more serious problem as a floormat issue, but Claybrook recounts that the company is not only replacing the floormats but also installing a brake override:

  "in the recall dealing with the floor mats, this is the Lexus, the Camrys, some SUV's and the Prius, they're going to not only fix the floor mat, but they're going to install a brake override, as it's called, which is a software change which if there's a conflict between the accelerator, throttle and the brake, the brake wins out and you can stop the car. Right now a lot of cars have this, but the Toyota vehicles do not. So they need to have something electronic to stop these vehicles from being runaway vehicles."

  Admission of a widespread electronic problem would apparently be detrimental to the company. As for NHTSA, the agency has apparently been dealing with leadership turnover and budget woes. The growing outside perception is that the agency has grown altogether too close to the industry it's supposed to be regulating. We previously covered the NHTSA and industry coziness when writing about the EPA and the US government's efforts to reduce unhealthy automobile emissions.

  Columbia Journalism Review summarizes media coverage of NHTSA's dealings with Toyota, and reflexively criticizes the media in general for being lax.

• Gait

  There have been some interesting studies on gait lately. Barefoot running has become a fad and research has long indicated that running shoes increase ligament injuries, stress fractures and planter fasciitis. Now, a running shoe study by Lieberman et al in Nature "(subscription) shows that running shoes change human gait, from running toe-heel to running heel-toe. Actually, the authors distinguished three patterns, forefoot first, midfoot first, or rearfoot first. Running shoes encourage heel strike first, which differs from barefoot running. The researchers found heel strike running greatly increases resultant forces that can cause running injuries.

  In another recent study, published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, Cunningham et al compared the amount of energy expended when humans walk heel-toe (plantigrade), vs. toe-heel (digitgrade). The study found that it takes 53% more energy to walk on the balls of your feet, and 83% more energy to walk on your toes, than to walk heel to toe. The authors conclude that humans conserve energy by walking heel-toe (plantigrade), but don't conserve energy when they run plantigrade. They suggest evolutionary reasons that made heel-toe walking more advantageous.

  Finally, slightly different, another study, also in the Journal of Experimental Biology looked at elephant gait. The authors built an elaborate structure to measure the forces of running elephants and found that elephants use less energy and manage to bounce less (which decreased forces) by adapting a half-walk, half-run stride. This stride decreases by almost one-half the forces exerted by a running elephant compared to a running human.

  Acronym Required previously looked at energetics in Nepalese Porters carrying loads, and in human walking obese and non-obese people

• Matchmaking for Cynics

  Acronym Required has jestingly suggested pairing people from perhaps opposing camps in the past, like an impertinent investigative reporter from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, with a journalist contracting for a bisphenolA-is-safe lobby, as we wrote in BPA Rhetoric and Reaction; or a chemical lobbyist, with an environmental agency scientist, as we wrote "New Strategies for Bisphenol A and Chemicals?". We did this to celebrate the Obama era, as a light-hearted ode to getting everyone at the same table.

  But now an offshoot of Greenpeace has developed a far more sinister and cynical matchmaking concept in "P-Harmony", Polluter Harmony, which proposes to match various legislators and decision-makers with lobbyists. Of course there's no end to such real-life power matches, as a Google search for any combination of "sex", "sleeping with", "lobbyists", "Congressmen", "regulators", "Senators", "in bed with", etc. will attest to. But if I were to rate the site, I'd say it's ripe with potential and has some amusing detail, but is spare on the sort of fleshed-out scurrilous information people find so delicious.

• And Speaking of Which, The EPA...

  No, not lobbyists in-bed with regulators, but websites. The new EPA website is much improved. The Obama Open Government initiative aims to "break[] down long-standing barriers between the federal government and you". To that end, you can "share your ideas" at the open government site or just peruse the evolving EPA site. It's not the first time the EPA has tried to improve public information, but this is a far more comprehensive approach than others, like this 2007 effort. I haven't delved too deep into the site, but the top pages seem also to advance the agency's control over its messaging.

• Obama Quandries

  No one quite knows what to make of Obama. We wrote about the collective disappointment last month, and pondered whether, if people been paying attention, they'd have realized he wasn't necessarily the person they'd fabricated in their heads. We suggested people look at close adviser Cass Sunstein's politics, although they're also highly disputed, but certainly aren't liberal. Of course even as we suggested it, we know it's ridiculous to judge a president on one adviser.

  So you could judge Obama on two advisers. In an article in the New York Review of Books a couple of weeks ago, Jerome Groopman looked at healthcare reform and tried to predict how it would go based on Obama's "closest advisers" on the subject, Cass Sunstein, head of OIRA, and Peter Orszag, head of OMB (OIRA is within OMB).

  Groopman distinguished Sunstein's "nudge" approach based on behavioral economics, from Orszag's "shove" approach, a different take on behavioral economics. Groopman characterized Orszag's approach as a more stringent incentive system that would not allow doctors and heathcare providers to "opt out", but would penalize them for not following government set "comparative effectiveness" mandates. But comparative effectiveness is no different than "cost effectiveness", wrote Groopman, and cost effectiveness doesn't work and won't sell. Interestingly, I've always viewed Sunstein's cost-benefit analysis to have the same shortcomings Groopman seems to loathe. But Groopman wants Sunstein's way to prevail in the healthcare debate because Sunstein offers an "opt-out".

  But perhaps healthcare won't be swayed by only two advisers but four. The Financial Times also judges the president's decisions on the views of his too small circle. FT names four key advisers, Valerie Jarrett, Robert Gibbs, Rahm Emmanuel, and David Axelrod and says that Obama needs to change up a bit to shake his governing woes. Is it realistic at all to judge the president on such small numbers of advisers? It's apparently a fun game, despite it's grounding in reality.

  As gripey as everyone is, I'm more optimistic on this President's day, thinking about the state of US governance and politics, than on the same holiday during the previous administration.

Many people who are now disappointed by the Obama administration didn't pay close enough attention during his campaign and election. It's the same with all presidents, really -- the promise of a new president brings at first a golden era of hope during which people seem to cavalierly shed their analytical abilities; then the denial phase as the president comes into his own; then the rude awakening when they're shocked, shocked, shocked at the scale of the deception.

Remember the Bush presidency? Mr. Compassionate Conservative? People barely twitched when he invaded Iraq, then slowly awoke to his mendacious governance -- the fact that there were no WMDs, there was global warming, arsenic levels weren't safe, Guantanamo prisoners were tortured to within an inch of their lives the end of their lives -- etc.

Warnings

But before presidents are elected there's time to profile their past, time for people to shake themselves out of wishful thinking into clarity. Usually at least one enterprising journalist digs into a candidate's history and accurately predicts their presidency. For instance, during the George W. Bush presidential campaign of 2000, Harper's author Joe Conason wrote an excellent, disturbing article about Bush's tenure in Texas politics called, "Notes on a Native Son: Part I. "The George W. Bush success story: A heartwarming tale about baseball, $1.7 billion, and a lot of swell friends." (Feb. 2000) The article disabused people of their ideas that George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore were very similar. Conason nailed Bush's future leadership proclivities. Perhaps some of it was luck, and I'm sure Conason wasn't the only one who caught on early. But the Harper's article showed that some people really can get a bead on leaders, and that if we pay attention we could too. That, at least, is reassuring to know.

Forward to the Obama campaign, in July, 2008, when New Yorker magazine shocked the world with a cover cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama pictured with radical accoutrements and dressed -- as Al Jazeera put it -- "in what many [Americans] see as 'Muslim clothing'". We think fewer people read the accompanying article, which we touched on back then in "We The Thin Skinned, The Public and The Media".

The New Yorker cleverly juxtaposed a detailed political biography of Obama by Ryan Lizza against their cartoon cover depiction. In Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama, Lizza portrayed Obama as a pragmatic politician alert to the vagaries of politics, who proved himself more than adept at maneuvering through the political quagmires of Chicago and Illinois to emerge unscathed, all the while governing blandly. We quoted this from Lizza's profile:

"Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions..."

Liberals now realize that Obama's "existing institutions", as Lizza put it, were in many cases set up by the George W. Bush administration. The public didn't seem to get the New Yorker's sly joke back then, the paradox of the cover story versus the true inside scoop. The public went apoplectic over the cover. And only now are people starting to catch on to the fact that the Obama they compiled in their head isn't the Obama who's leading the country.

Misconceptions

If liberals and independents are unhappy -- Bush at least went full tilt with his base-- so too are conservatives. Conservative columnist Ross Douthat sought to explain the Obama paradox recently. He wrote: "In hindsight, the most prescient sentence penned during the presidential campaign belongs to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker", then quoted Lizza's two sentences ("Perhaps the greatest misconception...institutions"). Douthat's "The Obama Way" explained that everyone vilified Obama differently but the president fit no particular mold. The most discontented people were the liberals -- as Douthat said:

"The left has been frustrated, again and again, by the gulf between Obama's professed principles and the compromises that he's willing to accept, and some liberals have become convinced that he isn't one of them at all. They're wrong. Absent political constraints, Obama would probably side with the liberal line on almost every issue."

There goes Douthat, first heartily agreeing with Lizza's New Yorker quote describing Obama as a political accommodator, next labeling Obama a flaming liberal who's only tenuously tethered to some middle way -- as if to warn conservatives not to relax. Well, which is it, young feller?

Does Douthat peg Obama as impossible to categorize but at his core very liberal? Or does he fall for the same fallacies of judgement he's just finished explaining to us?

Pragmatism

How liberal is Obama, deep down inside? Honestly, we don't know. But look, for instance at the politics of one of his long term advisors, the only person with a more quixotic image than Obama himself, whose intentions are even more difficult for observers to pin down -- Cass Sunstein. Sunstein leads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA reviews regulations from all rule-making agencies in the Office of Management and Budget, regulations for banking, air and water quality, food, drugs, transportation...in other words, Sunstein's philosophy affects us all, and he's supposedly a close counsel of Obama's .

We've somewhat regularly followed Sunstein's progress in the Obama administration and his amazing ability to attract venomous critics as well as admiring followers from both the left and the right. There wasn't always such focus on OIRA administrators. Sunstein's very driven regulation-allergic conservative predecessors at OIRA, John Graham and Susan Dudley, attracted only the sparsest attention as they weakened regulation, ignored science, and developed symbiotic relationships with industry.

Sunstein often quotes John Graham and shares and builds on Graham's cost-benefit analysis legacy, yet people often label him, like Obama, as an out of bounds liberal. Sunstein's nomination was supported by conservative groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and by the Wall Street Journal. Yet wildly preposterous rumors about his views, for instance on animal rights, held up his OIRA nomination for months. Republican senators stymied his appointment, as hunters and factory farms hijacked meaningful deliberation about Sunstein's most controversial ideas -- on cost-benefit analysis, for instance -- by focusing on the false notions that he might ban hunting, something that he had actually convincingly argued against.

The other thing that's interesting given Sunstein's well-documented ideas, is how pundits from both sides seem to ignore history when they periodically burst out over one thing or another they unearth in his writing. Of course some people, like Rena Steinzor of the Center For Progressive Reform, have long focused on environmental law, cost-benefit analysis, and the likely impact of Cass Sunstein heading OIRA. But to my point, recently Glenn Greenwald popularized a flurry of concern about Sunstein with his Salon article, "Obama Confidant's Spine-chilling Proposal". Greenwald's focus is not on Sunstein's cost-benefit machinations or environmental stances, but on Sunstein's exploration of government control of "conspiracy theories".

The Mirror, A Gift or A Curse?

Greenwald takes Sunstein to task for advocating in a 2008 paper that the government ought to do things like anonymously infiltrate groups to dissipate conspiracy theories. The Sunstein paper is really interesting (and funny, to me), and Greenwald competently attacks the ideas Sunstein presents. But just like Bush and Obama, Sunstein's proposals in 2008 proved consistent with what he has publicly explored/advocated for years.

In his 2001 book Republic.com, for instance, Sunstein argued that the government (he later changed this to private companies) could fight internet "hate-sites" and polarization that 'threatened democracy' by enforcing things like cross-linking to politically opposing sites. What did Thaler/Sunstein's book Nudge urge but for the government to "architect" our "choices"? If you circle through his books and papers you'll find that one way or another, either by infiltration or nudging, Sunstein's quite pre-occupied with government control of "undesirable" information, voices and outcomes, as judged by the government. These aren't terribly liberal obsessions, and it would be hard for me to call Sunstein a liberal.

Back to Douthat's point, I would also be hard-pressed to call Obama a liberal, either by his associations or his Illinois and presidential records. I'm surely biased, but so far he's a pragmatist, (though not a "centrist" Douthat says), and we were adequately and accurately warned. How many years does someone need to act like a centrist/pragmatist before people stop labeling them a liberal?*

Obama gets everyone together, he does. And they're all suspicious. During his campaign, people would say that Obama's campaign gift was that he made everyone see a bit of themselves in him. Perhaps now he has the opposite effect. No one can see any bit of themselves in him. Is that a curse?

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

*And btw, as an aside, what is a liberal? And does the country need a "liberal" president, anyway, liberals?

Bisphenol A, Trees on Mars, and Riveting Headlines

Headlines can be deceiving, as well all know. But we often fall for them anyway. "Are Those Trees on Mars?" asked FoxNews and 150 other news outlets last week. So I squinted at the photo, trying to imagine how those could possibly be trees...maybe if a small city like Le Mars, Iowa shipped all the old Christmas trees collected on January 8th to Le Other Mars, instead of chipping them?

A fool I was, but you can't imagine my disappointment when the article attached to the NASA photo explained that there were No Trees On Mars, only dark sand illuminated differently than the surrounding carbon dioxide ice(1) -- (Tricky editors! - 'HA, made you look'). I guess readers' attention was elsewhere last week because closer to home, more subtly, but equally misleading, news headlines announced: The FDA "reverses" its position on bisphenol A (BPA), the FDA "backtracks" on BPA, the FDA advises consumers to "limit exposure" to BPA.

These headlines seemed like real news, since the FDA has for years faiiled to come out with either actions or public statements reflecting the growing research evidence for BPA toxicity. During the Bush administration the glaring gap between the FDA's position and BPA research propelled scientists to publicly criticized the relationship between the FDA and the industries it was supposed to be regulating. Acronym Required wrote about the fraught regulatory environment in the FDA vis-à-vis BPA, in "Scientists Criticize FDA Methods on BPA", in "Conflict of Interest in the FDA?", in "FDA Panel Offers Corrections to BPA Draft", in "Bisphenol A, The FDA, Industry -- Whassup?", and others.

Given the FDA's lackluster BPA regulation history, plus the fact that BPA is almost a household word, the newest headlines on BPA and the FDA attracted everyone's attention. The New York Times listed its story "F.D.A. Concerned About Substance in Food Packaging", as one of the "most e-mailed" articles one day. But underneath the headlines, what did the stories really report?

FDA -- Aging Cheerleader?

Despite the headlines, the FDA announced no "guidelines", and no new news. The LA Times quoted a statement from FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein under the title "FDA issues BPA guidelines". "For the present", Sharfstein said", the FDA does support the use of baby bottles with BPA.'" (emphasis ours)

So in essence, the FDA has offered the same counsel for years, ever since it started studying BPA. In 1995 for instance, FDA scientists found that BPA migrated from heated plastic containers. The agency remained unalarmed. In 1997 the FDA began pondering how to change regulation to reflect evidence that endocrine disruptors altered physiology at low doses -- but barely flinched.

In 1999 several consumer groups, environmental safety groups, and scientists, petitioned the FDA to ban BPA in plastic baby bottles, because research then showed without a doubt that the chemical could leach out of polycarbonate, and indicated that BPA caused sex organ problems for male babies of exposed pregnant mice. At the time, the FDA deployed Dr. George Pauli to quell rising consumer concerns and Pauli assured families that polycarbonate bottles didn't leach under 'everyday' conditions, only at high temperatures; infant formulas required only mild heating, he said. (Although, alarmingly, parents typically microwaved the bottles.)

Now, over a decade later, despite dozens more studies, the FDA is still equivocating on baby bottles, although bottles present one of the riskiest sources of BPA because of babies' vulnerability to endocrine disruptors during development.

The FDA's statement becomes all the more difficult to swallow when you know that all on their own, without any encouragement from the agency, manufacturers voluntarily pulled polycarbonate bottles for babies and adults off the shelves.

The FDA did manage to bring its assessment -- that there is "some concern" about BPA health risks -- in line with the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) assessment. Although this is no small feat given the FDA's history, the agency didn't do much else, despite delaying this announcement three times.

From the FDA website, here's what the FDA committed to:

• "supporting industry actions" to stop making BPA containing baby bottles
• "faciliting the development" of BPA alternatives for formula cans
• "supporting efforts" to replace BPA in food can linings

Such mealy-mouthed statements give the impression that the FDA has little more persuasive authority than Acronym Required. The agency also said it would work with other agencies like the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the NIEHS/NIH, and with foreign governments (legislators have aggressively questioned the FDA why it hasn't taken action when the Canada has banned BPA).

What Should Consumers Think?

The FDA is also seeking "external input" on the "science surrounding BPA", and will solicit "further public comment". Acronym Required commented on public comment periods used by agencies before. We wouldn't want to appear cynical in saying you can never have too much "public comment" or assume that the FDA is using the comment period to stall regulatory action. But since the FDA is now working with the National Toxicology Program in the NIH (NTP), it could review the numerous public comments solicited by the NTP during its assessments of the chemical in February, 2006; April, 2007; November, 2007; and April, 2008. (2)

The FDA is also "supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA". The FDA explains that a 40 year rule limits the FDA's ability to regulate BPA (as a food additive). The FDA can regulate new substances under a 2000 rule, but that doesn't help with BPA. So the agency will "encourage manufacturers to voluntarily submit a food contact notification for their currently marketed uses of BPA-containing materials." This is interesting because for years the FDA has been researching BPA and has declined to regulate the chemical because the agency found the science unconvincing; for some reason it hasn't brought a lot attention to its legal inabilities to regulate.

Does the FDA's latest announcement clarify its previous confusing position? What should consumers do? As my favorite headline, by "Beforeitsnews.com" byline has it: "It's in Your Urine But Is It Safe?".

More to the point, what should citizens do that they haven't done already? They've stopped buying polycarbonate, so much so that manufacturers have pulled bottles off the shelves, they've sued, they've urged local and state ordinances. By all measures, consumers have made the most credible effort to regulate BPA.

The FDA -- Nudging Itself Out of a Job? Drowning Itself In the Bathtub?

Other non-governmental organizations have responded with none of the ambiguity of the FDA. For instance spokespeople from the Breast Cancer Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumers Union, Clean New York, Center for Health Environment & Justice, and others, all urge the FDA to ban the chemical.

Even the National Council of Churches offers a suggestion for the FDA, saying, "As we celebrate the Christmas season, we are reminded of Jesus' commitment to those in poverty. We hope that the FDA will take measures to ensure that canned food is BPA-free through the use of safe alternatives in the future."

The FDA has been researching the chemical for over a decade. Their most recent statement followed delays -- not just three delays, but years of delays. Naturally the FDA, along with the CDC and NIH will support further research, in addition to supporting a new regulatory framework. The research will add to the already substantial body of research showing BPA dangers. And I guess that's how it is. The FDA is obviously hesitant to impact a multi-billion dollar industry, so the research needs to be far more conclusive than, say, if you were putting a potentially profitable pharmaceutical drug on the market.

In the meantime, as the FDA maintains relevancy by "supporting", "facilitating", and "encouraging" -- cities, towns and states across the US will continue to be at the forefront of 'patchwork' BPA regulation, pushing manufacturers to use alternatives.

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

¹ From NASA: "At that time, dark sand on the interior of Martian sand dunes became more and more visible as the spring Sun melted the lighter carbon dioxide ice. When occurring near the top of a dune, dark sand may cascade down the dune leaving dark surface streaks -- streaks that might appear at first to be trees standing in front of the lighter regions, but cast no shadows."

² As a side note, the progression of public comments is interesting because it also shows growing awareness of BPA. In 2006 the only public comment was from the American Plastics Council. By 2008 almost 50 individuals and agencies commented.

Checklists?

Atul Gawande's latest book, The Checklist Manifesto, advocates checklists to systemize the complexity of healthcare delivery and reduce medical mistakes. Making the media rounds, Gawande spoke for an hour recently on Democracy Now. He also testified before the President's Council on Science and Technology (PCAST).

Checklists, you ask? Certainly they're not new. Indeed, a few years ago, another physician, Dr. Peter Pronovost presented research showing the utility of checklists to tackle infectious disease in hospitals, and of course they've been used by airlines, oil change places, pizza delivery people, families going shopping, etc. Gawande's rendition appeared in this piece for The New Yorker in 2007. But his book is especially timely, given the current focus on healthcare reform.

The amount of information in medicine is vast -- 68,000 different patient diagnoses, 4,000 different surgeries, thousands of medicines. But despite our knowledge and exorbitant spending, healthcare outcomes in the US are lower than other industrialized countries -- 37th lowest, in fact, and sinking.

The fee for service incentives derail efficient healthcare, for instance by encouraging surgery. There are 230 million surgeries a year, 50 million in the US. Problematically, more surgeries means more surgical complications. The number of surgeries outstrips childbirths in the US, according to Gawande, but with 10-100 times the death rate. As he puts it, "150,000 people who die of complications of surgery, die within thirty days following surgery. And we know at least half are avoidable."

Gawande et al conclude that checklists help reduce mortality and morbidity from surgery and infections. Gawande also says they increase teamwork during procedures, for instance, by empowering nurses to point out missed checklist items. Better teamwork in turn increases success rates.

Checklists are not the complete solution to avoiding deaths, but when Gawande conducted research using checklists in eight hospital centers and 7,688 patients across the globe, the researchers found that deaths decreased by 46%, which, as a percentage looks quite dramatic, but according to their research surgical teams reduced deaths from surgery from 1.5% before the checklist to .8% afterwards. Serious complications fell from 11% to 7% according to the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) last year.

Checklists as Partial Solution

But if the improvements observed by the research teams aren't artifacts, checklist implementation is still not without other issues. Harold Varmus pointed out in the PCAST panel that checklists could impede creative solutions, and noted that investigations into best practices inevitably unveil multiple equally effective ways of solving medical challenges.

As well, according to Gawande, sometimes checklists impede profit. There are strong financial incentives encouraging doctors to do procedures like surgeries. Gawande wrote last summer about the high cost of healthcare in McAllen Texas, where Medicare spends $15,000 per enrollee because entrepreneurial doctors have found ways to profit mightily within the fee for service system. In Boston, although the checklists reduced emergency asthma admissions at Boston Children's Hospital by 80%, asthma admissions were the number one revenue source for the hospital admissions. The surgeon stressed that payment systems need to be adjusted when necessary, checklists won't work on their own. The problem of keeping costs down he told Democracy Now, has not been accomplished by insurance companies.

Checklists: Simple and Cheap, Dumped into a Technology Centric World?

One of Gawande's chief points is that checklists are simple and cheap to implement compared to proposed solutions for healthcare which involve ever more complicated technology that doesn't necessarily scale. As Gawande says: "There are technologies that we've tried to introduce. We've pursued very expensive solutions. But what we've not recognized is that we can pursue an idea like checklists...".

When Gawande presented these views to the President's panel, he ran into some interesting opinions from some in the IT sector who sit on the panel. His low tech solution elicited questions like: "Will physicians accept technology?"

Gawande observed that there "can be a sense of seeing the technology almost as a panacea". Problematically he says, although technology can be beneficial, "we have not really gathered evidence on what the components are that make it a successful implementation versus unsuccessful". Two systems in two different organizations can save lives and money in one institution and be a total failure in another, as was the case with a physicians' order entry system that Brigham Women's successfully implemented, which then failed to deliver cost savings and life saving benefits when implemented at Cedar's Sinai.

No sooner had he said this, when Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO who sits on PCAST, asked him why doctors didn't use technology more. Schmidt tried to get some insight for "the model of healthcare that we'll have five or ten years from now."

"It's pretty clear that we'll have personal health records and you'll have the equivalent of a USB stick or cloud based medical history. You'll show up at the doctor with some set of symptoms. And in my ideal world what would happen is that the doctoor would type the set of symptoms that they see as a doctor and they would be matched against this data that is a repository. And then a knowledge engine would use best practices and all the knowledge of the world to then give the physician some standardized guidance. This is a generalized form of your checklist mechanism. As a computer scientist, this is a platform database problem...And it's also knowledge engineering problem.

We do these very, very well, as a general rule in computer science. And it befuddles me why medicine has not organized itself around this platform opportunity. Do you have an opinion as to why not? Do you have an opinion as to how such a system would evolve so that the doctors would use it, it would standardize practices in the way you described and ultimately lead to presumably debates over healthcare and what the right outcomes are and all the kinds of incentives. If you don't have such a platform you'll never measure it to scale...

There are a lot of assumptions implicit in Schmidt's statements, we won't go through them all here, although some physician/commentators on the internet have already had a field day. Gawande started out responding that the people who make those systems "don't know how the clinical encounter works" -- six problems in 15 minutes per patient, for starters. He ended up more conciliatory towards the idea of computerized checklists. But he emphasized that his checklists involve understanding systems engineering issues involved with ensuring well-functioning teams. That checklists were not simply a challenge of listing as Schmidt put it "all the knowledge in the world".

Gawande also proposed to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology a new "science of health delivery" to study systems innovations, team organization and motivations, and coordinated deployment of healthcare. He even suggested a "National Institutes for Health Systems Innovation" to stand apart from the NIH (although such new agencies are fun to dream up but practically improbable).

Moving Forward on Platforms

For all the issues brought to the fore in "Checklist Manifesto", and for the all the issues at stake in healthcare, and to Gawande's warning about technology panacea's, it was interesting that the panel ended up quickly focusing on healthcare records. It's easy to imagine the temptation to look to health care records as that very panacea. A lot of the failures in medicine are also failures of communication, between the patient and doctor (15 minutes is often generous), between doctors, between facilities. Certainly technology already helps a lot of this, but for all the improvements in medical information technology to date, medical care is still fragmented, expensive, fraught with inconsistency and at times dangerous to the patient. Still, technology is necessarily part of the solution, and building the platform is critical.

So how would a new healthcare IT platform change the current medical system? There's a lot at stake for doctors and for patients. Any major change to the system could rearrange profits. Much of the routine patient care could be accomplished via a computer and a nurse or administrator. Why does a doctor need to charge $200 to tell you to take aspirin and drink fluids? Both Google and Microsoft are positioning themselves well -- it's hard to imagine either not grabbing the opportunity to root itself themselves into healthcare, they have a lot of mouths to feed back on their campuses.

It's troubling that the primary recipient, the patient, isn't very well represented in any of these discussions except by proxy of Google and various university doctors. 'We know what's good for you and we'll tell you what that is.' Everyone is advocating for "the patient", but Google is advocating for itself as well, as is Microsoft. And do university doctors in the upper echelons really experience the same problems with healthcare that your average patient does? That's what you get with 3rd party healthcare payers? The primary customer perhaps is not patients but insurance companies, who will no doubt benefit from the knowledge in more comprehensive databases of patient information.

The challenge perhaps is to improve healthcare (behind the patient's back), to not make it worse (no small feat), and to avoid simply adding another layer of expense and bureaucracy, to the gigantic Dagwood sandwich that is modern healthcare. It would be too easy to add more layers, to the layers and layers that comprise healthcare services, insurance, and companies that administer benefits, each one yielding profits from their slice, who in the end complicate healthcare and add costs for ambiguous ends.

Letter From Berkeley

In March, 1965, Calvin Trillin wrote "Letter From Berkeley" for the New Yorker (abstract), about the Free Speech Movement (F.S.M.) at the University of California, Berkeley. At that point, the end of the movement, F.S.M. was working on the trial of 800 students who had been arrested, out of 4000 who had occupied Sproul Hall. Police had carried students out "wearing blue jeans and singing hymms".

By Trillin's arrival, the students "conscientiously presented themselves, in quiet, well-dressed groups of fifty, in a make-shift courtroom", to enter their pleas. The now compliant group, having once "attacked the computer as the symbolic agent of its followers' alienation", was "borrowing the university's I.B.M. machine to keep track of all the people [including 20 lawyers] involved in its legal affairs".

Trillin's description of the protestors is pretty much how students at Berkeley are today -- organized, smart and generally compliant. Despite that, they're often depicted almost instinctively as carrying the torch of the 1960's era "rebels".

The C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the F.S.M.

The student protests in the 1960's were movements, they actually moved things and people, not only cars and police but ideas of powerful people. The federal and state governments looked at the F.S.M. as a force to be reckoned with -- a threat. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. attempted to associate Berkeley's free speech movement with an imaginary Bay Area hotbed of Communism in order to turn citizens against 'unruly' youth.

Reagan and conservatives ran election campaigns depicting the corrosive nature of the F.S.M. and student activities at the University of California, and in one speech Reagan declared that the F.S.M. leaders should be thrown out by "the scruff of their necks". He decried the shocking occasion of "a dance" held on campus featuring acts so reprehensible that he couldn't talk about it for fear of shocking his audience. He then read a list of the horrifying acts anyway: three "rock and roll bands playing simultaneously" and movies where "persons twisted and gyrated in provocative and sensual fashion".

The future governor and president presented himself as a complete square, but keep in mind that Reagan, Greenspan and other budding neoliberals had been poring over bodice rippers like Ayn Rand's, "The Fountainhead" for years. It was the threat to political economics that perhaps perturbed them -- the "free" next to "speech", instead of next to "markets". But the ascending neoliberal movement made it about sex and drugs and rock and roll -- they successfully painted it as a culture war.

Despite conservative outrage and Reagan's condemnation, the F.S.M. succeeded. Today students have the right to set up card tables in one area of campus and give passing students information about churches and student clubs they may join, as well as various petitions they can sign. It's radical.

But although in the end the F.S.M. prevailed, the movement seems altogether impotent compared to the power of neoliberal ideas that took root during Reagan's acts as governor and president. Regardless of the relatively weak power of Free Speech Movement, UC Berkeley, the university has never really shaken its reputation as the somewhat sinister, hippy-dippy, center of California left-wing ideas.

Today's Protests, and Those 40 years Ago

When people think of UC Berkeley they think of the 60's protests. But look closely at today's protests. On the occasion of, for instance, BP's massive energy collaboration with the university in 2007, there on the steps of California Hall, 40 students held signs, gave speeches, and then spilled a little bit of organic molasses ("oil") on the steps. Forty strong, the protestors proved they meant no harm by licking molasses off the steps of California Hall. Police in riot gear, wearing shields over their faces surrounded them. A biohazards team was called in to clean up the molasses, despite the students offers to clean it up themselves.

That's the nature of the nice, if limp spirit of today's student rebellions. But people still think Berkeley as radically "left wing". They tend not to associate "Berkeley" with its conservative influences, like John Yoo, who wrote the Bush torture memos and teaches constitutional law, or the law school that defends Yoo's position in the name of "academic freedom". They ignore the power differential that makes such protests anemic.

People think of UC Berkeley and think science and politically liberal values. They tend not to think of retired law school professor Phillip E. Johnson, conservative born-again Christian, who is the father of the intelligent design movement, and who, along with Berkeley science professor Peter Duesberg, denies that the HIV virus causes of AIDS. People ignore the existence of the vibrant libertarian and student Republicans groups (the student Republican group is the largest student organization on campus), and probably don't know about the Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements, established last year. What prevails is the cliche of a subversive, pot-smoking, Birkenstock wearing, long-haired, provocatively liberal university.

Letter From California, The Reality

Last fall, the cliche was reinforced when students took over Wheeler Hall, protesting increases to student tuition. The erosion of state support for the University is a travesty, but the students protests were very personal. Their cries were not about wars (either of them), or free speech, in fact in many cases they were not even about higher education. Some negotiators had a hard time figuring out what the students demands even were -- something about janitors jobs being reinstated? But this 21st century student uprising concerned the increased costs of higher education that would be in part coming out of their (or their parents') pockets.

It was a protest not without irony. Tours of campus routinely compare Berkeley to Stanford University, and the sense of competition is so fierce, apparently, that some Berkeley denizens will not wear any article of clothing that is maroon (Stanford's color). Stanford, a private school, is more costly than Berkeley, so now, financially at least, the comparison will be more apt. So what did the protestors want? Like the rest of America, don't 21st century protestors basically want Bergdorf Goodman quality at Walmart prices?

Not to mention that even as they they protest now, some of the students' parents no doubt voted for California Proposition 13, which gutted the state's ability to raise taxes and support things like higher education.

There was mixed tolerance for the protests on campus. Certainly some students participated, as did some faculty, like negotiator Ananya Roy, who the New Yorker recently profiled in its column "Letter From California". Some faculty and students were very sympathetic to the students, some of whom were in fact savagely batoned by police. But most students and certainly most faculty didn't protest, they were too busy with their own affairs.

Other onlookers complained about the student's behavior in Wheeler Hall, because apparently they "partied"" and "ordered pizzas". I asked one critic: "What should they be doing?", thinking about how boring it must be to sit in an administrative office building for hours on end -- I mean, even back in 1964 they had music, such as it was -- Joan Baez singing "We Shall Overcome". They should be "writing manifestos", came the answer, rather sternly.

Indeed, today's protests somehow fall short of expectations and cliches -- no manifestoes, students marching against fee increases rather than for world peace or the weighty issues of the centuries, and in the November 2009 protests, a piddly sixty-six protestors arrested, not 800, like back in the day.

Not to say certain actions can't stir up memories of students behaving very badly. Once police cleared protestors from Wheeler Hall (and not by blaring Joan Baez into the building, but with some bone breaking), a fringe group got out of hand when they marched to the home of Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau. Here's how the New Yorker wrote about this subsequent act of violence in the last paragraph of their "Letter From California":

"That night, more than forty people carrying torches marched on Birgeneau's residence. A handful of the protesters smashed the outdoor lights and threw cement planters and burning torches at the house, scattering only after the chancellor's wife, who was writing Christmas cards, woke her husband and he called the police."

Since Birgeneau is well-respected for his leadership and contributions to this and other campus problems, this action was universally reviled. The New Yorker paints a good picture, if inaccurate. A more accurate account than the New Yorker's would include the fact that only eight "protestors" were arrested at Birgeneau's house and only two of those were students, and subsequently none of them were charged. While the act was reprehensible, this wasn't quite the scary spectacle described. One professor who witnessed the event questioned the official accounts.

Concert Tickets and The Cost of a Credit

All and all, this wasn't thousands of students convening in 1964 to make speeches about free speech while standing on a police car, any more than the Wheeler protests in November at all resembled the Sproul Hall protests in the 1960's. December's protests, for the most part strictly shut down by police, culminated in a handful of misaligned adults (some in their 40's) committing random and spontaneous acts of violence against someone who is actually working very hard on behalf of higher education. It was pathetic.

But so was the New Yorker's coverage in the "Letter From California". Today's protests aren't a continuation of the Berkeley of the 60's. The facts reflect the ennui of the noughts. The 2009 protests weren't a movement, and it wouldn't impede the changes in public education or privatization. Politicians barely batted an eye. Most people favor privatization, students included, unlike in 1964 when Mario Savio spoke about "the operation of the machine -- so odious...".

The 1960's were the cusp of major social-economic change, but in 2009/2010 everything that was novel and threatening back then -- from computers, to privatization, to liquid colors moving across movie screens, is part of who we are. It's outdated to fight against privatization, whether your aged or youthful. Increased fees, increased tuition? How is that any different than higher housing costs, more expensive medical care, and $150 concert tickets?

Berkeley the University is clearly not the place it was in 60's, when the state provided over 50% of funding; today the state only provides 28% of UC Berkeley funding and that's still shrinking. Although the funding cuts have been damaging, overall, the change in Berkeley is good -- institutions need to keep up with the times. California is privatizing education system like other states such as Virginia and Michigan -- higher education is ripe to be privatized.

Of course the question remains, how will the changes alter the institution of higher education? And how will that benefit society? Moreover, can California remain an economic powerhouse, in the top ten in the world, without the commitment to education it had in the 1960's under the original Master Plan? The state is perennially burdened by a government that promises the quintessential American dream to naive citizens who demand the whole pie for nothing -- safety nets, education, comprehensive services, and low taxes. California state government is ahead of the federal government in assuring citizens that there's no conflict in citizens' wishes, how will this work out?

• Copenhagen: Despite walking past sculptures of skeletons and eerie melting ice polar bears and mermaids daily, the climate change delegates collectively refused to come up with anything substantial in Copenhagen. President Obama curtailed his much awaited visit, altogether minimizing his association with what was by most accounts a failure, but also known as an accord, in order to fly home early and beat a snowstorm. If we are one world we are also many countries with our own economic interests in mind.

  Is there a better way? The Economist suggested in an article last week that the talks may have gone better if different regions and pollutants were considered separately. While the idea is interesting, this sort of regime is also how fishing interests repeatedly fail to establish effective ecological safeguards and effective quotas.

  Although the talks weren't considered fruitful, an interesting sidenote is the inability of very tenacious climate change deniers to convince delegates or the thousands of protestors in Copenhagen that climate change is a hoax, that nothing's at stake.

• The Ice Floe Debate: Last month, in our Notes on Science Dust-Ups and Dirty Laundry, under "Curly-haired Science Populizers Spar" we wrote about what we'll call the IQ nurture:nature debate between two science popularizer giants, Steven Pinker and Malcolm Gladwell. Pinker had criticized Gladwell for what he cuttingly labeled the "Igon Value Problem", defined as, "when a writer's education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong."

  In return, Gladwell wrote that Pinker might be "unhappy" with him for not joining him on the "lonely ice floe of IQ fundamentalism", and criticized him for quoting bloggers. (Although if not for bloggers there might not be people in science of lower regard in the research hierarchy than some of Gladwell's mashable social scientists -- just saying.)

  After we left off, Pinker responded to Gladwell that IQ was related to "many important educational, economic and social outcomes" according to "52 signatories" and "a unanimous blue-ribbon panel". Gladwell then raked over Pinkers' sources, detailing how 15 of those 52 signatories belonged to a group founded by a eugenicist -- whose members are racists, eugenicists and sexists. After substantiating his response at length, he concludes:

  "The fact that ideas are sometimes supported by people with unsavory connections does not make them invalid. An ice floe is not necessarily a bad place to be. It's just that if you are plainly floating on one, it doesn't make much sense to insist that you are standing on solid ground."

  Although both science popularizers are getting more popular via the dispute, there are important issues at stake here. (Acronym Required previously wrote "Watson Uncut: Surprising? Boring? Racist?)

• Racism Persists: Psychology researchers at Yale University found that racism persists, despite US society's more tolerant overt attitudes. The psychologists studied nonverbal interactions between white and black characters on television shows, then surveyed study participants for their responses to the actors attitudes. (complicated methodology) They conclude that nonverbal behavior towards minorities on television influence the attitudes of millions of viewers.(Dovidio et al Science(326) 1641 - 1642 DOI: 10.1126/science.1184231)

• Larry Summers Summons the Economy to Man-Up: Larry Summers is overly optimistic on jobs says a guest blogger on Naked Capitalism in the article titled: "Larry Summers Is Like a Guy Who Yells That the Sun Really DOES Revolve Around the Earth and that the Current Orbit is Just a Temporary Aberration . . . and That If We Just Wait a Little While, Everything Will Return to Normal". We last reviewed Summers's history of unfailing optimism in Mission Accomplished: Summers Ends Economy's Free Fall.

• Coaxing The GOP To Eat Arugula: Michael J. Petrilli questions the GOP vote getting strategy in Wall Street Journal. The Hoover Institute Fellow observes that "with the white working class shrinking and the educated 'creative class' growing", Republicans such as Sarah Palin, "whose entire brand is anti-intellectual", and GOPers who brand themselves for "working-class families", "Sam's Club Republicans", and "your co-worker not your boss", might be miscalculating. Petrilli's assessment of those who criticize "Eastern Elites"? "Playing the populism card looks like a strategy of subtraction rather than addition". Instead he suggests: "What is needed is a full-fledged effort to cultivate "Whole Foods Republicans" - independent minded voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics."

• South Africa's Ex-Health Minister Dies: South Africa's Dr. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang died of complications from a liver transplant she had two years ago. As Health Minister during the Thabo Mbeki administration, she was known as "Dr. Beetroot" for her suggestions that lemon, beetroot and garlic would protect AIDS patients against the deadly effects of the disease in lieu of antiretrovirals. Mbeki's administration oversaw the fraught handling of the AIDS crisis in South Africa, and the former president went to great lengths to protect his comrade Tshabalala-Msimang, who attracted international attention for her positions.

  Even the Minister's liver transplant was controversial. The Times wrote in Manto: A Drunk and a Thief, of a Health Minister who was an alcoholic with liver cirrohsis -- a kleptomaniac on bad behavior while in hospital. One hospital employee told the paper that Tshabalala-Msimang's "antics were common knowledge among staff.'Everyone here thinks its hilarious that she is today a health minister in South Africa'". The story questioned whether favoritism and power enabled her to receive a liver transplant ahead of others.

• Sickle Cell Anemia Not the Only Genetic Mutation to Protect Against Malaria: We learned in our biology courses that the genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia is an adaptation to the malaria causing parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Recently, scientists at the Pasteur Institute in Paris have shown that a less common malaria causing strain, Plasmodium vivax, has also caused adaptive pressure on the genome. The scientists found a gene variant associated with an enzyme deficiency which seems to protect against infection by P. vivax in Southeast Asian populations. The variant causes a deficiency of the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), associated with neonatal jaundice and hemolytic anemia after exposure to certain infections, foods, or medications. (Sakuntabhai et al Science 326, 1546-1549 (2009)DOI: 10.1126/science.1178849)

• Cookstove Technology: Indoor pollution causes 1.6 million deaths per year. Cookstoves contribute significantly to indoor pollution, especially in developing countries where morbidity and mortality from cookstoves disproportionately affects women and children. The New Yorker recently published an article about an Oregon company (one of many) working on cookstove technology for developing countries. An efficient cookstove will vent smoke out of the dwelling and will also burn fuel effectively, saving both lives and forests. But as the article shows, it's about more than technology -- there's many ways a cookstove can not work in developing countries.

The Chemical Lobby Finds Their Man:

Back when the momentum for banning bisphenol A (BPA) hadn't quite built up to its current fervor, BPA lobbyists used to denigrate everyone who questioned the safety of bisphenol A. Male, female, old, young, it didn't matter, they were 'internet moms' who'd worked themselves into a blind tizzy about bisphenol A, which was 'perfectly safe'.

But things were a little more tense last May for industry leaders who met to discuss a strategy for fighting back against the growing movement to limit consumer exposure to risky levels of BPA. As we quoted the Wall Street Journal in our post back then:

"industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA. The notes said the executives are particularly concerned about the views of young mothers, who often make purchasing decisions for households and who are most likely to be focused on health concerns."

In addition to crafting clever lines to scare consumers, like "do you want to have access to baby food anymore?", the industry group discussed getting the right spokesman for their cause. A scientist might be difficult they acknowledged, they had reputations to preserve, but a pregnant woman would be "the Holy Grail".

Now it looks like they found their man in a public relations expert named "Joe Householder" -- his real name. This isn't the first challenging public relations assignment for Mr. Householder. He worked with, among others, Enron's law firm, baseball player Roger Clemons, Hillary Clinton, various other politicians, and Public Strategies Inc. Now he's with Purple Strategies Inc., apparently heading a group called "Coalition for Chemical Safety". The Coalition for Chemical Safety works with American Chemical Council (ACC) and other businesses. To date, those businesses are known more for not putting the safety and health of consumers before corporate profits.

So we look skeptically at "The Coalition for Chemical Safety". Indeed, it's described by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) as an BPA astroturfing organization. But it takes different tactics then previous BPA astroturfing campaigns. Mr. Householder and the Coalition for Chemical Safety take a warmer approach to BPA and chemicals, astroturfing-wise, then representatives in the past have.

In step with the times, the everyone_together_at_the_same_table age of Obama rhetoric, as opposed to the more acrimonious Bush era rhetoric, the Coalition is 'educating' consumers about chemicals. Instead of saying bluntly that BPA is safe, the mother in this Coalition sound clip talks about banning BPA in baby bottles, but encourages consumers and public health advocates to always work with the chemical companies (mp3 from EDF). This is the more subtle approach to controlling the public perception of chemicals. And who better to assure "young mothers" making "purchasing decisions for households", than a guy named Joe Householder?

In keeping with this new, more collegial approach to marketing/public relations, Householder has directly engaged Dr. Richard Denison, EDF's sometimes scathing Senior Scientist, in a mano-a-mano on Denison's blog. This is Householder's "purple" strategy, I think, not red, not blue, purple -- get it? That's where we all agree that chemicals are indeed wonderful (they are) and that we love regulation, just the "right" regulation, and "reasonable" regulation. Look out for that.

Mr. Household has invited Dr. Denison to join the Coalition for Chemical Safety, and although Denison hasn't posted a public response, I think with their combined gregariousness and magnetism, it's just a matter of time before they're hanging out together, Richard educating Householder on bisphenol A and Joe sharing public relations tactics and the use of his very apropos name. Isn't that how things get done these days?

Update: 02/14/09 Dr. Denison did continue to engage Joe Householder on the EDF blog. In a February post, Denison continued to ask Householder what his funding sources were, and what PR tactics he had used to get certain sectors so riled up about the Toxic Chemical Safety Act (TCSA):

"What exactly are you telling lawn services and landscaping companies they need to worry about in TSCA reform? And just what tortuous scenario are you weaving to convince police associations that better chemicals management will compromise their safety on the job?"

Denison wants some transparency from Householder. We don't know how/if Householder responded.

Acronym Required has written extensively on BPA science and regulation. We also wrote about individuals hired by industry, the acrimony they stir up, and the possibility of wonderful relationships blossoming between players on either side of the chemical divide in BPA Rhetoric and Reaction

In his most recent column, Thomas Friedman marshals ideas from Ron Suskind, Dick Cheney and Cass Sunstein in calling for action on climate change. By the end of his column, Friedman has reminded readers of decades of research showing that greenhouse gases make the planet warmer, with the "potential to unleash 'catastrophic' warming." Which risk should we take, he asks? Should we increase our efficiency and mitigation efforts, then in the unlikely event that climate change weren't critical, "as a country we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent"? Or should we risk not preparing, then if climate change were a catastrophe, "life on this planet" would become "living hell"?

Before we get to these arguments in "Going Cheney on Climate", though, you must grapple with Friedman's interpretation of Dick Cheney, Rons Suskind and Cass Sunstein. It's unclear why Friedman chose them, perhaps to convince the GOP, or any deniers, or those who are swayed by deniers, to support climate change action? Anyhow, using their ideas makes his argument confusing.

The One Percent Solution and Climate Change

Friedman refers to Ron Suskind's book "The One Percent Doctrine", titled after a comment Dick Cheney made in 2001:

"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response..."

That part Friedman gets right. But Suskind was actually extremely critical of Cheney and the "Cheney Doctrine". Why? Here's the rest of Cheney's comment:

"...It's not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence...It's about our response""

As Suskind wrote, Cheney's new world order demanded action despite evidence:

"Justified or not, fact-based or not, 'our response' is what matters. As to "evidence", the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn't apply." If there was even a one percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction- and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time -- the United States must now act as if it were a certainty. This was a mandate of extraordinary breadth...

Cheney's new US policy direction meant commitments from citizens and libraries as well as all levels of government -- the the CIA, the Army, the NSA, the Treasury. The costs were stupendous. As Suskind wrote:

"all parties took a vow of sorts on Sept. 12...vowed to work each day and every night...They'd stop at nothing...Global accords on everything from greenhouse gases to international courts...now were seen as constraints...Such agreements were for lesser countries. They were to be shaken off...

Suskind criticized the Cheney Doctrine precisely because its framers willfully disregarded evidence about the negligible risks of Al Queda gaining nuclear capability. They charged into war despite the evidence.

The situation with climate change is the opposite, the evidence for climate change is substantial. A cartoon in the Atlantic Constitution this week summarizes the folly of the deniers. A woman, speaking sometime in the future, says: "The North Pole melted. Polar bears are extinct. Asia's under water. Africa's a desert." The guy next to her responds: "Hey I never said the global warming hoax wasn't elaborate."

Adding to the confusion of Friedman's line of persuasion, the Cheney Doctrine leaves no doubt about that administrations sentiments on climate change, since according to Suskind the US took greenhouse gases off the negotiating table under the Cheney Doctrine.

Friends or Foes? Friedman's Folly

In addition to Suskind and Cheney, Friedman pulls in Cass Sunstein to wrap it all up, saying

"Sunstein wrote in his blog: 'According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events -- such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president -- Al Gore -- can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent)."

Here, Sunstein was actually criticizing the Precautionary Principle, and by extension the Cheney Doctrine, and most likely Cheney and company would bristle at being compared to Gore. According to Sunstein the Precautionary Principle muddles and stalls appropriate action on climate change. ideas he spelled out in papers, articles and books like Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle", and "Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment", his 2002 book.

Sunstein uses social science research to show that individuals are susceptible to faulty conclusions based on irrational fear and errors in judgement like "availability heuristics". Sunstein argues that instead of the Precautionary Principle, the risks and benefits of action on suspected perils should be evaluated empirically. On global warming, he suggests cap-and-trade agreements and incentives to motivate players to make choices to limit emissions, rather than regulation. In a 2008 Boston Globe essay, Throwing Precaution to the Wind, Sunstein specifically uses the example of Bush's Iraq War as a precautionary tale for dealing with global warming:

"the Bush administration justified the war on explicitly precautionary grounds - that even the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iraq was so threatening that it demanded action. Indeed, the idea of "preemptive war" articulated by President Bush is a kind of precautionary principle. The nation went to war on the chance that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But this precaution is imposing a heavy price and creating serious risks for the future."

Sunstein warns against regulation, saying that regulation can invoke unforseen risks or even death -- banning DDT he says caused deaths from malaria -- a spurious argument, but one he uses along with others to warn people off the Precautionary Principle.

The "Cheney-Thing" on Climate - Something to Get Behind?

In the end, Friedman says:

"When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is "irreversible" and potentially "catastrophic," I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.""

Cheney might use the one-percent argument to go to war, but he did so to invoke fear in the American public in order to gain their support. Suskind did not support the Cheney Doctrine, because it wasn't based in evidence and fact. Sunstein also criticized the Cheney Doctrine, comparing it unfavorably to the Precautionary Principle. Now Friedman incongruously corrals the whole mix to support: "doing the Cheney-thing on climate -- preparing for 1 percent." I'm not sure quite what to make of this kind of endorsement.

Alberta Tar Sands

Last year we reported that the Alaskan gas pipeline, touted as necessary for American energy independence, would actually be transporting a lot of the gas to Canada's Alberta tar sands", where the gas would fuel oil extraction from bitumen, an energy intensive, elaborate process for getting oil. The oil will eventually help fuel US needs.

Extracting oil from the tar sands is difficult, expensive, and dirty.¹ But as oil becomes scarcer and more expensive, extraction from the tar sands becomes a more economical option. Bitumen production increased from 482,000 barrels in 1995, to 1.3 million barrels a day in 2008, and is expected to reach 2 to 2.9 million barrels a day by 2020.² Extraction operations increased in area to 530km² (205mi²) in 2007.

Now a study from University Alberta released in the online Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), finds that the tar sand extraction projects are dirtier than thought.² Previous surveys done by the industry found that the tar sand operations didn't increase downstream levels of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) -- chemicals (some carcinogenic) released both naturally and through mining operations.

Schindler et al independently investigated water pollution from the tar sands. Testing water from the Athabasca River, Lake, Delta and tributaries, their findings contradict previous studies by showing increased PACs. The authors found that the levels of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) are higher downstream of mining activity, and greater in the summer than winter months. They also sampled snowpack, where they found significant particulate deposits.

Currently, the industry monitors itself, and the Alberta government somewhat audits the reports. Schindler observed to the journal Nature ³ what many recognize as problems with industry self-monitoring, it's "sort of like abolishing the police and asking people to pull over if they see they're speeding and report themselves." The PNAS authors recommend that the federal government take over monitoring pollution from the bitumen extraction operations.

Reports of like this are bad news to some Canadians who are worried about impressions and bad publicity around the tar sands, especially with the increased international attention due to Copenhagen. As University of Alberta energy economist Joseph Doucet put it: put it, "God help us if this becomes like baby seals."

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

¹ To get a sense of it, I recommend Elizabeth Kolbert's article in the New Yorker, "Unconventional Crude."

² Schindler DW et al "Oil sands development contributes polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Athabasca River and it tributaries" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912050106

³ Jones, N. "Tar sands mining linked to stream pollution" Nature www.nature.com | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1127

When "Effective EPA" is No Longer an Oxymoron?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the agency's finding last April that greenhouse gases "(GHGs) endanger public health and welfare. Jackson reminded viewers that the Bush administration EPA had found that greenhouse gases endangered health and welfare, action compelled by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, but had "regrettably" stalled on moving forward with the agency's recommendation offering only "excuses" and "delay". Said Jackson: "this administration will not ignore science or the law any longer, nor will we avoid the responsibility we owe to our children and grandchildren."

Having finalized the Endangerment Finding, Jackson announced some first steps:

"Next month, large emitters in the U.S. will begin working with EPA to monitor their emissions. Beginning in 2011, large emitters will - for the first time - submit publicly available information that will allow us to meaningfully track greenhouse gas emissions over time....And starting next spring, large emitting facilities will be required to incorporate the best available methods for controlling greenhouse gas emissions when they plan to construct or expand."

The agency noted that it had no intention of putting burdens on small businesses.

The Indefensible Status Quo and Republicans Think They're Deep Throat(?)

Last weekend we wrote about a group of GOP Republicans who asked the EPA to withdraw the Endangerment Finding because of the CRU emails. We noted their tone of desperation, for instance that they tried to make their case by quoting an infamous, non-sensical UK climate denier. Jackson addressed the skeptics, and noted that the EPA's action was based on decades of research.

"We know that skeptics have and will continue to try to sow doubts about the science. It's no wonder that many people are confused. But raising doubts - even in the face of overwhelming evidence - is a tactic that has been used by defenders of the status quo for years. Those tactics have only served to delay and distract from the real work ahead, namely, growing our clean energy economy and freeing ourselves from foreign oil that endangers our security and our economy."

True to form, last week Representative James Sensenbrenner(R-WI) had said that CRU emails were "evidence of scientific facism". Today, having worn out facism, communism and nazism and Hitler references, EPA letter writer Representative Richard Issa (R-CA) summoned fellow Republican the deceased Richard Nixon for his incoherent campaign. Responding to Jonathan Pershing's (U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change) observation that the emails were inconsequential and the science on climate change was "incredibly robust", Issa declared: "Richard Nixon said that about what Deep Throat had outed about the break-in."

Green Jobs, Pragmatism and Details

Jackson noted that today's action would also assure the American people, scientists, and the world that the EPA is serious, after eight years of inaction, about acting on the challenge of climate change. She hoped that recent EPA action would restore the "credibility and the trust of the American people" by taking an "enduring" and "pragmatic"

"step[s] towards innovation, investment and implementation of technologies that reduce harmful emissions...green jobs, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and a better future for our children."

These are great steps for the EPA, although we recognize the devil is in the details. Just as the work wasn't over once Obama won the election, the work isn't over now that the waiver is finalized.

"We can only marvel at the disarray." - Jeffrey Sachs on climate policy.

The CRU Emails - Fool's Gold:

Like glittering treasure, the emails hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) beckon Republicans and climate change deniers who paw through the loot like pirates with fool's gold, pulling out one little nugget or another from the 1000+ email trove. I'm sure there's more than a lifetime's worth of out of context quotes to be mined.

(Graph: Instrumental Global Surface Temperature Measurements from >150 stations; image from Wikipedia Commons. More info)

It's a lesson some of us know and others are just learning, that given the slightest excuse, the deniers will get louder and louder by the day, despite 30 years of accumulated evidence showing anthropogenic climate change. And so post CRU email events and protagonists continue to gather momentum. This week the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and four members of Congress demanded that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) halt all rule-making to reduce man-made carbon emissions on account of the CRU emails. In their letter, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) requested that the EPA-

"conduct a thorough and transparent investigation" into the "questions raised by the emails". "Additionally, the EPA "should withdraw the Proposed Endangerment Finding, as well as the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule....."

It was an over-the-top response to the CRU emails, but Sensenbrenner et al have been bombarding the EPA with this kind of stuff long before the CRU emails. Sensenbrenner is the former Chairman of the House Science Committee and ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, a committee that he vehemently opposed before its formation, at which point he saw that he couldn't stop it so he got on board to undermine it anyway he could.

The EPA's Endangerment Finding, gives the agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases affecting US citizens health and welfare. We wrote about endangerment in a number of posts ( here, here, here, here, here, and here), describing the protracted negotiations between the states, the Bush and Obama administrations, and the courts, including the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The four legislators demand that the EPA withdraw the Endangerment Finding decision of last April and halt Light Duty Vehicle and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rules, just when the EPA, after eight years of Bush administration shenanigans, takes baby steps to try and slow down our human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. The letter might as well request the agency drown itself in a bathtub. ¹

If A "Climate Change Bullshit" Prize Bears Your Name, It Makes Sense That Republicans Would Quote You In A Letter To The EPA...?

"The content of the emails raises serious questions that demand your attention", write the four congressmen. To emphasize the erroneous climate science potentially informing their request, they quote from three newspaper essays - an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, a column from the New York Times, and a column from the British newspaper the Telegraph.

It's the job of Representatives and Senators to get information for their constituents. But what's their line of reasoning and who does it benefit? To anchor their letter, they reference UK Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker, presumably to give EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson good reason to consider their demands. Booker wrote that the CRU emails' "importance cannot be overestimated". US readers may not be familiar with the conservative Telegraph papers and they may not know Christopher Booker, but here's a sampling of his ideas (HT Wikipedia):

• Asbestos "poses no risk to human health and is chemically identical to talcum powder" [2]
• "Scientific evidence to support the belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" [3]
• Intelligent Design is valid and evolutionary scientists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions" [4]
• "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved" and more, in columns, and a book "The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History" [5]

The UK Health and Safety Executive has rebuked Booker multiple times for his "misinformed" statements on asbestos. His false assertions on climate change are so well recognized in the UK that before George Monbiot wobbled uncertainly about the wisdom of casting his lot with climate scientists, he established the "Christopher Booker Prize for Climate Change Bullshit" with The Guardian.

The Christopher Booker Prize for Climate Change Bullshit awards the person who serves up the most climate falsehoods in a single article. That bullshitter gets a trophy made from what looks to me like a tin can and paper/styrofoam cup decorated with a magic marker - have a look for yourself. The "trophy" is made in "mid-Wales".⁶ You get a feel for Christopher Booker's authority.

The winner also gets an invitation from Monbiot to take a "one-way solo kayak trip to the North Pole" to "see for him or herself the full extent of the Arctic ice melt." (The Arctic video showing global warming here is actually in our last post.) The Guardian generously offers excursion support in the form of a little bit of mint chocolate.

The Gall (and Fatal Flaw?) of the GOP

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) don't offer the most countable untruths, so technically they're not even eligible for Monbiot's prize as defined, although Sensenbrenner has made such career out of hassling the EPA that he might be considered for a lifetime achievement award. Two styrofoam cups.

On the other hand, maybe we could redefine the award, given that everything is in "disarray", and all topsy-turvy anyway. Think about it. The EPA, after being thrown out to pasture for eight years, is now being served up demands by a foursome who cite as evidence the most egregious of science deniers, capable of provoking George Monbiot's most venomous contempt. But Monbiot himself fears that no sooner did he stake his reputation on climate science then the scientists left him standing on an ice floe.

Actually, there's too much evidence for global warming, no cache of CRU emails can undermine that, therefore the Republicans are reduced to sending a letter full of nothing. So perhaps Monbiot could redefine the prize and the four intrepid lawmakers could capture the "trophy" simply for offering the most nothing? The four would look very sporty upgraded from a kayak to a little round rowboat. But will Monbiot stand by his prize offer? Or will he throw the whole styrofoam cup and little bit of mint chocolate thing overboard...and throw back a pint with Booker?

The Myth of the Republican Rhetoric Machine?

Marvel that the Republicans cite Booker's opinion in a letter to the EPA. They do offer longer quotes from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times that would also be facile to refute; however, I was most impressed with the audacity of opening a letter to the EPA administrator with a quote from such a clown. Such is the sad state of Republican intellectual rigor in 2009. When scientists fret about their ability to counteract deniers, they sometimes overestimate the GOP as some well-oiled rhetorical wonderboat. It's not always so.

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

1. Grover Norquist said said: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1381270/Christopher-Bookers-Notebook.html
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1556118/Christopher-Booker%27s-notebook.html
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1495664/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html
5.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

6. I bet if these four won we could commission some Hackensack, NJ, USA made trophies, because I know that's important to some camps. Hackensack is nice now, like Brooklyn, they say.

Of Course Denial Is Not The River In Africa:

The upheaval over the climate e-mails is business as usual for the climate science deniers or denialists - not "skeptics", and just a word on that first. Scientists are by nature "skeptics" and consider skepticism a valid approach to analysis. Merriam Webster says "skeptic" derives from the Greek skeptikos thoughtful, or skeptesthai to look. However, unfortunately for all of us, the climate data needs to be denied to be disbelieved. There's too much of it over too many years from too many different fields -- too much evidence to be skeptical about. Meanwhile, while some deniers happily call themselves deniers, others deniers take extreme offense, saying calling them deniers is dismissive or denigrating. But that's not the goal here. I'm not saying deniers don't have feelings, they have valid feelings, and they may also have issues facing reality or other problems.

For instance, just as people who don't recycle may sincerely have difficulty separating cans from cardboard, climate deniers may be incapable of swimming. We can empathize. Swimming may become an even more vital skill in the future. Deniers may fear being seen driving an electric car, fear heatstroke, fear malaria, fear fire, fear tornadoes, fear heatstroke, or fear moving from Florida, which could be affected most by impending climate change with rising sea waters, temperatures and incidence of malaria. Fear may incapacitate deniers reasoning faculties or propel them to convince themselves and others that no change is necessary. We empathize some more.

But if we chance-it, do nothing because of deniers' fears, so we can talk about emails in the UK some more, then we're making a choice that has the potential for far scarier outcomes than facing the mounds of evidence and choosing to do something. And we can do something, we can change, we can support industries that solve climate problems. Or we can do business as usual, and suffer the economic consequences of that. There are all sorts of innocent reasons why deniers are in denial. Only some of them nefarious like fear of losing the vote. But denial for any reason thwarts problem solving.

Rearranging The Deck Chairs on The Titanic. Well..?

We don't necessarily understand their reasons, but we recognize the deniers' rhetoric. If decades of ice core data, Antarctica data, arctic data, temperatures, sea levels, temperatures and, corral bleaching, tree ring data, and more, all show global warming over decades, they'll say "but today is cold out - global warming? Hahaha". If there's noise in a 30 year graph showing an up or down trend, they focus on a one year time period that shows the opposite trend, and throw that out as "proof" that the graph is false.

Here's one video, just one piece of evidence in mountains of available data, showing the decrease in perennial sea ice (seconds ~25-50):

Deniers will ignore all the evidence, focus on a bunch of emails and call it ClimateGate, and get everyone to run over to the starboard side of the ship, when there's an iceberg forward (although, actually, eventually that won't be a problem anymore.) Or they'll say the problem is that the scientists weren't communicating and weren't being transparent with the data. Of course last year the Wall Street Journal was complaining about "too much" global warming evidence. We're not saying that scientists shouldn't have thought twice about pouring vents and frustration into emails, but this is the sideshow which keeps us all spinning, keeps us doing nothing.

Meanwhile, if the sea level of the Mediterranean Sea rose 1 meter, the Nile River Basin, home to millions and cultivated to feed more millions, would lose 6.1 million people to displacement. Where would they all go? 4,500 square kilometers of Nile River Basin cropland would be lost, and the World Bank estimates a 6% loss in GDP to Egypt, and direct GDP losses for about 10 other countries. 6% GDP impact would raise to 16% with a 5 meter rise of sea level. That's one area of the world and one river basin, there's many others. Louisiana and Florida will be lost to rising seas. California and Australia will have more forest fires.

And while many results of climate change are known, other possible changes could be even more catastrophic if they happened. This is the case with The Great Ocean Conveyor Belt or thermohaline circulation. Scientists don't know what the outcome of the collapse of the thermohaline circulation would be. They don't know how that would further change climate, which areas would be warmer, how it would effect ocean salinity. Would the ocean become a pond? Scientists can't predict, but there's a chance that it could be catastrophic. There's never absolute surety in science, but the outcomes can be different both ways, better, or a lot worse.

Deniers like Inhofe would be brandishing threats about emails if he were in hip-waders up to his waist in sea water, rather than accept the evidence. That's the way its always been and that's the way it will always be. Fighting against mult-million dollar "pro-industry" campaigns by oil companies and the people they corral with their ideas, like Inhofe, has occupied scientists as much as the science. So when some people, (including scientists) now turn around and say that scientists need to be more transparent, if doesn't ring true. The data has been there and still is. These 'scientists aren't talking right' distractions only derail scientists from looking for solutions.

Progress and Promises on AIDS:

Today, on World AIDS Day 2009, while looking for a statistic, I entered into Google the search: "HIV infections decrease". The sometimes precocious search engine offered an instantaneous correction: "did you mean HIV infections increase" [sic] No, I silently answered, frowning, before I caught myself attempting communication with a search engine. Then I flipped the search to Google News. Google insisted I must mean "increase". So I got the statistic I was looking for and relented to Google's know-it-all suggestion. Indeed although Google was wrong, I understand the reasoning, even if only algorithmic: The first search phrase, "decrease", yielded only 1,940,000 results in .22 seconds, whereas the second, "increase", gave 3,550,000 results in .18 seconds.

Just like the search engine, we brace ourselves for the worst with HIV/AIDS, we're habituated to hearing bad news. As the pandemic continues and effective methods for decreasing HIV infections, increasing treatment, and procuring funding seem at times as elusive as ten years ago, sometimes we need to look up once a year on AIDS day with some real intention just to see the inches gained in the sand we've been trying to get traction in.

Otherwise, even though the number of number of infections has decreased by 17% since 2001, all the World AIDS Days blur together and we're tempted to ask questions. Questions like -- has anything actually changed since the 20th World AIDS Day of 2007, when 61% of HIV infected population were women? Or from 2008 World AIDS Day? Or the first World AIDS Day 22 years ago?

Last year, on the the 21st World AIDS Day, we noted milestones like Bush's PEPFAR funding effort, and Barbara Hogan's appointment as South Africa's Health Minister. However, things change quickly in this area of public health, and this year brought both positive and negative news for PEPFAR and South Africa, two of our areas of interest.

The year started out promisingly, with Obama's inauguration and his pledge to pay even more attention to AIDS, especially for the recently increased national infections. He noted that his strategy would-

"...be based on the best available science and built on the foundation of a strong health care system"....however, he warned, "in the end, this epidemic can't be stopped by government alone, and money alone is not the answer either."

After being sworn in, Obama immediately got rid of the ban on international funding for groups that provided counseling on abortion. Condoms, an essential part of prevention, lost the evil connotation they had during the Bush administration. (The church took up the campaign when Pope Benedict XVI announced falsely in March that condoms would worsen the AIDS crisis). Obama was true to his campaigning words here. Science studies show that condoms are effective, and abstinence programs are not. Studies also show that attention to public health is central to preventing and treating infectious disease. Indeed, healthcare has been a theme of Obama's administration -- albeit to what end, we don't know. The president also recently lifted the HIV/AIDS travel ban, which has ostracized AIDS patients, something that's also been proven to undermine prevention and treatment programs.

Unfortunately, but again true to his word, Obama hasn't provided the leadership people hoped he would, even though government leadership has proven central to any successful HIV prevention and AIDS treatment program. Worse, although Obama the president-elect promised $1 billion per year in PEPFAR funding, the 2010 budget proposal contains only $366 million. The funding shortfalls have effected HIV and AIDS treatment programs, for instance eligible patients in Uganda are being turned away for lack of funds. The president's funding choices earned Obama a scathing D+ from AIDS NGOs.

Change in South Africa

In good news, South Africa's President Zuma has made several promises that show he's wised up from the time in court not long ago, when he defended himself on rape charges and said that a shower would prevent infection by HIV. Last month, Zuma promised that South Africa would vigorously address the national AIDS crisis.

Last May, when Zuma announced the reassignment of Barbara Hogan, whom he replaced with Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi, there was some concern from South Africa's public health community about the assignment, concern the Dr. Motsoaledi was inexperienced, while Hogan's work was widely praised. However public health groups have since welcomed the new minister's straightforward acknowledgments of past mistakes.

We hope South Africa's new realizations -- like that the nation's deaths from AIDS increased more than 100 percent in 11 years -- are not just a rhetorical distancing of the ANC party from former President Thabo Mbeki's and his denialism, but a real commitment to an AIDS program. Optimistically, today Zuma announced the government's intention to treat all babies and pregnant women infected with AIDS.

In other major HIV/AIDS news this year, initial reports of a successful vaccine clinical trial in Thailand brought increased public attention and then consternation to later news of the same trial. The second news release informed the world that when researchers did further analysis of the results they doubted that the benefit was statistically significant. That's the way it goes though, steps forward, and steps back. The work continues tomorrow, and for the next 364 days we'll all work towards a more upbeat World AIDS Day 2010.

What should we do when the world is in overshoot? An article in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books looks at depletion of natural resources in a world of ever increasing demand.

John Terborgh reviews "Paradise Found: Nature in America at the Time of Discovery", by Steve Nicholls. Nicholls is an entomologist and wildlife film producer who became alarmed at the progressive devastation of nature he saw in his perennial travels across America. "The World Is in Overshoot" communicates its message

"...on two levels, emotional and philosophical. The emotion is a restrained outrage at the wanton and often savage slaughter of wildlife -- cod, salmon, seabirds, curlew, beaver, bison, passenger pigeons, sea turtles, oysters, seals, walrus, and on and on. One feels it viscerally. And that drives home the philosophical point that all the excess and destruction were ensured by the cast of mind of the European colonists, the conviction that God created the wealth of nature expressly for man's benefit."

