Recently in Recycling The News 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?

Does it seem like Democrats, time and again throwing themselves into a dither at the slightest G.O.P. provocation, suffer severe post-traumatic stress after eight years of Bush, and just need to calm down? Fresh off the Massachusetts upset, they seem distracted from their mission and insist of future-tripping that their worst nightmares will come true. To fuel the angst, the G.O.P. postures in Illinois. Then Air America just ups and goes off the air, which of course causes the right-wing talk show cabal to scream a death knell for liberal anything -- media, politics, commentators...

"Air America", Auspicious Name?

But in all fairness, "Air America" the network, did quite well given the odds. Consider first that some ballsy person dared name it "Air America". Look at the history of previous organizations with that name (actually at first they called it Air America Media, then shortened that). Longevity-wise, the network lasted far longer, six years, than "Air America" the charter airline, described by Wikipedia as "a short-lived charter airline founded in 1989, but discontinuing service in 1990".

Reputation-wise about the worse I ever heard was from Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitas, who expressed surprise when a reporter told him the network was doomed: Air America is "still really on the air?" Cheeky.

Personally, I never listened to the network, for no particular reason, but whatever Air America did or didn't do (and of course, just like Massachusetts, everyone has an opinion) Air America the network couldn't be more controversial than "Air America" the civilian airline "operated by the Central Intelligence Agency during the Vietnam War". The C.I.A. airline ran for sixteen years in Southeast Asia conducting logistics and recognizance missions, transporting civilians and refugees, and perhaps, according to Wikipedia, smuggling heroin, and opium for Asian despots.

Progressive Media's Place

Air America Media started during the Bush administration, when FOX seemed to have its hand around the throat of the public airwaves. Rachel Maddow got her start at Air America, and Senator Al Franken also played a central role for the network before launching his current career as campaigner, lawmaker in waiting, and Senator. The network previously went bankrupt in 2004, before being bought and revived, and filing for bankruptcy again. I'm not sure what really happened, but Air America proved to be a worthy effort, if not a viable business.

Liberal or progressive media is not "dead", as FOX would have it, just because Air America did not succeed as a business. Nor does one business going off the air signal that the country is "moving right", as some commentators would have it.

Democracy Now, for one, is stronger than ever, broadcasting to over 800 stations around the world. Here's Amy Goodman in an interview with KCTS TV talking about media's job to hold politicians accountable, the place of the media as sitting around a huge kitchen table and having an "open discourse", a "lively" discussion, a "robust debate" about the "critical issues of the day"; and the "mainstream media" in general -- "What do I think of the mainstream media? I think it would be a good idea";

The Los Angeles Times Science section is a-ok. Except, worryingly, the LA Times now puts Science in a subcategory under the category "US and World", in one of the top ten categories that editors use to divvy up the news: "US & World", "Local", "Business", "Sports", "Entertainment", "Health", "Living", "Travel"", "Opinion", and "More".

LA Insatiable for Hotlist, Brand X and The Envelope?

Let's look at how this works.

• Under the category "Entertainment", the LA Times has these subcategories: Movies, Television, Music, Celebrity, Arts & Culture, Company Town, Calendar, the Envelope, and Hotlist, in that order. Don't think they missed any "Entertainment" "news".

• Under the category "Living", the paper assigns these subcategories: Health, Home, Food, Image, Travel, Autos, Books, Hotlist, Brand X, Magazine and "Your Scene". Can't imagine they've missed much "Living" "news".

• Then, under the category "US and World", the paper puts these subcategories: Washington, Nation, Afghanistan, Middle East, Latin America, Asia, Science, Environment, and ominously, Obituaries -- again, in that order.

The LA Times has put "science" on the same level of "brand X", "the envelope", and "company town".

Bucket List

Get it? All the real news, all the stuff that really might impact us; like the whole rest of the world beside LA; two killer, budget decimating wars; 51 US states; global warming; stem cell research; microbiology research; astronomy and the universe; on and on -- all live in one convenient news bucket beside biographies of the dead.

Technology is in "Business". And where is "Europe"? I can't find it. Completely missing from the line-up? Perhaps so old world, that some editor shoved it into Obituaries? Does the Los Angeles Times have a grudge against all of Europe? Does that include Russia? Or is "Russia" in "Asia"?

I'm worried. Because if the LA Times can eighty-six all of "Europe", then it looks like the editors and managers have placed the two categores Science and Environment disconcertingly close to Obituaries. Say a little prayer for Science News, one banana peel away from the grave?

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.

The turkey is no phoenix, but nevertheless we've dug through the archives for Thanksgiving posts. From 2007 in "Thanksgiving - All Things Ottoman:

"...As most people know, the domesticated turkey that Americans eat for Thanksgiving descends from the wild turkey, Meleagris gallopavo, native to America. The Spaniards fancied the turkey when they invaded Mexico where turkey was indigenous, and then introduced the bird to Europe when they returned in the early 1500's. However, during the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, turkeys were thought by northern Europeans to be a product of Turkey.

Europeans also for a time called turkeys "India fowl", then confused the turkey with "Guinea fowl" and gave turkeys the same Latin genus name: "Maleagris". The species name that they settled on, "gallopavo" combines the Latin for rooster and for peacock. From these confusing origins turkeys have long struggled with their identity. First they were put in their own family, Meleagrididae; but now scientists consider turkeys to be part of the pheasant family, Phasianidae, in the subfamily Mealeagidinae...."

And 2005:

"The history of Thanksgiving is somewhat murky, but the first harvest festival in North America was probably in Newfoundland. The American colonists most likely had a somewhat more modest festival than our cranberry laden myths would have it. Tryptophan in turkey doesn't cause post meal sleepiness..."

Thanksgiving is one of our favorite holidays. Hope all our readers who celebrate Thanksgiving enjoyed it, and those who didn't didn't go hungry, had work, and took a moment to enjoy something...

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.

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.

• "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

Now, at PNAS Three Papers in Question:

The science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) offers special publication privileges to members of their Academy, a group of elite scientists chosen by other esteemed scientists based on their unique contributions to science research. Now the editorial board has retracted some of those privileges in light of papers that recently appeared in the journal.

Nature News reported on a "row" caused when PNAS published research that didn't meet the journals' standards for peer review. The dispute is now heating up. The controversy began in August when one article published on-line at PNAS forwarded a theory by author Donald Williamson, all about what he called "larval transfer hypothesis".¹

Williamson suggests that the process of metamorphosis, whereby larvae turn into butterflies, arose when butterfly Leptidorae larva "mistakenly fertilized their eggs with sperm from velvet worms", as Scientific American put it (funnily twisting agency). Velvet worms Onychophora look like larvae but have completely different life cycles -- they don't turn into butterflies. According to Williamson, evolutionary transfer of genetic material causes butterflies to have essentially two lives, one as a worm-like larva, and one as a butterfly.

But there are problems with the theory. First, he offers no proof, just a "testable" hypothesis. And while interspecies fertilization is not unheard of within the animal kingdom, velvet worms are too distinct from butterflies to make this feasible, say scientists. The sperm could not fertilize such a distantly related egg and produce a viable embryo, and even if it did, it wouldn't "explain the process of metamorphosis".

Less charitably, scientists said that the paper was better suited to a a tabloid than to a science journal, and called the paper "absolutely ridiculous". They also scoffed at his attempt to show the "superficial similarity between adult velvet worms and larval moths and butterflies" with "very poorly reproduced line drawings that really need to be seen to be believed".

In short, the August PNAS paper brought a torrent of harsh criticism for the octogenarian's ideas. Moreover, while some people tolerated Williamson's submission as an attempt to generate discussion, nobody thought that PNAS should have published such a speculative paper. Scientific publishing is very competitive and many scientists who produce worthy research with real results are summarily rejected from high profile journals like PNAS. So how did the research get published, they asked, incredulous? The tale gets even more interesting.

When Push Comes to Shove

Shortly after Williaimson's PNAS article saw daylight, Scientific American published an interview with evolutionary microbiologist Lynn Margulis, an editor at PNAS who shepherded Williamson's work through the peer-review and publishing process. In recounting her story of how the paper got published, Margulis mentioned that she had been trying to publish the work for twenty years. After convincing Williamson answer how the worms fertilize caterpillars -- rather than the more conceptually challenging idea that worms breed with butterflies, she told SA it took 6 or 7 peer reviews before she got 2 or 3 that were positive enough to push the paper through to publication. More eyebrows raised in the science community.

It turns out that Lynn Margulis "communicated" Williamson's paper to PNAS, a method of publishing offered to Academy members that differs from "submissions". Via this method, members can suggest for publication papers by non-members, along with reviewers selected by the member. PNAS recently announced it will eliminate this "Track I" publishing in 2010. In the meantime PNAS editors will not publish Williamson's paper in print edition pending further discussion with Margulis about the review process.

But now it's not just that paper. Another PNAS paper by Margulis and co-authors that's being questioned apparently proposes a treatment for Lyme disease that's "800" times more effective than doxycycline -- "it is very important to get this paper published", co-author Oystein Brorson told Nature.

A third paper in question is a computational biology paper by an adjunct professor of the Margulis lab. PNAS has asked Margulis to withdraw that paper because of problems with the methods. Margulis told Nature she would do no such thing, and when asked in turn for comment, PNAS told Nature: "We don't want to respond to any questions or complaints she [Margulis] has through the media." Sounds like more entertainment is forthcoming.

The three PNAS papers all circle themes that Margulis has been pursuing for decades -- Spirochetes, desiccation, spores, symbiosis and more symbiosis than you'd ever believe, and disease. Is the recent spate of publishing from the Margulis camp a final push for these ideas? And even more controversial ones?

Another 2009 paper has been published on-line in the (less well-known) journal Symbiosis (another journal that Margulis edits), by the same authors -- Hall, Brorson, Margulis and others. This "position paper" proposes that antibiotic treatment of Lyme and Syphilis, both caused by Spirochetes, induces the formation of cysts, or "round bodies", that then revert to their original Spirochete form in a favorable (antibiotic free) environment, causing secondary infections, long-term human symbioses, and compromised immunity.²

Although the abstract is pretty straight-forward, the paper quickly leaps out on a limb to suggest that AIDS is not caused by HIV but by Spirochete round bodies. Again, there's no evidence. The authors draw tenuous connections between quotes made by public health officials after a 2007 HIV vaccine trial, and their own round body theory of AIDS. They reason that HIV seems not to infect heterosexual partners as much as men who might be infected with syphilis but not fully treated with antibiotics even though medical professionals say they are. So the authors have an idea:

"Is the situation [AIDS] better described as an obligate and ancient symbiosis where the bionts (spirochetes and humans) are integrated at the behavioral, metabolic and genetic level rather than a new viral infection such that HIV equals AIDS? ...We urge that the possible direct causal involvement of spirochetes and their round bodies to symptoms of immune deficiency be carefully and vigorously investigated."

So then HIV might not be caused by a virus but by Spirochete round bodies. See? Someone test this right away.

Forget Crabs, Look Out For Round Bodies and Symbiosis

Margulis told Nature her attitude about the three PNAS papers in question: "If they definitively reject these papers I will make it very clear to the reading public (because they make it clear in their anonymous letters) that, as usual, they don't like my ideas." Two years ago, we posted on Margulis's controversial ideas and public relations skirmishes. Our post followed her debut on PZ Myers blog, where unchallenged, she forwarded her idea that HIV didn't cause AIDS. If HIV causes AIDS than why doesn't NIH write back to me, she asked? We wrote:

"Margulis relishes controversy and slings mud far better than most people, a well-honed and essential skill....[but] famously, despite her formidable offense skills, she forever portrays herself as someone who has been pushed in a mud puddle."

The PNAS controversy is interesting, although it wouldn't leap out at everyone so much if the papers in question weren't so blatantly ludicrous. PNAS's publication "favoritism" is far from unusual in the science world. And really, Margulis has been publishing these ideas for years, drawing connections based on thin research (often foreign, often Russian, somehow lost on Americans), and asking the science community to run some experiments to test her ideas. In our previous post we talked about her theory of Spirochete symbiosis forming nerves (remember "behavior" from the quote above?):

"Think of the nerve as coming from what had formerly been a bacterium, 'trying' but unable to rotate and swim. Thought involves motility and communication, the connection between remnant spirochetes. All I ask is that we compare human consciousness with spirochete ecology."

"All I ask". That was in 1991. But the gulf between what she "asks" and a warm reception from scientists has grown as science has advanced. Williamson is an 87 year old retired scientist, who himself is no stranger to forwarding controversial ideas. Sketched drawings weren't so ludicrous 60 years ago when he was starting. But now, the idea that a paper could simply describe what you see, like generations and generations of cell biology papers before us, seems ridiculous. As an educator at Princeton said recently, "The days of sort of naturalistic walking around and looking at flowers are long gone". (Look at the emphasis on clinical description in this excerpt from a ptomaine poisoning paper from the early 1900's. Williamson was a scientist not too long after that.)

Margulis has always published in PNAS. Some of the labs' older papers have similar themes and a little research. But it's a different world now. Margulis still has the prestige to gather a cast of characters around her in symbiotic relationships, to continue to push ideas out, and to entertain admirers like PZ Myers and his followers. But while her fame draws admirers and moths it also draws vipers, many of whom are now online.

PNAS claims they were going to change their Track I policy anyway. OK, sure, but no doubt the deluge of online criticism didn't tempt them to tarry with the announcement. Just as high tech science has redefined what a good science paper looks like, online science criticism has become blood sport. And that's a good thing, don't get me wrong. But imagine what would we'd learn if all papers and journal publication policies got such a thorough raking over?

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

¹ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Caterpillars evolved from onychophorans by hybridogenesis Donald I. Williamson, Communicated by Lynn Margulis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, July 24, 2009 (received for review May 19, 2009)

²SYMBIOSIS Vol. 47, No. 1 (2009) Position paper. Spirochete round bodies. Syphilis, Lyme disease & AIDS: Resurgence of "the great imitator"? L. Margulis, A. Maniotis, J. MacAllister, J. Scythes, O. Brorson, J. Hall, W.E. Krumbein, and M.J. Chapman

• 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.

Everyone has an opinion on newspapers or the demise thereof -- us too (here, for instance. Sometimes the opinions are confusing. BoingBoing, for instance, generally writes that the news should be free, (along with music, movies, books) -- free, free, free. But then they publish "Free Parking Costs a Fortune", on the hidden costs of downtown suburban parking. Labor and resources for this free, costly, but not labor and resources for that free? Confusing.

Offering a different kind of confusing, Michael Moore harangues American newspapers (video, YouTube) for "slitting their own throats". He says that in the rest of the world newspapers support themselves with subscriptions: "they know that in order to keep circulation up they better put out a damn good newspaper".

Let's see, in the UK there's BBC -- scary public option, FT Group, part of Pearson and not dependent on the little pink paper, the Guardian and of course the Mirror, the Sun, Star...and others of their ilk. Are they thriving?

In the UK, publisher Archant had 61% drop in profits for 2009 through June. UK's Independent News and Media (INM)-- had a 3rd quarter 2008 drop of 99%, and News Corps -- with Australian, UK and US papers, a 97% drop in the same period. The Guardian profits have plummeted. Germany, France and the rest of Europe? All declining profits.

Moore's story for the demise of American newspapers but not any other country's is catchy and his voice rises to a booming crescendo as he unveils the familiar scapegoats: Republicans and capitalism. He says that newspapers supported Republicans who cut education therefore increasing illiteracy which decreased numbers of newspaper readers. But it's too pat. There are many factors contributing to the decline of newspapers but its not the fault of the Republicans. And is it any more than fantasy to think the rest of the world's wired that differently?

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.

Plague

Earlier today Xinhuanet.com reported that a fourth pneumonic plague patient is near death and one more is in serious condition in the town of Ziketan, a remote northwestern village in Qinghai Province in the Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. 12 people have been hospitalized and three or four have died. Chinese officials have quarantined the town of about 10,000 and are killing rats and fleas to prevent further spread of the disease. Later today Xinhaunet.com reported that officials have now effectively controlled the plague.

Pneumonic plague infects the lungs and is caused by the bacteria Yersinia pestis (Y. pestis). This bacteria also causes septicemic plague and bubonic plague -- the form of plague depends on the the route of transmission. Pneumonic plague is transmitted by aerosolized bacteria, which cause pneumonia, progressive organ failure, and often swift death if left untreated.

Because these bacteria are carried through the air in droplets, the disease can spread from humans to humans or animals to humans, and is considered highly contagious. If the infection is diagnosed quickly and antibiotics given promptly, patients will make a full recovery. The World Health Organization is working with Chinese officials and monitoring the plague outbreak.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC), has an interesting page on the history of the plague. Until Alexandre Yersin and Shibasaburo Kitasato determined the cause of the disease in 1894, many people died and many more attributed the massive deaths to the wrath of gods.

After the scientists identified the cause bacteria Yersinia pestis, people adapted to the fact that the disease spread between animals, often rats, via fleas. The mere sight of a dead rat sometimes causes people to flee their homes and towns. Plague can cycle for years between rats and fleas without infecting human populations, but inevitably, every few years an outbreak occurs. The CDC article notes that the catastrophic loss of life associated with historic plagues -- even today -- gives people a heightened fear of "the plague".

Zoonotic Disease Update

Plague is in the large group of zoonotic diseases that pass from animals to humans, or from humans to animals -- also called reverse zoonosis. In other zoonotic disease news, French scientists isolated a new group of HIV-1 from a Cameroon woman, which they're calling group P. The scientists found that this strain originated in gorillas rather than chimpanzees. The woman had recently moved to Paris from Cameroon and had tested seropositive for HIV-1 but didn't have signs of acquired autoimmune deficiency (AIDS). The researchers are tracking different strains of HIV virus, and they generally identify an unusual strain when AIDS symptoms are present in someone who tests negative for the virus. In this case the opposite situation occurred.

Although various viral load tests were positive, the researchers tested the woman's viral DNA against the known groups of HIV-1, referred to as M, N, and O, and found that whatever virus she was testing positive for didn't match these groups. The researchers then sequenced the viral genome and performed evolutionary analysis, which showed that the virus sequence was closer to a known simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) found in gorillas, called SIVgor, than to the chimpanzee SIV from which HIV-1 groups M, N, and O derived.

Scientists who had analyzed the SIVgor virus recently found that it had the capacity to infect humans, however this is the first identified case. Scientists here knew the results of both viral testing and acquired immunodeficiency status which gave them the opportunity to identify the new strain, however; there may be other people infected with the same or similar gorilla derived viruses. Nature published the report.

Also this week, the scientists proposed in Proceedings for the National Association of Sciences (PNAS) that malaria may have originated in chimpanzees.

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

Acronym Required writes frequently on infectious diseases such as malaria, H5N1, H1N1 and AIDS, and once on bats and Hanta virus.

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.

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

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?

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.

"As there is a use in medicine for poisons, so the world cannot move without rogues." Ralph Waldo Emerson

• The New York Times Calls Out the Rogues

  A couple of weeks ago the New York Times seemed obsessed with Star Trek, focusing on Obama and Star Trek in no less than three articles in the Sunday "Week in Review". This week the Times seem to have something for "rogues". No not their own rogues or their economic journalists whose expertise leads to to personal bankruptcy and cringeworthy public confessionals. The Times is taking on rogues of another sort.

  Charles Blow calls conservatives on their hypocrisy in "Rogues,Robes and Racists", a great take-down of conservative lies about Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

  Then in "A Rogue Industry", an editor writes about the Senate's upcoming vote to regulate tobacco through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Tobacco, an industry that the court found guilty of racketeering, false statements, and deliberate public deception, has proved itself incapable of regulating itself, says the editor.

• Refuting the Scoundrels

  Speaking of rogues running awry, the right-wing is loud lately. If I could ask a question of Sonia Sotomayor, I'd ask her what it was like to go to sleep one night as a moderate, highly accomplished Latina and respected Federal judge, and wake up the next morning morphed into a "racist" whose a "bad for business" Supreme Court nominee.

  Thus, some conservatives seem intent on shooting themselves in the feet over the Obama administration's astute nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First they claimed she was a racist, and to prove so, they parsed statements she made at the University of California years ago and presented them radically out of context. In addition to the response by Charles Blow in the NYT above, Brad Delong's excellent rebuttal of their attempts is here.

  Dancing back from that precipice, conservatives then moonwalked into the less treacherous but equally rocky territory -- her lack of business qualifications. Why can't Obama nominate someone to the court who knows "what it means to explain to a client that what was a secured debt yesterday is not a secure debt today. A little empathy for the people who make America's economy go." There's the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) argument, complete with all that fake indignation we'd expect, but with no merit.