The plight of Grand Banks cod fisheries illustrates the problem that many species face. John Calbot discovered the Grand Banks in 1497, and today the adult cod population of the Grand Banks is 3% of what it was then, an outcome that Thomas Huxley certainly didn't predict. In 1883 Huxley wrote about the fish he called "Darwin's bulldog":

"I still believe the cod fishery...and probably all the great fisheries are inexhaustible; that is to say nothing we do seriously affects the number of fish"

Garrett Hardin popularized the "Tragedy of the Commons" concept in 1968, but the Grand Banks pillage started long before that, and would not be stopped by increased awareness of the issue. For over five hundred years the Grand Banks were fished by Europeans and Americans. Technology improved over the centuries and catches increased with each improvement, hand lines to long lines to gill nets to larger nets; wind to steam to factory ships; the "inexhaustible" bounty grew more precarious. Although the Canadian government imposed a moratorium on cod at tremendous cost to the fishing economy, for many reasons 17 years later, even the moratorium hasn't allowed the cod to recover.

The NY Review of books author talks about the alterations in Grand Bank's species like snow crabs, shrimp, lobster, skate and dogfish, and the damaged ecosystem affecting cod populations. Another damaged ecosystem exists in the "political tragedy of the 'commons'", says Terborgh. The fisherman of course maximize profit today we know that, but the politicians are also guilty of failing to pass effective regulations:

"The reluctance of official bodies to protect natural resources manifests a failure of political systems, particularly of modern democracy."

The article is accompanied by an Albert Bierstadt painting, "Among the Sierra Nevada". The painting is an interesting choice for the article. Bierstadt made trips to Western United States in the latter 19th century, then composed over 500 paintings, many of them depicting idealized western landscapes dominated by lush forests, plentiful wildlife, and majestic mountains, all bathed in surreal golden light. This particular painting was painted while Bierstadt was in Europe, nine years after the artist visited the Sierra Nevada in California, Critics say the mountains look more like the Alps than the Sierra Nevada, as Bierstadt

"painted the West as Americans hoped it would be, which made his paintings vastly popular and reinforced the perception of the West as either Europe or sublime Eden."¹

Other critics say his paintings resemble not Europe, but Arcadia. Either way, Bierstadt paints a seductive west, free of unwelcoming animals and indians, free of hostile mountain passes, and labeled blatant propaganda by some critics. His paintings encouraged people to go West, according to the more extreme view, which inevitably contributed to the destruction of the wilderness.

Terborgh, however, writes:

"The diminution of nature is a price to be paid by a society obsessively dedicated to unending economic growth. To lay the blame on the past obscures the lesson for our own time."

Terborgh rightly points out the weakness in pinning resource depletion on past actions. Past actions can't absolve us of the pressing need to act today. The pairing of the painting with the essay - perhaps inadvertently - also points out that sometimes we give in to temptations to paint the past more idyllically then it really was. Other artists depict the west much more harshly then Bierstadt's commercial aims ever allowed him to. Terborgh writes that Nicholls-

"turned to writing to lay out a sweeping panorama of what North America has lost in the centuries since the first explorers wrote back to their European sponsors of an exuberant nature so bountiful we can no longer imagine it."

Nature was bountiful, but some depictions like Bierstadt's were over-imagined to begin with. And as sometimes we overestimate nature back then, what environmental tradeoffs do we make for economic security that we may be overvaluing today? In relentlessly choosing short term economic security, are we also suffering from a bias, where the value of the most technically accessible solution which provides any modicum of economic security obscures the value of the environment, to our long term detriment?

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

¹ Gordon Hendricks, Albert Bierstadt: Painter of the American West (New York, 1974), 51058, 149-50; Anderson and Ferber, Albert Bierstadt, 74-77, in Hyde, A., Cultural Filters: The Significance of Perception in the History of the American West, The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol 24, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp 351-374.

Photo courtesy of WikiCommons: here.

Acronym Required sometimes writes about the environment, and we critiqued a proposal that applied the Tragedy of the Commons parable to antibiotics here.

The past couple of weeks have been filled with stories about scientists' public dust-ups, intriguing to all, especially non-scientists. Why are they so interesting? Maybe such sordid tales offer something beyond dry research results sexed-up by editors desperate to grab readers weaned on YouTube? Maybe the stories make scientists seem not quite so pocket-protector laden and boring? (We're not boring, really!) But since we all know people who slow down to gawk at accidents, others who link lavishly to tales of disease, distress, death, and dismal demises, perhaps those people are just as enamored, in the same schadenfreude way, to science bickering and wave-making?

• Ice Floes and Climate Woes: Antarctica is losing ice from the eastern side as well as the west, according to a study in Nature Geoscience, an event that could significantly increase sea levels. But that's not the news everyone's focusing on these days. What interests them are the emails exchanged between a few scientists, stolen from a server at East Anglia University in England and broadcast on the internet.

  Fox News and the usual suspects are gleeful of course, oiling up for a long campaign of undermining science and swaying wishy-washy people. Everyone else spectates, eagerly leaning into the ropes. The Financial Times avidly quoted 'both sides', first the "free-market think tank" CEI spokesperson who called the emails "global warming house of cards", then the scientist whose email revealed that he wanted to "beat the crap out of" a certain scientist, a phrase that one person sincerely explained as "a common pleasantry" among high-calibre scientists. Optimistic climate deniers are talking "smoking guns" and ClimateGate. But as Real Climate: put it in one of their posts:

  "if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn't much to it."

  "Probably" is understatement. Somehow the media constantly gets away with quoting 'both sides' without signaling to readers the truer story: One side has hundreds of studies - the scientists; whereas the other side is lobbying for some corporation, or out of desperate laziness. The science is depressingly convincing on climate change. But obviously people don't all embrace change, and to that end, the deniers have proven time and time again that hammering away with their fraudulent message will keep people consuming petroleum products.

  My take is that if you unearthed the email trove of any group - government, academic or corporate - you'd find some nasty, flaming emails, but not everyone sees it the way I do of course. Some scientists are calling for increased transparency.

• Personal Genomics, What Risk? Researchers from the J. Craig Venter Institute and Scripps Translational Science Institute compared the results of two personal genomics companies for five individuals and found discrepancies in the disease risk predictions. The two companies, 23andMe and Navigenics DTC, responded to the paper in a recent issue of Nature. The two companies agreed with the criticism on some points and offered explanation on other points -- for instance about the differences between population risk and individual risks, and the importance of doctors' communication about genetic risks to patients.

  In other personal genomics news, Iceland's deCode Genetics went out of business, leaving it ambiguous, although we're assured that the genetic information will be protected, where their vast genetic data bank will end up.

• Curly-haired Science Populizers Spar: Steven Pinker popularizes cognitive science and evolutionary psychology. Malcolm Gladwell popularizes sociology and social psychology. They both have Canadian roots and very curly hair. Now they're sparring. Pinker critiqued Gladwell's, "What the Dog Saw" in a recent issue of "New York Times. Like any good manager or professor, Pinker offers four paragraphs of compliments before he breaks out the sharp red pen. Gladwell is a "minor genius", Pinker writes, but "unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning and who occasionally blunders into spectacular failures", and "frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring."

  Pinker says that Gladwell provides "misleading definitions", and furthermore, he mistakenly calls an eigenvalue an "igon value." The criticism may seem idiosyncratic to the lay person, but subject area experts see things differently. They're more likely to believe that imprecise definitions and simplification lead to public confusion. What's interesting is that such criticism comes from Pinker, who, being a popularizer like Gladwell, must certainly recognize the necessity of selectively choosing what to include in rhetorical writing for huge non-science audiences.

  Gladwell responds that Pinker "is unhappy with my spelling (rightly!) and with the fact that I have not joined him on the lonely ice floe of IQ fundamentalism." Clever defense and countercharge - in other words, "Igon value" was a typo not a misunderstanding, intimates Gladwell; and Pinker is more or less an intellectual pariah. Gladwell also denigrates Pinkers' sources for being bloggers or online denizens: "our differences owe less to what can be found in the scientific literature than they do to what can be found on Google." Ouch, ouch and ouch.

• Fantastic FOXP2 - The Speech Gene? David Shenk provides his blog at The Atlantic as a forum for a scientist and a New York Times journalist to spar about the journalist's presentation of science. Shenk posts a letter from University of Iowa neuroscientist and Behavioral Neuroscience Editor-in-Chief Mark Blumberg, to Nicholas Wade's about his New York Times story, "Speech gene shows its bossy nature." Blumberg takes Wade to task for calling FOXP2 the "speech gene".

  "the distinct possibility that the mutation influenced a myriad of other brain and body functions that, in turn, affected speech. Indeed, given all that we know about how genes work - as well as our sad history with grandiose claims about single-gene effects on behavior - wouldn't it be wise for all of us to be more cautious when communicating these findings to the public?

  In turn, Wade writes:

  "The role of this article was to update readers on a new finding, not to review the history of ideas about FOXP2. So there's no space to go into the argument about the gene's precise involvement with speech and language, much of which we have covered in earlier articles."

  Of all our notes, and all the other dust-ups in play in the news recently, I really enjoyed this presentation by Shenk because it gets to the heart of challenges with science communication and the work that scientists and writers must do to get science across to non-scientist audiences without generalizing or leading readers astray. Definitely worth reading.

• Do Names Portend Profession? Yes, we're joking. But if you're into astrology and anti-vaccination, if you think global warming is a giant hoax, you may steer clear of certain girls' given names. "Isabella", for instance, is a pretty name, second in popularity for girls in 2008, but, like Arabelle, Anabelle, Belinda, Elizabeth, Isabel, Isabella, Mirabel, Rosabel, Sybil or Mabel, it comes with troublesome nicknames, like "Bella"" or "Belle", which can also stand alone. Bella is the wan female protagonist of new popular movie, "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". Bella loses her mind (according to reviews) when her vampire boyfriend goes missing. OK there may be worse things then your daughter mooning around for months over her missing vampire boyfriend...but what are they again?

  "Belle" of course, was the nom de plume of the anonymous British scientist, named after the movie, not the name "Isabelle", who blogged about her second life as a prostitute. News of the scientist blogger outed as "Belle de Jour" elicited delighted and scurrilous musings online and in real life. Online, BoingBoing posed a "takeaway debate", asking: "Is this good or bad for scientists/science bloggers?" In real life one scientist acquaintance told me that he'd read that women with Asperger's syndrome were often "loose" because they could compartmentalize (we didn't check his source). He then continued, thinking aloud, that "of course they might be scientists too", and his eyes lit up at his connection and all the potential relationships he would have previously discounted. So in that case, to BoingBoing's question, it might be good for scientists.

  But "good or bad" is not necessarily the only takeaway, as British columnists tell us. Rowan Pelling wrote: "Interviewers have been asking me breathily what I thought of Belle when I met her, as if my eyes must have been out on stalks at the idea of a PhD student turning tricks." Actually, it wasn't her "trade", but the excellent "quality of her writing", that "shocked" Pelling.

  To be honest, the parts of Belle de Jour that I read I found about as captivating as reading a Martha Stewart description on how to stuff pillows with barley husks, so clearly I'm not the best judge of this sort of thing. But columnists babbled on and there seemed to be no debate about her "writing" prowess. Clive James of the BBC gushed:

  "And what a female...she was Ernest Hemingway...a woman of outstanding beauty and brilliance...student of informatics, epidemiology and forensic science...a student of military strategy...the thinking man's dream girl...There is nothing this woman can't do, and you can tell by the history of her blogging...She knows everything. She even knows what informatics is. I looked it up, and basically it means information theory.

  Yikes. Chill, pal. Perhaps they edited my Scribner Classics Hemingway edition, but I don't recall Hemingway writing such doozies (albeit rare) as Belle's 'my pussy makes men cry'. So now then, (and speaking of names, we won't even go into the name "Brook[e]), back to BoingBoing, what's the takeaway for scientists? Actually, I would debate, not much with this flash in the pan story.

  But here's my takeaway from Brooke Magnanti. Magnanti works for the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health and studies toxicology, most recently on organophosphate chloropyrifos (CPF) used in pesticides. An abstract in Toxicology Letters by Magnanti et al, (Volume 189, Supplement 1, 13 September 2009, Pages S268-S269) suggests the EU policies on CPFs be changed to the more restrictive one of the US which limits indoor use. I find this interesting. Many people, myself included, tend to think of US policies for environmental hazards as laxer than EU policies -- but be careful about generalizations. Acronym Required wrote about US and EU policies, and the EU's REACH protocol here and here and here, and here. I know, science, far less interesting, sigh.

For most of history, people were bent on dominating and conquering nature, clearing land, killing predators, and domesticating the wild. Now humans are determined to prevent some species from going extinct, from trees to frogs to large cats. These campaigns sometimes seem fetishized and bizarre -- wildlife foundations who implore us to mourn the death of one fuzzy, photogenic animal -- who beg us to send money so that the death of any individual animal was not "in vain". We send our heartfelt support and then fight to keep other species out, those that heedlessly invade our ecosystem as we currently know it. Humans devise management systems and models, and write up elaborate plans that look organized to any audience. As much as I heartily approve and endorse all this work -- oh, dare I say this?-- from afar, in certain fleeting moments, the efforts can look excessively anthropomorphic, sporadic, desperate, pathetic, or even futile. Who do we (yes, the odious, collective we) think we are? If we conquered nature before do we think we can undo the damage? Or do we just instinctively try to mold our ecosystem to evolving ideas or fantasies we have about nature? Why do we undermine our best efforts? What ecosphere, exactly, are we aiming for, we humans?

• Headlining, With Great Fanfare, Some Crocodile Fossils: "Darwin's finches have nothing on these crocodiles", says Science. The open-access journal ZooKeys published a monograph describing crocodile fossil finds from the Cretaceous period, including what the scientists describe as three new species. "My African crocs appeared to have had both upright, agile legs for bounding overland and a versatile tail for paddling in water", said Paul Serono, the National Geographic explorer in residence (emphasis added). (via Science in "Slideshow: Ancient Crocs With a Dog-Like Walk")

• Darwin's Mockingbirds: Scientists are analyzing DNA they've extracted from the footpads of mockingbirds brought back by Darwin. They hope to use the information to select species of mockingbirds most like the original ones, and reintroduce these species to the island of Floreana.

• Amazon Deforestation Slows? Brazil reported a record low for Amazon deforestation, the lowest it has been in 21 years. Only 7,000 sq km was destroyed between July 2008 and August 2009. However some organizations tempered any enthusiasm over Brazil's claims. Greenpeace said in a press release that its would be happy when " in 11 years time, the Amazon was being destroyed at a rate of a little less than three cities the size of Sao Paulo a year". Some people suggest the recent reduction is related to the economic recession. We previously wrote about deforestation here, here, and here.

• Modeling Deforestation and Degradation -- REDD: The journal Nature describes a deforestation modeling project aimed at "reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation" (REDD). Emissions from deforestation and degradation account for about one-fifth of the world's total emissions, however deforestation goals weren't included in the Kyoto Protocol because there was no reliable system for estimating CO2 emissions reduction. Scientists think that REDD is one of the cheapest ways of reducing overall emissions. If models were robust, richer countries could use the forecasts to reduce CO2 emissions, and to compensate poorer countries for minimizing biomass loss, more economical than reducing industrial emissions.

  A REDD project by Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) uses three existing land-use models to predict future losses. Project scientists say this model is a better predictor of deforestation than estimates based on historical analysis. The model predicts higher rates of deforestation in Central African countries of the Congo Basin than historical based predictions do, because economic activity in Africa is accelerating. Therefore compensation would be relatively greater in Africa using REDD, whereas Brazil, where deforestation has been going on for years, would fare better using a historical model. However as with any model, REDD is naturally only as good as the data going in, and doesn't factor in illegal logging.

• Geo-Wiki: In order to improve deforestation models, another tool, Geo-wiki asks volunteers to help refine land cover maps by filling in knowledge about their local areas (via Nature).

• 17,000 Species, Leagues Under The Sea As the rainforests disappear, scientists involved with the Census of Marine Life released a preliminary report on a bounty of life in the sea below the reach of sunlight, including this copedpod, which I'm most enamored with.

• Scientists Make Mistakes about Skates: Species of skate may be fished to extinction because of species identification mistakes, according to research reported in Aquatic Conservation. Since the 1920's scientists thought two species of skates -- which are cartiligenous fish like rays and sharks -- were only one species. The two distinct species, the flapper skate, Dipturus intermedia and the blue skate, Dipturus flossada were grouped together and known as the common skate: Dipturus batis. The French researchers say that both species may be more endangered then previously assumed because of the taxonomic labeling mistake.

  The researchers also point out that official fisheries statistics done by French ports grouped five distinct species under only two species names. The ports survey used the counts to calculare skate decline, but more precipitous declines of some of the five species were masked in the survey. The scientists warn that similar fishing surveys may gloss over species loss in "Taxonomic Confusion and Market Mislabelling of Threatened Skates: Important Consequences for Their Conservation Status". Igle et al, Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2009). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1083

• Carp Invade Great Lakes: Some carp are endangered. Jullien's Golden Carp Probarbus jullieni, found in South East Asia, especially in the Mekong, is considered a threatened species. The so called naked, or scale-less carp, Gymnocypris przewalskii, is found between freshwater rivers and the saltwater Lake Qinghai in China and is also endangered. Others species of carp are not endangered, rather they endanger.

  Scientists now think that two species of "Asian Carp" have invaded the Great Lakes. The bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix threaten the $7 billion dollar fishing business of the Great Lakes. These fish grow up to up to 100 pounds and eat 20% of their body weight in plankton and will wipe out native fish. The silver carp not only endangers fish, it can apparently can endanger boaters who sometimes protect themselves from injury by wearing hockey helmets on carp infested waters.

  The bighead and silver carp were imported by catfish farmer's in the 1970's to remove algae. When the fish began to take over the ecosystem, federal and state governments spent ~$10 million on electrical barriers to keep the carp out of the lakes. Based on DNA samples recently collected by scientists in the water on the lake side of the fence, the carp have crossed the fence. The Army Corps of Engineers told the New York Times that "all options are on the table" to control the fish.

• Pelican Decimated by DDT Off the Endangered Species List: The brown pelican is one of four species to be removed from the endangered species list. The US Department of Fish and Wildlife has removed bird, Pelecanus occidentalis since populations have increased. DDT decimated the species in the 1970's, but since the chemical has been less in use, the bird has had the opportunity to breed and thrive. (Hat tip to Nature News and its alliteration addled "Big Billed Bird Bounces Back".)

• Climate Change Negotiations - Like Watching Clothes Dry? In last weekend's Financial Times, Matthew Engel compared the US reluctance to combat climate change with Americans' civic battles over punitive hanging and hanging clothes on clotheslines. Turns out that when Engel moved to the US from Australia he brought his Hills Hoist with him, which provided him unique cultural insight. (The internet explains that a Hills Hoist is a rotary clothesline developed in Australia which can be mechanically raised, lowered and spun. In addition to these features, the Australian government lists the contraption as a National Treasure, prized "because it could hold four nappies on each of the four outer wires.")

  Anyway, when Engel put up his Hills Hoist he realized that the US generally disparages clothes hanging. Although his neighbors were accommodating of his family's aired laundry, Engel tells the story of one Pennsylvania woman who's battling her community in defense of her right to hang clothes -- "if my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry", she says. Engels observes the irony of US communities forbidding homeowners from hanging their clothes outside, given that clothes dryers account for six per cent of US consumer end-use electricity consumption.

  With similar cognitive dissonance, he says, the US claims that climate change action is an important priority but stodgily backs away from any Copenhagen commitment (of course now, while keeping hopes alive). Attempting to explain the apparent clash of values, he thinks (and I'm just reporting) that although Americans define themselves with property rights and piousness, these values clashe with puritan ethics and an "unshakeable faith in technology, lingering from the 1950s."

  Acronym Required previously wrote about cognitive dissonance in "Cars, Selling Cognitive Dissonance", "Sea Change or Littoral Disaster" and many others.

Maher Still Loco on Vaccinations:

As he has for years, Bill Maher continues to spread disinformation about vaccines. Over countless news cycles Maher has infuriated doctors, public health officials, and responsible citizens with bizarre warnings about letting governments "stick a disease into your arm".

Challenged to get a word in edgewise between his fusillades about "mercury" and "diet" and natural "immunity", doctors and scientists nevertheless patiently correct his errors. They explain that a vaccine is not "a disease" but a disabled virus that looks to the immune system like a live virus or bacteria and therefore prevents infection by the actual deadly virus or bacteria¹ like polio, measles, diphtheria, or influenza.

But the talk show host persists, as is his habit. Last month, Bill "I'm also not f-king my interns" Maher baffled panelists Alec Baldwin, Chris Matthews and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley by rehashing his concerns with vaccines. Yesterday, Maher continued with a rambling column at The Huffington Post titled "A Conversation Worth Having", saying he aimed to

"clear up a few things about my beliefs concerning the flu shot, vaccines, and health in general...I will admit, I have gone off half cocked on this issue sometimes, and often only had time on my show to explain a fraction of what needed to be explained, and for that I am sorry...I agree with my critics who say there are far more qualified people than me"

Mea culpa? Unfortunately, and spoiler alert for the 2800 word article: no. I didn't say "anyone who gets a flu shot is an idiot", Maher said, "it was twittered...my bad". Then, "vaccination is a nuanced subject, and I've never said all vaccines in all situations are bad..." Nuanced? "All vaccines"? Cagey creepy crapola -- bring it on, Maher.

Discerning Maher's Health Prescription -- When "Sometimes It's OK to Fuck with Nature"

Maher writes "I'm not a germ theory denier" and he claims "I do understand the theory of inoculation", exuding all the candor of a intelligent design proselytizer putting quotes around "the theory" of evolution. To the helpful doctor who corrects him, Maher retorts snidely "Thanks, Doc, I thought there might be a little man inside the needle. Yes, I read Microbe Hunters when I was eight." (Doesn't think the conversation is worth having?)

Cocksure and funny, Maher acts as though he's arguing about some scrutable line that any eight year old can see - you don't need to be a doctor or scientist. To the left of the line there are the OK vaccines, except, he hedges, vaccines are unproven. To the right, there are the not-OK vaccines that we should be debating, like flu vaccine. But actually, if you can't already tell, there is no line or margin, because Maher is arguing the same old run-of-the-mill anti-vaccine/medicine/science schtick you've (yawwwwnn) already heard. He allows that "sometimes it's OK to fuck with nature" and prescribe medicine, but listen to enough Maher and you realize he maligns all medicine, all vaccines.

Casting Aside Science

Sure, at first you may be confused because he mixes recognizable words into gobbledygook. Do doctors ever ask patients what they eat, he asks rhetorically? No, he answers, "and a lot can be cured with diet and a healthier lifestyle" -- then Maher adds in parentheses -- "And a lot can't [be cured]. I also understand the role of genetics and generations of artificial selection".

Despite his unassailable understanding, lets review. The risk of some diseases, like diabetes Type II, can be reduced with healthier lifestyle. Some conditions, like obesity can be prevented with diet, and losing weight concurrently reduces the risks of morbidity and mortality associated with conditions like heart disease. This isn't just semantics. Diet won't prevent crippling polio, or a flu pandemic or death of a pregnant woman, or stop a kid from succumbing to weeks of illness and a 105 degree influenza fever. And typical of Maher's machinations on science, medicine and disease, he jumps down the rabbit hole with "genetics and "generations of artificial selection". Scientists use artificial selection to breed products like corn by selecting for certain traits. Humans are not hothouse flowers, subjected to "generations of artificial selection".

How Does Maher Distinguish Himself From Dr. Beetroot?

In cajoling his audience to exercise skepticism and caution and arguing for "debate", a word that should tip anyone off to incoming falsehoods; Maher says:

"Someone needs to be representing the point of view that says the preferred way to handle flus is to have a strong immune system to begin with..."

Actually, we can think we recognize this "point of view". Take, for instance South Africa's former health minister, Dr. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, (known derisively as Dr. Beetroot), who spent years telling South Africans to boost their immune systems against the AIDS virus with diet, beetroot and lemon.

In a familiar refrain, the South African Mbeki government insisted that Western drugs were too profit oriented and dangerous. As a result of this decision, hundreds of thousands of South Africans died from AIDS, and the dying isn't over, since infectious disease pandemics gather momentum over time. Newly elected President Zuma recently warned that the death rate from AIDS may overtake the birthrate in that country.

How is Maher's argument different than that of Tshabalala-Msimang's? Where does he draw his invisible line de-marking greedy Western medicine from essential life-saving medicine? How does this board member of the "Reason Project" (Wikipedia) dedicated to scientific and secular knowledge, identify good medicine?

How is Maher's Position Different Than A Mennonite's?

Instead of agreeing with scientists and doctors, Maher chooses to listen to Barbara Loe Fisher who he finds "extremely credible", because

"after devoting her life to studying this, she says that flu vaccines aren't proven and...points out that what we need, but do not yet have, are studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children."

Fisher is not a scientist or a doctor, and that's ok, anyone can educate themselves about vaccinations, eight or older. Based on her experience parenting and in public relations Fisher can certainly start a vaccination information center, appear on talk shows, testify at events like the "Vaccine Policy Analysis Collaborative: A U.S. Government Experiment in Public Engagement", and give lectures to naturopaths, chiropractors, and groups like "Body by God". Who's to say she can't?

But given that Maher says she's devoted her life to studying vaccinations, you'd think she'd understand that vaccinating some children against polio, but not others, would be medically unethical. You'd think that Maher would also see the moral quagmire.

Furthermore, unfortunately, there's lots of evidence to prove that what Fisher and Maher say is the untested theory of vaccination is flat out false. As the NYT reported in 2003:

"The last two American polio outbreaks were in Amish and Mennonite communities in 1979 and in a Christian Science school in Connecticut in 1972. Measles killed 3 students of 125 infected in a Christian Science school in 1985, and a similar-size outbreak among the Amish in 1987 and 1988 killed 2 people. In 1991, 890 cases of rubella, leading to more than a dozen deformed children, hit Amish areas."

Since then, Africans who believed rumors that vaccinations are an attempt by Westerners to spread the HIV virus or sterilize Nigerians, started a polio epidemic. The Amish also suffered polio outbreaks. Mennonites, who don't believe in vaccination but do believe in travel caused outbreaks of measles in Minnesota, then South America. Like the Amish, Mennonites don't believe in vaccinations or insurance, but do believe that hospitals should cure them for a discount, once they get sick.

How is Maher's position different then that of a Mennonite? Can we have this conversation? How does Maher square his position on vaccines with his libertarian views when people end up demanding hospital bailouts because they didn't take it upon themselves to prevent illness?

The Dredged Up "Under-reported Point of View" is Often Wrong, Concludes A Bright Person

The consequences of not vaccinating become graver and more frequent as more people refuse vaccinations. The value of vaccinations is not "debatable". Vaccinations have saved millions of lives, saved millions of dollars by keeping people out of hospitals, and boosted productivity of nations. But Maher ignores all this and calls for some cost benefit analysis, more familiar anti-science denialism.

Maher appeals to all of those who eschew facts and take solace in unpopular views.

"I'm just trying to represent an under-reported medical point of view in this country, I'm not telling a specific pregnant lady what to do...[I]t's just that mainstream media rarely interviews doctors and scientists who present an alternative point of view..."

Pregnant women and kids are most susceptible to dying from H1N1 virus. Pregnant women have decreased lung capacity that increases the threat of pneumonia, and they have decreased immunity due to their pregnancy. The reason the media doesn't interview doctors and scientists with "alternative points of view" on the subject, is because doctors and scientists agree that vaccines save lives, and that pregnant woman and parents of children shouldn't die because they've been convinced by talk show hosts to doubt the CDC, the doctors, and the scientists.

Maher's is not selling an "under-reported medical point of view", rather he's latched onto a non-medical, non-science point of view. Hmmm....why does he persist?

Bill Maher's Mainstream Media Profit Motives

Unbelievably, after flogging his point of view for years, Maher says he has no motive and expects no outcome: "[M]y audience is bright, they wouldn't refuse a flu shot because they heard me talk about it...." But his audience claps when he talks non-scientific hokum -- perhaps only because they're prompted? Either they're not thinking at all, or they're confused about science, or they're easily swayed by paranoid views, or they think they're at a gladiator show - in which case they will eventually be disappointed by the "debate." Can such folks be considered "bright" in the 21st century?

To the point, though, if Maher's especially non-bright, non-medical, non-scientific point of view weren't selling, weren't rewarded with clapping and viewers and advertising dollars, would he still be ranting on? Maher's anti-vaccination position has populist appeal that draws viewers and boosts ratings. His refutation of "mainstream media's profit motives" sells well. But lets be clear. HBO's Real Time, with millions of viewers each night, is mainstream media. What's not? Acronym Required, for instance, is not "mainstream media".

And why pick on science? Scientists are a remarkably easy target, as we noted before when John McCain chronically made fun of science research. When Maher chose to accost religion, at least 50% of Americans are quite religious, and that's a lot of potential audience members to insult. Plus, religious people can get dangerous. Other Maher campaigns have also backfired, like when Maher's remarks about military recruiting spurred one Congressman to demand that Real Time be canceled.

Considering his options then, and the groups he's already alienated, scientists make a good target. They're pretty tame, therefore easy to pick on safely, and a select target for a large potential audience, since everyone's thinking of getting the flu vaccine. Maher can perhaps equivocate about good vs. bad vaccines and fool a lot of people. So Bill Maher and his mainstream media show try to expand his audience by maligning science to become more mainstream? So they forsake scientists, but also pregnant moms and kids in the process? Is this the conversation? More or less? Bravo, talk show host!

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

Photo from Wikipedia under a Creative Commons license.

¹ 11/19 Added "bacteria"

Acronym Required wrote on vaccinations previously, for instance in Vaccinations, Why the Worry? we wrote about the long history of rebellion against vaccinations. We also wrote about vaccinations here and in various posts and vaccines for specific illnesses.

Bill Maher's shenanigans have been will covered by scientists like Respectful Insolence here and here, by Pharyngula; by Aetiology here and here here and by many others.

• Progress on South Africa's New Stance on AIDS? Ten years ago, former South African president Thabo Mbeki told the National Council of Provinces that it would be "irresponsible" for the state to endorse antiretroviral drugs, noting a "large volume of scientific literature" attesting to the toxicity of ARV medicines. We've written about South Africa's HIV/AIDS denialism and obfuscation over years, when, despite international and national pressure on behalf of millions dying from AIDS, Mbeki's health policies never budged and the African National Congress (ANC) leadership failed.

  Now, President Jacob Zuma has eased concerns about his intentions for controlling the pandemic by articulating a new path for the country. He recently told the National Council of Provinces that he would fight the AIDS crisis, and warned that the "real danger that the number of deaths will soon overtake the number of births." Treatment Action Committee (TAC), hailed the new administration's stance.

  Acronym Required previously wrote about South Africa's new health minister and her stance on AIDS treatment in "New Minister of Health For South Africa. Change Afoot?"; and AIDS in South Africa in "Mbeki's AIDS Legacy and Ours", Public Health, AIDS, Mbeki, and the Media, "South Africa: Peddling Beetroot, Courting AIDS", ""Not in Paradise Anymore - AIDS in Africa - Reason for Optimism?", Zuma Dodges Corruption Charges", and others.

• When Opposition is de Rigeur: In 2004, after the publication of "Mountains Upon Mountains", Partners in Health founder Jim Yong Kim moved to the World Health Organization to lead the HIV-AIDS program, where he initiated the 3 by 5 HIV/AIDS treatment plan with a goal to treat 3 million people by 2005.

  From the time that antiretrovirals became available in the 1990's, people in Western countries like the US and countries like Brazil, that endorsed universal public health, increasingly had access to retrovirals, which made an AIDS diagnosis for those people more manageable and less often lethal.

  But there was huge opposition to treating large scale AIDS pandemics in places like sub-Saharan Africa. The various reasons people gave for not treating ranged from logistical (transport over inhospitable terrain), to patient non-compliance, to high rates of fraud, to fear of Western drugs. South Africa's example was publicized and shocking but not isolated. However, by 2004 drug prices had dropped and the tone of objectors had softened, if only slightly. Here's Kim in 2004, urging the world respond to the AIDS epidemic quickly "at its own pace", that is, at a pace comparable to the rapidly advancing viral pandemic. The 3 by 5 plan allowed 1 million people to be on treatment by 2005, and today, more than 4 million are being treated.

  "For the activists, you must hold all of our collective feet to the hottest possible fire because large organizations and the powerful have a way of finding reasons to not take action. If you don't continue to push us, we will falter."

  A good message. Jim Yong Kim is now the president of Dartmouth College.

• Problems in National Health: 17,000 kids in the U.S. Die each Year Because They Lack Insurance: John Hopkins Children's Center researchers studied data from more than 23 million children's hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found. The analysis attributed 16,787 of some 38,649 children's deaths nationwide during the period analyzed to lack of insurance.

• Polls, Spin, Memos, and the Public Option: We previously wrote about Frank Luntz, whose healthcare memo urged defeat of the public option via specific spin doctoring and tested rhetoric last July. Well, of course with Congress chewing over healthcare, Luntz has been at it again. Luntz purports to have talked to some Americans who told him they want still worse healthcare with no public option -- the "massively expensive" option he opines with false, if resonant authority. The new memo reiterates much of the old one and it contains all the same language aimed at preserving the healthcare status quo. When invited to talk shows, he says that his polling shows that Americans are "mad as hell". And Luntz isn't the only one lobbying against healthcare reform.

• Evidence Based Policy - Abstinence Funding Halted Decades After Proving Ineffective (Sometimes Time Wins): The Obama administration cut abstinence-only funding, after multiple studies showed that it doesn't work -- abstinence doesn't change sexual behavior, pregnancy, STD rates, or age of first sexual activity. Furthermore, studies showed that abstinence programs routinely dole out incorrect or incomplete information about condoms and contraception, causing confusion and misperceptions among the very vulnerable populations the programs claim to protect. (Abstinence-only doesn't work in HIV/AIDS programs either.)

  A recent Newsweek article focuses on the sudden funding decrease affecting those organizations which burgeoned during the last couple of decades because of the federal money. According to Newsweek's article, some U.S. programs like Kids Eagerly Endorsing Purity (K.E.E.P), in the South still manage to get lots of private funding, whereas other programs are at "in a race against time to keep these people in business."

Update January 24, 2010: In this post about the Tracy Kidder's book "Mountains Upon Mountains" and the MDR-TB story, we didn't talk about Haiti, where Paul Farmer began treating patients while in medical school at Harvard. There, Farmer met Ophelia Dahl, and together they started PIH with Jim Yong Kim. "Mountains Upon Mountains" tells the story of how they built the treatment facility in Haiti. The recent earthquake in Haiti is devastating and the work is not done for Haitians when the tragedy disappears from the headline news. There are many excellent agencies working in Haiti, but here's a link to the Partner's In Health page on Haiti. Remember Haiti -- even after the earthquake.

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

I read Tracy Kidder's "Mountains Upon Mountains" last fall, as did many freshman college classes in the U.S. I'm not a college freshman, but I still found it a hopeful book, worth reading as antidote to ennui about the politics of healthcare or the environment, as a salve for cynicism about human nature or the media (perhaps by the end you won't need a goofy picture some fluffy, web-ubiquitous kitten), to remember where international public health was decades ago, or just because.

In Chapter 18, Kidder describes Partners in Health's (PIH) program in Peru to manage multi-drug resistance (MDR)tuberculosis (TB). By the late 1990's PIH's program, originally a trial, had decreased MDR-TB by 85%, curing the sickest patients.

The story is familiar now, perhaps legend, but still worth retelling. MDR-TB had been considered not worth treating in that patient population until PIH's persistence in Peru. Then (and now), the most successful treatment strategy was Directly Observed Treatment Short-Course (DOTS), which makes patients take first-line TB medicines under the eyes of doctor or healthcare worker, thus reducing non-compliance and risks of antibiotic resistance. While highly successful, DOTS didn't cure the MDR cases cropping up in Peru, where patients were dying regardless of medications they had or hadn't taken.

Paul Farmer and PIH's goal had always been to work towards health equity, to assure that people in poor parts of the world got comparable care to people in Boston. With MDR-TB, the PIH challenge became to convince global public health agencies, the TB community, and funders that these patients should be treated, at a time when the dominant public health paradigm dictated treating the greatest number of people with a limited pie of dollars. The PIH success in Peru helped their argument. But the expensive MDR program that PIH employed to cure patients still didn't make sense in public health circles because the cost of treating MDR-TB - to put it bluntly: didn't justify the lives saved.

PIH worked on the TB community, convincing them that the MDR protocol --"DOTS-plus"-- was technically feasible. Concurrently they worked on pharmaceutical companies and allied with NGOs to bring the drug prices down by as much as 90% on some drugs. They also worked with private funders to raise money, and by successfully coordinating these efforts, challenged the paradigm that precluded the poor from viable healthcare. As Jim Yong Kim put it, "The only time that I hear talk of shrinking resources among people like us, among academics, is when we talk about things that have to do with poor people."

It was a longer, tougher, more complicated and convoluted fight than my few sentences illustrate, or even that Kidder's skillful multi-chapter coverage details, but PIH's plan to treat MDR-TB patients more widely than in Peru worked. DOTS-plus was endorsed by public health, recognized as effective, and funded. Now people throughout the world increasingly get treated instead of being allowed to die. Their treatment decreases the spread of TB.

The challenges never end, of course, now there's the more lethal extensively drug resistant tuberculosis, XDR-TB. But, as the story shows, insistence and the persistence saves many lives.

Our Hypocritical Oaths:

When people complain about healthcare problems they tend to zero in on an isolated part of the system, like insurance. When they try to solve healthcare problems then focus on another part, like technology. They dredge up scapegoats to blame by accusing the poor or immigrants of driving up costs by depending on emergency rooms as primary care. The truth is, we all play a role in the gargantuan capitalist collective that is healthcare, and no matter how hard we try to be diligent consumers or responsible patients, we each enable a very unhealthy healthcare system.

On some level you may understand this. As you dangle your legs from the examining table clutching the corners of that little paper towel, you may recognize that you're sitting in a "care" facility that spends millions marketing to you about meeting your medical needs while unfailingly accommodating the needs of many other players -- the insurance company's stockholders, the investors in the shiny new medical complex, the medical fellow's future success, the administrators of various insurances, and the doctor's kids' educations.

Regardless of how smart and realistic and educated you may be, you aren't clever enough to avoid unnecessarily driving up health care costs, a fact you may well choose to ignore. Usually you can rationalize that the problems are not your fault. And since we all agree that it's not our fault, the dysfunctional system thrives and perpetuates itself.

But once and a while, a twinge of regret or guilt may creep over you. Perhaps it will happen after you wait five months to visit a certain specialist that everyone said is the best, only to realize that the ten words he deemed worthwhile his time to impart were less informative than what you read on Wikipedia -- except uttered by him they cost the insurance company and you $400 -- with the insurance discount. Maybe you should have known better.

Or perhaps someday you will look at what "you pay" on the bill compared to the five thousand dollars that insurance payed and momentarily feel as though you've scored a bargain at Ross Dress For Less -- even if you recognize that the insurance companies extraordinary profits came directly out of your pocket. Someday you'll be too busy to insist that the insurance company honor the preventative procedure contract; someday you'll acquiesce to doing some unnecessary high-cost procedure; someday you'll agree to do five more blood tests because you don't feel like getting your old records.

What the Teabaggers Deny

There's the everyday differences of opinion about how to diagnose and treat certain diseases and other issues, these drive up healthcare costs. Then there are the recognizable and seemingly avoidable mistakes that you participate in and recognize. Regardless of, or because of your expertise in economics or medicine or finance or business, someday you'll be slapped by undeniable buyers' remorse or the chagrin of being duped or overtreated. Someday you'll sit down on the examining table fully aware of the trade-offs and controversies of health economics, of third-party payers, of diagnostic options, and treatment controversies, only to recognize sometime after your "care", in an exasperating burst of awareness, that your time or money (if not your health) got wasted.

Before then, you may choose to be too overwhelmed with life's business to consider your participation in the sorry healthcare system. Or you may hear other people talk about some useless procedures they endured and think 'poor sap - wouldn't be me'. Such was the case with Dr. Jack Coulehan, who relayed in last month's "Health Affairs, that he "lost the smugness and condescension I often felt when listening to others' stories about being trapped by the system and manipulated into excessively complex and specialized medical situations", and ended up as "a poster boy for excessive medicine."

Coulehan, a primary care doctor, professor emeritus and public health fellow at NYU, described his exasperating experience in the emergency room one Easter Sunday. The doctor knew he had shingles, having diagnosed at least one hundred patients with the disease:

"but I decided to visit our hospital emergency room to confirm the diagnosis and get my prescriptions. My wife drove. I sat in the car with my eyes closed, wondering how it was possible for me to have turned into one of those elderly people who suffer from shingles."

The attending physician confirmed his self-diagnosis, but Coulehan relented to see two more specialists. He relays his confused thinking during an exchange with the attending physician:

Attending: "Maybe we should have an ophthalmologist and a neurologist take a look at you. What about it, just in case?"

Coulehan: "I don't know...I don't think so...well, OK...maybe it's a good idea." A tiny doubt crept into my mind. Could we be missing something? Might it be a tumor behind my eye? Or a weird form of glaucoma? I wondered whether she was being extra careful because I was a fellow physician. But, if so, why?

After one MRI, Coulehan observes:

"When the attending neurologist returned from his lunch he seemed absolutely delighted that I might have a blood clot in the sinus -- a finding, he said, consistent with the redness around my eye. "Did you have any recent dental work?" he asked, searching for an infection as a possible cause of venous blockage. (I hadn't.) I was gripped by molasses-like passivity. The reasonable part of my mind cried, "This is crazy! Get me out of here!" But a twiggy little nugget deep in my brain asked, "What if there is something serious wrong?"

Coulehan went through hours and hours of waiting and testing, testing and waiting, into the evening, noting that "Easter Sunday appeared to be a dead day in the ER, except for me and my shingles". By the end of the day, Coulehan finally got the medical prescriptions he had decided he needed at six in the morning while sitting on the beach with his wife. After two MRIs, a CT scan, and a $9000 bill, the doctor concluded: "I understand now how all those people could have been so gullible, so easily manipulated by the system. Now that I'm one of them, that is."

If you've already been chagrined after relenting to some test or procedure that's totally useless if not harmful, Coulehan's article will assure you that you're in good company. Which of course is comforting but also ironic. Since we're all making the same choices, more than a few of which are undeniably bad or unnecessary, many people feel no particular personal responsibility. In fact some people, like the teabaggers lining up in Washington DC like it's 3AM the day after Thanksgiving at Best Buy, fear that any change in the system will deny them their rights to those bargains advertised on their insurance receipts.

Coulehan's whole article is available at Health Affairs September/October 2009; 28(5): 1509-1514 (subscription).

Superfreakonomics authors Levitt and Dubner make it out like solving global warming is no more complicated than cooling off on the patio on a hot summer day. First, someone else puts up the umbrella, then they unwind the hose and spray all the kids so they stay cool. This may sound good to you, but it's not logical, despite what the Superfreaks insist. They're appealing to your laziness, your ennui, your fear, and your cynicism, all in the name of books and businesses that you don't hold stock in. Do you but it?

Daily Show Economics

When Steven Levitt appeared on the Daily Show to talk about their new book and the giant umbrellas that could be used to ward off climate change, Jon Stewart apologized for the collective response by scientists to Levitt and Dubner's unscientific treatment of climate change. Not only unscientific, dismissive too: Levitt told the Guardian "We could end this debate and be done with it, and move on to problems that are harder to solve", (hat tip Curious Capitalist).

Stewart commiserated to the criticized Levitt: "I'm sorry you're taking so much shit for it". But Stewart let his Daily Show audience down. For one, "Superfreakonomics" disappointed Freakonomics fans, especially those devoted libertarians and contrarians, who, though often delusional, generally manage at least a modicum of realism about climate change. Daily Show fans were also surprised that Stewart was so sympathetic to Levitt.

But if people were dismayed with The Daily Show's dismissal of climate change, they haven't been paying attention. Stewart isn't always smarter 'than that', if smarter doesn't fit the particular formula-funny he runs. Note how Stewart barely batted an eye when Levitt offered his other offensive assertion, that prostitutes should retain pimps in order to earn more money. It's true, shrugged Levitt, as if nothing can to be done because the invisible hand has sealed womens' fates the world over -- as if he didn't just twist up that statistical interpretation to get people tittering and buying books.

"The heroes turn out to be the pimps", he said. Shrug. "Get rid of the moral part" he insisted, and you have pure unadulterated economics, that's what we're about. Jon jested. Hahaha, heeheehee. Levitt shrugged again. Then the two entertainers moved on to climate change and the irrationality of environmentalists.

When Your Advertisers Are Auto Companies?

And trashing "environmentalists" isn't new territory, either, for Levitt or for Stewart. The Freakonomics blog has argued repeatedly that recycling makes little sense. The Daily Show host has previously criticized actions to lower carbon emissions, for instance "Auto-Neurotic Gas Fixation", May 20, 2009. At the time, Obama had just announced his intention to set new, ambitious CAFE standards for gas mileage. Stewart chastised him for it: "Dude...Obama...don't blow your load on mileage baby, save it for when the Chinese invade."

Stewart said that gas efficient cars, being smaller, put people "in harm's way because they're in a lighter vehicle", that "safety" was a "valid", "reasonable concern". A nod to all the automobile companies that advertise with Comedy Central perhaps? Or ignorance? You decide. We thought that this ancient Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) argument died back in 2007, once people thought through their elementary math and physics and realized that yes, if you run your Prius into a Hummer, you may get hurt, but the more Priuses on the road, and the fewer Hummers, the less likely you will be to run into a Hummer, therefore less likely you'll get hurt. Alas, there we were in the spring of 2009 and Jon Stewart was giving us his schoolboy version of the old auto industry fueled CEI argument.

Coincidentally, at the time -- April/May 2009 -- car sales had recently dropped to their lowest point in thirty years. A flurry of editorials pronounced the danger of small vehicles and so Stewart fit right in with The Wall Street Journal which droned on about about the "lethal effects" of CAFE standards and light vehicles. Lesson? Comedy Central is not always all that "progressive" people - really.

Just When You Thought Superfreak was Finally Gone

So Jon Stewart's accommodation to Levitt's argument isn't a surprise, nor is Superfreakonomics' bid to attract attention by rousing populist appeal. As the sequel to Freakonomics (which admittedly never did it for me), SuperFreakonomics seems to run aground the way many movie sequels do -- Rocky V, Clerks II, Caddyshack II... While maintaining sufficient audiences to grind through talk-shows, stimulate blog chatter, and generate pay-out, the authors deeply disappoint fans.

Here's a collection of about 90 blog links that criticize Chapter 5 of the book. They call the authors on many points, for instance:

• Of distorting the science and misquoting scientists - From an atmospheric scientist (Ken Caldeira) in response to the book's quote - "Carbon dioxide is not the right villain": "I don't believe I said anything remotely like that...we should be outlawing the production of devices that emit carbon dioxide...I do see CO2 as the problem...it's like if you got shot by a bullet and you said, well, it wasn't really the bullet that was the problem, it was just that I happened to have this hole through my body..."

• Of distorting science consensus - From many economists: "it is terribly misleading that the two scientists you quote are BOTH skeptics. What are the odds of that? Probably a billion to one, so my unavoidable conclusion is that you are deliberately trying to cast doubt on the scientific consensus."

• Of presenting facile, improbable solutions to climate change like pumping SO2 into the atmosphere with a giant hose - From scientists: "'..thinking of geoengineering as a substitute for emissions reduction is analogous to saying, 'Now that I've got the seatbelts on, I can just take my hands off the wheel and turn around and talk to people in the back seat.' It's crazy.'"

• Of deceiving the American public - From a congressman: "We have seen a similar effort to hoodwink, defraud, and deceive the American public now to cover up the toxicity to the world environment...I want to note a book...that basically said or asserted we don't have to control CO2..They purported to quote a scientist named Ken Caldeira from Stanford...Which is an absolute deception."

Like the Daily Show, the Superfreakonomics authors have a history of distorting reality.

Stripping Away Moralism and Giving You Freedom: The Ruse

As I wrote above, what Levitt claims, is that he simply "strips away the moralism" - then, all you have is the economics and prostitution, or economics and climate change. Glib. This is not uncommon rhetoric in economics, politics and public policy -- the ultra-rational, just do the math approach. It's used, for instance, to justify radical cost-benefit-analysis, where people argue that you can put a monetary value on everything - the price of one member of an endangered species, the price of the life of an old person, the price of the life of an infant, the price of a chemical to an industry - and otherwise complicated policy decisions fraught with difficult ethical choices can be reduced to simple math. Voilà.

The problem is, when the authors decided to write that prostitutes are better off with pimps then dug up some statistics to support that assertion, they made a moral decision. First Levitt and Dubner had to decide that this particular slant on prostitution was what they wanted to focus on, then they had to cherry pick some "data" to support it. Similarly, as we wrote in an earlier post, deciding that a male mule deer is worth $525.50, whereas a female mule deer is worth $163, while a just plain deer is worth $1, is not a decision without "moralism".

Moral sentiments are part and parcel of human decisions. Numbers and words that appear in print on a piece of paper or screen in front of you came from a formula or process derived by a human, based on that human's views, perceptions, expectations and desired outcomes. It didn't come from some superior amoralistic all-knowing power, intent on providing answers and comfort to confused humans beings -- despite what people may try to convince you.

Ironically, by asking his audience to "strip away the moralism", Levitt is appealing to ethos or pathos, but certainly not logos. He's saying -- be logical like me, I'm being logical. Shrug. But he's dismissing tons and tons of scientific proof of climate change and the need to decrease emissions as pathetic "moral" arguments (ethos), when those scientific studies are actually the logical ones (logos). He's appealing to his audience's laissez-faire tendencies, their desire to do nothing, their habits not to change, their pathos.

The Ploy: Technology will Suffice in Lieu of Action

Then, offering the equivalent of the old, chintzy plastic prize at the bottom of the box of Crackerjacks, he gives the audience something to grasp on to in the impending and threatening flood of unpleasant scientific reality, although again, it's not logical. Levitt insists that there's a simple scientific solution to solve the problem. Of course, there is no technological solution. The authors offer untested pie-in-the-sky idea that many, many scientists find problematic.

But this is what we all want to hear, right? The irrational, busy, lazy or pathetic side of all of all of us wants to be assured that electronic records will solve healthcare failures, that tsunami warning systems will prevent catastrophic losses, that ankle bracelets will prevent recidivism, that massive fences along international borders will prevent terrorism and drug trafficking, and that electronic surveillance will prevent crime. But giant garden hoses suspended up in the sky, are not even in the realm of feasible technical solutions. Yet we're so happy to slough off responsibility that Jon Stewart, although he's a modern icon of cynicism, doesn't even bother to ask questions.

Levitt plays to the audience's sentiments perfectly, first by laughing off science and scientists who present scary ideas as flimsy moralistic hogwash, then by presenting his very own special version of "science". I'm the logical one, he says, but I'm not dorky like a scientist.

His flavor of rhetoric is commonly used by those who oppose scientific evidence because it presents the type of science society likes, that which solves our problems, but is seemingly stress-free, simpler to understand than Tivo, and doesn't require you to have liked high school science. Therefore Superfreakonomics presents magic "technology solutions" in terms your average barbecuing Joe (if there is such a thing) will know and like.

According to them, solving global warming is no more complicated than cooling down on a hot summer day on the patio. First someone else puts up the umbrella to shield you. Then a kindly neighbor unwinds the hose and sprays away, and all the kids stay cool. Sound good? But its not logical. It's doesn't strip away moralism. It doesn't give you freedom. You do have to worry about global warming, you may have to change your lightbulbs. Superfreakonomics appeals not to your logical side but to your laziness, your ennui, your fear, your cynicism, all in the name of books and businesses that you don't hold stock in.

The Solution

This isn't to say that we don't need technology, quite the opposite, technology is imperative to global warming attenuation. But it's not the only effort we need, we need to conserve and to decrease emissions also.

Underlying Superfreaks' argument is the contention that people won't change. And true, people tend to squirm and stall when pressed to adjust, as we noted in "Sea Change or Littoral Disaster", Cars: Buying Cognitive Dissonance", Science Communication, Communicating Climate Change, and Climate Change, Fueling the "Debate", "Curvilinear Thinking on Climate Change", and other posts. But Real Climate's good point is that - people will change with the right incentives. People can work collectively for the better, they don't need a solution to be imposed from nigh. They do have a long history of employing morals as well as logic to solve problems, both are good, both are necessary. And given all that, it may simply be immoral for Superfreak authors to distort the truth of climate change and insist on selling implausible solutions.

Notes:

"Smart Choices and Jiffy Pop"
"Calculating Carbon Emissions"
"Polar Bears at Sea"
"Manufacturing Sugar and Cynicism"
"Scientist Falsified Data, Embezzled Research Funds, and Illegally Bought Human Embryos -- But is Very Popular"
"Corporations, The Working Stiffs, The Rebels"
"Transparency: A Solution for Research Bias or A Refuge for Secrets?"

• Smart Choices and Jiffy Pop: If a rudderless man seeking fame can enthrall a whole nation -- the leader of the free world, at that -- with what Frank Rich referred to as an "supersized Jiffy Pop bag", we could bet that the largest food companies in said nation could easily pass off junk food like Froot Loops cereal as "Smart Choices". And so they did (or do).

  When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that it would scrutinize food labels in the "Smart Choices Program", have a look at the ingredients in "smart choice" sugary treats like Cocoa Crispies cereal, the program's leaders suddenly announced they would "suspend" operations. Let Frank Rich judge us smug, but we should award "Smart Choices" companies, along with balloon boy fiasco participants (viewers and all), with hearty back slaps for shamelessness.

  "Smart Choices" had been under heavy fire since its inception, and no one, not even FOX Business News, thought the program was anything but "a cynical way" for food manufacturers to sell products -- "dumb and dumber", as John Stossel put it. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) called out Kraft for putting the "Smart Choices" logo on its Strawberry Bagel-fuls -- confections chocked full of cream cheese, sugar and red dye. So program's taking a hiatus and getting out of the heat, at least for now.

• Calculating Carbon Emissions: Scientists and policymakers who rely on biofuel carbon emission calculations to set policy have been using figures that underestimate total emissions, according to an article in last week's issue of Science (Searchinger et al. "Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error": Vol. 326. no. 5952, pp. 527 - 528). The current estimates ignore "CO2 emitted from tailpipes and smokestacks when bioenergy is being used", and also ignore "changes in emissions from land use when biomass for energy is harvested or grown." The errors will increase deforestation, the authors report, because the resulting incentives favor clearing established forest to plant biomass. Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF's) Chief Scientist Steven P. Hamburg told the Washington Post: "We made an honest mistake within the scientific framing of the debate, and we've got to correct it to make it right". Both the Waxman-Markey and the Kerry-Boxer energy bills include the miscalculation.

  Bioenergy and biomass company representatives loudly disagree with the Science study's conclusions, insisting that biomass is "carbon neutral". But of course we know that that's not true, nothing is carbon neutral -- not cars, not electric buses, not biomass. An "emissions free" electric bus, for instance, is filled with seats and upholstery and metal and paint that produced emissions during manufacturing, assembly, and transport. Emissions accounting is only reliable when it includes all the emissions produced over the full life cycle of the product.

• Polar Bears at Sea: The US Fish and Wildlife Association in the U.S. Department of the Interior proposed to set aside 128 million acres for the polar bear, following a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace. Simultaneously, the Minerals Management Service, also in the Department of the Interior, approved oil-company plans for exploratory drilling in the polar bear's habitat in the Beaufort Sea. Brendan Cummings, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity called The Interior Department "schizophrenic".

  Image Copyright Greenpeace/Daniel Beltrá (via Google Images "labeled for reuse" search).

• Manufacturing Sugar and Cynicism: If you feel sad about the loss of "Smart Choices", rest assured that there's more where that came from. Coke and other food manufacturers have launched the "Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation", which advises people to exercise more in order to balance sugary, fatty food and soda intake. The food industry insists the sugar is not the culprit in the obesity epidemic, lack of exercise is. Acronym Required wrote about this industry strategy against soda critics in 2005.

  Now with governments raising the specter of taxes on sugary drinks, Coca-Cola has introduced its own little "smart choice" -- a smaller can of Coke, containing 90 kilocalories per serving. Coke markets its "portion-control option" as one that will help people "manage their calorie intake while still enjoying the beverages they love". Sort of like like our preferred way of dealing with carbon emissions -- don't lower them, just figure out a way to store them, deny them, or incorrectly calculate them.

• Scientist Falsified Data, Embezzled Research Funds, and Illegally Bought Human Embryos -- But is Very Popular: Hwang Woo-suk was a national hero in Korea after he claimed he had cloned stem cells. Then a long investigation involving co-researchers in the US and Korea found that his lab falsified data -- he had not cloned cell lines, as we noted in "The Emperor Has No Clones". Now, not only has he falsified data, a South Korean court has now found scientist Hwang Woo-suk guilty of embezzling research funds and illegally buying human embryos.

  The Korean government long ago revoked Hwang's title of "Supreme Scientist" and stopped selling Hwang Woo-suk postage stamps. But the fraud-besotted scientist hardly missed a beat. Since the court's last finding of guilt, Hwang Woo-suk published papers and started a research foundation -- Sooam Biotech Research Foundation. As a professor at Sooam put it: "Dr. Hwang has conducted his research tirelessly under terrible conditions." And despite his crimes, Dr. Hwang attracts tremendous public support. Hundreds of "hard-core fans" were waiting outside of court, and "dozens of lawmakers filed petitions asking the court for leniency", according to the Los Angeles Times.

• Corporations, The Working Stiffs and The Rebels: Michael Moore's recent movie "Capitalism: A Love Story" reminded people about Dead Peasant's Insurance, which may be the ultimate indignity to workers in the super-capitalist world. But the workers sometimes find ways harangue corporations. The Guardian looks at the campaign of a 92 year old's "gripe site" against Shell, as well as the Twitter campaign against Trafigura and social media's impact on so-called corporate responsibility.

• Transparency: A Solution for Research "Bias" or A Refuge for Secrets?: Last year we wrote about The Obesity Society's indignation, after Dr. David Allison, on behalf of a restaurant association suing New York City, submitted a legal affidavit criticizing the city's plan to require fast food restaurants to post caloric information for customers.

  To note, before Allison became an advocate for restaurants, he had worked for "the other side", publishing studies which urged government intervention to stem the obesity epidemic. Nevertheless, we thought The Obesity Society's ire somewhat ironic since Allison's CV is public and he's been very transparent about all his affiliations including his industry ones. As we noted:

  "In the 2005 NEJM paper about obesity longevity, nine authors each disclosed zero financial interests or affiliations. Dr. Allison, however, listed 150 organizational affiliations in a three page single spaced PDF, attached to the paper..."

  Apparently not too many people read the .PDF, including The Obesity Society, since the cause of their ire, Allison's consulting (against NYC's public health measures) was nothing new. In the glare of media exposure from a New York Times article and under pressure from The Obesity Society, Allison stepped down from his president-elect position. But he maintains an active career. Last week, the journal Science published a letter from Allison, who advised an "antidote" to "research bias" (Vol. 326. no. 5952, pp. 522 - 523).

  "Bias", is actually a soft label for the real problem of discerning the influence of industry funding on research or policy recommendations. Addressing the ongoing debate in Science about "bias", Allison wrote that the solution is data transparency: "When data are public, no one need take analyses on faith". Allison is attentive to the possibility that industry payment could color expert opinions, but apparently considers himself above the fray: "'I was chosen" - he said last year, "I think of it like a calling. It is a special and sacred profession. Our sacred duty is truth.'"

  The problem -- aside from the sense of "sacred duties" -- is his suggestion that transparency in our data prolific world will assure scrutiny or integrity. Raw data is made into policy by experts, but unanalyzed raw data is fairly meaningless, transparent or not. Experts don't have time. The Obesity Society demonstrated this last year in their apparent oblivion to the record of their president-elect and their surprise when Allison challenged New York City's labeling laws. His resume was very accessible and his conflict of interest statements clearly showed him to be the hired gun he was (for the truth, of course). But the ~2000 experts in the Society who had voted him president only noticed his conflict of interest once it became public concern via the New York Times.

  The error of assuming that transparency is adequately informative is also shown in a recent study of those same New York City labeling laws, now in effect. On behalf of the restaurant association, Allison had insisted that the labeling laws would backfire and cause customers to "gorge themselves". But a recent study showed that the calorie information may not change customers' food habits at all. Not only won't they gorge, they might not cut back on their intake either.

  Transparency for nothing? Beyond Dr. Allison and obesity, this isn't good news for the growing trend in government -- now enthusiastically endorsed by Allison -- to push transparency in lieu of regulatory policy. ¹

¹ The study was published in the October issue of the journal Health Affairs, and I couldn't access the full text. But since this is one of the first studies to analyze this policy, the authors do caution that it's too soon to jump to conclusions, similar studies will shed further light on the behavior associated with the new policy.

• "Beyond Yottabytes" -- The NSA Will Know Who's Been Naughty and Who's Been Nice: The New York Review of Books reports on the government's information quest:

  "As the sensors associated with the various surveillance missions improve," says the report..."the data volumes are increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially increase to the level of Yottabytes (1024 Bytes) by 2015."[1] Roughly equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text, numbers beyond Yottabytes haven't yet been named."

  NYRB continues: "Once vacuumed up and stored in these near-infinite "libraries," the data are then analyzed by powerful infoweapons, supercomputers running complex algorithmic programs, to determine who among us may be--or may one day become--a terrorist. In the NSA's world of automated surveillance on steroids, every bit has a history and every keystroke tells a story."

• FedThread: FedThread A newly launched Federal register where you can annotate documents, customize feeds, and search the Federal Register back to 2000. Not to be confused with Threadfed, an embroidery site.

• Health Map: Allows you to see various outbreaks like H1N1, and recalls like salmonella, by geographic area.

• Open Access How-To: SPARC issued a guide for publishers wanting to support open access, along with supply and demand side revenue models.

• Government is an Arm of the Banks: We know that the banks have a phone line to Tim Geithner. But in case you doubted the effect of that on bank behavior, or if you trusted there were no future implications of that relationship for regulation, watch Bill Moyers' show last week with Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (Ohio-9) and Simon Johnson, the Ronald A. Kurtz (1954) Professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT's Sloan School of Management. Don't read the transcript. Watch the show.

• Telecoms are Agencies Within The Government?: The banks aren't the only ones with a disconcertingly close relationship with the White House. Wired reports that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is investigating the influence of telecom lobbying on the Justice Department's coup of winning retroactive immunity for AT&T and others accused of spying on citizens. EFF requested related documents under the Freedom of Information Act and the government refused, arguing that the documents were protected because they were "intra-agency", that is, telecoms were an arm of government.

  Last month U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White reversed that decision, ruling for the EFF that the Justice Department was obligated to release the names of telecom employees who contacted the Justice Department and White House.

• Is Transparency Is Over-rated? Is Lessig The Fifth Column?: Lawrence Lessig used to argue that culture needed to be free. People should be able to mash it up, he said, make what they wanted out of songs and books and writing. He founded Creative Commons, whereby people can use your work for free, with attribution if they feel like it. He started what turned into the Google Books settlement when he legally challenged copyright laws by pursuing the release from copyright of "orphan" books. At the time, he was at Stanfords' Center for the Internet and Society, funded by 2 million dollars from Google.

  Now Lessig is pursuing a different cause while he is at Harvard and on the board of the excellent Sunlight Foundation (biased, maybe, but I have no stakes), which funds projects to make government more transparent. Paradoxically, perhaps, Lessig argues in The New Republic this month that transparency is dangerous because people have short attention spans and mashing up the data will connect money to politicians in seemingly nefarious ways when in fact none may exist. The citizens, simple as they are, will become cynical, and government will fall apart. Something like that. The Sunlight Foundation disagrees. More later.

• Google's Fast Flip: You can browse multiple sites simultaneously. Small print. To note: Google chooses which sites participate.

• States Can Sue Utilities: States had tried to sue utilities for being a "public nuisance", releasing CO2 which creates global warming and the court had ruled against them. Now, as the NYT reports: "a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled that eight states -- California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin -- as well as New York City and three land trusts could proceed with a suit" against American Electric Power, Southern Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy and Cinergy Corporation, all large coal-burning utilities."

• Economist Changes User Access: The Economist will remove much of the online content for perusal by non-paying subscribers, including the Table of Contents of the print edition - clever. Subscribers will get access to an audio version, archives and all content.

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

Image from Wikipedia Commons

Better than Chicago 2016: ""Who will win?", they wondered: "Morgan Tsvangirai, the Zimbabwean opposition leader; two Chinese dissidents, Hu Kia and Wei Jingsheng; Afghan: Human rights activist Seema SamarSo; Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordan; the Western-educated Islamic scholar; Eighty-year-old Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Quang Do; Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba?"

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. The reaction, needless to say, was mixed, with the Taliban, Syria and Hamas weighing in, and praises from folks like the Mandela Foundation and Desmond Tutu. And where are the photos of the Weekly Standard staff members, who cheered when Obama's entreaty to the Olympic Committee failed to bring the games to Chicago? Snapshots of them crying into their coffee cups?

We think it's all working out for the best though. Olympics in Chicago would have no doubt snared and infuriated millions of people at the O'Hare airport we know and hate. Chicago 2016 would not have been peaceful.

Nobel Prize To Push the World In a Direction We Norwegians Can Endorse

But if you're feeling like Nicholas Kristof, who thinks that perhaps a prize for Obama would be more apt at the end of his eight years, "after he has actually made peace somewhere", whereas someone else should have won this year, know that all those left out are in good company. Foreign Policy lists other deserving candidates who failed to win in the past.

One committee member said that the prize should be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama." In a way, the Nobel Peace Prize given to Al Gore and the IPCC in 2007 was a similar statement in its overt political support for one side of the contentious arguments about whether climate change was real.

Obama, charming, said:

"Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday!" And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." So it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective"

He said he doesn't see the prize as recognition for his accomplishments, rather as recognition for the goals he's set. The committee therefore rewards Obama for being very Obama...and nudges him to do more?

The EPA and Me

Last week Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson addressed the issue of chemical regulation at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. The speech, posted on the EPA's website, succinctly addressed some of the EPA concerns we've had over the years at Acronym Required. First, Jackson reviewed the EPA's accomplishments in the last eight months:

"[A]s EPA Administrator, I was proud to be able to bring the California waiver back from the dead - more Obama environmental health care...We've hit the ground running on priority issues: first-ever national initiatives to confront climate change; restoring the rightful place of science as our cornerstone and rebuilding public trust in our work; revitalizing protections from toxic chemicals, smog, water pollution; and expanding the conversation on all of these issues, so that communities most affected by environmental degradation have a voice."

All these things we like. Jackson cited the EPA's dedication to science, public trust, protection from chemicals, smog, pollution, and she promised to listen to affected communities. Of course she listed these things as both short-term accomplishments as well as long term goals because quite a few of these "accomplishments" aren't quite accomplished yet -- but oh well. Her speech, anyway, followed the goals she set out for the EPA. She warmed the audience up with her likable personality and her biography of typical Obama-era public trust credentials -- dedicated, hard working family, public service orientation, significantly accomplished career.

And how she spoke to our concerns! She talked about about the EPA's recent response to the Supreme Court's endangerment finding. She recounted her mother's losses in Hurricane Katrina and how it affected her attitude towards public service. We covered Katrina (here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here). She spoke of the failure of the Toxic Substance Chemical Act to adequately protect us from chemicals, which we last wrote about here. She spoke about bisphenol A, a popular topic at AR -- one of our latest posts is here, and pthalates.

The guts of her talk involved chemical safety and again she spoke to us. Evaluation of risks must be based on risks, not economics, she said, eluding to cost-benefit analysis debates. Jackson asserted the EPA's need for authority to take action when necessary to enforce the rules. She spoke of the mishaps of Love Canal and Superfund sites, reassuring gestures since people like Cass Sunstein, head of OIRA, has disconcertingly denied the toxic dangers of Love Canal (Chapter 4: "Risk and Reason", Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002). Jackson noted the uneven burden on the EPA over industry to generate and pay for information and resources. We agree, the agencies are overburdened.

The EPA and Everyone

However, while at first buoyed by Jackson's upbeat announcements and the pleasant departure from the Bush EPA's Administrator Johnson, as I read on I began to question my naively egocentric notion that Jackson spoke to me, to us. Indeed, what will be the place of science? Should science really be the "cornerstone" of public policy, as she said? No, despite what many scientists clamor, it neither can nor should be. Granted, this very real point is too subtle for her speech, but she reiterated the very popular sentiment to approving nods, I'm sure, from the crowd in San Francisco.

But wait, before your applaud her endorsement of science defining public policy. Further along in her speech, she brought the point up again, but subtly changed it, saying that Americans wondered whether EPA decisions were guided by "science and law". Appealing to lawyers in the crowd, perhaps. But law is different from science, and with different outcomes often at odds with environmental science -- as anyone who follows the Supreme Court decisions on science will know. Here, the Supreme Court doesn't really understand the environmental argument that the Navy and whales can co-exist while national security is insured. Here we talked about legally influenced decision that forsook whales, as well as the legal finaglings of the Exxon Valdez settlement. The EPA under Bush used the law to effectively stall in every direction on the environment. Use science to inform policy? Yes. Use the law as needed? Yes. But, in our edgy post-Bush, trying not to be cynical phase, we'd prefer them separated by periods not conjunctions.

The EPA's Public Relations Jambalaya

The more I read, the more Jackson's speech looked like a veritable public relations jambalaya. She spoke to those committed to wetlands, spotted owls, to asthma sufferers, climate change, to those concerned about coal and gas emissions, to the Clean Air Act, to trash incineration, dioxins, pesticides, green chemistry, research, unions, medical professionals, public health groups, industry, environmentalism, to those who want jobs, fast food packaging, to unborn children, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and postal workers, as well as everyone who emails public comments to the EPA or who's concerned about health care and health.