  There's only one person with "business experience" in the current court line-up, but despite the lack of "business credentials", the Robert's court is the most pro-business court in 30 years. This according not only to Jeffrey Rosen's 8000 word New York Times article on the subject, "Supreme Court Inc.", but also the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and business leaders throughout the world.

  Of 30 business cases decided in the 2007 term, 22 were decided close to unanimously for business, in what the Times called an "ideological sea change". This was the result of a sustained effort by business since the 1970's to change the court action on issues like punitive damages and ability to sue for product liability. Still, some columnists insist on making a spectacle of themselves over the Sotomayor nomination with statements like: "business should shudder in its boots".

  Not only do pro-business venues like the Wall Street Journal think Sotomayor, who was a corporate attorney for years, is mainstream, it's not entirely clear that a judge needs to have run a plumbing business to be a pro-business judge. Pro-business is a philosophy, not a craft -- a philosophy that dominates the American character. We're all pro-business now, as conservatives well know, especially Obama. It's what makes the world economy tick, it's what makes us tick.

• Link This

  Using a technique that we routinely, wholeheartedly criticize here at Acronym Required, authors recently submitted an article on the fossil find "Ida" to the journal PloS One with such a preemptive froth of advertising hoopla you'd think the researchers were instead a global beverage company unveiling of a new "secret recipe" flavor of soda.

  By all accounts, Ida, who the researchers precociously named Darwinius masillae, is an great fossil find. Nevertheless paleontologists don't agree with the hyperbolic descriptions of Ida as "the link" -- for starters. Scientists are also disturbed by the zany marketing campaign that skips over the peer evaluation and contextualization by the community of scientists. Seed writes that the Ida fossil find, is:

  "...an astonishingly slick, multi-component media package--certainly the first of its kind. In addition to the press conference itself, Little, Brown, and Company released The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor, by Colin Tudge on Tuesday; a multimedia-rich website, RevealingTheLink.com, was launched; and a two-hour documentary will air on the History Channel, the BBC, and various stations in Germany and Norway next week..."

  Yikes. PLoSOne out-Seeds Seed. And when Nature questioned the media blitz last week the blog world didn't even launch its usual knee jerk defense of PLoS. Something must be amiss.

  We were away, so missed some of the excitement, but is this the future (demise) of science? Aside from Ida, fossils are usually interesting to us Homo sapiens, and fossil finds always manage to attract public attention, which is a good thing.

  Fossil finds are also notoriously contentious. We previously wrote about Homo floresiensis, the fascinating fossils unearthed in a Flores, Indonesia cave a few years ago. In The "Hobbit" Species in Indonesia -- New?", and ""Homo floresiensis: To Have Been or Not To Have Been", we discussed the high profile scientific dispute over the origin of the cave dwelling fossil's remains.

  For years, Homo floresiensis researchers have been excavating, analyzing and presenting new evidence, in Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and other journals, evidence that supports or disputes the theory that the Flores hominin represents a new species. One of the most recent papers in Nature, authored by William Jungers et al, describes the very unique feet of Homo floresiensis that make it quite unlike em>Homo sapiens, more evidence supporting the idea that the Flores cave dwellers were a new species.

  But the Ida spectacle bests what we thought was the overwrought media coverage of the Homo floresiensis research. Clearly, all the media players could benefit from greater exposure via Ida, but how will science fare? Science research is not, after all, a melodious singer from Scotland who you can pretty up to boost your ratings when needed, before demoting to second place. Research is the backbone of technology which drives capitalist economies. So please, a little respect -- as they would say?

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

Acronym Required wrote about tobacco in "Tobacco's Coups", and "UC Senate Smokes RE-89", and "My Lab Thanks You For Smoking", as well as other posts. We've criticized media hype of dubious research frequently in posts like "Autism, TV, Precipitation: Dismal Science", and "News of Lightweight Study: 'Obese Should Walk Slowly"', and "Britain's Science Path: Brilliant Lights?"

"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"

Scientists' Inspirations As They Tell It

Darwin wasn't all ships, and biology, and empirical notes on science, he also appreciated the arts, especially music, at least he did before he wrote: "the musical department of my brain atrophied". J.F. Derry wrote in the science history journal Endeavor, how Darwin's wife Emma influenced the famous scientist, in "Bravo Emma! Music in the life and work of Charles Darwin" ¹. Apparently Mrs. Darwin played the piano nightly, recitals that Mr. Darwin enjoyed while "lying quietly on the sofa". But her musical influence went beyond that. The article describes how the music perhaps even helped mould Darwin's take on evolution. Darwin wrote in one letter about "The Descent of Man".

"I conclude that musical notes and rhythm were first acquired by the male or female progenitors of mankind for the sake of charming the opposite sex."

And As the Wives Tell It

However some might tell the story of who influenced who in the Darwin family differently. Britain appointed Scottish poet, playwright, and creative director of Manchester Metropolitan University's writing school, Carol Ann Duffy, poet laureate last Friday. Duffy wrote in her collection, "The World's Wife", about women's roles and contributions to famous men. Duffy humorously chronicles, "the rage of women disappointed, discarded or overlooked by men", as the New York Times puts it, men such as Quasimodo and Rip Van Winkle. She characterizes the wives of real men too. Her poem "Darwin's Wife" (via NYT) goes like this:

7 April 1852
Went to the Zoo
I said to him -- Something
      about that chimpanzee over
      there
reminds me of you

Duffy holds the post that for the 341 previous years the job had been held by men such as Geoffrey Chaucer, Lord Alfred Tennyson, William Wordsworth and Ted Hughes.

¹Endeavor, March, 2009: doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2009.01.005

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.

The Demise of the P-I, or Happily Alive for Forty Extra Years and Counting?

A string of recent newspaper closings has precipitated another flurry of worry and pontification about changes in media and reporting. The outpourings have come in waves, and now papers in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, San Diego, and Chicago threaten to shut down their presses. The closing of the 150 year old Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Denver's Rocky Mountain News print editions last week motivated the latest phase of hand-wringing.

Yes, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (P-I), is 150 years old, but it's a shame more people don't mention the events surrounding the paper's demise. Should we really think of it as a demise? Or simply a change in format? The P-I hasn't been quite right for some time. By 1981 the paper had been posting losses for the previous 12 years. That year the P-I penned a joint operating agreement (JOA) with the competing city paper, the Seattle Times. Management structured the agreement under the anti-trust exemptions set up by the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970. The goal of the act was to keep to more than one editorial board in cities where one paper might have made more economic sense given the costs of printing and circulation.

Under the Times/P-I JOA agreement, the P-I was the morning paper, and the Seattle Times the evening paper. The Times stopped printing its morning edition and the Sunday paper carried a joint masthead. The business and operations of both papers -- printing, circulation and business functions -- were performed by the Seattle Times.

Opposition to the JOA was fierce, and included P-I employees, advertisers, readers and other local publishers who for two years challenged the proposed JOA in courts. In 1983 the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and the JOA between the Seattle Times and the Seattle P-I went through. But the animosity between the papers was famous and no one should be too surprised at the closing of the P-I given the combination of economic downturn, turmoil in publishing, and the paper's already disadvantaged place in the city's newspaper hierarchy.

We could look at the P-I's switch to the internet in another way, cold-hearted as it may seem: The P-I managed to stay afloat despite being less than whole since 1969 -- 40 whole years. Denver's Rocky Mountain News operated under a similar agreement with its sister city paper before it also closed last week. Both papers will continue to publish on-line.

Many factors converge around the unfortunate swoon of the newspaper industry, including a decrease in readers and print advertising, a bad economy, and greedy owners who took over papers determined to profit mightily. Cuts and bad news coverage on the part of newspapers accelerated the downward slide, as did competition from online media. Will the economics of newspapers, which has been in flux for the last half a century finally motivate new models of investigative reporting? Or will entrenched newspaper publishers stall progress by laying the blame for their failings squarely on online media?

Fact or Fallacy? Bloggers Who Hate the Mainstream Media and the MSM Who Hate Them Back

This perennial conflict, of online media "versus" newspapers, was perhaps precipitated by internet denizens, who threw plenty of taunts to the mainstream media. I've always loved newspapers and magazines like Scientific American and am still unable to accept my Blackberry as quite the right vehicle for always getting the news, so I've felt the ire of my paperless friends. I've even shied away from gatherings like the YearlyKos Convention (now Netroots), where the scorn for print media was so great that this newspaper reader feared being caught with traces of newsprint on my fingers and hauled out to a dark alley by savage commenters who would mete out some bitter end. My print media sentiments are nothing but sentimental hogwash to some, and those people sure aren't shy about letting people know their opinions.

Print media in turn, reacted to online media with various degrees of denial and acceptance that differed for different papers. On September 20, 2005, for instance, the Financial Times ran an article about an expat named "Hemlock", who blogged from Singapore. The entire article, "Hemlock, 'the obnoxious expat' BLOGGING" talked about the blog, but the closest FT got to mentioning where you might find "Hemlock's" site was this sentence: "His website's location on the geocities network..." No URL. Where, why? Clueless or purposefully obtuse?

A year later, the FT became more inflammatory and its writers began expressing scorn and derision for blogs -- perhaps fear masquerading as bravado. In 2006, the paper ran a series of articles with titles like "The Fallacy That Bloggers Have Replaced Real News Hounds." (March 22, 2006.)

One 4,445 word magazine article laid it all out in its title: "Time for the Last Post: The Evangelists Say That Blogging - Instant, Democratic and Cheap - is About to Finish Off Newspapers and Make a lot of People Rich. They're Wrong. Most Blogs are Boring, Overblown and Don't Make a Penny." (Yes, that was the title). If it was on HuffPo it would have been 70 pixels high. In his February 18th article, Trevor Butterworth panned blogs and the "revolution" (his quotes) they rode in on: "...[W]e must ask whether we are being sold a naked emperor." The reason the blogging "revolution" seemed to be thriving, he said, was because it was uniquely American:

"In many respects, the American media in all their stuffy isolation brought the bloggers upon themselves... In contrast to the British and European media, which had their origins in the Enlightenment and the belief that journalism was a forum for debate and argument - even philosophy, according to David Hume - the American press is a 19th century creation animated by the pursuit of fact."

"Blogging - if you will forgive the cartoon philosophising - brought the European Enlightenment to the US. Each blogger was his, or her, own printing press, spontaneously exercising their freedom to criticise. Which is great. But along the way, opinion became the new pornography on the internet."

As it is, books like Burns's, not blogs or newspapers, often provide superior accounts -- more detailed, contextual, and accurate. Eric Burns provides details of American journalism history in his book "Infamous Scribblers", and the detailed facts refute Butterworth's version.

The "Enlightened" European Broadsides

In the 1600's London broadsides issued the same sort of sensationalism that dominates todays news, complete with titles like "Sir Walter Raleigh His Lamentations!", and "No Natural Mother But Monster." The predecessor to broadcast journalism in those days came from "running patterers, who would run through London streets yelling news. The patterers would take opposite positions on street corners, each yelling their news louder than the other guy's. Not quite the enlightenment that Mr. Butterworth recounts is it? This is how newspapers in Europe started.

The earliest American paper printed was called Publick Occurrences, and was published in Boston. Benjamin Harris, a publisher who had been jailed in London for printing seditious news, abandoned his newspaper and sailed to the other side of the pond, where he started Publick Occurrences in 1690. The paper printed stories about hangings and rapes and other eye-catching drama. One tale recounted by Burns was an "international" story of a French King who "used to lie with" his son's wife. And, in a sort of predecessor to blogs, the Englishman's Publick Occurrences ran for three pages with the fourth page blank so readers could add comments and their own stories before passing it on. Enlightening?

While Burns documents the ignoble history of journalism, he also points out that the Federalist Papers were first published in the New York Independent Journal. Thomas Paine, John Adams, John Dickinson, and John Peter Zenger, also published in American newspapers.

Based then, on some false premises, Butterworth concludes:

"Which brings us to the spectre haunting the blogosphere - tedium. If the pornography of opinion doesn't leave you longing for an eroticism of fact, the vast wasteland of verbiage produced by the relentless nature of blogging is the single greatest impediment to its seriousness as a medium."

Having perused the offerings on British news stands, I opine that British papers even today remain far from enlightening, yet at the same time you can't deny the bits of truth in Butterworth's assessment. But to put his take in proper perspective, consider that Trevor Butterworth is a researcher at Stats.org, a controversial organization that promotes so anti-science opinions, which is funded by conservatives (and well as advised (with all due respect) by dead people (RIP)). Stats.org apparently doesn't necessarily always get its facts straight and definitely sides with (or some say shills for) industry on issues like bisphenol A, alcohol advertising, and global warming. More to the point, however, Stats.org now has its own blog and Butterworth also contributes to the Huffington Post. So perhaps since his diatribe, he's come round on the blogging "revolution"?

Mediating the Blogging/MSM Landscape

More internet savvy than the Financial Times, the San Francisco Chronicle published about 45 articles covering blogs and bloggers back in 2005-2006. For the most part the articles tracked the rising blog phenomena, with only sporadic jabs at the medium. One editorial, on March 13, 2005, astutely titled "It's not Whether Blogger's are Journalists, it's Which Are", concluded:

"To flatly say "no" [they're not journalists] leaves out a universe of those who find news, challenge our thinking and otherwise breathe oxygen into the democracy -- in itself a pretty good definition of journalism...It's a big tent. Why shouldn't there be room for bloggers?"

Dick Rogers point seemed as wise 4 years ago as it does today. Blogs come in all shapes and colors. Journalists are far more accepting of blogs then 4 years ago -- they quote blogs and cue off blogs for story ideas. But many in mainstream media can't let go of the idea that MSM is superior and that online media should conform. Mark Morford, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote last week:

"The truth remains: You pick up the Times, the Post, the Chron -- or read their online products -- you immediately have an anchor, some credibility and authority, not to mention a sense of place and context. In whatever you read, you know there has been, at minimum, some real editorial oversight and integrity of product borne of trained, experienced editors and writers who, believe it or not, still value accuracy and truth above all else."

Morford presents an idealistic view of the present state of newspapers. Mainstream media may have fine intentions, great journalists and editors, some fantastic articles, and a few worthy publications. But just as often you get misinformation, meaningless or misleading press releases posing as news. Just as often the end product falls far from the rosy goal. All of this motivates bloggers to blog.

It's not simply a case of one side and the other. Robert Scheer, who worked for the Los Angeles Times for almost thirty years, talked to Democracy Now last week about his impression of the traditional news media in a larger conversation about the AIG bailout. He refuted the idea of a golden era when everything in print was good, pointing out that the regulatory changes that led to the current financial tsunami went uncovered for decades by the business sections of papers:

...The good old days were not so good for mainstream journalism, and certainly not when it came to covering business stories....Much of the reporting was done by press releases.

...I saw very few mainstream reporters there. There was no critical reporting of those stories. They basically went along with what the lobbyists want. Bank of America and the other banks spent $300 million that year getting the legislation--their license to steal, in effect--and it was not covered. The Telecommunications Act was not covered.

... [B]usiness reporting has been a scandal. Why? Because the same people who own the newspapers benefit from the tax breaks, benefit from the loopholes. They're on the other side. I mean, General Electric, which is in trouble, after all, owns NBC. So these are not pristine owners. There are some exceptions of some families that have tried to do a good job, but in the main, the people running media in America, who own it, benefit and want the kind of deregulation of the whole business community that has brought us to our knees.

One could take exception to Butterworth, of Morford, or Rogers or Scheer, depending on your point of view, but they all have one point in common. Who will pay for the hard work that's behind the scenes of reporting, as newspapers disappear? One hundred visits to an FDA panel meeting may bore a reporter to distraction, but the small details reported from each FDA hearing make history. Not all news warrants 70 pixel font. Does that make it less worthy of reporting?

But why constrain the argument to the birds in hand? Why make it just about bloggers and newspapers? Why do we jump so quickly to conclude that today's state of online media represents the final model, then proceed to criticize it as though this were a true give? Bloggers will accept criticism for many things, but maybe the current online paradigm, typos and all, is only an intermittent solution to the many shortfalls of mainstream media.

Content is King For Some -- The Aggregators?

Just as Rogers did 4 years ago, Conde Nast's, Portfolio questions the finger pointing between mainstream and online media. The blog quotes Time magazine, who asked of Arianna Huffington, in a somewhat complementary but snarky article about the Huffington Post: Would she be able to continue networking successfully with print media while "killing their business?" Was she bucking for a lawsuit Time quoted one commentator?

Maybe HuffPo isn't to blame here, suggests Conde Nast. Just as Craigslist wasn't to blame for downfall of newspaper advertising, Rogers says, "Huffpo, Craigslist, Craigslist, Huffpo -- can't we all just agree to blame Google?" I think he has a point, the greatest aggregator is Google. Aggregators are great for a blurb and a link. But most online aggregators live for advertising and ever more advertising. Is there an obvious endpoint?

• If you're the Huffington Post with 3,000 bloggers, 6,000 is better -- and free content from the New York Times and everywhere else would be better still. Why link if you can get away with posting the whole article? (HuffPo links, others post the whole article)
• If you're a pharmaceutical company there's little cost to data mining research if journals are free like PLoS, so won't you keep demanding more data, cheaper.
• If you're a publishing company of any sort, more content means more money.
• If you're Google, all the world's webpages might be fine, but expanding the index to include all the world's books is even better. Including all the world's health information produces still more profit.

One can't deny that search technology is great and that we each benefit a small amount. But the people who are pushing for more free content are those who stand to benefit disproportionately to any individual's expected benefit. On the other hand, we wouldn't blame Google for replacing desktop computing with better accessibility to the "World Wide Web", or blame Microsoft for the end of punchcards and mainframes. Open source science publishing means free science news, so why complain?

Perhaps this well worn logic resonates, but should we examine more closely what we lose with "free"? First, we all pay. Users pay in ways some may never know. They pay for "Search" by viewing advertising and by yielding unknown amounts of privacy.

In a world of penny payments via advertising, based on the dying model of newspapers, what do content providers get?¹ Why does the idea that "content yearns to be free", apply to the millions who produce content, when content makes kings of those who aggregate enough of it? Is this really the democratic model? Some claim, yes. Others say transparent government and companies would provide the data that newsrooms used to collect, leaving journalists to less mundane tasks. Theoretically, yes, that would work, and we're all holding out breath.

Today, rather than pushing new models in an industry that's still very much in flux, many of us are embracing the current flawed model built on the newspaper's own advertising model. On the web, successive aggregators each gain a little more profit then the content feeder below them. CondeNast makes some money. HuffPo makes a little of of CN's content, then Google makes so much more advertising revenue off HuffPo and CN.

If the road ahead continues to be corporate expansion at all costs, will this model stimulate the same monopolistic behavior which took down newspapers and banks? Can't we do better? Why enable those who can snap their fingers and data-mine yotta-yotta-yottabytes² of information for patent-worthy or publishable tidbits to enrich themselves, when their wealth accumulates so disproportionately to the actual producers of the data? Is this yet another pyramid scheme?

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

¹ The New York Times sent out take-down notices to some blogs who were reposting NYT content last week.

² A yottabyte (YB) is one septillion (one long scale quadrillion or 1024) bytes. According to Wikipedia, all the computer hard drives in the world does not amount to even one zettabyte.

Acronym Required has written previously on open-source and open-access publishing, and on print media and its decline. To be continued.

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?)

• 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?

The unraveling of the financial economy shocked many who predicted endless prosperous times for unregulated capitalism in its zenith. Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin scratched their heads with airs of befuddlement. However others weren't surprised. Some Chinese now recall how they compared derivatives to mirror images of mirror images of mirror images of a book as far back as 1999 (and perhaps amassed U.S. treasuries in anticipation.)

I'm sure you've heard the one about the word "crisis" in Mandarin being the same as the word for "danger" plus "opportunity"? It's a myth about the Chinese language that persists, famously forwarded by presidents like JFK in 1959. Ancient Eastern philosophy didn't predict today's New Age affirmations. But yet people from all sides of the political spectrum insist that crisis brings opportunity, brings change. True?

In August, the Financial Times wrote an article titled "Fannie and Freddie crisis is Paulson's big moment". According to the FT, US Treasury Secretary would "make use of the virtually unlimited powers he was given by Congress" to avert further disaster. Paulson et al. eventually architected a solution and after some finagling the banks got cash infusions, but the efforts failed to jumpstart or even stabilize the economy. Last week Paulson talked to FT about his lack of power, and what turned out to be his not so "big moment". The FT headlines tell his spin on the protracted tale:

• On December 30th:"Paulson rues shortage of firepower as battle raged".
• December 31st: "US lacked the tools to tackle crisis, says Paulson".
• January 1st and 2nd FT: "Paulson says crisis sown by imbalance" (version I), and version II: "Paulson says excess led to crisis". ¹

Often what looks like the silver bullet, the gold ring from a distance, is really tarnished nickel once you gallop into close range on your plastic merry-go-round horse. The first bailout round of $700 billion got grabbed up quickly, but still, banks don't lend, job losses accumulate and the economy sputters. Whose opportunity was this crisis? Who spews forth these dubious little ditties?

Sure, some cash rich people are traipsing around the suburbs cash in hand looking good deals, including Chinese tourists who set out of house hunting tours in Los Angeles. A few of the most cash rich institutions (the top four are: Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway and the Bank of China, ICBC and China Construction Bank) But as time goes on, more and more people people lose confidence in capitalism, monetary policy, even macroeconomics.

Paulson's plan didn't do the trick and there was no great "defining moment" for him, rather an ongoing crisis. Barack Obama warned yesterday that the financial crisis demands more government cash, which will further deepen the country's debt, accruing years and years of trillion dollar deficits. Grim.

Change In Crisis

But if opportunities look sparse don't crises still present openings for change? So they say. For some, like George Soros it's the end of a certain fundamentalist capitalism. For others, like the Cato Institute, it's a time to pursue greater deregulation. Cato blames government intervention for the crisis, saying government precipitated ruin by pursuing a bastardized version of laissez-faire economics.

Even scientists see an opening with the financial crisis. For Bruce Alberts, the Editor-In-Chief of Science the "financial meltdown", brings the hope for recognition of the "centrality of science and engineering for successful modern societies", and promise of a "new sense of reality". Everyone hopes for change.

Same, Same?

We're skeptical. Not of change necessarily. After the Asian Tsunami they built a warning system. After denying global warming for decades, the world woke up. After eight years of the Bush administration the world's a different place. Change happens.

But some thirty percent of the population approves of the job Bush is doing. And people who forecast or promise change are often plain wrong. After 9-11 we heard about "the end of the age of irony". After the Berlin Wall fell we listened to the folks at the US Department of State and scholars like Samuel Huntington (RIP) predict a "new" era, when tribal and religious strife would threaten the relevancy of states and a "clash of civilizations" would dominate politics.

We can't predict precisely what might change, or whether the future government and it's financial policies it will benefit more people than current policies, or less. But we should be alert to our own fatal collective tendency for hopeful thinking. Now is the time to speak up for change, about science, about laissez-faire, and most of all, about the evolving new government.

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

¹ And is he engaged in a little what psychologists interviewed by the NYT called "ego protecting?"

If you find Acronym Required's 2008 Thanksgiving fare too glum, here's an excerpt from 2007:

The Spaniards fancied the turkey when they invaded Mexico where turkey was indigenous, and then introduced the bird to Europe when they returned in the early 1500's. However, during the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, turkeys were thought by northern Europeans to be a product of Turkey.

Europeans also for a time called turkeys "India fowl", then confused the turkey with "Guinea fowl" and gave turkeys the same Latin genus name: "Maleagris". The species name that they settled on, "gallopavo" combines the Latin for rooster and for peacock. From these confusing origins turkeys have long struggled with their identity. First they were put in their own family, Meleagrididae; but now scientists consider turkeys to be part of the pheasant family, Phasianidae, in the subfamily Mealeagidinae.

More on the history here at Thanksgiving, All Things Ottoman. Best wishes to all and Happy Thanksgiving to those readers who have a holiday.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Un-Science Tuesday

A while ago, some self-appointed science public relations coaches took to criticizing scientists who published important science news on Fridays. Of course up to that point, for me, Fridays had been for science reading -- a little journal club and catching up on the literature. Science Friday wasn't just an NPR show. But these folks sternly instructed scientists to publish the big news at the beginning of the week, at the start of the "news cycle". They scolded them when they didn't.

I'm still not too sure that science fits in the whole "news cycle" paradigm -- the crazy and consumptive frenzy. Can science really be skimmed, emoted, and flushed? I suppose if science is to be "news" it must adapt. Accordingly then, even though economists say "there is no Friday Effect", some science publicists dutifully publish their Big Science News at the beginning of the week.

It follows then with just as much logic, that if Monday is the big day for science news than Tuesdays must be the day for big anti-Science news. No, you say, Tuesday's a big science day too. The New York Times runs their weekly Science section on Tuesdays. True, but consider that columnists steer the opinion ship for the NYT and on Tuesday John Tierney the "science columnist" runs his distinctively un-Science section. Just yesterday he assured us in his article in "10 Things to Scratch From Your Worry List", that the Arctic ice isn't melting, cellphones don't cause cancer, hot dogs are good for you, and bisphenol-A is one of life's essential building blocks.

On one hand I understand his feelings. Every time you turn around there's another disturbing warning. Recently, radium emitting granite counter tops attracted attention or the type that manufacturers will resent, and that after warnings on cellphones, jalapeno peppers, salmonella tainted tomatoes.

Of course, there's an economic downside to all of this. The salmonella warnings caused the price of tomatoes to fall by $3.00 per pound in my area. Of course, this was good for me. I took a small personal risk and bought some localish tomatoes, despite frenzied media calls to avoid them. But unlike Tierney who likes to turn his personal choices into the reader's public policy, I didn't march around the produce section with a megaphone hectoring other shoppers to buy tomatoes. Tierney the New York Times"science columnist" hounds others to adapt his anti-global warming, anti-recycling, anti-science positions.

You'd think New York Times wouldn't choose as "science columnists" writers who tell people to ignore scientists, but I can only conclude that when your paper's profit drops 82% in a quarter, the "fit to print" standard plummets as well. (Although Tierney's been at this for a while, I argue he's reached a new low.) Here's the science behind some of Tierney's science fact denialism.

• Now that the "nitrite scare" has passed Tierney says, and grilled food is ok, rest assured that hot dogs are ok too. However scientists don't say any such thing. Doctors say nitrites are linked to stomach cancer. Who do you believe? The Mayo Clinic? Or John Tierney?
• John Tierney has long claimed that global warming is trumped up fear mongering, that the Arctic ice isn't melting and by extension there's no global warming. Last week, a huge 4 kilometer piece broke off the Arctic shelf. Derek Mueller, a polar scientist and research fellow at Trent University, in Peterborough, commented ""Ice shelves don't just break up. There's no karate chop". He went on to note the shelf's "gradual weakening over time as a result of warming temperatures." Of course, John Tierney didn't say "a 4 mile block of ice didn't break of last week". He just didn't mention the fact.
• Recently a panel of more than 20 scientists looked at various cell phone studies and found some alarming evidence that pointed to increased risks for brain cancer. They recommended taking 10 simple precautions while using cell phones which the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute announced last week. John Tierney skips over that information.

  Instead he says that despite the fact that "prominent brain surgeons" talk publicly about cell phone dangers, his "colleague Tara Parker-Pope has noted that there is no known biological mechanism for the phones' non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer, and epidemiological studies have failed to find consistent links between cancer and cellphones." Who do you trust Prominent brains surgeons or Tierney's parsing of his colleague's column?

  Tierney skips the part of Parker-Pope's that about article ¹ research showing "increases in three cancers: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain." Parker-Pope noted that researchers are concerned about the design flaws and duration of many of the previous studies which showed no harm from cell phones.

  Another recent article on cellphones makes it clear:"The scientists agree on two things: there's no formal proof of the cell phone's harmfulness, but a risk exists that it promotes the appearance of cancers in cases of long-term exposure."

• On bisphenol A, Tierney writes that he still uses his "old blue-capped Nalgene bottle, the one with [bisphenol-A] BPA that survived glaciers, jungles and deserts". He warns that "if they ever try recalling it, they'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers". Of course this is his choice, nevertheless, scientists show in hundreds of studies that BPA is an endocrine disruptor that's unnecessary to the manufacture of baby bottles.

So in your experience -- think climate change, tobacco, asbestos, beryllium -- when science doesn't "know for sure", is that the time to pull out the stops and go all cavalier with risky behavior...? When it's so incredibly easy to reduce your family's personal risk? By publishing a jumble of half-truths, incorrect information, laced with that devil may care attitude, the New York Times erodes its credibility and does a disservice to both science and consumers.

The Campaign to Stop the Worry. Aren't They Thoughtful?

Not all Tierney's so labeled worries are equally risky. But his presentation, incomplete facts and distorted interpretations aim not to clarify but to muddy the waters. I don't know what the risk associated with his 10th point, "unmarked wormholes" is, and I personally can't ameliorate it. Scientists don't know the exact risk of cellphones but people can do something about it. That's the real worry -- for the chemical, plastics and cell phone...industries.

Tierney doesn't name any scientists, instead he makes science and scientists the amorphous enemy. (I've listed the names of the doctors and scientists who served on Pitt's cellphone panel below.¹). Tierney's article cheekily and disingenuously appears under "Findings", as though he's presenting some science research. And as icing on the cake the New York Times lists as a source for more information, the ACSH, an industry funded public relations firm. ACSH does not currently make public its donors, but to get an idea, the Union of Concerned Scientist's report on industry funded non-profits informs us that Exxon-Mobil donated to ACSH for work on work on "climate change issues" (see PDF).

The most alarming point of Tierney's article to me, aside from the fact that it's supposedly "science", is the premise: new knowledge causes "worry...fear, guilt or angst". Why is there a constant drumbeat about protecting the populace from "fear"? There has been a decades long media blitz to "stop the worry" by ACSH. Just this year ACSH put out (this 01/08 Top Ten list of 'silly scares' and this Top 5 list. Are we really afraid of their unreasonable fears?

The truth is we can control lots of BPA exposure by using readily available glass or metal. If hot dogs are the most tasty treat for you, than there's plenty of nitrate free processed organic meat products. No? Then start by not entering hot dog eating contests at country fairs. Reduce your cell phone exposure by not wrapping cell phones around your ear while you shop for groceries. It's silly looking anyway. Stop contributing to global warming by biking. Don't bike? Walk. Carpool and meet new people. Read! How did Tierney's ancestors confront tigers given that his brain seems forever paralyzed in a resilient attachment to plastic bottles? Or is this the point of the ACSH?

Of the millions of products available to us, do we really need Nalgene bottles? If so we're a pathetic species. The end result of this corporate funded campaign is that adults are encouraged to act like three year olds clinging to a special toy, while standing in a rising sea of toys.

Mighty Myths: Scientists are Terrorists, But Science Can Fight Terrorism

Also penning a few un-science ideas on Tuesdays is Clive Crook of the Financial Times. Crook "is the FT's science editor". He wrote in an article yesterday with with Sir Richard Mottram, the former "permanent secretary for intelligence, security and resilience in the UK Cabinet Office." In their article, "Careful science can help to fight terrorism", the authors first frame a three part problem: 1) Scientists are likely terrorists 2) Science and technology increases terrorism 3) Science and technology used to prevent terrorism constrains free society. As they put it:

• "For a start, scientists, engineers and doctors have played a considerable role as terrorists since the mid-20th century." They authors don't see fit to provide evidence, rather they then assert: "something about the certainties enshrined in many scientific disciplines may also chime with the inflexible philosophy of some terrorist groups."
• Next they say, "unconstrained dissemination of scientific knowledge may enhance the terrorist threat in its most severe forms"
• And finally, "unconstrained use of scientific and technological solutions in countering terrorism - for example, exploiting developments in sensors and in biometrics, information-handling and communications - could themselves damage the free society"

As I said, they provide zero evidence for their three suppositions, although all three appeal to common perceptions in a familiar muddly way, and the third seems quite probable. The authors then go on to say that although science is bad, science can also be good:

"Science can help strengthen infrastructure and mitigate the effects of an attack, particularly if a nuclear or biological weapon were to be used. And we can expect disciplines such as psychology and the social sciences to contribute more to our understanding of what drives terrorism - and therefore how best to prevent it.

I'm not arguing with all of Crook and Mottram's points. But they strain to construct some image of science, technology, and scientists, then once they establish that, they go on to vilify that image. I guess to build reader alliance? Acronym Required has followed various crises -- hurricanes, tsunamis, AIDS, bridge failures, pandemics, healthcare, etc. In each crisis, people assert with confidence that science and technology can solve the the very same problem...sometime in the future.

However failure is often not a technology hitch but a political and/or management issue. 9/11 wasn't a technology failure. The US government failed on the ground to pay attention to intelligence indicating that such an attack was likely. FBI agencies didn't use email, moreover they didn't communicate any way. Bridges fall down because of inspectors. Hurricanes cause more damage when FEMA is a "dumping ground" for ineffectual political appointees and levees aren't built due to politics. AIDS kills more people when health ministers counsel citizens that http://acronymrequired.com/2006/09/south-africa-peddling-beetroot.html">beetroot is a cure, etc.

Scientists and their science, and the technology that interfaces with society are all very important, yes, critical to the progress of civilization. But to reiterate our belief and one of the eternal themes of this blog: science, scientists and technology won't save us from ourselves.

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

¹ Tara Parker-Popes lede for the cellphone story June 3, 2008 was: "What do brain surgeons know about cellphone safety that the rest of us don't?" This has a certain libertarian populace appeal -- "Hey! No one tells us what to do." I suggest the following tongue in cheek change based on the list of scientists on the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute's panel: "What do French brain surgeons know about cellphone safety that the rest of us don't?" It has a double whammy effect that the 'Stop The Worry' cabal might appreciate. Many wondered, as I did, who was on the panel? For what it's worth, here's the list:

1. Bernard Asselain, MD, Chief of the Cancer Biostatistics Service, Curie Institute, Paris, France
2. Franco Berrino, MD. Director of the Department of Preventative and Predictive Medicine of the National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy
3. Thierry Bouillet, MD Oncologist, Director of the Radiation Institute, Avicenne University Hospital Center, Avicenne, Bobigny, France
4. David Carpenter, MD, Director Institute of Health and the Environment, University of Albany, former Dean, School of Public Health
5. Christian Chenal, MD, Emeritus Professor of Oncology, University of Rennes I, France and former director of the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) team "Radiation, Environment, Adaptation"
6. Pr Jan Willem Coebergh, Oncologist, Department of Public Health, University of Rotterday, The Netherlands
7. Yvan Coscas, MD Oncologist, Chief of the Department of Radiotherapy, Hopital de Poissy St Germain, France
8. Pr Jean-Marc Cosset, Honorary Chief of Oncology/Radiotherapy of the Curie Institute, Paris, France
9. Pr Devra Lee Davis, Diretor, Center for Environmental Oncology of University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institure, USA
10. Michel Hery, MD Oncologist, Chief of the Department of Radiotherapy, Princess Grace Hospital Center, Monaco
11. Dr Ronald Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, USA
12. Pr Lucien Israel, Emeritus Professor of Oncology, University of Paris X!!!, Member of the Institut de France
13. Jacques Marilleau, Engineer SUPELEC, former physicist at the Commissariat of Atomic Energy and at CNRS Orsay, France
14. Jean-Loup Mouyesset, MD Oncologist, Polyclinique Rambot-Provencale, Aix-en-Provence, France
15. Philippe Presles, MD, President of the Institut Moncey for the Prevention and Health, Paris, France
16. Pr Henri Pujol, PhD Oncologist, former President of the National Federation Cancer Centers, France
17. Joel de Rosnay, PhD, Former Assistant Professor of Biology, MIT, Boston, USA
18. Simone Saez, PHD, former Director of the Cancer Biology unit of the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Lyon, France
19. Annie Sasco, MD, Doctor of Public Health, Medical epidemiologist, Director of the Epidemiology Team for Cancer
Prevention -- INSERM, University Victor Segalen, Bordeau 2, France
20. David Sevan-Schreiber, MD, PhD, Doctor of Science, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh
21. Patrick Souvet, MD, Cardiologist, President of the Association Sante Environnement Provence Aix-en Provence, France
22. Pr. Dan WArtenberg, Chief, Division of Environmental Epidemiology, UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
23. Jacques Vilcoq, MD, Oncologist, Clinique Hartmann, Neuilly-sur-seine, France

• Golf As Solidarity -- Final Blow

  The court of public opinion can seem like a sand trap. In 2002 Thomas Friedman watched George W. Bush talk on CNN about the need to bring democracy to an Iraq called threatening by the US. Then in his column he chastised Bush about playing golf:

  "I had no problem with what the president was saying. What bothered me, though, was that he was saying it in a golf shirt, standing on the tee with his golf clubs....[H]e shows real contempt for the world, and a real lack of seriousness, when he says from the golf tee, as he did on another occasion: 'I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.'"

  Flash forward six years to May, 2008, when George Bush told Politico that he'd quit playing golf. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

  2008 is not 2002 and Bush's gesture of solidarity raised hackles. Satirist Steve Young called it an occasion for "satirical nirvana" and in "solidarity" gave up satire for a week. The web mob ripped into Bush's out-dated gesture but the anger wasn't contained to the internet. Keith Olbermann raged on Countdown, MSNBC, that Bush delivered a "final blow to our solar plexus". As he said in his 10 minute rant:

  "...Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you six and a half years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you. . . It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! "

  Olbermann counseled Bush to "shut the hell up" on future golf questions. As the New Yorker describes the episode, when challenged ahead of the broadcast by the show's producers about the divisiveness of "shut the hell up", Olbermann responded that he favored "shut the f_ck up" but had censored his ending.

  The president was out of sync with the nation's mood on golf vis-a-vis Iraq. In 2008, the public, once reticent about invading Iraq and putty in the Bush's hands, expresses moral outrage about the US state of affairs. 4000 deaths? How dare Bush think about golf!

• Manhattan's Tasteless, Meanspirited, Malignant Rag: The New Yorker and the Obamas

  Moral outrage of a milder sort arose over the New Yorker cover showing Barack Obama in "what many [Americans] see as 'Muslim clothing'", as Al Jazeera put it, standing with his wife in front of a fireplace with a burning flag. Only a couple of years earlier the country expressed bewilderment when European Muslims protested Danish cartoons featuring Muhammad. In response, the US shh-shhed so as not to inflame, while parading its tolerant, liberal sensibilities to the world. Yet last week the US population became apoplectic, in its own little way, over the cartoon of Obama.

  The New Yorker maybe didn't predict the ire. The magazine enjoys a coveted position in print publishing, with more subscription requests, a slew of journalism awards, and a positive balance sheet. Four days earlier, the Financial Times "Lunch with FT" section featured an interview [accessed July 23, 2008] with editor David Remnick, who on that occasion had "much to celebrate after 10 years". Remnick had turned around a "desperate" situation at the New Yorker, the FT wrote, and over lavish lunch Remnick commented appreciatively (or hopefully in jest?), "We can't live without the goose prosciutto".

  Then abruptly Remnick found himself plunked unceremoniously in a distant place, explaining defensively to his now disenchanted "18-to-24 readership [that] grew by 24 per cent and 25-to-34 readership [that] rose 52 per cent", how the New Yorker publishes pages and pages non-offensive journalism about Obama too. His audience called the cover a despicable and not-at-all-amusing attempt at satire, a "angry, hateful, violent and unpatriotic", "most malignant, vicious", "tasteless", and "mean spirited" cartoon. One befuddled commenter mistook the magazine for the New York Post.

  The audience predicted that the likes of Rush Limbaugh would use the cartoon to promote malevolent myths about Obama and doom his campaign. But nobody died and nobody lost a campaign, so what gives? Maybe the outraged wanted to guard the naive against exposure to incorrect images? Protect Obama, the fragile flower? Did they read the article?

  In the flurry of discontent, few said anything about the 14,600 word essay on Barack Obama inside the cover. The profile detailed Obama's deliberate navigation through rough and tumble world of Chicago and Illinois politics. It firmly dispelled the message everyone thought everyone else would get from the cover with an extensive reporting on Obama's history, concluding:

  "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..."

  The article (and the roiling aftermath of the cover's release) brought the spot-on satire into sharp relief.

• If Comments Could Kill: Science Commenters Out of Control

  I sometimes find these adrenaline frenzied episodes enthralling compared to the drama under the much dimmer science limelight, where for better or worse, humor and satire are dished out in miserly portions. Like politics, the biggest breaches in real science can get only sporadic fleeting attention. But oh how the small science tiffs inspire big (embarrassing) headlines about itty-bitty squabbles where the stakes are squeamishly low.

  Don't get me wrong. The science brand of satire gets so vicious on religious subjects that Danish cartoons and satirical New Yorker covers seem positively warm and fuzzy. But the consequences tell the sorry tale. One misstep of political satire and the New Yorker loses access to the front-running U.S. presidential candidates (one it's loyal to) and might be barred from Obama's campaign plane. Sure, not the end of the world, but disconcerting.