It sounds like public relations to me. Not that we don't want to believe in the EPA's intentions. And the EPA should be far more visible with its message. But we know that promises on a podium cannot foretell the outcome of all the very hard policy work that needs to be done before something can be called an accomplishment.

We felt like we had our expectations in line when we reported on Obama's ambitious announcements for the environment, in which we jestingly placed the fairy and wand image to the right above. Our realism last November (no, not cynicism), assured that we were not disappointed with the Obama administration as so many others now are. We know that Obama administration speeches are not promises -- they're just speeches.

So we see Jackson's speech as a marketing tool, and conversation generator but not a public policy statement. The goals of business were largely missing from the speech, perhaps because business doesn't need reassuring or because they're already sitting at the EPA's table. (Cynical or realistic?)

In keeping with the goal to restore public trust and provide information, after the speech, the EPA sent out another press release about Jackson's talk. "Leaders Praise EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's Plans for Chemical Reform", the agency applauded.

Ptomaine Poisoning

In the early 1900's, when Sinclair Lewis wrote "The Jungle", scientists didn't yet understand that bacteria caused disease. "Food poisoning" was thought to be caused by "ptomaines", from the Greek word ptoma: "fall, fallen body, corpse". In 1903, E. 0. Jellinek, M.D., published a case study in the California State Journal of Medicine detailing the clinical experience of seven patients with "ptomaine poisoning" admitted to his hospital after they ate tainted boiled beef at a boarding house in San Francisco. Here are excerpts from the doctor's detailed clinical notes for one of his sick patients, Mr. Goodyear:

"...The skin was pale and dry, the expression, crestfallen...The tongue could be voluntarily stretched out and moved in all directions, still the movements were retarded. The patient could whistle...The speech was low and hoarse...often unintelligible...I gave the patient, with his head down, a tea-spoonful of milk to swallow, but he began immediately to cough. The cough sounded weak. By allowing the patient to hang his head out of the bed till it touched the floor, a slight amount of mucus was expectorated...Great care was taken to properly wash out the mouth, and food was introduced by stomach tube only. On the 12th of December the patient, after being given hypodematically one-fourth of a grain of morphine, slept four hours. He felt better and more hopeful...Therapy continued as before....At four o'clock on the morning of the 13th the patient died suddenly."

Times were grim for Mr. Goodyear and other "ptomaine poisoned" patients. No doubt the doctors found the situation frustrating too -- they could observe, muster microscopic examinations of patients' urine, tip patients upside-down to see what came out, administer palliative care -- rather hopeless. Three of those seven ptomaine poisoned patients died.

E. coli 0157:H7

A century later, Michael Moss's excellent investigative journalism piece in the New York Times describes Stephanie Smith's bout with an E. coli 0157:H7 infection she picked up from eating a hamburger at a family barbecue. Ms. Smith's diarrhea turned bloody and she began to suffer seizures. At the hospital, doctors induced a medical coma for nine days and deployed all available medical technology to save her life. But the neurological damage was permanent and two years later she remains paralyzed, with weak kidneys and years of rehabilitation ahead of her.

Although diagnostic procedures and medical care have advanced a century's worth since the early 20th century, people still get violently ill or even die from eating tainted meat. In the past few years batch after batch of hamburgers have been recalled. The 2007 outbreak sickened 940 people. Four of the 11 Minnesota victims developed what Ms. Smith had, the more serious hemolytic uremic syndrome. Despite the advances in science and technology, the continued illnesses point to the more disturbing parallel between today and a century ago -- the inadequacy of the regulatory systems to protect against deadly bacterial outbreaks.

Hamburger Helper

Moss's investigative work traces the origin of a 2007 0157:H7 outbreak that caused Smith's illness. The food giant Cargill made the hamburgers that Ms. Smith ate, which were purchased at Sam's Club and labeled "American Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties." But the image of a health slab of beef chosen by an American chef belies the burgers' true content and origins:

"...confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria."

Today, it's not clear what's really in burgers, moreover large scale, global meat processing, grinding, and packing involves multiple slaughterhouses and processing plants, which in the 2007 0157:H7 outbreak meant companies in three states and two countries. Regulation is therefore more difficult, even when everyone complies whole-heartedly, which they don't.

A Century of Regulatory Reform

Sinclair's book spurred regulatory reform in the early 20th century that has been evolving ever since, though always with setbacks. The NYT article documents a string of failures and obfuscations in today's beef industry regulation. But when Moss took statements from people at the facilities involved with the 2007 outbreak, they all blandly offered that they were working to improve things, or that things were improved. Some insisted that they followed regulatory guidelines impeccably.

Yet, the Times obtained documents which show that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in the Department of Agriculture communicated with Cargill for years about compliance issues. Even the un-redacted parts reveal disturbing trends in burger safety. But to the press, Cargill's line is the same. When questioned, one Cargill official told Ross, "'Cargill is not in a position to answer your specific questions, other than to state that we are committed to continuous improvement in the area of food safety'". (The company has stakes to protect, having earned $116.6 billion in revenue last year.) Using similar deflection techniques, the lobby group the American Meat Institute could only brag in its letter to the NYT editor that its hundreds of meat-packing members have made "great strides" in product safety over the years.

The lapses that allow bacteria from far-flung facilities to be ground into American burgers didn't happen overnight -- they never do. The potential emerges over years.

• There's lobby pressure, for instance. In 1995, the House Appropriations committee, pressed by the American Meat Institute ("we deserve a voice in the matter") voted 26-15 to require USDA to hold more meetings with industry before implementing new testing inspections and sanitary standards for meat, a move that delayed new inspection laws by as much as two and a half years. (June 28, 1995 Minneapolis Star Tribune).
• There are budget cuts and decentralization. In 1998 USDA turned a lot of the food-monitoring tasks over to the meat and poultry industry. Following that change, the Center for Disease Control, CDC, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (January 1, 1999) noted a jump in major E. coli outbreaks from 2 in 1997 to 7 in 1998.
• There are labor shortages. The Washington Post covered Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's comments on the NYT report, noting that for all his upbeat rhetoric, key leadership positions at the USDA remain unfilled.

Many players in industry as well as at all the different state and federal oversight bodies follow economic and public relations incentives that add up to regulatory failures.

Regulation of Yesteryear

Things used to be simpler, in a way, when Upton Sinclair wrote his 1906 book, The Jungle. The regulations were straightforward. The Department of Agriculture said that businesses should inspect animals and that those not "free from disease and fit for human food" should be "disposed of". But rules inevitably invite "work-arounds". In the early 1900's physicians who insisted that tubercular cows were disposed of got fired. Graft assured that sick cows were butchered and sold to consumers. As for the inspections:

"Before the carcass was admitted here, however, it had to pass a government inspector, who sat in the doorway and felt of the glands in the neck for tuberculosis. This government inspector did not have the manner of a man who was worked to death; he was apparently not haunted by a fear that the hog might get by him before he had finished his testing. If you were a sociable person, he was quite willing to enter into conversation with you, and to explain to you the deadly nature of the ptomaines which are found in tubercular pork; and while he was talking with you you could hardly be so ungrateful as to notice that a dozen carcasses were passing him untouched. This inspector wore a blue uniform, with brass buttons, and he gave an atmosphere of authority to the scene, and, as it were, put the stamp of official approval upon the things which were done in Durham's."

Some of the same practices that begot ptomaine poisoning of the early 1900's, no doubt begets E. coli 0157:H1 outbreaks today. In April, 2008, the USDA changed its meat inspection procedures following a recall that stemmed from rule violations at a California packing plant. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said at the time: "We don't want them getting too cozy with the businesses they're working in."

Despite the similarities, we grant that things aren't really as dire today as they were 100 years ago. The USDA is constantly looking for ways to improve things, and the industry has improved since Sinclair's day. The NYT expose brings more attention to the issue which should increase the urgency of both the USDA and other involved agencies, as well as industry. But the incentives to not self-report and not test that Moss reported are too appealing for businesses to ignore from an economics and public relations standpoint. And perhaps now, as then, inspectors are "not haunted" by a fear that someone will die or will become ill. Despite the USDA's pointed communications to Cargill about problems at their grinding facilities, Moss quoted one USDA official who said that Cargill's failure to follow regulations "had failed to set off any alarms within the department." Is tragedy publicized in the NYT and post-mortem/morbidity litigation the only alarm bell anyone hears?

It will take significant changes to manage and assure safety of products in today's massive food production system. Regulation should be adjusted for the times and current technology, and to the specific incentives that industry takes advantage of by circumventing the rules. Unless regulation continues to evolve to current markets -- the default mode of the food industry -- crass as it seems the modus operandi will by the unspoken assertion that disease-free, fatality-free food is an impossible standard to meet. As in the last century, hamburger buyer beware.

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

The E. coli strain 0157-H1 gained notoriety in 1993 as a result of the Jack In the Box outbreak in Seattle and the West Coast which killed four children and sickened hundreds. As a result of the investigation, intensive infectious disease work, and resulting lawsuits, Seattle has built up a mini 0157:H7 industry.

Acronym Required previously wrote about large scale meat manufacturing in "Cow Rendering - Ingenuity Gone Mad", "The Companions of Mad Cows", "'The Jungle' -- Redux", and Today's Downer -- "Grade D Beef, Unfit For Human Consumption.

• 2nd Hand Smoke Bans Reduce Heart Attacks: According to two analyses of combined study data on second hand cigarette smoke, town or community enforced smoking bans reduce heart attacks by 17% after one year, and after three years the number of heart attacks decreases by at least 26%. The Journal of the American College of Cardiology published one analysis. UCSF researchers analyzed the same data and also found a 17% decrease after on year, which after three years became a 36% decrease in heart attacks. The journal Circulation published the UCSF results.

  While states and communities have increasingly enacted smoking bans, the tobacco industry generally rejects regulation. As John Singleton, spokesman for Reynolds American told the Wall Street Journal: "Our current position is to let the market take care of the issue". (09/21/09 "The Case for Bans on Smoking") On this argument however, the tobacco industry's reasoning might be losing sway. Smoking bans are catching on the world over, even in hard to imagine places like the country of Turkey's bars and restaurants.

• AIDS Trial: New Results, No Answers

  Scientists stopped the last clinical trial of an AIDS vaccine in 2007 when results showed the vaccine increased the HIV infection. They vowed to reconsider their strategy toward AIDS, especially with regards to clinical trials. Scientists postulated that the flush funding environment and political pressures pushed trials forward too quickly. Now the sometimes exasperating path of scientific research has taken a new turn in AIDS research and scientists have a new quandary.

  A recent HIV clinical trial in Thailand testing a combination of two drugs that had previously failed in clinical trials showed tenuously positive results. The US Army, National Institutes of Health, Thai Health Ministry, and Sanofi Aventis collaborated on the trial, giving vaccines to 16,400 volunteers who were not considered high risk. The new project combined AidsVax, an HIV derived protein, with Alvac HIV, a genetically engineered canarypox virus that contains HIV genes. 51 of the vaccinated individuals contracted HIV and 74 of the unvaccinated individuals became HIV positive, which translated to about a 30% prevention efficacy rate. Though this vaccine is a long way from being considered successful, scientists are buoyed by any news that's positive. The trial suggests that this vaccine could be effective if it were improved.

  The quandaries: First, scientists don't understand how two failed drugs add up to something that looks better or vaguely successful. Second, how and why does the combination vaccine prevent the symptoms of AIDS, if it does, without lowering the viral load -- the amount of HIV measured in the bloodstream of infected individuals? Perplexing. More research needed.

  Treatment is expanding but without prevention of HIV transmission, AIDS will remain a losing battle. So for now, "ABC", abstinence, "be faithful" (limit numbers of partners), and condoms, remain the best HIV infection prevention techniques. The good news for researchers maybe is that perhaps AIDS vaccine research has been kept alive.

  Acronym Required wrote previously about AIDS in Preventing HIV/AIDS: Back to the 1980's, New Directions for AIDS Research Funding", Mbeki's AIDS Legacy and Ours, Public Health, AIDS, Mbeki and the Media, Zimbabwe: Hopeful News for HIV/AIDS Prevention?, Burma and AIDS - Politics Rules", South Africa: Peddling Beetroot, Courting AIDS, and others.

  October UPDATE: Further statistical analysis of this trial showed that the results weren't statistically significant.

• Flavored Tobacco Banned: This week the FDA enacted the law banning flavored cigarettes. The ban does not include menthol cigarettes. Altria Group, formerly Phillip Morris, favors the ban, and not coincidently, is marching ahead with acquisitions to solidify its market leader status in smoke-free tobacco products and also expanding its international tobacco holdings. We previously wrote about the cigarette regulation in The FDA and Cigarettes.

• FISA in the Obama Administration: With part of the USA Patriot Act up for renewal, the House is debating intrusive pieces of the legislations that allow privacy intrusion by wiretap, allow the government by access to business records, and allow surveillance of "lone wolf" suspects who have no known links to terrorists.

  One of the more controversial features gave the FBI authority to deliver National Security Letters to businesses and demand information about individual customers. The Letter recipients are ordered to be completely mum about receiving the Letters, meaning they can't tell their spouses, never mind their customers. Critics charge the National Security Letters provision of the Patriot Act violates the First Amendment. According to the Washington Independent's coverage of yesterday's House Judiciary Committee Hearing, this provision has been widely used and abused by government officials.

• Network Neutrality The FCC upheld the principle of network neutrality this week. FCC chairmain Julius Genachowski's "open internet" is now online, along information, public outreach and requests for comments on broadband and the internet. The FCC site is one of the better ones, sharing and soliciting information on broadband and networking as the agency looks to deploy technology more widely and efficiently across the US for uses like healthcare and "telework".

  Of course, in opposition to network neutrality, a coalition of conservative legislators called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), criticized the principle. Not surprisingly, the group opined that "the market" should be allowed to assure openness unfettered by government.

• PG&E Leaves US Chamber of Commerce: The Northwest energy company PG&E has left the business association, citing the group's refusal to reconcile its rhetoric with the facts of global warming.

• Born Free: "Nature Communications" will begin accepting submissions to their new open-access "born digital publication" in October 2009. The first issue will be published in 2010. According to the press release from Nature Publishing Group (NPG) "authors will be able to publish their work either via the traditional subscription route, or as open access through payment of an article processing charge (APC)."

  "New Scientist points to a "puzzling passage" in the press release, where NPG explains that the new journal will publish papers from all science disciplines "of the highest quality, without necessarily having the scientific reach of papers published in Nature and the Nature research journals." To understand, New Scientist followed up with Ruth Francis, NPG spokesperson, who said that Nature Communications will, as New Scientist put it, "feature research that is more focused and less generally applicable than work that typically appears in Nature" from "fields that aren't covered by the [Nature] research journals".

  The journal will be peer reviewed, NPG stresses in its press release. It will employ a "rapid, yet rigorous, peer-review process", meaning "efficient peer review with fast publication", that is "rapid and fair publication decisions based on peer review, with all the rigour expected of a Nature-branded journal". So...Nature Communications, not to be confused with "bulk publishing of low-quality papers", which, as we noted, caused such a stir last year. Nature has long explored open-access publishing. We look forward to the new journal.

• In the Beginning...Mini-T: Before Homo sapiens, before meteors annihilated Tyrannosaurus rex, before that massive dinosaur bounded over the earth, a smaller, similar looking dinosaur existed. Raptorex kriegsteini had 1/90th the body mass of the ~2.5 ton T.rex and lived about 65 million years earlier. A raptorex fossil found in China had the same body features as T. rex and scientists think that the specialized predatory morphology -- large jaw, small front legs, powerful back legs -- grew larger in future generations, evolving to become T. rex. The photo is of a T. rex is from Wikipedia Commons.

New Science Journalism: Futurity formally launched September 15. Futurity, not to be confused with "Singularity", is a collective on-line publication effort by leading research universities. The universities will promote their science accomplishments and fill the gaps of dwindling newspaper science coverage. Articles will be submitted by members of the Association of American Universities (AAU), with Stanford, University of Rochester, and Duke leading the effort. Critics point out that aggregating news generated by University PR departments (20% fact, 80% big story?) won't provide readers the same unbiased perspective as proper journalism coverage. True, but we can't ignore the fact that a significant amount of science coverage consists of press releases anyway.

• Swine Flu Fallout: The H1N1 pandemic not only causes havoc for humans who fall ill, college campuses trying to manage the illnesses, and health workers. The pandemic effects society and economy in ways you don't necessarily think of. Consider, for instance:

  1.) Egypt can't keep up with its street garbage. As we wrote earlier this year, Egypt set out to kill all the pigs in the country, an unwarranted action. Many belonged to Christian herders whose pigs cleaned the streets of millions of tons of organic waste per year. Now parts of Cairo are knee deep in garbage.

  2.) Pork belly futures, which fell from 89 in April 2009 to 40 in August 2009, have now rebounded to their previous high.

• A Chance To Recalculate the Bush Ozone Ruling?: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced last week that it would reexamine the standard set by the Bush administration for ozone which had motivated states to sue the EPA. Ozone is a health hazard at certain levels, and in 2008, the agency set a new standard at 75 parts per billion (ppb), down from 84 ppm. The EPA heralded this as a life-saving improvement, but according to science advisors of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), only 60-70 ppm will prevent deaths.

  Susan Dudley headed the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in 2008 when the Bush administration decision was made. OIRA influenced the outcome of Bush's ozone ruling by sending a series of memos to the EPA impeding the ozone ruling and killing a secondary standard which would have triggered certain safety measures in some weather conditions. We wrote last year how Susan Dudley had argued on behalf of industry prior to her tenure at OIRA, that "smog was beneficial because it protected individuals from ultraviolet radiation, and that since 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." Her's was a twisted cost-benefit analysis.

  Now Cass Sunstein heads OIRA. According to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the EPA has calculated the benefits to society from the now thriving environmental industry and determined that those monetary benefits outweigh the costs of the standard. So is cost-benefit ok when the outcome favors the politics you prefer?

• Team Players: Researchers at Oxford University published a paper in Biology Letters reporting that more elevated endorphin levels associated with team sports like rowing than single player activities.

• Justice Department On Proposed Google Books Settlement The Justice Department said Friday that the settlement needed changes to address copyright, class-action and antitrust issues, and urged the Federal Court to reject the settlement. However, the government added that current discussions between the parties were productive and should continue.

• EPA and NHTSA, Together At Last, Overlapping: The EPA also proposed new carbon dioxide emissions this week, in concert with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The new rule would lower fleet standards to 35.5 mpg by 2016. As well, cars would be allowed to emit 250 grams of CO2/mile by 2012, as opposed to the current rule of 265 grams of CO2/mile. The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), and Senator Markey praised the agencies for their collective effort.

  A coordinated effort from the two agencies that oversee automobile emissions and mileage efficiency has long been a goal of industry and policy makers, though a goal sometimes cynically pursued. We also wrote about EPA/NHTSA overlap here and here. The standards will cover model years 2012 through 2016, and as the Obama administration bills it: "the automobile manufacturers would be able to build a single, light-duty national fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as well as the standards of California and other states."

• Migraines: McCain's Bane: Cindy McCain is heading to Congress, reports the New Yorker, to lobby for money to study migraine headaches. And you thought perhaps you'd heard the last of McCain science research jokes? She told the American Headache Society (AHS):

  "For the first time in my life, I'm going to go to Congress, and I'm going to be tenacious and be forceful and be honest and tell them that it's time. If you can give five million dollars to study flatulence in cows and its effects on the ozone layer, you can give me some money for migraine research."

  Migraines are, of course, a debilitating problem -- that's no joke. As McCain details in her talks, migraine headaches are sometimes set off by "triggers" -- foods like chocolate, or particular odors or chemicals. McCain reports that her company's beer, Stella Artois, contains sulfites "out the wazoo" that trigger her headaches. Travel is full of trouble. Sometimes a perfume bottle breaks and the debilitating noxious fumes cause her to repack her bags and fly home. Foreign food smells prove treacherous too, she says: "...like...forgive me, but the scent of cooking dog"

  She didn't say which countries serve the offensive "dog", often a subject of nasty rumors, or how one can tell that it's not chicken, water buffalo, or frog. But fortunate she is then, that her role is the ambassador of headaches not the ambassador of smoothing international relations with her would-have-been President husband.

Update: 9/11/09: Cass Sunstein, subject of the note below, was nominated to the OIRA post. The list of Yeas and Nays from yesterday's vote is here.

• Scientist says Nerds are Happy: The New York Times Sunday op-ed section featured advice from educators to students. Nancy Hopkins wrote:

  "Passion is the mysterious force behind nearly every scientific breakthrough. Perhaps it's because without it you might never be able to tolerate the huge amount of hard work and frustration that scientific discovery entails...For the next four years you will get to poke around the corridors of your college, listen to any lecture you choose, work in a lab...You may be the person who constructs a new biological species, or figures out how to stop global warming, or aging. Maybe you'll discover life on another planet..." More here.

• China Surges Ahead With Solar: Inner Mongolia in China will be the location of the world's largest solar facility. China is working with the US company First Solar. The new solar farm is due for completion in 5 years and will generate 2 gigawatts of energy by 2019. Plans are also in the works in India and the US for other giant solar facilities.

• Awesome Hubble Photos: NASA upgraded the 19 year old Hubble telescope this summer and released photos that showed impressive improvements due to the upgrade. Compare the Omega Centauri starfield from 2002 to a recent one taken after the scientists completed the Hubble renovations. The photo to the left is a from the planetary nebula NGC 6302 -- a dying star in the middle -- also known as the "Butterfly Nebula".

• Phoenicopterus ruber falsus: Madison, Wisconsin has named the pink plastic flamingo the city's bird, in honor of a college prank from 30 years ago which Alderwoman Marsha Rummel said "signifies something that makes us a very special place" and "captured in our imaginations forever." Why worry about endangered species when there's plastic so real politicians lose their minds?

• Constitution Day: Federal law now requires that schools receiving federal funding offer an education day to celebrate the signing of the Constitution. September 17th, which used to be called Citizenship Day, was renamed Constitution Day and the education requirement added to the 2004 Omnibus Spending Act by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Wikipedia suggests that the holiday began as I Am American Day, a May holiday designated by Congress in 1940 after being championed by newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst. Now that newspapers are dying and some Americans are going cuckoo, it seems like a fine time to reinvigorate the holiday. It's a shame that some hosts on certain television networks aren't required to take a refresher course.

• Nudge in Action Despite Opposition to Sunstein: We previously wrote about the preposterous protest of Cass Sunstein's nomination not because of his cost-benefit analysis views (.pdf), but because hunting enthusiasts fear he's too enthusiastic about animal rights. They continue to foam at the mouth oppose his nomination for the same ill-conceived reasons we noted before. But yesterday, despite efforts of Glenn Beck to derail the Obama administration and move the "conversation" to the right towards McCarthyism, Democrats pushed Sunstein's nomination forward.

  Even as opposition foot-dragging continues (an anonymous third Senator has apparently placed another hold on the nomination), Sunstein isn't languishing idle. With more two books published since his nomination, his influence can also be seen in Obama administration policy changes such as the retirement savings plan changes, announced by the President on Labor Day.

• Media Wars: A number of "11th-hour filers" are challenging the Google book deal, including Germany and France. The head of the US copyright office expressed reservations. At a recent Google Books conference, James Love said that Google benefits from people's perception that if Google makes it it must be free and good, and if it were called (I paraphrase) AnyOtherCorporation Book Deal, it would have never progressed this far. People aren't consoled by the Google image as the lovable, do no evil, benevolent adopter of just a small number of orphan books. But was copyright really meant to extend life plus 70 years? In the interest of the public, hopefully they'll settle on the "right" book deal.

• Clues to Potato Blight: Scientists collaborating from 36 institutions across the globe completed sequencing the water mold responsible for late blight and the Irish Great Famine of 1840's-1850's. Phytophthora infestans consumes the plant's leaves and tubers and just as it wiped out potato crops in the 19th century, today the mold causes ~$6.7 billion dollars of damage annually to tomatoes, potatoes and other crops.

  Researchers identified genes that may help the organism evade scientists fight against the costly blight, and also found that about 75% of the genome contained repeat sections of DNA called transposons. Transposons duplicate and jump from one section of the genome to another, where they can disrupt genes and introduce mutations. This could allow the organism to adapt and evolve more quickly and continue to cause havoc in potato crops despite scientists' best efforts to engineer blight resistant crops.

  The part of the genome that contains the transposons also contains genes that code proteins responsible for virulence. Researchers theorize that the instability of this greatly expanded and rapidly changing part of the genome gives P. infestans its lethal power. The sequence data will help scientists understand the mold in order to prevent the destructive blight. Nature published the report: 9 September 2009 | doi:10.1038/nature08358.

REACH in the EU: Model for TSCA?

Governments regulate chemicals to help keep citizens safe from toxins that would otherwise pollute their food, drink, and air. But such regulations are difficult to pass because of course some parties will always claim that the regulation will cost taxpayers, will cost jobs, and will inflict mortal wounds to the economy. In this challenging environment, EU and US agencies are now working to strengthen historically weak chemical oversight. Press recently covered a Nature article that projected much higher costs for the EU's oversight plan and predicted the necessity of extraordinary numbers of lab animals for toxicity tests. Nature is a respected science journal, not predictably partisan venue like, say, the Wall Street Journal editorial page or the Socialist Worker. But critics including an EU agency and the Environmental Defense Fund point out flawed reasoning and familiar marks of bias in this Nature paper, flaws not highlighted in the popular press. ¹

As we wrote in our last post, efforts to regulate bisphenol A may be in process, but a larger issue persists in the number of chemicals with unknown safety profiles that we're subjected to. In the US, some chemicals can enter the market with minimal government testing and 60,000 chemicals were grandfathered in under the US Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. To be clear, not all of these grandfathered chemicals are on the market, and many are safe -- but some aren't -- which ones?

Toxicologists have long argued for an overhaul of TSCA, known in some circles as the "Toxic Substances Conversation Act" by those who think it serves the needs of the chemical industry all too well. Asbestos, for instance, remains on the market because the EPA can not use TSCA (.doc download) to ban most asbestos products, regardless of documented health risks.

On the European front, a newer regime for testing chemicals called REACH (registration, evaluation,authorization and restriction of chemical substances) promises more complete oversight of chemicals in the EU than TSCA in the US. But REACH has its own complex goals and challenges, as we described here and here. And like TSCA in the US, the European program has its foes.

REACH: Smelling A Rat in the EU?

REACH underwent significant changes in the face of the chemical industry pressure before its implementation. Companies continue to agitate about the costs of REACH and the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) and the European Commission continue to reassure the public by reiterating their cost estimates.

Recently, toxicologists introduced a new wrinkle. Thomas Hartung, from John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and chemisty consultant Costanza Rovida caused a stir by estimating not only huge unpredicted costs for REACH, but for predicting that REACH regulations would require millions more lab animals than the EU had calculated. Their Nature article referred to their analysis in the less well known journal ALTEX. They claim most REACH overruns would stem from reproductive testing, and said the program would use:

"54 million vertebrate animals and cost 9.5 billion... This is 20 times more animals and 6 times the costs of the official estimates. By comparison, some 90,000 animals are currently used every year for testing new chemicals in Europe, costing the industry some 60 million per year."

You don't need to be an animal activist to recoil at costly regulations that might waste every last vertebrate lab animal in Europe and more -- a reaction that their study could provoke. But suppose the authors didn't calculate correctly?

The Environmental Defense Fund's Richard Denison et al. comb through the Nature and ALTEX calculations and dispute pretty much every the calculation Hartung and Rovida make, starting with the estimates of the number of chemicals in use, moving on to the numbers for chemicals pre-registered, likely to be registered, the numbers of rats needed, and the associated costs. Denison concludes:

"As noted at the start, this study has used numerous demonstrably false or highly questionable assumptions, one piled on another, to grossly inflate the number of chemicals requiring testing under REACH, and the number of animals involved."

ECHA comes to basically the same conclusion, and notes that "the real figures are more likely to be the ones assessed and published when the new chemicals legislation (REACH) was prepared and negotiated."

The Opportunities of Lax Oversight?

Given that Denison's estimates and the numbers originally estimated by ECHA were a fraction of Hartung's estimates, the reader may ask -- "Which is it? Are there hundreds of thousands of unknown chemicals that need to be tested? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Why don't scientists know?" And that's the point. As REACH progresses EU citizens will get better grip on which chemicals they're being exposed to and in what quantities. The current level of public ambiguity indicates the extent to which the risks to citizens are now unknown. But ECHA estimates that about 16,000 chemicals will be be registered by the first two deadlines, and that less than 6,000 of these will need full testing. The picture will get clearer as the chemical registrations are assessed through REACH.

In the meantime, the years of lax oversight provide the authors the opportunity to shock everyone. 54 million animals, some might ask (gasping)? The Nature article prompts that loaded question -- to which organizations like ECHA and EDF, dedicated to protecting people from say, being blinded by eyelash dyes, must reply with the uncomfortable answer: "No, actually it's only 9 million animals, not 54 million".

In truth, REACH is already committed to alternative testing like cell-based assays, and cheaper toxicology testing methods such as high-throughput screening. Decreasing the number of animals used in testing is a goal shared by all -- by the EU, by EDF, the EPA, etc.

When Chemical Companies Ally with The Humane Society, It Means?

Based on their estimates, Hartung and Rovida conclude that REACH is unfeasible and recommend halting aspects of it. They also recommend increased funding, especially in the US, for non-animal testing methods. While it's impossible to discern any motive for their study other than science progress and animal welfare, it's nevertheless interesting to look at some background.

Hartung runs John Hopkin's Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), which aims to develop methods to replace animals testing. He left his position at the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) saying, among other things, that chemical companies weren't involved enough (via Alttox.com). He moved to John's Hopkins in 2008.

Chemical companies are involved now. EDF's Denison points out that although the ALTEX study claims to have been peer reviewed, 5 of the 6 "peers" were actually industry representatives. Also of note, ALTEX is a publication of John's Hopkins'. Co-author Hartung sits on the journal's board and was assigned the position of North American editor in February. ALTEX is not exactly a neutral publication venue for Hartung.³

Chemical companies have historically argued that chemicals are safe without testing, that REACH is unnecessary, and that TSCA is good as is. But their cooperation is important to the success of toxicology programs, so in this case we'd hope that they've come around, that their concern for animals is genuine, and that their commitment to REACH steadfast.

But Denison thinks otherwise. He points out that the chemicals targeted by REACH effect animals in the wild too. So why the huge concern for lab rats, but not for eagles? Denison also notes "a strongly shared interest between the chemical industry and animal welfare advocates in undercutting chemical testing programs".

EDF has a long history of working with companies to achieve market friendly environmental compromises. Denison himself has substantial history with chemical companies who have been less than cooperative (.pdf) in collaborations with the EPA. There may well be a need for increased funding of alternative toxicology testing methods. But given the background of EDF and Denison it's hard to ignore their criticism, despite Hartung's excellent credentials and expressed support for REACH.

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

¹Nature 460, 1080-1081 (27 August 2009) | doi:10.1038/4601080a; Published online 26 August 2009, Chemical regulators have overreached, Thomas Hartung & Costanza Rovida

² Even the chemical, pharmaceutical and personal products industries are dedicated to reducing animal testing.Alttox, an on-line forum for alternatives to animal testing, is cosponsored by the Humane Society, Proctor and Gamble, and the American Chemical Council.

³ We previously criticized the journal "Risk Analysis" which we called vanity press for Sciences International Inc..

Back when PCBs and benzopyrenes would "neutralize" BPA

Evidence about the health risks of the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) woke people up to the fact that chemicals like BPA could be manufactured and used for decades in myriad everyday products like baby bottles, food can linings, dental resins, CDs -- without being safe. But what does it take for knowledge of potential risks of a certain chemical to enter the public awareness?

If you talk to people today, many think that the public quickly learned about and understood the risks of bisphenol A. In fact a small number of researchers worked for years to bring attention to the risks of BPA. Chemistry trade magazines were vigilant in following this growing body of research, as were manufacturers and chemical companies. But the mainstream news media only sporadically reported on the research, and when they did they weren't above exaggerating the dangers. Neither were scholarly science journals above down-playing the risks.

In 1994 Sharon Begley wrote about environmental estrogens in Newsweek. Her article ""Estrogen Complex", reported on research linking environmental estrogens to cancer, feminized fish, lower sperm counts, and species declines in some ecosystems. The tagline? -- "Sperm Counts Down? Penises Shriveled? Hey, Rush, Don't Blame It On Feminists. It May Be From Chemical Pollutants In Water And Food".

Despite the hyperbole, the bottom line of the Newsweek article was the quite true but still ambiguous conclusion: scientist disagree about the risks involved with exposure to estrogenic chemicals in small doses. The ambiguity was real. In addition to leaching from the products we buy, estrogens are found in plants, food, and body fat. Since we're more or less bathed in the hormone, some scientists in 1994 questioned why, if low-dose estrogens were so dangerous, more people didn't show deleterious affects like cancer?

Dueling Hyperbole Fails to Ignite Public Interest

"Talk about an attention-grabber, the journal Science said about the Newsweek's tagline on decreasing sperm counts, shrunken penises, Rush Limbaugh, and feminists. Science then showed its own mastery of hyperbole by referring to the debate over hormone-modulating pollutants as "a towering thundercloud sucking energy from the humid air around it".¹

Science quoted those who disputed any cause for concern, like Dr. Stephen Safe, who "fumed" to their reporter: "This has been blown way out of proportion". To be fair, Science also highlighted the growing number of animal studies that drew warnings about environmental estrogens from scientists. But many experts the journal interviewed thought the risks from environmental estrogens were negligible.

The Science author offered creative theories to comfort worriers, for instance that "anti-estrogens" in the environment such as "PCBs-compounds being phased out from use as industrial coolants--and benzo[a]pyrene, a combustion byproduct of foods and cigarettes", might balance estrogens, by "blocking activity of the estrogen receptor or reducing the number of receptors".

Despite the alarming headlines in Newsweek, and Science's description of a thunderous debate, the production of endocrine disruptors increased unabated from 1994 to 2009. There was no outcry. It took 15 more years for bisphenol A to attract meaningful attention from politicians and voters. By then BPA had been on the market for 50 years.

The Meteorology of Chemical Safety Debates: "Towering Thunderclouds Sucking Energy"

In 1994 there was no clear consensus on BPA. Now that the public is significantly alert to the risks of bisphenol A, there is still no clear route to regulatory policy. Although some states and cities have ordered restrictions on the use of bisphenol A, the widely watched California regulatory board recently decided that there wasn't enough evidence against BPA to list it as a toxin. Board member Dr Carl Keen offered the odd consolation that the same organization had at first not judged second-hand smoke to be a toxin either.

Bisphenol A has many uses and is a significant industry in the US. As consumers take it upon themselves to replace polycarbonate with metal or other plastic, will the push for regulation recede? Will politicians be able to get off the hook? Will self-determined citizens allow chemical lobbies to pressure politicians to ease back on regulation?

For now, there seems to be continued momentum in some quarters to control the use of BPA. The California State Senate, for instance, has voted to ban BPA. The bill requires bisphenol A above certain concentrations to be replaced, starting in 2011, with the "least toxic option".

Not to be negative, but this begs the question: What is the "least toxic" option? Beyond bisphenol A, the bigger, looming, far more pertinent issue, is that for ease of life and great convenience, we use thousands of chemicals. But many have unknown health profiles. It took five decades of science and lobbying for a chemical with fairly disturbing effects in cells and animals to accumulate enough evidence that people chose not to use it. Do we have to continue on this path, waiting until the disputes around the "science" -- ie politics -- truly do become "towering thunderclouds sucking energy"?, as Science so eloquently put it, before choosing not to use just one chemical?

Stone, Richard: Science, July 15, 1994: Environmental estrogens stir debate. Vol. V265 No. N5170 ISSN: 0036-8075

Acronym Required has been following Bisphenol A since 2005. We last wrote about the Bisphenol A "public relations" rift between the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Trevor Butterworth of Stats.org, in BPA Rhetoric and Reaction.

Summer Politics: Cut and Dried

On the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, people reminisced about large public gatherings in open spaces. Central Park used to be a mecca for such events. On June 12, 1982, a million people assembled in the park to protest the nuclear policies of the Reagan Administration. People traveled to NYC they did so because they considered it a visible celebration of democracy, a patriotic way to send a message. Shortly after they convened, Reagan opened nuclear arms talks with the Soviet Union and the Cold War waned. To date, that Central Park protest remains one of America's largest.

New York City's study, released this month and conducted by soil scientists, plant pathologists and groundskeepers, suggests limiting the use of the Great Lawn in Central Park to 55,000 people for safety reasons and to protect the grass. The Great Lawn cost millions to restore, but the decision rankled some. A lawyer for the Partnership for Civil Justice told the NYT: "We would call it junk science except that it's not science". Rather she said, the report supports: "a political declaration of intent by the mayor to limit free speech rights by New Yorkers."

Grassroots Change

Central Park historian Sarah Cedar Miller once told a reporter: "Parks are a gathering ground and where democracy happens. Literally, the grassroots happen on the grass." ¹ Barack Obama has often talked about the importance of grassroots action to motivate change, though he hasn't been explicit about the turf. In "Dreams From My Father", he wrote about his decision in 1983 after graduating from Columbia College to become a community organizer:

"....There wasn't much detail to the idea; I didn't know anyone making a living that way. When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly. Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won't come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots."

Twenty-six years later Obama resides in the White House after campaigning on a platform of Change. In his acceptance speech he attributed his victory to a strong grassroots campaign. He assured his supporters that corporations wouldn't have all the seats at the table and urged them to continue the grassroots fight for the causes he would champion during his presidency.

Grassroots From the White House?

But of course Barack Obama also won the presidency because his campaign implemented well-organized fund-raising which corralled large donors and bundlers. Now, as constituents, stakeholders, and lobbyists wrestle over American healthcare, headlines detail the president's efforts to appease these interests.

Last week, we heard news about the executive branch's concessions to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). These agreements supposedly involve White House concessions like opposing drug importation, in return for a hazy promise from PhRMA about "up to" 80 billion dollars in cost cuts. Last weekend Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius asked people not to focus so much on the public option, leading the media to think the public option is off the table.

All this leaves grassroots Obama supporters to wonder, who is occupying the seats at the table? But wonder though they might, when it comes to healthcare, Obama's 13 million strong grassroots organization remains busy with their busy lives. Who among them has time, attention, or money to speak out on each of the plethora of issues that the Obama presidency tackles? Furthermore, if the president's supporters did have time, and knew what they were supposed to be rooting for -- a viable public option, details to the proposals, direct answers, and available talking points -- how would they express their interests? Are we really even a "grassroots" kind of country anymore?

Is It Astroturf or Have We Changed?

Public protests and large gatherings of past decades can't be idealized. They've always been contentious affairs, with riot police, shootings, covert and overt suppression. There was a certain community achieved by those Central Park protesters in 1982, who all gathered in one place to express the collective hope for a safer better, world. But that was almost three decades ago. A different place and time, when, as some New Yorkers say, Central Park was overgrown and scary and New York invited anyone to occupy the space to keep worse elements at bay. Today, large protests are not necessarily seen as viable options to petitioning government. The Department of Defense recently labeled protests "low-level terrorism".

Perhaps businesses that surround Central Park wouldn't appreciate their view being a bunch of protesters with idle time on their hands agitating against ideas that challenge the premises of the business deals their executives negotiate at a frenzied pace eighteen hours a day. They may want to assure that their backdrop is lush, peaceful, untrammeled grass as far as the eye can see, a copacetic business environment. But does an insistence on pretty lawns discourage the public's inclinations to join a peaceable protest? To express views about the government?

Perhaps grassroots protest is a bygone era and nothing is lost by limiting people's right to protest on public greens. Even those who traveled up to Woodstock write about the event forty years ago for the NYT with detached amusement, as if obliged at a family gathering to watch sibling antics on a scratchy home video before quickly snapping that dusty box shut.

A manicured law is an asset too. And determined agitators can always be relegated to highways or still unkempt DC malls. If in 2009 public protests are limited on Central Park's Great Lawn, perhaps they will continue to flourish at "town halls".

Townhalls -- "A Dip In A Cool Stream?""

Town halls, afterall, can be an idyllic way to exchange ideas. Obama wrote about his experience when he was an Illinois State Senator in "The Audacity of Hope":

"One of my favorite tasks of being a senator is hosting town hall meetings....And as I look out over the crowd, I somehow feel encouraged. In their bearing I see hard work. In the way they handle their children I see hope. My time with them is like a dip in a cool stream. I feel cleansed afterward, glad for the work I have chosen"

You may say that today's town halls are a quite different brand of love-in than Obama's. Today, there may be some heart-felt questioning, but disenchanted Americans drown it out by ferociously confronting their representatives about strange apparitions they've concocted pertaining to government. Now they decry the scurvy of government run healthcare. Next week they may be yelling about jobs the upcoming the energy bill.

Fox News insists that this "anger's not 'manufactured' it's REAL". However, others say that corporations, perhaps even oil companies, are contributing to town-hallers' messages against change. No matter, it's a different beast from the cool stream Obama described. Some representatives may be wanting to shower after the events.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says the Democrats running town halls can handle it, but they need to "know the difference between grassroots and Astroturf." Television news, however, does not necessarily differentiate between Astroturf and the more plebeian, grassroots protests, it duly broadcasts discontent. To us, it seems that whatever was The Matter With Kansas has gone both viral and national. Unfortunately but importantly, whatever the source of townhall agitation, everyone's paying attention to it.

TV Cameras on the Ruckus -- The Limits of Technology

The internet remains an alternative grassroots medium mobilized to good effect by MoveOn.org and the Obama campaign. But even if Obama's grassroots organization were to see fit to mobilize and use the internet to it's previously powerful effect, it would be a quiet effort.

As Obama said last week "TV loves a ruckus". Email campaigns don't attract television cameras the way even the smallest collection of agitated people waving scrawled signs do. Face it, that's why businesses oppose 200,000 people gathering in Central Park and why some send people to town halls. Even if we had a million emails it still couldn't make a televisable ruckus.

Woodstock is overrated, they write forty years later. Too much mud, not enough sandwiches, and mind-boggling traffic jams. But how will current brand of town hall protests look forty years from now? If pundits and participants don't think back fondly on Woodstock today, how will they recall the shouted, spit-laden confrontations from people insisting that healthcare reform is facism, death panels, and communism all wrapped up in one ideologically impossible hairball of anti-reform? Not "Change!" or "No Nukes" -- but "No-Change!", ie: "Long-Live the Uninsured!" -- delivered with a swagger that only a pistol strapped to one's leg can insure?

I'm not trying to idealize the old, flowers in your hair days that I didn't even live through. But is something lost if we've reached an age when the TV news may never capture a million people gathered in a park with a vision of a changed and better world? When "Astroturf" -- always capitalized for the always capitalist world, and working mostly to prevent Change and progress -- is for all intents and purposes the only "grassroots" we know?

¹ Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, October 17, 2005

• HRT Therapy Evidence Ghostwritten: The New York Times reports on a joint effort by the Times, "PloS Medicine, and the Washington DC law firm Public Justice, to compel the Federal court to release documents showing that medical research papers bylined by respected researchers were actually written by a firm hired by the pharmaceutical giant Wyeth. The "ghostwritten" papers promoted the benefits of using the Wyeth estrogen product Prempro to prevent wrinkled skin, dementia and other effects of menopause. However the papers didn't give adequate attention to the risks of HRT treatment: stroke, heart attack, blood clots, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Once these risks were revealed, doctors stopped recommending hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to menopausal women.

• They Got The Same Results We Did!(?): In a recent editorial, Nature Medicine provides a warning about scientists who plagiarize previously published science articles. Nature refers to a recently published paper in a journal they magnanimously refer to as "Journal B", which had appeared in Nature six years earlier.

  Why would a research scientist so plagiarize? One reason, Nature suggests, is that plagiarism could boost a scientist or student's academic profile in a down economy. The journal provides a how-to:

  "use a solid paper as your base; carry out a parallel set of experiments in your favorite model; tweak the data so that the numbers are not identical but remain realistic; and, when you're ready to write it all up, paraphrase the original paper ad libitum. Last, submit your new manuscript to a modest journal in the hopes that the authors of the paper you used as 'inspiration' won't notice your 'tribute' to their work..."

  Nature also lists less obvious forms of plagiarism, such as lifting sections of text that adequately express ideas in a language that's not the scientist's primary one, lifting and rephrasing result sections, or scientists' misunderstandings about what is and isn't plagiarism.

• When Bad Apples Fall Near The Tree: Talking Points Memo challenges lobbyist Jack Bonner's statement that some "bad employee" sent the forged letters to Congress opposing climate change legislation. The letters were supposedly sent from minority groups, but as it turns out, Bonner's firm was working on behalf of the coal industry. As TPM reports, this was not an isolated incident from a temporary employee but modus operandi for the firm where each employee works first as a temp.

• Stem Cell Research Doesn't Always Get Retracted: Really. But lately the Stem Cell Institute at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis isn't helping prove the point. New Scientist recently raised questions about research from several stem cell labs at the institute. One scientist reprimanded for academic misconduct had so many papers containing errors that three had to be corrected and one retracted.

  The journal then decided to look at all the papers coming out of the lab that that former student worked in and found possible duplications in seven papers from another researcher affiliated with the institute. Stem cell scientists made comments to New Scientist, expressing discouragement about the spate of problems at the one institute that happened to be under the spotlight. Given the pressure in the field, these scientists wondered how widespread the problems elsewhere could be.

Doctors Fret On Behalf Pharma: Pro Bono For What? No Free Lunch?

Vermont and Massachusetts recently passed strict conflict of interest laws that require certain drug and medical-device manufacturers to inform state health officials of gifts made to doctors. At least half a dozen states have similar laws. Pharmaceutical companies spent $2.93 million on marketing in Vermont in 12 months. Payments and gifts to some Vermont psychiatrists totaled more than $100 thousand dollars a year. Nationwide, pharmaceutical companies spend between $20 billion and "$57 billion per year" on marketing per year.

The majority of Americans approve of the measures. In a survey of the public opinion, 64% of Americans think it's important to know their physician's financial ties to pharmaceutical companies and 68% support legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose gifts to doctors according to the results of a Prescription Project survey.

The regulations aim to bar some gifts from industry to doctors and researchers and more closely monitor which doctors and researchers pharma pays. The Vermont Medical Society supported the new regulations, noting that trust is necessary to build doctor patient relationships. The president of the physicians group commented: "Gifts from the pharmaceutical industry can create at least the appearance of conflict of interest, so in our minds that has a negative impact on our relationship with patients."

Just Don't Say "Corrupt"

However, opposing the conflict of interest regulation is the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE), a group of 100 physicians led by Harvard hematologist Thomas Stossel.¹ ACRE acknowledges that some physicians or researchers may take too much money from industry but argues that regulation of conflict of interest is not the answer. ACRE says that regulation will encroach on the free give and take between industry, physicians, and researchers that has yielded great research and medical progress. Nature reported frustration on the part of physicians who attended ACRE's July 23rd meeting:

"One attendee complained that he couldn't buy a $12 hamburger for a consultant who had agreed to speak for free. 'They're giving us a pro bono service and we're going to ask them to pay for their own lunch?' he lamented." ²

Really? Should free consulting from a pharma representative or consultant raise feelings of obligatory angst in attendees? If a pro-bono talk motivates such laments, what guilt do free samples provoke? What about a vacation trip? Will a $12 dollar hamburger fulfill the obligation? Or perhaps just a few prescriptions orders for patients?

ACRE's Stossel objects to the gift ban because it suggests that physicians have "'have a corruption problem'". In Marcia Angell's January, 2009 NY Review of Books article, "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption", the author reviewed three books on pharmaceutical corruption.^3,4 The books were published after the congressional inquiry into drug company payments that uncovered quantities of drug money flowing into psychiatry doctors' pockets.

A Senate investigation led by Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (pdf!), uncovered payments to three Harvard psychiatrists who received over a million dollars each over a several year period. One psychiatrist at Stanford and one at Emory also received payments of over a million dollars.

A study in 2007 by Columbia University researchers showed that doctors don't feel that their personal integrity is compromised by taking gifts or money from pharmaceutical companies. But they do feel that other doctors would be compromised by such gifts. Chimonas et al concluded: "Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician-detailer interactions will be effective."

Marcia Angell points out that although the cases highlighted by the media tend to be more extreme, most physicians (94%) do have some relationship with drug companies. And certainly many of these payments are inconsequential and/or don't sway research or influence prescribing patterns. But clearly many do, or else pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be spending tens of billions of dollars on doctors and research.

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

¹ The group is now supported by membership fees, according to Nature and the organization website. However in 2008, according to a note accompanying a British Medical Journal article, Stossel was on the boards of several pharmaceuticals, and received fees for speaking to corporations and other organizations about conflict of interest.

² Willard, Cassandra, "Physicians fight back against disclosure rules" Nature 460, 556-557 (2009) | doi:10.1038/460556b. Also published in Nature Medicine.

³ The NY Review of Books received a letter from the legal representative of one of the doctors covered in her article, complaining about the use of the word "corruption" in the headline and text of Angell's review, because it inferred the doctor had been engaged in "bribery" or "similar dishonest dealings". The weekly disagreed.

⁴ The three books are: Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial by Alison Bass (Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill); Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs by Melody Petersen (Sarah Crichton/Farrar, Straus and Giroux); and Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness by Christopher Lane, (Yale University Press).

OIRA Chief Job Requirements: Letters, Meetings, Farm Tours

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) recently placed a hold on Cass Sunstein's confirmation to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA resides within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and was established by Congress in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980(PRA) for oversight tasks like reviewing and setting standards for Federal regulations.

OIRA has a mixed reputation due to its expanded role in "the catbird seat" (.pdf!) over government regulatory policy. Progressives point out the agency's successful efforts using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to delay environmental and public health regulations and to impede agencies like the EPA from improving air quality which threatens the health of Americans.

While CBA can be a useful tool for helping to evaluate regulatory impact, critics like Rena Steinzor of the University of Maryland's Center For Progressive Reform have written prolifically in opposition to the flavor of cost-benefit analysis previously applied by the OIRA and championed by Sunstein. Sunstein's books and papers contain ample examples of how CBA can be used to stifle progressive regulation, and progressives fear that Sunstein could continue the trend set by previous business friendly OIRA administrators John Graham and Susan Dudley.

By all accounts, Sunstein is the perfect choice for conservatives. He's even endorsed by conservative mouthpieces such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and lobby groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Yet oddly, it's not progressives concerned with CBA, but conservatives like Chambliss and Cornyn who are holding up the nomination by promoting fears that Sunsteing will restrict hunting and agriculture.

According to The Hill last week, the move has probably delayed the Obama administration's regulatory review document due two months ago. The late arrival of the review document concerns liberals who question the president's commitment to government transparency and also agitates parties like the regulation allergic American Chemical Council.

Contrary to Sunstein's refusals to to meet with some journalists and progressives until after his confirmation, the nominee met with Senator Chambliss to assure him of his intentions and to be toured around some farms. Sunstein also wrote the senator a letter including "strong statements", as Chamblis put it, like: "if confirmed, I would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals". That letter apparently doesn't satisfy Senator Cornyn. Nor do Sunstein's words at his confirmation hearing last May when he thoroughly addressed the hunting and animal rights questions asked by Senator Collins (R-ME).

Hunting v. Cost-Benefit Analysis

In OIRA -- How Will it Evolve Under Obama?, written prior to Sunstein's House confirmation hearing, Acronym Required noted the proliferation of internet chatter suggesting that Sunstein would ban hunting and/or somehow restrict freedom of speech on the internet. Drawn from subjective readings of his work and comments, these ideas can be easily dispelled by purusing the Sunstein corpus. Therefore we never expected the paranoid musings of various hunting and meat interests to be given serious consideration at Sunstein's hearing. Sunstein's confirmation hearing proved us wrong.

At his hearing, admiring Senators on the committee voiced their approval of Sunstein to lead the OIRA. They all breezed through questions about how regulatory matters would or wouldn't change under a Sunstein's OIRA leadership and skirted over cost-benefit analysi. The nominee provided careful, footnoted responses. He repeatedly drew a line between his "academic writings", and actions he would take as the head of the OIRA.¹ On animal rights Sunstein said that he would "follow the laws" -- for instance the EPA laws in the case of the Endangered Species Act. Compared to his nuanced answers about cost-benefit analysis then, his views on hunting seemed clear and unequivocal.

Sunstein told Senator Collins (R-ME) that he would not ban hunting, which the "2nd amendment protects". He said previous comments were provocations that did not "reflect my personal views". Hunters were the "strongest environmentalists and conservationists in the United States, and it would be preposterous for anyone in a position like mine to take steps to effect their rights or interests", he said. Collins thanked him for his "strong statement".

Bounties for Bambies

Cornyn could watch this testimony to abate his fears, or read Sunstein's letter to his colleague Senator Chambliss, or read some of Sunstein's other work. For instance in his paper "Predictably Incoherent Judgments", with Daniel Kahneman, David Schkade and Ilana Ritov (June, 2002: Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 6), Sunstein et al argued that people "in isolation" make incoherent moral or legal judgements that lead to excessive jury awards, unreasonable public good valuations and ill-considered civil fines.

To overcome such "predictably incoherent judgements" the authors suggested using systems such as that devised by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to "establish values for injured or destroyed fish, birds, and animals." The system would appeal to those who like empirical data, but defied scrutiny. For instance according to their scoring system, "a score of 0-3 for 'eight scoring' criteria" gave a "total criteria score". That score was then multiplied by a "weighting factor" decided by the "demand for the species". Endangered species (those higher in demand, apparently) and threatened species got and extra $500 or $1000. Sunstein et al expounded:

"The particular judgements may seem a bit arbitrary; why is an elk worth $1, compared to the $1050.50 penalty for killing a loggerhead turtle? What is important is that the Texas provision actually offers an answer to this question, one that is relatively transparent to the public, and one that ensures that the various values line up with one another along the stated criteria".

So the arbitrariness of the values seems not to bother him, as long as there's a number. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department assigned "Mule Deer, M", a value of "$525.50", "Mule Deer, F" a value of "$163", and just plain "Deer" a value of $1. Indeed, the numbers make the valuations little more than a calculator exercise, but in the end, the numbers are the product of a value system that's obtuse and arbitrary.

To the point of this post, though, does someone who endorses this system as a "remarkable approach" seem like someone who would get overly emotional about deer and elk hunting?

In a 1999 Stanford Law Review article "Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation" Timur Kuran and Cass R. Sunstein portrayed environmentalists as misinformed yet powerful fringe groups: "subcommunities whose members interact primarily among themselves", who were susceptible to a biased media and prone to exaggerating risks like industrial waste. These "subcommunities" were sentimental about deer and underestimated the risks they posed: (Vol. 51, No. 4 (Apr., 1999), pp. 683-768). The media, too, were irrational about the environment. The authors wrote:

"Whereas the electronic and print media are replete with reports of industrial waste dumps, they seldom pay attention to the traffic injuries and deaths caused by deer herds that have grown fifty-four-fold since the 1940s because of hunting restrictions, lack of predators and abundant new habitat. As a consequence, many people who consider environmental contamination an omnipresent and devastating danger, think of deer as the affectionate, harmless, and vulnerable animals portrayed by Walt Disney's moving fable Bambi." (emphasis mine)

Again, we'd question whether someone who portrays environmentalists as bewitched fanatics full of Bambiesque fantasies strikes you as a someone who would march up to your tree stand at 6AM, and order you down from your hunting perch and confiscate your gun?

Cass Sunstein = Melancholy Jack?

Despite his explicit letter, testimony, and writings, Chambliss and Cornyn choose to portray Sunstein as some Melancholy Jacque, the character in Shakespeare's "As You Like It" who weeps over a slaughtered deer and whose mournful sensitivity disturbs the hunting party. Hunting enthusiasts issue dire warnings about a probable Sunstein nomination. Publications like the Cattle Network and Pork Magazine ruminate about Sunstein's "radical" notions. Ammoland.com joins in.

Despite the craziness, there is a twinge of reason here. Sunstein describes himself as a legal "pragmatist", and he may also be pragmatic when selecting different points of view for liberal versus conservative audiences. Both conservatives and liberals are a little nervous about which way he'll lean, and with reason, since you could interpret his positions in different ways. Despite his pro-environmentalist statement in his confirmation hearing, his portrayal of them as "subcommunities" prompts the question: what does he really think about environmentalists?

Despite the apparent flexibility of his views, however; much liberals dismay, he's always been rock-solid consistent about the advantages of using of cost-benefit analysis to value life. A deer, it seems, is simply a commodity. It's ironic, then, and not necessarily the best omen for some species, that liberals can't be credited as the loudest complainers in the current fray.

And what are Chambliss and Cornyn up to, isolating what Sunstein calls "provocations" on animal rights, to hold up his nomination? "He is about as good as you can hope from this administration" David Mason, a visiting senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, told The Hill. What's their beef? Their complaints definitely attack the Democrat administration and move the center to the right.

Availability Cascades?

In their paper, Sunstein and Kuran explained the reaction of residents of Love Canal to the crud bubbling up in their backyards with the term "availability cascade". Humans develop irrational fears which are not based on evidence, they say, and those harebrained ideas spread contagiously among other susceptible individuals. These humans therefore don't fear deer as they logically should, but build unreasonable paranoias about toxic waste dumps. Sunstein often portrays environmentalists as caught up in availability cascades.

Considering the bounty of evidence against their claims then, are Chambliss and Cornyn, our elected representatives, along with hunters and agriculture interests swept up in such an availability cascade? Or perhaps Cornyn wants his own meeting, his own letter, to lead his own farm tour, or to extract some additional promises, and when Cornyn is satisfied, the next conservative Senator will step up with his own cabal of clamoring agriculture interests and batch of factory farmers. Or perhaps it's just simple Obama opposition. Or something else, we don't know.

In our last post on Sunstein, his nomination seemed a cinch. So much so that we suggested that people who were interested in public office could write both liberal and conservative views to baffle audiences looking to pinpoint ideological leanings. But we might revise that opinion. Sunstein, at least in the short run, seems destined for more meetings, more letters, and some tramping around agricultural production farms in hip boots (No? A suit?). So perhaps we'd suggest espousing more neutral views. All this must be a tedious distraction from the work of (officially) running OIRA and generating cost-benefit analyses. And maybe all on account of availability cascades?

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

¹ Acronym Required wrote about the similar line that Sunstein proposed for assessing John Roberts' record prior to his nomination.

Acronym Required's not entirely neutral on agricultural practices in the US, as we've scribbled about here, and here, and here, and here. We've also written periodically on OIRA, for instance here and here, and here, and here.

Googley Economic Indicators

Lawrence Summers addressed the Peterson Institute for International Economics today, with upbeat comments about the economy. While it had been in "free fall" at the start of the year, he said, with "no apparent limit on how much worse things could get", optimistic statistics were now starting to pour in.

We'll take Summers word that there are positive signs -- other economists agree. Summers lost us though, when he said that the number of people searching on Google for the term "economic depression" has "returned to normal levels". Is this the best statistic he could come up with? I think you could present an alternative theory which said that at the beginning of the year people were curious about what "depression" would feel like, so they Googled it. Now, they know, they don't really need to Google it.

Waking Up From Free Fall: A Recurring Dream

We also note that you would see the same optimistic trend by searching for the term "free fall" (as in economic, not parachuting). Four months ago the expression littered the papers. Now, not so much, perhaps because Summers has eased up on his "free-fall" rhetoric. Summers has been saying the free-fall is over for months:

• April 3, 2009 (Wall Street Journal) Lawrence Summers talked to the Wall Street Journal about the economy, saying that: "this sense of free fall will give way before too long".

• April 9, 2009 (Reuters) Lawrence Summers told the Economic Club of Washington: "I think the sense of a ball falling off the table -- which is what the economy has felt like since the middle of last fall -- I think we can be reasonably confident that that's going to end within the next few months and you will no longer have that sense of free fall".

• April 19, 2009 (Fox News Sunday) Summers told viewers: "You have a sense of a more mixed picture in terms of consumer spending, and "not the kind of free fall that you saw, in part, because the stimulus that the provided in the recovery and reinvestment act is coming into people's paychecks, and that's putting a little more energy into the--into the consumer."

• April 26, 2009 (Washington Times) Lawrence Summers: "But I think that sense of "unremitting free fall that we had a month or two ago is not present today," he said. "That's something we can take some encouragement from."

• May 16, 2009 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. "economy is no longer in free fall" Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, said today in a pre-recorded video shown at a forum in Shanghai.

• June 12, 2009 (Associated Press) In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Summers said the government had acted as necessary to avoid dire outcomes: "While we still have a long way to go, the sense of free-fall that surrounded any reading of economic statistics a few months ago is no longer present"

Of course some economists argued vehemently that the economy never was in "free fall", but that was back in October, 2008. Summers has long been bullish on the effects the economic stimulus package had on halting the "free fall", although economists point out that the stimulus money is only just now starting to filter in now. Summers didn't dwell too much on the abysmal unemployment rate, a less positive economic indicator, in his speech today. Nevertheless, we think Summer's is pulling his weight trying to bolster consumer confidence.

Your Healthcare Dollars At Work Lobbying Congress to Defeat the Public Option?

Bill Moyers focused on health care last week, interviewing Wendell Potter, who worked as a corporate public relations executive at Humana and Cigna for the last 20 years, then recently retired from what he describes as a lucrative and posh executive position. Potter's one of those clever people who after they retire their position of import and influence, find a way to remain in the spotlight by suddenly seeing all the inequities they helped propagate before retirement.

Potter delivers some timely reminders though, with bonafide authority. For instance, in the 1990'a, the for-profit insurance industry's "medical loss ratio", that is the amount that insurance companies spent on patients, was about 95% of each premium dollar, whereas now it's only 80%. The insurance companies need to keep this percentage shrinking in order to meet investor demands. An efficient way to accomplish this is to kick people of the insurance rolls, and deny claims. What does insurance spend the extra money on? Acquisitions to increase market share? Executive compensation? Perhaps lobbying Congress for more market share?

The Language of Luntz

Moyers shared a healthcare reform communication memo, "The Language of Healthcare" by Frank I. Luntz. Luntz's name may be familiar to anyone who follows the climate change denial business guided by his public relations blueprints, the pro Israel settlements language, or many other GOP policy positions and "science based" rhetoric.

Luntz's healthcare memo presents "poll-based" advice on how to spin a healthcare solution which favors existing stakeholders like insurance while keeping the government out of healthcare. Luntz highlights "words that work" and "words that don't work".

For example, he writes:

"If the dynamic becomes "President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it," then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless."

"One-size-does-NOT-fit-all." The idea that a "committee of Washington bureaucrats" will establish a single standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is an anathema to Americans. According to him, there are a number of ways to attack this:

• Demand the 'protection of the personal doctor-patient relationship';
• Compare the personalized relationship with their doctor to the distant, cold, calculations of a federal medical panel;
• Utilize examples of medical breakthroughs that would be undermined or jeopardized. .."

Or, says Luntz:

"The Democrats plan will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they can actually receive. This is more than just rationing. To most Americans, rationing suggests limits or shortages - for others. But personalizing it - "delaying your tests and denying your treatment" -- is the concept most likely to change the most minds in your favor."

The Luntz document contains 28 pages of explicit wording suggestions that he suggests people should use to persuade people to choose the "right option".

The insurance industry and other health care interests are lobbying hard against a government-sponsored, nonprofit, public health insurance option, and are spending, according to The Washington Post , up to $1.4 million per day to sway Congress in this direction.

President Obama remains upbeat, saying that the administration has made "unprecented progress", and telling Congress, "don't lose heart".

Bisphenol A Rhetoric, Reporting, and Courting Etiquette

Her: Energetic, sparkly eyes, feisty, dedicated to good causes, tenacious, award-winning reporter, not afraid to color outside the lines, plastic interest for the past two years...Him: erudite with a charming accent, young at heart, versatile reporter, enjoys evening sunsets, long walks on the beach, gourmet food, lingering over cappuccino in the morning, handwritten notes...recent plastic interest. Both dedicated to a cause and a mutual interest -- plastic -- bisphenol A (BPA) to be precise. Could Acronym Required be matchmaker? Will amiable dialogue ensue between the two? Or are they doomed by circumstance to animosity?

I got home one day and was kicking back after work, reading mail, when I saw one a message from sender: xxxxxx@journalsentinel.com. It read in total:

"what do you guys know about trevor butterworth?"

a puzzle. a short puzzle.

A message that posed as direct, but was actually vague. Did they want Acronym Required to share some unpublished motherlode of information? Is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's research department strapped for time? Did the newspaper disable all the shift-keys in the computers to conserve resources, forcing people to write in all lower case?

We've been incidentally covering Butterworth's employer Statistical Assessment Service and Center (Stats.org's)** campaigns since 2000-2001. We couldn't have been writing about BPA industry astroturfing here at AR since 2005 without reading their stuff. We also read Butterworth's non-chemical industry journalism all the time -- he's good writer, prolific. But he's not a exactly a mystery, nor are industry tactics concerning BPA and other chemicals, there's A LOT written on these subjects. So why their question?¹

Reaction and Rhetoric

Later that week, perplexing missive forgotten, I was enjoying a sunset, sipping a glass of Carnivale of Love Shiraz, when, perusing my newsfeed, I noticed that I'm not the only recipient of the Journal Sentinel's messages. In response to Stats.org's big report about bisphenol A toxicity being a media conceit, MJS sent Trevor Butterworth at Stats.org a whole series of pointed questions.

Acchhhh...I was hoping for a BPA summer vacation. You can read Stats.org 27,000 word defense of BPA, which we assume they got paid for -- perhaps by the word, or you can read this post, which is about 2,700 words and mentions their large document. (We're not paid per word.)

Here's the journalists' question #1 to Stats and Butterworth:

1. "According to IRS 990 forms, Stats.org received $100,000 in donations in 2007. That same year, the Sarah Scaife Foundation donated $100,000 to Stats.org. Is Stats.org's funding solely from the Sarah Scaife Foundation?"

We know what the paper wants. Like many before them, they think someone paid Butterworth/Stats.org to write the 27,000 word bisphenol A (BPA) article that criticized reporters in general, and Journal Sentinel's journalism in particular, since the Journal Sentinel did the award-winning BPA series.

In their first question, the JS reporters chose to focus on Stats.org funding rather than refute the article's BPA content (the chemical is safe, journalism is biased, etc). They're questioning financial information that probably comes from Stats.org or CMPA's 2007 IRS 990 disclosures, probably the latest year they had access to. Like their note to Acronym Required, the Journal Sentinel's questions were stunningly direct and a little unclear. The reporters' first question is in 3 parts. They ask about Stats.org's 2007 funding in parts 1 and 2, then skip to the present tense in part 3. This type of questioning works well for Stats.org, because they use such gaps to their rhetorical advantage, and rhetoric, not science, is their game.

Stats answered part 3 first: "Stats is not solely funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation". Then, probably to show how "transparent" they are, Stats shared some 2008 funding sources that the newspaper didn't ask about: ...$100,000 from the Stuart Family Foundation, $40,000 from Mr. Paul Mongerson, and $70,000 from the Endocrine Society's Hormone Foundation." Is that all of Stats 2008 sources? Who knows? But Stats.org got to write "Endocrine Society" while handily omitting any mention of 2009 funding, which I assume the paper is most interested in since they focus on it later.

In question 3 the Journal Sentinel asks:

3. "Did you receive funding from any other source while working on this story? In other words, were you contracted to do this? Or did the Scaife funds provide the monetary support you needed to complete your report?"

Here the ambiguity is in the "you". Acronym Required assumes MJS's "you" is the same "you" as in question 1 -- the 'you guys' of Stats and/or Butterworth -- whoever is producing the report saying BPA is safe. But the MJS reporters leave it ambiguous enough for Trevor Butterworth to respond with his own interpretation: "I received no funding from any other source other than Stats." The implied question from the Journal Sentinel was: Who paid Stats.org/Butterworth for the report? Butterworth answers with "I", as in I'm just a contract employee for Stats.org therefore don't really know anything about anything. Slick answer.

State of Play

Butterworth answers all the Journal's questions the same way, wordily, repeatably, with careful rhetorical choices, obfuscation, and utter cordiality.

Is there something to be learned here? Sure. Perhaps that one can storm at organizations like Stats with punches and kicks flying, as many people have, again and again. But verbal aikido is the game, Stats.org's raison d'etre, and the direct assault method has routinely landed others in a heap on the floor.

Mr. Butterworth says he wants to "promote dialogue". Does he mean he wants to continue to pretend there's no science showing BPA toxicity? I don't know. But to note, it's a little strange to say you're just out to "promote dialogue", after you've accused a good portion of the news media (Discover, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, USA Today, etc.), journalists in general, and the public who reads the news -- of sloppy, uninformed, biased thinking.

But Stats.org insists it's all in the name of non-partisan, neutral analysis. To prove it, they point out that they've written for "progressive outlets such as the Huffington Post, Salon, and Mother Jones."

Butterworth didn't mention it, but Wonkette, a blog that's not exactly a mule for the chemical industry, met Butterworth and called him charming. So should future would-be hostile reporters at outlets like the Milwaukee JS cozy up to their quarry a little before firing off such blunt questions? Would a friendlier approach help the public relations involved with getting toxic chemicals out of our babies mouths? (So to speak?) This is what the current administration advocates, more or less.

I'm not criticizing the Journal Sentinel's methods, per se -- it's not like they're wide-eyed naifs writing a blog. That said, Trevor Butterworth's not the huge enemy they'd like to make him...some major BPA kingpin. Yes, he criticized the paper's reports and misrepresents BPA science -- but he's doing a job. His wordy response comes after the danger of BPA and the significant lobbying efforts to obscure that danger for over 20 years have been widely revealed. So Butterworth's basically keeping himself off the troublesome unemployment reports at the behest of someone as a last ditch effort to persuade someone that BPA isn't a problem after consumers aware of the problem? I'm not sure he needs to be "revealed."