  Compare this to brutishly spiteful science satire. One person says communion is but a biscuit (wafer, actually), the next threatens to kill them, then the first calls on a frothing pack to snap at the threatener's heels. The tragic outcome of this science satire gone awry is that somebody loses their job at 1-800-Flowers. That's about as funny as it gets. Yeah.

When Merck's AIDS vaccine candidate failed in clinical trials, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) called a summit. The drug candidate did not reduce HIV infections, in fact the adenovirus based vaccine seemed to increase the risk of infections.

The meeting of scientists on March 25th in Washington focussed on the future of HIV/AIDS research in light of the fallout of Merck vaccine trials. Scientists including Anthony Fauci, who heads the NIAID, agree that funding needs to be redirected towards a broader research agenda and ideas beyond drug development and vaccines. Science last week noted that the decision about whether to proceed with the large NIH clinical trial planned for its HIV vaccine is still pending. ("Review of Vaccine Failure Prompts a Return to Basics" DOI: 10.1126/science.320.5872.30)

Nature also reported on the summit last week, pointing out that these clinical AIDS trials went forward not necessarily based on the strength of the science -- one of the vaccine candidates had a unimpressive track record -- but because programs needed to "show the public that progress is being made, thereby justifying the millions of dollars from philanthropists and taxpayers". ("Broken Promises" doi:10.1038/452503a).

The Nature editorial offers analysis of this HIV-AIDS vaccine experience, noting that ambitious commitments made in a flush funding environment in the early part of this decade short-changed basic research. These choices to heavily fund drug development are regarded less forgivingly in light of the trial failures and the budget shortfalls of recent years, according to the journal. Nature warns other fields, for instance stem-cell research, autism, and Parkinson's disease, are repeating these same mistakes.

The business approach comes with a high stakes mentality and ample, vigorous marketing that can ratchet up expectations both within the organization, the field and the public arena. The business-oriented nature of many philanthropic organizations influences the focus on development and can distort public expectations. But investors can and do influence the direction of an entire field. When a field becomes dominated by a few foundations it can gather tremendous productive momentum, but it can also stampede so hard down a particular path with such strong momentum in a particular direction. If that direction proves to be less fruitful than hoped research cannot turn around on a dime.

Each high-funded disease has its own idiosyncratic pitfalls, but behind the good works and fine intentions of charities, but the science research rarely responds to pressure, unlike many entrepreneurial ventures. When scientists request research funding, the results don't always yield answers as quickly as businesses might hope -- research is the mythical man myth on steroids. Some people investing in biotech and international public health come from businesses very unlike public health with its vagaries of not only politics and human behavior, but biology.

In today's fast paced communications and computing climate, intense focus on "results" is inherent to our culture. Expectations carry over from the successful and extraordinarily speedy progress of the genome sequencing. Scientists and politicians built hopes during that time that drug development and an accelerated understanding of human disease would follow. It has, but did we expect more? TV drug advertising gives the impression that scientists are developing a pill for every insignificant hangnail, when many of these drugs aren't new, just the subjects of new marketing campaigns. Meanwhile tougher diseases and conditions remain elusive.

High profile funding can influence the research environment and lead to a very public dead end. In the larger picture, despite the wisdom that should be accruing from these experiences, politicians, technology leaders, and pundits sometimes wax-on about technology's potential to produce solutions not only for specific diseases but for extremely complicated social problems such as global warming and healthcare. But while science research may yield pharmaceuticals and oil extraction techniques but one cannot look to science or technology to solve the healthcare crisis in the United States. Science and technology contextualize these problems and are integral in our lives but despite heady declarations, they are not central to the solutions.

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

Acronym Required has written previously about these subjects, AIDS and research directions, and vaccines. Here are a couple of our vaccine articles:

Vaccinations -- Why Worry?
Polio Vaccinations - The end of a scourge?
Group B Strep Vaccine Development
Vaccine Development For Infectious Diseases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When a story about the human appendix not being "useless after all" hit the press and blogosphere a month ago, quite a few science blogs explained that this "new" functionality idea was flawed and carefully pointed out the problems with the research, in the midst of what was largely unabashedly uncritical enthusiasm. The writers noted that this was not new research, just a review of the literature. More importantly, the Duke authors' proposal in the Journal of Theoretical Biology that the appendix was not vestigial but served to house beneficial gut bacterial was unproven (though some deemed it interesting).

Despite the effort, I noticed that Answers.com featured the appendix story in "Today's Highlights", and alas it wasn't listed as "fake news".

The New York Times today reports that the Bush administration is trying to rewrite the federal government's bungling of Hurricane Katrina as a state problem .

Acronym Required previously wrote a number of articles on Katrina and FEMA.

Did I Say That?

James Watson is at it again. His "opinions" -- in reality bigoted remarks and racial slurs, were published in a piece in the London Sunday Times. Watson noted that although "social policies are based" on the intelligence of African's being "the same as ours", this assumption is "not really" true. The London's Science Museum canceled an appearance by Watson for Friday's Black History Month event because his comments had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate".

Despite his appalling comments, some news agencies still tiptoe reverently around Dr. Watson. For instance BBC said, "within scientific circles, the 79-year-old is known as someone who loves debate and discussion."

But in the science circles I run in, his comments don't qualify as "debate", but as racism. The New York Times said: "Famed Scientist Apologizes for Quoted Racial Remarks". "Quoted", they say as if leaving open the possibility that Watson might never had said that. A transcription error perhaps? According to the London Times "Kate Farquhar-Thomson, his publicist, refused to say whether Watson believed The Sunday Times had quoted him accurately. 'You have the statement. That's it, I'm afraid,' she said". The London Times said Watson read the article before it was submitted.

CNN, a paper of increasingly dubious record, yanked reporters away from stories on movie stars long enough to fill in some background information on Watson:

"In 1997, Britain's Sunday Telegraph quoted Watson as saying that if a gene for homosexuality were isolated, women who find that their unborn child has the gene should be allowed to have an abortion.

During a lecture tour in 2000, he suggested there might be links between a person's weight and their level of ambition and between skin color and sexual prowess. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to The Associated Press, which quoted people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

And in a British TV documentary that aired in 2003, Watson suggested stupidity was a genetic disease that should be treated."

Watson actually has a longer record of insults then their brief history tells, he has been slandering woman and minorities for as long as he's been basking in the warm glow of appreciation for revealing the structure of DNA. This isn't the late life meanderings of a little old man. "I cannot understand", he said. As in -- oh dear, did I say that?

His reputation for deriding women and their intelligence is based on decades of remarks, though every once in a while, fortunately for that 50% of the population, he stumbles across an intelligent woman.

On autism, Watson "hopes that by diagnosing autism early, 'we might prevent some autism-prone families having subsequent children'". [Emphasis ours]. As I see it, he's situated on a bit of a slippery slope, though he may be impervious to it. One of his children was "seriously incapacitated", a fact that he attributes to his age at the time of conception-- 42, not to his original genome. Viagra is one culprit he says. So for him anyway, sterilization would not have helped? A Science writer noted in an 2003 book review that Watson promoted "vintage eugenics".

Watson apologizes now for his most recent comments. A couple of writers quickly leapt to his defense, and admirers who warn that they're canceling their visit to that science museum. Confusingly, the same writers argue that the economic rewards for Watson's ideas should flow unfettered, that his book tour with its museum stop (and profits) should continue. Allow "the debate" they say, feature the evidence. But scientific evidence will not convince racists not to be racists. If it did, and if Watson's as smart as he says he is, wouldn't he have changed his tune by now?

Toeing the Jagged Moral Line

Although most of us would not defend Watson's remarks, we ably justify some level of racism for various self-serving reasons. We're capable of separating Don Imus's rampage or Michael Richards' from James Watson's. At least one individual will no doubt read this paragraph and immediately start listing all the differences between the aforementioned players. But James Watson is Dr. James Watson, they'll say, just think of his contribution to society! He's not just a two-bit celebrity, as entertaining as a racists as he is as a comedic actor--- he's Dr. James Watson.

Do we selectively elevate the opinions of others based on assumptions we make about their status, their power, intelligence, or fame? Of course. Do we sometimes privilege the James Watsons, professors, and presidents to pursue whatever agenda they coyly reveal? Sure. Not that Watson needs to be coy. Watson has learned that audiences will wrap his offensiveness in a cocoon of awe, and may even secretly question whether in all his brilliance, he knows something that they don't about genetics. We're capable of handily interpreting the same spiel different ways depending on whose mouth it spews from and our judgment of the speaker's power.

Why, we ask, has Watson been allowed to get away with this to date, to prosper? Is it Watson's science prestige? He has long floated along unhinged in his outrageous beliefs but unhindered by his habit of unfortunate comments; acquiring grants, lending his name to new buildings, trying to find cancer genes, promoting himself, enjoying the limelight. He's a charming man, blithely tossing out abusive zingers all along the way. Seduced by his power, convinced that his intelligence informs his remarks, we're dangerous because years of entrenched bigotry pass by. Our spurious evaluations collectively become society's schismatic moral code.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Succeed

Collectively and individually, we have spastic notions about what's acceptable. Said one biologist of the Nobel Laureate: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain". As though, women, that's one thing -- but now my dear Watson, you've really crossed the line. The biologist has a confusing moral code.

Many scientists, like Dr. Watson, are afforded "proteges" who listen with rapt attention, diligently recording whatever the master says in their notebooks.The author of the London Times article, introduced as one of his "proteges", said she was "unnerved by his devil-may-care compulsion to say what he believes". Her careful article obviously fueled the current public response. But why only now, after all this time, did she dare to be "unnerved"? Had she had the courage to be a bit more emotive long ago, "aghast" perhaps, which was the Merriam Webster's word of the day for October 18, 2008, would she still be Watson's "protege"? Would she be able to dine in his presence? Would she have the honor of reviewing his book?

There are payoffs to allowing famous people, Nobel laureates, university presidents, politicians, and celebrities who we encounter in our daily lives their little "indiscretions". After all, they may reward us. They may nod in our direction one day if we keep bowing just right. We're careful about "career limiting moves", speaking out at the wrong time, challenging the principal. But the more we excuse these 'otherwise fine men and women', the more we rationalize their aberrant assertions, the more we empower bigots.

Perhaps it's this gene, the one for cancerous bigotry induced by reflexive idolatry, for which we should be most hopefully hunting.

Speak Out

As a society we're rampantly inconsistent. We express very little tolerance for similarly degrading physical abuse. The idea of sending Watson to do janitorial public service, which was Naomi Campbell's punishment after she beaned an assistant on the head with a cell phone and drew blood, is laughable not just because he's 80 and doesn't have a cute cap to don while he's sweeping. We wouldn't consider such a thing, a man of his credentials, however, incongruously Watson has maligned an entire continent of individuals.

Watson may be "mortified" by his comments, but he is unscathed. The damage, the deadening of spirit and hope will manifest in young scientists who are compelled once more to double check the science literature on IQ, will effect Africans and African-Americans who endure century after century of the same numbing tirades, and will demoralize women who fear that they'll always be judged on anything but their intelligence.

Some argue that we continue to accept racism because we're "hypocritical racists". That we need to come up with strategies other than pressing fleeting apologies from racist offenders. Otherwise "we find scapegoats in these men...It becomes too easy to deny the fact that [the] internalized beliefs [of distant public officials] might be similar to our own". This is no doubt true. Fortunately though, we're not all racists. Among the many, many, many, people who fight against racism Bob Herbert of the New York Times often, convincingly and eloquently argues the importance of continuing to speak out. We should not hesitate to do so, just because it's Mr. Watson.

Then Forget?

¹Now we hear that Watson has been suspended from his "administrative position" and his book tour canceled. Cold Spring Harbor officials said they were "bewildered" by his latest statements. Should we believe their "bewilderment?". Will the "bewilderment" over Watson's assertions pass once the dust settles? Watson is still strongly associated with CSHL and the new, spiffy, well-funded Watson School of Biological Sciences.

Ex-president Summers was taken to task at Harvard for (not only) his comments about women's intelligence. Today, though not the president, Summer maintains his professorship, is allowed ample space in papers the write columns on liberal topics, and is paid handsomely to speak on topics of economic and business import. He has maintained his authority and platform.

²As we're in the height of the row over Watson's comments, we tend to pay less attention to following up on past national racism forums. A broadcasting executive recently announced that it's time for the public "to forgive Don Imus". The radio personality's impending return to the airwaves with his own show is reported in only a handful of publications, according to Google. Yet its only six months after his racists sexist remarks dominated news headlines for weeks and massive public outrage erupted.

We seem to have endless capacity to expurgate the appalling from the biography of any personality judged to be sufficiently important or economically useful. What does this signal? How short our attention? How shallow our indignation? How sheer our values?

"Art is What You Can Get Away With." -- Andy Warhol

Scienceblogs' scientist PZ Myers of Pharyngula, one of the first and most entertaining science bloggers, was recently sued for 15 million dollars by Stuart Pivar because Pivar did not like Myers' scathing review of Pivar's book. Myer's 2005 review of the book is here, and an updated review from last month is here. On behalf of Myers, Lawyer Peter Irons wrote a response to Pivar here. Pivar dropped the suit, but until then feverish speculation and analysis prevailed on some blogs. 'It will be dismissed' some said. 'It's groundless' everyone agreed. But there was also unexpected and deafening silences from other corners, as if a cold wind had blown through some warm cozy blogospheric goodness. Some just had no comment. But others asked, what if people start suing individual bloggers?

What if? Would all bloggers just go quiet? Really? No. If it weren't Seed and a famous blogger, would there be any point of a suit? No. So what the suit was really about. We conclude that from Pivar's history, he's merely seeking fame by suing, but what does Myers get? Well, fame from being sued. And interestingly, while Myers tears apart Pivar's book for it's non-sciencey ideas, how is it that he can welcome Lynn Margulis to his forum without challenging her anti-science ideas? How do fame and science mix and confuse science understanding?

Who The Heck is Stuart Pivar?

When I first tried to search for "Pivar" and "science" I came up empty-handed. Google asked me if I meant "Pixar", as in Pixar Entertainment? "Picar"? "Piper"? My search terms were wrong and as it turns out "science" was throwing off the results. Well-known in art and New York Society circles, Pivar is often associated with famous people, sometimes deceased -- like Andy Warhol and Diana Vreeland. He has been featured in popular magazines, like the New York Times "Public Lives" section, and in New York tabloids' "celebrities" sections for over 30 years.

In 1975, Newsweek profiled Pivar, who at the time was curating a show on "Schlock Art" (not an insult, apparently). In 1979 he paid $223,250 for a rare sabre-tooth tiger skull to add to his collection of skeletons and bones. Then he spent oodles of time and money delving into the provenance of a life sized statue called "Roman Bronze Boy" that may have been fake.

He strives to be the highest bidder: "'This is an excellent painting,'" Pivar exclaimed...a W.C.M. - a world-class masterpiece.'" (Boston Globe, March 22, 2000), referring to art painted by live elephants for a foundation that teaches Asian elephants to paint. The foundation also develops "an affordable line of non-toxic quality paints for use by elephants and caretakers as well as underprivileged children in developing countries". Claudia Steinberg once interviewed Pivar (NYT September 9, 2004), on decorating and noted his "'grand tone"', as if he mastered "'the effectiveness of pontification.'" Pivar pontificated:

"'Every time I see an example of something that is better than what I own, I buy it... otherwise for the rest of my life I have to live with the knowledge that someplace in the world something is floating around that is better than mine, and that's intolerable.'''

This is the artist who sued Myers. He sues frequently. He targets a variety of people and organizations and was once called "'an institutional stalker"' by the president of the New York Academy of Art. (The New York Post, June 20, 1998). After suing the Academy (which he had founded), he showed up one night at their "Take Home a Nude fundraiser", which the Post described as: "flesh-filled works". Since Pivar had sued the association, he was unwelcome, in fact "barred at the door, then thrown down into a puddle". "'Ass over teakettle'", Pivar told the Post. He slapped the Academy with a suit for assault. Then he dropped the suit.

Perhaps the culture of New York artistes differs from that of scientists'? Somehow PZ and Pharyngula figured into Pivar's marketing plan. But it's odd that someone who pursues fame so relentlessly, who has so many well-connected friends, can't simply get himself listed on Wikipedia...Why Pharyngula?

Pivar certainly must not have looked too closely at the articulate, analytical, opinionated, sarcastic, and biting Pharyngula blog. Gauging the landscape, I would think twice before submitting a book for review there. But knowing that Pivar lives with "wallcovering of rose-gold silk brocade" and hundreds of art objects ( NYT, September 9, 2004), I wouldn't solicit his opinion about some things either, like design or my attitudes towards pursuing fame. So Pivar expected a cordial reception from Myers? Although, true, Myers blog Pharyngula gave controversial scientist Lynn Margulis a very welcoming reception when he hosted her earlier this year.

Mastering Fame In Science -- Your 15 Minutes? Again?

Dr. Lynn Margulis is renowned for cell biology she did 15, 20, 30 or so years ago on endosymbiotic theory. She's earned plenty of street cred -- of the science type, both for her science and writing. But she's also well-known for putting forth "non-traditional" ideas, like:

"In the nerve cell, the axons and the dendrites that make the physical connections that allow us to communicate are latter-day spirochetes. Nerve cells, having long ago discarded the rest of the spirochete body, use the fundamental motility system of spirochetes. Think of the nerve as coming from what had formerly been a bacterium, 'trying' but unable to rotate and swim. Thought involves motility and communication, the connection between remnant spirochetes. All I ask is that we compare human consciousness with spirochete ecology."¹

You can imagine a simple schematic that suggests the relationship.

Of course all fame, whether it's in science, art or blogging, demands selective use of charm. And to her credit, when granted the opportunity by Pharyngula for an on-line chat forum, Margulis was charming and gamely mastered the medium, tutoring the likes of a participants with handles like "Hairhead" on her theories.

Be Charming, Claim You're the Underdog, "Don't Worry What They Write About You...."

While she's well-established and somewhat revered, Margulis doesn't hesitate to use the opportunity to forward her harebrained and controversial ideas. With PZ Myers moderating, Margulis insisted that HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS comments citing a Harper's article published last year. However the Harpers article was roundly dismissed by scientists, public health and policy experts as well as AIDS patients and activists around the world (PDF).

Margulis persisted though: If HIV did cause AIDS, than why didn't the CDC respond to her written demand for proof? This is a weak argument. The feigned helplessness from Margulis, who with tenacity, research skills, and balls unearthed obscure microbiology references from 19th century Russian publications, compared these against modern paradigms for cell evolution, then successfully challenged scientists to accept symbiosis theory -- is laughable.

Don't underestimate her feat in establishing symbiosis theory. But think, when listening critically to Margulis's argument about HIV now. The CDC has a very accessible explanation of HIV virus and AIDS here. The NIH explains everything here. Given her mastery of chat and her previous investigative work, do you believe her Google search skills are so lacking that she needs to resort to 1960's communications method of sending snail-mail letters?

When Science is What You Can Get Away With

Reading the Margulis post on the Myers blog and the chat that he hosted, it's hard to tell what would or wouldn't have gotten axed under PZ's "no-trolling" rule. These forums tend to go sideways anyway after hundreds of comments, not just because of trolls, but because people don't know basic science. The Pharyngula comments transcript was like watching a parade while a posse of kids fights in front of you to retrieve gumdrops that rolled on the ground. In other words, Margulis got off lightly with her anti-science ideas.

Myer's "moderated" forum enforced civility that drifted to intellectual stupor. While the subject was promising, Margulis ably chose what she presented and answered. It was certainly not a place where an open exchange would occur, rather it was a place where she could get coverage for her crazy ideas. Margulis is savvy and used PZ Myers forum well. Pivar, obviously, played his unique hand with Myers differently, with different results.

Margulis knows how to get her ideas across because she knows the rules of the game and isn't afraid to make her own. Scientists employ well established rules of engagement in academia. There is an old adage that the feuds are intense in academia because the stakes are low -- that is the financial stakes. Not true so more, but unlike art, apparently, scientists generally don't sue fellow scientists. It never made sense because there was nothing to gain -- " Watch out, I'll confiscate all your test tubes!" Science fame is achieved with intelligence and/or least creating that image (to the point of intimidation). Equally powerful tools are words, wit, aplomb, and most of all, renown from previous accomplishments -- all attributes that Margulis deploys with rigor.

Margulis relishes controversy and slings mud far better than most people, a well-honed and essential skill. Years ago she would malign molecular biologists (who she felt threatened her cell biology) for various things, particularly being reductionist. Margulis also criticized evolutionary biologists for ignoring chemistry and microbiology in evolution and chided developmental biologists for not understanding important components of evolution like geology. She refused to talk to journalists because she said they 'always misrepresent' her ideas. Nowadays she decries online sources who she claims distort her theories. Famously, despite her formidable offense skills, she forever portrays herself as someone who has been pushed in a mud puddle.