Acronym Required previously wrote about Stats in "Yotta-Yotta-Yottabytes: Content Makes Kings, Print Dies", and various other posts on BPA, like here and here. Stats, as we've described before, and as reported here by Sourcewatch, claims to be a "non-partisan" think tank, but they are funded by conservative sources and consistently produce reports that fly in the face of science.

So, of course partly tongue in cheek -- why not try to promote dialogue? Journalists say you're supposed to empathize with your subjects -- (Or is that just long-form journalism?) Anyway, we can gain empathy by scanning Trevor Butterworth's site. You can tell he's a nice guy. Look, at pictures. Really, you think I'm getting paid for this? GO LOOK. Read his stuff while your there. First picture (July 13) -- a sunset over an East Coast port. See, he likes sunsets. Bunny rabbits too, I'm sure. How can you not have empathy for someone who likes sunsets and bunny rabbits? Another picture -- an intimate table, a fancy coffee beverage. There's a book and some notes -- written in long hand! It's like the setting for a romantic, General Foods International Coffee commercial. Awwhhhh....

Third picture -- he stands on a beautiful beach, smiling at the camera. Now I'm actually not sure if he likes long walks on beaches or not, because although he is on the beach, the footprints seem to go around in circles. Potentially useful information though isn't it? Note the glasses tucked into the front of his shirt and the hoodie -- says sophisticated, young at heart. Do you think he likes being addressed in letters from the Milwaukee JS that paint him as a petty thief?

This may be an economic match made in heaven too. If the Journal reporters had gotten the Pulitzer, it would be worth $10,000/2 -- 5K. But Butterworth advertises that he has access to a giant sandy beach, with that view, the terrace, the ambiance, a boat maybe? Everyone needs to earn a living.

Butterworth and Stats.org thrive in a specific political, legal and historical milieu, seemingly untouchable with ordinary reporterly methods of inquiry, but operating in a free market. So friendly dialogue can now ensue....He says his site that his email is butterworthy@...

A Gentleman or a Scoundrel?

The tone of the Journal Sentinel's questions -- reproachful, chiding, incriminating - is outwardly unfriendly -- though perhaps not unexpected, given Stats.org's assault. But moreover -- did it work? If the journalists got what they wanted from their pointed questions, Stats.org is so far the only one talking about it. The paper hasn't said a word, while Stats.org posted the whole exchange on their site. Butterworth wrote a pleasant introductory explanation to readers:

"Given the extent of Stats criticism of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's "Chemical Fallout" series on the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), and that the authors of the series have now contacted Stats to inquire about our motivation and funding for taking on this issue, we have decided that transparency and dialogue are best served by posting our responses to the paper's inquiries. Below is the full text of the responses sent to both reporters."

Not defensive mind you, just explaining their noble mission. Of course readers are left contemplating more than a few ironies, not only Butterworth's proposed quest for "dialogue", but also the illusion that "full text" of the responses means "full truth", or "honest answers".

In the 27,000-word article that Stats.org contracted to Butterworth, industry research takes a prominent place. Acronym Required has previously talked about BPA research and the stark differences between the results of industry research (BPA is safe) versus all the other research which shows risks. The writer criticizes journalists "who instinctively see a conflict of interest in industry-funded anything -- and who become even more suspicious when an industry funded study confirms that something is safe..." Butterworth says that it's easy for "journalism to fall into a formulaic response to a scientific controversy: independent research good; industry-funded research bad".

Acronym Required previously cautioned on reflexively vilifying industry research, but in this case, industry research in BPA has methodology problems that make its results very questionable.

Furthermore, if people have suspicions about industry vis a vis BPA, they are warranted. Acronym Required and others have long documented that chemical, plastics, and toy industries have for years funded misleading consumer advertising on bisphenol A, something that states are now also investigating. But Butterworth tells readers that, the "independent vs industry theme", is the "kind of rhetoric" that "has a distinct appeal for journalists".

Of course despite our opening in this post, we truly can see how such Butterworth rhetoric might reduce hardened Stats.org critics to blurting out non-sequiturs in all lower case.

When Size Doesn't Matter and other Truths

In addition to questions and answers, perhaps some results could gleaned from simple research into Stats.org's ample body of pre-existing work. The Journal Sentinel focused its uber-direct approach on Stats.org's funding, as many others do, but there are plenty of questions waiting to be asked of the decade-old canon.

For instance, look more closely at the statistics and science as presented by Stats.org. Just as they interpret questions for a predetermined rhetorical end, they redefine statistics methodology, and science methodology to suit their ends. In this case they insist that BPA data -- decades of it -- is flawed, and those who see safety concerns are misguided.

For example, Stats.org perverts the meaning of "statistics", using it to describe things like their own recent survey of selected toxicologists, which "found that only nine percent of toxicologists rated BPA as a high risk to health, compared to 26 percent who rated sunlight as a high risk and 29 percent who saw a high health risk in aflatoxin..." This reminds us of Trident Gum's "four out of five dentists" survey 30 years ago -- now familiar fodder for children's lessons.

For one more example, Butterworth asserts that only large size studies which can be funded by industry are valid. Not true. This idea was overturned by the National Toxicology Program in their 2008 report.

These are just two examples. Some of Stats.org's other parries could be easily averted, should the BPA "controversy" turn out not be in its final death throes -- quite likely. For instance Stats.org questions the credentials of frequently quoted Frederick Vom Saal, and in turn, the Journal Sentinel attacks the scientists Stats.org chooses to quote as possibly on someone's payroll. However reporters in the future could reach out to scientists beyond Vom Saal, to primary researchers on hundreds of studies that Stats.org criticizes or dismisses.

The "Rhetorical Advantage"

In indicting BPA journalism by the JS, Butterworth writes, "journalism is all about choosing what to report and who to talk to, and selective sourcing can make the innocent seem guilty and the guilty innocent." And that's something he does know about!

When Butterworth responds to the Journal Sentinel's flinty question about how long he has been interested in BPA, and "why" -- he sounds so innocent that angel halos practically hover over the sentences as he thoughtfully traces his survey back to 2006 of "peer-reviewed", "award-winning" reports, and "toxicologists surveyed" who rate BPA safer than some other things.

And we don't doubt Butterworth's account. But he also has spoken about his long-standing interest in how chemical companies defend their markets, a circumstance that adds texture and interest to his story. He told the publication Chemical Week in 2006 that 'the chemical industry has not been effective in promoting its side of the story', when it comes to "alleged health threats" and "educating the public", because "'the rhetorical advantage is always with the groups claiming to work in defense of the public'". As Chemical Week quoted Butterworth:

'"Companies need to develop a public information policy that is proactive in educating the public and tackling the claims of activist groups in real time. Most of the companies are like a deer in the headlights, and traditional PR is useless in dealing with these problems."'

So then we can't help but wonder for whom he speaks when Butterworth asserts now that the public holds an irrational mistrust of chemical company research, which he paints as ignorant superstition. Is he really speaking the name of science and statistics as he claims? Or are his recent reports simply a 'non-traditional PR' on behalf of chemical companies who are otherwise "deer in the headlights" faced with inconvenient science piling up in disturbing ways on BPA?

If people want to ingest plastic I've no qualms with that, free world and all that. If scientists consider the risks irrelevant, well than that's fine, plastic is handy. But if lobby groups are using rhetoric to keep safer products out of the competition, not only is that not good for our health, it's not good for business.

But by all means keep up the friendly dialogue. When Butterworth retires from this calling there are hundreds of others like him eager to take his place at the table overlooking a view of the sea for some non-traditional PR.

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

**There's actually a company called STATS which is a sports reporting company at stats.com. To avoid confusion, we'll therefore refer to the organization Butterworth contracts for as Stats.org.

¹ A central theme at Acronym Required is to explore problems in science or policy or medicine that are not necessarily best solved by that forceful economic driver, efficiency. We also don't believe that investigative journalism is well served by cutting corners. Given those conditions, we could have easily ignored the question. (As well, we appreciate journalistic etiquette, and think that if simple etiquette is really that challenging one could easily get help -- Microsoft Word's letter template, for starters, has greeting examples.)

In our experience, people on and off-line; in corporate, government and non-profit sectors; students, retirees, and professionals alike -- respond to gentler information gathering. See see paragraph 6.

• China Delays Censorship Software

  The New York Times reports that China will delay their rule requiring all new PCs to come installed with the Green Dam Youth Escort" censoring software that we wrote about earlier this month.

• EPA Grants California Waiver

  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted California the waiver the state has long sought which will allow it to set emissions standards that are stricter that the federal government's. We wrote about this in several posts including "Clean, Clear Air, Nothing To See Here, Drive Through Please".

• Bisphenol A in the NYT and Journalistic Fence-Sitting That Must Hurt

  Yesterday we wrote on Nicholas Kristof's NYT report about disturbing research on endocrine disruptors. We discussed what we called 50-50 science journalism, where you erode your science article by giving credit to the "other side", which could be a global warming denier, for instance, or the chemical lobby.

  Another way newspapers can practice balanced journalism is when a publication like the New York Times or the Economist or LA Times runs conflicting articles to appeal to all paying advertisers. For instance John Tierney's column in the NYT today, written by Tina Kolata, quoted Stats.org to deny the dangers of bisphenol A, an endocrine disruptor. Stats has the opposite (and incorrect) science information, which conflicts with what Kristof wrote yesterday. Thus the NYT gets 50-50 coverage, for all of those science deniers it wants as subscribers.

  Both Stats and Tierney are solidly in the science and environmental deniers camp. We wrote about John Tierney's denialism in "Scientist Columnists Sell You Short". Tierney has long expressed his devotion to bisphenol A -- "if they ever try recalling it, they'll have to pry [my Nalgene bottle] from my cold dead fingers", he wrote last year. Tierney routinely comes out against science.

  Acronym Required previously wrote about Stats in "Yotta-Yotta-Yottabytes: Content Makes Kings, Print Dies", and various posts on bisphenol A. Stats, as reported here by Sourcewatch, claims to be a "non-partisan" think tank, but they are funded by conservative sources and consistently produce reports that fly in the face of science.

• Climate Bill's Mixed Reports

  The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill passed last week by Congress received mixed reports on its predicted effectiveness. The National Resource Defense Fund sent an email screaming euphorically, "Well, we did it! And we did it because millions of people like you made their voices heard on Capitol Hill."

  On the other hand, Clive Crook, who we previously highlighted for his climate denialism, had an opposing opinion. Read his "The Steamrollers of Climate Science", for instance, in which he wrote that the IPCC report on climate change was biased, and what the world needed was some opinions from people affiliated with the Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute, and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) (all funded by ExxonMobil). You'd think from that you'd know where he stood.

  But Crook, climate science denier last time we looked, said yesterday that the President was being too weak on climate change. Accompanied by a cartoon of the president ripping open a Superman t-shirt to reveal a cute little Hello Kitty figure, Crook said:

  "The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralise itself."

  Conservatives argue that the climate bill will negatively effect the economy for a very small pay-off, whereas some environmentalists argue that the cap-and-trade regime proposed will not work, that there a giant loopholes, and that coal gets too much of a boost from the legislation.

  RealClimate, for its part, is taking a break, a little bummed out about the Groundhog Day aspect of the internet, where you explain the science that all the deniers deny, then they pop-up again. How true, though more a game of Whac-A-Mole than Groundhog Day perhaps. Tenacity wins.

  Joseph Romm of Climate Progress weighs in favorably on the bill.

Nicholas Kristof wrote about endocrine disruptors in his column this weekend. He cites some of the evidence for disturbances in sexual development -- "bizarre deformities in water animals" -- and accumulating evidence of the same disturbances occurring in humans.

Acronym Required first wrote about endocrine disruptors back in 2005, with Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC". Hundreds of studies in the past 20 years have documented disturbing effects of endocrine disruptors, which are widely used in industry and agriculture to make the food you eat, the containers you eat out of, and the products that surround you as you sit and read this post. Endocrine disruptors act like hormones to effect physiological actions in species from fishes to humans. Here's some of the evidence Kristof cites from the research literature on different chemicals:

• "Frogs, salamanders and other amphibians began to sprout extra legs."

• "In heavily polluted Lake Apopka, one of the largest lakes in Florida, male alligators developed stunted genitals."

• Researchers found in 2003 that "in the Potomac watershed near Washington, male smallmouth bass have rapidly transformed into "intersex fish" that display female characteristics." Today 80% of these male fish lay eggs.

• Scientists are concerned with "large increases in numbers of genital deformities among newborn boys."

• "7 percent of boys are now born with undescended testicles, although this often self-corrects over time."

• "And up to 1 percent of boys in the United States are now born with hypospadias, in which the urethra exits the penis improperly, such as at the base rather than the tip."

• "DES, a synthetic estrogen given to many pregnant women from the 1930s to the 1970s to prevent miscarriages, caused abnormalities in the children."

• "evidence from both humans and monkeys [suggests] that endometriosis, a gynecological disorder, is linked to exposure to endocrine disruptors."

• "Researchers also suspect that the disruptors can cause early puberty in girls."

"research has also tied endocrine disruptors to obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes, in both animals and humans."

• "mice exposed in utero even to low doses of endocrine disruptors appear normal at first but develop excess abdominal body fat as adults."

• Kristof notes a recent statement from the Endocrine Society. The group of scientists says: "In this first Scientific Statement of The Endocrine Society, we present the evidence that endocrine disruptors have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology."

• Kristof quoted Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network, who said, "'this can influence brain development, sperm counts or susceptibility to cancer, even where the animal at birth seems perfectly normal."'

There's a lot more evidence showing that chemical disruptors produce widespread harm over the environment to produce abnormal reactions. As one John Hopkins scientist told Kristoff: "It's scary, very scary."

But in a completely curious turn, halfway through the article, Kristof capitulates to the winds of "50-50 science journalism". Here's how "50-50 science journalism" works.

1. Accumulate your evidence.
2. Make a strong case for your point, citing the evidence.
3. Then abruptly cripple your whole point, smash it across the knees, by writing a one or two statements for the "other side", thus appeasing some readers and advertisers.

Kristof writes: "The scientific case is still far from proven, as chemical companies emphasize, and the uncertainties for humans are vast." To be fair, Kristof's reference to the "other side" could be considered merely a polite and politic mention. "Vast uncertainty" for humans could mean anything. But even at best this doesn't line up with the rest of his article and all the evidence he cites. What about his lists of studies?

Scientists are "connecting the dots" he writes. I know this may sound trifling but scientists are well into the data. It's only recently that the public is realizing that this problem is real -- a realization that's more substantial, quite un-dot-like. Some journalists are farther behind, but again, the evidence is accumulating at a brisk pace.

My small reservations with his article aside, Kristof often takes on controversial issues, especially in international development, that are easy for the mainstream press to ignore. While coverage of bisphenol A is surprisingly robust, now that states and cities have initiated legislation restricting its use, the larger questions of pervasive chemical use without regulation remain largely ignored. Importantly, this topic has been very easy for federal agencies to ignore. Therefore, it's great to see coverage of endocrine receptors by an influential New York Times journalist who will help inform the public, who will in turn demand that government act more aggressively on chemical oversight.

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

Acronym Required writes frequently on journalism that remains faithful to all sides of science policy issues despite the evidence, for instance Climate Change: Fueling the "Debate", "Science Editors Sell You Short", and Phthalates and Bisphenol A: Media and Politics

• Spies, East and West

  Beijing will recruit 10,000 "internet volunteers" to monitor "harmful" websites and content, according to the city's municipal authority information office, via Financial Times.

  The US too, is expanding a program to recruit spies among first and second generation college students. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the program started as a pilot program, the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program in 2004. Kansas Republican Pat Roberts initiated the program after September 11, 2001 following urging by a University of Kansas anthropology professor. Professor Felix Moos had shopped the program around for years, arguing that the federal government should provide scholarships for people to attend colleges and learn languages, technical skills, culture and anthropology in order to work for the CIA. The Obama administration would keep the identity of the spies-in-training a secret.

  The program has its critics. According to interviews by the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2005, some professors were concerned about the Pat Roberts program and the anonymity of the participants which the government could leverage to essentially spy on professors, as they did during the Cold War. Others argue that the program could instill distrust of all researchers from foreign governments. Still others were concerned about the ethics of mixing spying with academia.

• East is East, Thanks to the West

  In other government spy news, the Wall Street Journal writes that Iran is using technology made by Siemens AG and Nokia Corp. to censor internet communications. The technology allows Iranian authorities to block and filter sites and perform deep packet inspection to monitor individuals and control information. Much of the Iranian system operates through a single node at the Telecommunication Infrastructure Co., part of the government telecom monopoly.

  Iran controls communications any way it can, according to the WSJ, filtering international connections go through a single gateway, blocking users in the country from accessing millions of sites in the last few years, and at times requiring bloggers to obtain licenses from the government.

  Under normal circumstances, all the west's technology helps Iran control the population. And periodically, there are more turbulent times like these, when Iran is "now drilling into what the population is trying to say", Bradley Anstis, director of technical strategy with Marshal8e6 Inc. told the WSJ.....Because if an uprising happens on your dictatorial watch and you don't have the wherewithal to look outside the window, then just -- use Windows?

This We Believe

The world is abuzz about the way Twitter funnels communications out of Iran and for a while even seemed to have tipped the government slightly off balance. We in the west are amazed -- will technology enable Iran to move towards Democracy, people keep asking? At AR we have expressed deep cynicism about this idea in the past. But we also come back to it again and again because it's an irresistibly intoxicating theory and we can't help but fervently seek evidence to prove us wrong.

Technology is addictive to us in the West, we're always after the next coolest thing. Did you get your Plasma TV? Your new iPhone? Yes? Good. Rest assured -- if you feel any twinge of guilt whatsoever -- that standing in line in front of the Mac Store at 7:00AM isn't just some hedonist capitalist folly. It's much more. That slick gizmo which you listen to and speak into and urgently push buttons on is not just some toy, not just better than sex, drugs, Christmas and chemistry all wrapped up in a tiny-shiny irresistible package that fits so nicely in your hand. Your iPhone can change the world. Yes, it can bring peace where there was war, transparency where there was opaqueness, freedom where there were shackles. This we believe. We need technology to be so much more than plastic and tunes and what we ate for lunch today.

Bearing Witness?

But despite our hopes, still, doesn't Iran look like Burma, look like Tiananmen Square? When the fax was the fastest way to get news out of the country no one could stop 2,500 killed and 10,000 wounded in China, students who confronted tanks in peaceful protest and were shot and treaded to death -- an event that's now written out of Chinese history books. In Burma, the regime allowed the monks to march, then brutally put an end to the protests and the filming of the protests. In Iran, news got out via Twitter. A You Tube video showing Neda bleeding in the street shocked and dismayed us deeply and to our core.

But what do we do with this? Believe it enables more freedom, democracy? Or does it make the paranoid more paranoid, the brutal more brutal, the callous more callous, while the rest of us are rendered still just helpless bystanders, onlookers?

Is it progress?

Or is it entertainment?

If you want to imagine horror, you can do something like visit Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Cambodia where the skulls gape out at you haunting "why"? You'll be reminded of the massacre of 12,000-16,000 people 30 years ago. In this place, S-21, you can easily become overwhelmed of the tragedy and scale of evil of "government" power run amok. Time and geography soften the blow, though, standing in the prison, and keep the tragedy at arms length. The Cambodian genocide happened long ago in a very different place. It's history we can barely conceive, but for the man in charge of S21 prison, Kaing Guek Eav, aka Duch, who only now, decades later, stands trial -- defiant and apparently proud of his efficient work.

Does the immediacy of photos from Iran change anything?

In the 1970's many Americans were exposed to little more violence than in Starsky and Hutch, or some other TV show. We saw war footage, but didn't learn of Cambodia's true horror until four years after it commenced. In the 80's and 90's, for entertainment, the reality of a goofy cop show was eclipsed by the more palpable, grittier reality of real cops shows, where the cops actually beat down some guy's door and caught the perpetrators. Today, we flee by these shows via the remote, because we can so easily satisfy whatever real violent drama you hanker for via You Tube. Who needs TV crime drama when you have car crashes on demand? They're there on You Tube. Blood and gore and guns and drugs are there too, for our entertainment 24/7.

So how do we feel when we view murders that happened only yesterday, only last hour, only a minute ago? Does Iran's violence in real time make for a better world? Are we less helpless than we were 30 years ago when we wouldn't learn of government atrocities until years after they happened? Does the instant communication help Iranians? Does "bearing witness" help Iranian people? Or is it technology aided rubbernecking about our needs?

Web 2.0 Life Changing and Everyday

Social media reminds us that the web is more than just a tool. Today we get news about Iran from Iranians Twittering the election uprisings, for instance. Web 2.0 gives us a bottom-up way of organizing that's impossible for businesses and governments to ignore, that often leaves them scrambling to control. While social media can be grandly disruptive; however, it's usually life changing in little, seemingly mundane ways, insidious ways that we learn to live with, but that can be disconcerting.

Weddings are big, noteworthy events. Before your wedding, your best friend from high school RSVPs, as does your college roomate, your in-laws and their bridge cabal, and Surprise!!-- thanks mom -- the family who lived next door when you were in 6th grade. You see your next door neighbor's son bumping on the dancefloor with your mother's arm-flailing sister, and think, wow -- all these people under one tent. They mingle together with ties and elegant dresses and claim disconcerting familiarity with your past as they swap stories and pass commentary about you, the weather, and your dearly beloved.

Facebook is the quotidian, Everyday-Martha-Stewart-now-available-at-Target version of your wedding. Your high school best friend "friends" you, as does the nerdy guy from the band step ("Remember me?"), along with your brother's wife's brother, the college pal you don't remember to well from that night, and the co-worker you'd like to think highly of you.

Sure, you can segregate the various cohorts, but do you have the energy to devote to being more efficient at online networking? Go ahead, post to impress, chat casually about the red wine's dusky cherry, book leather and balsam with tobacco overtones that you're drinking in Paris with your svelte new wife. But you are unforgettably someone else too, because your freshman dorm mate has simultaneously posted something about "old pictures he found and thought would be fun" something about "that time we drank too much Bud Lite and crashed the sorority party."

Technology may indeed be reaching revolutionary potential but everyday technology brings strangers into our lives in an intimate and less heady ways. Everyday technology unpredictably changes how we interface with friends and acquaintances, old and new, dead and alive.

Identity Theft 2.0

The internet can save loads of time and money, on greeting cards for instance, but where will we end up? Perhaps in the faces total strangers thanks to image search technology, and I'm not talking about standing on the doorstep of a colleague in a foreign country.

A US family who posted a family Christmas photo on their blog was surprised to learn that a grocery story in Czechoslavakia had downloaded and enlarged the photogenic foursome, pasting them onto a life-size poster advertising his store's delivery service. Gone was the leafy background of the Salt Lake suburb behind the smiling family on the e-greeting card, swapped out with a supermarket-tacky, yellow, green, and red background; Czech writing; and the American family unwittingly beaming about the grocery to Czech shoppers. The shop owner he would have sent a bottle of wine to the family as an apology, but for the high postage. Děkuji!

In another case misappropriated identity, the LA Times reported on a South Korean man who was surprised to learn that a photo he posted on his internet site had been appropriated by a Tokyo television station, altered, and released as the long sought photo elusive son of Jim Jong II. North Korea likes technology when it produces missiles it seems but not photos, since the only photo of the dictator's apparent heir is decades old.

To emphasize the likeness, the Japanese television station superimposed the dictator's eyes on the sunglasses in the photo the South Korean man had posted on his website. Voilà, suddenly a South Korean construction worker became the son of King Jong II.

Piracy, Censorship and Damn Youth

While your image may be appropriated so might your work. Pirated software and copyright infringement is common on the internet, because with a few clicks one person can make another's work his own, without a printing press, without even buying the book. This happens constantly in the digital world, where it was relatively rare in the analog world. Recently, China announced it was requiring censoring software on all computers sold in China. But confusingly, the software they're imposing may actually be authored by an American company then pirated by a Chinese company to be deployed for the policing effort.

While Iranians Twitter away about the uprising, China has said that the oddly named Green Dam Youth Escort censoring software must be installed on all imported computers. ¹ China, intent on "purifying social civilization" seems determined to implement the rule despite protest from its citizens, American software makers, and the company who claims that "Green Dam" contains its sourcecode.

Solid Oak Software says that the Green Dam source code is pirated from its CYBERsitter software, while the software's contracted author, Chinese company Jinhui Computer Systems, says that the similarities in the software exist because all the software blocks the same pornographic web sites.

While the software may be falsely attributed, it also contains major security flaws according to the University of Michigan Department Department of Computer Science and Engineering. The censoring software may allow any website the user visits to take control of the PC running Green Dam (June 18, 2009).

Theft used to be more physical, someone lifting your wallet, or literally breaking into your physical abode. Now code can be stolen and identity compromised. No glass broken, but internet theft is just as personal, and causes just as much anguish, but is silent and easier and more widespread.

Attribution and Authorship

A less frequent occurrence but also more common with digital media than analog, is false attribution. For instance Google Books has now magnanimously shared authorship of several books written by influential economist, political and developmental economist Albert Hirschman.

Adding a your name to the author field of a book was decidedly more difficult in an analog world. But in the 21st century, If your a dead economist, like Joseph Alois Schumpeter, you might roll over one day and find out that an entity called Google utilized 21st century scanning and internet technology to give you authorship of a new book. It's true that Schumpeter, who died in 1950, posthumously authored "History of Economic Analysis". But he did not co-author "Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action", with Albert Hirschman in 1979. Hirschman is the sole author of the book, a collection of essays based on lectures Hirschman was invited to give in memory of Joseph Schumpeter.

Identities and accomplishments confused, lost, and also gained on via technology, every day. Revolutionary?

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

¹We've discussed ideas about technology and progressive change before, for instance here. Sometimes it seems that technology truly could bring progressive change, and other times it seems the technology will always eventually be wrested away by the most powerful players, be they corporations or states.

During the Cold War, when science still had a certain mysterious allure, Liggett used it to sell Chesterfields: "Science discovered it now you can too...No unpleasant aftertaste". The Chesterfield ad shows a man looking down into a microscope while smoking. Smoke wafts up over his face and the microscope. That was then. Now, a half a century later Congress passed a law that gives the FDA regulatory authority over how tobacco is advertised. Landmark legislation, they call it.

"Executing With Quality"

"Joe Camel has been sentenced and put away forever", say the headlines, quoting Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-ILL). The House and Senate supported H.R. 1256 last week. The bill gives the FDA some regulatory authority over cigarettes, including advertising restrictions and limits on cigarette additives and flavorings. Naturally, some of the bill's targets are disgruntled, but surprisingly, not all of them. RJ Reynolds, maker of Camel cigarettes and the infamous "Joe Camel", calls the bill the "Marlboro Monopoly Act", while Phillip Morris, owner of Marlboro cigarettes supports the FDA regulation -- perhaps because Phillip Morris helped produce it. RJ Reynolds is not the only one to complain. "Pro-business" advocates say the bill legislates a tobacco monopoly that's bad for business.

Are cigarettes done? Or has Joe Camel just lost to the Marlboro Man?

Years ago, Altria recognized the need to step-up public relations as the tobacco lawsuits and public pressure increased. Initially, they just tried to stop regulation, but a different tactic finally worked.

• In a October 1, 1998 memo, Phillip Morris proposed that tobacco was like "guns, alcohol and gambling" -- products where the government '"largely leaves it to consumers to discern the riskiness of the products by themselves"', citing perhaps its true feelings about regulation.
• But the company also saw the looming probability of an FDA role in regulating nicotine and began aggressively inserting itself in legislative efforts. In 1996 Phillip Morris and United States Tobacco proposed legislation but were met with resistance from the White House, on grounds that their offer was weaker than what the president wanted. While proposing legislation, of course, the tobacco giants simultaneously worked through the courts to minimize FDA involvement.
• In 1998, the Phillip Morris again made a bid for legislation and John McCain took on the effort. The resulting bill grew as members of each party piled on amendment after amendment until Phillip Morris wanted nothing to do with the result. So they spent "tens of millions of dollars to kill the legislation".
• In 2001, a year after winning a Supreme Court decision ruling that the FDA doesn't have the authority to regulate tobacco, Phillip Morris took up the effort again, shopping the bill around Congress looking for supporters among representatives with other things on their minds.
• In 2004, in a much noted strange pairing of allies, Altria, the newly branded parent company of Phillip Morris and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids relieved the parties of their opposition and paved the way for co-authoring the current bill..

Altria controls more than 50% of the total tobacco market in the US, that's half of all the cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco products sold. According to the company's 2008 annual report, that's "sixty million adult consumers participating in the total tobacco space in the United States", actually 60.4, up from 60 in 2007.

Those "participants" account for $80 billion dollars in retail sales in 2008, up from $79 billion in 2007. $80 billion dollars a year is turf worth fighting for, even at a time when tobacco use is shifting from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco, and from the US to foreign countries. Certainly Altria doesn't need US shareholders complaining about third world exploitation like they did with sneaker factories in the 1990's.

"Gee Dad, You Always Get The Best of Everything, Even Marlboro"

That's what a small boy says to his father in a Phillip Morris billboard ad in 1951", and it wasn't even Father's Day. RJ Reynolds used the authority of doctors: ""More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." And as we mentioned before, 1951 Liggett's Chesterfield brand used science.

Now it's different, they say. In passing the bill, members of the Senate and Congress aim to prevent dishonest advertising and prevent kids from taking up smoking. The legislation has been in the works for decades, but has finally been passed as tobacco's clout is ebbing in the US -- the political climate is right, as they say.

But it's not clear what effects the legislation will have. For instance in an effort to curb misbranding and counterfeit products, the bill says that a product will be labeled "misbranded", if it fails to contain for instance, "adequate warnings against use by children" -- in instances where the FDA requires one. But wouldn't an "adequate warning" that was "adequate" mean that the children wouldn't buy cigarettes at all?

"Altria" for Altruistic

Altria says in its annual report: "Kids should not use any tobacco products". It's difficult to tell when Altria means what it says, and when its rhetoric is purely public relations. At its shareholder meeting Altria noted that it strives to implement four core strategies with

"five core values guiding our behavior. These values are integrity, trust and respect; passion to succeed; executing with quality; driving creativity into everything we do; and sharing with others."

Compliance is "top-of-the-mind" to all employees and leaders and "one important tool that does that is the Altria Code of Conduct". In addition Altria has "built a Library of Principles and Policies that supports our compliance efforts."

Is it far fetched speculation to think that perhaps Altria, with an eye to evolving public pressure, a burgeoning international market, and increasing profit from tobacco products that aren't cigarettes, supports the bill because it makes the company look good while solidifying it's market. Although the cigarette industry volume has declined about 4% per year, much of the decline has been offset by growth of approximately 7% in smokeless tobacco and 4% in cigar volumes." The bill could make it more difficult for new entrants to compete with Altria's companies.

In addition to its tobacco products, Altria has alcohol interests in Miller and St. Michel Winery. While diversifying to more societally acceptable drugs, however, the company can rest assured that its tobacco business will flourish. In addition to restricting market entry of new products, the new bill also gives the FDA authority to regulate counterfeit products, which has moved some investors to list Altria's stock as a "Buy Now".

As for regulation, crafty companies have proven themselves not only good at controlling their congressional representatives but adept at outwitting the FDA. Regulation enacted is only as good as enforcement. The FDA regulation could be the beginning of more regulation and an end to the deadly scourge -- new scrutiny is now being called for in the marketing of menthol cigarettes. Or it could mean more work for the FDA pursuing counterfeit tobacco -- for health, but as well for the cigarette industry.

In the meantime, there's always more suspense. The new rule may well be challenged as opponents say that a rule like keeping advertising outside of 1000 square feet of schools limits free speech.

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

This morning my "non-science" reading included Paul Helmke's observation a few days ago that Obama habitually says he's "deeply saddened" when gun brandishing people kill citizens, but has yet to move beyond condolences.

After a gunman in Oakland, California shot and killed four policemen, Obama said:

"I was deeply saddened to learn of the tragic loss of Sgt. Mark Dunakin, Officer John Hege, Sgt. Ervin Romans, and Sgt. Daniel Sakai. Michelle and I hold their families and your community in our thoughts and prayers."

After a gunman killed 13 people in Binghamton, NY, Obama said:

"Michelle and I were shocked and deeply saddened to learn about the act of senseless violence in Binghamton, NY today..."

After a US soldier killed 5 US soldiers at Camp Victory in Iraq, Obama said:

"I was shocked and deeply saddened to hear the news from Camp Victory this morning..."

After a gunman killed one soldier and wounded another in Little Rock, AR, the president released a statement:

"I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers...."

Then today, following the killing of a guard White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama was of course "saddened" to hear of the Holocaust Museum shooting.

College Roomate Questionaire -- Please Check The Appropriate Boxes: Are You a Vegetarian? A Smoker? A Concealed Gun Carrier?

The US has long accepted criminal on criminal killing, but now guns are moving into more and more areas like parks and classrooms. The US government is doing little to stop it. Microsoft Encarta advises that "Choosing a college roommate is like a game of Roomie Roulette". Indeed. Despite the spate of college gun violence, including the 32 people killed at Virgina Tech, neither the US government or the states are dedicated to preventing people from getting guns and using them to kill.

Following the Virgina Tech tragedy, not only did Virginia vote down a law that would make it more difficult for potentially deranged people to buy guns, other states also started easing gun restrictions. Last month the Texas Senate approved a law that would allow students to carry concealed weapons on campuses. Recently the Senate passed a law making it legal to carry guns in National Parks.

Helmke noted that although Obama is very busy, he's been unwilling to forge ahead with new rulemaking but instead repeats "gun lobby rhetoric that we should just "enforce the laws on the books"'. Helmke say that Obama is "sidestepping the fact that there are only a handful of Federal laws which make it harder for dangerous people to get guns."

Gun Lobby Rhetoric

As gun violence becomes routine and Obama becomes saddened, the gun lobby uses each and every sad episode as a marketing opportunity. Following a shooting the gun lobby doesn't even pause for the funerals before regaling us with stories of how innocent people were killed because they didn't have a chance to protect themselves by carrying a weapon.

So when the congregation was kneeling down murmuring, "Our Father, who art in Heaven...", the NRA scenario would have five parishioners spring up from their prayers, reveal their concealed weapons and shoot through the shoulder to shoulder church-goers praying in the pews thus saving the abortion doctor. You see?

Are you a woman who wants to feel safe riding her bike? Carry a gun, so that when your doing 20mph on the bike path and a criminal jumps out of the bushes, you can whip the gun out of your pannier and stop 'em in your/their tracks. Are you a frail senior citizen afraid of purse snatchers? http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/04/road-rage-among-seni.html">Carry a little gun in that purse and criminals will know better than to target you. A teacher afraid of school violence? Carry a gun and if a wayward student threatens math class violence lift up your shirt and show class whose boss.

Despite the perception propagated by hundreds of blog commenters across the US, all who have a friend who stopped a potential mass murder by a crazed gunman by carrying a concealed weapon, it's a real simple equation: More guns in a dog eat dog half crazed world, equals more deaths from guns. Europe and Canada have crazy people too, but a fraction of US gun homicides.

Arms Control Starts At Home

On the positive side for some people, more guns also equals more NRA subscriptions which means more lobbying dollars to politicians, which means more guns and -- oh wait -- more deaths....no that's ok -- which means more guns, etc.

Some of the most steadfast orators for gun control in the legislature buckle under the pressure. When Congress passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 (H.R.627), Senator Boxer said "Congress has taken historic action to protect consumers". She of course omitted to mention the concession to allow concealed weapons in national parks and monuments (and of course omitted mention that Congress refused to imposing an interest rate cap). For anyone who doesn't wrack up credit card debt but likes to walk in nature this is not "consumer protection". But Boxer said she had voted with her "conscience", and that she if she didn't bow to NRA pressure nothing would get done in the legislature. Now that's sad.

As Goes America...

Now I will argue that the US government's inability to stand up to the gun lobby effects not only American citizens but international relations as well. Senator Boxer recently commended the choice of California Representative Tauscher to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, saying Tauscher was a "constant advocate for stopping the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons across the globe." (Notice she omitted mention of arms manufacturers -- but lets talk about it.)

US arms manufacturers have demonstrated for decades an excellent business model that just happens to result in global weapons proliferation. The US doesn't expect anything less of a business model from allies like France, but acts surprised when countries that give us the jitters like North Korea try to muster their economic independence by advertising their own special brand of missile development progress. North Korea has gone down this paht, dramatically marketing their missiles to rogue buyers across the world, while the US stands by flexing weakly.

Likewise, if we can't control our own gun manufacturers and their lobbyists, who at the end of the day, encourage rogue American citizens to buy guns for the purpose of shooting innocent people, how is the US proposing to urge the world to disarm? If some of the finest rhetoricians in the world can't beat the gun lobby's rhetoricians when they insist that more guns will make citizens safer, as Democrats stand by while the gun lobby successfully convinces half the US population that the Second Amendment protects automatic weapon buying at gun shows, how will those fine orators disengage belligerent leaders from their weapons of choice, be those conventional, nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons? How?

How Will They Deal?

The Holocaust Museum shooter published racist vitriol and hate speech on the internet. Some would implement a policy to monitor such speech. But he started the pattern of threatening federal officials with weapons decades ago, before the internet. Some would argue for a better database to track such potential criminals. But we have that technology and it isn't working. Some would say people who shoot people with guns would otherwise use other lethal weapons, knives for instance. A knife is not a automatic machine gun, thank you.

Some would say anything to get us to buy their product -- their cigarettes, their oil, their guns.

Where's the logic? For this state of affairs, US gun violence and weapons proliferation demands both moving rhetoric and conscientious objection to both the arms and gun lobbies. If you want to climb a tree at 4AM on a November day with a pot to pee in and wait for a deer to wander through your neck of the woods, well that's your choice. But gun violence demands federal legislation that makes in tougher, not easier, to purchase the weapons used for homicides.

Recently Chicago and Connecticut enacted bans on bisphenol A (BPA), hinting at a trend that's making industry nervous. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week, and Washington Post today, manufacturers of cans containing bisphenol A and their customers like Coca-Cola are "trying to devise a public relations and lobbying strategy to block government bans" of the chemical. To anyone who has followed bisphenol A news or is at all news-aware, this isn't a news flash. But several papers got a hold of some meeting notes from a industry strategy session, which point to familiar tactics the industry has been using to frustrate legislative action on BPA. As the WP wrote:

"industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA. The notes said the executives are particularly concerned about the views of young mothers, who often make purchasing decisions for households and who are most likely to be focused on health concerns."

According to the Post, the meeting a Washington DC's Cosmos Club discussed their public relations goals: research, "legislative and grassroots outreach [to mothers 21-35 years old and students]", and a "clear-cut plan to defend their industry." They needed a spokesperson for their cause, and wrote in the notes obtained by the newspapers that a pregnant woman would be "the Holy Grail".

According to the Post, ideas for defending the BPA industry could include "using fear tactics [e.g. Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?]", as well as "giving control back to customers", by explaining their "choice": more expensive frozen food packaging, or food in canned packaging.

According to the Journal Sentinal, the group worried that finding a scientist to act as a spokesman would be difficult because the scientists think they would be "tainted" by industry association. Really? (Do we think industry is being modest about their ability to recruit scientists to their causes?) In that case, the papers conclude, the industry would need to depend on marketing, not science, to get push their product. Not really the motherlode of insight, but interesting enough commentary on the BPA industry's remarkable consistency.

Sunstein Confirmation Hearing

Before Chief Justice John Roberts stood before the Senate committee as a witness to his own qualifications for Chief Justice, Cass Sunstein opined on NPR and in several editorials about what sort of Supreme Court judge Roberts would be. Sunstein wrote in the Washington Post: "In recent weeks countless people have pored over his voluminous writings, but they have learned relatively little."

When Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asked Roberts if he had read any of Cass Sunstein's books, future Chief Justice offered a quick reply: "I didn't have a chance to read Professor Sunstein's book....He writes a different one every week. It's hard to keep up with him."

Of course these were just quips, the two legal scholars are of course familiar with each others work, but very judiciously portray that familiarity publicly. Sunstein said on behalf of the future Supreme Court Justice, that Roberts would be conservative but rule narrowly and not overreach. Sunstein wrote a book on the Supreme Court, arguing that for the court, a minimalist approach was better than fundamentalist one, which merely served a radical right agenda. Sunstein said over and again that Roberts was a minimalist. ¹

Despite what Sunstein said about the volume of Roberts' record, most people expressed angst about Roberts' lack of published record, not its prolific volume. To those worried about Roberts' seemingly conservative views based on that writing, Sunstein provided considerable verbal and written reassurance. He advised analysts, journalists and Congress that to understand Roberts, they would have to listen to his confirmation testimony, not read any of the documents he wrote for the Reagan administration.

To Hatch's hearing question, Roberts explained modestly that he was "a modest judge". Liberals hoped for the best, hoped that "modest" meant minimalist. Naturally they were later disappointed when Roberts hewed to the Bush administration agenda. Sunstein's reassurances about Roberts didn't really pan out as liberals had hoped. Harry Reid (D) went so far as to claim recently (incredibly lamely, since in his position he should have been well aware of this while it was happening) that Justice Roberts had "lied" to the Senators.

Despite some public distancing, Sunstein and Roberts have more similarities then they might acknowledge. They both admired and worked for Reagan, they both claimed to be minimalists who approached their jobs as pragmatically and who worked strictly under direction. And they both thoroughly confused analysts of their previous writings by claiming their written work didn't reflect their current inclinations.

A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds

If you write nothing, no one will know what you think. This is ok, but its much better to give the chattering classes something to latch on to. If your writings are voluminous, everyone will be left as confused as if they're nonexistent. So if you can predict ahead of time how ambitious you may become for public appointment in the future, you can strategize what you write, for whom, when. When you're in the company of liberal, you can say things that might appeal to liberals, and when you are in the company of conservatives, say things that would appeal to conservatives.

Crumbs for all sides, in essence leave no trace. Obviously, this might not even be strategy but an inadvertent response to scholarly immersion, changed personal politics, and professional enticements. One might mature over time, become more liberal or less, either because one gains wisdom, or because events influence one's thinking. One might take a lucrative position for Exxon-Mobil or CEI, in order to afford a nicer place or a better lifestyle. Or, perhaps one's political inclinations would change simply because as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, because "[a] foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

When President Obama nominated Cass Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), people started reading Sunstein's voluminous writings and many books. The blog for his book "Nudge" announced Sunstein's nomination and linked to some "chatter" about the appointment.

Blogs of varying liberal slants quoted from his book "The Second Bill of Rights", while more conservative blogs quotes from his writings for free-market organizations like Cato. No matter what you think you can pick and choose among his writing to find a supporting or opposing idea.

The American Prospect blog wrote that the appointment was "a bit low on the totem pole for Sunstein", that Obama was trying to relive the "New Deal", and finally: "Bonus Sunstein Fact: He's married to foreign policy expert Samantha Power" -- as if his marriage merited a liberal stamp of approval -- magic Power dust.

The blog Maine Hunting Today wrote that Sunstein was a "Radical Rights Activist", based on one book he edited, which they seem to think predicted starvation for hunters. On the other hand, Sunstein's work on behalf of Exxon Mobil about juries' tendencies to overcompensate victims of corporate malfeasance was used by the Supreme Court in a case to rule in favor of Navy training that would further endanger whales, an end result that reflects a position that Sunstein has often written about and seems to agree with.

Sunstein's proposal in the book "Republic.com" that the internet was gymnasium of polarization and that among other things, websites should be forced to crosslink to politically opposed sites (something he later recanted) worried The Ayn Rand Center for Individual rights. The libertarian organization wrote wrote: "Welcome to the mind of a regulator: I will decide what's best for individuals. If I think conservatives don't read enough liberal articles, I'll devise some clever way to make them." The Wall Street Journal's piece "A Regulator With Promise - Really", said the opposite, noting in a recent editorial co-authored by Sunstein "argued that better disclosure, combined with technology, would be more effective than playing "regulatory whack-a-mole" with unpopular industry practices."

WSJ continued about Sunstein's idea of "availability cascades", noting that "It's also a useful concept for resisting political fads -- killer apples with Alar, silicone breast implants causing cancer, oceans rising to swallow Florida from global warning -- that can impose huge economic costs when not challenged." Notice the hyperbole, and the mix of the ill-fated alar controversy, with real threats proven by science, like global warming.

No matter what their political proclivities, organizations and individuals at every end and the middle of the political spectrum will claim Sunstein as either an ally or an enemy, apparently with equal ease and zeal. Cost benefit analysis will impede important environmental regulation, as it has in the past, say some people. Others hail 'Sunstein's unique more humanist take' on cost benefit analysis as superlatively sane.

The confirmation committee should have lots of questions -- I can't get through a page of any one of Sunstein's writings without at least ten -- all the better to fool me, I sometimes believe. And how will the nominee testify before the Senate? Probably just as smartly as he has crafted his reputation. The Senate hearing can be viewed by linking from here, and as I write, Chairman Joe Lieberman (CT) fawns over Sunstein in an introduction convening the committee.

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

¹"Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America"

"Repetition, Commentary and Froth"

Wednesday's Senate hearing on "The Future of Journalism" had its tensions. Arianna Huffington told the subcommittee headed by John Kerry that citizen journalism is a powerful tool, and that we're in the "Golden Age for news consumers." Huffington said that when she heard people from traditional media "describing news aggregators" as "parasites", it reminded her of the now-suffering Detroit Auto Industry selling gas-guzzling cars in the 1990's.

David Simon used a car analogy also, when he testified that the Baltimore Sun was making 37% profit 15 years ago and cutting the newsroom with all the foresight of the auto industry "manufacturing Chevy Vegas and Pacers and Gremlins without the slightest worry that mediocrity would be challenged by better-made cars from Germany or Japan." He said that "the very phrase 'citizen journalist' strikes my ear as Orwellian". Since "citizen-journalists" don't generally cover city hall and the police beats, he says, they add no more value to journalism than a citizen with a hose and "good intentions" contributes to firefighting.

"High-end journalism is dying in America", Simon said, new media is "the parasite slowly killing the host". The former journalist told the subcommittee that blogs "contribute little more than repetition, commentary and froth". This endeared him to Huffington and attendee Marissa Mayer, Vice President of Google, I'm sure, not to mention the wider blogosphere.

The More O than I World

John Kerry suggested that he really liked doing "round tables" (as if with a period after "round"), in an attempt to try and get panel attendees to talk among themselves. "Ask a question", then "rebut and come back", he encouraged. This format might deepen the discussion, he said, certainly the participants weren't so restrained when talking to each other. But the invitees stuck with their monologues and talking points, and only answered questions from the subcommittee members. Both "new media" and "traditional media" deftly avoided the more probing questions from the subcommittee regarding issues like the fraction of "news" to "opinion", ad revenue allocation between aggregators versus news generators, and level of investment dedicated to covering local and investigative news.

Away from the intent, neck-tied questioning of the Senators, however, all the bloggers and papers do have more to say, as Kerry indicated. Gawker's vituperative headline the next morning read "David Simon: Dead-Wrong Dinosaur". If he looked at the Gawker sit, Simon would probably have rolled his eyes then rested his case, since other Gawker headlines read, "Cow's Bid for Freedom Succeeds", "The Sexualization of Spock", "Obama Orders Burger With Elitist European Condiment", and "Joe the Plumber Is an Independent Douchebag".

But Gawker speaks for much of online media and its derision for traditional journalism, if more bluntly. Oft quoted -- more O than I -- Dave Winer, who harbors no love for old school journalism, managed to scrape together some admiration for Sy Hersh, but then suggests that Hersh isn't a journalist at all: "Isn't academia the place for a person like Hersh? Isn't that what we want our tenured faculty to be doing -- digging for the truth, no matter where it leads or who is offended? That's what academic freedom is all about." I guess every idea is interesting when there's no solution on the table.

New journalism believes that the traditions and expertise of old journalism has no place in the democratic online world. Ironically, David Simon's camera in The Wire tells the story from the view of the cops and the drugdealers with equal empathy, while online media with its citizen journalists argues that this is its superior advantage, an idealized new democratic journalism which gives everyone a say -- drugdealers, cops, judges and addicts. They can all blog right? Why should some points of view be weeded out? Who needs editors? Why should publishers judge what's news, package it up in a neat bundle as they see fit, the pez dispenser of information? The on-line advertising model emphasizes quantity though. So Huffington Post encouraged laid-off workers to blog (for free) the recession -- more quantity, more money.

Models To Generate Breadlines

Except for Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), much of the panel 'loved the internet, don't get me wrong', but waxed most nostalgic about the good 'ole days of journalism. Cantwell seemed most in tune with online media, probably because she used to work for RealNetworks, a background most panel members don't have. The subcommittee echoed what many people see as the benefits of traditonal journalism -- local news that covers city halls, police officers, and courts, plus some long form journalism. People anonymously wanted all that -- but online, edited, and free.

To that end the Senate seemed to think the two sides should collaborate. How about deals between the old and the new -- for instance Amazon's Kindle and newspapers, like what the Huffington Post has done? James Moroney of the Dallas Morning News practically spat out his opinion of that deal:

"they want 70 percent of the subscriptions revenue. I get 30 percent, they get 70 percent. On top of that they have said we get the right to republish your intellectual property to any portable device....I get 30 percent and they get the right to license my content to any portable device--not just ones made by Amazon? That, to me, is not a model... Kindles are less than 1 percent penetration in the U.S. market. They're not a platform that's going to save newspapers in the near term."

Moroney is intent on "saving" newspapers. Mayer and Huffington are happy with the current model -- the more news becomes fractured, the stronger the business proposition is for aggregation. Of course common goals between online and traditional journalism exist. Both reference the auto industry's decline, and all sides, when pressed by the panel, say journalism is important. But everyone has a business to protect and everyone is challenged by the fractures within not only of news but advertising and audiences. The newspapers are vying with online media for an limited ad revenue pie, and this happens to be the prevailing profit model.

If you're competing for "eyeballs", as online businesses do you'll trend towards short content pieces a company will be happy to place advertisements on. Then the user will click, and see another ad, click and see an ad -- click, click, click,-- the shorter attention span the better. 2000 words may be fine, 1000 is better, but can you get it down under 200 characters -- 140? Readers don't have the patience for a 10,000 word article that extends the entire webpage, or 13 pages. Companies will not pay to advertise next to an article that criticizes anything that drives their business, including the public official that they're trying to win over. Try to earn online ad revenue if your content doesn't tie to a product. Page views are greatest when your subject is the gaudiest "news" sensation of the day, the nugget that appeals to the lowest common public denominator. If you're blogging about food or decorating or nifty gadgets to buy, great, if you're writing about public health, forget it.

Bloggers have long said that they're product is better than newspapers. And it is. Newspapers have consistently slid towards shorter sensational news that subjugated news to advertising. Online media does this way better than newspapers, fewer characters, faster, with ever higher output to input ratio. Simple and profitable. But one this is hardly the type of news that analyzes, supports or deepens democracy.

I agree that this is a golden age of news for consumers -- sort of. There's plenty of great online news -- but what really gets read by the most people? You can find anything you want, explore all sides of the issue, and investigate anything -- for which something has already been written (significant caveat). But how much longer will people keep writing for free, and what kind of interview access will they have (not much), and what happens when there are no more newspaper archives to sift through, or when a corporation sends the takedown notice? How quickly will censorship quell the internet, and if newspaper-like entities are all but gone -- then what? Turn to HuffPo's ten full-time reporters strong non-profit investigative news unit?

Future Looks Bright -- ?

Simon alone highlighted the role of "big-business" journalism's decline. He said that media owners began shrinking newsrooms when profits were very high and that non-local owners chose to realize profits rather than putting earnings back into the newrooms. He suggested a non-profit model and suggested that charging could work for newspapers. People pay for cable he said, because the content is better than free TV. I would debate this -- free TV used to be better and most cable content is still mostly awful -- but true, people pay.

On the future of journalism, the aggregators, who like the news as a burgeoning hodgepodge accessible only with search or aggregator selection, have a business reason for antipathy, but the ever so desperate newspapers weren't particularly forthcoming with ideas for a new model either. The newspapermen suggested "limited relaxation" of some of the anti-trust laws would allow newspapers to cooperate and discuss pricing that would collectively help their businesses. This seemed to get interest from legislators. But both Huffington and Google VP Marissa Mayer said that internet aggregation was not to blame for sinking paper profits and online media is still an evolving model (hinting that someday newspapers might see some return...) Needless to say, motions to relax anti-trust drew criticism from the online businesses, and would naturally raise questions with anyone about what "limited" meant.

Journalists are also sometimes surprisingly at sea when asked about the future of journalism. At a recent meeting for investigative journalism one Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist suggested that young journalists should turn to organizations like Amnesty International to do in depth reporting. No one could answer the next obvious question: who would buy the journalism "sponsored by Amnesty International"? Other esteemed journalists agreed that a new model was something for the next generation to worry about.

Obviously the industry is in flux. Alberto Ibarquen of the Knight Foundation told the Senate subcommittee that this resembled the time between the development of the Gutenberg Press and the enlightenment. Like then, he said, we were in a time of creativity and "experimentation", where you couldn't predict the future. His assessment is familiar, since others, including Clay Shirky, have proposed the same thing.

If this is the revolution, as they say, it's entirely unclear what the future model will look like, a prospect that unnerves some in newspapers and media. However, bloggers, Rupert Murdoch, HuffPost, Google, and Ibarquen whose organization funds creative journalism experiments, will get on with it. As Obama said, in his encouraging talk to the White House Correspondents Association dinner: "A government without newspapers, a government without a tough and vibrant media of all sorts is not an option for the United States of America"

Demerits to Elsevier

Merck joined with Elsevier to publish several issues of a "fake" journal of bone disease and physiology, called the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine back in 2003-2004. The journal placed advertisements for Fosamax and Vioxx, two Merck products, among reprints from journals such as Lancet, and opinion pieces waxing about medical conditions that might benefit from Merck's products. Not only is this last week's news, no, six years ago news, but it's news neither shocking or revelatory in the worlds of pharmaceutical marketing and science publishing.

Looking at the PDFs of a couple of AJBJM journals -- here, and here, I can't say I would confuse this publication with a "real" medical journal, although I'm not so silly to think that some people I know wouldn't, probably the same ones who thought an newspaper editorial on MRSA was "new research". But for a semi-observant reader, what introduction to a medical journal from the Associate Editor, laid out apposing the list of "Honorary Editorial Board" members, reads like this?

"Hopefully, the recent call by the US Preventive Services Task Force for routine screening for women aged 65 and older will help promote the local Australian lobby on osteoporosis initiatives. Among other things on the lobbyists' agenda are a wider availability of Medicare Benefits Schedule rebates on bone densitometry items and drugs under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme."

If you were a doctor (to whom the journal was targeted), would you confuse recycled content and a mission statement about the promotion of "lobbyists' agenda" as typical medical journal intro? Clearly this was little more than an advertising circular. But shame on you Elsevier, you fine, upstanding company. How could you?

Sullying Science

You'll erode your brand! Erode science! So some say. Really? Which brand? In addition to it's other products, Elsevier publishes about 1,900 books and about 2,000 journals a year -- anything from Neuron, to Annals of Tourism Research to Pump Industry Analyst. Elsevier is a publishing powerhouse, and I'm sure other content from those 2000 journals would crumple under close scrutiny, if people looked more than once every six years.

And Merck -- "Where Patients Come First"? How could you? Our patience is strained. Really, this incident -- which Elsevier amusingly defended by noting it happened long ago when different standards held for journalism -- is neither unusual nor unprecedented behavior.

"Real" medical journals are also pressured if not beholden or subservient to pharmaceutical advertising, as we wrote a few years ago in "Just The Facts....mmm....No! Not THOSE Facts : Science Reporting in Medical Journals". In addition to advertising which influences the outcome of medical journals, pharmaceutical money is used to influence scientific, as excellently documented by the New York Times over the past couple of years for psychology research.

Nor did Merck exactly break new ground by publishing it's own little research vanity mag. A couple of years ago Acronym Required wrote about the company Science International Inc.,which the US government contracted to evaluate chemical risks to infants and children for the NIH Department of Toxicology. SII clients also included Dupont, W.R. Grace, and Exxon Mobil, and the company published its own research in it's own journal called Risk Analysis.

Talking about the fake "Australasian" journal this won't make all the non-allopathic practitioners come crawling out of the woodwork, as some have warned, this isn't a first. Nor does this prove that the non-profit publishing model is the answer, as some have also suggested. There exists myriad ways for ways for pharmaceutical companies to surreptitiously sell their products and advocate policies that benefit them, and non-profit is by no means immune to such manipulation. No the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine is only the tip of the iceberg.

Pandemic Pandemonium?

From the most mundane event to the greatest crisis, rumors get mixed up with facts. Science events are more complicated than other events, thus swine flu pandemics are more confusing to sort out than, say "two men argued on the corner". Proteins, RNA, viruses, human patients, birds, pigs, nations, doctors, hospitals, and of course media and politicians mix it up. Welcome the smorgasbord of facts, half-truths, rumors, and lies, all served up with mixed intentions as news.

Although there are those politicians who truly want to blame a virus on immigration, fortunately most communications to not stem from ill-intentioned motives. However that's not to say they don't often end up muddled, despite good intentions. The great response of much of the world political leadership to the recent H1N1 shows how communication and management remain can be as challenging to emergency response as science.

Perhaps pandemics are too big not to be confusing. As Mexico reports that H1N1 outbreak is perhaps easing, the first New York school struck with an outbreak of the virus announces it will reopen, schools are closing down in Maryland, Arizona, New York, California, Texas, and Illinois. In Mexico schools are closed until May 6th. What to make of it?

Pandemic Proving Ground

As days go by the public feels more at ease, since more than 1000 cases of swine flu have been verified worldwide and most of those people seem still alive. Still, there is a pandemic on, and forthright people admit that the outcomes of a contagious, fast changing, undefined virus are impossible to predict. Perhaps there will be a second wave, history teaches us. Unfortunately, such caution doesn't slow the pen of onlookers who feel compelled to say something, as well as energized to criticize public officials trying to orchestrate the appropriate response.

The critics flay on all fronts. Officials got out ahead of the current H1N1 pandemic early, but not early enough some accuse. But get out ahead too early, have the virus turn out to be a mild flu, and people accuse the officials of over-reacting -- many news outlets are up to just that. One New York Times columnist raked Joe Biden over the coals for saying he told family members to stay away from confined spaces. Gail Collins noted sagely: "semihysteria is the easy political path" and provided reasoning beyond cliched characterizations of cool Obama and hothead Biden, fact-like based reasoning such as:

"One recent survey of 1,039 physicians showed that 63 percent believed "that there is some level of risk that the swine flu will result in a worldwide catastrophic pandemic...The real key to the physicians' response is the phrase 'some level.' If you interview a scientist about almost anything, they will tell you there is some level of risk. A while back, I talked to a prominent physicist who carefully explained that although the odds against all the oxygen molecules suddenly racing over to clump on one side of the room were really, really, really high, it could happen. And that if it did, it would be most unpleasant."

Cheekily humorous, to compare the risk of the current swine epidemic with the risk of something more fantastic even than the Cern collider sucking earth into a parallel universe. But "risk" is not "risk", and the two risks are not the same. We truly don't know what the risk of viral pandemics are, especially at the beginning of an epidemic. As each day passes the ensuing outbreaks and emerging science -- like sequence data that can be used to compare the virulence of this virus with others -- make the picture clearer. But pandemic history warns us not to be too cocky.

The CDC advises the public to "follow public health advice regarding school closures, avoiding crowds and other social distancing measures", and Obama himself advised schools with sick pupils to close to be "as safe as possible".

Some adult commenters would diss attempts at public health precautions as quickly as they'd laugh at the high schooler who complains that school officials were 'totally overeacting', although "...us older kids can deal without seeing our friends, we have FaceBook and Twitter and such". But what happens to public trust when various politicians, officials, and columnists pronounce these cautionary messages "reactionary"? We know what happens -- citizens guffaw the next time officials warn us, and people hunker down before the storm and tell the press belligerently that this hurricane will be no worse than all the others they were warned of.

Does anyone really think the Obama administration (Biden included) isn't acutely aware that over-precautionary social distancing would further exacerbate the dire economic situation? Prudent caution has a tremendous economic cost -- do people think Obama et al. became numb overnight to economic costs?

Pandemic Nationalism

If nations struggle to mount a unified response to a pandemic, the world too, has had a less than a coordinated front in the current outbreak of H1N1. Nation states will never truly get over themselves (nor should they), and if globalization didn't prove that pandemics will. So while the all nations make pronouncements about working together, the US warned tourists off of Mexico and Europe warned tourists off of the US. The US said that such a travel warning is unnecessary. France curtailed flights to Mexico. India warned travelers against going to New Zealand, Spain, Mexico, US, Canada, France and UK, and will be screening travelers from infected countries and China is sequestering Mexican travelers somewhere in Hong Kong. Europe wants the flu to be called the "North American Flu", but some commentators would rather it be called "Mexican Flu". Mexico says the swine flu might will have originated in the US.

Just as we've seen a swine flu before, this response to flu is also familiar. According to a 2005 book: "The name Spanish flu came not from major outbreaks in Spain, but from high mortality among troops in France that for intelligence reasons were attributed to Spanish origins. The highest mortality from the disease occurred after the arrival of American troops in France." In a fact that was lost on most historians, "...General Erich Ludendorff, the Imperial German Army Chief of Staff, concluded that it was the virus, not the fresh troops, that ended the World War."

Adding to the confusion about who started what, mass communication facilitates faulty data transmission that helps confuse the public when caution mixes up with harmful actions on the part of officials. As Acronym Required wrote back in 2005 about the H5N1 avian flu, customs in various countries deals with these pandemics in what is truly alarming over-reaction. For instance now in Bulgaria officers are "checking the luggage of passengers arriving from Mexico, the U.S., Canada and Japan to ensure they are not importing pork products", and Egypt is killing the pigs of Christian farmers as a precautionary measure.

If you wanted to get a sense of how organized the ground response would be in a pandemic, you could have polled your doctors about their knowledge and your local situation a few years ago. Perhaps better for your peace of mind that you didn't, nor even wondered about other nations responses. Needless to say we would all be relieved if this H1N1 were only a drill -- we could use some practice runs.

To the relief of many environmentalists and scientists, last week the Obama administration's EPA found six greenhouse gases endangered public health and welfare -- as ordered by the Supreme Court. Many in business jeered and booed and issued misleading and false complaints with hyperbolic gusto. Also last week, the EPA issued a preliminary review of the energy bill released by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) and concluded that the cap and trade portion would not handicap the economy (pdf). Leaders in Congress said that cap and trade legislation might be preferable to EPA regulation. Of course sectors like the chemical industry as well as free-market think tanks and their dedicated columnists have gone apoplectic. How will Congress deal with all sides? How will the Obama administration -- led by its famous mediator -- mediate?

Industry's Place at the Table and Bush's EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), found that high concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride threatened human health and welfare. Environmentalists and lots of others, basically anyone who cares a whit about life or Earth or species, not to mention human health, etc., cheered -- action, finally. But as we know, this wasn't really such a bowl-me-over stupendous accomplishment. The Bush Administration's EPA had also found that greenhouse gases endangered human health and welfare (and they weren't the first) -- and famously smothered their findings.

Let's briefly recall some highlights. Consider that Congress passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act in 1970 under President Nixon. Industry and those in Congress whose dispositions trend radically free-market, or whose campaigns certain industries help finance, have since fought vigorously against the legislation.

The battles go back decades, familiar faces in familiar roles. For instance in 1983, when President Ronald Reagan steadfastly tried to undermine Clean Air and Clean Water, House Representative Barbara Boxer (D-CA) noted:

''They can't get the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts amended, the way they want to. So they weaken them through regulation, and defy the intent of Congress. They are the best at figuring out ways to legally undermine the will of Congress, but this time, in the E.P.A. case, we caught them.''

Boxer was a junior member of Congress in 1983. Did she know how many rounds were left to go? Some recent history, starting 20 years after Boxer's comment:

• 2003: The states petitioned the Bush Administration to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. The administration refused, asserting that CO2 wasn't a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. (The states sued.)

• April, 2007: Massachusetts vs. EPA finally ended up in the Supreme Court. The court ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases endangered human health and welfare, saying the administration needed to ground its assertions in some science, as required by the Clean Air Act. Acronym Required talked about the court's findings in "Supreme Court Rejects EPA & Coal Plants' Nonsense".

  In a darker moment of EPA history, the agency defended its mulish inaction by citing in testimony an old tobacco case, Brown v. Williamson. Then, the court ruled that the FDA couldn't regulate cigarette smoke on account of "tobacco's unique political history", which, the EPA reasoned, shared that of greenhouse gas's "unique political history". In addition, the EPA argued that it couldn't be effective against such a "global problem", and that tailgate regulation was the place of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Any attempt at EPA regulation, the agency said, would would be "piecemeal" and cause "agency overlap". The Supreme Court categorically rejected all of these arguments. (Environmentalists -- my shorthand for anyone who cares a whit -- cheered.)

• May 2007: Bush announced: "Today, I'm directing the EPA and the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles." (Environmentalists -- and anyone who cared a whit --cheered.)

• May 2007-November 2007: Bush's EPA hired a 70 person team to investigate endangerment, vehicle and fuel issues after the Supreme Court ruling. The EPA found that based on the "underlying science" CO2 emissions cause "consequences for public health". The resulting report included costs and benefits. At about 300 pages the EPA conducted the study in consultation with the DOT's NHTSA. The 2007 report budget --for six months of work? -- was $5.3 million. (Who knew?)

• November 2007: EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he would propose EPA regulation by the end of the year. (Environmentalists cheered.)

• December 2007: EPA finding of endangerment emailed to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Johson's proposal for regulating CO2 emissions was sent to the National Highway Safety and Transportation Agency (NHTSA). The documents disappeared into the black hole of the White House. (Few knew.)

• March 2008: EPA administrator Stephen Johnson writes to Congressman Waxman to advise him that the EPA will issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), rather than a finding on endangerment. (Business cheered.)

• July 2008: The EPA follows through on Johnson's promise and releases the ANPR. (Business complained.)

• July 2008: Jason Burnett (remember him?) resigned as the chief climate-change adviser to then EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, alleging that VP Cheney and the White House Council for Environmetal Quality redacted parts of CDC documents about greenhouse gases and human health. Burnett's move seemed overtly political, nevertheless, he helpfully detailed in a letter to Senator Boxer how findings on public health were manipulated by the White House: "CEQ requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change". (Environmentalists gasped.)

Pressuring the EPA for the ANPR

How will the Obama administration's EPA differ from the Bush administration's? When Obama campaigned for President, he promised that industry would have a seat at the table, but not the only seat, which sounded great. But just as in the Bush administration, industry lobbyists still spend billions of dollars for their seats, while the majority of citizens, those who pollution disproportionately affects don't fund campaigns and rarely get seats. Will their Representatives really represent them despite their disproportionate campaign donations? How does it work when corporations don't play to compromise, don't accept "fair" solutions?

To get perspective on this, let's look quickly at the EPA's handling of the Supreme Court ruling last year via their Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANPR). At the time of EPA Administrator StephenJohnson's decision last year to issue the ANPR we quoted from the Heritage Foundation's letter to -- as the conservative think tank put it -- "everyone that we could think of" in Congress.

The Heritage Foundation implored Senators and Representatives to pressure the EPA for an ANPR rather than find on endangerment. They said the extended public comment period would "start a record of" "cost[s] and burden[s] of carbon caps and Clean Air Act expansion". Note the Heritage Foundation didn't say "costs and benefits", but "cost[s] and burden[s]".

The Heritage Foundation also urged the EPA to issue an ANPR in a March 28, 2008 article published on its website, titled, "The EPA's Prudent Response to Massachusetts v. EPA". Heritage wrote "a wave of costly new regulations is the last thing the economy needs. An ANPR is the best option at this time."

The Response the EPA's ANPR

As the Heritage Foundation requested, the EPA issued the ANPR, so you'd think Heritage would be happy, maybe send a bouquet of flowers. Rather, they were extremely displeased, along with organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce. The Heritage Foundation issued warnings in dry, authoritative press releases filled with charts and graphs, like the October 29, 2008, "CO2-Emission Cuts: The Economic Costs of the EPA's ANPR Regulations". They warned that the ANPR would "damage the U.S. economy severely", cause a "large loss of national income" , "throw a monkey wrench into the production side of the economy", accumulate job losses that "exceed 50 percent" for some industries, in excess of "800,000 for several years".

Despite new technology investment, reported the Heritage Foundation, "more capital is destroyed than created." Heritage constructed a scary cliff-hanger of a bar graph that showed GDP sinking dramatically for nearly a quarter of a century. Yet analysis done EPA and non-partisan sources shows the opposite, that investment in green economy and reduction of destructive greenhouse gases will help the economy.

Of course you can get perspective on the Heritage Foundation's ominous forecasting by acknowledging the result of the past 8 years of deregulation -- the conservatives' ideal business model. Deregulation has not been good for labor or the economy. In 2008 job losses were 2.6 million, more than 3 times Heritage Foundation's yearly job loss scenario for the green economy. Under conservative tutelage, manufacturing has been decimated. 2009 has been even worse for jobs, the US economy has shed over 2 million jobs so far this year.

And Now, A New Round of Warnings for Endangerment

Now that the EPA has found on endangerment, as it is required to under the Clean Air Act, and as was ordered to by the Supreme Court, the right again comes out swinging, and has also found a cadre of columnist flacks willing to take up the rhetoric of deception. The thrust of these arguments is: 1) the EPA has suddenly grabbed unprecedented amounts of power, (no mention of the Supreme Court order), and 2) The EPA will ruin your life and steal your job.

Despite how misleading and misinformed, these pieces are being published by still working newspaper editors all over the US. With all the newspaper layoffs of talented journalists, somehow these hyperbolic, mendacious columnists and their (dare I say, shameless) editors seem unreasonably spared. Wrote the Augusta Chronicle: "The EPA recently announced it has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.....You pretty much have to be a piece of antique furniture not to emit something".