Scientists' methods of acquiring prestige are not to be underestimated because it's these skills as well as their research that make and break careers. Of course this is so, but stereotypes of scientists would have people doubt this. These skills help hold scientists and lay audiences in hypnotized sway. Clearly Pivar's background makes him pathetic at science combat skills. I mean if you attain fame by being the highest bidder on art made by elephants with their trunks, which you refer to with cute acronyms like "W.C.M." for "world class masterpiece", and if your biggest publicity stunt takes the form of a lawsuit, think again before messing with scientists. Forget the image of pocket-protectors -- modern successful scientists have overcome far more adversity in the lab and in the politics doing science than you ever will by falling in a mud puddle "ass over teakettle" at a art show featuring nude paintings.

Crackpot Science or Breaking Science? "It may not be Raining. They may be Spitting on Us." -- attributed to Warhol

Scientists can be eccentric, though, as can artists. When scientists mutter poetry or mismatch socks their it adds to their mystique. But than there are the cranks. So who's who? Eccentric? Or crank? Einstein was famously "eccentric". Margulis herself observes how "'it's easy to be dismissed as a "crank" or "on the fringe"'. Unlike the artist new to the science party, Margulis's past publications give her the leeway to tell us that what looks like "crank" is really a new breaking science theory. The ghost of Thomas Kuhn lingers in the background, throwing an inkling of doubt on all our rock solid reality-based paradigms. This technique of reminding people how often paradigms are shattered to reveal new truths seems especially effective used on non-scientists by someone with some status.

So if one is a lay-person, how do you tell science from pseudo-science? It's tricky. Obviously, if the person doesn't have an established biography in science, it's easy to doubt their credibility. But what about scientists? PZ might say the Margulis exchange was an open forum, and indeed some people asked pointed questions. But did the warm reception send a mixed message to those who don't know or who swoon before fame rather than examining each new science proposal with equal amounts of analysis or skepticism?

It used to be that scientists didn't so often enter the public forum. They obviously didn't blog. In 2000, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote in "Geniuses, Crackpots and a Grand Unified Theory" forwarding a false perception of scientists, but one that holds an iota of truth. He said that interactions between scientists and the public occur when the public tries to appropriate scientists' ideas, or when they try to engage scientists in their own crazy theories.

The awkward exchanges depicted in the NYT article range from dealing with "cosmic theorizers", to engagements with "superannuated, formerly fine scientists who late in their careers get bored doing bread-and-butter stuff". Then there were the cranks and crackpots, that scientists would treat with kid gloves:

"Once, as [Moyer] was discussing crackpot theorizing with a fellow physicist in his office, his colleague took out a file marked "public relations" that was filled with letters on off-the-wall theories. When Dr. Moyer asked why in the world the folder was so labeled, his colleague explained that the writers sometimes turned up in his office, "and they get really upset if you take out a folder marked 'crackpots.' "

Margulis herself contends that new-age Gaia people usually misinterpret the science behind her's and Lovelock's ideas. She uses her history of legitimate science to continue to push fringe ideas. This makes it near impossible for the layperson to doubt her. But do know, dear layperson, that the HIV viruses, not say, intergalactic forces, cause AIDS.

Artists and Bloggers, "...Measure [Criticism] in Inches." -- Warhol

Crackpot crank or breaking science? This gives science bloggers unique challenges. Scientist bloggers need to work, often in science, publishing, maintaining labs, and teaching. The current political climate, in which fear dominates politics, drives people to faith and speculative pie in the sky theories. But at the same time the fame culture drives bloggers to be somewhat "controversial" just to get an audience. Many science bloggers want to expose readers to solid science and give them some sort of arsenal to distinguish good from bad. Yet paradoxically, to attract an audience, blogs need to entertain. So Myers devotes himself to anti-religion, anti-alternative medicine, and anti-fringe science screeds, but welcomes someone who denies HIV causes AIDS? How is the public to make sense of this?

Conflict is entertaining, as those who seek fame know. Margulis has mastered this. Pivar has cultivated a combative image in the art world but fell flat on his face in science. And certainly PZ has gathered admirers of his skilled rhetorical obliteration of science "foes". So for Myers' own fame, it makes sense to engage cordially with Dr. Lynn Margulis, a famous scientist. He allows questions under a "no trolls" policy. But was a troll someone who challenged her theories? Myers interestingly and controversially doesn't challenge her anti-science ideas, although his entire blog is devoted to attacking religion, alternative medicine, and "anti-science" ideas.

And of course Pharyngula agrees to review the self-published book of Stuart Pivar, a famous art collector, and does so in a frank and comedic way. Pharyngula is popular, Margulis gets more than her 15 minutes, and -- Pivar? -- sorry.

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

¹ Margulis, Lynn and Hinkle, Gregory, "The Biota and Gaia: 150 Years of Support for Environmental Sciences," in Schneider, Stephen Henry and Boston, Penelope J. (eds.), Scientists on Gaia (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991): 11-18.

Just when you thought the profile of the lowly rock pigeon couldn't sink any further. "Experts say" that pigeon guano may have contributed to the Minnesota bridge failure. Apparently the acidic guano corroded and weakened the metal.

With this sort of evidence, can we really continue to lash out at legislators, the governor, tax laws, the war in Iraq, federal deficits, the inspectors, Republicans, distorted taxpayer priorities --or if you happen to be a Rush Limbaugh fan -- labor unions? Sure investigators are still "investigating", but maybe they should just stop that, given this finding.

The abundant city pigeon, known as the rock pigeon or Columba livia, is one of the least favored species. Indeed, humans refer to them derogatorily as "rats with wings". Therefore the promotion of pigeon to scapegoat is brilliant, so much more community oriented than finding lapses in official judgment and blaming politicians.

An exceptional choice to take the fall, this will be like water rolling off a duck's back to the pigeon. They'll just continue on with that jerky red-eyed strut for as long as they live, heads jutting left and right, back and forth, parading across dirty city sidewalks, cooing in the gutters.

The alternative culprit to the bridge disaster is politicians, who may also be oily, but they're human and weak. We shouldn't blame them because they're more susceptible than pigeons to family stressing repercussions of disaster. When civilians who have been bopped over the head with perceived negligence one too many times start to stir, watch politicians leave in droves, tails tucked between their legs. Back to their "families". Not a problem with pigeons (squab, if you prefer). Most people can't even figure out whether they actually have babies or not.

The solution is simple and scientific. Aa wildlife biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to oust the pigeons and suggests preventative actions: "netting to block holes and surfaces, spikes to keep them from landing, and sometimes poisoning, shooting or trapping the birds".

This is what's apparently called a "multi-pronged strategy" to deal with pigeons and their guano, and it's a sublime blend of sport, family fun, and civic duty. Carefully executed, it should be warmly received with rare unilateral support from the state and federal governments, taxpayers, and officials of every stripe. Environmentalists might even be on board. The squinty, awkward pigeon is certainly no round-eyed, fluffy, cute little spotted owl.

Not only could the plan save other bridges imperiled by pigeon guano, it could redeem whole cities. Scientists should think along these lines more often. It's one of those extraordinarily rare "expert" findings that's actually useful to society. Perhaps the levees in New Orleans were weakened by Pelican guano? Oh no wait, that's the state bird...

Science is Not Science

"Now science is science, and we cannot blame the researchers for the way their data crunched."

Perhaps Gail Collins meant the sentence as just a rhetorical flourish in "Fat Comes in on Little Cat Feet", an amusing commentary in the NYT about the widely publicized obesity study that was also the subject of our own airy post last week, "Fat Cooties". It was may no more than a blithe segue within lighthearted commentary about a light-weight study. Aptly amused, we should maybe just move on to the next thing. But wait. Outside of the context of this editorial and study, too many people understand science exactly this way. They would take the author's statement as an acc description of science and scientists.

The title of the NYT article refers to the other study that the media focused on last week, something about a cat and people dying. The title was also apropos of Carl Sandburg's poem "Fog": "The fog creeps in on little cat feet..." Furthermore, the media creates a fog around science so that the reader can't discern why science is important or what research is relevant. Faith in this idea that "science is science", erodes understanding of science, because no, science is not science.

Obviously, few would disagree that the subject of electrical engineering is different than the subject of mechanical engineering - both EE's and ME's would readily point this out, and that the subject of physics is different than biology, and that biochemistry is different than embryology. The scientific method is intact across the fields, but the tools employed by the scientists are certainly different in different areas, as are premises, standards, assumptions and politics of the education, practice and expertise required for each discipline.

In addition to subject to subject differences, and unique methods, techniques and equipment, research differs between scientists of the same discipline. It differs experiment to experiment for the same researcher. Given consistent results, some research advances are obviously momentous, while the importance of others is not so obvious. Those working in the exact field may understand the significance of a particular experiment that other scientists, not to mention journalists and non-scientists, don't.

Vapid Vamping Vacant Science Journalism

The work of assessing research is difficult to accomplish on the time limits journalists work under. Therefore journalists often focus attention on research they glean through press releases, research that doesn't necessarily merit attention but serves as publicity for a certain institution or researcher.

Real science research competes badly with banal reports of young actresses for instance, helpless malnourished lush waifs wafting about on clouds of narcotic narcissism, money like confetti fluttering about their skinny legs and vamping, vacant, well-mascaraed eyes. Those wobbly, often misbehaving dolls perhaps aren't really humans at all but apparitions, media concoctions confected to reflect back our own collective wisdom and will -- which drifts constantly downhill.

The media needs eyes on all stories for advertising dollars, so scientists and journalists obligingly drum up science that competes with this vapidness. But science that is published because it soothes the eyes and slips down gullets easily but requires nothing of society except lurid, fleeting fascination may not really be 'science that is science' at all.

Data Does Not Crunch

Scientists, however, are probably not yet the passive actors that the quote from "Fat Comes in on Little Cat Feet" represents. They are protagonists who determine "how their data crunched".

The data does not crunch. The scientists crunch the data, after they develop a hypothesis, conceive the study, request the funding, collect the data sets, devise the statistical methods, and interpret the results. They then choose to write up the study and argue the significance of their conclusions in the paper's discussion, as well as (as is the trend), for the public affairs cameras. Therefore when the NYT author says, hopefully jokingly, "Stop sending these guys angry e-mails, people", because it's not their fault", understand that the research really is their "fault", or at least their product.

:.Stupid Science --->Stupid People

There are those that argue that science needs to be simplified for the public. They point disparagingly to stories about movie stars and bemoan the fact that Lindsay Lohan holds more sway in the news than science. Carefully crafted rhetoric and simplified science stories by scientists, they say, would sway people. I don't agree. I believe it's arrogant to judge people's disinterest as stupidity, and to suggest that scientists should be deciding policy and weaving it into their accounts of research.

Science as it is presented in the mainstream media (so many journals are subscriptions inaccessible to the general public) is simplified quite enough, thank you very much. If you were to get all your science news from the mainstream press you might think that the only definitive science research was on the subjects of chocolate, red wine, and obesity. A democracy works because people inform themselves of the issues. The public often seems to be in a fog about science, which may be for many reasons. One reason is that a lot science that we should be exposed to is passed over, while vapid reports posing as science are presented as news.

Sciences International Inc.: Health and the Environment

It reads like the classic story of the fox guarding the hen house. Sciences International Inc., (SII), a small company with clients like the American Chemistry Council, Dupont, WR Grace, and Exxon Mobil, also ran the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), a project in the NIH's toxicology program (NTP) charged with deciding which environmental toxins pose health risks to reproduction and the development of unborn children.

Science International wrote a report last year on bisphenol A's (BPA) safety, which came to the attention of the public and congress when the Environmental Working Group (EWG) alleged that the conclusions were biased towards industry research studies in a Feb. 28th letter to the NIH hiring director.

Reproductive health and development, like children's health, is always a lightening rod for public attention, and increasingly, so is bisphenol A. Science International's review of the literature on bisphenol A caused enough concern among scientists, members of congress, and public health official that in the ensuing brouhaha, the NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) terminated Science International's $5.24 million contract running CERHR. After the termination, Herman Gibb, the president of the approximately ten person company insisted to the Washington Post, "I don't ever believe in my heart of hearts there was a conflict of interest".

When the story made headlines last month it seemed to confirm our worst fears. NIEHS accepted a contract apparently written by Science's International to run CERHR. SII failed to list its conflicts of interest, an arrangement that seemed ripe for abuse. Acronym Required looked into the details of the story and they do little to allay those concerns. SII worked for the FDA, the NIH, and CERHR. SII also worked for chemical companies. Could SII have systematically watered down environmental safeguard regulations over the past decade to suit it's corporate clients? The Science International incident reveals the potential pitfalls of blending government and industry work, both for companies like SII and for public health and welfare.

Science International's Bisphenol A Study

Bisphenol A binds to estrogen receptors and can cause deleterious health effects such as decreased sperm count, enlarged prostate, cancers, diabetes, early puberty, and immunological and developmental effects. It can cause problems at very small doses, and it's ubiquitous, found in everything from dental resins to household products like canned food, plastic food containers, and baby bottles. Today 95% of the population carries detectable levels of the chemical in their blood and hundreds of scientific research reports indicate BPA's toxicity to humans.

According to scientists who study bisphenol A, Science International's first draft report on the health effects of BPA was biased. The report concluded the opposite of what hundreds of government funded BPA studies conclude. A survey of the research on bisphenol A effects shows that 92% over 100 (109/119) government studies on BPA found adverse health effects, whereas all 11 industry funded studies found that BPA caused no adverse health effects. Scientists critical of the Science's International report said that the review panel favored industry results while ignoring unreliable industry results base on unscientific methodologies like lab protocols that used no controls.The EWG also questioned whether SI's principal scientist could neutrally evaluate the dangers of bisphenol A (BPA) since he had worked with Dow Chemical and the European Chemical Industry Council -- entities with business interests in BPA.

Sciences International wrote the meta-study of the research studies, then chose the panel who reviewed their work. While SII said that the final conclusions as to the hazards of bisphenol A during reproduction and development were the panel's, when Acronym Required looked at the panel's edits of Science International's first draft they were stylistic, not scientific.

A New GovBiz Model?

Can a company consult to the chemistry industry and also evaluate the safety of that industry's products -- without bias? Can we trust government, industry partnerships to evaluate science when their contractual agreements cede the very principles we use to ensure integrity in research and in business, like peer review, conflict of interest statements, and competitive bidding processes? An older CERHR website described the partnership between SI and the CERHR:

"Under the direction of Michael Shelby, Ph.D., Director, CERHR at NIEHS, scientific and support staff at NIEHS and Sciences International, Inc. operate the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR). The Principal Investigator, Anthony Scialli, M.D., leads the scientific and support staff at Sciences International, Inc."

In addition to the BPA report, SII also produced reports profiling the safety of many other chemicals during their contract with CERHR. Sciences International consulted for 10 years with the FDA and the EPA, and worked with corporate clients like GE, Union Carbide, Hoechst Celanese, Otsuka Chemical, Cytek Industries, a plethora of law firms, and industry groups such as the American Chemical Council, Synthetic Organic Chemical, the Acrylonitrile Group, and the American Petroleum Institute. The EWG wrote in one letter to the director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), about the "ethical concerns surrounding this contractor that involve apparent financial ties with the chemical industry..." Indeed, when we perused SI's older websites, they emphasized their prowess at influencing regulatory outcomes:

"Nowhere is Sciences' exposure assessment experience more evident than in EPA's new Clean Air Act residual risk program...[]...EPA generally applied, for the first time, this guidance in a recent residual risk case study of the secondary lead smelting industry. That guidance, or some variation of it, will be used to address residual risks for all remaining industrial categories with MACT standards. Working for a coalition of seven major trade associations (Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Iron and Steel Institute, National Mining Association, American Forest and Paper Association, and Association of International Automobile Manufacturers), Sciences prepared detailed comments on the case study approach and results, and presented a report on March 1, 2000, to EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The ensuing SAB draft meeting report clearly showed that Sciences' comments played a major role in their analysis, which included a recommendation to revise the case study and return it to the SAB for a second review.

Sciences also developed a vastly improved exposure and risk assessment method for evaluating coke oven residual risks and recently gathered residual risk data on the gasoline distribution industry for the American Petroleum Institute. Sciences' staff includes an ex-EPA manager who led for six years the hazardous air pollutant regulatory efforts for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). In that position, he managed the initial development of the Human Exposure Model and was a member of the group that wrote the Agency's initial exposure and risk assessment guidelines. Earlier, he conceived of and managed the original 4-year study of the organic chemical manufacturing industry that ultimately formed the basis of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), he also..."

Naive marketing hype, or conflict of interest? If boasting to chemical companies about your company's power to have its way with government is inherently wrong, then for years Sciences International promiscuously flouted the rule in marketing material on their public website. Clearly, SII had strong ties to the chemical industry. But was it some especially insidious arrangement, a punishable offense? Or is this just how the U.S. government works?

Many companies who contract with the government also work for business clients who gain honest efficiencies and insights from consultants' familiarity with government rules and ruminations. In general, we wouldn't be shocked to find private contractors running public agencies, because privatization is a goal of recent governments -- both Democrat and Republican.

The increasingly fuzzy demarcations between private and public entities constitute contracts in Iraq, New Orleans, U.S. National Parks and atmospheric weather monitoring operations. Overall, companies who mix business relationships with government work fare well these days. The Homeland Security Index, for instance, which includes SII's parent company Tetra Tech, rose 5.3% last quarter, whereas the S&P 500 posted -.86%, the DJIA; -1.70%, and Nasdaq; -1.57%. Are these corporate/public relationships the new normal, or something else, given that SII was summarily fired?

The Etiquette of Serving Two Masters

In one of two good pieces Nature wrote on the subject a couple of weeks ago, ("Regulators pull contract for chemical review" 446;958-959, Apr. 26), the author noted, "there's a legal grey area" that contractors navigate in dealing with clients. Nature makes a point. If you find SII's client mix disturbing, then the client list of most law firms or consulting companies might also disturb you. How are consulting companies supposed to separate the clients? Nature quoted one toxicologist who pointed out that the rules are unclear, even for companies like Sciences International, he said, who (as Nature summarized) "try to segregate industrial and government work to limit conflicts".

Contrary to what the consultant assumed, however, and perhaps leading to to its undoing, Science's International did not convincingly "segregate" it's constituencies. Here are some excerpts from their 2005 site.

"...EPA estimated very high cancer risks in one assessment of a regulated industry. Sciences developed a much more accurate exposure model and also reassessed the cancer unit risk estimate using much more recent worker epidemiology data and biologically-based modeling approaches, originally developed by Sciences' experts. Sciences' revised study showed that actual risk estimates were two to three orders of magnitude lower than EPA's earlier conservative estimates...."

"Sciences has unique experience in assessing health risks due to inhaled air toxicants. Sciences' experts were selected by the EPA, as sole source contractors, to work on the underlying methodology by which the EPA develops its safe levels of exposure to chemicals by the inhalation route..."

"...Through a contract with the EPA, Sciences carried out the quality assurance and validation of BMDS, making several critical recommendations that influenced its development. ...[]...Sciences is also currently involved in a similar effort for EPA's recently developed Categorical Regression (CatReg) software...[]...A 5-person Sciences International team is writing the EPA Benchmark Dose Guidelines. With all these considerations in mind, we are in an excellent position to apply the BMDS and CatReg methods to particular substances that would benefit from these approaches."

"[Sciences International scientists]...have applied a biologically-based model approach to coke oven emissions for the industry and derived an alternative cancer potency factor which has been accepted by the EPA. We believe that our ability to utilize accurate dosimetry and pharmacodynamic models in tandem in risk assessments provides unique opportunities to the chemical industry."

SII's statements seem clearly intended to sway a corporate audience. SII clearly tries to establish itself as an ally to the chemical industry, "working on underlying methodogies", a company who changed EPA estimates "two to three orders of magnitude lower", who made "critical recommendations" that "influenced" standards, and created "unique opportunities [for] the chemical industry". Under their "sole contractor" status, SI and its government clients had perhaps short-circuited the bidding process. EWG highlighted portions of a 1999 a letter from SI to RJ Reynolds, where the company wrote:

"Our experience in supporting these government agencies in the advancement of science gives Science a unique credibility to negotiate with regulators of behalf of our private sector clients, to speak authoritatively in the scientific community, and to be accepted in legal proceedings and by the public."

According to Sciences International's own self-promotion, it had broad influence in many agencies, which benefited chemical companies. But without knowledge about the specific science behind SI's marketing, it's difficult to discern what changes they made. It would require a research team to analyze whether those changes were indeed detrimental to health -- whether they are a sleight on behalf of industry, or whether SI simply refined the EPA's less accurate or outdated measurement techniques. Maybe the government standards for indoor and outdoor air, water, etc., did benefit from adjustments based on SI's expertise.