"Antique furniture" in Maine turned out to be Northeast quaint compared to other commentators who used more extreme examples, like the EPA was "putting a gun to Congresses head". In California an LA Times columnist wrote "the EPA has launched its power grab over all that burns, breathes, burps, flies, drives and passes gas." (As an aside, the LA Times had more than 1200 people in its newsroom in 2001, and now has less that 600. And this guy remained in the keeper pool? Oh, and why is the public misinformed?)

The Obama administration certainly takes a different, far more skilled public relations tack than the Bush administration, with nods to the "left" and nods to the "right". However skilled the public relations of the administration, though, what will the end result look like? The idea that market based solutions are the best is not in question in the Obama administration. Senator Boxer generally aligns herself with the president in her cap and trade propositions and many agree that that tactic will be the most amenable to busiess. Even automakers have offered guarded support for the Markey/Waxman bill. But of course cap and trade is under attack from conservatives. Will congressional "compromise" successfully curb greenhouse gas emissions when no solution will satisfy conservatives? I guess we can hope.

Guns and Money

In Johannesburg, South Africa, supporters of presidential candidate Jacob Zuma celebrated by leaning on horns, blowing whistles and waving flags, after the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) dropped 16 charges against the African National Council (ANC) front-runner. Prosecutors had accused Zuma of taking bribes via Schabir Shaik, his adviser who connived with French arms company Thales International (Thint) to win military arms deals from the state.

Deals with the French company worth several billion dollars were in the works in 1999, when investigators began to look into the details of the transactions. The arms company apparently worked through Zuma's financial adviser Shaik, and recruited Zuma to interfere with the investigation. Zuma, who served as deputy president under Thabo Mbeki, had faced corruption, fraud, racketeering and money-laundering charges.

In 2005, Schabir Shaik was found guilty of corruption and sent to prison to serve several concurrent sentences amounting to 15 years. In 2005 President Thabo Mbeki dismissed deputy president Zuma after the high court found Schaik guilty. The judge in the case noted the "generally corrupt" relationship between Zuma and Shaik. After serving 28 months of his sentence, mostly in private hospitals, Shaik was released on a controversial medical probation last month.

Upon hearing the charges were dropped against Zuma, hundreds of supporters danced and sang to Zuma's theme song, "Bring Me My Machine Gun", an apartheid era rally song.

Who Needs Lawyers?

Zuma's popularity assures broad support for his election April 22, despite his ripe court history, not only on account of the the corruption charges, but also because of a rape trial in 2006. Zuma's comments during the rape trial included the assertion that he had showered to protect himself from contracting AIDS from the woman who accused him of rape, and that he knew that the woman wanted to have sex because of the type of skirt she wore. His comments incensed those who care about public health and women's rights. As deputy president under Mbeki, Zuma served as the head of South Africa's National Aids Council and the Moral Regeneration Movement. Zuma was acquitted of the rape.

People anticipated the charges would be dropped, and now expect Zuma to win the presidential election. But the corruption case hovers in the background uncomfortably. The case dragged on for years before wiretap tapes and transcriptions emerged which seemed to show a politically motivated plot on the part of the investigators. The case against Zuma fell apart on technicality, but the prosecutor pointed out that his decision: "does not affect the substantive merits of the case against [Mr] Zuma". Some people believe the charges will taint the South African democracy, not to mention the presidency of Mr. Zuma.

Thabo Mbeki dismissed Zuma as his deputy president after Shaik was found guilty, and Zuma was never found guilty of corruption charges. Interestingly though, Thabo Mbeki habitually railed against pharmaceutical companies who offered AIDS drugs by accusing them of being "like marauders of the military industrial complex who propagate fear to increase their profits". Of course, while thousands of Mbeki's compatriots died of AIDS, Mbeki denied the viral cause of AIDS and pursued various themes to produce AIDS drugs in Africa. During this time, while Mbeki refused to treat AIDS patients, under his administration billions of dollars of South Africa's wealth was going to foreign weapons manufacturers.

Strong-Arming Countries -- Oil For Planes

In the scheme of things, the bribes that Jacob Zuma accepted were not a big as bribes can get. Starting tonight, Frontline will air a one hour special titled "Black Money", a documentary on international corruption by military corporations. "Black Money" is based on the work of Guardian journalist David Leigh, who has been reporting on BAE corruption across the globe for more than five years. Last year Leigh wrote about BAE bribes to South African, in which BAE pressured the country to buy war planes at inflated prices. Chippy Shaik, the brother of Schabir, worked in the defense department and helped secure the deals.

"Black Money" focuses not so much on South Africa, but on BAE's bribes and the web of relationships between Britain, Saudia Arabia, and the US. BAE devised complex deals to secure £43bn in arms deals with Saudia Arabia. When British investigators at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) started digging into the deals and Britain's part in them, Saudia Arabia threatened to break off collaborations with Britain against terrorism. Tony Blair's government abruptly curtailed the investigation.

"Black Money" follows the kingpin role of Saudia Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former Saudia ambassador to the US, who benefited handsomely from the bribes. At one point Bandar retorts to the interviewer who probes about the multi-billion dollar deals: "So What?". Filmakers also interviewed former US FBI director Louis Freeh, now a private lawyer and consultant to Prince Bandar also appears "Black Money". He admits that money transfers amounting to $2 billion dollars flowed from BAE in Britain to the US bank accounts of the Saudi prince, but Freeh denies that Bandar accepted bribes. While acknowledging that the complicated deals and payments were set up in part to avoid congressional scrutiny Freeh retorts that the commingling of Saudi accounts is none of the US's business. The narrative and exchanges portrayed in the show "Black Money" add up to no more than "reckless allegations", says Freeh.

Has globalization and unfettered money exchange made the the world as callous as "So What?" and as compromising as Louis Freeh? Corruption is a globalized problem, with some of the biggest victims being the poorest countries, like Bangladesh. Of course all citizens of all countries pay for privileges of the lawless few at the top. The US is perhaps not as corrupt as Saudia Arabia nor is poor as South Africa. But while Africa and Europe and the Middle East and Asia see plenty of corruption, the US has its fair share of nefarious deals and Seawolf-like contracts made in the name of business by self-interested companies, lobbyists and politicians. Even now, as the Obama administration announces the military budget and certain key legislators obstruct the administration's goals to protect their states' prized military contracts, it would be remiss not to acknowledge that the US has its own solid brand of backroom dealmaking and military procurement malfeasance -- not to mention a faltering healthcare system.

Most people acknowledge global warming and understand that the research is correct and the scientists' aren't running some elaborate conspiracy. Sure there are naysayers, those pugnacious commentators and columnists we don't even bother naming anymore, who we wrote about two, and three years ago. Now that public opinion seems mostly to support the solid scientific evidence for global warming, fewer and fewer denialists seem willing to forsake their reputations or souls by refuting climate change. So don't you wonder what drives those who still insist climate change is a hoax? Do they get paid very handsomely, either by lies per column inch, by special honorariums for dishonest speakers, or perhaps by the sheer number angry blog referrals they receive in any given week. What else makes sense?

This week the Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory issued a report in Geophysical Research Letters, suggesting that the arctic is melting so fast that it could be gone in 30 years. Meanwhile, as the science rolls in, the politicians weigh in, and petroleum dependent companies finagle mostly secret deals to keep the profits rolling in.

• Wagoner Walks: A year ago we wrote about the auto industry pressuring the EPA to stall and obfuscate rather than act on the Supreme Court order to regulate emissions. When we wrote The EPA: Mulish Days, Staring out to Pasture" the auto industry had just posted 18% losses. All it had to offer customers was large, gas-guzzling, air-polluting vehicles at a a time when the economy was sinking, gas was expensive, and some families already owned four new cars bought with cheap credit.

  As the poles melted, we watched industry lobbies instruct the EPA to "abstain from attempting" to regulate emissions and limit its actions to identifying "technical feasibility". One lobbying document warned that the sector's innovation to improve emissions couldn't require "extra costs", and that if "additional technology" were needed, then the EPA could "properly decide to not adopt standards under the Clean Air Act".

  As it had for 30 years, the auto industry assumed it could hold innovation, emissions control and government at bay while continuing to build vehicles that benefited not the environment, not oil independence, not customers long-term needs, not future business, and certainly not autoworkers working for an ever failing sector. Rather its strategy benefited a few well-placed individuals and executives holding the majority of "shareholder value". In the end the strategy did little but assure US auto manufacturing expiration. Long ago the auto companies had become no more than magical slot machines for select executives, who quarter by quarter, hook or by crook, extracted huge windfalls.

  We concluded facetiously that "if 'the health of the industry' is truly still a goal", as one briefing paper aimed to stall EPA regulation stated, than "maybe the government's kindest move would be to shoot it, or drown it in the bathtub, or whatever libertarian types do these days with ponderous, surly sectors."

  This week, Rick Wagoner, the General Motors CEO who most flagrantly flouted common sense and economic sensibilities, abruptly stepped down from GM, under pressure from Barack Obama.

  Maybe there's more to this story. What sort of deal made Wagoner step down? What about the banks? Certainly a solution where Wagoner gets his $20 million, but workers and their pensions and healthcare are left dangling is not the ideal deal. It would have been better if the manufacturers had innovated smaller more efficient cars sometime during their multi-decade slide into the abyss, or been righted years ago with a few swift legislative kicks -- before major shareholders squeezed their companies to death. But if that hadn't happened for 30 years would/will it ever happen?

• Waxman and Markey Unveil ACES, An Energy Bill: On a positive note, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) released a 648 page draft global warming and energy bill (PDF), the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). The legislation proposes a cap and trade system to reduce US emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, a more aggressive goal than the cap and trade recently cut from Obama's 2009 budget.

  The Waxman-Markey bill would require every region of the country to produce a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal by 2025, would modernize the electrical grid, and would encourage the production of more electric vehicles and energy efficient buildings. Out of the gate, the congressmen refute Republican criticism of the bill. Ed Markey's office released their own forceful rebuttal to GOP criticism and called opponents on four "distortions" being forwarded by the GOP (more details on the site):

• "Distortion #1-Clean energy and climate legislation will cost $1,300 per family.
  
  FACT: The Republican "experts" who did this math should get an F for 'False.'"

• Distortion #2: Democratic proposals would cost families up to $3,100 per year.
  
  FACT: More fuzzy math from Republicans, this time by distorting a study by MIT. Republican leaders like Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are attacking clean energy and climate legislation, claiming that it would "cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices"....The author of the MIT study [the authors reference] has said this figure is "wrong in so many ways, it's hard to begin," and today sent a sharply-worded letter to Rep. Boehner pointing out the inaccuracies in his statements about the report. The letter can be found by clicking here."

• "Distortion #3-There are great costs to transitioning to a low-carbon economy, but no benefits.
  
  FACT: Oscar Wilde once said that cynics "know the cost of everything and the value of nothing." In a real cost-benefit analysis, you look at both sides of the equation. Industry-friendly analysis like that done by Charles River Associates, commissioned by the Edison Electric Institute, grossly overstate the cost of climate protection..."

• "Distortion #4-The technology isn't ready for us to move to a clean energy economy.
  
  FACT: This is Republican pessimism that runs directly counter to American optimism, ingenuity and our proven ability to meet great challenges. History has demonstrated over and over again that if policy creates the right ground rules, entrepreneurs and American businesses find solutions that were previously unimaginable."

Serving up the necessary messaging with your energy legislation. But how will the bill fare?

• On Behalf of Wildlife and Forests: Last year we wrote in When To Chop A Tree" that the Bush administration was turning 500,000 acres of California forest into roads and thoroughfares for oil drilling. This was just the tip of the iceberg (so to speak) for the Republican administration, which had spent eight long years decimating protections not only for clean air and water, but endangered species and the environment.

  Even in the last moments of Bush's administration, we wrote in "The 43rd President's Grand Finale of Rulemaking" that Bush proposed to allow mining companies to lop of mountains to allow the refuse clog rivers and streams, and was permitting companies to pollute streams with factory farm run-off, lifting regulations on placing power plants near national parks, exempting factory farms from reporting air pollution, loosening ocean fishing management regulations, and doing nothing about oil refinery toxic emission control which Congress mandated.

  In some encouraging moves, President Obama has now stepped in on behalf of some endangered species like the flying squirrel. This week Obama signed the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act which included 160 separate proposals covering public lands in nine states. The bill adds and expands wilderness areas and national forests.

• Meanwhile, Making Mountains into Molehills: But we never forget that politics is politics and not everything turns out just as you like it. The House of Representatives failed to reverse the mountaintop removal mining bill.

• BP's Solar Energy Burn-Out: British Petroleum (BP) -- motto: "Beyond Petroleum" -- recently cut 620 jobs from its solar business, which employed 2,200 people worldwide. Two years ago, we wrote about BP's econ-marketing push in "Green Spirit". Green spirit lives on.

  In other BP news, the Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation brought a civil suit against the company for two 2006 spills from the Alaska pipeline. The plaintiffs request maximum civil penalties and charge that the company did not adequately prevent or clean up the spill. In a separate suit, Alaska charged the company with environmental damage and lost state revenues due to BP cost-cutting and business practices.

• GE Healthcare Marketing Push

  GE and Siemens, which has also made significant investments in healthcare, are currently lobbying Congress against the Obama administration efforts to reduce medical scanning costs in Medicare. Bloomberg News reported that Medicare imaging costs more than doubled to $14.1 billion from 2000 to 2006, according to a June 13 congressional report.

  GE plans to rollout a new healthcare products marketing campaign based on its "Eco-magination" project, which GE told the Financial Times brought in $17bn in revenue last year from the sale of products ranging from jet engines to wind turbines. The new healthcare marketing initiative will "involve numerous parts of the sprawling conglomerate, ranging from its industrial divisions to the media unit, NBC Universal", according to FT. ("GE to pitch its vision on need for healthcare", Apr. 1, 2009) Watch for it on your local TV station.

• Electronic Records

  A study in the New England Journal of Medicine recently showed that few hospitals have electronic records systems in place. Only 1.5% of hospitals who responded to the authors' survey had electronic systems in all units, while 7.6% had electronic records in some units. Another article in the same journal noted that the current records' systems are proprietary software where the lack of a single standard makes integration with other software systems infeasible.

  The Obama administration plans to infuse $19 billion into an effort to get electronic records in place, but the effort could cost up to $100 billion dollars over the next ten years. Which makes it an attractive business to enter. Wal-Mart is now joining Microsoft and Google and GE in offering digital records options. According to PC World, the retailer:

  "plans to bring its low-cost, high-volume mentality to the healthcare industry by offering a deal that includes hardware, software, installation, maintenance and training to convert a doctor's office from using paper to digital medical records."

  Walmart will coordinate the vendors to offer the $25,000 system. Doctors may get $40,000 - $65,000 federal tax write-off to install and use medical records systems.

• Cancer Screening

  A couple of weeks ago two studies came out showing that the prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test for prostate cancer, which allowed all men to be easily screened for the disease, may or may not be helpful. Screening may result in overdiagnosis and overtreatment in some men for whom the disease would never progress.

  In a similar situation, last week, a kerfuffle in Britain motivated British health officials to promise to rewrite patient information that gave misleading information about the benefits of mammograms. A recent study also suggested that breast cancer screening also led to over-diagnosis. Part of the problem is that doctors have limited knowledge about which cancers will progress rapidly, and which won't progress.

  Such uncertainty is common in medicine. Even if doctors can access all the technology in the world, should they run another test or save the money? How do they assess a patient's most simple claims -- "it hurts?" Is the cancer aggressive? Will the patient follow the treatment protocol?

• "Real Age" Antics

  According to a recent New York Times story, RealAge, an on-line health survey that people voluntarily sign-up for and receive health tips from, is actually a marketing tool for pharmaceutical companies:

  "While few people would fill out a detailed questionnaire about their health and hand it over to a drug company looking for suggestions for new medications, that is essentially what RealAge is doing"

  Apparently the company would email people pharmaceutical suggestions based on symptoms they listed. I had other qualms with the service, like that it rated people's health based on questions about lifestyle choices which were backed up with incomplete or controversial evidence, like -- how many servings of soy do you eat a day? Clearly the privacy issues put a whole new spin on the company's service.

• Antidote

  Should you need one. The New Yorker runs a Cartoon Caption contest every week, where readers (and potential subscribers) submit captions for a cartoon. The staff picks three of the best captions, then on-line readers vote on which of the three they like best. Sort of the New Yorker's "American Idol". This week's cartoon might be science related, a rare event.

  The cartoon depicts a big hefty naked man striding out of the ocean onto the beach. He appears to be saying something and he looks excited. He's following a fish, which has leapt out of the water and is airbound, glancing behind, fish-eyes wide. Here are the three caption choices:

  • "Now that I've met your family, I want you to meet mine"
  • "Your in trouble when we get to the bicycles"
  • "Hi there! Can I interest you in some promotional material about intelligent design?"

  Vote here.

This post was divided into separate posts 10-07-09. Those posts are linked below.

• "Pecking the Red Dot: Herring Gull Myth or Fiction?"
• "Dinofuzz: More Dinosaurs Flew"
• "Galbraith on John Law and the Mississippi Bubble"
• "Exxon Valdez Species Fall-Out in Prince William Sound"
• "Online Media and Copyright"

Reposted as single post 10-07 from 03-26 Notes

But Papers Won't Be Paper

In our last post ("Yotta-Yotta-Yottabytes: Content Makes Kings, Print Dies") we touched on themes in ongoing conversations all over the web and in newspapers about the seeming demise of reporting -- not just science reporting -- any reporting. We mentioned copyright and aggregators, and questioned trends towards online aggregation that mimic print monopolization. Clearly aggregators add value by collecting in one accessible place news for all the readers. Aggregators also fulfill their own business goals by collecting more advertising revenue than, say, two person online content generators. But lots of unresolved issues need to be ironed out.

To me a key question is intellectual property -- I know, so yesteryear. But consider the site that collects all the free Creative Commons lectures from Universities like Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley, and posts these under a non-Creative Commons site license with prominent use of the Ivy's names (to establish the site's credentials). "Academic Earth", not to be confused with LexisNexis's "Academic Universe", now promises that they will "try" to keep the content as "open as possible". In another move bound to endear AE to the professors whose lectures they use, the site owners "grade" the lectures, starting with "B".

Last week, I saw another site with text and photos from older works (before 1921) released into the public domain, with warnings that the company had "added value" (imperceptibly), so that now all the works were copyrighted and needed to be purchased. ¹ These are two examples in the wide open arena where creative content producers try to eek out a living, copyright protection flounders under the ubiquitous ease of internet infringement, and sites that recycle, remix, or analyze content, navigate sometimes unclear boundaries.

This week Google removed thousands of videos from its YouTube site, based on a Warner's demand to removed all of its copyrighted songs, even including those obscure videos where your aunt Milly sings her favorite 60's tune while your uncle plays the piano. As of last week, every video was taken down, robotically removed.

In another case, last week BoingBoing posted a note submitted by site "Apartment Therapy" about a take-down notice the NYT sent to the home decorating site. A.T. said:

"We are shocked & disappointed their [NYT] first contact with concerns about our use of their images (in posts about their stories!) was a threatening letter & DMCA takedown notice to our ISP who have warned us they will disable our servers if we don't comply with the NY Times request." (emphasis ours)

But to be fair, it's not the first time NYT contacted Apartment Therapy. BoingBoing wrote another post five years ago excerpting another AT protest about the New York Times, who in that June, 2004 situation, contacted them by phone to again request they take down copy-righted content. Was that the "first" time? Who knows.

BoingBoing had one take on the Apartment Therapy/NYT mediation: "Pop quiz: You're a troubled media dinosaur struggling to find your way on the Web. What steps can you take to actively discourage people from linking to you, thus reducing your pageviews and revenue?" BoingBoing readers weighed in on whether that was a fair assessment. Some BoingBoing commenters observed that the decorating site actually posts all the photos and content from NYT articles, making the link to NYT several clicks in totally meaningless. While AT may come to some agreement with NYT the larger issue of copyright is less likely to sort itself out prettily.

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

¹ I stumbled on several sites like this last week -- unknown name.

10-07 reposted as single post from Notes 03-26

Slick

Although it's been twenty years since images of oil-drenched birds (~250,000 initially killed) filled our newspapers after the huge Prince William Sound spill, the damage remains.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council recently reported on the status of some species in the Sound. Ten species are "recovering, ten are considered "recovered", and two, the Pacific Herring and Pigeon Guillemots, are "not recovering". The fate of many more species is unknown. We last wrote about the Exxon Valdez spill when we looked at the stated reasons the Supreme Court decided to lower the damages in the case to $500 million.

16,000 gallons of oil continues to seep out into the ecosystem bit by bit during rains. To address the ongoing pollution, the US Government and the State of Alaska sent Exxon-Mobil a demand for $92 million dollars to fund the joint-federal restoration plan in 2006, but then President George Bush and Governor Sarah Palin didn't press the company to pay up. The Public Employees for Environmental Safety (PEER) and Professor Rick Steiner from the University of Alaska have written the Obama administration and the Attorney General of Alaska asking them to act to collect Exxon-Mobil's debt.

Reposted as single post 10-7. Already posted in Notes 03-26

When Banks Will Be Banks

As background for current events, authors write and publishers publish, eager to meet the demands for new knowledge. Name the event -- 9-11, terrorism, the Chinese economy, global warming, one banking crisis or another -- each motivates its own little publishing industry. The financial crisis got people thinking about recessions, depressions, credit default swaps, mortgages, and financial markets, and now you can read any number of best sellers, "The Subprime Solution..", and "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets..", "The Trillion Dollar Meltdown..","The Forgotten Man", "The Ascent of Money..", "The Return of Depression Economics.." -- more titles everyday. These new books are intriguing and fun, and hopefully help the floundering publishing industry keep its head above water.

But really, when it comes to banking, you don't have to buy a new book, you can just as well read an older one such as John Galbraith's 1975 "Money: Whence it Came and Where it Went". The book works its way from the Mississippi Bubble to the Bank of England, through the history of the American monetary system up until 1971, with plenty of applicable insights. Many people have heard of the Mississippi Bubble and its architect, John Law, but I especially like Galbraith's telling.

John Law moved to France in 1716, fleeing a murder charge after dominating a duel in England. Law had inherited a fortune and won even more as a gambler. In France, Law set up a bank and began to issue guaranteed notes, something that France appreciated. The country found Law's entrepreneurial effort a great solution to its fiscal insolvency, having gone broke under the reign of Louis XXVI. With Law's notes, which he instituted in lieu of gold, which was the standard at the time, France paid its bills and Law's bank flourished. His bank issued more and more notes issued.

Law then decided to issue notes for a land bank in what was the large land mass of Louisiana. Rumor had it that America's southern swamps were filled with gold. Buoyed by the fame his bank brought him, Law also turned his efforts to economic and social reform. He lobbied to get rid of tolls and tariffs and rallied the clergy to give unused land to peasants.

Wrote Galbraith (28):

"The miracle of money creation by a bank, as John Law showed in 1719, could stimulate industry and trade, gave almost everyone a warm feeling of well-being. Parisians had never felt more prosperous than in that wonderful year."

Law's economic plan began to unravel along with this first bank, when one day one of his note-holders decided they wanted their gold. They cashed in their notes. Then others cashed theirs. Then more and more people got nervous about whether the bank had enough gold to meet all its obligations.

To restore confidence, the government recruited slum-dwellers to march through the streets of Paris with picks and shovels, as if gold really had been found in Mississippi and France was dispatching miners to ships which would sail to America and cart gold home. No sooner were folks were paraded to the docks, however, then they were found back at home in the ghettos, and people got wise to the ruse. The giant scheme caved, leaving note-holders with nothing but songs and bitter ditties to sing. As Galbraith writes (p28):

"...Here, in the briefest form, was framed the problem that was to occupy men of financial genius or cupidity for the next two centuries: How to have the wonder without the reckoning?"

Some people think this version of Law's story is to harsh, and modern bibliographies are much more flattering to John Law's legacy then John Galbraith. Calling Law a forward thinking economist, Antoin E. Murphy wrote in a recent book, "John Law: Economic Theorist and Policy-Maker". Murphy cautioned against leaping to judgment: "just as Napoleon cannot be judged by his defeat at Waterloo, so also the theory and policy of Law should not be judged by the financial crash of 1720." See?-- Napoleon historians would no doubt dispute that comparison too.

Galbraith was a Keynesian, and it's not clear that his opinion of John Law, which fit with his opinion of bankers in general, would have been changed by the recent, more favorable bibliographical accounts. Here's his 1970's impression of the banker community (p302):

"[I]n money matters as in diplomacy, a nicely conformist nature, a good tailor and the ability to articulate the currently fashionable financial cliche have usually been better for personal success than an inquiring mind....failure is often a more rewarding personal strategy than success."

His judgement derived from the belief, simply, that economic and monetary systems can be well managed.

"There is reluctance in our time to attribute great consequences to human inadequacy -- to what, in a semantically less cautious era, was called stupidity. We wish to believe that deeper social forces control all human action....But we had better be aware that inadequacy --- obtuseness combined with inertness --- is a problem..."

How would he have felt about the current crop of bankers (p303)?

"It will be no easier in the future than in the past for layman or the lay politician to distinguish between the adequate individual and the others. But there is not difficulty whatever in distinguishing between success and failure. Henceforth it should be the simple rule in all economic and monetary matters that anyone who has to explain failure has failed. We should be kind to those whose performance has been poor. But we must never be so gracious as to keep them in office."

He would most likely not have been any more charitable to those who architected our current economic mess, then he was to the bankers of his day. There's no substitute for his insights though.

US Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) talked to Rachel Maddow Tuesday, and she asked him about the bonus cap provision that disappeared from the spending bill.

"When something gets through the United States Senate, it doesn't happen by osmosis. It got done because Senator Snowe and I spent a lot of time. We got a legal opinion. We knew Wall Street was going to come out and fight this aggressively. Now, I think, we'll finally get it done, but unfortunately, it's a little late."

Here's osmosis:

The Huffington Post also wrote about Wyden's¹ statements, but HuffPo quoted him as saying about the missing language: "it didn't die by osmosis." [Emphasis mine]. This is more difficult to demonstrate on video, but YouTube does have a video on reviving wilted lettuce. It's not death by osmosis, rather, in the time lapse video the sad dying lettuce is put in water for a second life -- sort of. The end result is speeded up 720x.

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

¹ Senator Wyden maybe has osmosis on his mind. His office has proposed a forward osmosis water purification to be developed in Oregon. Wyden's office posted a list of 2010 Defense appropriations bill projects. The water purification system would allow soldiers to hike farther in the dessert.

Aspiring to be FOX News

We often take to task those who would begrudge science research money. Politicians like to use science projects to make points about "pork", but often the projects they begrudge involve piddly dollar amounts, especially considering the pay-offs science yields. Science research has both long term and short term benefits -- more efficient food production for example, as well as employment and livelihoods for scientists, farmers, workers in start-ups, marketing professionals, accountants, and maybe even bankers. None of these positives are trivial or laughable. But politicians like John McCain won't readily point out the benefits. McCain ranted recently about about a "honey bee factory", because as always, the ha-ha-ha value of these rants is apparently priceless. ¹

In ¹ In Science as Political Joke Fodder we looked at John McCain's multiple attacks on science and asked why science? In "Fruit Flies, Astronomy, DNA...There Goes The Economy", we analyzed Sarah Palin's attack on olive fruit fly research in France and the source of her information, the lobby group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

Yesterday we came across a Harper's blogpost that pulled information straight from CAGW talking points.² The author criticized the $410 billion omnibus spending bill for earmarks in his "Weekly Review", focusing on two projects that have been circulating in the news:

"more than 8,000 congressional earmarks, among them provisions for improving blueberry products in Georgia and controlling the spread of Mormon crickets in Utah."

Was Harper's jumping on the whole earmarks bandwagon? We hadn't been following the earmark protests, but where did the Harper's information come from? John McCain talked about both science projects the Georgia blueberries and the Mormon Crickets in his speech to the Senate on the Bill. CAGW called out the Mormon cricket research this year and mentioned listed the blueberry research last year in its 2008 budget pork database.

Viral FOX

A few weeks about FOX News composed a video called "$209, 000 for Blueberries? From there blueberry research story went viral, to the New York Times, blogs, and sites that aggregate press releases. For politicians and media flexing against "pork", science spending is a favorite target, because face it, the organic dried blueberry lobby hardly buys a lot of advertising on FOX News.

People criticize earmarks as a way of securing funding and say that these no bid grants should go through the appropriate venues and compete for money. (I'm sure scientists might do this, if science were funded to adequate levels. Or maybe scientists wouldn't -- since this must be easier than writing a grants?) But, confusingly, some of the people who make these points about the harmful, not transparent nature of earmarks, like the group Americans For Prosperity, take distinctly anti-science positions. Americans For Prosperity for instance ran a "Hot Air Tour campaign" in 2008, where they completed a hot air balloon cross-country tour under the slogan, "Global Warming Alarmism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom." According to the group: "Climate alarmists have bombarded citizens with apocalyptic scenarios and pressured them into environmental political correctness. It's time to tell the other side of the story." CAGW attacks particular research based on who funds their lobby efforts.

Taxpayers for Common Sense calls earmarks a "petri dish of corruption". Perhaps they make a valid point that calls for a more thorough exploration of alternative means of funding. But simply calling out research that sounds silly, as Harper's did seems less productive.³

209,000, How Much is That?

Why focus on $209,000 worth of blueberry research anyway? Why such a relatively tiny number? Is it because most people make less than that in a year and can actually fathom the number? To get perspective, consider this:

• $209,000 is the amount FOX News and Harper's are up in arms about. 209,000 seconds is 2.42 days, 1/137th of a year.
• 165 million was paid in AIG executive bonuses this week (because of "the contracts" -- pardon me while I die laughing). 165 million seconds is 1,910 days, or 5.23 years.
• In the past 6 monthes, AIG has taken out $170 billion in loans from the US government, which in seconds, is 5,387 years.
• The Service Employees International Union criticizes Geithner's trillion dollar Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) because the taxpayers absorb significant risk and there's no guarantee that the money will be used to make new loans. 2 trillion seconds is 63,377 years.

Buy a Scientist a Petri Dish, He's Corrupt for a Lifetime

It's all relative. And as we've pointed out before, scientists work for much less than your average banker. Today with AIG's multi-million dollar "retention" bonuses, 20K-40K for a scientist is small change. But every person who is kept off the unemployment rolls keeps money in the taxpayer's pocket -- so to speak -- momentarily anyway, oops, now AIG has it.

New York State Attorney General Cuomo released details today of his AIG investigation and reporting that 73 employees received bonuses of $1 million or more in 2008. Say the average scientist make 50K per year, and no bonus was over 1 million, two generous assumptions. What would taxpayers rather do with that money? Employ 1460 scientists? Or keep 73 bankers on the dole?

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

¹Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is an organization started by the late J. Peter Grace, who was CEO of W.R. Grace & Co. for 45 years and Jack Anderson, a syndicated columnist. CAGW was an extension of the Grace Commission formed when President Ronald Reagan, who appointed J. Peter Grace to aim at decreasing the role of government. CAGW extended from the Grace Commission.

W.R. Grace is a chemical company whose pollutants contaminated Woburn, Massachusetts well water, causing cancers and resulting in a drawn out court case chronicled by Jonathan Harr in "A Civil Action". CAGW is a lobby favorite of conservatives and lobbies. We previously noted that attacks on science from Sarah Palin and John McCain originated with CAGW. CAGW works with a wide range of industries tobacco, software, pharmaceutical, to avocado growers in Mexico, targeting specific actions based on the desires of groups who pay CAGW.

² In my opinion, Harper's is sort of a mixed bag on science and sciencey subjects. They've published some great pieces on the environment like Tom Bisell's excellent "Eternal winter: Lessons of the Aral Sea disaster", in 2002, or Erik Reece's "Death of a Mountain: Radical strip mining and the leveling of Appalachia."(April, 2005) On the other hand they've published some infuriating articles from a scientist's perspective, like Celia Farber's ridiculous "AIDS and the corruption of medical science", a misleading and factually false view on HIV and the treatment of AIDS, that was criticized by top doctors, virologists, researchers, microbiologists, immunologists, and the Treatment Action Campaign, a South African NGO. (Here's the 37 page PDF that documents the errors)

³Harper's has published some great pieces about lobbyists. See for instance Ken Silverstein's "Invisible hands: The secret world of the oil fixer", in the March issue maybe still on the newstand, or Silverstein's Their men in Washington: Undercover with D.C.'s lobbyists for hire, or his piece on John McCain and the Reform Institute.

Congress Takes on Bisphenol A

The US House and Senate introduced bills last week that would ban bisphenol A (BPA) in all food and beverage containers. The proposed bills are the latest federal legislation to try to curb the used of BPA, even as production of the chemical continues to increase worldwide.

Studies conducted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) have found that bisphenol A is found in 92.6% of people tested. For years consumers assumed that the chemical was benign. However BPA has now been shown through hundreds of science studies to be linked to prostate and breast cancer, obesity, neurological problems including behavioral problems in children, precocious puberty, altered sperm counts, immune disorders and other problems.

For a long time, even though more and more studies showed the dangers of BPA, legislation was nowhere to be found. Now legislative efforts are starting to gain traction following increasing public awarenes and outcry on bisphenol A. In 2005 Acronym Required reported on the first bisphenol A legislation out of California, introduced by Wilma Chan, that proposed a limit to bisphenol A in childrens products. "Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC", focused on the industry's use of misinformation about baby bottles to protect their plastics and bisphenol A market. Reporting on San Francisco's attempt to clamp down on the use of BPA in baby bottles and children's products, we wrote: "It will be interesting to watch the progress of this legislative attempt to control use of this chemical". The California legislation was swiftly defeated under industry threats.

In the four years since, the accumulation of science research attracted public attention then propelled citizen action, which in turn motivated city, state and federal legislatures to pay heed. Not coincidentally, the companies who we chronicled vehemently denying the dangers of BPA, now "voluntarily" discontinue some of their controversial uses for the chemical. Not all lobbies are so agreeable however. The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), which currently owns the site www.babybottle.org that we took exception to 4 years ago, still runs under a banner of blatant lies "PLASTIC BABY BOTTLES ARE SAFE. Convenient. Tested. Trusted."

Taking a Stand on the Precautionary Principle?

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) sponsored the Senate bill S. 593, which Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) co-sponsored. Said Feinstein when introducing the bill:

"I strongly believe that the time has come to utilize a precautionary standard in all food and beverages with respect to chemical additives. If you do not know for certain the chemical is benign, it should not be used. Bisphenol A, known commonly as BPA, is one such example. It is used in consumer products all around us: plastic containers that store food, compact discs, water bottles, canned soups and other canned foods, even baby bottles. More than 100 studies suggest that BPA exposure at very low doses is linked to a variety of health problems..."

America consumers should not be "guinea pigs", Feinstein said. The bill would ban Bisphenol A from all food and drink containers, effective 180 days from enactment. The chemical is ubiquitous, found in pipes, baby bottles, infant formula cans, dental sealants, and car parts. But the Environmental Working Group commissioned research showing that half of the cans they tested had detectable levels of BPA that would not only expose adult consumers to levels of BPA considered dangerous, but could expose unborn children whose mothers eat canned food to up 200 times safe levels. Therefore a bill that targets the use of bisphenol A in food containers would help keep the chemical out of humans.

Feinstein's legislation would allow companies to petition for renewable waivers by claiming that it was "technologically impossible to replace BPA in that time frame", an interesting and potentially problematic criteria.

The language Senator Feinstein used in her statement is interesting for other reasons too. "Precautionary Standard" is similar to "Precautionary Principle", which is a sort of loaded term, one that industry and free trade organizations detest. The presumed head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Executive Office of the President), Cass Sunstein -- unofficially nominated but at large (maybe somewhere in the bowels of OIRA) -- has periodically taken a strong stand against the Precautionary Principle. (For instance read the paper "Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle", the book of the same tittle, papers or the related less conciliatory CATO article on the subject. Some of these same ideas which are propagated throughout his writing including in "Nudge"). If Congress goes forward with the legislation, will it bring the US stance on chemicals closer to the European one? Will the "Precautionary Standard" edge its way into policy or become more mainstream?

Whatever the outcome, if you were to take a stand on the unfortunately named but potent and historically interesting Precautionary Principle, would the chemical bisphenol A, which has been thoroughly researched, be the chemical you'd choose? (It's not clear whether Feinstein is doing this or whether this is just convenient, casual wording.) Acronym Required has written about the disconnect between the hundreds of studies showing potential dangers of the chemical, legislative action, media coverage, and stalling action by lobbyists, in Phthalates and Bisphenol A: Media and Politics".

The research on bisphenol A does not leave very much doubt as to the dangers of this chemical. So then is this "precaution"? Or even "caution"? Or is it legislation that is very late in to the scene, slowed by chemical companies and their intense lobbying, which makes it simply "reactionary". Not to dredge up an overused cliche here, but is this that different from warnings on cigarette boxes, decades after the first health studies came out? I'm not answering, just asking.

Making this a joint congressional action, Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced the companion bisphenol A legislation in the House. Markey's bill will be known as "Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009".

Senator Feinstein also helped write a 2008 amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Commission which banned the sale of phthalate containing products to children under seven. California passed a similar law in 2007.

Communities Take On Bisphenol A and Companies Suddenly Choose Science

As we mentioned above, Acronym Required previously chronicled San Francisco's failed efforts to ban bisphenol A legislation. The San Francisco City Council members deleted language that would have restricted the use of bisphenol A in certain infant and children's products when sued by plastic manufacturers. We also wrote on Chicago's city legislation and Canada's, and Canadian communities' bans. Since then, more communities have taken on bisphenol A, and Suffolk County" is the latest to institute a ban on the chemical. While manufacturers can afford to take one city to court, if multiple states and cities are introducing legislation, the balance of power changes. Steve Hentges, the prolific American Chemical Council spokesman and author of editorials proclaiming BPA's safety must be spinning (as in 360s) trying to keep up.

American manufacturers are expert at stalling legislation. But at some point, they too, glance over their shoulders an realize that legislation and negative public opinion is bearing down on them. Six companies, Playtex Products, Gerber, Evenflow, Avent America, Dr. Brown's and Disney First Years said they would stop the sale of plastic polycarbonate baby bottles in the USA, in response to action by Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal, and the attorneys general in Delaware and New Jersey.

In other company responses to public outcry, Sunoco wrote a letter to investors saying that they would stop selling bisphenol A to companies that can't assure that BPA won't be used in food and water products for children under 3. Sunoco noted they couldn't assure that bisphenol A was safe. Sunoco's action, though rather anemic, was in response to investor actions and queries to the company. Interviewed by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Tom McCaney, associate director for corporate responsibility at the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, a group of about 600 nuns who petitioned Sunoco on BPA: "We thought this was a really bold step, especially for a company that's a member of the American Chemistry Council." Bold indeed. Not the adjective I would choose perhaps, since Sunoco's not guaranteeing anything, but a "smart" business move? Sure.

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

This is a continuation of our last post "The Galt Gestalt". Not that Ayn Rand hasn't been memorialized enough. Quite the opposite. Companies like the demolition contractor at the World Trade Towers site proudly name themselves John Galt this or Fountainhead that. Companies also name themselves after John Galt or Howard Roark, and at least one architectural design firm in Minneapolis named a imaginary "Howard Roark" as a senior partner of the firm (in charge of marketing). Thousands of books and hundreds of institutes all over the world celebrate her ideas -- among them the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, the Ayn Rand Institute, Ayn Rand Society, RebirthofReason.com, Liberty Institute, AtlasShrugged.com, The Atlas Society, The Objectivist Center, Objectivsm 101, Objectivism Reference Center, ObjectivistAcademiccenter.org, AynRandInstitute.ca -- to name a few.

With all that, who needs more Ayn Rand verbiage? Well, the recent outpouring of Randism would never suffer for more "balance". The gushing accolades over "Atlas Shrugged" at FOX News and cable news channels -- by announcers who Americanize Rand's name to "Ann" instead of "Ayn" rhymes with "all mine", or "swine" -- as Rand would say, could use another look.

In our last post we talked about modern day Ayn Rand acolytes -- those who didn't have the opportunity to write books with her like Alan Greenspan, but who still forward her ideas and writing. True, we read her books -- in high school -- as fiction -- so we are as surprised as anyone that full grown adults actually say that Rand's half a century old books foresaw America's current economic state. In our last post we reviewed the movie "The Fountainhead", with its fallible characters Howard Roark and Dominique, set among quarries and "modern" 1940's buildings -- all his "creations". We challenged Rand's portrayal of Roark as a "creator" and questioned how such daft writing by could be misinterpreted for 2009 economic wisdom. We observed that Rand's coterie of admirers pick and choose the parts of her philosophy they like and disregard the bits that don't fit their political agenda -- like her intolerance of mixing religion with politics.

Some executives say that "The Fountainhead" is their favorite work. Yet in "The Fountainhead" Howard Roark blows up buildings with explosives then defends his crimes by telling a jury some fantastic gobbledygook about great "creators" who stood up to all the men. Each individual scientist or inventor, he intones

"lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement..."

How can a novel where the demi-god Howard Roark dynamites buildings be seen as a blueprint for America, by a nation that claims to revile the tactic of blowing up buildings? There's some irony to the fact that former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who is a respected as a professor and Chicago community service leader, is labeled a "terrorist", while fictional Howard Roark is revered by Ayers' same detractors as a "hero".

Everyone, including us, capably cherry-picks their evidence, and just as Rand's most fervent admirers cherry-pick her ideas, she cherry-picked her evidence, her ideals, and her followers, scorning even those who most fervently embraced her ideas. She dismissed libertarians as "a random collection of emotional hippies-of-the-right who seek to play at politics without philosophy." But still, they loved her, just as Howard Roark pined for Dominique in the quarry in the "The Fountainhead" and made statutes in her image when she married other men.

Why the enduring adoration? Why are sales of "Atlas Shrugged" still booming, aside from the fact that it's impressively thick but vapidly light read -- a delirious combination of Harlequin romance and "For Dummies" -- perfect airplane reading?

Americans Testy About The Flimsy Enterprising Spirit Myth

Is it the myth of the rugged individual? Historically, the US had some very hardy Americans, Teddy Roosevelt, for instance. But the US and its corporate economy hasn't been a wunderkind of noble individualists recently. In 1984, Roger Rosenblatt wrote about this strange phenomenon, asking in Time magazine's ("The Rugged Individual Rides Again"): "Why the pretense--why the evident pleasure--in seeing the country as a collection of loners?"

Now, twenty-five years later, the myth may be less intact but politicians still pimp it. It has served the GOP well since Ronald Reagan rode in with "Morning in America." Reagan came up in Hollywood at the same time as Ayn Rand, and seemed to be acting out his part as the rugged individualist, with his ranch, the his far-away look and his mythical powers -- "Tear down this wall!"

Two decades later GW Bush didn't ride horses around a ranch like Reagan but he acquired that dried out piece of land in Texas, and he would gamely pull on gloves -- Ironclad Icon Series Extreme Duty^TM gloves no doubt -- over soft hands and hack at brush and joke to the rolling cameras. The American male image is very particular, you see, and can't be properly projected from the decks of a Kennebunkport yacht.

If the whole American rugged individualism was seen as "hypocritical" by the mainstream magazine Time, over two decades ago, and was even more far-fetched as played out by GW Bush. Then when Bobby Jindal took a stab at the iconic myth the other day the whole premise jumped the shark. Talking about how he went down to the docks after Hurricane Katrina and saved some people threatened by bureaucracy Jindal deadpanned:

"Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and go start rescuing people. There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens."

It took mere hours, if not minutes, for people to uncloak Jindal's lies. You see, for Americans "enterprising spirit" has been exploited and tested and now it's seriously testy.

Interestingly though, while everyone attacked the Katrina survivors part of Jindal's story because Jindal wasn't on the scene, the larger myths that his tale served stayed preposterously intact. First, despite his claim, there is no bureaucracy in the US that holds up enterprising spirit. There is bureaucracy without a doubt, and some of it may encroach on certain individuals. But it largely enables business and corporate benefits, and occasionally, like with the Clean Air regulations, protects individuals. As well, needless to say, Jindal is not the rugged leader leading all the rugged individuals, that's his fantasy world.

Rugged Individual or a cog in the Machine

We're a long time from the Cold War era in which Rand became a political fixture. Nevertheless the rugged individual myth is one that the American people are less willing to tear down. The myth matters because GDP and production and fairly docile citizens who go to work matter. If you drive off to your job in your SUV everyday, thinking how "rugged" you are, you might get through eight hours in a cubicle without cracking up. Politicians push the conceit since its certainly an easier populist sell than all the proceeding political-economic models -- monarchy, colonialism, feudalism, slavery, etc. But the myth is outdated.

A global economy needs global leaders, and individuals who work together. Today, the enemy is certainly not "the collective", although that might have been a believable enemy for someone who immigrated from the Soviet Union half a century ago. Nor is the enemy "the government", which has secured property laws, patent law, corporate law, free trade, privatization, and an entire infrastructure to the service of capitalism and private enterprise. There is no salient enemy.

Of course that is not what we hear from media because there would be no television news if not for enemies and wars, and if the market did not first go up, then come down, and if there were not Democrats who opposed Republicans and Republicans who opposed Democrats. How could we go to all our boring jobs day after day if we did not have network news to break things up, with their histrionics, their drama, and their enemies? This breaks the boredom and it helps us feel whole and human even as so much of what humans do is totally dehumanizing. But lets separate entertainment from information and policy.

Prophets on Profits, Work, Nature

I previously described how Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, like many Rand fans, thought the fiction of "Atlas Shrugged" was "eerily similar" to today's events.

If you too, think Rand was predicting the events of today half a century ago, than read more carefully to see how many predictions she made that were plumb wrong. Shift your gaze or tilt your head differently and Ayn Rand can seem like any cheap novelist. Sure, her books advocate capitalism. But her ideas were bounded by her experience, that is, Bolshevik history and the Cold War. Some people see Lenin in her work. You can even see Marx, whose philosophy Rand opposes. Both Karl Marx and Rand ruminated on the higher purpose that humans sought through fighting nature with labor. Compare Marx to Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead".

• Karl Marx said: "He [man] opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces. in order to appropriate Nature's productions in a form adapted to his own wants."

• Howard Roark said: "The creator's concern is the conquest of nature".

Sixty years ago humans were still ensconced in what we would dub today "a war on nature", and indeed their life hung in balance everyday as they farmed and fished, although their fate was not as precarious as their pioneer ancestors. But now in the 21st century, when humans have decimated so many species and environs, how can people doubt we have the upper hand? In fact, our domination is so complete that the poles are literally collapsing back on us. Paradoxically, nature still challenges, but global warming is our Frankenstein, and the fight is against ourselves. The reality is vastly different than what Rand and Marx knew. We don't need individuals who feel compelled to prove their worth in big highway cruisers.

Marx and Rand shared other constructs. Marx had his class struggle. Today the internet swirls with talk about "Going Galt", the folly that professional workers should walk off the job if the tax rate increases.

• Karl Marx, writing on how bees build intricate hives noted, "...what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own..."
• Howard Roark said: "Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision...His truth was his only motive. His work was his only goal. His creation...gave form to his truth. I am an architect.

If there is a class struggle, its not against the government, which is printing money to save large corporations as we speak. Most Americans work for these corporations, and even if they're a self-employed electrician their income is completely entwined with the banks. There are few "creations" to speak of unless the making of financial instruments count, and as we've learned, cowboys in finance do real harm. It is not the government that got us to this place.

Ayn Rand and CEOs -- She Completes Them

While economics departments don't include Rand in their curricula, everyone outside of academia acknowledges how much Ayn Rand influences politicians and businessmen. Apparently it doesn't matter to her fans that "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" are cheap potboilers. In a 2007 article, the New York Times interviewed John A. Allison, CEO of BB&T, one of the largest banks in the US, who said of "Atlas Shrugged".

"I know from talking to a lot of Fortune 500 C.E.O.'s that 'Atlas Shrugged' has had a significant effect on their business decisions...It offers something other books don't: the principles that apply to business and to life in general. I would call it complete."

And there I was thinking all that math I learned in economics and business classes was so important, when all I needed to read was an overly thick Harlequin romance?

In January, 2009, the Times reported that BB&T profit fell 26% in the 4th quarter of 2008, and so the bank accepted $3.1 billion in government money". Poof? Just like that? Rand out the window? To hell with "principles"? Mr. Allison can you comment? Should we shelve Rand next to Marx, now that it's 2009?

The American Image Dilemma

Worshipping the individual and the market may be what business leaders say they like to hear, however, it doesn't make Rand's ideas successful policy. A few years ago Americans strongly believed in their rugged individualism, as they flipped houses and extracted equity and took out big mortgages from aggrandizing lenders. Now they're feeling a little chastised and mad. Americans are caught up in the throes of a financial behemoth of their collective making, generated by private banking and enterprises they don't understand. But they'd probably like to feel like rugged individuals again.

Although "rugged individualism" is evidently music to emasculated workers ears, it's hard to buy. The USA is, after all, a country where 30% of the people are obese. Rugged doesn't usually come in size 3X stretchy pants. As well, Rand preached "reason" not religion, but 50% of the people believe in the Creator, not the "creator", and will tell you that humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs 6000 years ago. In 2009 a political party that tries to lead by encouraging this level of intellectual rigor from its citizens doesn't bode well for the nation of "knowledge workers".

But the GOP seems unable to become anything else. The party seems superglued to the rugged individual image and in it's service, they've forwarded the most unlikely series of messengers, Joe the Plumber, Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin. Nice try, attempting to be the party for "one-armed midgets" and the party of rugged individualists a la Reagan? Seriously Republicans, America -- the individualists, the midgets, and everyone else -- deserves a more up to date and congruous image.

Of course in the frightening series of public relations debacles by the GOP and their media, Rand actually plays a tiny role. The rugged pioneering individualist myth is a strained fictional construct. But unfortunately, Rand fans and some in the GOP do have one winning strategy, which is to promote the facile idea that far, far less government is better (except military and police). It's a winning strategy because the US (and every other state) will never have no regulation. Government regulation is what ensures "free markets". Therefore Ayn Rand fans have a permanent platform.

Like the unlikely longevity of the myth of the rugged individualist, now it's painfully obvious that deregulation is not the answer. But it's child's play for Randians to argue that George W. Bush was no Ayn Rand, and we need still less regulation. When we examine the notion however, it's clear that this too is part and parcel of old plot lines from outdated fiction. Mid-century may be fine for furniture, if orange plastic chairs and aqua blue polyester are your thing, but it doesn't work for economic policy.

The Rand Rage

Everyone's reading Ayn Rand. Have you noticed? The other day the Freakonomics blog wrote about a "recession icon of sorts emerges, wrapped in a Snuggie, puffing on a pipe -- and now with a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged on his lap." Back in January, Stephen Moore fantasized in the Wall Street Journal:

If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Sure enough, two months later, look! As books sales went up, the stock market rose, purportedly because Citi's living richly again. Is it Rand? Another sucker rally? Moore explained his rationale for the Ayn Rand reading assignment: "Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a 'virgin.'"**

The Movie is Better

I 'd last read "Atlas Shrugged" (1942) and "The Fountainhead" (1957) one summer in high school and found Rand entertaining. I wasn't an conservative, ideologically precocious teenager. I'd probably just finished up the Hardy Boys series and I wasn't submitting essays to her namesake institute's high school writing contests, -- I read Rand as pure fiction.

My recent dilemma was how to refresh my adult mind on Rand's ideas without adding another 1000+ page book to my staggering reading list. Sure, I could have skipped the book and read the reviews. But then I would have risked misinformation, like those who regurgitate PJ O'Rourke's interpretation of "The Wealth of Nations" thinking they're reading the real thing.

I reasoned that I could reread the "The Fountainhead" faster. It's a fraction of the size of "Atlas Shrugged" and although its written a decade earlier, it's laden with the same notions. I then stumbled upon "The Fountainhead", the movie -- even better. At 113 minutes, you save days of reading, and you can multitask while you watch, because it's pablum for simpletons.

Eerily Similar?

Beyond efficiency, there's another reason to watch the movie. When you read, your mind puts you in the story. You're standing at the quarry described in "The Fountainhead" (1949) in your 2009 shoes and 2009 hairstyle, with your 2009 global attitudes and 2009 cultural disposition and intelligence. You end up thinking what readers of Atlas Shrugged think these days -- Wow! Atlas Shrugged is just like 2009 -- wasn't Rand clever? You're perhaps predispositioned to the same specious comparisons that Stephen Moore made in his WSJ article:

"In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything."

This, Moore says, is "eerily similar" to the banks' dealings with Paulson last year when they "signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government". Really? No, actually it worked the other way. The government gave the banks the public's money, and the government isn't likely to gain much from those banks.

Consider many other examples that throw doubt on Moore's conclusion, for instance scientific research. Like many federal institutions, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funds research at public universities and eventually those advances get transferred to private industry, which can develop, patent, and profit from research paid for by government. Arpanet, developed by the Department of Defense, is now the internet and quite lucrative for businesses. As Rand once said:

"When you look for the source of an historic idea, you must consider philosophic essentials, not the superficial statements or errors that people may offer you. Even the most well-meaning men can misidentify the intellectual roots of their own attitudes."

You can avoid this type of historical misinterpretation by watching "The Fountainhead" yourself. Rand wrote the script and was heavily involved in the editing so you should have an authentic experience.

Homeland Terrorism and Bodice Rippng

As you watch the movie you can ask yourself: Despite what Moore and others say, is this a story we want to claim as influential to our economic foundation? --Alan Greenspan was an acolyte? Is it weird that US Congressmen present "Atlas Shrugged" to departing staff? Is the USA circa 1957 relevant to the USA circa 2009?

The female protagonist of the "The Fountainhead" (1949), "Dominique", rides up on her high white horse while Howard Roark mans his drill in the quarry, all testosterone and biceps and brawn and pride. Sparks fly from the dysfunctional male/female tension typical of Harlequin romances. Like any bodice ripping potboiler-romance paperback, Dominique and Roark are each other's quarry -- but Rand goes the extra mile and sets the story in a quarry too.

Roark is an outcast architect who chooses manual mining labor rather than sacrifice his ideals as an architect who designs aesthetically unpopular buildings. In one scene Roark lets a fellow architect take credit for his drawings. Then Roark finds out the builder altered his plan, gets mad and dynamites the entire complex. So the 2009 message is...teamwork is for sissies?

How about when Roarke throws the high falutin' Dominique to the ground in violent, mad lust? 2009? Or when Roark stands up in front of the jury after his dynamiting spree and delivers his big speech on the superiority of "creators". Roark says of himself and his hero "creators" :

"The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced....He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement..."

Roark is not so much noble creator, as he is a one man Weather Underground". His narcissistic speech does nothing to explain how anyone benefits from rampant vandalism, how misrepresentation of authorship is good business, or how societies would sustain themselves with such rampant selfishness. In reality, we would lock this man up as a felon. But alas, in the movie, the jury acquits him.

Harlequin Potboilers Founded our Global Economy

Just as Adam Smith proponents rarely mention the "Theory of Moral Sentiments", politicians who adopt Ayn Rand's ideas selectively pick points that they find useful and reject other significant sections of her philosophy, hailing her wisdom only when it supports their agendas.

Rand, a Russian immigrant, thought America's founders had made a big mistake in the Declaration of Independence by saying that men were "endowed 'by their Creator' with certain unalienable rights." So she had Roark redefine "creator", banish the big "C", and make each individual his own "creator", little "c".

In 2009 at least 50% of the population believes in the Creator, big "C". Rand was intolerant of this, and of Reagan and the "New Right", who she criticized for mixing religion with politics. She predicted dire consequences for Reagan's embrace of religion in his campaign:

"[R]eligious zeal is merely a variant of irrationalism and the demand for self-sacrifice--and therefore it has to lead to the same result in practice: dictatorship... While claiming to be the defenders of Americanism, their distinctive political agenda is statism....."

"[C]hildren, we are told, should be indoctrinated with state-mandated religion at school. For instance, biology texts should be rewritten under government tutelage to present the Book of Genesis as a scientific theory on par with or even superior to the theory of evolution..."

"What we are seeing is the medievalism of the Puritans all over again, but without their excuse of ignorance....The New Right is not the voice of Americanism. It is the voice of thought control attempting to take over in this country and pervert and undo the actual American revolution....."

Those who see all the parallels between "Atlas Shrugged" and today's banking aren't saying anything about Rand's predictions for teaching religion in schools, a practice that GW Bush was strategically equivocal about and that conservatives continue to embrace.

Helping is Futile and Other Anomalies

During the Cold War, the US fought Communism and Socialism, so it seems natural that her writing was popular with politicians and citizens. Marginalized conservatives half a century ago naturally embraced her virulent opposition to Communism, since it fit into the narrative they were building. Now the Randian movement (and conservatives) drudge up other enemies. One such enemy is altruism.

The Simpsons satirized Ayn Rand in "A Streetcar Named Marge" -- where one poster in the "Ayn Rand School for Tots" declares "Helping Is Futile". It's no joke.

When the Asian Tsunami wiped out over 200,000 people across Asia, the Ayn Rand Institute urged western governments not to give aid. Ayn Rand criticized altruism because she predicted in was a slippery slope to Communism.

"the New Right is leading us, admittedly or not, to the same end as its liberal opponents. By virtue of the movement's essential premises, it is supporting and abetting the triumph of statism in this country--and, therefore, of Communism in the world at large."

Ayn Rand ranted about the "New Right" movement that ascended into politics with Reagan, and charged that by accepting of the "New Deal", the Marshall Plan and social programs they were destroying the USA.

Twaddle to Live By?

By the end of the movie I realized my high school memory of Rand was too complimentary. I'm not movie critic, but "The Fountainhead" would dissuade most of delusions that Rand has anything to offer 2009. Do we really need to recruit "high-priced twaddle" to support modern day economics or policy?

At first we thought that since "The Fountainhead" was old, the age might be clouding our opinion. But while her book was popular in its day it also had voracious critics, and the movie met with a lot of the same criticism. A 1949 New York Times review had only scathing words for the movie: "[A] more curious lot of high-priced twaddle we haven't seen for a long, long time"...."Loaded with specious situations"...."wordy, involved and pretentious"...."not the most brilliant demonstration of logic in pictorial form". The author thought Roark's "creations" were abominable: "his work, from what we see of it, is trash".

If you read PJ ORourke instead of "Wealth of Nations" to understand history, or Crichton instead of the IPCC climate change report report to understand science, you might also subscribe to Rand's philosophies and urge that for today's economy. But pundits and admirers of Rand's fiction sweep under a giant rug all the anachronisms and flaws of "objectivism".

Historians with Atlas Shrugged in their hands would convince you Americans are individualists and historical winners. They would trace a history that connects today to yesterday, wealth to happiness, to Reagan to Rand and the glorious defeat of Communism, to the Invisible Hand and to Jesus Christ himself. But these are gauzy, fatuous connections, built around tawdry tales like "The Fountainhead".

So why is everyone touting Rand? Perhaps so they can drive by all the food lines and spit on people with a clear conscious? Who knows. But if major constituencies in America turn now to embrace Rand's half-century old "philosophy", should we worry?

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

**Then what? (Rand's fictional women were routinely flung to the ground by her male heros and defiled or deflowered -- Ahhh, the good 'ole days?)

Trendy Science?

Often, science seems under attack. On one hand, we know there will always be politicians who attack science like volcano monitoring, simply because they can. But don't you just wish politicians would change? How? Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, a biology student who applied to medical school, doesn't get the bulk of his campaign funding from individual geologists from the Northwest. And given the opportunity to run for president on a right leaning platform, how much influence will Rocks for Jocks really have?

The most alarming outcome of these political ploys, these self-serving displays of idiocy, is how the 'freaky science meme' courses through the population, gathering speed and strength. True, many people simply believe what they believe. But politicians who are derogatory towards science foster an atmosphere that's indulgent of general distrust for scientists. Creationists start crawling out of the woodwork. Then before you know it pedigree dog owners on the Upper West Side are openly discussing the *evil dognappers* who want to steal their precious pooches to supply "the burgeoning industry that is--collecting dogs and giving them to laboratories for experiments.".

We always wish the reporters would ask the "Marilyn Pasekoff[s] (Hogan, German shepherd)" who they find "walking in Riverside Park", just one more question, that is: "Describe an experiment you imagine occurring in these 'laboratories' with these pedigree dogs." Right? Blankets thrown over Pomeranians and Great Danes when researchers sneak them through the back doors of Columbia University and New York University before hoisting them up on the lab bench in the dark of night?

The good news, perhaps a mild antidote to such nonsense, is how the Obama administration continues to follow through with campaign promises -- to fund science, to end the ban on embryonic stem cell research, to address global warming and healthcare. Nothing like eight years of GW Bush administration anti-logic, anti-science leadership to give scientists a very heightened appreciation for an administration that seems to understand how important it is to make science and technology just slightly more relevant again.

Test Tube Confidence

And in a global economy this is a global endeavor. Following in President Obama's footsteps, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced last week that he wanted to properly fund science and technology and assure a future where the financial sector is the servant of industry, and never its master. Bold.

(But what will replace manufacturing?) Students protested Brown's speech at Oxford, referencing the global meltdown and job losses at local car plants.

One women in his audience commented on the new focus on science -- '"don't mention the Economics-word, let's talk about mixing chemicals in a test tube - at least that works."' Cynical as she was, to scientists coming out of the great drought of political support, even this is a refreshing change in populist rhetoric. Science "works"? You think? I'll put that in my back pocket!

Border Envy

However not all is well, naturally. Canadian scientists are concerned about their flat or decreasing national science budgets. The Ottawa Citizen reports that the three granting councils which fund most academic research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, have been asked to cut $148 million from their budgets over the next three years.

The government cuts occur despite protest by industry and academic scientists who worry about the nation's science and technology standing (as well as their own careers). Funding levels have remained flat or decreased under the conservative government and Canadian scientists now worry that talent will move across the border to the US and better funding. Ironically, the Canadians now cite US wisdom in prioritizing science.

Science, Now Rich Enough to Be Taken Hostage

Finally, one last change that illustrates a certain new-found importance for science. Admittedly, this is again, a case of squeezing lemonade out of lemons. Obama administration science advisory nominations, John Holdren for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Jane Lubchenco for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are are seen by certain politicians as appropriate targets for political blackmail. That's pathetic. That's rich. Scientists sigh. Oh, the danger of being important.

So with the focus on science, not only in the US but in the UK too, are we dreaming to imagine a time when science attains greater respect and citizens reject anti-science stances? As the New York Times reported in February, The Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology (SIBC) announced that it would hold its 2011 meeting in Salt Lake City, instead of New Orleans, because of the law Governor Jindal signed last summer allowing teachers to use "supplemental textbooks" to "help students critique and review scientific theories".

The laws framer's insisted they had no subversive religious agenda, but the forthright group "Catholic Exchange" announced when the bill passed: "Bobby Jindal Signs Law Allowing Intelligent Design in Louisiana Schools". Louisiana was one of several states to pass legislation during the Bush administration allowing schools to teach of alternative (creationist) views. Framed as "the controversy", these new curriculum changes pander to right wing voters. Will these voters and politicians continue their anti-science fervor as Obama government recognizes science and science regains its footing? We can hope not.

• Science Budgets That Look Friendly: Barack Obama's budget proposal looks good for science although we know this will get kicked around in Congress. Science reports these proposed budget increases:

  * NIH is slated to receive $7 billion over the $70.5 billion dollar budget, including $6 billion for the National Cancer Institute.

  * NSF: The budget asks for a 8.5% increase to $7.045 billion dollars.

  * DOE: The projection for 2009 is $33.9 billion, in addition to $39 billion for energy programs under the stimulus package, and $1.6 billion for the Office of Science.

  * NASA: $18.7 billion has been requested, which is a $700 million increase over this year's figure. The stimulus package included $1 billion.

• Public Health, Thai Style: Thailand's Anti-Smoking campaign run by the Thailand Health Promotion Institute demands that all cigarette boxes be printed with one of several disconcerting graphics, to dissuade smokers from smoking. So smokers will be able to blow artful cigarette rings while regarding a box adorned with rotting teeth, a body tethered from emphysema to hospital ventilators, lung cancer, or skeletons. The country intends to run similar warnings to dissuade alcohol drinking.

• Branding Triplets: Peter Orszag started an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) blog last week. The first title announced a new slogan: "Discipline, Efficiency, Prosperity". Perhaps the OMB is signaling that branding strategists have swept through to overhaul the agency's image, and that the marketing team incredibly found a few unspoken for adjectives still available after the run of the late 90's. Or perhaps enough companies have gone out of business now that some adjectives are newly available for government agencies to use.

  The OMB promises a turnaround from the apparent Bush era slogan: Dissemble, Procrastinate and Ruin -- and offers the new blog to open up channels of communication.

  Our only experience with Cabinet blogs was reading Mike Leavitt's blog, a communique that wasn't usually a font of transparency. For instance, Leavitt traveled to Africa several times to support PEPFAR and the Bush public health agenda. During Leavitt's 2007 visit, African president Thabo Mbeki was be writing about Leavitt's endorsement of the African National Congress's (ANC) nutrition and HIV/AIDS policies (in Mbeki's usual misleading manner). However, Leavitt's blog of his trip would read like a vaguely concerned tourists introduction to the country. 'All these orphans -- that's going to be a problem....' No mention of HIV/AIDS policies. Dissembling.

  I guess there's only so much transparency allowed on a government blog.

• Paper Cuts: This map shows the distribution of 15,590+ jobs lost from newspapers since 2007. Unlike many online denizens, I actually still subscribe and enjoy paper media. Oh well.

• Poland Spring and Nestle Deterred?: The town of Shapleigh, Maine voted against Nestle in the company's bid to test the spring water in their town for possible bottling. The townspeople reject the idea of Nestle extracting water from their springs. Their vote may or may not accomplish their objective, pending likely legal challenges and the fact that the townspeople don't have say over state owned or private drilling sites in the town. The movie, "Flow" documented the extraction of water in Michigan.

• Rahm Emmanuel Runs the Republican Party: Sunday, Rahm Emmanuel told Bob Schieffer that Rush Limbaugh was "voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Emmanuel explained that when Republicans "attack" Limbaugh they have to then "turn around and come back and basically said that he's apologizing and was wrong." Sure enough, a couple of days ago, RNC chairman Michael Steele told CNN's D.L. Hughly that he, Steele, not Limbaugh, was the "de facto leader" of the party, and Limbaugh merely had a show that was "incendiary" and "ugly". Today Steele apologized to Limbaugh.

• Measles -- Science In Action: Last week a man returned from Europe with measles symptoms, caught from a friend. Once home, he came into contact with 73 people, which the San Francisco Communicable Disease & Prevention (CDCP) center contacted after activating an Infectious Disease Emergency Response. The man claimed to have been vaccinated twice against measles but couldn't document this. Instead he asserted that his disease symptoms proved that vaccinations don't work. Two of the man's children were also unvaccinated.

  The aptly named Andrew Resignato, the director of the San Francisco Immunization Coalition, noted that since the average person doesn't understand vaccines or disease or science, these perennial outbreaks among the unvaccinated are to be expected. Last year a measles outbreak infected 12 people in San Diego. Earlier this year, a different man returning from India set off another Emergency Response in San Francisco.

• Octopus Are Our Friends: Nothing like an octopus that inadvertently manipulates the water flow in its pool to plunge reporters into anthropomorphic sentiment. The Los Angeles Times reported that a female octopus at the Santa Monica Aquarium "disassembled the recycling systems valve, flooding the place with 200 gallons of seawater". This octopedal dexterity motivated quite a few comparisons to humans.

  The two-spotted octopus, which if spread out, according to LA Times reporter Bob Pool, would be "the size of a human forearm", "floated lazily in the water that remained in its tank", then "watched intently through glass walls and portholes as workers struggled to dry the place out in time for the day's first busload of schoolchildren to arrive on a 9:30 a.m. field trip." (Emphasis mine) Octopus fans immediately started writing in to suggest that the aquarium should name the unnamed octopus, from "it" or "she", to "Flo". Sure, why don't we just invite "Flo" to tea and sandwiches while we're at it?

Lavished, So to Speak

The stimulus package worked out better than it seemed it might when we last wrote about the bill. In the somewhat histrionically titled, "Science Funding Gouged From Stimulus Package", we talked about proposed cuts to the package, including all the intended NSF money. In the end $21 billion dollars of the $787 billion dollar economic stimulus package were allotted to science research and infrastructure. In an article this week, the journal Science called scientists "surprised" to be "lavished" with new funding for beleaguered science institutions, including

• $10 billion to the National Institute of Health (NIH)
• $3 billion to the National Science Foundation (NSF)
• $1.6 billion to the Office of Science in the Department of Energy (DOE)

But lest there be any confusion, "scientist lavished" is quite different from "lavished" as in banking, insurance, and auto industry lavished. We're not talking corporate jets, or $86,000 partridge hunts, Ritz-Carlton junkets, or hundred thousand dollar ads to complain about crack-downs on perks, "lavished". "Scientist lavished" means, wow, we can buy a new beaker? Or -- really? I don't have to mouth pipette anymore?

Surprised scientists may be, as they were habituated to dark downward spirals or plateaus in science and science education funding. Most of the money will be spent, carefully, with what's promised to be diligent oversight, on "shovel-ready" projects -- infrastructure. And it isn't as much money as it seems. As the American Association of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) (publisher of Science) pointed out in an earlier analysis, R&D facilities funding for 2008 was $4.4 billion. Half of that went to the International Space Station. Expenses add up fast. But think of the mileage the US got by **putting a man on the moon**.

The new, use it or lose it funding fulfills intentions Congress laid out in the in the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act -- H.R. 2272, which wasn't funded. The COMPETES Act was co-sponsored by many legislators, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden and reflected years of rhetoric about making the US more competitive in science and technology.

But The Labor is Cheap

Science is a good investment. Research is expensive, true. But think of all the technology born in academic labs. Very low paid graduate students at schools and universities all over the US execute experiments towards diverse inventions like computers, life-saving drugs, space exploration, and medical technology.