Toxic Puffery

Many big companies in Science International's position keep a more sanctified public front, a website splashed with value concoctions of their love for children, concern for animals and stewardship of the great outdoors. Naively or greedily, Sciences International tossed discretion to the wind and instead promoted their business, aggressively emphasizing the their influential role in government and their willingness to leverage that value proposition for corporate clients.

SII redesigned their website a couple of years ago, and seemingly came to its corporate senses, including a more publicly agreeable photo collage of children and trees, and a client list scrubbed of corporate entities. The new site brags less about the company's experience drafting "more accurate" measurements of exposure assessment and dose-response for the EPA. But sometimes information on the internet doesn't die as cleanly as people might wish. Occasionally ghosts of past lurk about to startle the unsuspecting with a bump in the night, a startling reminder of pasts long since banquished. SII's old website revealed SII's habit of not separating clients. The entire business model, in fact, leveraged conflicts of interest.

"...Sciences' methods development work is often sponsored by public agencies, such as the U.S. EPA, while applications work is most often for the private sector where agents of particular concern need to be addressed. Sciences' knowledge of the acceptable regulatory methods and practices can facilitate ultimate acceptance of these analyses for the private sector."

Dr. Gibb insisted that in cases where SI's government work with one chemical coincided with corporate work, consultants on one contract had no knowledge of what their cohorts were doing on another. How shall we interpret that? On one hand, consulting can be like that. On the other, this was a ten person company. The president doesn't know what people are working on? He complained to the journal Nature that the NIEHS action was unfair "with a capital U". Perhaps so, but then it would probably be fair to say that for whatever their intents and purposes, SI's record just happened to look fishy with a capital F.

Despite the challenge of sorting out what the company was really up to, SII's work is fraught with appearances of conflict of interest. As EWG pointed out, the NIH was remiss not to look at Sciences International's website years earlier. Even a half-hearted glance would have hinted at a slew of conflicts.

According to the Los Angeles Times, in response to NIH inquiries about their duel roles, Sciences International acknowledged that they had prepared Federal health reviews for styrene, ethylene glycol, and soy formula, while working for a styrene trade group, the American Chemistry Council, and the United Soybean Board. However, the president, Herman Gibb, told the Washington Post that he had only learned "last month", because of the NIH's information request request, that the company had worked for the chemical trade companies while simultaneously working to ascertain safe levels for those chemicals.

(Read the continuation of this story, starting with "Vanity Press and Educating the Layperson", in the next post)

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

Acronym Required previously wrote about bisphenol A in the following articles:

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

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

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

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

Iraq: Media Spin

The Bill Moyers Journal premiered on PBS on Wednesday April 25, 2006, with the show "Buying the War", also available online in its entirety. Moyer's makes his thesis clear in one of the first shots. As Bush enters the briefing room for a press conference the White House press corps is standing. The press corps then sits down and as they're filmed from one side it looks like their taking one long, collective, sweeping bow. "Buying the War" then shows parts of scripted press conference, where everyone knows who will be called on, what they'll ask, and what Bush's answer will be, but they all play along with the charade.

Documentaries and books have already thoroughly analyzed the Bush Administration's sale of the Iraq war to U.S. citizens. "Buying the War" focused on the media's sometimes eager complicity in this goal. For many reasons, reporters from outlets like the New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, as well as major TV networks, supported the Bush Administration's march to war.

A Frontline show earlier this the year also focused on the role of the media in a four part series. That show portrayed a media diminished from its post-Watergate heyday to its present *beleaguered* state. The Moyer's show, in my opinion, provided a slightly more optimistic view (with a less ominous soundtrack). Moyer's focus was the ennoble, under appreciated role of reporting accurate news during the tense pre-Iraq atmosphere. At the time, there was intense pressure to dutifully report the Bush administrations' claims, and beneath the sheen of patriotism in the ranks of media, sycophancy and spin ruled the day. "Buying the War" featured a few reporters in the lead-up to the Iraq war who tenaciously (and correctly) reported evidence that contradicted the Bush administration's themes for invading attack.

Needless to say, the reporters who didn't find Bush's evidence compelling weren't the loud majority. Among others, Moyers interviewed Charles Hanley, and Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel from Knight Ridder (now McClatchy). Before the invasion the two Knight Ridder reporters churned out dozens of skeptical reports, based on research and information from sources within and beyond the upper echelons of the administration.

As Landay relayed in "Buying the War", the defectors who were providing "evidence" against Saddam weren't making sense. They gave questionable and conflicting accounts. Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a Kurd, divulged Saddam's weapons caches to the CIA. Why would a sworn enemy of Hussein, a Kurd, Landay asked, "be allowed into to Sadam's top military facilities"? He continued;

"and....the idea that Saddam Hussein would put a biological weapons facility under his residence. I mean, would you put a biological weapons lab under your living room? I don't think so."

The reporters who got the facts relied on concerned Administration officials, unclassified documents, and scientists. Bob Simon of CBS News, talked to scientists who provided details about the aluminum tubes.

BILL MOYERS: "When you said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people-who were you talking to?"
BOB SIMON: "We were talking to people - to scientists - to scientists and to researchers and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start."
BILL MOYERS: "Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 minutes?"
BOB SIMON: "No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called."
BILL MOYERS: And you just picked up the phone?
BOB SIMON: Just picked up the phone.
BILL MOYERS: Talked to them?
BOB SIMON: Talked to them and then went down with the cameras.

As it turned out, Saddam Hussein didn't possess nuclear weapons or biological weapons, had not acquired uranium ore from Africa, and was not sponsoring Al-Qaida in Iraq.

Iraq and the Facts, Tardy but Hardy

Those who supported the administration's push for war, and who also appeared on Moyer's show (many didn't), admitted they were mistaken. Some were contrite and almost all were apologists. They said they were under the gun from their corporations, and that large media had its insatiable political "needs". The reporters and anchors said they feared for their careers. Their patriotism was heightened after 9-11 they said. Some squirmed visibly under Moyer's pointed questions and elder gaze -- or was it a glare? Others seemed to light up under the challenge...books to sell maybe.

Many of those reporters fervently sold Bush's appeals to halt Al-Qaida in Iraq are now at plum reporting positions where they continue to hold forth as experts in their fields, despite the inaccuracy of their predictions of democracy, easy victory and flower leis.

The McClatchy's reporters note in via Q&A sometime after the show that their employers supported them. Other reporters who publicly expressed doubt were relegated to the back pages, or taken off the air (Phil Donahue). What are reporters supposed to do it their employer edits their stories, forbids them to report ideas ideologically out of sync with business or the administration, or fires them? How would they explain that to their mortgage lender and children? The illiberal face of liberalism lurks about, and no doubt reporters face tough decisions.

Bill Moyers noted in a speech to the "National Conference on Media Reform", some time after he left NOW....

"One reason I’m in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn’t play by the conventional rules of beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news...

Faced with relentless spin, it's easy to see how counterspin might be the only answer. But in this example the facts prevailed because of the scientists, reporters, and administrative officials. The facts were resilient.

Bill Moyers new show is regularly scheduled Fridays on PBS.

The Wall Street Journal published a front page story today about Justen Deal, who last year confronted Kaiser Permanente management about a 4 billion dollar IT project he thought had gone awry, and a projected 7 billion dollar budget deficit at Kaiser. In "How an E-mail Jolted a Big HMO", (temporary link) the Wall Street Journal noted, "flicking away whistle-blowers isn't as easy as it once was".

Acronym Required wrote an account of the story, "Healthcare IT: The Perfect Storm", last November. Why this story bubbled up on the front page of WSJ now, (albeit in their middle, soft news, people focused column ), when there's not exactly a dearth of seemingly critical world news, we don't know. Local papers have pretty much spurned the story. The IT aspects have been mentioned sporadically in healthcare blogs, the IT media, and the LA Times. This is an interesting business case not only in terms of dealing with internal IT implementation strategy and PR, but also for corporate human resource teams, who in this case, perhaps anachronistically, underestimated his kamikaze-like persistence.

The Glamor, The Glory...Show-Biz for Scientists

Tuesday's Golden Globes award show was a far cry from the science lab, with all the glamor, the extensive grooming, and those flammable flowing getups. As the announcer opened an envelope, each newly anointed star's rendition of stunned joy seemed tearier and more heartfelt then the one before. And have you ever heard so many "thank-yous" in so few hours? Name after name blurted out in hyperventilated appreciation, fleetingly unsurpassed. Superlatives for hundreds of people in each production.

Acronym Required wrote a couple of months ago about Tony Blair's proposal that scientists should be treated more like movie stars. One thing is clear. If scientists aspire to the silver screen they should review their notions of credit giving.

You may scoff about the idea of scientists in show business. True, the closest thing to science at the Golden Globes this year was Sacha Baron Cohen's anatomically explicit tale of his suffering during the filming of Borat. And the most ambitious attempt to conflate science happened in our own little group of fans, when one person thought Bill Nighy, was actually Bill Nye the Science Guy. Not quite. But while comingling scientists and the cinematic arts may seem incongruous to you, some groups, like the U.S. military, think that engaging scientists in movies is just the ticket.

"America, it turns out, is suffering from a science and engineering shortage", explained the Christian Science Monitor, a couple of weeks ago. To change this situation, the Department of Defense is sponsoring a three day movie scripting course called the Catalyst Workshop, at the American Film Institute (AFI). The Monitor says that ideal science movies portray "authentic and appealing science protagonists". The goal is to "engage society (especially young people) in the activity of science", according to AFI's website.

Myth Bases

If using scientists to write movie scripts still sounds over the top to you, then Catalyst Workshop explains why it makes sense, starting with helpful pointers about the similarities between movie script writers and scientists:

"Most scientists already possess some fundamental skills applicable to the film making process. Successful professionals in the scientific community often have excellent writing skills and they frequently juggle projects as writers do, working on several disparate projects simultaneously. And scientists, like writers, often must manage time well to accomplish complex,creative goals."

Of course "managing time well" is not unique to scientists and writers. The skill is necessary for many jobs, including seasonal Park Aide/Maintenance Workers in the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, positions in customer service at Burlington Coat Factory, as well as all other entry-level positions. The Indonesian government counsels that the time management skills are critical to being a soccer fan in that country.

For a more nuanced analysis of the aptitude of scientists for script writing, look no further than the New York Times, which published an article on the screen-writing workshop back in August 2005. Scientists, they said:

"... search[] for the unknown, they're compensated very minimally, they're going on blind faith that what they're searching for is going to pay off. And film making is exactly the same way." ("Pentagon's New Goal: Put Science Into Scripts", 08/04/05)

A grittier assessment perhaps. However, one 2004 Catalyst workshop participant interviewed by the NY Times was straightforward about her goals: "to sell a comedy built around a Bridget Jones-like biochemist who applies the scientific method to her hunt for a mate"..

Hmmm....that's confusing. Bridget Jones, if you recall, was the main character in Bridget Jones Diary, the one who spent her time --when she wasn't chasing the misogynistic cad played by Hugh Grant-- scribbling in her diary her daily weight and her cigarette and alcohol consumption (lab notes?). Bridget Jones appeared slightly more scientist-like when a friend asked about El Niño, which is the tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere changes, and warming fluctuations that cause global weather disturbances. Bridget replied blithely: "It's a blip. Latin music's on its way out."

Maybe I misunderstand the military's "authentic" vision for science protagonists and stories. But perhaps it's explained on Day One of the workshop in the "Myth base for storytelling" section.

Better Science Fiction

Participants in the Catalyst workshop are actually "hardcore, PhD-laden, lab-certified scientists", said the Monitor. Intrigued, we looked at the 2006 AFI workshop application that was on the website a few weeks ago, (now removed) to see how the AFI gauged hardcore-ness. The toughest question was a fill-in, asking for the scientist's "Science/Engineering Specialty_____________". Not very "hard-core" we think.

Indeed, none of the questions seem like they would derail either scientists or non-scientists. "What's the best science movie or TV show you have ever seen? What's the worst?" The AFI application offers no hint as to what qualifies as a "good" science film. In 2006, the application was a mere 92 words, dwarfed by a 560 word legal agreement. But, for me, the worst science film -- after which I avoided the genre like the plague -- was Outbreak. Stunningly bad. Dramatic images of slow motion spittle arching out of infected air travelers' mouths following cartoon-like, microbe laden sneezes.

Since this workshop is Pentagon sponsored, you have to suspect that these "best" and "worst" questions might be a weed-out tool. Catalyst Workshop participants surveyed for the 2005 New York Times article seemed unanimous in their opinion that The Day After Tomorrow was the worst science film they'd ever seen.

It's hard to deny how artistically horrible that movie was. But the premise? A scientist predicts global warming and everyone ignores him, a decision that precipitates disastrous results? Solid. But what if the Pentagon screened for opinions like that of one viewer, who wrote on a Yahoo movie comment board, that the only reason to see Day After...was if you liked to make fun of Dick Cheney and George Bush, since Hollywood had created an "unabashed head-butt to the Bush administration's environmental policy". My, my, my.

Can Geeks Write Better Scripts?

Might a few "Ph.D laden" scientists help engage viewers? It may not be such a crazy idea. Local news stations could recruit them to aid science reportage. This might improve segments like one I watch last week on my local news station. It was a piece on research published in Nature Biotechnology, about researchers who had found stem cells in amniotic fluid. The announcer relayed this exciting news to viewers in a monotone, while a montage of various laboratory activities played across the screen. First there was the Eppendorf tube on a shaker, then a hand pipetting fluid with a multichannel pipetter, then a tube being removed from a -86C freezer -- complete with dry ice wafting across the frame. Visually engaging props perhaps but completely unrelated to the story.

This would be comparable to doing a piece on baking rye bread, and while the announcer talked about preparing the sourdough starter, in the background showing various other household activities that the producer deemed more visually and audibly exciting. I can imagine the producer saying: "Watching rising dough is boring, can we get a little vacuuming footage? How about if we discharge the safety valve on that fire extinguisher and get some white powder filling a room? Can we flush a toilet, wwhishhh! then film the water swirling round and round"?

Would this nonsense be helped by an infusion of scientists in movie-making? Would this improve peoples' understanding of science issues? Or should we accept that 95% of the population won't know that toilet flushing has nothing to do with baking bread, and will also think that a multichannel pipetter is neat, and by extension so are stem cells? Is this bad for science? Is science fiction news bad for science? I

But, isn't the Pentagon's project ridiculous, you might ask? Only a week ago the New York Times reported on a funding crisis in science due to congressional budget delays. It would be "disastrous" for American science, as one official at the American Physical Society put it. How could movies help resolve systemic problems like this, and why would the military use taxpayers' money there instead of for more fundamental problems? We can't say.

But there you have it. Scientists are essentially cheap labor. Their time management skills might be useful, especially if they have on hand an appealing and "authentic" script already written, so that they can effectively utilize days two and three, of the Catalyst Workshop, "Story and Pitch", and "Pitch Meetings".

Is the future thin monkeys or chubby mice? Gerontology is having a productive week, as the results of two anti-aging studies promise greater longevity -- or do they? In one study, researchers fed Rhesus monkeys a reduced calorie (CR) diet to counter the effects of aging. In the other mice were given large doses of resveratrol, a compound found in grape skins and wine, which apparently countered the ill-effects of a high fat diet. Both the mice and the monkeys thrived on their respective regimens.

When researchers reduced Rhesus monkeys' daily caloric intake, allowing the monkeys far fewer food pellets than the animals might have liked, as the animals aged they suffered less arthritis, heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's diabetes, and Parkinson's than the cohort fed the regular diet. This result isn't surprising. There is well known longevity effect attached to under eating, and mice, rats, fruit flies, roundworms and other species have all taken a turn at proving this theory. But although "systematic under eating", "under nutrition without malnutrition", and "long-term under nutrition" have been around for almost a century, scientists forever hedge when it comes to recommending such a regimen for humans. In April, 1990 the New York Times wrote in "Diet Offers Tantalizing Clues to Long Life":

"initial observations that an extremely low-calorie diet extends life span in animals date back to the 1930's, but they were long shrugged off as mere laboratory curiosities."

In that 1990 article scientists had yet to study monkeys so they warned that people should be careful about under eating:

"..researchers warn against people undertaking an ascetic regimen too hastily. They stress that experimental animals are fed carefully measured and planned menus that are difficult to translate into human fare, and that it is easy to become malnourished."

Despite the warnings, the CR *movement* has gained a dedicated group of followers in the past decade, although certainly hordes of people aren't clambering aboard the semi-starvation bandwagon. New York Magazine offered a a glimpse of the lifestyle of the CR group this week in "The Fast Supper". Between the magazine's profile and the New York Times article, One for the Ages: A Prescription That May Extend Life", you can get a taste of the ascetic lifestyle choices of CR diet adherents.

Newspaper reports about the studies feature pictures of the lab animals in different states of aging, some graceful, posing for photographers next to plates of food and wine. The animals peer out from the pages of the newspaper, as if taunting the reader -- that supposedly brainy human species which spends millions of dollars seeking anti-aging remedies and pursuing immortality yet flirts with mortality incessantly by eating so much as to become quite fat, and ill and decrepit. Acknowledging the sometimes ironic senselessness of it all, nevertheless, one might endure such deprivation -- if it worked.

But even if you're convinced (or not) by CR advocates who say they enjoy their three leaf salads with a spot of dressing and a scallop and if you don't find the gaunt, bony aesthetic off-putting, doctors' conclusions about the diet might dissuade you from forgoing today's breakfast, lunch and dinner. Tuesday's article reports that "despite initially promising results, some scientists doubt that calorie restrictions can ever work effectively in humans." (emphasis ours). Of course that's the "initially" that means "after decades of conclusive research". The article cited "mathematical models", and also the not so empirical statements from scientists like Dr. Jay Phelan:

"calorie restriction is doomed to fail, and will make people miserable in the process...have you ever tried to go without food for a day"?

Never mind those humans who find this diet quite rewarding, or that decades of research shows that it (more by less) works. Red wine and resveratrol, by comparison, seem to have a more optimistic future -- at least according to the pundits. In 1990-1991 French researchers and scientists at Cornell found that resveratrol might lower cholesterol. People cheered the idea that red wine might actually be "healthy", although scientists coached "moderation". In the current study, mice who were fed large doses of resveratrol and a high fat diet somehow weren't afflicted with heart disease, diabetes, and liver damage. (Interestingly though, cholesterol levels remained high.)

The resveratrol researchers write that the effect of the chemical was similar to calorie reduction and in fact shared 19 pathways, including increased insulin sensitivity and increased hepatic mitochondrial number. They report that it reversed the effects of the unhealthy diet and put the mice who took ample doses of the compound on par with the regular diet control mice. The principle author, Dr. David Sinclair, of Harvard University and Sirtris Pharmaceuticals Inc.(a company with a stake in the research) says that although the mice are chubby, their organs looked younger than the control mice.

The journal Nature, which published the resveratrol paper, was cautious about the results and about extending these results to humans. The mechanism of resveratrol's action aren't precisely known (or published), its safety is untested, and the study used a relatively small sample size of mice. Scientists didn't test whether the chemical could reverse previous liver damage since the mice always took the the chemical. The paper's author thinks that resveratrol may act on SIRT1, as it does in vitro, but that's still speculative. Despite the caution, Nature briefly dares to indulge in cavalier bursts of enthusiasm such as, "of course, the mechanism isn't so important if the drug works." The New York Times notes optimistically:

"very large daily doses of resveratrol could offset the unhealthy, high-calorie diet thought to underlie the rising toll of obesity in the United States and elsewhere, if people respond to the drug as mice do".

Both the mice and the monkeys lived longer lives, but if humans get to pick their poison, we could bet which path will appeal to the most people. It's clearly cheaper to just forgo eating (the CR method). But if people could live a gourmand's life and supplement their gluttony with pills that counteracted the results of overindulgence, we think they might prefer that route. If they could preserve normal physiological functions but not sacrifice that burger, those fries, that croissant, then the popularity of Sirtris Pharmaceutical pill would prevail. Unfortunately, one can't get the same effect from wine -- it would take excessive amounts to get the dose of resveratrol that the mice were given, but you can ignore that you now know that, and just drink wine "because of the resveratrol".

There's a lot of buzz around a recent web publication by professors of business, policy, and economics at Cornell University and Purdue University, who theorize that allowing children aged 0-3 to watch television causes autism. The authors measured TV exposure times to annual precipitation to come up with their theories, which they outline in 67 pages of analysis and findings, in order to conclude:

"Hence, our results suggest that early childhood television watching, or whatever is the trigger driving our finding of a positive correlation between autism rates and precipitation and autism rates and cable, is an important factor in autism diagnoses both from statistical and absolute standpoints." [emphasis ours]

Sixty-seven pages for the "whatever is the trigger" theory? Scientists may question the ambiguous conclusion, but should they actually take heed? Maybe the researchers are right. Maybe more science research should be done by economists, policy and business professors. Researchers struggle to understand the causes of autism. They undertake extensive studies to elucidate reasons behind the increasing rates of diagnosis. Their studies focus, one by one, on the dizzying number of potential genetic and environmental triggers for autism.

The authors show how to cut this tedium by parsing the plethora of possibilities and inputs with their special brand of academic/business/economic/management Jujitsu. They derive a simple conclusion: TV viewing causes autism. For whatever reason, this theory eluded scientists, public health experts and physicians for decades. Worse still, according to these brazen science barons, even "the possibility" was "ignored" by researchers.

The methods may seem unconventional by science standards, but by simply ignoring the time intensive processes scientists habitually undertake, these authors stride forward with unprecedented speed to reach conclusions and propose both future research and policy. We sifted through their study aiming to convince ourselves of their theory. Could we resolve autism by reducing TV time? How simple, how easy -- what a perfect solution. Why didn't these new kids on the block show up earlier to let the air out of the tires of the tall truck stuck under the short bridge?

Of course, we don't for a moment pretend to understand all their research, we've only dabbled in any of these subjects - autism, economics, business or policy (we didn't even have TV growing up). But here we'll take the authors' cues and audaciously deconstruct their methodology. Step by step, we'll show how we think they did it and how you too, can arrive at such compelling conclusions. When we don't understand their methods or magic we'll wave our hands, skip over the details, bluff, and make a joke of it all.

1) First, disarm your readers by acknowledging that there are many possible causes for autism. Continue to do this throughout the study, but shed doubt on these possibilities to bolster support for your own theory. Choose one simple theory, take possession of it, make it your theory, then without hesitation, *prove it*. The authors declare that TV is the environmental trigger for autism. Sure, autism could be genetically linked or triggered by toxins or air pollution. There are hundreds of possibilities. But trivialize these briefly and dismissively en route to proving your own theory.

2) Slight other theories about autism by pointing out flaws in decades worth of scientific research and citing only a handful of studies. Say that genetics is "discredited". Say the air pollution links are "intriguing" but perhaps "families who are more prone to have autistic children for other reasons, tend to locate in areas characterized by higher pollution levels." A well known theory suggests that there is a perception of higher rates of autism today because more sensitive diagnosis methods exist now than in the past. Seed doubts about this by saying that researchers have "mixed conclusions".

3) Having quickly acknowledged then dispelled previous scientific research, move on to explain the rational behind your theory, calling your impressions simply, "Four reasons to suspect TV"

• First: California Data: ("Historical data are not very good".) The US Department of Education only changed requirements that effected autism reporting in the 1990's, making rises in the incidence of the condition difficult to discern. However California passed laws in 1969 requiring the establishment of service centers to provide services for developmentally disabled children. Rates of autism at these centers increased during this time. So did TV watching. Aha.

  But this could be explained by increased numbers of diagnoses of autism, which caused more parents to visit service centers. Or the fact that there actually were service centers could have, on its own, led to the increase. Increases in toxins or pollution would cause increase visits. Fortunately, you already disbanded with these possibilities, no need to revisit them. Autism rates have increased in the past decades, most people agree, and now you've linked this to television viewing. It never hurts to reinforce your point, so cite some redundant data regardless of its relevance, like the increased sales of VCRs, cable deregulation, the rise of Nickleodeon and Disney, and increases in the number of television sets households.

• Second: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). You found one paper that showed a correlation between ADHD and television viewing. Note that there were no controls and no proven cause and effect in this paper, but say that the results "are suggestive", "of interest", and "certainly suggestive". [We'd suggest that since ADHD begins with "A" and autism begins with "a" too, TV could cause both.]
• Third: High risk kids "engage" with TV: Cite a study showing that children were more likely to become autistic if they were at "high risk" for autism, defined as those who had a sibling with autism. You previously discounted the genetic link, but whatever. These children were found to "disengage" more slowly from TV than their "low-risk" peers therefore you theorize that they get more TV exposure and more autism.
• Fourth: The Amish. There are low rates of autism in the Amish, according to a reporter. Acknowledge that this is sort of speculative, but say that "even with all these caveats", the reporter's "findings provide intriguing evidence". Use this type of word liberally throughout your paper: "evidence" (30 times), "data" (85 times), and "results" (64 times).

4) Having explained the reasons you suspect the link, explain your methodology. You chose three states, California, Washington, and Oregon, because of their "high precipitation variability". This allows comparisons between areas of low precipitation and high precipitation with corresponding autism rates. Explain the onerous county and state data collection process that no doubt stymied other researchers. For instance of the three states, Washington was "unwilling to provide autism data". "Oregon only reported the county autism count when it was greater than or equal to ten". Since the data are so inconsistent between states, counties, cohorts, explain how you resolved this. For example:

"For Oregon we use age-specific counts by county in 2005 and then construct autism rates by dividing by the corresponding county-level age-specific population taken from the 2000 census. For the case of California we focus on cohorts born between 1982 and 1997 (vs cohorts born between 1987 and 1999 for Oregon) and use the county autism count in the year a birth cohort was eight yrs old...dividing by that year's corresponding county-level age-specific population....For example, for children born in LA county in 1990 we use LA county's autism count of eight year olds in 1998...."

Continue like this, variable by variable, Black and Hispanic coefficients, income coefficients, education coefficients, sex of interviewee coefficients, household type, child gender, etc., paragraph after paragraph, page after page. This helps shed light on the morass of inputs and the challenges that have made conclusive answers so difficult, but also potentially increases the *wow* factor of your paper. Say that you've considered all of this and controlled for every nuance.

5.) Since the reader may not be following you at this point, model the data, as any economist would, into four formulas included below.

• For example, this formula represents the television viewing of a child measured in precipitation at the respondent's location on the day of the survey, and other variables:

  "TVi= β₁+β₂PRCP_i + β₃PRCP_i²+ β₄X_i+ <βZ_i+&epsilon_i"

• Most of this is fairly intuitive.

  "AUT_k=&beta₁+&beta₂PRCP+&epsilon_k", and

  "AUT_k=β₁+β₂PRCP_k+β₃logPOP_k+ β₄INC_k + β₅REG_k+ β₆HISP_k+β₇BLK_k+ β₈IND_k+&epsilon_k"

  Here in the second and third formulas "AUTk denotes the 2005 autism rate among school-aged children in county k. PRCPk is the average precipitation level in county k between 1987 and 2001, logPOPk is the logarithm of count k's total population in 2000, INCk is county k's per capita GNP in 1999, HIS and BLK and IND represent Hispanic and Black and Indigenous children...."

• Finally, this fourth formula represents pooled data between states for another look at the relationships:

  "AUT_k,b=β₁+β₂PRCP_k,b+β₃TIME_b+ β₄logPOP_k + β₅INC_k+ β₆REG_k+β₇HISP_k,b+ β₈BLK_k,b+ β₉IND_k,b+&epsilon_k,b"

6.) Now that you've modeled all of this like Play-Doh, you can restate your conclusion, which unsurprisingly, was your theory:

"There is a positive relationship between autism and precipitation in Oregon and Washington, but no [sic] in California...We present the precipitation and autism maps for each state[..] It is clear from the maps that there is a very strong correlation in each state between precipitation and autism."

Each state except California. Ouch. Tackle the conundrum that California doesn't fit the theory. The map shows that where it doesn't rain there are still high rates of autism--well it's more complicated -- higher than the median for the state. Suggest that there could be other factors, such as an "urban density", concurring with high autism rates which might make precipitation levels irrelevant. [This theory would also fit the OR and WA data]. Manipulate the data to erase this aberrant possibility by using the "fixed-effects specification". Just observe that autism rates vary as precipitation deviates from the "average". Does this prove that there aren't other inputs? Say it does. Now you've accounted for that whole "urban density" issue as well as other possible perturbations. The "omitted variables problem" is eliminated, phew, therefore California fits your theory.

7.) Suggest that one potential problem with this data is that indoor activities in general, not just TV watching, may account for higher rates of autism in places with greater precipitation. If this were the case, any indoor toxin may result in higher autism rates since TV time is coincidental to indoor time. Explain that you've resolved this by comparing Pennsylvania and California cable subscription rates with autism rates. Let the reader wonder why you chose these two states. Ignore precipitation for this analysis. Does it matter, for instance, that that most of Pennsylvania has higher rates of precipitation than California?

Model your findings for this: "AUT_k,b=&beta₁+&beta₂CAB_k,b+&beta₃TIME_k+&beta₄POP_k+&beta₂INC_k+&beta₆REG_k+&beta₇HISP_k+&beta₈BLK_k+&beta₉IND_k+ε_k"

Say that increased cable subscriptions correlate with increased rates autism. Does this prove that indoor toxins are irrelevant? Or has increased technology coincidentally increased with autism? Never mind. Say indoor toxins are irrelevant.

8.) Pull together your conclusions and state your theory again: Television watching causes autism "or whatever is the trigger driving our finding of a positive correlation between autism rates and precipitation and autism rates and cable". Humbly consider the flaws in your research, ie:

"because we do not provide a direct test of the effects of television watching on autism, we do not consider our results to be definitive evidence in favor of the television viewing as trigger hypothesis."[emphasis ours]

9.) Now that you've duly noted potential flaws, you can once again forge ahead to state with confidence that autism is caused by cable viewing. Declare that cable TV viewing causes "seventeen percent of growth in autism". Assert that TV watching due to precipitation causes "just under forty percent..of diagnoses".

Then tell everyone else how to proceed. Describe some experiments that scientists can do. Make policy recommendations for the American Academy of Pediatricians (who already recommend that kids under 2 don't watch TV).

10.) Publish this paper on the internet ahead of extensive peer review. Disperse the information widely in the popular press. People will be intrigued, interested, scared, nervous, possibly guilt-ridden. Sure, they may note the problems with the research, or they may say that your conclusions were obvious, but some will also say, possessively, perhaps even jealously -- we said that first!. Tsk, tsk, children, children, stop squabbling or no more TV rights. As for you, dear researcher, your intrepid actions will win you credit for saying it -- if it's true or if it's not.

(And we can see it now; soon, parents the nation over will be responsibly cutting off cable, trucking their TV's out of their houses;))

Chris Mooney is everywhere. He just left La Jolla and Mountain View and he's in Portland. No he's not there anymore but he's coming back, after Seattle and before Madison and Raleigh. We saw him in the Haight, San Francisco, CA, when we were running errands. It was a little random. We had wended our way through the retro t-shirt shops and gutter punks who dye their snarled hair black to offset their blue eyes, the better with which to beseech you for money. Others asked for cigarettes...lights...change, with sleeping Rottweiller puppies chained to their sides and their appendages pierced with chains and pieces of washing machines and whatnot -- testaments to their pain and angst. We passed the tattoo parlors and stores with the incense and the 60's clothes from India and more gutter punks who chain-stitched crocheted scarves, perhaps for the upcoming winter and ongoing rebellion. This is the laid back pace of Haight street, where the clerks are a prouder, higher caste of punks, ordained to the chore of letting the masses know just how uncool they are. Fortunately, the clerks are most indignant about the gutter punks who should "just go back to their parents houses in Marin" or "get a job spraying deodorant in used shoes" -- at one of the many worn-out jean emporiums. Those are some highlights of the Haight - the craziness of the scene ebbs and flows. So with our errands checked off and our yen for hippy dippy punky Haight fulfilled, we ducked into a bookstore called The Booksmith, a clean, ambient, also well-lighted store, that's not a chain and not so much a scene. We wandered back to rows of folding metal chairs. They were testing the mike. Chris Mooney was scheduled to speak in 5 minutes.

So coincidental, I initially thought, since I had just read the book The Republican War on Science, and since Haight (though not the store) seemed like an unlikely venue. But it's not such a coincidence, since Chris Mooney is all over the place. Ubiquitous might be too strong a word, but, like Starbucks, he turns up everywhere, especially at adjacent corners of streets where you're likely to find liberal minded people convening to think the right things about political influence on the environment, evolution and other pertinent science fields. The Haight might not so easily fit this image, but The Booksmith, one of the few independent stores left in the city, certainly does.

The Republican War on Science covers the history and background of some big issues in public policy and science in detail. The introductory paragraphs of each chapter are especially catchy. If you happen to have been following this for the last 15 or 20 years (or more) you will be in familiar terrain, perhaps you will flip through and nod your head. If you are interested in the details they are all there. If you've followed other areas of science and public policy such as some of international development issues, especially around health, the tensions and compromises described will also be familiar. To the majority of people, and scientists, this book will be eye-opening. I think it's timely and important, as it shows the government's sometimes underated capacity to influence science (and other things) for better or for worse. Its easy to take for granted a government's ability to beneficially influence science. This book heightens awareness of our current opportunity to watch government's detrimental (at least that's our view) hand in science. Good, thorough reviews of the hard cover edition are here and here and here.

Mooney has apparently updated this paperback edition to address his audiences' burning question- "what can we do?". What can we do about problems like Republicans 'hijacking' good science and contorting it to promote bad policy, about media's banal coverage of science, about politicians who are uninformed, about the preponderance of political appointees. Happily it was a full to capacity crowd who sat at the edge of every available seat and were passionate about these issues.

They all wanted to participate in the answers and the question of 'what can we do?' . Of course many times people ask "what can I do", but what they mean is, "what can I do that doesn't take much time, that doesn't cost anything, that doesn't cause me discomfort, that appeals to my lifestyle, philosophy and religious convictions, where I can get credit for doing something? People are more likely to deny what they can do when they're asked to contribute. However this was a sincere, well-intentioned crowd. Some people had traveled great distances to see him speak.

Chris Mooney offered some suggestions in his talk to this perplexing question, and I will mention a few of them -- I'm sure there are others in the new edition of the book. The author said scientists should more actively engage the public and venture forth in public controversies. The valuable Office of Technology Assessment OTA should be reopened. Politicians shouldn't use junk science to defend policy. There should be fewer political appointees in science leadership positions. Journalists shouldn't cover stories in a such a rote fashion, they should stop trying to balance science to suit the business demands of the papers. Someone said the problem was bigger then science. Another person suggested that more scientists should become politicians. Mooney said that having a few less lawyers wouldn't hurt. We would say that many scientists have some hurdles to overcome before becoming politicians, but they could always send a pledge sheet around their lab, right after the one raising money for the post-doc doing the marathon for cancer or the triathlon for the natural disaster victims.

The subject of the book is focused, as was the talk, on the the political efforts of the government to denigrate good science and invite speculation about methods and process, while at the same time courting dubious science, and framing the debates and science discussions to support their own agendas. Complicating the question "what can we do", however, is the fact that while you can try to narrow the subject to 'political attacks on science', this is really a vast topic, in fact it's not really one topic, but many. As well, you can even widen the scope of these issues to a set of broader perfect circumstances that have influenced the problems, such as a lack of general knowledge and passion about science combined with overwhelming technological advances in science; an erosion of institutions that used to assure certain traditions of science funding and integrity, with a demonically business oriented government. In this perspective, everything can get swept into the discussion.

Education for instance, plays a role in forming peoples' ability to reason scientifically, it can help them judge the rhetoric of politicians, and advocate for better policies. A graduate assistant attendee asked what they could do to help. Teach, Mooney exhorted, luckily your at Berkeley, he added (education was not the main focus). Certainly all the problems in education and science ennui don't start at the college level but college science curricula often do a lousy job at encouraging lifelong interest in science. One deceptively simple suggestion is to assure that the students don't end up loathing science. Could this effect political outcomes? We're not as worried about A level students, the ones you want to have in your lab under the auspices of a Howard Hughes grant, but the bell curve is tyrannous to the others. It precludes the majority of them from acing *Science 101* and if those students get a Cs,Ds, or Fs in biology will they hate biology for the rest of their lives? Will they say, as one student recently did "I hated this class. The teacher taught entirely from PowerPoints. You don't need to go to class because it's all in the book. The mean grade in the class was 30/100. I'm done with biology" Or will they say, as another student did, "I got a mediocre grade, but I loved the class! This guy genuinely loves biology and the challenges students present, and he made me appreciate the subject". You can peruse on-line rating sites like RateMyProfessor.com to quickly learn that among the outlier posts, teachers can literally, make or break a student's experience.

Will the "non-scientists" exit class after finals and forever shun science and scientists? Will they look for the simplest solutions even though those may be motivated solely by politics and may be scientifically unsound? Will those students make financial investments in industries that are deleterious to the environment? Will they vote for candidates who waver on their science votes, who are influenced by the base? Not everyone will master the Kreb's cycle in their freshman science class. But don't scorn or alienate those who don't, they may be casting a vote on your behalf someday. Science education is certainly beyond the scope of the book. The solutions are elusive. Various aspects of teaching -- the competing goals of teaching and research, the budgeting that effects lab curricula, the attrition rate of promising students to other fields, and the near impossibilty of altering the curriculm make this an unwieldy as well as tangential subject. But Al Gore was apparently inspired as an undergraduate to care about the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. Others will be similarly influenced.

One person asked: If we work in discipline that isn't political, but it is still written about by the press in a skewed way, what can we do? In brief the author advised: write to the editor, talk to the journalists, correct the record when the facts are misconstrued. We would add that if you take a broader view of "politics", there is no part of science where politics doesn't apply. That goes for business and economics too. If your field is that obscure, than undoubtedly much of your time will be spent justifying your existence. Oh, no? Has your funding been cut yet? That's political. That's business. Has the doctor who sits on the board of the foundation that funds your obscure area of science asked you if his son can work in your lab this summer in turn for a reference? That's political. Is your lab housed in the windowless seismically incorrect cellar of a Cold War era building with peeling paint and nasty pale green cinder block walls, while across the street they're building a state of the art business school or stem cell research facility? Did the CEO of your pharmaceutical company just get ousted over a patent controversy, and does the new one think your "product" (the one that you just invested the last five years of your life in) is a market loser? Do you work in the oil industry to pay your bills although your passion and PhD are in conservation geology? Are you a science PhD working at a non-profit in a city where your hourly salary is approximately one-tenth of what your hairdresser earns? It's not only stem cell research that is affected by business and politics and economics, all of science is. It has to be, economics, politics, business (religion) are enmeshed in our society.

But while these problems may be shared among different areas of science we defy anyone to come up with *a* solution. While Mooney's themes all fit neatly under the "Republican War On Science" umbrella at first, once you delve beyond a casual familiarity with any particular issue or shift the focus away from the broader underlying problems, the generalization doesn't provide a framework sufficient to understand the complexity of the political and economic difficulties facing science. Regardless of the overlap, each issue will need its own panoply of solutions because each has a unique set of challenges. In this regard Mooney acknowledges that the problems need to be tackled individually.

As we all know, and we have discussed here, the motivations that drive Intelligent Design proponents are not what drive the denial of global warming. Stem cell research will likely be privatized, and the fact that the government isn't contributing to the funding, growth and regulation of that industry will have different implications than the government's failure to acknowledge global warming, and its subservience to oil companies.One could argue that both of these decisions are guided by liberal ideology and that the science will always be forced to yield to more powerful interests. The government won't hinder the economic progress of the oil companies, nor will it fund research that clashes with the Republican religious base, but it won't often stand in the way of private corporate interests that might fund stem cell research. In this view, although The Republican War on Science slogan still holds a certain allure, the Bush administration has not so much waged a war on science, as it has pursued an agenda that inflicts collateral damage on science. The business interests that the current administration turns cartwheels for will still be there when the Democratics manage to regain power. Importantly though, Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science raises awareness about these important and interesting issues, and it's good for us that he's on tour to promote these ideas. Here's a link to the book.

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

Acronym Required covers these topics frequently. Articles such as "Big Labels, Little Science", and Sea Change or Littoral Disaster touch on some issues, as well as others, especially those in our Science and the Media, and Public Policy Higher Education and Environment, Public Health, as well as other sections.

"Computers write news", is the headline under the left "Briefing" column on the front page of the Financial Times today. The front page teaser says "Thomson Financial, the business data group, has found a way to replace human beings in the newsroom and is using computers to write some of its reports. Page 3"

We can see how this might work. Your average financial story might very simply be composed of a noun (company name or sector), + a verb describing movement in space, + a number, and a few articles. For example: "Dow Industrials Climb 7.84 points to Extend Rally","...a slide in oil prices", "...futures contracts fell 2.5%", "...shares jumped 2%", "...the industrials have risen nearly 247 points" ...oil has plunged off 5.8% to a two-month low". Add a few adjectives like, "cloudy" "troubled", "psychological", "important", or "sunny", and you have the makings of a juicy investment news story if there ever was one.