Taxpayers get a good deal with scientists. $500,000 salary limits would be no problem, since the majority of scientists working in the US don't make a 20th of that. Grads in labs are paid a fraction of what a newly minted banker earns to enter your deposit onto their balance sheets. Another nice think about scientists is that they don't amass fortunes of $billions of dollars absconded from investors. Rather, shunning office Armani for denim and sneakers, the science corps work away, sometimes cheerfully, hoping for the best from every plate pulled from the incubator, until one day, somewhere down the line, a company announces a drug that prolongs the life of your loved one, and you think, wow, where did that come from? Or not -- but it most likely started as some inkling idea then was developed in a government funded lab, before being passed on to the private sector.

Some scientists have expressed concern that the mass dollar infusion won't be sustained with consistent budgets in future years. We'll hope for the best.

Originally posted under the title: "Peanut Crimes The FDA and You"

When the FDA Fails, Have Your Day In Court?

FDA Scientists are desperate to get the word out that the medical devices section of the FDA is dysfunctional. A couple of weeks ago 9 FDA scientists who work in the device division wrote a letter to Barack Obama in an effort to bring problems with device testing to his attention. The scientists had first written to former FDA Commisioner von Eschenbach, then to members of the House and Senate, then to the president's transition team before addressing Obama in an effort to get their complaints heard.

The scientists maintain that the FDA has put them under criminal investigation as retribution for their public demands that the agency change how it regulates devices. The current methods for testing Class III devices are outdated, so devices like pacemakers and replacement heart valves can enter the market without adequate testing. An urgent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also found device testing inadequate in an investigation it published this January.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported last year on a case where several hundred patients filed a suit against Medtronic for injuries suffered from faulty implanted heart valve replacement devices. A cracked lead in certain Sprint Fidelis models caused strong intermittent shocks to the heart, which apparently felt to the patient like getting kicked in the chest by a horse. One 68 year old woman interviewed by the Tribune said in one hour she was shocked 54 times. The Medtronic device received FDA approval as a Class III device.

The suit brought by the hundreds of patients with faulty Medtronic valve replacement with cracked leads was dismissed by a US District Court in St. Paul Minneapolis, who based his decision on a Supreme Court case that protected medical device makers from product liability cases after the products had been through FDA review. The Supreme Court ruling was for a different Medtronic product, the balloon catheter.

FDA Meets With Industry: 113, FDA Meets With Consumers: 5 -- Who Wins?

While regulation can hamper markets, inadequate regulation leads to dangers for citizens that also, in the end, hamper markets. Baseball with no rules would no longer a fun game that millions of fans pay exorbitant amounts of money to watch. From the Harper's Index, January, 2009:

"Number of times FDA officials met with consumer and patient groups as they revised drug-review policy in 2006: 5. Number of times FDA officials met with industry representatives: 113." (Source: FDA)

Perhaps the FDA met with business because of logistics, or because they were there, or perhaps because companies have more money than a 68 year old women with heart problems. Many would probably like to get rid of government so that companies (or as PJ O'Rourke would have it, community organizations) could save their lobby money and put it right back into shareholder's pockets the economy.

But we too will grow old and just might need such a device to continue on with our lives (in order to continue contributing to the economic well-being of our country). Then who should we trust so as not to get kicked in the chest by a horse 50 times an hour? The system that will revamp the FDA? Or the system that advocates handing all oversight to "independent" contractors hired by the companies selling the products? Your choice.

PCA Maneuvers

The Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), responsible for over 630 illnesses and nine deaths from reactions to Salmonella infected peanuts, filed for bankruptcy liquidation. Culpability? The Consumer's Union (CU) reports that the bankruptcy will protect the company from lawsuits. The company listed one to ten million dollars in liabilities and coincidentally, one to ten million dollars in assets.¹ The Washington Post elaborates that lawyers will move to have the stay preventing new lawsuits lifted. CU called on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to "oversee food processors so that unscrupulous behavior can be detected, prevented, and deterred".

But in order for that oversight to happen, the journal Nature writes, the FDA needs at least a new commissioner and more staff to replace those lost in the past 5 years. Said Michael Taylor, a former deputy commissioner for policy at the FDA: "Members on both sides of the aisle are getting that there is a system-wide problem here, that there has to be institutional change." Nature reports that even food corporations represented by 10 organizations have appealed to congress for food safety reforms enacted through the FDA. (Wadman, M. "Obama puts focus on FDA after peanut poisonings" Nature 457, 770-771 (2009) | doi:10.1038/457770a)

The agency has been significantly weakened in a worldwide spiderweb of pharma and food production companies that generate increasing threats to consumers and that need more oversight. The FDA however is failing to keep up, and has for years been routinely paraded across the news with systemic problems. The problem is cyclical. Nature's story about the weakened agency has strong similarities to the one told in 1989 by the New York Times.

In 1989 the FDA was "ailing", reported the NYT. Reagan had eviscerated the agency in his deregulatory zeal, and Dr. Samuel Thier, president of the Institute of Medicine in the National Academy of Sciences, told the newspaper: "the Food and Drug Administration is a demoralized group, being asked to do too much with too few resources.'' As was reported this week about the state of the FDA, 20 years ago the NYT reported with an air of dropped-jaw breathlessness: "the situation has gotten bad enough that the industry regulated by the agency has begun to press for a stronger agency".

In 1992 David Thessler was nominated to run the agency, which he did for six years, revitalizing the agency's regulatory authority and working to bring tobacco under FDA control, but drew ire from some businesses.

Privatizing Product Inspection: When It Doesn't Work

Reagan accelerated 'kill the FDA' policy trend, and organizations like Cato and politicians like Newt Gingrich pushed to make shrinking the FDA a public priority. Among their goals, they aimed to privatize inspections. The agency was a "monopoly", they said, responsible for millions of job losses in the US. Articles like Cato's 2001 "How FDA Regulation and Injury Litigation: Cripple the Medical Device Industry", helped convince legislators to loosen regulation and contract out important functions.

But an earlier NYT article reported that when the State Agriculture Department inspected the plant in 2007 and 2008, it found multiple problems, especially of food processing services "not cleaned or sanitized". Why was AIB's inspection lax?

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

¹ There's the movie "The Corporation". Seen it? It's been around for a few years and is available for download on Google.

Acronym Required has been writing about problems at the FDA since 2005, including posts on BPA and the FDA; Commisioner von Eschenbach's confirmation hearings in "The FDA'S 'Medical Ideology'"; on the beleaguered organization in general -- "Resuscitating The FDA"; the FDA in the wake of various fiascoes and staff turnover, at "FDA -- Calling Off The Dogs"; and about general issues recruiting scientists in "Ethics- The NIH and FDA".

• Penguins in Peril

  More penguins are in peril from global warming. Scientists from the University of Washington report that members of the Magellanic penguin colony from Punta Tombo now have to swim 50 miles farther round-trip, to successfully forage for food -- while their mates sit on the eggs. Last month Proceedings for the National Advancement of Sciences reported on the endangered fate of the Emperor penguins. Remember the trials and tribulations in March of the Penguins that we wrote about in March On Penguins? Now it's even harder.

• Interspecies Love

  Scientists know that various forms of gene transfer occur between species, especially in prokaryotes like bacteria and certain eukaryotes like species in the plant genus Senecio. Native to Sicily, Senecio squalidus for instance, was introduced to the UK about 300 years ago. As the flower spread it, it pollinated with an indigenous flower and formed a second form of that British weed Senecio vulgaris (common groundsel). The alternate morphology of the groundsel had petals, making it look perhaps less "vulgaris" and more like a daisy drawn by a child.

  Building previous research, scientists published a paper in Science last fall, which identified a cluster of genes transferred between Senecio species by introgressive hybridization. The cluster seemed to cause the petals in the second form of Senecio vulgaris, which gave plant a genetic leg-up because it could pollinate more easily. The weed could also then be used by humans in "Loves me, Loves me not" trials -- unclear whether that's an evolutionary advantage, to any species.

  Other eukaryote species don't undergo such capricious genetic exchange although evolution seems always unpredictable. In a paper this week in Nature scientists from the University of Washington compared the genomes of macaques, orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Macaques split from the other three species about 25 million years ago. Building on previous work, scientists looking at the genome found "bursts of activity" that duplicated whole pieces of the genomes, 20,000 base sequences or more, at the same time that single gene changes were slowing down. The bursts of activity happened at key times, like before the chimps and humans diverged about ten million years ago. The duplications occurred where areas of previous duplications occurred, indicating that these areas rapidly evolve.

• Autism Ruling

  A court ruled that three patients whose children were autistic did not present enough evidence to convince the court that vaccines caused the illnesses. (Could you imagine the havoc is they had ruled the other way?) Despite the decision, parents will still be convinced that their children's autism was caused by vaccines. Or rain?.

• Bisphenol A Updates and Ultimatums

  Health Canada's Health Products and Food Branch and the FDA hosted a meeting of manufacturers and users of packaging materials to discuss strategies for understanding bisphenol A and reducing use of the chemical in consumer products. The FDA is scheduled to issue another round of BPA information on the safety of the chemical on February 24th. In the meantime, the city council of Chicago, in the US, is acting to restrict the chemical and has warned that if the FDA doesn't act by April 30th, it will. I'm sure certain chemical and toy associations are bearing down on Chicago as we speak.

Judd Gregg withdrew his name from consideration as Secretary of the US Department of Commerce yesterday. Early in his career, when CATO was pushing the idea and it was trendy, Gregg suggested that the department should be eliminated. This fact got some progressives apoplectic when Obama nominated him, although Gregg had been very supportive of certain parts of Commerce, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Gregg's NOAA sponsorship paid off for New Hampshire, but many Republicans, would abolish NOAA, along with the parts of Commerce that oversee trade, the census, and programs to benefit minority businesses. ¹ The Financial Times noted today:

"The New Hampshire Republicans would have spared himself and Barack Obama...had the measure succeeded. Instead, the commerce department survived and, with it, the job of commerce secretary"¹

Paradoxically, if Commerce had been eliminated, Barack Obama would have been spared Gregg's waffling, but CATO, would-be killer of the Department of Commerce, would be in a pickle. Where would it turn to the get evidence it uses in arguments before Congress for unregulated free trade?

Even considering that Obama has said he is open to doing away with ineffective parts of government, and some arguments that the Department of Commerce is mostly heavy on http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18836.html">partisan perks, it's clear that the appointment was never a good fit. Really, if you need to take the centennial census away from the guy you nominated to the department that oversees the census? Not exactly ISO 9000 level of trust.

But does Gregg's sudden realization that he doesn't want what he asked for, that he's not willing to endure a spot on the team of rivals, bode ill for Obama's "bipartisanship"? Well, the team of rivals is perhaps overrated, apparently "Chase and Seward and Cameron and Stanton were in fact a crew of venomous enemies, all of whom underestimated their leader." Who needs "rivals" when you have bloggers, anyway?

Gregg was apparently pressured by his party. Obama will not cease working across the aisle, said his administration. But Congress? Republicans? GOP strategists eat bipartisanship rhetoric up like the monsters on Rampage World Tour.

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

¹ The photo was taken by NOAA. It shows Judd Gregg's wife signing the keel of a newly built NOAA ship in 2004. The ship was named by high school students as part of a program to engage students with scientific studies. The ship was named after Henry Bryant Bigelow, an oceanographer who worked as a researcher, instructor and professor of zoology at Harvard from 1906 to 1962, and who founded Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in 1931. The former Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), and Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) were thanked at the "traditional keel laying ceremony".

The Politics of Problem Solving in the US. One: Know Your Audience

Michael Moore's 2007 film Sicko was familiar to me even before I watched it last night, because the media dissected all parts of the film with yeahs or boos when it opened two years ago. Moore's concise editorial on the US health care system didn't muddle his point about the superiority of nationalized health care by dwelling on gray areas or discussing exceptions or contradictions. It was a simple tale, US health care: bad; Canada, Cuba, Britain, France health care: good. Criticism about Moore's lack of journalistic rigor was fair, but I found the film surprisingly refreshing.

We've been living an unfolding disaster, whereby politicians meander down the middle of the road, hopping to one side or the other as dangerous objects from the other side veer too close. Always on the path to the next election, they can never stray too far from the middle. Progressive public relations 2009 dictates that you deliver uplifting rhetoric, then when your actions fail to bring the change you promise, you must call everything a giant success anyway. Journalist, activist or politician, you win support and earn money by appealing to all sides and botoxing a cheerful smile on your face.

The Democrats didn't bemoan the cuts after the House and Senate reached agreement on the stimulus package. The bill lost education and state aid, but the centrist crafters beamed on the podium. Susan Collins, Senator from Maine, toed her own Republican party line when announcing the final package of $789 TRILLION dollars. "It is a fiscally responsible number", she said brightly, without choking, sputtering, or falling backwards in a recoil effect from the force of the lie.

While politicians need to wag this way, there's none of this middle of the road stuff for Moore and his "Dog Eat Dog Films". US health care is rotten to the core, and Moore says so, pulling no stops and corralling the most unlikely players -- Cuba, Britain, and sick 9-11 workers -- to play their parts.

Moore focuses on the high profit US insurance industry and the managed care system. He tells real, scary accounts of insurance denials for services that led to the illnesses or deaths of patients. The story appealed to his select audience, but of course the problem is more complicated than greedy insurance companies. Moores' nationalization solution necessarily cuts out all the complications and idiosyncrasies implicit to delivering health care in a 21st centure US. So he was rightly criticized.

Two: Isolate the "Problem" and Develop a "Simple" Solution

But criticize away, every solution proposed for every complicated problem simplifies, whether Barack Obama proposes the solution, or Michael Moore does. When we look to solve complicated system failures, we tend to herd ourselves towards solutions that fall within the bounds of the current broken system. The solution of nationalized medicine for the healthcare problem isn't necessarily simple but Moore makes it look as simple and straightforward as an Old West movie gunfight.

Moore tried to sell a simple solution by making it look easy. Politicians, for lack of imagination, political will and guts, craft simplistic solutions. As it turns out, often the solutions involve technology, which has universal appeal and people don't know how hard it is.

What was the cause of the economic meltdown? It was people who bought mortgages that they didn't understand, like ARM's that ballooned. This caused massive foreclosures. I'll label this the "stupid homeowner" theory of economic meltdown. How do we dust our hands of this problem? Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler come to the rescue in "Human Frailty Caused This Crisis", published by the Financial Times:

Regulators therefore need to help people manage complexity and resist temptation.... Regulators can reduce the chances of a future meltdown by making it easier to understand financial products....Fine-print disclosure should be supplemented by machine-readable files enabling third-party websites to translate hidden details of the terms.

A preposterous solution to the financial crisis.

Here's a different example, this time the media comes up with the solution. Why is the US health care system flagging? According to USA Today and ABC News, it's because of illegal immigrants. The audience tested "solution" is so self-evident that it needs no explanation. Of course the "problem" is simply not true.

Three: Shut Down Any Solution that Disturbs the Current Paradigm.

Watch no less than five CNBC commentators taking on Nouriel Roubini and Tassim Taleb, trying to force them into making economic turnaround predictions. When Bill Gates comes to listen to you at Davos, chirps one commentator, isn't that "a data point" that indicates imminent economic recovery? Roubini and Taleb persevere through this ridiculousness, counseling how we must change the banks, the compensation, the culture, and everyone running it, "that class of people" who "failed and will fail again". The five person news team clamors noisily for investment advice. The five don't and won't get it, maybe since they're actually still all employed to prattle on like this. They tell the economists that they're there as a sideshow -- Roubini and Taleb have entered the mental ward that is this CNBC show.

The problems plaguing health care are as complex as fixing finance and the solutions offered are also simplistic. For health care, Obama drives towards electronic records. There's something to this, to having all the patients records in one place and accessible, no one can deny that, and we certainly support it. But technology is not the solution, it's another layer of abstraction on top of a broken system, a pay for service (not for health), for profit, high throughput scheme that focuses on "managing" patients, privatizing care, cutting costs, and improving efficiency. This focus on efficiency may work for churning out auto parts, but you can't care for humans via an assembly line.

When It's Not About Technology

Electronic records will help doctors and patients but most of all it will help the current winners, the insurance companies and for-profit entities that stand between to doctors and the patients. Doctors who currently have electronic record systems complain that they're not give time to respond to email, to enter records or to speak with patients, never mind diagnose them. Electronic records will certainly help "manage" costs. But "managing" costs and the endless drive to "efficiency" is what brought the system to its knees in the first place. The focus is wrong and the system is broken.

The New York Times had an interesting account this week by a patient who fared very differently than Michael Moore's sick, helpless lambs. Jay Neugeboren tells the story of how he was given a clean bill of health by his doctors and cardiologist. But shortness of breath and a burning pain in his back motivated him to call on some friends who were doctors. One of them recommended he go to the hospital, where he got an electrocardiogram which showed three arteries totally blocked, and one 90% blocked. Now, ten years after his quintuple bipass surgery, he's doing fine. Neugeboren emphasizes how lucky he was. His clinical profile -- lipid panel, blood pressure, weight, diet, exercise, lifestyle -- was excellent. Without his friends who took the time to listen to his problems, he said, no test or technology predicted how close to death he was. ¹

One caveat to the author's story is this: "I had no conventional risk factors or symptoms", he writes in the NYT. However in an excerpt listed on Amazon, he says: "My father, who died of emphysema at the age of seventy-two, had had a heart attack when he was fifty-nine, but he never exercised, had been overweight, and had smoked three packs of Chesterfields a day throughout his adult life." His father had a heart attack at the same age he did. Which suggests that he did have a conventional risk factor, genetic predisposition. But the author doesn't write that. Apparently he thought his lifestyle would trump genetics, and apparently his doctor thought so too. In his case it didn't. Disease is not necessarily predictable, for patients or doctors.

Because disease is not predictable, and because on so many levels we don't understand health, we need doctors to spend time with patients, to be detectives, first to sort through the patient history, then to decide what that history demands. Is the patient understating the problem or a hypochondriac. Technology shortens time with patients, but who does that benefit? Technology will give more information, but it will most reliably improve statistics with which insurance companies place bets about patient's health and improve their bottom line.

But it's not the solution to the health care crisis, if the crisis is one about poor care -- which it is. Technology seems like a nuts and bolts solution to many people but is as ephemeral as the placebo offered to a villager who sees a doctor for the first time and wants a token to feel better.

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

¹ Neugeboren wrote a book about his experience.

• Globalization 3.0 -- Sneakers, Call Centers, Banking?

  When the Obama administration suggested a cap executive salaries for banks on national dole, news quickly bubbled up about all the loopholes behind the announcement. Bankers bristled at the mere idea of caps. It occurred to Bank of America that they really didn't need any federal money after all. Deutsche Bank cheekily predicted that US bankers would defect to Europe. But according to this news report, bankers don't earn as much in Europe or anywhere else as they do in the US. Not only that, excessive banker salaries are being criticized in Europe, Japan, and China, although in Japan and China bankers reportedly make about $400K per year. So far China's not recruiting US bankers, although they are recruiting scientists. Maybe someday soon, when bankers think the rules are too tough to grapple with in the US, they'll be able to seize the day in China.

• California Floods of the Future

  Rain may be causing consternation about flash floods in California, but scientists are thinking about even more intense flooding when global warming causes the seas to rise. A study by the U. of Oregon and University of Toronto published last week in Science, found that the melting Antarctic and resultant collapse of the ice sheet would cause sea levels to increase differently in different parts of the world.

  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the Western Antarctic ice sheet would melt and cause the sea level to rise 5 meters. However this uniform rise of sea levels may not happen. Instead the seas will rise more in some places, like North America and the Indian Ocean, than others, like Antarctica.

  The paper's authors discuss with the NSF three effects that will contribute to the uneven rise in sea levels. Now, because of the ice-water gravitational attraction, the Antarctic ice sheet draws water to it. But as the ice sheet melts, less water will be drawn to it and more will flow to North America. Second, the Antarctic ice sheet now sits in a hole, caused partly by the weight of the ice mass. As that mass melts, the depression will become smaller -- so more water will flow to North America. Finally, the melting ice sheet would alter the rotational force of the Earth, so the South Pole will move, shifting water away from the pole to other places, like the west coast of the United States.

  In California, $2.5 trillion in real estate assets is endangered by climate change.

• Dams for Water -- And Quakes?

  Speaking of water damage, was the earthquake in China hastened by the dam? Scientists are suggesting that the weight of water in the Zipingpu reservoir, created by the massive Zipngdu dam in the Minjiang river affected the seismicity of the Beichaun fault a mile away and perhaps contributed to the timing and dynamics of the 7.9 Sichuan earthquake. The excellent movie "Up The Yangtze" followed the dam building on the lives of one family.

• Worst Job -- Marine Biologist?

  Rising seas, more marine biology? It was my dream job as a child, but apparently it doesn't suit everyone. Unable the get a job for three years as a graduating economist from UC Davis, Daniel Seddiqui set out to try 50 jobs in 50 states. His best job so far, he says, was border patrol, tracking immigrants on the border. His worst? Working as a marine biologist in Seattle. "Boring", he said. At the moment you can't find out the details of his ennui on account of the 404, but a couple other scientific-ish careers seemed to please him more. See him on Fox News or wait for the book.

• A World of Cheaters and Crooks?

  Some of Obama's recent picks for leadership positions have stepped aside with tax payment problems. Tom Daschle will not head Health and Human services. Nancy Killefer withdrew her name as chief performance officer. And Friday the Senate committee reviewing Rep. Hilda Solis's nomination for Labor Secretary canceled their meeting because of outstanding liens -- some 16 years old -- on Solis's husband's business. Timothy Geithner managed to get through with his much larger unpaid tax obligations, that's before we understood how trendy tax evasion was.

  While Republicans rally for some populist rage around these tax missteps, one "senior Democratic official" told the Financial Times (Feb. 3, 2009): "In practice, you have to make exceptions for individuals. Very few people can withstand such scrutiny." Really?? I will never apply then. How embarrassing would it be to admit to some wealth-conscious senatorial committee that my only perk is an annual Medecin Sans Frontieres map of the world's trouble spots?

• The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act: Senators Sing, Dance, and Beg for Phthalates and Lead

  The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that goes into effect Tuesday will make it illegal for stores to sell products for children under twelve that contain dangerous levels of lead, and products for kids under three that contain dangerous levels of phthalates that cause deleterious effects on development in babies. Consumer groups were denied their request to delay the law by federal Consumer Product Safety Commission last week.

  But some US senators chafe at the idea of losing toys like the Valentine's Day mechanical singing-and-dancing plush animals with red plastic guitars -- the toxic lead containing "Wild Thing Gorilla", "Ain't Too Proud to Beg Dog", the "Sing & Dance Puppy". The LA Times reported last week that Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) "introduced a bill Thursday that would postpone the law, and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced a stimulus package amendment that would block the law.

Grapevine of Worry

Lucy Kellaway wrote in the Financial Times a couple of days ago that her own "mild fearfulness" about the economy had ballooned to hyperventilating paranoia after she spent time surfing the web and opening e-mail.

"Through blogs, websites and e-mails the world's economic ills are fed to us on a drip all day long. It is not just that we hear about bad things faster, we hear about more of them and in a more immediate way. My worries become yours, and yours become mine."

Since I don't "sit over my computer all day and feed my anxiety", I disagree. I don't succumb to bad news, rather I cheer myself when Obama talks about limiting publicly financed executive pay, or when the head of the Bureau of Land Management puts a hold on the drilling leases near national parks auctioned off by the Bush administration. In dire moments, I distract myself with unicorn chasers and happy news. Don't you? I walk away from the computer at will. I turn it off.

Back To Math Class You Go

But lets move beyond my anecdotal evidence. Lucy Kellaway speaks, as always, slightly tongue in cheek, but other news stories might convince you that the internet truly does harbor inescapable and vile corruption that needs to be caged. Take for instance, the New York Times piece yesterday about MySpace and their campaign to purge registered sex predator names from their site. According to the NYT, MySpace turned over 90,000 names to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Attorney General Roy Cooper of North Carolina.

Officials are pressuring social networking sites to adopt more stringent safety standards to assure children's safety. This is a welcome but confusingly priority since a report by the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, commissioned by 49 state attorneys general found that bullying online was a far more serious problem than sexual solicitation. Nevertheless, Attorney General Blumenthal said in a recent statement:

"Almost 100,000 convicted sex offenders mixing with children on MySpace -- shown by our subpoena -- is absolutely appalling and totally unacceptable...for every one of them, there may be hundreds of others using false names and ages."

I'm all for blocking names. But lets sort through his math. 90,000 names, times "hundreds" of "others". We'll interpret his "hundreds" conservatively, let's say 300-- although perhaps the Attorney General meant 900. So 90,000 * 300 = 27,000,000 sex offenders on MySpace? Maybe up to 81,000,000? The population of the US is ~303,824,640. So on the conservative side, Blumenthal tells us that 1 in 10 US sex offender citizens trolls MySpace. YIKES!

The Times reports later in the story that there are 700,000 sex offenders in the US. The paper doesn't worry with the math discrepancy. Instead they quote John A. Phillips, "chief executive of Aristotle, a company that supplies identity and age verification technologies for companies like the New York State Lottery, breweries and film studios", who is trying to sell his software to Myspace, and so piles on: '"this is just the tip of the iceberg on MySpace".

So, fear for the little children. Fear for the investor class, homeowners, and retirement fund enrollees. Who else?

Fear For the Suggestible, the Unvaccinated

If 1/1000 to 4/1000 registered YouTube users rate vaccination videos with 1 to 5 stars, adding comments like, "your video is stupid, and your a dumbass that's what my mom thinks", should we use this "data" to propagate concern that YouTube feeds the public irrational and dangerous opinions about vaccinations? A year ago the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study that did exactly that.

In December 2007, University of Toronto researchers announced a "first-ever study of its kind". The investigators selected YouTube videos relating to immunizations or vaccinations, and concluded that much of the video content "contradicts the best scientific evidence". The public health community should find this "very concerning", they wrote. The press pounced on this announcement like a starved puppy tossed a Porterhouse steak. Articles titled "YouTube Full Of One-Sided Anti-Vaccination Videos", littered the news.

The authors selected and watched 153 videos. 73 (48%) had so called "positive" messages (in favor of immunization) , 49 videos (32%) had so called "negative" messages, and 31 videos (20%) had so called "ambiguous" messages. The study concluded:

• 1) "negative videos were more likely to be rated by viewers"
• 2) negative videos were more likely to "receive more views"
• 3) negative videos "received a higher mean star rating".

The authors then generated their dire warnings.

Garbage In...

When JAMA published the study I spent some time looking at their data, which I'll briefly highlight here. Unfortunately, it was impossible to repeat the study. Obviously, time had elapsed between authors' video viewing and publication, but also the authors' described their methodology fleetingly: "On February 20, 2007, we searched YouTube (www.youtube.com) using the keywords vaccination and immunization." Straight-forward and repeatable? Hardly. Different permutations of the keywords and Boolean operators yielded anywhere from 63 to 1300 videos, when we copied their methodology. This result may not seem important, but such unreliability prompted us to look at the validity of the study's conclusions.

The authors found that "negative videos were more likely to be rated by viewers." Of 73 "positive" videos, 46 had a rating. Out of 49 "negative" videos, 42 had a rating. But you have to wonder how meaningful a metric like "number of ratings" or "likely to rate" is. Looking at the raw data a different way, you would also learn that more people rate "positive" videos.

We multiplyied 73 "positive" videos by the study's "mean number of positive" video views - 181, which gives 13,213 views. Yet there were only 37 viewer ratings. Multiplying 49 "negative" videos by the mean, 520 views per video, gives 25,480 viewers -- but only only 36 ratings. So yes, there were "more views" of "negative" than "positive" videos, and more negative videos were rated. But also the data showed that an individual is more likely to rate a "positive" video (.28% of viewers rated), than the "negative" video (.14% of viewers rated). Why? Do more people watch "positive" videos to the end? Who knows.

There were other confounding questions unanswered by the study. How long had the videos been posted? Does rating a video actually signal a change in attitude? Behavior? Anything? How many people rate videos -- only registered users can rate videos, so do registered YouTube users represent the vaccinating public? Is a "negative" Gardasil video a "bad" public health message, given the uncertainty about the pros and cons of that vaccine? Moreover, can tabulating viewer ratings translate to anything meaningful? Especially when only ~1-2 in 1000 viewers rates a video?

...Garbage Out

The authors also tallied the YouTube star ratings and concluded that "negative" videos received higher ratings. But in a 1-5 star rating system such as YouTube's, what do we learn from reports that the mean "positive" video rating was 3.5, with 1.5 standard deviations (SD), whereas the mean "negative" video rating was 4.4 with .9 SD?

Does running statistics on shaky data make it more meaningful? According to analyses of 5-Star Rating Systems there are plenty of other problems with drawing many conclusions from ratings. Individual ratings tend to be either very low, or very high (1 or 5), in a bimodal distribution. Problematically, an average score of 3 or 4 might only describe "conflicting opinions". As it turns out, averaging most 5 star ratings gives a mean 3-4 star rating.

Another bias of 5 star rating systems is upward-bias from "fans". For instance, when we looked at available videos in December, 2007, in a video from "House MD", the TV program, a doctor very sarcastically scorns a woman for not vaccinating her child. This ("positive") video got rated very highly (4+ stars). But tans will rate a show highly no matter what the public health message. Problematically, then, the JAMA study uses these crude ratings to make some serious public health claims about the dangers of YouTube.

In December 2007 we did our own little mini-study on YouTube to confirm the JAMA data showing that only 1-5 of every 1000 viewers rated these videos (true). Ironically, at the time, the most popular YouTube video about vaccination was a "positive" one put out by a pharmaceutical company, which only showed up in some searches. This corporate video got almost 800,000 views, more than 10 times the 69,000 total views of the 153 videos the authors studied, far surpassing all the "negative" videos.

The pharmaceutical company was advertising a video contest for homemade videos about getting a flu shot with a $500 prize. The video got negative reviews, but some comments reflected people's annoyance that the contest had ended or they hadn't won. The House MD video was the second most popular video.

Barbarians on the Net

This idea that the internet will tear down society one way or another by undermining civility, by cultivating irrational fear, spreading disease, crime, or irrational behavior is not new, and in fact reflects various bricks and mortar versions of the same fear-mongering. See for instance, The Coming Anarchy, by Robert D. Kaplan and similar titles. In reality, nation-states quite adeptly control the internet, as they do their roadways, waterways, and airspace.

Despite the constant threat of unreasonableness and anarchy, it is reason that often trumps unreasonable cacophony on the internet, the opposite of what people predict. Would Obama have been elected without the internet? Would the Palin candidacy have met the same fate without TV's internet availability to the hordes who watched Couric and Fey?

The internet has its problems, but I suspect its vagaries offend most people when the internet disrupts the power assumptions they hold dear. One can find all the nastiness, the worry, the fear, and the bizarre opinions of the internet on the streets. In reality, predators pass kids everyday on the street, as anonymously as on the the net.

The internet provides only an illusion of anonymity for ne're-do-wells and oafs, just as your house with its fence and well surveyed lot and planted trees provides an illusion of safety to you. Do those in privileged positions avoid the awfulness of the cement ghetto more easily than they elude the unsettling and unwanted spam in their AM inbox, and thus be more offended by the internet?

Power brokers of course become threatened by the internet. Record companies, the networks, and politicians, and pharmaceutical companies -- they've all had run-ins with the internet. Professors object to "RateMyProfessor", as it mucks up the power structure. But it's certainly helps the public forum.

One needs to exam the data behind assertions that the internet is dangerous. Corporations have far more power on the internet than so called fringe groups -- to advertise, to astroturf, to datamine, and to collect personal information, although they may claim that's not so. The pro-vaccination video put out by the pharmaceutical company, even by the very dubious standards put forth in the JAMA study, was more "influential" then all the rest of the videos on YouTube combined.

Authors, consultants, the media, have always tried to pin down and characterize internet communication trends, but their calculations and predictions often miss because they are only a static snapshot of the evolving internet at a point in time. John Perry Barlow predicted the World Wide Web without a government (1996); consultants predicted internet "content was king" (1997); Cass Sunstein dreamed up regulatory schemes so that the polarizing internet wouldn't destroy democracy (2001); and print journalists talked about how doomed blogging was (2004). They misunderstood the adaptability of the internet as a communication tool and underestimated how individuals, corporations, and governments would continue to shape it to further their own personal wish lists. One day anti-vaccination videos seem prevalent, the next, pharmaceuticals have usurped YouTube just fine thank-you.

The film critic Robert Ebert is right, newspapers can be great to read, (all five of them) they also tend towards banal, narrow-minded, wrong, and biased, so we better get used to the excellent, disparate, positive as well as very negative flux of the internet.

Public Health and the Culture Wars

In our last post, we acknowledged that the GOP attempted to derail economic stimulus efforts by studding the recovery package conversation with fear-mongering blather about STDs and condoms. This is an old trick to peddle failed policies. The Republicans tax-cut centric governance style doesn't work, but when they add rhetoric about promiscuity and condoms, people for some reason go all woozy and vote GOP. With such a recipe for success why change?

Just as evolution keeps bumping up against religion when fundamentalists gate crash the classroom, family planning based on science, statistics, and good public policy will always encounter obfuscatory politicians spurred by religious advocates trying to portray serious conversation as lasciviousness to be resolved by morality talk.

The CDC's annual STD report released January 13th indicated that STD infections were rising in the US. That might be expected. The former president George W. Bush removed birth control education from aid programs in favor of abstinence information doled out by religious organizations. During that dark time, the Republican party corralled the vote of church goers by regaling them with grisly horror stories about the godless amorality and depravity of birth control. The GOP honed this strategy over decades before it began to bear fruit during the Reagan era. It reached a apex (I hope) during the Bush administration.

Still In the 80's?

I was reminded of how long ago the condom tirades started when I came across an editorial from a May, 1987 issue of U.S. News and World Report. The story also reminded me that this wasn't always a Republican strategy.

In 1987 the AIDS crisis was a growing public health threat. New York city Mayor Koch wanted to run 30 second TV spots, print ads, and radio announcement to encourage heterosexual women to use condoms. At that time half a million people in NYC were infected with HIV.

Harold Evans, a contributing editor of US News and World Report reported in "A Necessary Offense", that ABC and CBS refused to run the ads, which Brooklyn Democratic Councilman Noach Dear called "'disgusting'". The stations also opposed the advocacy of Surgeon General Koop, who also recommended using condoms in addition to abstinence and monogamy.

In 1987 religious leaders and network executives protested that advocating condoms would promote promiscuity. However as the US pursued this policy, Denmark and Sweden were publicly promoting condom use, as was Britain. And as Evans wrote on the European policies: "no widespread disorder is reported."

Beyond Fundamentalism

Evans wrote in US News & World Report, "birth control is not only accepted by the majority; it is rightly advocated..." Furthermore, in the context of the AIDS epidemic:

"Minorities cannot reasonably expect to prevail when their scruples threaten not just the right of free expression of a majority but the very existence of majority and minority together."

Twenty-two years later, television stations still "parade" morals with an even steeper gradient of "ultimate hypocrisy". TV programming has of course advanced in licentiousness beyond the "sexual soaps" and "exploitative product marketing" of the 1980's, and the internet takes off where television leaves off. The initial Republican strategy to win votes based on morality plays, once so successful, most recently begot devastating GOP seat losses. Meanwhile, the banking fiasco, health care, climate change and job losses -- all real problems having nothing to do with condoms -- paralyze the legislature. Despite their crushing losses though, some GOP politicians still resort to this cheaper populist strategy in times when clear headed leadership is so critical.

The US touts the superiority of its advanced technology. But if the nation is to be effective against pockets of global fundamentalism as well as the current global economic crisis, politicians best continue to elevate the tenor of their argument beyond reflexive smut and groveling to thoughtful negotiations and leadership. "Tax-cutting" (bolstered by cultural fear mongering) confuses consumer "choice" with democratic freedom and grinds the country down.

GOP to The Base? Wait! Come Back! We'll Talk About Sex!

If you managed to avoid cynicism in the first week of the administration, the congressional tussling over the stimulus plan might convince you that politics today is just what politics was before January 20th. No change.

The Republicans especially, seem intent on pushing the economy further into the tank while riling their party's baser instincts. Evidently at their wit's end trying to get their hand back in the till, the GOP engrosses itself in reinvigorating the lowest common denominator of civilian interests while Rome burns -- so to speak.

As Obama's team nudges Limbaugh towards the edge, the radio host's marbles spilling all over like codeine pills from some drug-addled alley dweller's puffy hands, the fine leaders of the GOP seem to be assuming his mantle. Smart move?

68 Pages of Science Management Challenges and the Honorable Senator Wants to Talk About Porn?

I was at first dubious about accusations that the GOP was baiting Democrats on funding for birth control and STD prevention in the stimulus bill. Oh please, I thought, reading this:

"Prompted by Drudge and Limbaugh, the Republicans are lurching around like less-cool, less-serious Beavis & Butthead knockoffs, snickering at the mere mention of birth control...say[ing] "STDs" and "contraceptives" on television and thus making the bill appear silly, salacious and borderline immoral."

I don't know whether STD funding belongs in the plan. But I am becoming convinced that some representatives in the GOP have a weird preoccupation with sex and derailing science. Today Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced he would try to halt $3 billion dollars worth of funds to the National Science Foundation (NSF) because of a 'porn scandal'. As he put it when announcing the six incidents of viewing porn reported by the NSF:

"The semiannual report raises real questions about how the National Science Foundation manages its resources, and Congress ought to demand a full accounting before it gives the agency another $3 billion in the stimulus bill"

Grassley, in a disingenuous interview with FOX News, reported that he was launching an inquiry and demanding "all documents" related to the NSF's findings so he could get to the bottom of the horrible scandal. On cue, the internet went wild with "ugghh" and "gross", and jokes about scientists who like sex, and "Go Grassley!" -- so intrepid -- protecting our interests like that.

OK. I'm a person who happens to be most intolerant of all aspects of the porn industry. I am also, like everyone else on earth, against government waste. I've approvingly covered Senator Grassley's efforts on other issues, lobbying, bisphenol A, etc. But c'mon, wake up.

Here's the full NSF 68 page semi-annual report to Congress from last year, with 3 pages of revelations about 6 cases of computer abuse involving porn during work hours.

The Senator is Launching an Inquiry? Getting More Details?

The only reason that the Senator got his hands on the apparent GOP treasure trove in the first place is that NSF is compelled by law to print for public consumption every last detail of its management oversight audits. This is good governance meant to expose waste. What private company sends you a biannual report that includes each sex scandal they're investigating? OK. So abiding by the governance standards set out in this law, the NSF wrote in great detail about:

"six cases of viewing, downloading, saving, and/or sharing pornographic images and videos, and one case of extensive participation in pornographic chat websites and the concomitant significant waste of official time."

This last, the most egregious case, was a "senior official" who has since been fired or left the agency. I assume the person has a problem. Like a prescription drug addiction. The report is very clear about the official's sacking, and the fact that "the agency has now installed filtering software" and is implementing further policy changes. I'm not saying $50,000 isn't a lot of waste, but are there some other priorities the GOP needs to focus on?

To me Grassley's interview with FOX, when he claims he doesn't know what the agency is doing or what happened to the individual, seems like nothing more than a gratuitous exchange about sex, with science as the scapegoat.

As far as I can tell there's nothing left for Grassley to "inquire about" or "investigate", unless he has some lurid agenda of his own. More details? All the documents? Who's the sick puppy here?

Studies Find that 25% of Employees with Computer Access Download Pornography. Audit Finds 6 Cases for Over 1000 NSF Employees

Six offenses found and thoroughly delineated. The NSF has over 1000 employees. To be fair, the report emphasized that the search was limited in scope. But these results are far from surprising. If anything the small numbers are unusual given the incidence of workplace computer misuse, especially in large companies.

Porn site hits are highest during office hours, according to M.J. McMahon, a company that tracks the adult video industry. You can read all about the widespread problem of pornography viewing and activities in the workplace. Ask Microsoft, ask IBM, ask financial companies, ask any company. They keep it low profile, for obvious reasons. The NSF is compelled by law to air it all publicly.

A Nielsen Online survey in October, 2008 found that 25% of employees who use the Internet visit porn sites during the workday. Perhaps fewer are purposeful, but various surveys have found similarly alarming results. Workplace computer misuse is persistent and increasing. It's quite awful but it has nothing to do with the NSF, with scientists, or reviving the economy.

Stay Focused People -- Change, America, Economy, Jobs...

Perhaps Chuck Grassley, with his affiliations to prayer breakfasts and the Family Research Council, with his stellar right to life credentials, has some agenda with sex. Perhaps science also falls conveniently in his sights, for reasons beyond me. I do know its a popular pairing, but a cheap shot.

Not long ago, in , we wrote about the Republican's insistence on taking pops at science:

The Inauguration

Many wept. Some for Obama, some for a lifetime of waiting; some because they'd miss Bush, still others because they'd thought Bush would never leave. Even Bush himself brushed tears from his face as he hopped up the helicopter steps. (The loss of power must be a blow.)

Who wasn't somehow moved by the reality of new presidential leadership? Less often now, my stomach churns before I check the news. I'm slowly deprogramming my habit of bracing for the next stunner, the next mendacious policy announcement, the next hair-raising revelation from the White House. I'll admit, in the past couple of weeks I've even lapsed into moments of (naive) hope.

• Hope for inclusiveness, triggered by small, many would think irrelevant episodes. Like when Pete Seeger showed up at the preinaugural concert to sing an Arlo Guthrie song with his grandson and Bruce Springsteen. Seeger may be an ever popular folk hero now as he approaches 90 years, with a new album and glowing biographical movie. But it wasn't always like this. He was blacklisted and banned from radio in the 1950's and 1960's on account of his "subversiveness".

  In the early 1960's Seeger refused to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) on First Amendment grounds, a decision which through him into economic hard times and patriotic hot water. But before that he had performed for US military chiefs in Theodore Roosevelt's White House. His father administered music programs as part of FDR's New Deal.

  Patriotism is so subjective isn't it?

• Hope derived from the crowds at the inauguration, good-natured people of cultural, racial and political diversity. Hope for religious tolerance. In his inaugural address Obama described a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers". How observant. According to a Pew Center report, about 16% of Americans identify as non-believers, but not one member of Congress does. It was surprising recognition for what a Beliefnet writer calls the "untouchables".

• Words that warmed my heart on a chilly day, Obama promising in his speech to "restore science to its rightful place". Indeed, on the first couple of days of his administration Obama overruled the ban on international funding for organizations that provided contraceptives, overturning Bush's ruling which overturned Clinton's policy. Obama also promised to revive stem cell funding.

  Bravo for science awareness!

Dashing Hope

Obama's first moves gave us plenty to be optimistic about. But as Mark Slouka wrote in this month's Harper's:

"It would be churlish to quibble.

Still, let's."

Slouka points out that Obama won in a perfect storm of economic disaster and Republican failure, that Obama was an exceptionally talented and articulate candidate. Given all this he still only got 53% of the vote. What about the others Slouka asks, those who thought Palin would be a fine Vice President, or who couldn't discern any difference between the candidates therefore didn't vote? Slouka worries about American citizens' choices and what he sees as an overwhelming contentment with ignorance.

"When one of us writes a book explaining that our offspring are bored and disruptive in class because they have an indigo "vibrational aura" that means they are a gifted race sent to this planet to change our consciousness with the help of guides from a higher world, half a million of us rush to the bookstores to lay our money down."

We're doomed, he concludes.

I'm not quite so cynical. But the barriers to "change" look high. Not to be a wet sock, but should stem cell policy changes and international funding for organizations that inform people about birth control options assure us that science is in its "rightful place"? Of course not. From these quick executive changes, we're convinced only that politics determines the place of these science policies.

True, nothing can happen overnight. More policy changes are in the works. Obama is set to increase NIH biomedical funding. He ordered the Department of Transportation to get to work completing emissions standards. He's told the EPA to review California's request for a waiver. But we have a long way to go to meet the President's promises on the environm ent and science.

Tunnel Vision

Will it happen in time? If the citizens cannot to be trusted, than we should look to their leaders. While the Republicans argue about every aspect of the stimulus bill, the economy sinks further. And if politicians seem unbearable, what about the corporations groveling about, looking for their next hand-out, planning their next party, all the while complaining how they can't possibly improve their product, honor a warranty, concede a dollar, accept a regulation.

Will we emerge from this tunnel in time? Or are Americans indeed doomed? While carmakers argue that technology doesn't allow them to raise emissions standards, a Chinese engineer, one year out of college, cooly introduced a new electric car from Chinese automaker BYD (Build Your Dreams) at a recent autoshow. The car? "A $20,000 plug-in hybrid that can go 60 miles before the gas engine kicks in, or the e6, an all-electric crossover that cruises 250 miles on a single charge."

According to The Atlantic the BYD car was parked next to the $500,000 Maybachs, the Lamborghinis, Maseratis, and Bentleys. Taking in the expensive American cars draped with bejeweled women, the Chinese engineer noted: "Those beautiful vehicles are for the very handsome men, those high in society. They're not for the everyday man."

Will Congress please slap its cheeks to alert itself to the dire straits of the situation and start working for us, the everyday man?

• USA Loves BPA

  The FDA, pressed to change its safety assessment of bisphenol A (BPA), announced this week that it needed to investigate the safety of BPA some more. It refused to defer to science on BPA, rather offered up this stalling device. Laura Tarantino, the director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety said "I can't tell you when we will finalize this," she said. "There is a lot of work." Clearly the Bush administration wasn't going to besmirch its environmental record by ruling against BPA.

  Acronym Required has been following BPA in the USA for a few years. Hundreds of studies suggest BPA has negative health consequences.

• New's York's Soda Tax

  The state of New York will raise $404 million by taxing sugary sodas with an "obesity tax". The state is looking not only to raise money, but to help stem the obesity epidemic in a state where 1 in 4 citizens is considered obese by CDC standards. Although the state's obesity incidence increased by 14% since 1995, New York's obesity rates are actually lower than the national average of 1 in 3. The American Beverage Associaton decried the tax on "hard-working families", warning robotically that the new law could cost jobs.

  Acronym Required has written on the politics of the obesity epidemic, for instance in Childhood Obesity, The American Way"

• Stevia -- Safe says the FDA?

  The FDA cleared the used of a stevia extract for sodas this week, giving the substance a "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) designation. Pepsi and Coke eagerly awaited clearance of rebaudioside A (rebiana), a compound from Stevia rebaudiana. Pepsi will start selling SoBe Lifewater nationwide next year. Coke will market rebiana sweetened Sprite Green. Coke will also begin sweetening its Odwalla fruit drinks with stevia. This has some scientists concerned.¹

  The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is opposed to the FDA approval because the safety profile for the chemical is worrisome. Rebaudioside A is a steviol glycoside which is 40 to 300 times sweeter than sucrose. A review study by UCLA scientists notes that Rebaudioside A and its gut intermediary steviol are potentially mutagenic (PDF). Noting that the data on the chemical is sparse and conflicting, the study authors recommended:

  "the FDA should require carcinogenicity and toxicology studies in rats and in mice before accepting rebaudioside A as a GRAS substance or approving it as a food additive. Ideally, all those studies would be conducted by an independent party, such as the National Toxicology Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences."

  Consider the FDA's different regulatory approach with BPA. Over one hundred studies show deleterious effects of bisphenol A on behavior and health, yet the agency says it needs to do more research. But with rebaudioside A, there are a few conflicting and/or disturbing studies. Yet the FDA doesn't need more research. In "Phthalates and Bisphenol A: Media and Politics" we wrote:

  "If bisphenol A were a therapeutic drug going to market, instead of a chemical with an established global market, and there were 700 studies (LA Times) showing hormone effector effects in animals, but also "two dozen" human studies showing the same responses in humans -- therefore if bisphenol A, the hypothetical drug, had passed through the equivalent of Phase I safety, Phase II efficacy and was well into Phase III trials -- the stock of a certain pharmaceutical company would be skyrocketing based on the evidence. Financial analysts would be jumping up and down in their Aeron chairs predicting sales of the next blockbuster drug....But bisphenol-A is not a drug..."

  Rebaudioside A is not a drug but a sweetener that will bring in profits when kids slurp it down in their Odwalla fruit smoothies. So no holds barred by the FDA! CSPI calls the FDA's move premature and a parting gift by Bush to the soda companies.

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

"Carbonated Water, caramel color, phosphoric acid, aspartame, potassium benzoate (preserves freshness), caffeine, natural flavor, acesulfame potassium, citric acid, calcium disodium EDTA (to protect flavor), Panax ginseng extract, phenylketonurics: contains phenylalamine"

I'm sure you could do more harm by adding rebaudioside A, but this isn't the most healthy assortment of ingredients to begin with. And I'm curious what "unfresh" carbonated Water, caramel color, phosphoric acid, and aspartame tastes like?

The Emperor

Obama is making infrastructure and energy a central goal of his administration. Therefore people were heartened when they heard that Obama will nominate Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate in Physics and Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (not to be confused with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) to head of the Department of Energy. Chu has led LBL since 2004. He's a Nobel Laureate who has formed collaborations in the LBL, the Joint BioEnergy Institute, the Energy Biosciences Institute with Heliosgovernment, industry and universities to forward technological solutions to alternative and renewable energies.

Environmentalists like how Chu sounds because he says things like: "If I were emperor of the world, I would put the pedal to the floor on energy efficiency and conservation for the next decade", as he told Reuters last year. Business likes him because they know that the Energy Biosciences Institute was funded by British Petroleum -- Chu works with industry, of course.

Almost everyone is thrilled that Obama will nominate Chu for this position, and he gets fantastic ratings for his accomplishments to date. Of course there are always naysayers, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing business. Said William Kovacs, vice president of the organization:

"What you've got are people who are committed to moving forward with regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, which we believe is a huge mistake"...If we're embarking on a new infrastructure program that's going to involve building a lot of roads and bridges, the last thing we want to do is hold it up with CO2 regulations."

There's more than some gobbledygook here, but at least one aspect of his argument, that the economy is too fragile for "green initiatives" is a common kneejerk fallacy of "pro-business" camps. In today's Financial Times, for instance, Phillip Stevens wrote:

"The EU leaders have set a target of cutting greenhouse emissions in the EU by 20 per cent by 2020. They have pledged to increase energy efficiency by 20 per cent and to draw 20 per cent of energy from renewable sources...All this seemed challenging, but possible at a time of prosperity. The voters would surely accept a degree of pain to safeguard the future for their children and grandchildren. Industry had the cash (or cheap credit lines from the banks) to adjust...[but] no longer."

This is course a myth, a common one. People like Joseph Romm have long dispelled these assertions, but business persists. Mr. Chu addressed this himself in an interview last September, when he said: "if you went to an energy-efficient economy, you will kill the economy. That is just demonstrably not true." In fact it's the opposite. Businesses can become more cost efficient by becoming more energy efficient. Changing light bulbs in schools is just a start.

Mr. Chu will not be emperor, but part of Obama's climate team. The Department of Energy focuses on nuclear weapons disposal of nuclear waste and basic science. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carries tremendous influence on emissions and health through its administration of the Clean Air Act, for instance -- or as we're accustomed with the Bush administration, by eviscerating the Clean Air Act.

The Chief Administrator

Not everyone is applauding Obama's choice for EPA head , Lisa P. Jackson. She has won accolades for diplomacy and her handling of various New Jersey environmental problems. However Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) wrote a scathing review (some say unfair and uninformed) of her tenure as the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

PEER even went so far as to say she was worse than former New Jersey governor Christie Whitman. Ms. "your air is safe" Whitman not only launched New Jersey's path to fiscal insolvency, her state environmental policies weren't necessarily "environmental". Interesting how the "Garden State", known affectionately as the "Armpit of the Nation", or "What exit?", holds such a reservoir of EPA administrators.

Jackson has opposed the EPA's recent handling of California's bid to waive Clean Air to act its own program. She also said, "When it comes to the auto industry, the E.P.A. apparently is the Emissions Permissions Agency."

The Czar

Obama picked Carol Browner, Clinton's former EPA head, to be Climate Czar, to coordinate all the agencies involved with climate policy, such as the the EPA, DOE, the DOT, the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

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

Acronym Required writes frequently on the EPA. We've also written on effective, versus ineffective government agencies in articles like

From Taiwan: BPA "Potentially Toxic"

Taiwan is considering listing bisphenol A (BPA) as a "potentially toxic substance". Companies that used BPA would be required to notify the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Taiwan. Taiwan is one of the primary manufacturers of BPA in the world. ¹ The country produced 635 megatons of BPA in 2005, compared to about 2260 megatons produced in the US during the same year. Japan, Western Europe, Korea and South American also manufacture large quantities of BPA. (Chemical Week, October, 2005.)

From Canada: CBC's "Disappearing Male"

The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) recently aired a program on bisphenol A called "The Disappearing Male", available here and at CBC. The program broached a subject that hasn't been discussed too much in the media, the effect of certain chemicals on male sexual development, both in humans and other species.

The report reviews the effects of plastics on health and environment according to scientists who have long sought to bring attention to the deleterious effects of endocrine disruptors. The film also reports on a Canadian town called Aamjiwnaang Canada, that sits by a toxic chemical plant, where girl babies outnumber boy babies by about 2:1.

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

¹ We previously looked at the response of politicians to citizens' safety concerns in terms of the economics of bisphenol A in Canada and the US.

² The film also provides a brief demo on mouth pipetting.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported yesterday in two on-line publications, that a malaria vaccine in clinical trials called RTS,S passed a round of tests. If further trials prove successful, the vaccine would help protect against Plasmodium falciparum

Obama Change? Like Island Time?

When the Obama team signaled this week they would not follow through on their campaign promise to impose a windfall tax on oil profits, people wondered whether "Obama Change" was "change" only in some warped sense of the word -- like being on "Island Time" -- elusive, non-committal, eventual, perhaps. After all, he did say back in the day:

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

That was June, 2008. So what was that campaign promise about? Easing the worries of families who were broke? Was it Obama's fleeting response to an audience who disapproved of oil companies getting super-rich while the economy flagged? Was it just an empty promise? Or perhaps now with oil prices so low windfall taxes wouldn't suffice to help individual energy bills. Did the president-elect's threat influence the price of oil? Perhaps oil executives lowered prices in order to dip below the radar a bit.

It's hard to know who's being more wily, Obama or oil companies. But before we can spend too much time wondering why the president-elect changed his mind on windfall taxes, Barack Obama gives us more promises. We reported a couple of weeks ago on Obama's address to the Governors' Global Climate Summit about his administration's intentions to act on climate change and invest in "500 million new green jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced."

In Obama's address to the nation yesterday, he re-presented the idea of the "National Infrastructure Reinvestment", which he also pushed during his campaign.

Highways, Information Super Highways, Technology, more Technology

On energy, Obama's promising to produce jobs by making buildings more energy-efficient. As he put it:

"We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won't just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work."

"Installing efficient light bulbs." When Obama ran for president interviewers would ask him what he did to save energy and light bulbs and the exchanges became a bit of a joke. Here was his take on changing lightbulbs::

"...Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, ''I'm talking about personal. What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

When Barbara Walter's asked Obama about the light bulbs a couple of weeks ago, they both laughed -- a shared joke. But now he's launching his "collective" light bulb plan? Obama is also promising a "sweeping effort" to modernize schools -- to make them energy efficient also.

Additionally Obama promises his administration will invest in infrastructure, new highways and bridges. And not only tarmac highways but information super-highways too. Saturday Obama also mentioned technology to solve healthcare problems -- by networking hospitals, increasing broadband penetration so everyone is on the internet, and increasing student access to computers.

Infrastructure without the B-Word?

Obama is following through with his campaign plan to launch a 21st century "New Deal" and says such an investment hasn't been made since the Eisenhower days. As a Senator, Obama co-sponsored the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007" introduced by Senator Christorpher Dodd (D-CT) in August 2007. The idea is to establish banks to fund the a subset of the projects Obama spoke of yesterday. When Obama campaigned last summer on "rebuilding America", he also talked about a bank, as well as promising to withdraw support from Iraq to fund infrastructure.

As everyone knows, Iraq is a bit in limbo -- and where's the bank? Where's the follow through on banks? Or is it all a joke?

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

Acronym Required wrote on infrastructure and the Minnesota Bridge collapse in "Guano Takes the Bridge, Pigeons Take the Fall". We wrote about infrastructure and the levees in "FEMA and Disaster Preparedness", "Disaster Preparedness - Can We?", and "Levees - Our Blunder". We're fascinated with technological salves for problems.

"...Manufacturers told the subcommittee Monday that some faced financial ruin without the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could cost taxpayers...."¹

"We appeal to your sense of justice!"

That's how the American Apparel Manufacturers Association begged the Senate for $50 million in 1981, pleading with legislators to approve the Tris Indemnification Act. Tris (2,3-dibromoprophyl) phosphate (tris) was used as a fire retardant in children's sleepwear in the 1970's, but the government banned its use in kids' pajamas when studies showed that it could be absorbed into the skin and could cause cancer. The apparel association wanted some payback.

$50 million seems like pittance now, given the billions flying around as the 2008 US government hopefully sprinkles newly minted, crisp Treasury dollars about. The back story of American Apparel Manufacturing in the 1970's is clearly different than the insurance, bank and auto-industries of 2008. But there are similarities. Behind many bailout stories, it turns out, is a coincidental trail of deregulation. Deregulation that's good for business.

Autos and Chemicals in Deregulated America

Today's beggarcorps, the auto, bank, and insurance companies, greedily sucked as much money as possible out of the Great Market and its Invisible Hand until it showed signs of withering. Companies shunned deregulation, oversight and caution. Once market money dried up, like insatiable green blooded Aliens or Predators, the CEOs stoop to clamber out of their Neon concept cars and pursue taxpayer dollars.

In the case of the auto industry, history repeats itself. Reagan bailed the industry back in the 1980's after Carter left the White House. Carter tried to wean the US, but Reagan declared morning in America. As they say in Michigan, Reagan "really pulled the fat out of fire for the auto industry". But how did the automakers use the good will, deregulation and limits imposed on Japanese import cars, grandly granted to them by Reagan?

Not to pursue wise business practices. Reagan's bailout not only bought the auto industry time, it helped cement expectations for habitual handouts. Auto CEO's learned how to fly to Washington on a Jet, fling out minimal rhetoric circa 1970 about: "the health of the industry", then fly back to Michigan and continue to sell good 'ole oil-hungry "safe" cars -- at a rate of two and three per household. Now, they're forced to offer two-for-one sales and occasionally even drive to bailouts in their own vehicles.

The chemical industry did even better under Reagan. It never floundered like the auto industry has, but thrived under deregulation and continued to grow into the behemoth we know today. Its size allows the chemistry industry to produce more and more consumer products, under less and less scrutiny. On occasion citizens become apoplectic about something like bisphenol A, but the industry's size make it more than capable of mowing down potential regulation or even, heaven forbid -- threats to remove a chemical from the market. As with the auto industry, "idealistic" long-term consumer goals like non-polluting products routinely fall by the wayside to quarterly profits.

Tris History - In Brief

The story of Tris is interesting, because it was banned in the US before the chemical industry became adept at protecting its economic interests so thoroughly. Tris was an unusual chemical in that it only had a quick sojourn in pajamaland before being banned. In 1971 the U.S. produced about 3 million pounds of tris. That year the Department of Commerce established flammability standards for children's pajamas. The chemical industry saw the opportunity in that particulas regulation and promoted tris for use as a fire retardant in children's sleepwear, essentially without any preliminary studies on the chemical's safety. 3 years later Tris production in the U.S. was 12 million pounds.

Then rat studies showed toxicity and kidney cancer from exposure to tris and rabbit studies showed that the chemical was absorbed through the skin. These were followed by human studies showing that kids absorbed tris too. Congress had just established the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1972 as part of the Consumer Product Safety Act. The Environmental Defense Fund, also recently formed after its successful legal action against the use of DDT, threatened to sue the CPSC if it continued delaying. The CPSC banned tris in 1977.

Carter: The Presidential Scrooge of Toxic Chemicals

Once the US banned tris, textile manufacturers sold their tris pajamas overseas until President Jimmy Carter ordered them to stop. Carter said he wanted countries to know "that the United States is a responsible trading partner and that they can trust goods bearing the label 'Made in the U.S.A." (AP Feb., 1981)

Despite their overseas sales, however the textile industry claimed losses of $50-$100 million in business as a result of the ban. Textile manufacturers demanded government compensation via a bill passed by Congress in 1978, saying that they tried to abide by government regulation and took a loss.. But Jimmy Carter vetoed the indemnification bill, saying the resulting litigation would cost too much and only large retailers would be able to fund lawsuits. Carter noted that the companies had alternatives flame retardants to tris, and advised that the bill would set "an unwise precedent [to] paying industry for losses" incurred to industries when subsequent research showed a particular chemical was dangerous. Instead Carter offered business loans.

The Greatest Presidents

When President Reagan was elected, he promptly revoked Carter's executive order on exports. This allowed US companies to ship abroad hazardous products banned in the US. This is now a common practice known as dumping. A Reagan congress promptly rewrote a Tris Indemnification Act to allow textile manufacturers to sue for damages, which the legislature estimated would cost taxpayers $56 million dollars or more. Senators like Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) helped sponsor the bill that Reagan signed into law.

US citizens have been swept along for years of these policy battles over fire retardants. In the 1970's California was one of the first to require fire retardants, and California children became some of the first in the nation to wearing tris pajamas. When tris was banned in 1977, the chemical industry replaced it with dichlorinated tris, which the CPSC then also banned from pajamas.

The chemistry industry then quickly introduced chemicals called polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE's). Europe and Sweden banned all PBDE's. In the US, anufacturers of Penta and Octa PBDE's only recently stopped producing these chemicals due to toxicity. But individuals states first had to pass legislature which threatened the PBDE market. Now, many US states plan to ban Deca-PBDA. For each chemical banned, however, which is few and far between, several more spring up, all untested for safety. But chlorinated tris, banned from pajamas years ago, is now used to flame proof furniture today.

The cigarettes that ignited most fires that these anti-flammability chemicals protect consumers from are not only less in use, but they're finally required by law to be self-extinguishing. Now fire deaths from flaming pajamas are even less than when tris was introduced. Despite the decreased home fire risk, in 2007 the Bush administration pushed through a nationwide flammability law. The law attracted attention mostly for clauses it contained that pre-empted states from taking their own measures against flammable products, either by stricter laws or as a result of tort law.

Acronym Required discussed this trend in the Bush administration to hoard power at the executive level when we talked about greenhouse gas emission regulation in The EPA and the Automobile Manufacturers Lobby, Snuggly Under their "Patchwork Quilt"?, and http://acronymrequired.com/2008/07/clean-air-one-two-punch.html">"Clean Clear Air, Nothing To See Here, Drive Through Please". In the case of flammability chemicals, the states are now forced to the Bush administration standards, despite the limited proof that deaths due to fire are effectively decreased by stricter flammability laws requiring more chemicals. California is now working to amend its own laws to accommodate evidence about toxicity.

Toxic Chemicals Persist

The story of tris's demise as an anti- flammability product is often portrayed by the chemisty industry as a huge regulatory mistake, a case of overzealousness. But was it overzealousness? Or did science work as it should -- but just in that case?

Federal agencies and politicians are exceedingly cautious about banning chemicals when faced with the expanded clout of industry. Take bisphenol A, an endocrine disruptor with far reaching effects in experiments with rats, which seem to be replicated in humans. Children are heavily exposed to BPA as neonates, infants and toddlers. Meanwhile, Canada recognizes BPA as a toxin. Yet despite hundreds of research papers, and decades of questions about the safety of BPA, US politicians are still debating the pros and cons.

Public attention to an issue is influential as the history of BPA shows. But the underlying process for assessing chemical safety is flawed -- if it could be considered in existence at all. The European Union recently implemented REACH to deal with the more systemic problems of regulation for toxic chemicals, as we wrote about here and here. The US has no such program.

Lobbyists persist, and "risk benefit analysis" is often spun-out to cover for politicians dragging their feet on telling chemical companies to come up with a better product. The chemical lobby is so strong that as BPA history shows, even the most convincing body of evidence can be trounced by a few well placed lobbyists who don't let any public conversation stray from industry talking points.

Chemisty Lobbyists -- Planted on the Down Side of the SeeSaw?

Not to say that many organizations don't try to balance the scales. But as the global warming and BPA debates show, their voices are weaker and budgets smaller.

This week the Purpose Prize, funded by the John Templeton Foundation and the Atlantic Philanthropies, awarded six individuals 60 $100,000, and nine others $10,000. The recipients were chosen from 1000 60+ nominees "who are taking on society's biggest challenges". Arlene Blum, a chemist whose research helped convince regulators to remove tris from the market 30 years ago, received the award to continue her work at the Green Science Policy Institute she founded.

Blum is a chemist who worked on the the flame retardant tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (tris) in the 1970's. In threeScience articles she published with Bruce Ames et all, the authors looked at the history of flammability chemicals and the toxicity of tris ², ³. They then analyzed urine samples from kids wearing tris treated pajamas and showed that children absorbed the chemical through their skin.⁴ Months later tris was banned. In the 1978 paper, Gold, Blum, and Ames wrote. In their 1978 paper Blum and Ames concluded that testing of chemicals and labeling of products was essential to consumer safety.

Despite this quick seeming success, chlorinated tris is in heavy use today Thirty years later, as progress on this aspect of protecting consumer health seems elusive. Blum will put $100,000 to the task. And its a far more daunting task today than it was 30 years ago. The industry is dependent on being unregulated, and has a gargantuan marketing budget with which to keep things laissez-faire, status quo.

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

¹ The Associated Press, May 5, 1981 "Sleepwear Manufacturers Call Tris Ban 'Regulatory Overkill'"

² Blum A, Ames BN. Flame-retardant additives as possible cancer hazards. Science. 1977 Jan 7;195 (4273):17-23.

³ Gold MD, Blum A, Ames BN et al. Another Flame Retardant, Tris-(1,3-Dichloro-2-Propyl)-Phosphate, and Its Expected Metabolites Are Mutagens: Science, New Series, Vol. 200, May 19, 1978 (4343), pp. 785-787.

⁴ Blum A, Gold MD, Ames BN et al. Children absorb tris-BP flame retardant from sleepwear: urine contains the mutagenic metabolite, 2,3-dibromopropanol. Science. 1978 Sep 15;201(4360):1020-3.

Outsourcing: Not Just Call Centers. Shocking.

Back in 2005, Esquire editor A.J. Jacobs wrote in "My Outsourced Life".

"Call centers do it. IT firms do it. Manufacturers are doing the hell out of it. Even the CIA does it. So why can't I?"

That 2005 piece was followed by articles and books by others who raved about personal outsourcing. "The 4-Hour Workweek", forwarded the idea that outsourcing would open up free time in our calendars and allow us to frolic as we wished -- drink lattes, go kite-surfing, or create like Rembrandt.

When he wrote his article, Jacobs was reading the first of Thomas Friedman's Flat series¹; "The World is Flat", and he wanted to test the outsourcing theory for himself. He ended up outsourcing not only the usual research and writing duties but calls to his parents, apologies to his wife, bedtime reading for his kid, and autobiographical Wikipedia entries. Neato.

But Jacobs got a little nervous when "Honey", his Bangalore personal assistant, started sending him feature ideas for Esquire. India wasn't just a place to hand-off tedious chores to free him up for creative leisure, it dawned on Jacobs:

"the Indian workforce can be just as innovative and aggressive as the American, so the "benefits" might not be so beneficial. Us high-end types will be as vulnerable as assembly-line workers.

Friedman predicted that outsourcing would be more prevalent in the future. Companies outsource because it's cheaper and that's "what shareholders want". Americans workers go along more reluctantly than businesses, but corporations convince them they'll all get better jobs when all the 'low level' jobs go offshore. The secret to success is education Americans are told, over and over again.

The Tin Cup Corps

Americans protest outsourcing in fits and spurts, but resistance seems futile. Outsourcing is facilely explained as a natural phenomenon, 'the nature of economics'. So Boeing moved many operations overseas when it moved from Seattle to Chicago, and of course automakers outsource as much as possible. But while US manufacturing capability moved offshore and hungry off-shore workers always look for more work, American workers sink, over their heads in debt and unemployed.

Today, at a time when the US population is faced with a caving economy, people are furious at corporate automakers' malfeasance and insouciance and have come out vigorously against bailing out the auto industries. People seem too befuddled to protest en masse about the banks, the obtuse details of the Fed's bank bailouts are confusing and frustrating. So they seem to seek revenge for the whole mess by throwing the auto industry into the dumpster. ²

Of course the auto CEOs, like the banks on bended knee before them, are not too proud to grovel, as they do now with "concessions". They're relentless like the Salvation Army Kettle Drive man at Christmas, except the "cause" is less appealing. Whatever comes of the stand-down Americans won't want for cars. Imported cars back up in dry dock, just in case, if not just in time.

But what about jobs? What about manufacturing? If everything is cheaper overseas why bother? American cars guzzle oil and our air suffers for it. Last April Acronym Required wrote "The EPA: Mulish Days, Staring Out to Pasture", about the clout the auto industry used to try to keep emissions standards status quo. Our post discussed the industry assertion that any emissions standards must (as in 1970), preserve the "health of the industry", and we wrote:

"...We need to evolve policy to preserve the auto industry. In 1975, the Chevy Chevette got 40mpg highway, 28mpg city. Surely we can do better with mileage and emissions? Otherwise, if the health of the American auto industry is truly still a goal, maybe the government's kindest move would be to shoot it, or drown it in the bathtub, or whatever libertarian types do these days with ponderous, surly sectors they want to put out of their misery."

We wrote our acid response after the auto and oil industries successfully lobbied for another anemic CAFE standard. But we didn't really mean get rid of manufacturing. We didn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just the bums. Last spring, congress didn't stand up to the auto industries to force them to change. Now the executives fly hither and yon on private jets seeking recompense for their habit of fiscal abandon. They've learned lucrative lessons in the past 30 years.

The question now is, would the US really consider letting the auto manufactures sink? Or is this the usual charade before they write the check? But no solution on the table today bodes well for America's manufacturing tomorrow.

Where Once a Country Stood, Now it Sits

If those jobs were lost would they morph into more creative consulting positions like Friedman suggested they would? We're skeptical. America was founded by craftsmen. I grew up with the lore of Paul Revere the silversmith, of clockmakers and furniture makers, pewterers and braziers and potters and glass blowers and iron casters, professions so antiquated my spell check tells me all these words aren't in the English language.

We need none of these materials now. (We have plastic.) And anyway, why make these products anymore, we're all hip economists who can outsource anything because of how "efficient" it is? But who will Americans be then? Folks of some gentle arts movement who construct Martha Stewart inspired husk pillows to stand in for manufacturing? Still, we're told, this is the way it's meant to be. (Economists announced today they found a recession as if they were biologists announcing a new species after an arduous jungle trek.)

Friedmans "Untouchables" (Pun Probably Intended)

According to Friedman, those who survive the flattening world with their livelihoods intact will be "synthesizers, explainers, leveragers, and versatilists". Friedman recommends that schools build right-brain skills that can't be computerized. A few years ago Friedman assured one audience of the the American advantage while trying to ease fears about China's quick economic rise: "I think this right-brain stuff is very culture-bound and hard to teach", he said.

A Harris poll in 2005 found that 71% of polled people agreed that "the long term success of the U.S. economy requires that we have a highly educated workforce who do highly skilled jobs here which cannot easily be done abroad." Only 13% disagreed with the statement.

If these jobs require sophisticated special-culture-delineated educational techniques, is that why schools tried and failed to outsource some teaching tasks to India? Or was that just parental outrage? Is that why Americans are moving overseas to go to school? Education is not so sacred, as it turns out, in the US. To believe that American has some cultural superiority that makes it more capable of the superior "right-sided thinking" is not only arrogantly condescending, its riskily short-sided.

This "flat" world is not only a world of opportunity but also of disparity, with gaps and canyons, and mountains of inequality. The world is not "flat" when some countries have no education, no health care, and 50% unemployment. The world is not flat when some people make .20 cents an hour and live in a dirt hut, and their counterpart in the West makes $80,000K/year.

This enables companies to arbitrage and profit mightily from the unflatness. If the world was truly flat then there wouldn't be an endless pool of cheap labor to exploit. If you're a business, don't worry, the change won't happen soon. India and China have not only outsourcing prowess but business chops to flourish even more. But how will the American autoworker, journalist, lawyer and doctor fare?

And what about other untouchable skills? Lawyers outsource legal tasks. Doctors are outsourcing test interpretation. A company called Wellpoint started a trial sending patients to India for treatment.

Maureen Dowd wrote about a company in Pasadena that outsources news reporting to India. The writers glean information about the story on the internet. One of Jason Blair's crimes as a reporter for the NYT was that he lied about places he claimed to visit and cover with live reports. Now we're paying people to do this type of reporting. The company's owner James Macpherson told Dowd: "'I pay per piece, just the way it was in the garment business,' 'a thousand words pays $7.50.'" Said Macpherson: "the newspaper industry is coming to a General Motors moment -- except there's no one to bail them out."

Maybe Maureen can walk over to Tom's desk and ask, who are these "synthesizers, explainers, leveragers, and versatilists"?

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

¹ Thomas Friedman ("The Lexus and the Olive Tree), wrote "The World is Flat" (2005), "The World is Flat: Expanded Edition" (2006), "The World Is Flat, 3.0" (2007), and "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" (2008). We look forward to a sequel in 2009, something along the lines of, "The World is Hot, Flat, Crowded, in Recession, with Rising Disparities on all Planes -- but Flat Damn It!"

² Photo by Craig ONeal, or Florida, who risked his life to take it. Used with permission under the Creative Commons Licence 2.0 Attribution, Share Share-Alike.

The Presidential Universe of Me

Another year passed and today's World AIDS Day finds us with many of the same struggles as last year. However there's also been progress.

For instance this year brought funding for Bush's PEPFAR program for drugs and prevention. Bush had said at the ceremony for H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008:

"...I wish every single America '[sic]' could have seen the tens of thousands of people who lined the streets during our visit, and they were cheering and waving American flags in gratitude to the generosity of the American people..."

We all wish we could have seen it. Instead Bush will have to settle for some crowd appreciation today from President-elect Obama, who congratulated Bush for his efforts on PEPFAR. In response, first Lady Laura Bush said: "That's sweet, so sweet." Bush had been having a blue day, saying in various interviews that he was "unprepared" for war, (but noting there was no war on during his campaign.), that he was "sorry it's [the economic meltdown] happening", and that "some people voted for Barack Obama because of me." Some in the media called this an apology.

On the AIDS front, Bush established PEPFAR, but also ignored family planning which is effective at preventing the virus from spreading. The Obama administration, ever diplomatic, intends to loosen the Bush administrations restrictions on funding, which dictated abstinence only teachings for grantees.

From Failures, New Directions

In other AIDS news this year, the major vaccine initiative came up negative in clinical trials, motivating HIV/ADS programs re-focused their goals.

And in very optimistic developments, the South African interim government chose Barbara Hogan to work as Minister of Health until the new government takes office. See: "New Minister of Health For South Africa. Change Afoot?" Hogan recognizes both the crisis of AIDS as well as underlying issues such as public health infrastructure. Today, Hogan led a minute of silence in South Africa.

• Outsiders in a Networked World: In Bangkok, protesters brought airport traffic brought to a halt. In Mumbai terrorists attack. Indian newspapers have jumped to blame the attacks on Pakistan, India's nuclear armed neighbor, while the Prime Minister has said it was the work of "outsiders". Outsiders -- the universal troublemaker.

  Whoever it was, sought out people with British and American passports. [update 11/29/08, this is now disputed] The majority of people killed were Indians.

• Actions Have Consequences: South African president Thabo Mbeki spent his entire administration denying the link between the HIV virus and AIDS. Even when drugs were available, he encouraged people to fortify their immune systems with beetroot and garlic. A group of Harvard researchers reports (PDF) that Mbeki's failure to invest in antiretroviral drugs cost the country 365,000 lives, and 35,000 babies lives, a total of 3.8 million human years from 2000 to 2005. Says the soft-pedaling New York Times:

  : "the report has reignited questions about why Mr. Mbeki, a man of great acumen, was so influenced by AIDS denialists."

  Mbeki was so influenced by AIDS denialists, because he was so influenced by economists of a certain philosophy. Public health is almost always a casualty of a neoconservative-like agenda. Mbeki clearly rationalized how some lives were worth saving, while others weren't. A philosophy that can be born out by people of fine acumen.

  Barbara Hogan who is now the Minister of Health stated that the age of denialism is over.

• Living in Financial Times: We previously wrote about the plight of the underpaid, overqualified science-post doc. A recent Science feature explores financial careers for scientists. Scientists are still being hired in "droves" as quants and advisors for technology and science investments, notes the introductory article. Go forth to Wall Street armed with a Ph.D. How's that for optimism and opportunity? Also try film making, a low paying career with very few opportunities that we profiled last year.

• Turtles -- Swimming Out of Their Shell: Nature reports on an interesting paleontology find in Southeast China. The turtle fossil dates a new species of basal turtle, Odontochelys semitestacea, to 220 million years ago. This turtle is 14 million years older than than the oldest turtle fossils found in Germany. Analysis of previous fossils suggested that turtles had a land based evolution. These new fossils provide a different hypothesis for turtle evolution, that they were water creatures first. The researchers deduced this from evidence of a fully developed plastron (the lower belly shell), but no carapace (the upper flat part of the shell). The turtle of this fossile also had teeth. Scientists will chew over these new findings for a while.

• Crackberry Presidency: Obama's trying to convince various agencies to allow him to keep his Blackberrry, according to various news reports, and as he told Barbara Walters last night. He said he doesn't want to become isolated, surrounded only by a few advisers.

The Exxon-Valdez and Whales in the Supreme Court

The New York Times recently published a story about the Supreme Court decision in the Exxon Valdez case. In 1989 Exxon's tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, piloted by an overworked seaman and his drunk master. The ship spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil over 1,200 miles of Alaska shoreline. The livelihoods of 32,000 plaintiffs were ruined.

The jury awarded the plaintiffs $5 billion in damages, a sum the district court reduced to $2.5 million. The Supreme Court then lowered the punitive award from "$2.5 million to $500 million. Exxon-Mobil made about $40 billion dollars in profits in 2006. $5 million accounts for about 4 days of Exxon-Mobil profit. By the time the Supreme Court ruled on the case, in June of this year, 20 years after the accident, about 20% of the plaintiffs had died.

From the title of the NYT article, "From One Footnote, a Debate Over the Tangles of Law, Science and Money", I thought that the Times story would have similar themes to the recent case about Navy sonar testing off the California coast. In that case, Winter vs. NRDC, (we wrote on this in "Whales in the Supreme Court"), the justices seemed to take at face value oral assertions by the Navy that their sonar caused no harm to whales, despite government funded research proving sonar did indeed cause significant harm to marine animals. In fact the Navy's own research -- both published and suppressed -- also found risks for significant damages to marine mammals. The damning evidence was significantly downplayed in the Navy's arguments.

The science in Navy case, Winter vs. NRDC also seemed for the most part to be explicitly ignored by the Supreme Court. Said Justice Breyer: "you are asking us who know nothing about whales and less about the military to start reading all these documents to try to figure out who's right in the case where the other side says the other side is totally unreasonable." The court appeared to perfunctorily reduce the case to a question of national defense vs. an incidental whale, and naturally ruled in deference to defense.

The ruling in the Navy training case was narrow, which environmentalists like NRDC and the Sierra Club took as a good sign. Despite NRDC's sanguine public relations statements in face of their defeat, however, it is not clear to me that the court's decision was even any real calculation of the risks the Navy's training efforts would face by making efforts to spare whales. Rather, it seemed more simply to be a nod to the Bush administration and its callous approach to the environment when it comes to the military, commerce (or, well, anything else)?

Scientific details which could have influenced the decision were ignored. While the court didn't say that the military would never have to do environmental impact statements, the ruling hinted that they were thinking in that direction.

When Exxon Recruits Researchers

The Times article on Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker ended with a quote from Prof. William R. Freudenburg, who teaches sociology at UC Santa Barbara: "The legal system and the scientific method, he said, co-exist in a way that is really hard on truth."

Freudenburg had been recruited by Exxon to do sociological research showing (basically) that juries are too generous in awarding damages. His initial research apparently offended people at the company, so Exxon terminated his contract. Exxon than paid other sociologists and legal experts to do the work and published their findings in two prestigious law journals. The Supreme court read these articles, and wrote the following footnote to their decision.

"The Court is aware of a body of literature running parallel to anecdotal reports, examining the predictability of punitive awards by conducting numerous "mock juries," where different "jurors" are confronted with the same hypothetical case. See, e.g., C. Sunstein, R. Hastie, J. Payne, D. Schkade, W. Viscusi, Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide (2002); Schkade, Sunstein, & Kahneman, Deliberating About Dollars: The Severity Shift, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 1139 2000); Hastie, Schkade, & Payne, Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff's Requests and Plaintiff's Identity in Punitive Damage Awards, 23 Law & Hum. Behav. 445 (1999); Sunstein, Kahneman, & Schkade, Assessing Punitive Damages (with Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law), 107 Yale L. J. 2071 (1998). Because this research was funded in part by Exxon, we decline to rely on it."

However the court's decision concurred with this Exxon funded research, despite the footnote saying the opposite. This, combined with the fact that the court misinterpreted non-Exxon funded research to show that jury awards were generally fair compensation, led Freudenburg to comment on science and the court.

The Supreme Court's footnote has led to a maelstrom in the legal world over both the validity of the sociological research and the court's treatment of it. After the June decision, some writers were alarmed about the court's assertion since they considered the legal research in question ""top notch work". Others voiced a completely different concern -- "skepticism about these particular mock jury trials."

These two vastly different interpretations of the validity of sociological research and its place in the court distract from a different problem evident in both the Navy and the Exxon-Valdez case. Science brought before the courts can easily be sidelined as it was in Baker in favor of sociology research, or denigrated, as it was in the Navy case when the court simplified the question to one of national security. The environment lost in both cases and the plaintiffs lost in the Exxon Valdez case.

Of course sociological research is different than science research. Exxon is well known for supporting "anti-research", for example stating that global warming doesn't exist. In the current case, Exxon didn't deny damages to the plaintiffs rather they supported research claiming that juries are rather simple-minded and over compensate, research that doesn't hold up in other studies. This is more useful to them in the long run and allows them to skirt the real questions.

Despite my initial impression, the Exxon case did not resemble the NRDC case in a simple way. But the two cases are similar in how predictably the court seems to decide, despite whatever science research is out there. The footnote is a puzzle, and seems politically motivated rather than anything else. It's either cover for a court decision that actually was influenced by Exxon's research, or evasive action based on the acknowledgment that the reader might suspect this.

It's hard to ignore the fact that corporations have long worked to eviscerate the ability of the public to impose financial damages because of bad behavior. Corporations have also long worked to reduce consideration of the environment when doing business. The court seems merely to be codifying these goals.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) won the vote to displace Representative John Dingell (D-MI) as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Waxman won the 137-122 vote to take over the leadership role that Dingelll held sine 1981. Waxman told reporters after the vote: "Seniority is important, but it should not be a grant of property rights to be chairman for three decades or more." The committee rules on health care, energy and telecommunications, all key issues for the incoming Obama administration. Nancy Pelosi named Dingell "chairman emeritus", which, as the Washington Post puts it: "is an undefined title".

Dingell has been instrumental in protecting the auto industry from higher fuel economy while couching his reasons for doing so in the same terms that the auto industry and its lobbies use. As we wrote in "Congress on CAFE: Detroit misled us", Dingell said last summer about the American consumer's car tastes: "He likes it sitting in his driveway, he likes it big, he likes it safe". The American consumer at that time was clamoring for more fuel efficient vehicles. His wife was a senior executive at GM and her family started the company.

Representative Dingell was also overseeing FDA issues. Dingell and another Michigan Democrat, Representative Bart Stupak were taking the FDA to task over their handling of bisphenol A, and vetting the potential conflict of interest of Martin Philbert. Philbert is a University of Michigan researcher who heads a Risk Center that is largely supported by a private grants from a retired manufacturer who thinks BPA is being maligned by "mothers' groups and others who don't know the science."

Dingell fought to keep his position, emphasizing his work on the FDA issues. Indeed a flurry of recent communication from the House Energy and Commerce Committee underlined the committee's work in this area. Dingell and Stupak said yesterday that they would review "compelling evidence" that the FDA approved some medical devices despite safety concerns. They released an October 14th letter by FDA agency employees who said their managers "ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify their scientific reviews", in order to release medical devices despite safety concerns. The October 14th letter described "corruption, illegality, gross mismanagement and retaliation at the hands of FDA managers."

While Dingell might have released the letter to emphasize the important work his committee is doing, FDA employees also have an interest in airing their grievances now, while change is in the air.

Obama On Climate Change

Barack Obama spoke to the bi-partisan Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles today. In Obama's recorded message he said his administration would act immediately on climate change. Everyone dismayed by the Bush administration's serial denials of climate change and ongoing combativeness with environmental policy leaders welcomed Obama's words.

The President-elect listed some of his plans:

• Establish a federal cap and trade system with strong annual targets, to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and an additional 80% reduction by 2050.
• Budget 15 billion dollars each year in "catalyze private sector efforts" on 'safe nuclear power', wind power, solar power, next generation biofuels, and "clean coal technologies".
• Provide "500 million new green jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced"

Obama said: "When I am president any governor willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House in government." California has been repeatedly thwarted by the Bush administration in its attempts to pass stricter emissions rules than those laid out by the federal government.

Likewise, Obama noted, any company investing in clean technology will have an ally in Washington, as will any nation determined to combat climate change. Addressing those who have been clamoring that he attend the UN meeting on climate change in Poland next month, he reminded that he's not yet acting president, but would keep abreast of the progress via observers. Obama promised that the U.S."will engage vigorously in these negotiations" in the future, and lead a "new era of global cooperation on climate change".

New Home for Maldivians? Or All Scuba All The Time

There's no time to waste. In related news, the government of the Maldives Islands is looking to buy land on higher ground. Approximately 300,000 citizens call the 1200 islands of Maldive home. The human rights activist president, Randeep Ramesh said he had broached the idea with India and Sri Lanka, because they have the same culture, cuisine and climate -- and Australia, because it has open land. According to The Guardian the president said he was starting a relocation fund, by planning to sell of some state assets, turning the government palace into a university, ¹ and saving money earned from tourism.

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

Acronym Required writes regularly on environment and public policy, and occasionally on island living in the age of anthropomorphic global warming.

¹ Scuba School at Maldive U?

Some recent news:

• Plastic Bombastic In Everything You See -- In Your Soup, In Your Turkey Dinner, Even In Your Tea:

  Like the San Francisco Chronicle before them, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal recently sent some plastic products to the lab for independent testing. In 2006, the Chronicle reported the bisphenol A and phthalate lab analysis results for a couple of dozen toys it had tested at an independent lab.The Chronicle's lab found that toys like a rubber duck, a Baby Einstein rattle, and a Goldberger doll had high levels of phthalates or BPA.

  The Milwaukee Sentinel sent products labeled "microwave safe" to a lab to see if the plastic products leached BPA. They did. The American Chemical Council denied the results of this study (and hundreds of others), saying there's no research whatsoever that shows anything bad about BPA.

• Plastic Classics:

  900,000 pounds of Lean Cuisine frozen chicken dinners will be recalled by Nestle Prepared Foods Co. because customers found chunks of blue plastic in Cafe Classics Pesto Chicken with Bow Tie Pasta, Spa Cuisine Chicken Mediterranean and Dinnertime Selects Chicken Tuscan. A USDA spokesperson warned that "a piece of plastic could cut your mouth, it could scratch your throat."

  Consumers are left to speculate about what happened as they toss their TV Dinners and pull into the Old Spaghetti Factory. Did someone on the assembly line pull the blue dye lever instead of the green one that gives that authentic look to the oregano and basil flecks? Nestle traced the plastic to one mean Lean Cuisine facility but hasn't divulged what piece of machinery dissassembled into their cuisine.

• Melamine and Me:

  While the US lambasts China for a regulatory system that allows melamine into the food chain, the New York Times reports that melamine is all around us in products made in the US, cleaning products, plywood, plastics, ink and paint all contain melamine. However yes, the author concedes, "[t]o be sure, in China some food manufacturers deliberately added melamine to products to increase profits."

• FDA in China: "An Ant Standing Against a Flood":

  That's what one company executive told the Washington Post in response to news that the FDA is opening offices in three cities in China to more closely oversee some of the regulation functions. The agency will post thirteen inspectors to the country this week.

• There's Research...Then There's "Research":

  The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia surveyed 51 economic forecasters who unanimously conclude that the United States is in a recession. The gloom and doom predicted by economists however, isn't matched with by stock analysts research according to a report by Thomson Reuters Starmine.

  US analysts rated 48.6% of the stocks they cover as "buy", compared to 49% last year. Only 6.7% of US analyst ratings were sell, the lowest of all countries surveyed, and the rest -- about 45% were "neutral" or "hold." According to the Financial Times article which reported on the overly "rosy" predictions, William Herkelrath, StarMine's US sell-side specialist said: "'the use of the word 'neutral' here really does mean: 'stay away.'"

Some recent news stories:

• Whales:

  The Supreme Court ruled that the Navy trumps whales. Acronym Required commented on the arguments presented to the court in "Whales in The Supreme Court".

• Corn Conquistadores: (?)

  Nature writes this week (doi:10.1038/456149a) that a paper to published in the journal Molecular Ecology reports on transgenes from genetically modified corn planted in Mexico found in tradition maize. The work confirms the findings of a disputed 2001 paper published in Nature. The new paper found that 4 of 23 sites reported in the 2001 work had evidence of genes from the GM corn in the native maize.

Mars Lander, No Goodbye, Just Kaput:

NASA is ceasing operation of the Phoenix Mars lander. The $428 million dollar mission began operations in March of last year, outlasted it's scheduled usage, and died in a dust storm of Mars winter. Winters don't provide enough solar energy to keep the lander running.

• Plasticware In the Lab:

  In last week's Science, McDonald et al, report that plastic labware can leach manufacturing agents into dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and ethanol solutions. As polycarbonate plastic leaches bisphenol A into water, for instance, other plastics can leak manufacturing agents into solutions. This could possibly change the outcomes of experiments.

• Your Secret's Safe, or Not:

  Google Flu trends tracks flu outbreaks before the CDC, the company reports. A study by Yahoo and researchers at the University of Idaho confirmed that search engine results produced a faster indication of disease that traditional tracking methods. This is pertinent news for tracking deadly pandemics. So if one typed "itchy bottom" into the computer, would Google be tracking the data in some database, say Pinworm Trends across the US? Don't worry. The researchers scrub the data of personal information.

• Old, Older, Oldest:

  Gobekli Tepe is in the news again. Archeologists continue to excavate the temple site containing 11,300 year old carved stones in southern Turkey. The pillars were built in circles in with pillars up to 16 feet tall, some carved with foxes, lions, scorpions, and vultures. One of the sites lead archeologists, Klaus Schmidt, suggests that culture and building proceeded and then necessitated farming. Scientists have thought that the domestication of nomad hunter societies to farming societies proceeded the building of communities.

The Bush administration is busy trying to push through 90 new laws with abbreviated public comment periods and accelerated rule-making procedures. Many of these last-minute laws would benefit industry by reducing regulation. Earlier this month OMB Watch summarized some of the action items the Bush administration is trying to roll out before the end of the 43rd presidential term. Some of the alarming changes would devastate certain environmental protections and affect the EPA's oversight of the environment. The proposed changes include:

• Allowing mining companies to dump refuse into rivers and streams.
• Weakening the Endangered Species Act.
• Allowing factory farm run-off to pollute streams.
• Loosening regulations on placing power plants near national parks.
• Exempting factory farms from reporting air pollution.
• Loosening ocean fishing management regulations.
• Doing nothing about oil refinery toxic emission control which Congress mandated.

In other odious news, a Department of the Interior rule proposed at the beginning of the year would get rid of the ban against carrying loaded firearms in National Parks. 77% of retired National Park Service employees oppose this change. The Park Service might be thinking along the lines of, how would you like to run into a retired Vice President Cheney taking popshots at birds while you're hiking with your family though the Grand Tetons? The other danger is that lifting the ban would increase "impulse" kills of wildlife by gun-toting hikers.

Some more Bush rules, these from the Department of Health and Human services, would allow healthcare workers to deny certain services that they morally oppose, and would strengthen the requirements on certain HIV and AIDS grantees to explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking. These populations are the very populations that most need the services and education about HIV/AIDS, and who are at risk of spreading the disease throughout the population.

The only good news is that some of these rules are the type of regulations that the Obama administration plans to reverse. The administration appointed Susan Wood to be co-chair of the president-elect's advisory committee for women's health. She recently told Bloomberg News: "We have been going in the wrong direction and we need to turn it around and be promoting prevention and family-planning services and strengthening public health."

However OMB Watch warns:

The next president will be unable to repeal or reverse any Bush-era regulations that are final and in effect. Short of actions taken by the courts in the face of potential lawsuits, the new administration's only option would be to restart the rulemaking process. A typical rulemaking can take years to complete.

The Washington Post reports that the Obama team is targeting administrative actions and executive orders that would be quickly undone "to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts..."

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

Acronym Required Wrote on Susan Wood's resignation from the FDA over the agency's handling of Plan B in 2005 and 2006 in "FDA -- Calling Off The Dogs" and The FDA's Medical Ideology". Acronym Required writes often about environmental regulation, or the lack thereof, and about the EPA.

More on Joe the Scientist

A couple of weeks ago we wrote in "Joe the Scientist Takes His Hits" about the middling wages of science post-docs. In a related article published by Science last week, Beryl Benderly notes in "Taken for Granted: Joe the Plumber and the Postdocs", that becoming a science graduate student used to mean a 4-6 year apprenticeship with a Ph.D. and academic job at graduation -- Ph.D. meaning, "teacher of philosophy".

These days Ph.D. training is followed by one or more 1-4 year post-doc positions. At some unidentified time some position follows, usually 6-10 years later -- and most likely not in academia. That "implicit contract" is broken, says Benderly. She writes on the movement by Ph.D. candidates and post-docs at some universities to join labor unions. The protections these scientists in training seek from the labor unions used to be offered by the "craft unions" the students joined as graduate students, writes Benderly. Graduate students and post-docs are no longer "promising aspirants to a prestigious trade", she says, but "employees of large organizations" -- universities.

The reality of the situation is well-illustrated by employment statistics. According to Georgia State economist Paula Stephan's 2005 analysis of data from the National Science, the number of graduated biomedical Ph.D.'s younger than 35 grew 60% from 1993 to 2001. However the number of tenure-track academic positions grew by only 7%. The probability that a young Ph.D. holds a tenure track position is now 6.9%. Yet 40-50% of incoming graduate students in biomedical research hope to get tenured faculty positions. These number don't factor in the increase in non-academic positions, however Stephan says that these openings don't accommodate all graduates either. ¹

Ph.D., Postdoc Training? Now For Your "Real" (ha, ha, ha) Career.

Despite the cries of from high-tech executives about lack of talent, the real problem, according to Stephan, is the lack of both federal and industry opportunities, not only in the US, but in other western countries. As many people know, there's a fine supply of scientists, biomedical as well as engineering, physics and other sciences. Here's a good summary of the situation (with humor) from a few years back. Industry constantly lobbies to hire more foreign labor in order to keep wages and benefit costs low. But there's a a real lack of demand that keeps many highly trained professionals underemployed, and persuades many a would-be-scientist to pursue other careers.

There's no pressure to change the system, where the many students trained very specifically in sciences will never use those skills. As Stephan's sees it, the post-doc system takes the pressure off faculty who take on Ph.Ds to amend the system. If all US students bowed out of science graduate education there's still plenty of supply from international students, for whom a US graduate degree is very valuable without a US faculty job at the end.

The "implicit contract", has actually long been dead. Back in April, we wrote a post, "For Glory of State, Primacy of Science", commenting on Charlie Rose's show about the state of science called "The Imperative of Science". The speakers agreed that all citizens should be more conversant in science. Some even went as far as to say that all citizens should have lab experience.

Dr. Harold Varmus, one of the speakers, spoke on expanded roles for trained scientists. He said that more and more scientists trained to the Ph.D. or post-doc level were now pursuing "journalism, biotech, law, and policy". He said that these were often referred to as "alternative careers"; which, he said, laughing, was a "somewhat disparaging term"; but, Varmus insisted, they're "real careers." It was the laugh that proceeded his insistence that puzzled me. Is it a "real career" -- or not? If so, do you really need 10 years of benchwork in a faculty science lab to get there?

¹ "Job Market Effects on Scientific Productivity." Presented at Programme 2005-2006 Du "Seminaire D'Enseignment Superior"

Who's Nice, Who's Not

President-Elect Barack Obama and his team won the election with good campaign leadership, a calm temperament, intelligence, savvy, perseverance, some luck, and lots of other things. Obama is quickly moving to assemble his teams. Such decisions will of course elicit approval from some, condemnation from others. Obama picked his Chief of Staff this week, Rahm Emanuel, a man with a fearsome reputation. Everyone has an opinion, with some claiming that the Rahm pick indicates a partisan direction for Obama's governance style.

For the rest of the top positions each media publication seems to have its own list of "probable picks". FoxNews writes it's list under the happy title: "Obama, Leaning on Clintonian Dems, Might Tap Republicans". The Nation encourages Obama to depend on Robert Reich and David Bonior more than the many "investment-banker, free-trader" types who dominate the stages.

The lists from disparate political camps overlap, but can be improbably different from each other. They're perhaps "predictive", by certainly sometimes no more than "wishful thinking". It seems that the more the individual has been in the news, the bolder the media opinions about the suitability of their role and the quicker the lines are drawn.

For instance Larry Summers' name arose as possible Treasury Secretary. The Financial Times, favors Larry Summers, who has been a columnist for the paper since he resigned the Harvard presidency. Summers got himself in trouble at Harvard most famously by stating at a woman's conference that women's abilities in science and math might be limited by genetics or personal preferences.

His opinion elicited furor from men and women alike, especially scientists who knew better. For all the disputation, however, if there was any time in the past couple of decades when such regressive ideas might gain public traction, 2005 seemed like a ripe time. There were plenty of people who jumped at the opportunity to riff off Summer's comments under the guise of "what's wrong with asking for more research on the issue?" Perhaps arguing for Dr. Summers, or appropriating his views for an ascendant ideology, one Financial Times columnist wrote:

"The trouble is not that Mr Summers is too self-satisfied. It is that Harvard is. Harvard - and US universities like it - tend to promulgate a set of views - global warming is a crisis; the US is to blame for the world's troubles; governments of developed nations ought to be large; and quotas or some form of affirmative action is required when it comes to the advancement of women and minorities. These same universities often shut out, or look away from, arguments that do not support these beliefs. The result is not "neo-Stalinist" monoliths - novelist Michael Crichton's description of universities in his current bestseller, State of Fear. But it is universities that are boring, provincial, shut in.

Mr Summers was trying to kick open doors - to recapture for Harvard the sense of intellectual possibility that leads to progress. The "woman" controversy is a good example. The fact that more maths prodigies are boys is not even hypothetical; the data have been out there for decades. When tested in hard sciences girls tend to clump in the middle of the statistical range. Boys, by contrast, are more spread out - hitting stellar highs and humiliating lows more frequently.

If, after decades of promoting girls, boys still do better, it is not crazy to wonder whether the difference is hardwired....(Shalaes, A. FT, 01/2005)"

The columnist's assertions about math and science skills, as well as Summer's, are dead wrong. We all know this, these opinions have been disproved by many a study. Summers' apologized profusely and explained he didn't mean it as it was taken. He stepped aside as Harvard's president, but continues to work in positions of prestige and influence.

This one episode in Summers' long career may or may not influence whether Obama chooses him, however it's fresh in people's minds. The National Organization for Women, (NOW), decried the idea of Summers for Treasury Secretary, citing his gaffes about gender as well as his leadership on some deregulatory points that contributed to the current financial market strife.¹Time lists more Summer's misteps (such as the Summer's memo) of Summers past, then balances the list of cons by noting his intelligence. Each source draws their own conclusion about his suitability. Some students support his possible nomination, writing odes to him based on their favorable experiences as female students.

Pick Me! Pick Me!

There's also a general shuffling around in congress, with key players circling key leadership roles. Of great interest to many of people, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), is vying to replace Congressman John Dingell's (D-MI) on the Energy and Commerce Chairman. Waxman has been a bulldog on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Dingell's powerful position on Energy and Commerce has long checked the Democrat party's efforts on emissions. Dingell is a vigilant protector of the American auto industry status quo who fought against CAFE standard updates, and against California's attempts to pass a bill to allow states to pass their own global warming legislation. In "Congress on CAFE: Detroit misled us", we mention Dingell's history of successes.

Some of Dingell's other work on the committee is fighting against bisphenol A (BPA). As we've mentioned, the congressman burnishes his credentials by balancing his anti-environment stances on emissions. In a letter to his committee members asking for support he wrote that his current objectives were working healthcare reform, global warming, and overhauling the FDA.

There's not too many people who think Dingell's work on global-warming has been noteworthy. A couple of weeks ago EnergyWashington Week reported that the Ways and Means Committee introduced its own cap-and-trade legislation and is attempting to circumvent Dingell's more lax Energy & Commerce Committee cap-and-trade legislation.

YAY!

It's a new day.

"...His triumph was decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens. He offered a government that does not try to solve every problem but will do those things beyond the power of individual citizens: to regulate the economy fairly, keep the air clean and the food safe, ensure that the sick have access to health care, and educate children to compete in a globalized world..." (NYT)¹

Yes, there's work to do. Yes, it will be difficult. But today we recognize how much America's just accomplished.

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

¹Obama won despite warnings about possible GOP ballot fraud stemming from information dribbling out of the Ohio trial concerning 2004 Ohio ballot fraud. In the latest episode, Michael Connell, a consultant whose firm has been accused of computer manipulation, denied knowing anything about GOP rigging the 2004 Ohio election results. Connell works for Randy Cole. Cole owns 15 companies that work simultaneously on GOP election campaigns (Bush/Cheney 2000/2004, McCain 2008, many others), anti-Abortion groups and churches, GOP mass mailings, government contracts, etc. Stephen Spoonamore, a key witness in the trial brings the allegations, explains in a multi-part series starting here.

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? Who is 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.

It's theater, some say, arguing that McCain always talks like this but doesn't vote against the measures. Case in point, Adler Planetarium's equipment grant got rejected, but McCain keeps it as a talking point. But the fact is, the GOP campaign team relegates science to political joke fodder used to misinform the masses, which 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 scientists have employed to further research in such things as human development, disease and genetics. Scientists reacted ferociously to Palin's fruit fly research talk.

However Palin was actually referring to the olive fruit fly. The olive fruit fly which is indigenous to the Mediterranean and an invasive species of California arrived on California soil in the late 1990's. The fly poses an economic threat to California's olive crops. Olive trees are usually protected from olive fruit fly with insecticides, but from their research, scientists now know of at least six natural predators to the olive fruit fly.

The research station in France gives US based researchers a chance to study the fly in its native territory, where scientists have been dealing with the pest for years. Their research is beneficial because it will explore ways that these predators could be used as an alternative or extension of insecticides. Insecticides are a thriving part of the chemical industry however, so not all lobbyists will appreciate this new research.

Confusingly, some scientists interrupted the anger about Palin's attack to explain that Drosophila melanogaster, wasn't really a "fruit fly". The labeling confusion probably occurred sometime in the early 20th century or maybe with Aristotle, and "fruit fly" is the part of scientists' and lay persons' 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 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, totally missing the fact that scientists really do call the ubiquitous Drosophila melanogaster "fruit fly". Acronym Required doesn't want to diminish the importance of accuracy, but in this case the label is superfluous to the larger crime of denigrating science for fun. ¹

Plus de hits, Plus de fun

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 who's is behind it the attack? Unfortunately scientists don't have comedy prank team at a radio station like CKOI ("Plus de hits, Plus de fun") at our disposal. ².

Clearly the French olive industry isn't behind the lobbying. Despite the fact that Palin said we "loved" the French, CAGW and McCain campaign aren't enamoured. The bottom line is we don't know who is behind the attack.

The olive fruit fly funding story originated with Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), an organization that started by J. Peter Grace, heir to founder of the W.R. Grace & Co, the chemical company. W.R. Grace & Co. is famous for polluting and environmental damage (as well as not paying taxes). Jonathan Harr chronicled one of W.R. Grace's pollution debacles in the memorable book "A Civil Action". President Reagan initially appointed Peter Grace to an internal government agency aimed at decreasing the role of government. This government agency which morped into CAGW. CAGW has in the past attacked teenage alcohol education, science education programs and lots and lots of science research. The goal of the organization was initially to target "meritless" science research by government agencies.

So if you're trying to figure out why CAGW opposes $200,000K for olive fly research, you'd probably be on the wrong track. CAGW and their catchy anti-government hotline --1-800-BE ANGRY -- receives corporate donations in turn for their targeted lobbying efforts. CAGW funding comes from many companies, including Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation, Exxon Corporation (now ExxonMobil), Ingersoll-Rand Company, Johnson & Johnson F.M. Kirby Foundation, Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco (now part of the Altria Group) Sears Roebuck & Company, John Deere Foundation, Eaton Charitable Fund, Columbia/HCA Foundation.

Shooting Down Science, Contract by Contract

Among the thousands of campaigns CAGW runs, only occasionally does the media uncover or even pay attention to the source of funding. CAGW was behind a Northrup Grumman case and Microsoft's funded lobbying and astroturfing in the anti-open source.

Bill Adair of the St. Petersburg Times's did a great 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 avocados.

In another case, Public Citizen revealed that CAGW worked with PhRMA, a lobbying group for the pharmaceutical industry, to scuttle efforts for a government health care plan. However thousands of CAGW campaigns, and their donors remain unknown. A St. Petersburg Times article in December, 2006 described how the group's tax exempt status hides their defacto corporate lobbying role. The IRS code allows them to keep from the public records of who funds them (which is tax deductible) and other important details.

But you can get the gist of the game reading Adair's account. In "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 target movement put the FDA in charge of regulating tobacco.

CAGW and Tobacco

For years, CAGW worked with the tobacco industry. In 1997, the group 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.

McCain, Swindle, CAGW....

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.

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.

Defining Cynicism.

In their annual 1995 "Pig Book Summary", the CAGW 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, commented on 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. Grassley singled out 5 tax exempt groups who

"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.."

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

CAGW denied the charges and left the room when things got hot. Then 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."

Does It Matter?

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. CCAGW, a PAC associated with CAGW ran TV ads for a presidential candidate.

But 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." But as Winston Churchill once said: "Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." If Congress doesn't ensure that the people can get the facts, then we have no chance of ever 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 game and which are solely contract political targets?

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."

CAGW has been around since the 1980's and their work will continue unless we change the laws and demand greater transparency. There's been only occasional chatter about discontinuing the veiled lobbying, despite the wisdom of Senator Byrd and others that "it is old propaganda." At the root of the McCain campaign's choice to play enfant terrible to scientists and science, there's a very popular ideology at work that will not die with an incoming Obama administration.

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

¹ 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]!".

Stud's Terkel passed away October 31st at the age of 96. Robert Ebert, who had known him for years, described him as a man of "boundless curiosity and bottomless memory" -- a great listener. He was blacklisted during McCarthyism along with his wife -- Hoover thought he was subversive. In turn, Terkel suspected that Hoover "had a lifelong suspicion of those who thought the Constitution actually meant something". As Ebert put it:

"Was he the greatest Chicagoan? I cannot think of another. For me, he represented the joyous, scrappy, liberal, generous, wise-cracking heart of this city. If you met him, he was your friend. That happened to the hundreds and hundreds of people he interviewed for his radio show and 20 best-selling books. He wrote down the oral histories of those of his time who did not have a voice. In conversation he could draw up every single one of their names."

Ebert writes on Terkel here. Studs Terkel's recorded conversations with people across the U.S. bringing poignant humanity to subjects that many people would have just as soon dodged. He wrote books -- Division Street , on Chicago and immigration; Hard Times, on the great depression; The Good War, on World War II, Race, Coming of Age, Hope Dies Last: Keeping the Faith in Difficult Times, and more. His radio show ran for 25 years, and each night he signed off "Take it easy, but take it."

Terkel was always up to something. Last year, among many activities, he joined a suit against telecoms for wiretapping done at the bequest of the Bush administration. Acronym Required commented on his commentary in the New York Times concerning granting the companies immunity from lawsuits. We quoted his comment about living in the last century: "nothing much surprises me anymore. But I always feel uplifted by this: Given the facts and an opportunity to act, the body politic generally does the right thing." As Ebert said, he missed the upcoming election, but he didn't miss much else.

Several recent studies measuring biodiversity have found significant losses due to global warming and human activity. We know of course, that this has been happening for a while, but its good to be reminded of the path we're headed down. The scale of these species losses is challenging to fathom, and will be challenging to stem.

• In the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a group of Stanford scientists found significant amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park. The researchers found that the number of permanently dry ponds in the northern end of the park increased 4-fold due to changes in the park including rises in annual temperature and decreases in precipitation and snow packs. McMenamin et al found in "Climatic change and wetland desiccation cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park" (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809090105) that three amphibian species suffered significant declines in numbers since the 1990's. Ambystoma tigrinu decreased by 50%, Bufo boreas decreased by 68%, Pseudacris triseriata; and Rana luteiventris decreased by 75%. The numbers of a fourth species did not decrease -- Bufo boreas however, the scientists found only eggs or juveniles of that endangered species.


• In another PNAS article scientists from Boston University and Harvard found that 27% of the species documented by Thoreau in his studies of Walden Pond in Concord Massachusetts in the 1850's are now gone. The article "Phylogenetic patterns of species loss in Thoreau's woods are driven by climate change" (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806446105) Another 36% were found in low numbers. The temperatures in Concord rose 4 degress Fahrenheit during that time.


• In the UK, the Department for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs found that the number of "breeding pairs of farmland birds" is down 62% due to changes in agricultural processes including the use of chemicals and the decrease in mixed farming. Some species have decreased by more than 85%, and the several are now extinct.

Biodiversity is important for many reasons, some of which are documented in the book: "Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity". Eric Chiverian and Aaron Bernstein edit the book, with contributions by 100 scientists. The book takes the perspective that losing species will impact humans in many ways, including incidence of infectious disease, medical research, and food supplies.

Happy Halloween. Over 23 million people have voted in early elections across the United States. People are now driven to distraction by the election, even Acronym Required at times. But we're also distracted by science topics.

• Decidin'

  For instance take the cartoon that accompanied an article in last week's New Yorker. It was a drawing of a TinTin looking character, eyes wide, eyebrows arched, finger to his pursed lips, puzzling over two choices on a wall chart. On the left I saw a rooster. On the right I saw a Drosophila.

  The accompanying article "Undecided", by David Sedaris, discussed the baffling group of supposedly undecided voters:

  "I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?"

  He placed the dilemma in terms of airline food (he probably flies in the class where the still have that):

  "The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?"

  It still took me a while to figure out that the cartoon character was standing in a voting booth. The choice was not a silly Rooster or Drosophila but "chicken" or "shit with bits of broken glass" in it. The Drosophila wasn't that at all, just a giant red-eyed other type of more fuzzy fly, standing on a small brown mound that represented Sedaris' subject, "shit". In an effort to explain my confusion, I'll just say I was writing about C. elegans at the time, another model organism, so perhaps that's why I saw Drosophila melanogaster.

• Buggin'

  It was a Drosophila kind of week. Scientists and many knowledgeable Americans (and French) were angry that V.P. candidate Sarah Palin dissed fruit fly research as waste. Of course she wasn't talking about Drosophila melanogaster, but olive fruit flies in a completely different taxonomic family. But the outrage over her perfunctory dismissal of California agricultural research is warranted.

• Poisonin'

  Updating our melamine coverage from previous posts, this week brought China and Hong Kong melamine contaminated eggs, thus widening the scandal. The culprit may be melamine laced grain which has spread the toxic chemical throughout the food chain. China is now culling chickens. The past year has seen the demise -- through culling and dumping -- of some major protein sources, pigs, milk, eggs, chicken -- hopefully there's some unadulterated beans and soy and rice around.

• Labelin'

  India passed the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008, which will require food product labels starting in March, 2009. Fruit products cannot be labeled as such unless they contain fruit, etc. Cardiac conscious customers will now be able to identify transfats such as "vansapati", hydrogenated vegetable cooking oil which is commonly found in packaged food.

• Trick-or-Treatin'
  The cost of drugs to treat type 2 diabetes doubled between 2001 and 2007, according to a report in the Archives of Internal Medicine, from $6.7 billion dollars in 2001, to $12.5 billion dollars in 2007. The higher cost is due to new drugs, which can be 10 times higher than old drugs, as well as increased numbers of patients. The number of patient visits increased from 25 million in 1994, to 36 million in 2007.

  But today's Halloween. So here's a carbohydrate chart (PDF!) from "DLife" (For Your Diabetes Life!") For example:
  - 3 Musketeers 16 gram fun-sized bar: 12 grams
  - Gummy Bears 11 pieces: 30 grams
  - M&M's "Halloween" mini box: 10 grams
  - Tootsie Roll midgets 12: 30 grams
  - Heath Bar 1.4 oz. bar: 20 grams
  

• Cravin' Palin

  One of this year's most popular costumes is a Sarah Palin costume. This would be a challenging one to pull off for three reasons. One, it's just gonna' be an icky couple of hours sitting in that particular suit. Two, do you really have her style down? Sarah Palin is hot, according to, well, everyone, which may be hard to live up to. I recently got an explanation of this relative hotness -- it's "niche hot". Therefore if she doesn't win the vice presidency maybe she'll vamp through Playboy, with a "hot" politician theme, and if not that, then she actually already has her Palin calendar awaiting your purchase.

  But she's a tricky act to follow, which brings us to your third challenge. You might be able to cackle "you betcha!" with the best of them, you might be able to wink wildly, you might be able bend the elite right wing news staff of the Weekly Standard, the National Review, The Hill, and the New York Times to your side by leading them around by the front of their pants, as a recent New Yorker article describes¹.

  But do you really have her diction down? Can you remember to drop the "g" on pallin', and lyin' -- like Palin'? Maybe, but can you remember to leave the "g" on the word when necessary? Can you remember to say "cravING", as she does? As in, American's are craving that straight talk"? And Americans are craving something new and different..." You're not hearing "I'm Sarah and I'm cravin'". Americans are cravinG.

  Sure "it's genuine, not affectation", just like she's genuine in every other way, an outsider, didn't hire lobbyists to buff her image as Alaskan governor. I think it's a tough Halloween costume to pull off.

• Swoopin' & Spookin'
  Merriam Webster's Word of the Day is Chiropteran:

  "Chiroptera" is the name of the order of the only mammal capable of true flight, the bat. The name is influenced by the hand-like wings of bats, which are formed from four elongated "fingers" covered by a cutaneous membrane. It is based on the Greek words for "hand," "cheir," and "wing," "pteron." "Cheir" also had a hand in the formation of the word "surgery," which is ultimately derived from the ancient word "cheirourgos," meaning "doing by hand."

  Acronym Required wrote a little about bats in "Bats, Riddles, and Viruses."

• Mappin' not Spyin'

  The town of Molfsee, Germany, is rebelling against Google's "Street View". Google would dispatch vehicles with camera's to map the town's streets, but the 5,000 citizens have laid down the law. The company would need a special permit to photograph the city's streets, which the town politicians refuse to grant. The town's concerns about privacy are shared by state and federal privacy experts, according to Spiegel.

• Votin'

  As for the election, some, like Larry David, are pacing and suspicious. There's been a steady stream of alarming reports about voting machines, it's no wonder that everyone's a bit on edge.

  There's apparently a trend now, everyone's droppin' their g's. On the positive side, voting turn-out so far is great. Pray; no Hope; no Work for the most honest, cleanest result.

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

¹ This article also contends that this one young Republican started a blog advocating Sarah Palin for Vice President, and that blog precipitated a lot of conservative enthusiasm: "In the month before Palin was picked by McCain, Brickley said, his Web site was receiving about three thousand hits a day". To put this in perspective Daily Kos gets about 2,604,779 page views a day, so if there's about 3-4 hits per page view, DKos gets about 6 million hits a day. Brickley was getting about 1000 pages a day -- not too much.

Subcommittee to FDA: Room For Improvement

The FDA subcommittee reviewing the FDA's August 2008 draft report has released its first recommendations(PDF) on the draft BPA report. The subcommittee brought lots of suggestions for improvement.

They wrote that the draft did not adequately provide scientific support for their method of choosing which studies to include: "Specifically, the Subcommittee does not agree that the large number of non-GLP studies should be excluded from use in the safety assessment."

The subcommittee also questioned the use of "no observed adverse effect level" (NOAEL) standard the FDA employed to determine the safety of exposure. The panel pointed out that so many studies show effects in neurobehavioral development, prostate gland, mammary gland and puberty in females, that it seems BPA must bind to gonadal hormone receptors during development. The panel said this suggests safe exposures "at least an order of magnitude below the 5 mg/kg/bw/day NOAEL identified in the draft assessment." The panel authors suggest several alternative ways to measure dose response that would model findings across the many studies that the FDA excluded in its draft.

The subcommittee offered additional point by point criticism and noted that the studies cleared by the NTP's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) indicate that the FDA standard should be "substantially below (i.e., at least one or more orders of magnitude lower than) the 5 mg/kg bw/day level selected in the draft FDA assessment."

Living Through Chemistry -- U. Michigan and Dow

The FDA panel released their draft at an opportune time. Philbert was under increasing pressure about his role on the panel given appearances of conflict of interest. Acronym Required wrote a couple of weeks ago on Philbert's directorship of the University of Michigan SPH Risk Science and Analysis program, founded and heavily contributed to by Charles Gelman, a retired manufacturer and tireless critic of chemical regulation. Had the subcommittee's report dared reach the opposite conclusion than the pressure would have increased.

Following our post Martin Philbert wrote a letter to the editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel protesting the paper's allegations that his work would be influenced by the donations he accepted from Gelman: "This simply is not true", he said.

To illustrate his point he described in his letter the $15 million dollar grant the Risk Science Center took from Dow Chemical for a dioxin study. Philbert told how, given the grant, his colleagues "still found that people living near the Dow plant had higher levels of dioxins in their bodies."

However, nobody should find Philbert's assurance about his work for Dow Chemical comforting since Dow manufactures bisphenol A and takes political action to protect its market when necessary. For instance at (http://dowaction.com/grassroots/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=30665022), you can read Dow's letter thanking their employees for their "Best in Class", 31.5% "grassroots" effort in defeating California SB 1713 Bisphenol-A Ban.

The University of Michigan task in the Dow study was to measure blood dioxin levels of home-owners in different geographic areas -- not to investigate health affects. In that sense the dioxin study is not an analogous situation to the BPA panel. But even if were comparable, the University of Michigan results got Dow off the hook in a way, by finding that the variation in dioxin levels was due to things like age and body mass index (BMI), not levels of dioxins in the air or soil.

Media, politicians, citizens and scientists criticized the study because Dow had long been under pressure from the EPA to clean up dioxin contamination ¹ and the study was seen as a stalling technique. The EPA had this to say in one memo: "the study was initiated at the request of Dow in order to downplay the risks of exposure to dioxin contaminated soils." The EPA went on to say:

"public presentations of the preliminary results have emphasized how little effect living on contaminated soils has one an individual's dioxin blood level. This emphasis has resulted in numerous media stories, an understanding by some members of the public, that remediation of dioxin contamination is unnecessary."

The BPA memo on the FDA draft will no doubt assure the doubters in the public that Philbert's panel has their best interests in mind. ² If not, Philbert warns that he will "think long and hard" before taking time to "perform this kind of public service".

Stay on your toes...

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

¹ Burnham, D. "1965. Memo Show Dow's Anxiety on Dioxin.", NYT 1983)

² Perhaps Dow's BPA economy is not at stake in Michigan? John Dingell (D-MI), bulldog for the auto-industry, has also taken on BPA.

BPA: Trade Globally, Regulate Slowly

Today there are hundreds bisphenol A studies, with a growing body of evidence showing connections between low-dose exposure to the chemical and harm, especially during perinatal development. Some of the reported effects of BPA are so commonly known that recent headlines for Asian, Indian and UK papers reported on Canada's new ban: "Canada to Ban 'Gender-Bend' Baby Bottles".

But chemistry and plastics companies keep up the relentless marketing. They've been aggressive for years, for instance here's the American Plastics Council in 1999, (APC, now part of the American Chemical Council (ACC)) ordering:

"Consumer Reports has committed a serious error alleging dangers from the use of polycarbonate plastic baby bottles, based on an apparent lack of understanding of toxicology or safety and risk assessment. Because of the misleading and needlessly frightening statements made in the Consumer Reports article, the American Plastics Council has requested that the publication issue an immediate retraction."

In addition to orders, press releases, letters to editors, and scientific studies, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) owned a corral of internet domains where they posted reassuring consumer information on topics like the safety of plastic baby bottles. Sites such as the ACC's www.babybottle.org assured parents via scripted Q&A's like "Ask the Doctor", that plastic bottles were the absolutely safe. Explicit notice about the site's ACC affiliation was missing, as such, the messages were pretty convincing.

Just last week the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group issued a press release saying they'd just reviewed the weight of the BPA evidence. The research, from Gradient Corporation in Massachusetts, and a convened panel on the matter, found BPA harmless. The same scientists sat on this panel that sat on preceding panels -- in 2004 at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, and in 2006 by the Gradient Corporation. They reached the same conclusion every year, despite the flood of recent research on BPA. Two more studies indicating derogatory effects on fetal neural development were included in the October issue of Environmental Research in its feature "A Plastic World".

The lead panel member and author of the Gradient paper is Dr. Lorenz Rhomberg. Acronym Required last caught up with Rhomberg when he was working for the American Plastics Council (APC) writing letters to editors of California papers. Our 2006 post covered the failure of California legislators to get AB 319 through appropriations. AB 319 would have banned phthalates and bisphenol A in the state, but got killed following the intense lobbying by the ACC and American Plastics Council (APC). California came back with a different version later, and Rhomberg now works for a private research lab in Boston.

Does the ACC own the FDA on BPA?

Recently the public has increased their response and even outrage over the extent of the deceptions by chemical companies and their lobbies. Congress has beefed up its scrutiny of the BPA regulation, and scientists continue to spend time and money responding to the flood of industry research. The current focus is how much the chemical industry seems to influence the FDA. The FDA issued a decision in August, 2008 saying basically that BPA was safe, weighing its decision on two industry studies. The FDA's decision conflicted with statements of concern from other agencies and scientists.

We previously wrote about the investigation of the FDA's actions by 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. On October 15th, the Committee wrote to a letter to FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach, questioning the appointment of the FDA BPA advisory panel chair Martin Philbert and concerning his possible conflicts of interest. Philbert's panel was to review the April, 2008 decision of the FDA which deemed BPA safe.

In that same letter the Representative Dingell requested "all records of communication between the FDA and ICF Consulting relating to their BPA work for the agency." As Dingell and Bart Stupak (D - MI) wrote:

"summary assessments of BPA were created for FDA's BPA panel by ICF Consulting, a private contractor that has done prior work for BPA manufacturers, and whose board members have ties to BPA manufacturers."

Acronym Required found supporting documents for the FDA draft here on the FDA site. Among them you can find the ICF consulting product as well as the neurobehavioural review contracted by ACC to the company Exponent¹, along with various other reviews and communications about BPA research.

Markey To FDA: Are Americans Not Worthy Of Canada's Standards?

In other action from the legislature, Congressman Ed Markey wrote a letter to the FDA Thursday asking if the FDA analyzed the same studies that the Canadian government's did, and if so why it hadn't decided differently on BPA than its North American neighbor?²

"Does the FDA consider a different level of risk acceptable for American consumers including infants, than the Canadian government is willing to accept for its consumers? If so what is the difference in risk assumption and why is the difference appropriate?"

Markey wrote that he was concerned that Americans, "including our most vulnerable infant populations", were being exposed to unsafe doses of bisphenol A. Senator Grassley (R-IA) also asked the BPA to answer questions about the criteria it used for its decision.

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

² Acronym Required wrote on the different economic and political climates of the two countries and their BPA policies in "The Politics of Everyday Bisphenol A".

Once Red State - Blue State, Now Internetland - Radioland?

The news is all economy and election: Warren Buffet, accustomed to being courted by the press, software tycoons and presidential candidates flexes his muscles and asks that everyone go buy stocks. The people totally ignore him. Greenspan rears his head, a haunting apparition, moaning about 'the one thing he didn't know'...The market swoons again....

Sarah Palin goes for the rich little poor girl image...McCain supporters stage increasingly hostile and bizarre threats to Obama supporters and all the media...The liberal Internet pulls for a landslide Democrat win that I believe parts of the blogosphere could accomplish by sheer force of editorial will. The liberal-nets feature daily reports from conservatives and their sons and daughters and commentators who either disapprove or are defecting from the Republican Party (Goldwater,Schwartzenegger, Powell, Buckley, Brooks, Adelman...) If Huff Po ran out of Republican offspring essays to feature I'm sure campaign enthusiasm would give editorial space to increase the pixel size of their headlines from 70-80 to 700.

Bloggers predict that the internet is bringing an end to the era of Rove style politics...Karl Rove writes a letter to the editor of Harper's to point out that Grover Norquist, not him, said: "We can go to students at Harvard and say, 'There is now a secure retirement plan for Republican operatives'"

The media talks about back-stabbing and Republican Hill staff's curriculum vitae reportedly flying out to corporations...Nobody's too happy that Imelda Palin spends a lot on make-up in addition to shoes. (Still, I think it's way to soon too start cheerfully humming 'We never promised you a rose garden')

Meanwhile in science news:

The Oddities in Commodities

• Chinese Milk Scandal: We last reported on melamine in milk made in China when the tainted milk had killed three kids and sickened a couple of thousand. Now 5000 are hospitalized in China, and products across the world are found to be toxic with melamine. Along with the "rabbit hole" of the economic despair and the "rabbit hole" of the McCain's campaign strategy, there's the imported melamine tainted "White Rabbit" candies found on candy shelves throughout the world. The United Nations noted this week that the Chinese government's oversight system needs "urgent review and revision".
  
  
• Scientists are Eager to Explore your Genome: Last month Sergey Brin advertised on his blog that his genome indicated an increased risk of Parkinson's. This week George Church announced the first 10 volunteers had signed up for the Personal Genome Project and release parts of their genetic information and medical records to Harvard investigator. Church is "hoping to offset ethical concerns" that the data may breed discrimination in jobs, health insurance and how volunteers and their families are perceived."

  Before you sign up, the "Personal Genome Project" wants you to know a couple of things. On the positive side they say you're doing good for "society" and your "donation" (if you will) might allow you to indulge in a little "self-curiosity". One possible negative they mention is that someone could "claim statistical evidence that could affect employment or insurance or the ability to obtain financial services for the participant."

• Open Access: In "Publish and be Wrong", earlier this month, the Economist pointed to a PLoS Medicine article that argues the science publishing model is seriously flawed. According to he authors, there's a false scarcity of publication slots at top science journals, and the criteria for publication doesn't assure that quality papers get published.

  The weight of the article rests with its title: "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science". Along with some familiar points, the writers offer shaky economic comparisons, vague criticism and recommendations. In one line of argumentation, the authors rework the idea that journals should include more negative results and fewer positive results. However its hard to see how publishing negative results (along with analysis, peer review, time) would help solve the problem of too much data and too few publication outlets, which is their primary concern. Peer review is so flawed they say, let's allow the more unprepared, less science literate readers, as opposed to scientists familiar with the research, sort through the data. Make sense?

  The team writes that many top journal publication results turn out to be flawed, and bases this on previous research by lead author John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, who in 2005 wrote "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". I didn't pick through the 2005 study, but assuming his assertions are true -- for the sake of discussion -- lots of published results get overturned. Therefore as I read it, lots of research is "negative", but published. So why isn't that "negative" research coveted as much by the authors of the current PLoS Medicine as the unpublished "negative" research they say are so important?

  Ioannidis et al assert that "scientific information is a commodity" and say there's a "moral imperative" to consider how its judged and disseminated. Maybe so, but if that then why separate the publishing from the foundation that its built upon (academia, tenure, granting)? And to be consistent, can we talk about drugs as commodities? And the moral imperative for generics?

  There's more to say, but in short, from my view, some of the most spurious research emanates from public relations departments of universities, or lobbyists in the form of press releases. Some of the most flawed research (sometimes what seems like reworked press releases) shows up in esteemed media outlets (for instance FT and the related Economist). And if I were a certain type of policy advocate who wanted to push policy under the guise of science I'd welcome the chance to elevate my editorial -- I'd pay to publish my "research" in PLoS Medicine along with all the genuine great research, and if I got rejected there than I'd settle for PLoS One, with all its real research. Upon publication I'd mail out press releases touting my PLoS research.

  Sure we have far from a perfect system, but open access has its pitfalls too.

  Along with Ioannidis, the collaborating authors are Neal Young, an MD at the NIH, and Omar Al-Ubaydli, an assistant professor of economics at George Mason University and a research fellow at the Mercatus Center.

Seen In Space

• India to the moon: India is aiming for the nation's first lunar exploration by putting an unmanned spacecraft, Chandrayaan1, into orbit for a 2 year mission on the moon.
  
  
• NF₃: The journal nature Nature reports that scientists found much higher levels of nitrogen trifluoride 3 from plasma TV's in the atmosphere then they had predicted.3 replaced perfluorcarbons and is "12,000-20,000 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide". A UC Irvine scientist correctly predicted earlier this year that the emission rate of the chemical was more that previously assumed by scientists. An alternative technology to the plasma screens is LCD screens.

Picking Teams

• The American Bar Association lists lawyers who might be chosen by Obama or McCain to serve their administrations. For Obama they list Robert Sussman for the EPA, a former Clinton administration deputy administrator. They name Cass Sunstein as possible White House Policy Advisor (a libertarian, but "no idealogue" writes ABA). Sunstein has written extensively on various topics; see for instance "The Paralyzing Principle" about the precautionary principle in the December, 2002-2003 issue of Cato's journal Regulation. ABA also picked Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick as possible attorney general choice.

Charles Gelman, retired from Gelman Sciences, now donates his wealth through the Gelman Educational Foundation. Gelman is a vocal critic of chemical regulation and supporter of free-market organizations that fight regulation. The foundation gave a 5 million dollar gift to the University of Michigan School of Public Health Risk Science and Communication Center, which Gelman has called his "legacy". That center is directed by the head of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) panel which will review the safety of bisphenol A (BPA). Will the decision of the FDA committee be compromised?

Canada just announced its plan to place BPA on its toxic or hazardous chemical list, which will give the government unprecedented authority to ban the sale of bisphenol A containing polycarbonate baby bottles and to demand bisphenol-A-free packaging from baby formula makers.

The US lags behind Canada in the regulation of bisphenol A for a number of reasons, like the different politics and economics of BPA in each country; therefore the US moves ahead on regulating BPA more slowly, in a sort of two step forward, one step back pattern.

Last week, the Attorneys General from Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey asked 11 manufacturers of baby bottles and infant formula to stop using bisphenol A. Yet the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) steadfastly maintains that Bisphenol A poses little risk for humans. The agency contends that the estrogen related chemical is not dangerous in the doses the FDA predicts people will ingest, despite research showing otherwise.

In the FDA's last review, issued last April, the agency used industry sponsored studies to make its decision. People tend to jump to conclusions about the validity of industry data, using a study's funding source as a proxy for trustworthiness rather than examining the data. But their correct to be concerned about industry research in the case of BPA because hundreds of government and university studies show very different, more alarming results.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee plans to interview FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to question him about the agency's procedure for rating the safety of BPA. While the first FDA results are under congressional investigation, a second committee chaired by Martin Philbert was also set up to review the first FDA decision.

Last week, in the continuing saga of bisphenol A policy, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that the University of Michigan center that Martin Philbert heads received a $5 million dollar gift coincident to his appointment to the FDA BPA review committee. (The FDA would not be the first government agency to have a conflict of interest on BPA, recently an NIH subcommittee studying BPA was also found to have controversial links to industry.)

The donation was given to the University of Michigan's School of Public Health (SPH) Center for Risk Science and Communication by Charles Gelman, a retired manufacturer with strong views on regulation and chemical safety. The Sentinel reports that Gelman told them in an interview that bisphenol A was perfectly safe, despite the opinions of - in his words - "mothers' groups and others who don't know the science." According to the Sentinel's report, Gelman passed his opinions about bisphenol A on to Philbert, who claims to have refused to discuss the issue with his benefactor. Philbert's conflict of interest statement for the FDA did not list the donation.

Industry Secret: Can't Beat the Law? Make The Law.

Acronym Required dug around a little more. Charles Gelman is a well known figure in Michigan. He made his fortune founding and running Gelman Sciences, a maker of plastic filtration devices. For several decades the company polluted groundwater and aquifers in Michigan with 1,4-dioxane, (PDF!) listed in California as a known cancer causing chemical. The pollution was discovered in wells near the plant in the mid-eighties and the state's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rated the Gelman Sciences site the second worst industrial waste site in the state. The DNR then took regulatory steps to ensure that the company cleaned up the waste. In response, Charles Gelman launched an offensive that included everything from suing one of its main customers, Dow Chemical for 'falsely advertising' that it stewarded its chemicals "cradle to grave" (dismissed in court); to staging a boisterous parade through town with local business leaders when the DNR was scheduled to meet.

While settling homeowners lawsuits against the company, Gelman Sciences staged an epic fight with the state documented extensively by the local media. The company commissioned its own $50,000 study from the University of Michigan to show that other commercial products also contained the chemical. Gelman Sciences installed their own copier at the DNR while it tried to dredge up evidence against the state. The company also ran smear campaigns against people and non-profits involved with any actions against the company. Several years into the battle, the company had spent more on lawsuits against the state than it would if it had cleaned up its pollution, according to a September, 1991 article in Corporate Detroit (Waldsmith, L.,The revenge of Charles Gelman.; Gelman Sciences' legal battle with the Department of Natural Resources).

Then Gelman began pouring efforts into public policy, as he told the Corporate Detroit reporter:

"One thing I've learned is that business has some responsibility to participate in drafting legislation and being active in the legislative process, rather than paying no attention to it at all. That's the way bad laws are written."

Charles Gelman has stuck to his belief that he was wrongly accused, in his experience with the state set a course for his future actions. In 1994 while criticizing the state's lack of science knowledge, Charles Gelman told a state hearing on natural resources that 1,4-dioxane is not harmful, and no scientific evidence proved it was. When Charles Gelman's Foundation gave the $5 million dollar gift to the university last summer, Gelman noted that his gift was driven by his experience with the state on 1,4-dioxane.

I have Five Million Dollars. Would you Like some Job Security?

In gifting his millions to the university center, according to announcements the University published, Gelman noted that chemicals are complicated, and "our vision is to help inform industry, government and the public about how to properly assess the benefits and hazards posed by technology (and chemicals in particular) in our society." His wife Rita added that they were particularly interested in assessing the risks versus benefits of chemicals.

The gift establishes an endowed professorship for the UMRSC Director (Philbert is now the acting director), and will pay for two new faculty, scholarship support for students, and the Risk Science Master's in Public Health curriculum.

The gift from Gelman Education Foundation to the Risk Center certainly wasn't an out of the blue. The U. Michigan risk center was originally established with a $2.9 million dollar grant from the Gelmans, which David Garabrant, the director at the time called, "the foundation upon which the center will be built". The Gelmans also make frequent smaller (hundred thousand dollar) donations. According to Gelman, the center is his "important legacy", something that "will make a difference" as the Gelmans noted when they gave the initial 2.9 million dollar grant.

It would be a quandary. If you were a professor, in times when grants are tight, and someone offered to give you that amount of money what would you do? Perhaps you'd open the center too, while promising as they do on your home page that your work "adheres to the highest standards of academic and professional integrity", and secure your employment security. Would the money change your politics? Even a little? One can suspect that a five million dollar donation might sway a recipient, but there's no real proof. Furthermore, it's not clear what sort of FDA opinion the $5 million dollars to the center could buy. But wary caution or distrust seems warranted in this case.

Spreading the Wealth Around

Gelman's education foundation gives hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly to various religious, education, medical and political organizations. Aside from the Risk Center, his science and political donations are a nominal slice of the pie, a thousand dollars here or there which amounts to a nod to a cause or ideology. But do these donations portend an agenda that belies a neutral mission for the Risk Center? Gelman's only political donations are predictable neoconservative organizations dedicated to free-market proliferation and opposed to regulation. These are the organizations listed on the Gelman Foundation's 2007 990:¹

• The CATO institute
• The Competitive Enterprise Institute
• CFACT
• The Heartland Institute
• George Mason's Tyler Cowen, who runs the Mercatus Foundation, the Center for Public Choice, and the James Buchanon Center for Political Economy.
• The Mackinaw Center for Public Policy
• The Manhattan Institute for Public Policy
• Reason Foundation
• American Counsel on Science and Health
• The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) (Fred Singer's Global Warming Skeptism organization)
• Capital Research Center
• The Independent Institute

Incidentally, FDAreview.org is also a project of the Independent Institute. FDAreview.org advocates that "FDA control over drugs and devices has large and overlooked cost that almost certainly exceed the benefits." FDAreview.org "favors adult freedom and hence the repeal of all forms of premarket approval."

Gelman is clear about his mission to fund the Risk Science and Communication and as he says, to provide the Risk Center with contacts that will help its mission. When Gelman gave the originating grant to the center he referred to Gelman Science's protracted fight with the state's Department of Natural Resources "a case in public confusion", which would have benefited from the center's 'neutral' science.

But is an organization really "neutral" towards public policy if one person with a very clear agenda establishes it, funds the director, the professors, the students and the post-docs, and provides the contacts to help define the mission? If you're a professor doing science and didn't share Gelman's strong ideological stance, could you endure the pressure? Would Gelman endow with his legacy an organization that didn't share his views? What say does the founding funder have in the backgrounds of the professors whom he funds?

Congress is asking whether this donation will sway the the FDA's bisphenol A committee chair. Members of the Energy and Commerce committee plan to investigate the donation, and House Appropriations agriculture subcommittee members are calling on Philbert to recuse himself from the committee. If Philbert remains on the FDA committee, and then goes on to OK BPA, can that decision be trusted by US citizens? Can the University of Michigan's School of Public Health Risk Science and Communication be trusted?

¹ Acronym Required has previously written about a number of these organizations and you can find more information at Sourcewatch, ExxonSecrets.org and other websites.

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

Acronym Required has written numerous articles on BPA, starting with the 2005 article "Plastic Bottles: Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC"

Science and Math by Armies of Uncertified Teachers, My Friends

I would have liked to see more science and technology issues discussed at the presidential debates, things like funding, education, and public policy. However, as we all know, the debates are not aimed at scientists, they're aimed at plumbers.¹ So Acronym Required had low expectations for meaningful science discussions in the debates and rightly so. In the first two debates, even the word "science" got fleeting mention. It was inevitably paired with the words "research" or "scientists", or "important". Obama thrilled us because he said "science" three times in the second debate.

Republican John McCain also threw out a couple science key words, and managed to appeal to us as well as the science haters in his base. He trashed "bear research" as we previously discussed here, and he went on about the money wasted on "an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois" -- not just in one debate, but in two. "My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?", he repeated Wednesday night, despite the constellation of criticism from scientists who already disproved his planetarium misrepresentations in the previous debate -- here, and here and here and elsewhere.

The word "science" got another incidental airing last night when Bob Schieffer posed this question:

"The U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world. The implications of this are clearly obvious. Some even say it poses a threat to our national security. Do you feel that way and what do you intend to do about it?

Obama noted: "I think it's going to be critically important for us to recruit a generation of new teachers, an army of new teachers, especially in math and science...

And Have I a Job for You....

Continued Barack Obama:

"I meet young people all across the country who either have decided not to go to college or if they're going to college, they are taking on $20,000, $30,000, $50,000, $60,000 worth of debt, and it's very difficult for them to go into some fields, like basic research in science, for example, thinking to themselves that they're going to have a mortgage before they even buy a house..."

Times are tough if you're a scientist trying to find a job, or if you're trying to fund your lab. To Obama's point, if you scan available research jobs the pay offered often looks like a misprint. Here's one recent job from theChronicle of Higher Education:

"Chief Architect of the Genome Commons: Lead design, engineering, and deployment of the Genome Commons and Navigator. Develop and articulate a vision for using personal genomes to enhance human wellbeing."

Qualifications::

• Outstanding software architecture and development skills; proven ability to independently carry out a complex software engineering project.
• Understanding of human genetics.
• Commitment to open access and open source development.
• Savvy to medical, legal, and sociological influences in this project. Exceptional communication skills.
• Keen scientific acumen, intense technical ability, and broad social awareness.
• M.D. or Ph.D. in biological sciences highly desirable.
• Appointment: 1 year, renewal contingent on performance and funding.

Range: $48,372-$55,464."

Perhaps if your parents paid your tuition or subsidized your expenses this would be tenable position. Otherwise, despite college presidents who implore graduates to follow their bliss -- no doubt irritating endowment fund managers -- why not consulting or banking? Don't even start about "wishlists" of hiring criteria. It's basically a postdoc job at UC Berkeley for that person who's an MD, a research scientist, an accomplished software architect, and an "intense" techie, but paradoxically, who is also socially aware, astute about legal and sociological issues, and an excellent communicator. Someone with all those incredible accomplishments will no doubt sign on to work as a developer/lab-rat for half the money that either an MD, an accomplished developer, communicator, or a technical architect anywhere in the Bay Area could earn.

If you are this person, the MD/developer/communicator god, the top end salary for this position is $55,000. Minus $10,000 for federal tax and $3,000 for state taxes, gives you $42,000 to live on in one of the most expensive areas of the country. Sales tax is about 8-9%, health insurance will set you back more than you think, and the balance you can use to cover your dependents, car, gas, food, and housing, movies, books, etc. Then, once you move here you should be prepared to be up and packing at the end of a year.

Should you be so lucky to get a grant renewal, a recent search of Berkeley houses on MDLS gives you a better idea of how far that $2900 a month take-home will go. A very modest 1,170 square foot house in a very "modest" area of Berkeley is priced at $589,000; a 1,451 square foot house is priced at $769,000, and a 1,583 square foot house is $899,000. You get the drift -- bungalows on tiny lots in a temperate climate. The $589,000 house, which may need some work from the looks of it, can be had at a fixed rate 6.25% 30 year loan that will require a monthly payment of over $3600 per month. So you'll be renting.

Obama voices an understanding of the difficulty of these difficulties when he says: "I've proposed a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year..."

Plumbers Get Lots of Appreciation....

McCain answered Schieffer's question on math and science education like this:

"Well, it's the civil rights issue of the 21st century...There's no doubt that we have achieved equal access to schools in America after a long and difficult and terrible struggle. We need to encourage programs such as...Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations which -- or have the certification...

As far as college education is concerned, we need to make those student loans available."

McCain continued his concise, to the point answer:

"I'm sure you're aware, Senator Obama, of the program in the Washington, D.C., school system where vouchers are provided...That was vouchers. That was voucher, Senator Obama. And I'm frankly surprised you didn't pay more attention to that example...³

And more: "town hall meeting after town hall meeting, parents come with kids, children -- precious children who have autism. Sarah Palin knows about that better than most. And we'll find and we'll spend the money, research, to find the cause of autism."³

Plumbers make $250,000 a year? We should all be plumbers.

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

¹ And about that plumber and the "spread the wealth around" remark. It wasn't Obama's best moment -- although, really, how much campaigning can one do and still keep standing? If it was a conspiracy, they were brilliant about making Obama say those words. Leave it to Joe the plumber and Fox News cherry-pick the whole 5 minute Obama response for that one phrase.

I do admire the self reliance of those who don't want to pay taxes, who blithely scoff at the need of policemen, fire stations and social security -- who complain mightily about taxes and government, but are first to yell when public spending cuts effect them. But how many miles does Joe drive everyday on the job, house to house to house via Ohio's deteriorating roads? Has he ever tested his truck axles out on a road that's really in disrepair? What about Ohio's building booms, supplemented with state funded roads, water and sewer -- new developments and houses that in turn assure plumbers business?

² Obama has paid attention to vouchers I'm sure. The book "Nudge", which includes a chapter on vouchers, was written by Cass Sunstein, an advocate of "paternal libertarianism" who is an advisor to Obama. The book illustrates the gist of "paternal libertarianism" by explaining that cafeterias can position carrots in a more conspicuous place than pizza to encourage healthy eating. It uses this innocuous example to "nudge" you to its conclusions that this paternalism would be a good for bringing government public policy to fruition -- healthcare, education, and retirement benefits. The Freakonomics blog explains it like this "it is a lot easier to trick them into doing what you want than to try to educate them or incentivize them to change their behavior. There are many ways to trick people, but one of the easiest is simply by giving thought to the way choices are arrayed to them, or what they call "choice architecture." Like it? The Nudge authors would like the government to entice people to accept vouchers, heathcare plans, and other government crafted choices.

Some interesting recent research by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank and Princeton concluded that achievement levels of students using vouchers were "not significantly different than zero", and that "very little evidence about the potential for public schools to respond to increased competitive pressure generated by vouchers also suggests that one should remain wary that large-scale improvements would result from a comprehensive system." The work, "School vouchers: Recent findings and unanswered questions", was published in 3Q/2008, Economic Perspectives.

³ Autism research won't benefit from Sarah Palin's vow to tell the government to "get out of the way." Nor will it benefit from McCain's proposal in the first debate for a "spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."

In Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the court heard arguments from the Navy and the NRDC about probable injuries to marine animals due to sonar, and whether the Navy had to file an environmental impact statement (EIS) as established under EPA law. The justices seemed to clearly lean on the side of the Navy and the Navy's interpretation of the science. In fact Justice Scalia seemed to coach the Navy's counsel through his arguments. How does that bode for whales? For environmental impact statements?

What Environment?

In February 2007, the Navy initiated training exercises without filing the environmental impact statement (EIS) required by the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EIS is required by law and is meant to predict possible environmental harm from the sonar training. Following their action, various groups challenged the Navy in court,and the case wound up in the Supreme Court yesterday. There the prosecution and defense presented their arguments (NRDC). The counsel for the Navy, General Garre, summarized for Justice David Souter the Navy's decision to go ahead without the EIS, arguing that the Navy broke the law because: "it doesn't specifically say what happens if they [the laws] are not followed".

A District Court had originally found in favor of NRDC, deciding that the Navy had violated NEPA. But instead of complying with the court injunction, the Navy wrote its own environmental assessment EA and presented this to an executive-branch administrative agency called the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ found that the Navy's mission constituted "emergency circumstances", thereby allowing the Navy to circumvent the law.

The Navy took this CEQ opinion back to the court, arguing that the court should dissolve its injunction. In more court reviews, Los Angeles U.S. District Judge Florence Marie Cooper sifted through scientific evidence and determined criteria for when the Navy should turn off sonar. According to the NRDC brief, the District Court reviewed "thousands of pages of briefing and evidence over the course of many weeks, and tour[ed] a Navy destroyer--to assess the Navy's contention that the mitigation measures would risk the Navy's ability to train and certify its strike groups."

The mitigations the NRDC asked for weren't new, in fact the Navy had followed the same mitigation procedures previously. The District Court considered that in previous Navy training exercises, the Navy had "trained and certified its strike groups using the two mitigation measures at issue in this appeal". Following the lower court's decisions the Navy continued training exercises in the Pacific Ocean, "completing the last 13 of 14 training exercises, 8 of which were under the current rules", and did not appeal to the court for relief. Richard Kendall, who argued on behalf of NRDC pointed this out to the Supreme Court as well as the fact that the LA District court had already loosened its initial ruling to accommodate the Navy.

But the Navy doesn't want to take any more steps to mitigate environmental damage (It too, conceded several points before bringing its case to the high court.) Despite the fact that the Navy's training was not impeded by the mitigations the LA court requested, the Navy and the President appealed to the Supreme Court to overrule any measures imposed by the lower courts, and yesterday the Supreme Court questioned the two sides about whales, sonar, and impact statements. It considered issues of standing and equity, as well as the role of the executive branch in determining the fate of endangered species.

Sometimes the court seemed aloof to the information in the briefs. In balancing the possible harm to marine animals, Chief Justice Roberts hyperbolically suggested that one possible harm was: "the potential that a North Korean diesel electric submarine will get within range of Pearl Harbor undetected". NRDC counsel Kendall corrected the Chief Justice, noting that the questions in the case concerned only military training, not combat. Justice Breyer also seemed confused, and elicited a laugh by suggesting that all military exercises were destructive: "You go on a bombing mission, do they have to prepare an environmental impact statement first?" Mr. Kendall said again: "No", since NRDC was arguing for basic mitigation measures during training, ones that the Navy had previously followed, which had not stopped training.

Whales & Sonar: It's Not Pretty

Research shows that whales become disoriented, injured, and die after sonar testing. Strandings and deaths that have been frequently documented; in North Carolina (2005); in Haro Strait off the coast of Washington State (2003); in the Canary Islands (2004, 2002, 1989, 1986, 1985); in Madeira (2000); in the U.S. Virgin Islands (1999, 1998); Greece (1996), and the Bahamas (2000), and off the coast of Spain (2006), just for starters. The coincidence of whale strandings or deaths and naval sonar testing exercises seems too obvious to ignore. Recent research indicates how the marine mammals become injured and die, although cause and effect is sometimes difficult to pinpoint.

After the 2003 mass strandings in the Canary Islands, Nature published a report by Jepson et al, showed that beaked whales had gas filled cavities and emboli in their organs and tissues. The animals tend to hemorrhage around their ears and brain. According to Jepson's theory, those whales died from decompression sickness.¹ A subsequent study in Science, 2004 found the same effect in sperm whales. ². Jepson later reported that embolisms were also present in whales stranded off the coast of Spain in 2006. ³ More studies of strandings found the same. ⁴ So common to the many government funded reports and consistent with observation, tagging, and corpse analysis, whales become disoriented when subjected to sonar, leading to decompression sickness ⁵.

Recent research by teams in the Ian Boyd lab at St Andrews University and in the Peter Tyack lab at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute suggest that the whales try to escape the sound, causing them to dive frantically, which upsets their usual feeding and breeding habits. This erratic diving behavior causes the bends, hemorrhaging and injuries, Tyack told Times Online in a story published September 28, 2008:

"[The Navy] uses pulses of similar frequency and duration to the pulses emitted by killer whales and is very loud. It seems to have a particularly strong effect on species, such as small beaked whales, of which killer whales are the primary predator."

Beaked whales are most susceptible to harm because of their behavioral response of abnormal diving in the presence of sonar. Scientists are closing in on the mechanisms for injury and possible ways to avoid them. In the meantime, the Navy publicly denies this research.

This Won't Hurt at All, Says the Navy

The justices of the Supreme Court acknowledged they can't evaluate science. When presented with rationale by the Navy about needing to train at night because of thermal layers, Justice Breyer considered the Navy's stance: "Fine, they went on some exercises and they didn't run into these layered things. So obviously they couldn't have training." (Thermal layers and sonar are not too complicated for a lay person to understand at a basic level, as in here in the book, "How To Make War", by James Kunnigan, Chap. 10: Navy: Run Silent Run Deep.)

The court only anemically challenged the Navy's General Garre, who repeated asserted that the Navy's sonar causes no harm. Garre also claimed that the respondents hadn't shown "irreparable harm". For instance General Garre referred the court to a Navy document listing "all the species of beaked whales and explained that the harms that are predicted in the environmental assessment are non-injurious, temporary harms". Alioto asked Garre to explain this in "lay terms". Garre led Alioto to conclude there wasn't "physical injury", rather the whales might, as Alioto put it, just: "swim in a different direction"? (As if your child was whining in the living room so you wandered into the kitchen to get yourself a snack, rather than, that you were suddenly subjected to unending earth-shatteringly loud, nerve-ripping noise that caused you to flee up to the attic window, cover your exploding ears and plunge from the roof.) Garre assured Alioto: "that's right". But here's how the noise sounds according to the NRDC:

"In sound intensity, in this courtroom if we had a jet engine and you multiplied that noise by 2,000 times, correcting for water, that's the sound's intensity that would be going on in the water if you were a marine mammal near that source."

That's loud. Despite the Navy's assertions, the NRDC presented significant evidence of harm in its briefs. Kendall disputed General Garre that sonar caused "no harm." He described the noise, the embolisms, gas filled pockets, and hemorrhaging.

What the Navy Doesn't Want Us Know?

People have long suspected the Navy knows more then they're letting on about how sonar effects marine life. According to the NRDC brief (PDF) the Navy predicted in their EA that the SOCAL sonar training would result in 170,000 incidents to marine mammals -- harassment, injuries, or deaths -- and 548 permanent injuries for beaked whales.

The Navy denied and backpedaled about the possible harm to marine animals during Supreme Court questioning, but there is plenty of evidence that militaries of the world understand sonar's effects. The science journal Nature obtained an unpublished 2007 report from the UK Military under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 documenting that sonar negatively effects whale behavior and can lead to death. ⁶ The UK military ran Operation Anglo-Saxon 06 in 2006 and reported on whale activity during the "submarine war-games". Using hydrophones, researchers found the number of whale recordings dropped by 75% over during sonar exercises. The whales stopped vocalizing and foraging for food, and the UK military predicted this would lead to '"second and third order effects on the animal and population as a whole"', including starvation and death, according to the report.

To the extent the research is sparse perhaps it's because the US Navy has tried to suppress its findings. Nature reported in "Panel quits in row over sonar damage" in 2006, that the US Navy pressured scientists to suppress evidence of harm from sonar. ⁷ The US Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) was convened by Congress in 2003 to advise Congress on a plan to research whales and sonar, however the commission broke apart, plan-less, after 2 years of meetings.

Nature spoke to members of the failed MNC who said that the science had been "highly politicized". According to one participant, "the Navy, as well as other groups that use sonar, including geophysical researchers and the oil and gas industry, blocked a consensus." Lindy Weilgart of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, told the journal: '"This process has been a travesty of fiscal responsibility, scientific integrity, and environmental stewardship."'

Environmental Law, by the Navy: "What He Said."

In the beginning of the hearing Supreme Court pursued the facts pertaining to the Navy's decision to ignore the law requiring the EIS, and simply construct its own environmental assessment (EA) according to it's own criteria, unvetted by anyone but the Navy, and not subject to public comment.

Different justices questioned General Garre about the CEQ's authority as an office in the White House to override environmental law set out in NEPA. They suggested that perhaps the only "emergency" was that the Navy had ignored the legal requirement for the EIS before starting training. Then Justice Scalia proposed a tactic of argumentation for General Garre:

Scalia: "Look, the problem you face and maybe you're being whipsawed, is that you are effectively estopped from the argument that no EIS is necessary by the fact that you have agreed to these alternative arrangements. But you should not be estopped from arguing that at the time the EA was issued that was not a good faith completion of all the Navy's responsibilities....It assumes that the EA wasn't enough. And I'm not sure that we -- that that assumption is valid."

General Garre: "Well, that's right....the Navy believes that its EA was not only prepared in good faith, but was appropriate and reached the right conclusions...." Garre had repeatedly stated that the sonar training would cause little "likelihood of irreparable injury..." But Justice David Souter wondered whether: "without the EIS, the Navy is acting in -- in a state of -- of some degree of ignorance greater than would be the case if -- if it had done -- done the EIS."

Scalia addressed Garre again:

"The EA demonstrates in your view that the EIS would -- would very likely say that this -- this action by the Navy is okay. And since that is the case, there is -- there is no probability of irreparable harm; to the contrary, there is the probability of no irreparable harm because of the EA."

Said General Garre: "Well, we agree with that." (The Navy does agree with that, even though the EA predicted over 500 serious injuries and 170,000 incidents, it concludes no harm, no harm, again and again.)

Scalia later suggested:

"In all -- in all of these cases it is controverted, or in most of them, whether an EIS is either necessary -- is even necessary. So if the mere allegation that it was necessary gives rise to an allegation of irreparable harm, you are going to get a preliminary injunction in all cases?"

General Garre replied: "I think that's right."

However, earlier in the questioning, General Garre had assured the court that he recognized the Navy's original "duty to prepare the EIS". He had told the justices about the Navy's steadfast commitment to completing the tardy EIS document per previous legal agreements. Now, suddenly, Garre asserted he was "contesting" what he had before agreed to -- that the Navy needed to complete an EIS. This confused Justice Ginsburg, who remembered that 30 minutes earlier Garre had stated his commitment to "meet the goal" of producing the EIS by January, 2009 (although, disconcertingly, the training ends in 2008). Ginsburg said: "I thought you conceded that point". General Garre the quickly apologized for his earlier concession: "if I misspoke".

Who needs Scalia's book "Making Your Case Persuading Judges"? Just show up for the tutorial, let him argue your points, and nod -- "what Scalia said".

Good Stewards of The Environment

In the end, the Supreme Court justices puzzled over why the Navy was dragging its heels if the agency had completed the EA, was committed to completing the EIS, and if there was "no irreparable harm" to mammals.

Garre, perhaps emboldened, after Scalia's pat on the back, suggested in closing that the NRDC did not even have standing if beaked whales were harmed.

One justice queried the two parties about why they hadn't worked it out, as opposed to leaving it to the courts. Judges aren't experts on Naval exercises or marine biology, the justices pointed out. NRDC's Kendall answered that "the Navy is focused on having it its way or no way". Chief Justice John G. Roberts retorted, "that's not fair"; the Navy had continually compromised, he said, but "no good deed goes unpunished".

Scientists warn that the beach strandings may indicate an even larger problem -- not all animals may be washed ashore, many more may be dying and lost at the sea. In a review of research on whale injuries, causes, and mitigation by Marine Pollution Bulletin. ⁸, the authors write: "...the greatest user of military sonars in the world, the US Navy, appears to be in denial about the situation." While the US has taken significant action to weaken cetacean protection in national and international waters, especially with regard to sonar, the Navy continues to boast about its commitment to being "good stewards of the environment".

The Supreme Court will issue its decision later this session.

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

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

Change, Change, Change

People chant for change, yet some political observers say change in presidency is of over-rated importance. Nevertheless, the US electorate has basically thrown George Bush out in their excitement to welcome a new chief executive. For his part, Bush addresses the nation with familiar threats about the nation's security and citizens' well-being, but he delivers them with such monotonic disassociation you'd think he'd been drugged.

Anxious to move on, the voters gather their remaining hopes and dreams in bundles and strew these along the campaign trail like flower petals at the feet of the new king and they vie for the attention of the incoming administration. The electorate anxiously tracks the presidential campaign and chooses, gaffe by gaffe, who to entrust with their future.

But there is a certain mystery to this all. People clamor for change but most of them just want security -- to work in the day and scurry to safety back at the den for food and sleep and family; they want their hunger abated and to be warm. With their fundamental securities established, the gold watch of yore really was icing on the cake. Today many people can't count on a job or a home. The change people yearn for is to feel more secure.

Of course it's never that simple. US presidential candidates also court constituents who would like to be assured that the dinosaurs roamed around with the humans 5000 years ago and that there's no such thing as evolution. Preachers urge parishioners to vote according to the bible, which of course means no evolution, no modern social awareness that reflects new science knowledge, no change. Perhaps being able to read your future from The Good Book feels secure for it certainly promises no change. To these people McCain also paradoxically promises "change", as he embraces the religious right via Palin. Those mavericks.

Change in the US, Change in the World

The US population is not alone in being seduced by the "change" promised by new leaders. In South Africa last month, Thabo Mbeki resigned as he was being ousted from his post of the last eight years as president representing the African National Congress party (ANC). As the successor to Mandela, the West considered Mbeki a steady leader of a nascent democracy on a continent with too few democracies. The west did well by the president who advocated neoliberal policies and expanded the economy with predictable policies.

In Mbeki's place, the ANC installed Kgalema Motlanthe as the interim president until Jacob Zuma, the presumed future winner of the 2009 election and future president is elected into office. Zuma was the populist choice to lead the ANC and has strong support of unions and the Communist Party. He was imprisoned during apartheid and still revels in the glory of liberation movement, singing "Bring Me My Machine Gun" at gatherings.

Zuma's strong populist appeal and support from unions makes investors and middle class South Africans very nervous and so to them, he promises no change. But his populist message appeals to many voters who were disenfranchised under Mbeki. Mbeki's South Africa was a fragile economy which created glaring gaps between extreme wealth and extreme poverty. The Mail & Guardian wrote of South Africa's growing discontent with Mbeki:

"the mounting failure of the criminal justice system to prosecute and convict criminals, the increasingly disturbing nature of violent crime, burgeoning inequality and unemployment, the HIV/Aids catastrophe and the culture of impunity for corrupt and incompetent public officials."

Change is needed on South Africa's domestic front, and Zuma's message promises a forum for the poorer populations. But will Zuma deliver this change? And can his policies at the same time appeal to international investors the way Mbeki's did?

Barbara Hogan, New Minister of Health for Africa

Before Zuma_The_Unnerving takes office, there is a chance for interesting, perhaps positive and real change in the form of the new interim government of Kgalema Motlanthe. Motlanthe has already appointed a new Health Minister, Barbara Hogan, to replace the infamous "Dr. Beetroot" -- Manto Tshabalala-Msimang -- who ably and stridently propagated Mbeki's AIDS denialism. Dr Molefi Sefularo is the new Deputy Minister of Health.

The proactive organization Treatment Action Africa (TAC) and the AIDS Law Project, along with many others both inside and outside of Africa -- scholars, public health communities, researchers and NGOs around the world -- have embraced the new choice for Minister of Health. TAC and the AIDS Law project joined to serenade Hogan at her Cape Town flat last Friday, toasting her appointment with champagne. Her neighbors wondered what all the ruckus was about, then joined the party. TAC expressed their opinion of Hogan on their website:

"We are confident that Hogan has the ability to improve the South African health system. She has been one of the few Members of Parliament to speak out against AIDS denialism and to offer support to the TAC, even during the worst period of AIDS denialism by former President Thabo Mbeki and former Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. 0n 14 February 2003, she received the TAC memorandum to President Mbeki for a treatment plan. She was removed as Finance Portfolio Chairperson by Mbeki in part for her stand on HIV/AIDS. She has a reputation for being hard-working, competent and principled."

The new minister has her work cut out for her. Various groups clamor that she should work to clean up the "rot in public hospitals", to "protect us from toxic foods", and to intervene and uncover the truth beneath the secrecy surrounding "tragic deaths of 142 babies in the Eastern Cape" at Frere Hospital. They ask that Hogan stop the brain drain of medical personnel in South Africa and restore confidence in the public health system.

In an interview with News24 radio last week, Barbara Hogan acknowledged the amount of work that needs to be done in her new post as Minister of Health and warned that with such a short tenure she can only focus on a couple of things. Top of her list was the "morale of healthworkers" and revamping healthcare to a "system that is functional and responsive to people who are using it". Hogan said the "biggest challenge is HIV/Aids and all the strains that it places on the health system." None of these seem like low-hanging or modest, easily achievable goals for Hogan's short tenure, nevertheless, she seems sincere, which is why there is so much hope.

Change You Can Believe In?

However last week the science journal Nature cautioned in Nature News that a new law passed by the South African parliament may hamper the country's adoption of more progressive HIV policies. ("Incoming South African health minister raises hopes on HIV" (doi:10.1038/news.2008.1138))

The law creates a regulatory authority (South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA)) which will oversee all medicines including "medicine, medical device or cosmetic in respect of which a medical claim is made". The Minister of Health will become the final arbiter of which drugs get to market according to criteria that includes nebulous goals like "public interest", the experience of other countries, and consideration of whether the product is "supportive of national health policy goals". The agency is not independent, rather its under the thumb of the Health Minister.

The previous Minister of Health had had run-ins with the former science based drug regulatory agency, so the law seems tailored to Manto Tshabalala-Msimang's reign and Mbeki's intense suspicion of Western pharmaceuticals. As Nature sees it, the concern is that the new bill gives the new minister "sweeping authority over the approval of new medicines and a remit to regulate traditional medicines alongside of conventional pharmaceuticals", Considering all the enthusiasm for the new Health Minister, Nature's observation seems almost ill-conceived. Or does it?

Mbeki's Legacy

Hogan has a lot of obstacles to overcome with the standard Mbeki set for public health. When he emerged from prison after apartheid with strong ideas about African solutions. The growing HIV/AIDS epidemic must have seemed cosmically unfair as the nation finally sloughed off apartheid. AIDS treatment is costly, especially for a country with a fledgling public healthcare system. Yet rather than approaching the national crisis head on, Mbeki for years refused to acknowledge that HIV was the viral cause of AIDS. As a result, according to the Mail & Guardian, "Death certification by Stats SA shows more than 1.5-million deaths in the ages 0-49 and more than two million new infections during his rule." Now, almost 30% of pregnant women in antenatal clinics screen positive for HIV and best estimates show that approximately 50% of patients with Stage IV AIDS who need AIDS drugs, do not receive anti-retroviral treatment (ART).

Throughout his tenure, Mbeki steadily dragged his feet on the HIV/AIDS crisis. He juggled the tensions of his mixed world-view -- his South African heritage, his survival during apartheid, and his education as an economist in Europe. He mixed up neoliberalism, anti-colonialism, and crony politics, and ended up intensifying public unrest during his tenure as his policies created increasingly stressful social conditions. These tensions were apparent in the long, oblique letters he wrote to the citizens published by a weekly newspaper and at the website of the African National Congress (ANC). Here he spent considerable energy trying to diffuse serial national outcries.

Last year Acronym Required wrote about Mbeki's mini-skirt memo, in which he took the media to task for their criticism of the infant death cover-up at the Frere Hospital in Eastern Cape. At the time of that August 2, 2007 memo, Mbeki had just fired the assistant health minister Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge who had been addressing the AIDS crisis and who had devised an HIV/AIDS strategy while she stood in for Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. Tshabalala-Msimang had received a liver transplant and newspapers were reporting that she was a heavy drinker before and after the transplant, had skipped the organ donor cue, and was abusive to hospital staff during her transplant operations.

Mbeki addressed the outcry of the public health situation again in his 6000 word August 31, 2007 memo. The memo shows his cunning ability to twist the facts around, to say first one thing, then the opposite. He accused anyone who criticizes Manto Tshabalala-Msimang (("cadre of the revolution") of being a traitor or weakling:

"...some, at home and abroad, who did nothing or very little to contribute to the immensely difficult and costly struggle to achieve our liberation, have chosen to sit as judges over who she is, what she has done for the welfare of our nation, and what she represents, today, with regard to the pursuit of the goal of a better life for all our people."

He defended his administration's handling of HIV/AIDS and railed on national and international papers for questioning his stance, including The New York Times, BBC and The Guardian. He eviscerated all media for distorting his and Manto Tshabalala-Msimang's position on nutrition as it relates to AIDS:

"Manto Tshabalala-Msimang's mortal sin in the eyes of our opponents, in which regard she has faithfully represented the convictions of the ANC and the ANC directive to those we had deployed in government, is that she upheld this view, insisting that it must constitute an important and integral part of our national response to the serious challenge of HIV and AIDS....they [her critics] will continue to do their best to denigrate a principled fighter for a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist South Africa, who has dedicated her entire life to the achievement of this outcome, Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, whom history will honour as one of the pioneer architects of a South African public health system constructed to ensure that we achieve the objective of health for all our people, and especially the poor."

His extensive rationale for promoting nutrition to help prevent AIDS included citing the judgment of everyone from small babies to Romans, all who he claims understand, as he does, the importance of nutrition.

"they [the critics] have deliberately falsely presented the arguments of our Minister of Health about the known nutritional (and micro-nutrient) value of olive oil, lemon, beetroot, garlic, and other foods, as well as the efficacy of traditional medicinal prescriptions based on herbs and other natural plants, as an argument against the use of modern drugs and medicines, including antiretrovirals (ARVs)."

He wrote that the media and critics contorted his message to represent that he proposed nutrition and opposed ARV's. Mbeki criticized the national Cape Times for reporting the Minister of Health's own words:

"Nutrition is the basis of good health and it can stop the progression from HIV to full-blown Aids, and eating garlic, olive oil, beetroot and the African potato boosts the immune system to ensure the body is able to defend itself against the virus and live with it."

He didn't deny that Manto Tshabalala-Msimang said that, but recruited to his side a doctor who wrote in a letter to the editor that good food bolsters the immune system. Mbeki quoted the doctor, then re-established his party's position: "It is our sustained opposition to the fundamentally wrong proposition that in our response to HIV and AIDS we must rely almost exclusively on ARVs." He added that because of "our poverty", the country had "fallen victim to three pernicious influences", as he put it:

"One of these is the medicalisation of poverty. Another is the politicisation of disease. The third is the commercialisation of health care, in all its elements. As a revolutionary movement we have fought against all these, and must continue to do so.

Mbeki recruited the US as an ally for his position:

"US Secretary of Health Mike Leavitt had the courage and honesty to acknowledge this reality, fully understanding the need to respond to the health needs of our people, liberating our health care obligations from the dictates of partisan political and commercial interests."

Secretary of Health Leavitt, who now has his own disapproval to face on a controversial contraception bill, unsurprisingly didn't mention anything about "liberating South African from commercial interests" on his blog back in 2007 when he visited South Africa.

Mbeki managed to play all angles in his August 31, 2007 memo. He bragged about the excellent modern health care system, describing at length the surgical excellence and technology afforded to the Minister of Health during her liver transplant. Meanwhile his administration was busy covering up the Frere baby death scandal and mounting evidence of a failing public health care system. He accused anyone who complained about Tshabalala-Msimang of being either a traitor, someone who wanted to see South Africa fail, or someone who would "have allowed Manto Tshabalala-Msimang to die." He accused the media and any critic of misrepresenting the ANC's position on AIDS drugs vis a vis nutrition. Then he defended the importance of nutrition to the immune system and his government's advocacy of nutrition in AIDS, recruiting to his side a letter to the editor and the US Secretary of Health.

Neoliberal Economic Policies or Public Health -- One or the Other?

Despite outcry from the international public health community for his AIDS policies, Mbeki built relationships in the West because of his adherence to neoliberal economic policies. He welcomed foreign investment and freed up capital from the demands of deteriorating infrastructure in order purchase goods abroad and foster national participation in the world economy. Supporters from the west, including many consultants, would argue that Mbeki made progress with his motions to rebuild shantytowns and provide better healthcare. They will point to Zimbabwe, which roils at South Africa's northeast borders, and note that similar unrest that could just as easily overflow into S. Africa -- as it recently did. Some of these business leaders talk about the new struggling capitalist economy and say -- 'isn't it obvious? Public health just couldn't be the highest priority with the economic stakes so high'. People are apparently able to look past the charges against Zuma for extortion for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Zuma_rape_trial">raping a woman who had AIDS, and see someone who's "change" promise's more security.

In the meantime, will the interim government and Minister Hogan be able to balance international economic pressure for open markets with the yawning gap in public healthcare and carry through her stated mission? Were Mbeki and Manto Tshabalala-Msimang merely carrying out the demands of the ANC as Mbeki always emphasized? Will party politics of the ANC to which Barbara Hogan is so loyal to allow reform? Or will the ANC continue to let laggard public health policies associated with Mbeki's reign prevail? Or will the ANC give the people reason to trust in the ANC and reason to hope -- as they did during the short tenure of Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, before Zuma takes office? Can you grow a liberal state without tending to the population's basic needs for shelter, security and healthcare? Will change really come to Africa's public health system? We remain hopeful.

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

Acronym Required previously wrote on this subject in these posts:

"Mbeki's AIDS Legacy and Ours"

"South Africa: Peddling Beetroot, Courting AIDS"

""Not in Paradise Anymore - AIDS in Africa - Reason for Optimism?"

It's Not a Fish Story

Once at social event I was introduced to a couple sitting nearby, and after a brief exchange of greetings, one began to pepper me with questions. His first question was about fish, simply: "Why do scientists study fish?" Followed without pause by: "What could you possibly learn?" Nothing I've ever done has anything to do with fish, and everything I've done is only even remotely related to his subject, so it all seemed a bit out of the blue at the time -- even weirder now -- "Hello, nice to meet you why do they study fish?" Who's "they"? What fish? Where and how do you start with that? Gently.

Was it a specific fish study? As you the reader know, there's a lot of "fish" research; for aquaculture for instance- a growing industry that produces farmed fish for consumer products and agriculture. Scientists also study reproduction and development in wild salmon or sharks or trout or striped bass, they do migration studies, studies of predators, studies on the impact of non-native fish, the impacts of fishing, recreation, pollution, and global warming on inventories. Scientists study nutritional values of fish and fish oil for human and animal consumption. Researchers study mercury levels in fish. They study shellfish and crustaceans. Did my acquaintance mean fish in oceans, or in rivers, estuaries, or lakes? Perhaps he meant zebrafish used as a model to study neurobiology, physiology, the cellular and molecular basis of disease?

But it turns out his question wasn't about fish, per se, more just research in general, which he'd recently taken special interest in...something to do with investigating wasteful research spending for the government. After a cocktail or so, he thought I might be the source of a little information to help him with his new project.

Although he was clearly predisposed to a certain answer -- research having to do with fish is wasteful -- he wasn't hostile, just baffled. He had no way of connecting "fish research" to anything meaningful in his life and was bent on doing his patriotic best to route out fraud.

With further conversation it became clear that he was repeating a line that was told to him as an example of government excess. He had clearly absorbed someone's mission and its easy target, wasteful spending in science. If you blank out of your mind everything you know about science and research, you too could be convinced to think this way. ¹

It's Not About the Fish

The food we eat is supported by research, as is the water we drink, the air we breath, our medicine, the materials we build are houses with, the lawns we grow, and the toys we buy our children. Our lives are supported by science research. But while research is applauded when the result is a new iPod, people for some reason get skittish about other science research and its results, from genetically modified anything to global warming science.

In the past decade there's been great attention paid to science as a political target, especially during the last Bush administration. Analyzing the reason why this is so, some people even blamed the scientists themselves for their communication styles, their personalities, or the size of the words they use. While these things may contribute to lack of understanding, as I've written here before, I think there are more essential problems, for instance the paltry attention paid to science education.

The lack of understanding and interest isn't unique to science, it permeates our culture and influences conversations about economics, math, finance, history, and medicine. The ignorance is reflected in the priorities of our politics. So perhaps more fundamental to even-handed science policy than communication and education, is reconsideration of legislator's motivators and campaign finance.

But even small changes would improve things. Congress certainly doesn't need a greater percentage of scientists to balance science interests, as some have suggested, nor do more voters need to be scientists to think analytically. Not everyone needs to know the nitty-gritty details of polar ice research. But you'd hope they'd recognize the importance of the research in order to recognize talking points from balancing the pros and cons of an issue.

If they did, some could shut down politicians who talked science nonsense, Or at least tell them their jokes aren't so funny. Because as it turns out science is sometimes a target not because of lack of education or understanding, or communication, or scientists have a penchant for four syllable words. It just because it makes a good joke.

Furthermore, Don't Call Me Four Eyes..."Friend"

Take John McCain's repetitive joke about "pork spending", where he uses the example of the study on endangered grizzly bears in Montana. Since at least 2003 McCain has been using this one study to make a point about of excessive spending. He guffaws that he doesn't know whether it's a "paternal" issue or a "criminal" one. "Gotta get their DNA", he chuckles, riling up the crowd. Ad he gets a good response -- part indignant, part laughter, all approval. "Corrupt, my friends", he yells. "Corruption, my friends!" he yells louder.

In the past, so many people have pointed out the flaws of his joke that it immediately shows up on all those post-debate "fact-check" blogs. The "Religionblog" at the Dallas News, for instance, griped "the loser was the truth." Introducing their own assumptions and bias along with "the facts", they wrote:

"In fact, that study is part of a push by Montana ranchers and farmers (most of them Republicans) to have the grizzly bear removed from the endangered species list. If successful, that effort could lead to increased logging and oil and gas drilling in Montana, which would cover the government's costs for the DNA study many hundreds of times over."

So the good news is, that as grating it may be to hear McCain distorting science information one more time, wide swaths of the population do get the facts right. So then why is McCain still grinding away with the same joke? Despite how many times reporters tell him, over and over that it's both flawed and not funny, I guess McCain still gets a ha-ha from the audience -- so he continues.

It's akin to offering up your wife at the Buffalo Chip "beauty contest" during the biker convention. If it gets a laugh and is a crowd-pleaser, who cares? If women take offense or call you sexist, just scoff that they just don't know how to have a little fun...Vroom, Vroom!

Deoxyribonucleic Acid Tactics

There are several components to the bear DNA joke that apparently make it funny and effective for McCain. There's his insertion of a paternity or crime part, which confuses (on purpose?) the research with forensic science as seen on TV. If you think about it, his distortion of the this particular research also connects the research on bear populations with images of crime scenes and children of unknown fathers that are favorite Republican campaign devices.

There's also his utter denial of the value of the research, no mention of the Endangered Species act, and the sort of down home, "don't know much about bi-ol-o-gy" slap-on-the-back camaraderie in his joke. The actual Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project succeeded. The goal was to obtain an accurate count of the bears in one of the Endangered Species grizzly areas, which the scientists achieved. The results were widely publicized, and will be published more formally as a research study in the January 2009 issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management.

Oceans of Pork? Maybe it is About Fish

Congress waxes on about earmarks because people like to hear about "cutting out the pork". The real issue says McCain, is that these appropriations use resources from the central bill and shouldn't be tacked on. Despite his angry fist thumping however, McCain voted in favor of the bill that included the bear population study appropriation. The bill's sponsor, former Sen. Conrad Burn, chairs McCain's campaign in Montana.

The White House Bulletin wrote August 11, 1997, "Mr. McCain has waged a lonely, battle against pork before. And in almost every case, he loses". But actually in every case he wins. He doesn't need to vote against anything, he just needs to sound tough. Basic research scientists generally don't make large campaign contributions, so its not surprising that individual research projects might be picked out by our representatives for public pillory. Basic science is not the farm lobby, the auto industry, the oil industry. It doesn't cost much political capital to score some points with voters on the back of a scientist or two. ³

And so the politicians continue to use science projects as examples of pork.² Tom Coburn M.D. (R-OK) recently complained about a Homeland Security bill. Citing the Citizens Against Government, he said there were "11,620 earmarks worth $17.2 billion for all 12 appropriations bills in 2008." But out of thousands of earmarks Coburn spoke of, he pointed out just a few for special focus, and those were disproportionately science studies.

He cited (in his words) a "Hibernation Genomics" study, and a "space technology" education center. He plucked quotes from the grants to amuse the readers and added short explanations. With no elaboration whatsoever, I guess because its so funny without explanation, he wrote these words in his list of studies "Pseudofoliculitis Barbae (PFB) Topical Treatment". Frankly, I don't know whether these are good projects or not, but they apparently have great political value for Senator Coburn.

The media piles on too. In countering McCain's grizzly bear DNA routine a few months ago, Politico wrote that "Palin requested millions of federal dollars" for the State of Alaska everything from improving recreational halibut fishing to studying the mating habits of crabs and the DNA of harbor seals." Politico chose a few egregious Palin examples from the Alaska's 30 item summary of appropriation requests, and the three they listed as absurd expenditures were all (coincidentally?) marine biology projects.

After perusing the state of Alaska's appropriations, Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish was also offended by GOP contender's hypocrisy -- indicating that all McCain's ranting about pork and bragging about Palin's record was a sham. Sullivan called John McCain's bear DNA joke an "endlessly repeated, grandpa-at-Thanksgiving, punchline provided, anecdote". But while he could apparently see the purpose of bear DNA, he commented derisively on one of Alaska's appropriations: "The DNA of seals?"

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

¹ I never found out exactly what he was doing for whom or what the overall intent was, though I asked.

² Similarly his talk about "ethics and transparency" despite what many have pointed out to be dubious dealing and practices through the Reform Institute that he founded.

³ I'm know some research is pork.

It's the Economy and the Election...

When US citizens wake up each morning wondering what they might have lost from their retirement accounts overnight, and what they inadvertently gained: i.e., one morning you learn you're part owner of a gargantuan mortgage business, the next you find yourself lassoed into a giant insurance collective -- no one knows what's next. Will there be a knock on your door tomorrow AM and someone waiting to press a hoe into your hand?

When congress says they're reeling, they're "stunned" from the news delivered by the Fed at their big powwow last night, and when the press is overwhelmed with the ups and downs of an off-the-charts financial crisis and the back and forth poll numbers for McCain and Obama, we completely understand that you can't give science your usual riveted attention. With the Fed sucking up all these great liabilities and throwing the whole the "government needs to get out of the way of business" idea out the window -- or did we just all misunderstand what that really meant -- we agree that reading up on monetary policy and investigating your own sense of what "full-scale panic" means might be your highest concern.

Sure the future of permafrost is interesting, cell culture research and science curriculum really important, and yes, these things should definitely claim our attention and that of all four candidates. But I'm distracted wondering why GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin canceled more appearances in the last few days than the number of heavyweights the Republicans have pulled in to play defense in Troopergate. Palin's appearances have been canceled in Seattle & the Eastside, Virginia Beach, Dayton, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Tampa and Central Florida, Virginia Beach, Cincinatti, Jackson Hole, and all of California, as well as other places. Did McCain shoo her off-stage with Fiorina to be seldom seen and not heard? Is she cramming for a American Politics 101 final? Dental work? Did she she see a Russian tanker trawling the water out her dining room window? Nervous breakdown? Sure the also "hot" Cindy McCain will replace Palin at some events, but there's got to be some disappointed Palin admirers.

Anyway, we tear ourselves away from those massive shim-sham distractions (for the moment), in order to glance at some recent science-ish news.

Some Science Headlines

• Thousands Tens of thousands of babies are sick and several have died from Chinese baby formula contaminated with melamine that compromises kidney function. This is the same chemical that was found in pet food imported from China to the U.S. last year. Officials in Singapore, Hong Kong and Bangladesh Yemen, Gabon, Burundi and Myanmar express concern that the tainted products might be available to consumers their countries also.

  Melamine has also be found in milk, yogurt and ice cream in China and Hong Kong. In 2007 the FDA found that US manufacturers of animal feed had also adulterated their product with melamine.

  Earlier this year, contamination of US supplies of heparin led the FDA to investigate and find myriad problems in the oversight process of the imported product. The agency discovered quality control issues, ranging from agency confusion about the real name of a Chinese plant that went un-inspected; to the crude processing methods of the pigs intestine in family-style workshops". Experts admonished drug makers (after the fact) that the shortage of pigs in China due to blue-ear disease should have served as a red flag to the possibility of spiked heparin.

  Heads will certainly roll (figuratively if not literally) in China over the milk scandal, but an overall plan about how to prevent the next batch of fatalities has yet to emerge. In this instance, neither US and Canadian health agencies have found melamine contamination in their milk products.

• In other news, the FDA has banned 31 drugs manufactured for export to the US by the Indian company Ranbaxy, based on an inspection of the company's Dewas plant that revealed cracked equipment, unsterilized and unclean preparation areas, inadequate procedure specification, and sporadic documentation of testing and cleaning.

  Yesterday, in response, Ranbaxy announced that it had hired Rudy Giuliani, last seen speaking on behalf of McCain at the GOP convention, to help lobby the US agency.

• Also: Environmentalists cheered last year when Florida penned an agreement to buy land in the Everglades from the sugar industry. Interestingly, some of those who pressed hardest for the move were free-market conservatives and groups such as the Cato Institute. Sugar subsidies were instituted back in the 1930's, but the industry has since shrunk, and been monopolized by a few firms whose prices were kept artificially high with the subsidies, crowding out foreign competitors. The Fanjuls, an entrepreneuring family originally from Cuba, own one of two Florida companies that control most of the sugar consumed in the US. Last Sunday the New York Times ran a great article about the buyout, digging deeper into some of the issues complicating the deal, and questioning whether the company actually arranged for their land to be lucratively bought out by the state when its business began to suffer in the downturn.

• In infectious disease news: The CDC estimates that 90,000 people die in the US each year from institution acquired infections from antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Science reports this week that the "perfect storm" of antibiotic resistance and diminished reserves of medicines portends trouble The situation not only demands new drugs, according to Science, it requires new drug targets.

  The journal summarizes two recent studies that work in this direction. In the first, a group of scientists created a class of synthetic antibacterials effective against staphylococci including methicillin and multi-drug resistant Staphylococcus aureus.(D. J. Haydon et al., Science 321, 1673 (2008)) The chemicals target specific proteins responsible for cell division. The August 22nd issue of Sciencecontained a report from another group who found a molecule that inhibits the gene which causes virulence and is turned on when certain conditions occur as the host responds to the infection. (D. A. Rasko et al., Science 321, 1078 (2008))

  On the prevention side of things, researchers at the University of Illinois found that tetracycline resistance genes can most likely be transferred from animal to animal in large hog containment areas into groundwater that feeds the public water supply. This could be one way that antibiotics used in feed to prevent infection and promote growth are adding to the overall problem of antibiotic resistance.

  And to get a sense of how far our understanding about microbes and mechanisms of infection, read up on Stanley Falkow from Stanford University, who was one of five scientists honored with a Lasker prize for his work on microbes and aspects of antibiotic resistance.

• Iran has detained AIDS doctors Dr Kamiar Alaei and his brother Dr Arash Alaei since late June. (via Nature News) The two were known world-wide for working to prevent and treat the disease, and for tackling issues around HIV/AIDS in model ways, for a country which long denied that HIV/AIDS was anything but a "Western Disease". Their disappearance in late June has drawn global concern and calls from various physician groups for the Iranian President to answer questions about the whereabouts of the AIDS doctors. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled appearance at a UN meeting next week.

• In other news: Both McCain and Obama have now submitted answers to questions about their science policy gathered by ScienceDebate2008. Some of their statements have been published here at the LA Times also. Several other science groups have submitted a document for both campaigns that lays out strategy for the incoming president on science and technology policy. Obama has named five science advisers who would serve his administration.

• Now for some old news: Last May the Anchorage Daily News (ADN), Sarah Palin tried to obfuscate the contents of report written by state scientists that supported the federal scientists' decision of list polar bear as an endangered species. Palin wrote in an editorial in the New York Times January 5, 2008: "I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts." But the state's biologists agreed with the federal assessment. Palin is has also been criticized for her positions on global warming, oil and gas drilling, Exxon Valdez oil spill damages, and the Endangered Species Act. Why does this sound so familiar to me?

Oops, we've inadvertently gone full circle, escaping politics with science then allowing ourselves to get whooshed back into the politics. But why not wonder about Palin? There's no outro to this post. We wonder what science policy would really be like in a McCain government, or in an Obama government? More like China? More like India? More of the same? Same, same but "different"? Science and technology depends on politics and government. We may think we know what science and technology looks like in an "extreme" market economy, we've seen its penultimate apex during the Bush administration. ¹ But lets not forget that we didn't anticipate Bush's actions. Now's the time to think beyond the rhetoric. I'm not sure I buy what many people insist -- that the candidates will be very alike on science issues. Now's the time wonder why McCain chose Palin if their philosophy is so different. Now's the time to learn more about Obama's science advisers.²

Perhaps we can have some government involved before the next giant catastrophe...? Before the energy investment bubble, the imminent infectious disease outbreak, the next bunch products consumed by citizens because manufacturers successfully slipped drugs cut with toxic proteins past the FTC or the FDA, the next species goes endangered, the growing storm of global warming, or the EPA....does whatever they do? There aren't too many science problems that won't be directly influenced by the new administration's policies.

¹ The book Supercapitalism by Robert Reich was interesting.

²Though it's certainly nice to see he has any now.

Canada, Painting the Country Green

When a group of US senators including Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John F. Kerry (D-MA) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), joined Charles Schumer (D-NY) last spring to sponsor a bill that would disallow the sale of products containing bisphenol A (BPA) for children under 7, a Canada newspaper commented that the US must have been "emboldened" by Canada's recent action on Bisphenol A (BPA). Two weeks before, on April 19th, Health Canada and Environment Canada had jointly proposed a ban on products like polycarbonate baby bottles made with bisphenol A. Canadians proudly declared themselves "the first country in the world to take such action to limit exposures to bisphenol A".

Canadian retailers quickly hopped on a growing bandwagon to stop selling BPA containing products. Walmart and three other major retail groups announced they would stop selling polycarbonate baby bottles, thus joining ranks with Canadian retailers who had already volunteered to stop their sales. Individual towns also caught the BPA ban spirit; Canadian municipalities from Vancouver to the "model town" of Kapuskasing, Ontario began pulling bisphenol A containing plastic containers off the shelves.

Canada's First Mover Status. Oh, Sacrifice

There's plenty of room for congratulating Canada on its first regulator status, but there's also some background. We've followed the science and politics of bisphenol A for a few years and with BPA (and everything else, as you very well know), politicians seem violently allergic to being "the first" to suggest regulating any product or chemical. For obvious reasons, no politician is a maverick. The economy, business, personal reputation, and lack of comfort with science, combined with lack of attention from the public, give politicians a handy (and sometimes reasonable) excuse to lag several paces behind the leading edge of science. Real mavericks don't get second terms.

When the public brings an issue like bisphenol A to the attention of cities like San Francisco, states like California, and US regulatory agencies like the FDA, these entities promise to limit the sale of bisphenol A. They quickly back down when faced with industry threats or lawsuits. At state, city and federal levels, when curious reporters ask politicians later why they backed down BPA, they tend to mumble incoherently into their hands, if they answer at all.

Last year for instance, San Francisco, California proudly proclaimed itself the "first city to ban bisphenol A". The chemical and toy lobbies promptly sued, whereupon San Francisco's political bravado melted away like gelato on the 110 degree day that its legislators will never encounter in their town. San Francisco immediately dropped the legislation, but maintained their elevated reputations as protectors of children's health because the press headlines heralding their fleeting bravery stuck in black and white. (Except at Acronym Required where we amended the titles and introductions of all our blog posts to accommodate the city's mercurial fortitude).

I don't doubt that Canadian politicians are just as calculating as American politicians. For the past 15-20 years, Bisphenol A research showing convincing deleterious health effects has accumulated. Although Canada's "first" is commendable, it could taken with a grain of salt.

And is being "first" even relevant? The US and Canada have entirely different economic considerations that influence and shape political will. Consider Canada's overall economic investment in bisphenol A, compared to that of the US. According to the Canadian April 19, 2008 report, in 2003, worldwide production of BPA was about 3 billion kilograms per year. As recently as 1986 Canada manufactured or imported 12 million kilograms of bisphenol-A per year. However, today, Canada only uses .5-1.5 million imported kilograms(kg) a year and the country has stopped manufacturing bisphenol A altogether. By contrast, in the US production increased from 7.3 million kg in 1991, to 1 billion kg in 2004. It's not surprising that Canada would be less reluctant to ban BPA, they have less of a commercial stake in the chemical.

On BPA, The US and Human Health vs. Canada's Health and Environment Concerns

One notable difference between Canada's approach to BPA and that of the United States is the separation of agencies that decide US policy. The Canadian ministers from two agencies, Health Canada and Environment Canada, issued a joint statement of concern in April, based on the research on health and the environment, stating that bisphenol A was a "toxic chemical".

The weight of the environmental evidence against BPA is strong. Researchers can measure BPA that collects in brackish low-oxygen waters and see the direct effects on species that live in those waters. By contrast, human health data is sparse. There are few studies in humans because of the obvious barrier to "testing" humans by asking them to ingest a obviously toxic chemical. In rats, there are lots of studies and the conclusions are more solid. At very low doses scientists find BPA causes deleterious developmental effects.

Canada'a decision rests heavily on environmental data in addition to the health concerns. This is different from the US, where the government's primary focus, at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is how BPA effects human health. While the expert panel of 38 scientists who evaluated bisphenol A research published in 700 of studies was sponsored in part by the EPA and was significantly alarming, the results focused on humans and were quickly confused when other agencies published simultaneous conflicting results.

Critics quickly linked the different results to the institutions affiliations of the researchers -- industry or academic or government. These differing results have become a hot-button issue for many people. Industry research in bisphenol A frequently arrives at the opposite conclusion of government research and is sometimes not peer-reviewed or has control problems.Indeed, some commenters skip over real scientific uncertainties involved with BPA research, the diversity of various experiments and the difficulties in determining effects, and unilaterally cast blame on "industry research". However damning this pattern seems, all "industry research" should not be tainted.

It's more important to keep focus on the evidence and for the public to grapple with the real uncertainties yet be able to recognize the relentless BPA industry fronted marketing for what they are. Subtle and confusing perhaps, but key to understanding the real dangers of BPA and other toxins.

BPA research is fraught with experimental difficulty which effects the interpretation of results. Bisphenol A shows biphasic effects depending on the dose, so high doses show dramatic negative effects, and low doses show subtle but important effects, while medium doses often show fewer effects, presumably because the receptors are overwhelmed or the effects masked. Additionally there is uncertainty based on arcane experimental criteria -- the delivery method for bisphenol A dietary or injected, the type of experiment -- cell culture or rat, if rat, the breed, the brand of rat chow its fed, the type of labware used to do the experiment, the source of BPA tested -- blood, breast milk, urine, tissues, air, water, dust. That's only the beginning.

But there's a consistent pattern of BPA research showing widespread effects on health. In the past couple of years ordinary citizens who care about their own exposure have aggressively asked questions of industry, legislators and science, and are concluding that the growing body of bisphenol A research shows consistent and disturbing implications for on systems such as behavior, neurobiology, development, and other systems.

No matter how fast the evidence piled up, plastic lobbyists have leveraged the different results from disparate agencies adeptly. Animal data shows toxicity of BPA which persists in the environment. But industry lobbyists actually use the prolific animal results to bolster their claims by saying that deleterious BPA studies have only been shown in animals, but not humans. In the US there's not a lot of public talk about the effects of BPA on species other than humans.

Canada's Minister Baird said in his statement about the BPA decision:: "When it comes to Canada's environment, you can't put a price on safety". However this too can be evaluated differently depending on your perspective. Canada has heartily embarked on other projects such as the Alberta oil sands, that aren't so congenial to the environment. Baird's statement presents a conflicting image for the country's true commitment to the environment, given the economics of BPA.

At least for a moment last spring, though Canada was proudly "first" on BPA. Hopefully the rigors of comment periods, legislation drafting, and enforcement follow-through will cement its place. In the meantime, Europe and the US follow haltingly along.

US Agencies Dither

Despite the necessary constraints to doing toxicity research on human subjects, studies in mice and cell cultures show myriad changes to genital tract development, breast and prostate tissues, sexual differentiation, endocrine and immune systems, behavior, and neural development, all at doses below what the FDA deems safe. Yet an NIH interagency group assures us doesn't cause human health effects.

At the same time Canada issued it's dual agency warning, the US National Toxicity Program released their April, 2008 (NTP) report, stating the agency's reconsideration of BPA safety. The US National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) announced a slightly revised conclusion about BPA from their November, 2007 report, criticized by experts in the field. The April report reconsidered their 2007 report (just finalized this September) and concluded there was "negligible" concern for many exposures, and "some concern" for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children.

However the April, 2008 report added: "the possibility the bisphenol A could alter human development cannot be dismissed". The authors repeated the statement 3 times, which is pertinent, given the otherwise understated tone. The report included papers that the previous group had left out because of methodology, with the explanation that scientists could get meaning from the research even if the questions addressed in studies were not necessarily aimed at discerning overall BPA safety to humans. It was also much more accessible to non-science readers then the previous report.

Despite the overall reassuring stance of the April NTP report however, it's clear that ample concern (or action), and further research is justified. Take for instance the conclusion of "negligible concern" that exposure to bisphenol A would cause birth defects. The evidence is based on, as the NTP scientists put it: "results from several animal studies provide evidence that bisphenol A does not cause birth defects such as cleft palette, skeletal malformations, or grossly abnormal organs." If you get past the reassuring "negligible" stamp, the actual data is not reassuring. These particular birth defects are the most conspicuous ones that could effect fetal mice, aside from quick death. However the results don't prove that less conspicuous but serious and debilitating birth defects would not occur.

While the chemical industry likes to point out that the results in mice wouldn't occur in humans, you could just as easily argue that not observing a "gross organ malformation" in a fetal mouse would not rule out the possibility of other very serious birth defects could occur in both mice and humans and not appear as gross malformations. The dearth of more conclusive safety evidence in humans, therefore, more than warrants the NTP's April warning, however understated, that "the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed". Nevertheless, their authoritative opinion assures people that the chemical is safe. This opinion serves as a nice soundbite and marketing fodder for the Chemical and Plastics industries.

JAMA Steps In

We should point out that the hesitation to take precautions about BPA in light of extensive (animal) research extends beyond politicians. Several recent books detail the dangers of many environmental toxins but exclude any mention of bisphenol A. Scientists' warnings about bisphenol A have been countered vehemently by seemingly trustworthy organizations like the American Dental Association. To confuse matters more, the press takes a less than informative approach in covering bisphenol A, regularly calling on the ultra-self-interested American Chemical Council lobby group for plastics to answer safety questions. All of this befuddles citizens, who don't know whether to invest in glass baby bottles or just keep microwaving the trusty plastic ones they've depended on all these years.

Because of all the questions surrounding BPA and pressures from citizens, quite a few representatives in congress are tripping all over themselves to investigate the chemical and the agencies which should be overseeing its use. At some point the momentum of an issue catches up with those who stall and demands unified response. Congress is starting to question the FDA about its procedures for evaluating BPA.

While Canadians make small jabs about the newly "emboldened" Americans, who, it's true, only now, are beginning to introduce new legislation, most of which has been resoundingly defeated. However US politicians are quickly catching up.

Adding medical weight to the issue this week, the Journal of the American Medical Association, (JAMA), yesterday published what was billed by some as the "first human data on BPA". The study looked at urinary levels of BPA and found increased incidence of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver-enzyme abnormalities in adults with elevated BPA levels. The study was by no means the robust proof needed to show long term effects from BPA exposure indicated in the low-dose research, however the researchers and accompanying editorial by BPA expert Frederick S. vom Saal emphasize that these results are consistent with animal and cell culture data and will hold up with more conclusive longitudinal studies.

In the meantime, this study gives one of the most prominent group of physicians something to wrap a stance around, in light of increasing attention that Congress and the public is paying to the issue. It also gives Congress some medical evidence to base their demands on. We expect growing attention to and action on bisphenol A. The ACC won't be able claim so dismissively that there are no human studies.

Have you ever tried to read original research on the web only to be barred from access once you clicked beyond abstract to full text? Or been offered a chance to read the article, special patient privilege, for $40-$50 -- only it's not clear that the article would be useful anyway?

The NIH reasoned that their new policy allowed better communication of science research. The guidelines took into account the recent proliferation of data made possible by high throughput sequencing and drug development, as well as increased data storage capabilities. The NIH simply adapted its policies to the glut of information in the electronic age and the need for better public access to tax funded research.

Now, pressed by opponents to the NIH measure including the Association of American Publishers and the Association of American University Presses Congressman Conyers (D-MI) has introduced the "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act" (HR 6845), which would stop the NIH from requiring PubMed posting.

In defense of NIH policy, yesterday Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the NIH testified before Congress that the mandate increased access to research and encouraged increased impact of publicly funded scientific research without cannibalizing publishers profits. He noted that hundreds of thousands of users access papers every day, and that since Congress made the policy mandatory over 50% of NIH funded published papers are uploaded.

In turn, the American Physiological Society's (APS) Martin Frank, an opponent of open access who has tirelessly voiced his opposition to the NIH PubMed initiative, attacked the recently implemented NIH model. Frank said that his publishing company paid for peer review, publishing, and the "heavy lifting", and that PubMed access would "lead to subscription cancellations". As a result, he said that researchers of NIH policies, have "less freedom to choose where to publish". Without HR 6845, he said, researchers will need to resort to publishing in second choice journals, then in spiraling into hyperbolic rhetoric, he noted that researchers will be decimated by "authors fees" of these journals and will not be able to fund "treatments and cures for diseases".

Journal articles receive the highest readership immediately upon publication, after that readership drops-off significantly. Zerhouni and others testified that no library could cancel subscriptions since scientists depend on timely research which is not effected by the NIH's 12 month policy. The APS was arguing for control, Zerhouni said, by downplaying taxpayer investment and exaggerating their own contribution. He said that the publishers' appeals were not substantiated by arguments about economics or researcher well-being, rather the publishers wanted control.

APS head Frank managed to sidestep claims that scientists or NIH underwriters might have on their significant input to research while emphasizing only the publishers' contribution. He also noted that APP had already contracted with HighWire Press of Stanford which published many free articles. This too is a bit mysterious. If HighWire has that same 12 month policy, as it appears, than what about the NIH policy is really at issue? What does HighWire have to do with this?

In "Torture Team", Phillippe Sands analyzes the Bush legal team's strategy to implement interrogation tactics at Guantanamo that defy the Geneva Convention. He first interviews the lower level lawyers who worked on the ground in Guantanamo, then works his way up to Cheney's immediate legal advisors.

At this point many Americans acknowledge that torture wasn't the action of a "few bad apples", rather something that was sanctioned at the top of the administration. Recognizing that fact makes the book no less interesting, rather it's even more chilling to see how the lawyers carefully pieced together a policy that would not only to obliterate the standard of international law but fly in the face of long standing wisdom on how best to deal with terrorism. Sands' position as an international lawyer who worked on Chile's Pinochet case and also a UK citizen who also saw first hand the failure of torture policies to stem IRA terrorism gives him a unique perspective to analyze the implications of Bush's policies.

Sands concludes that the most senior Department of Defense officials, the president, vice-president, and their most senior lawyers are directly implicated in the policies for Guantanamo detainees. He focuses particularly on the legal framework constructed for torture tactics used on the prisoners, and the six lawyers at the top who wrote those policies: David Addington, Jay Bybee, Doug Feith, Alberto Gonzales, Jim Haynes and John Yoo.

He notes that despite the public outrage propagated when the torture memos were revealed, none of the lawyers' "careers have suffered unduly". Jay Addington works for Vice President Cheney. Doug Feith teaches at Georgetown, and since Sands' book, published his own book and strode through the talk show circuit forcefully advocating his version of events. Alberto Gonzalez had not yet forfeited his position as Attorney General when Sands finished his book, a fact Sands attributed to his "poor memory and the personal support of the President". Perhaps now he's regaining a memory that will debut as a memoir. Jay Bybee was assigned to the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco by George W. Bush. Jim Haynes, having failed to be confirmed as a federal judge had announced his intention to leave DoD when Sands finished "Torture Team", is now working for Chevron, headquartered in the Bay Area. A third lawyer in the Bay Area, John Yoo, teaches constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley. Their futures look bright, although Sands concludes:

"Thanks to the immunity from criminal process that has been built into U.S. law, and to which several of these lawyers contributed, they are presently free from criminal investigation at home. That immunity does not, however, extend beyond the shores of the United States. The members of this distinct group of six lawyers, and perhaps others, may decide wisely to think carefully about where they travel in the future."

Equally interesting is Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side" : The inside story of how the war on terror turned into a war on American ideals." Like Sands' book, her story pulls the bits and pieces of the new's we've heard together. She explains: "It's been hard even for someone paying close attention, like myself, to follow these developments. We have learned about them out of order - first perhaps with the pictures of Abu Ghraib- and only piece by piece later - did we get to read the legal memos that justified a whole new system of law and detention." Mayer describes how not only lawyers and top administration brought about torture, but how they involved psychologists and physicians in it's practice. She also describes how the system spread beyond Guantanamo to foreign countries, and how US citizens have also been imprisoned.

Sands' focus is on one prisoner and his specific treatment in the hands of his captors. While any sane person can read from his description a system of torture, the media have focused on what everyone agrees is barbaric, waterboarding. Mayers stresses that the media focus on waterboarding "deflected attention from what was truly the worst part of the program - the combination of many forms of physical and psychological pain together over time."

While Mayer's acknowledges the Red Cross determination that the torture committed constitutes war crimes, she also says that it "would take a political movement bent on punishing the most powerful members of the Bush administration for taking steps it thought necessary to protect the country. Right now, I have trouble imagining there will be the political appetite for this." She notes that ranking members of congress were briefed on "enhanced interrogation" techniques and are therefore also complicit. While torture is not historically new, Mayers says, the way it has been institutionalized in the United States violates not only civil liberties but "the spirit of The Enlightenment on which the country was founded. It's a very deep break with the founders' values."

Sell Your Own Data

There's a market for your prescription data. The Washington Post reported this week that insurance companies are buying prescription data collected from companies like Milliman Intelliscript and Ingenix to help them make insurance coverage determinations. Patients with particular drug profiles and whether to pay claims for other patients. Drug profiles are determined by the insurance companies, who assign them scores or color codes. In a red, yellow and green schema, red would correspond to an AIDS patient, who needs lots of drugs. Milliman Intelliscript, part of the Milliman company, collects data from Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) that are not covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA, Title II). Then insurance companies pay a small fee to obtain the data, which they use to deny or approve claim requests.

The Washington Post interviewed "an entrepreneur who built the database system that Ingenix acquired", who explained how it works. If someone is taking a high dose of cholesterol lowering medicine, said Richard Dick, then the insurance company would "know you had an intractable cholesterol test" and could deny "an expensive blood test".

Electronic records are necessary and will deliver a lot of the benefits and efficiencies. However as described, I'm sure doctors and patients are alarmed.

Richard Dick is an electronic medical record pioneers and electronic consent advocate who contributed to this Institute of Medicine (IOM) publication on the subject in1997. He currently serves as the Chief Technical Officer at You Take Control (YTC), which sells an electronic consent management system. He has a Ph.D. in Medical Biophysics and Computing from "the University of Utah's world-class Medical Informatics M.D./PhD program (equates to a Ph.D. in CS + first 2 yrs Med School)."

ACLU Concerns

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought attention to this issue last month, voicing concern over H.R. 6357, the PRO(TECH)T Act of 2008. The ACLU says that

"Virtually all the pending bills lack important privacy and security protections for the online databases that would store patients' electronic health records and prescriptions."

Suggesting that lobbyists for the systems don't want privacy concerns to slow down system implementations, the ACLU asks Congress to "require strong privacy and security standards" to prevent "identiy theft; accidental publication of patients' sensitive or embarrassing personal information; discriminatory review by insurance companies or potential employers so they can avoid paying for people who might be expensive to insure or employ; invasive direct marketing to patients or doctors by competing drug companies; and commercial resale or misuse of personal health information." These concerns are clearly warranted.

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

Acronym Required wrote about the probable fluidity of forthcoming genetic information in What's Your Sign Code?"

Flyboy Gall: Who Said "I believe God wants me to run for President"?

Issues and non-issues fly by fast as the campaign season winds up. The finale brings us bold lies, fantasy, and frankly, nausea. McCain aired an ad with Charlton Heston as Moses parting the Red Sea, inferring that Obama thought he was "the chosen one". The irony is that the current president, in whose shoes McCain proposes to step, is the one that said: "I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President".

Is "Flyboy" spiraling downwards in a "festival of juvenilia" as Maureen Dowd called it"? Or is this just a swirl from the giant whirlwind of hot air sweeping us all up in its flotsam and jetsam. Just think, there we were a few months back, clamoring over science debates. McCain was probably chuckling to himself: "Stem cells? Henh? I'll be at the biker fair, Cindy in her denim shirt"

When Hilton Trumps McCain This Can't Be Good

In response to McCain's ad comparing Obama to celebrities, which many people took at face value, Bob Herbert set the record straight in Running While Black". He wrote: "Spare me any more drivel about the high-mindedness of John McCain." As an aside, I do I think people are long past thinking McCain is "high minded". Referring to the "slimey Britney and Paris Hilton ad", Herbert wrote: "The racial fantasy factor in this presidential campaign is out of control." He added that it's a well honed tactic used on previous candidates by Republicans, and "[i]t was at work in that New Yorker cover that caused such a stir."

"It's frustrating", he said, "to watch John McCain calling out Barack Obama on race. Senator Obama has spoken more honestly and thoughtfully about race than any other politician in many years. Senator McCain is the head of a party that has viciously exploited race for political gain for decades." Here's the full column.

Of course unlike Herbert, Paris Hilton actually did think it was about her celebrity and promptly eeked yet another 15 minutes of fame out of it. She suggested a compromise between the Democrat and Republican energy plans, a "hybrid", where

"offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in." Since it would be years until offshore drilling comes to fruition however, and new technologies are readily available, her video wasn't the IQ turnaround some people cheered -- but hey she's got her brand to protect.

The Pitch: Drilling Won't Work but the "Psychological Effect" Would be "Beneficial?"

Arguments about energy this week, shallow though they may be, far surpass last weeks campaign chatter -- McCain dissing Obamas "fame", McCain offering his wife up for country fair "beauty" contests. In response to Obama's offhand comment that we'd save more gas by keeping our tires inflated optimally than McCain would by drilling under his feet, last week McCain sent gag gifts of tire gauges. He turned around this week and said this might be a good idea.

In what has been said was a "forceful pitch for his U.S. energy strategy", Barack Obama called for $4 billion in aid to auto companies to help them produce more fuel efficient cars, particularly electric ones. His Lansing, Michigan speech came after a Detroit News poll in July found that McCain and Obama had equal support from voters in Michigan and that people were concerned first about the economy and second about gas prices.¹ Acknowledging the necessity of politics, if the computer industry had been coddled as much as the auto industry over the past couple of decades, there might be no such thing as a desktop computer or an internet.

Obama also decided to soften his formerly strong opposition to offshore drilling, saying off-shore drilling might be OK as part of a more comprehensive energy plan. Democrats including Obama urge leaders to open up current reserves.

Drilling wouldn't result in petroleum until 2030 according to the Bush's Energy Information Administration, and so Nancy Pelosi has stood ground in the House of Representatives against Republicans who present drilling as a solution. Li