But we can only speculate. There is no story about about computers writing news on page 3. Indeed, these new details might be hidden away somewhere in the paper, but we couldn't find them in today's FT. We know computers are already capable of generating "news", so what are those computers up to?

Update: In the final bill, San Francisco restricted Phthalates but not Bisphenol A. (BPA) A timeline of how this unfolded is included in the second half of a more recent post "Phthalates and Bisphenol A: Media and Politics"

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

The city of San Francisco banned the manufacture, sale or distribution in San Francisco of products intended for the use of children younger than three if they contain bisphenol A and some phthalates (di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate, diisononyl phthalate, diisodecyl phthalate, and di-n-octyl phthalate). The city supervisors voted unanimously on the bill, which is planned go into effect December 1, 2006.

Acronym Required reported earlier this year that a similar California state bill, sponsored by Wilma Chan D-Oakland, failed in the appropriations stage by one vote. Voting against the measure was departing Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who has since won in the State Senate primary. Assemblyman Yee's vote was completely incongruous with his campaign claims. He heavily promotes his "100% pro-environment" stance. He also says he's a "healthcare professional", who is "recognized as a statewide leader on health issues". Yet according to his office, Yee said there was a "lack of evidence", to support the bill. The American Plastics Council also says there's a "lack of evidence" to support the bill. There are over 153 research studies that show deleterious health effects from bisphenol A.

Some of the newest research last month was reported by researchers in the journal "Cancer Research". The researchers showed a direct effect of exposure to estradiol or bisphenol A in male neonates, who are at higher risk for prostate disease later in life due to epigenetic changes incurred in the womb. (Ho et al, Developmental Exposure to Estradiol and Bisphenol A Increases Susceptibility to Prostate Carcinogenesis and Epigenetically Regulates Phosphodiesterase Type 4 Variant 4, Cancer Research 66, 5624-5632, June 1, 2006).

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

A previous article Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC" talked about the American Chemical Council's campaigns to distort and suppress scientific findings on health issues with plastics. The ACC was again quite active in trying to dissuade the council from voting for the ban. Acronym Required discusses efforts by the ACC to claim that the ban on plastic will have negative economic consequences in a previous article.

Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing ("BOINC") put distributed computing to use again for studying climate change in the summer of 2004. The first project employed by the Berkeley system was the project to Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and has been used for several other problems that require vast computing resources. The latest, climatepredition.net, is an Oxford University application simulating climate change from 1920 to 2080. There are about 12 participating institutions and about 95,000 users from 139 countries are currently participating. Climateprediction.net has descriptions of the experiments users will be running, as well as initial results, information about classes and user forums.

Last month Acronym Required wrote about the conundrum of sophisticated technology treatments that are too expensive for patients who need them. Here are a few recent articles that discuss related issues or aspects of that article.

--Plos Medicine published "Rationing Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV/AIDS in Africa: Choices and Consequences", in November. The premise of the article is that public discourse about rationing medicine and transparency in policy decisions will provide the most "socially desirable outcome". The article discusses rationing methods for AIDS medications that are currently used in Africa. An intentional rationing program exists in the treatment of infants with drugs that prevent mother to child transmission of the virus, a decision that allocates resources to save infants from becoming AIDS inflicted orphans. Unintentional rationing occurs when people are privileged to receive drugs, or when queueing favors those who have time to stand in line, the unemployed for instance.

--The Wall Street Journal (subscription) published an article, "Through Charities, Drug Makers Help People - and Themselves", (Dec. 1) that followed the stories of several patients who were aided by non-profit organizations funded by drug companies to provide co-pays to patients who have insurance coverage but can't afford the co-payment.

"...people with insurance are increasingly finding it difficult to afford these drugs. In response, drug companies are giving money to charities that are specifically set up to help patients pay such costs...Under this support system, drug-company money keeps patients insured -- and keeps insurers paying for the high-priced medicine."

Drug companies can often tax deduct their donations. Patients recieve medications but the benefits are sometimes short-lived since charities can arbitrarily limit a patient's participation.

--The University of Toronto Center for Bioethics published a report that urges open and ethical decisions ahead of a flu pandemic. "A key lesson from the SARS outbreak is that fairness becomes more important during a time of crisis and confusion. And the time to consider these questions and processes in relation to a threatened major pandemic is now.", said Peter Singer, M.D.. The report deals with issues around the duty of health workers, possible restrictions on travel and liberty and resource allocations in the time of an epidemic.

The great risks of hyponatremia were headlined by the New York Times last week (October 20th), in a follow-up to the front page story to the New York Times article April 14, 2005, titled "Study Cautions Runners to Limit Intake of Water." (The full text of the April article now here).

Hyponatremia is low sodium concentration in the blood (less than 135mmol/L) and the electrolyte imbalance can cause symptoms like nausea, bloating, headaches, disorientation and rarely coma or death. Hyponatremia is a serious health condition associated prolonged physical exertion, with some medical conditions and as a side effect of some medications. As our previous article notes, hyponatremia has been long recognized in athletes, however it has more often been associated with hospitalized patients. With the recent increase of marathons and participants, doctors have noticed an uptick in the number of cases in athletes. Hyponatremia during prolonged exercise usually occurs when people who are often (but not always) unconditioned, drink too much during prolonged exercise bouts like a marathon or hiking the Grand Canyon. Some researchers warn that hyponatremia can be can also be caused researchers by drinking to many electrolyte drinks**.

The following article does not provide diagnosis or advice about this medical condition but looks at the presentation of the condition hyponatremia as it relates to prolonged exercise in the media. We question the numbers and severe tone of the New York Times articles.

The first April New York Times article summarized an original research article on exercise induced hyponatremia published in the New England Journal of Medicine that found 13% of participants of a study had hyponatremia. The NYT article indicated that this percentage of all marathon runners were in serious health danger and could die from the condition.

The latest New York Times article is now the second to emphasize that vast numbers of runners are drinking too much water. The article quoted the marathon doctor, Dr. Maharam:

"Last year, one percent of the more than 35,000 New York City marathoners developed hyponatremia...and although that is a smaller toll than in other cities' marathons, doctors say every one of those life-threatening medical emergencies could have been avoided."

Despite the very real dangers of becoming hyponatremic, the incidence of the condition during marathons is far less than either of the New York Times articles would lead readers to believe. Serious hyponatremia requires hospitalization, so as Acronym Required wrote in our last article in April, if 13% of all marathon runners were being hospitalized because of hyponatremia, we wouldn't be reading about it in a research report, it would be a major news story after all the well-known marathons. This has not happened. The news on the health conditions of the runners in the last five New York city marathons cheery. If there has been a recent spate of hyponatremic runners to the extent that the articles report it is a well-kept secret.

• After the 2004 New York City Marathon, the one that the October 20th where this NYT article reports that 13% of the runners were in a "life-threatening" condition, the same paper -- The New York Times -- previously wrote this in, "A Glimpse of Greatness Lifts an Otherwise Dour Day":

  "yesterday was unseasonably warm: it was 55 degrees at the start of the race, with a high of 65. Yet the most common injury among the 37,257 marathoners was blisters, race officials said. Although some had heat-related illnesses, there were no reports of runners in serious distress as of 6 p.m."

• The New York Times wrote about the 2003 NYC Marathon in "A Great Day for Spectators Isn't So Great for Runners" that:

  "Although the unseasonably warm weather may have led to the increase in spectator turnout, several runners complained of cramping and dehydration, and finishing times suffered as a result." But, "[e]arly reports indicated that although the heat caused several runners some distress, no serious injuries were reported....as of 5 p.m., no runners had been reported in critical condition. Event officials said that fewer than 20 runners had been taken to local hospitals."

• The New York Times article following the 2002 NY marathon: "Easy Day For Doctors", quoted the same doctor who is now reporting high incidences of hyponatremia reporting on happy healthy runners: "Maharam...reported that only about 20 of the 31,285 entrants needed more than temporary medical assistance, and by 7:15pm...any runners treated at local hospitals had been discharged..."
• In 2001, the New York Times wrote under the headline, "No Major Emergencies", that "[t]he worst medical emergency by late afternoon was of some foreign runners mistaking Vaseline for nutritional goo..." and "by 4:30 p.m. no competitors had been admitted to a hospital."
• Finally in 2000, the New York Times noted in an article "A Healthy Performance", that according to Dr. Maharam: "20 out of 29,377 runners had been transported to hospitals...treated for minor injuries and released."

As we previously wrote in April, the numbers of hyponatremia afflicted runners reported by the research report in the New England Journal of Medicine in April and the New York Times coverage of that article seemed at least 10 times greater then the number of people who actually fall sick at races. Similiarly, while this most recent NYT article reports that 10% of the 2004 race runners had hyponatremia, the race report doesn't seem to reflect that rate of illness.

To their credit the New York Times printed a correction about the severity of the condition the next day, October 21. They said:

"A sports article yesterday about the danger of drinking water excessively during marathons misstated the toll of hyponatremia, a resulting condition that developed in about 1 percent of the 35,000 runners in the New York City Marathon last year. Dr. Lewis Maharam, medical director of the race, said that a small percentage of those runners had required hospital visits, and two had required an overnight stay; not all were hospitalized."

However the correction did not change the number of people they reported were afflicted.

The correction still leaves ambiguity about how dangerous hyponatremia is. There was never a correction printed for the first article which was emphatic about the potential mortality of the disease. Neither of the NYT articles attempt to balance the dire statistics in their story by referring to other articles in their own paper that report stories number of people suffering from the opposite condition: dehydration. Dehydration is also detrimental to health and performance.

Research on the exact physiology of exercise induced hyponatremia is still developing. The risk of these two stories that send terrifying messages about hyponatremia to the public is that if the news article is unbalanced runners may risk not drinking the water they need - especially inexperienced athletes. This is worrisome to physiologists in the field. Reportage about a marathon in D.C. in the fall of 2004 by the Washington Post said this:

"According to Capt. Bruce Adams, the marathon medical director, approximately 45 people [of 17,000 who ran the Marine Corps Marathon] were taken to area hospitals with heat-related illnesses and dehydration, which is about four times as many as last year." (November 1, 2004)

Are people underdrinking now? Or are reports of medically dangerous hydration status simply all over the map? Some doctors vehemantly state that dehydration does not occur, others report that many people are suffering from dehydration.

Doctors and researchers understand the basic reasons for hyponatremia, but research continues. One cause is the body's reaction to physiological stress via anti-diuretic hormone (ADH). ADH is released from the pituitary when sodium levels decrease in the body or when blood volume is too low. When runners drink water to the extent that sodium concentrations are significantly reduced, ADH signals the kidneys to reduce output - which is the body's protective response to dehydration. The condition, Syndrome of Inappropriate Anti-Diuretic Hormone (SIADH), is one possible cause of hyponatremia. The most likely cause of SIADH is drinking too much water (the NYT article profiles someone who apparently drank seemingly gallons of water before, during and after the Boston Marathon). However excessive sweating - especially if sodium content is high has also been theorized to be a culprit. Some researcher report that runners can be both dehydrated and hyponatremic, others disagree. Ingestion or overuse of non-steroidal anti-inflamatory drugs (NSAID)(Ibuprofen) has also been associated with hyponatremia.

Appropriate hydration is critical to performance and electrolyte intake is recommended but not a stop-gap to preventing hyponatremia. We have a good understanding of the general mechanism, but we don't know why elite athletes don't seem to need to drink as much, while less trained athletes sometimes drink excessively. What is the mechanism of the training effect? Is there research? It's more than an issue of self-restraint as the April NYT article indicated in the quote from Dr. Noakes:

"Elite athletes are not drinking much, and they never have." Dr. Noakes said. The lead female marathon runner in the Athens Olympics, running in 97-degree heat drank just 30 seconds of the entire race."

While the public needs to be aware of the health risks, and certainly running a front page article in the New York Times is a way to garner attention to the issue and potentially reduce liability, hydration is important too. If hyponatremia is simply a more common --but not always dangerous -- physiological effect of endurance exercise and if at levels of 125mmol/L and 135mmol/L people may not have symptoms, this should be presented. Information should not be skewed to scare people from drinking appropriate amounts of water, potentially risking dehydration.

Since there are multiple causes and the exact physiology is can vary among individuals, uniform recommendations are difficult to make, as with many health recommendations. Sports medicine doctors warn that athletes should drink no more than eight ounces of water every 20 minutes -- this includes ALL drinks, like Gatorade as well as water.

------------------------------------------ **For example see: (Weschler, L.; "Exercise-Associated Hyponatremia: A Mathematical Review". Sports Medicine, Volume 35, Number 10, 2005, pp. 899-922(24)).

Information and some references are here at the Gatorade research (this site is a commercial site that we are not affiliated with nor endorsing. Importantly, their recommendations propose drinking sports drinks. As the previous citation notes, and race doctors warn: sports drinks provide do not necessarily prevent hyponatremia).

Heavy and "obese" people read headlines recently urging them to "Walk Slowly For Weight Loss". The *news*, which made headlines throughout the mainstream media including CNN, Yahoo, Science Daily, and MNBC, originated from a study and subsequent press release from the University of Colorado, Boulder June 14, 2005. The study's authors urged the exact opposite advice of what people have tried to adhere to for years. Reliable sources including the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Obesity Association (AOA), The American Heart Association (AHA), among others, have long encouraged everyone to "walk briskly!" We have been told to "pick up the pace from leisurely to brisk", not only to improve overall health , but to decrease the risks of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes, as well as to lose or maintain healthy weight.

The headlines referred to research published in the May issue of Obesity Research titled: "Energetic Cost and Preferred Speed of Walking in Obese vs. Normal Weight Women", by Raymond Browning, Roger Kram and others. Here's how the CU's press release summarized the researchers results, quoting Ray Browning, the lead author (emphasis ours):

"The message is that by walking more slowly, obese individuals can burn more calories per mile and may reduce the risk of arthritis or joint injury."

We found the study in order to look at the original results. According to the CU press release, the authors started with the hypothesis that:

"Obese adults would have a greater energy cost when walking [based] on previous studies by Kram's lab team. In one study, energy expenditure increased by about 25 percent when normal-weight people walked with a deliberately wider stance"

Based on these previous results, authors expected that further research would show that heavier people walked more slowly then lighter weight people, with higher energy cost and commensurately greater cardiovascular effort. Instead, Browning and Kram found that the two groups walked at similar speeds. Surprisingly, the heavier group only burned only 11% more calories per pound. Browning and Kram had theorized that the heavier group would use at least 100% more calories per pound.

Said the Browning:

"This was a surprise...The subjects probably are unwittingly altering their posture and walking with straighter legs, conserving calories in the process."

Here's an approximate graph of the results. It differs slightly from the graph published by the study because the authors used "2.5" as the starting Y axis value, instead of "0". The results (our lines are based on theirs, which are second-order least squares regression calculations), show that as the walkers increase their speed they decrease the energy they use until the optimal "preferred speed" for walking is achieved. This "preferred speed" was reached at 1.47m/s for the normal group and 1.4m/s for the obese group. These speeds represent approximately the points where the walkers cover the greatest distance using the least amount of energy.

Interestingly, both the thinner and the heavier subjects used more energy at slower speeds. So why then, did the researchers only recommend that obese subjects walk more slowly? According to the authors it was because the heavier cohort were the only ones at risk for osteoarthritis. The authors indicate in their press release that their research shows this risk. However nowhere in the original study was this question addressed except for a brief reference to a paper from different authors.

However the research group whose work Browning and Kram referenced, had done work only with a normal weight cohort, not with the obese who walked more efficiently. So in essence the basis for their press release is not their own research, at least not published research, but their approximations based on another lab's study. This is all very vague in their paper and completely obscured in the press release. The study that they reference carefully noted that their results were relevant to "normal" healthy people. This is important because according to co-author Kram:

"As people become gradually obese, they also seem to become particularly graceful...there appears to be some sort of a physiological drive for them to minimize the amount of energy they expend."

In other words, not only is the obese cohort that Browning and Kram study not "normal" but according to the authors, they walk differently. So considering their very own observations, should they be generalizing the results of the other study of normal weighted people without at least doing the research and submitting it for peer review? The fact that obese might conserve energy by adjusting their gait is not a revelation, since previous studies, including ones we talked about with Nepalese porters here, show that humans often economize energy expenditure when walking with heavy loads. Like porters or African women who carry weight on their head, overweight people appear to alter their gait to conserve energy expenditure. That's the interesting result.

It seems like Browning and Kram jump the gun on the research, especially since other studies have found that the obese do not increase the stress on their knees when walking. This is because, again, as the authors concluded, there is a change in gait that seems to favor preservation in energetics. So why would this energy optimization, these self-preservation optimizations, extend to joint preservation and biomechanics as well?

There are two things that are curious about the news of this study. One is the conclusion of the authors. The second is how the research was portrayed in the media. It's hard to know where one ends and the other begins. There's potentially a point where researchers lose control of their words to the machinations of media. The authors admit the confusion about the results on the part of the media. However since the original press release is from the authors own university it's difficult to believe that the confusion between the undone biomechanics research and the kinetics data that was the subject of their published study couldn't have easily been corrected at the source.

Instead the misconceptions were seemingly *allowed* to propagate throughout the media, which risks misleading and misinforming people. Since the researchers are telling people to 'walk more slowly', which flies in the face of a bulk of public health research, it is important to know just how slow obese people are being advised to walk.

Notably, the authors advise that researchers have found disparate "preferred walking speeds" for men and women of various weights. The range varies from study to study, 1.18 m/s, 1.19 m/s, 1.09 m/s, or 0.75 m/s. So the "preferred walking speeds" are widely variable, but the media never modulates their conclusions to accommodate the potential variation. It's possible then, that obese people are already walking slowly. However since the authors conclude that only "obese" people, should "walk slowly" they isolate this population for their recommendation, which could encourage already slow walkers to slow down more and could impede the healthful benefits of walking. Should the public health community be concerned about recommendations that are so wide reaching yet whose benefits may be inconclusive?

Further clouding the result, the researchers tested the walkers for only 5 minutes. They then extrapolated this result to a 45 minutes walk, which was in turn extended to an hour or hour and a half in the media reports. It is quite possible that over longer periods of time the energetics of walking would change. Five minutes of walking is vastly different (especially for an obese person) than 1.5 hours. Shouldn't more work be done at different time periods before publicizing health recommendations?

Finally, is osteoporosis the greatest health risk? What about all the studies that concluded that "brisk exercise" (not slow exercise) lessens health risks such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, weight loss, cancer risk, and even osteoporosis? We are all concerned about public health and as citizens we deserve to hear more robust science based recommendations that will actually inform us, rather than just sell stories about obesity.

Many species of the plant genus Saussurea are valued by herbalists for their medicinal uses. Although the plants have been being used medicinally for hundreds of years, research has recently confirmed that their use for medicinal purposes was not whimsical. Saussurea lappa for instance, has anti-inflamatory properties and anti-viral potential, while Saussurea eopygmaea and Saussurea medusa have anti-tumor activity. Saussurea medusa and Saussurea laniceps, both commonly known as "Snow Lotus", are harvested at altitudes of 3-4,000 meters by herbal doctors and others seeking the flowers. The flowers are used as therapies for blood disorders, high blood pressure, fertility and menstruation problems. Generally the flowers are thought to be most effective when they are harvested right before they go to seed, which prevents the seeds of these select flowers from being dispersed.

Researchers Jan Salick and Wayne Law published a study forthcoming in Proceedings of the National Archives of Science (PNAS) that reports that the selective harvesting of the Saussurea laniceps has caused a reduction in the size of the flowers in harvested regions compared to flowers in unharvested regions. They also found that specimens in flower collections over the past century are much larger than what is currently being sold in shops. On the other hand, the species Saussurea medusa, with a purple flower that is apparently less desired, has not decreased in size. The background and purpose for the study are described here.

Researchers have known for years that the habits of harvesters could impact the evolution of species. The phenomena was previously been seen in fish populations that are heavily fished, activity that causes genetic adaptations in response to harvest. The greatest adaptation is a decrease in the average size and very slow recovery of population numbers, though sometimes the headline news belies this reality.

We commonly hear about endangered species as a result of the loss of habitat due to human population development and encroachment, or environmental warming trends. The affect of selective harvesting of the prime species specimens, and the potential direct impact on species evolution are also important to consider.

Science reporting in the media often adds to public confusion rather than advances understanding. Research is a puzzle with a million pieces, many unknown. Science reporting tends to pull out one piece of the puzzle, focus on the weird shape, the color, the edges, then unexplicably bestows that piece with front page significance. Building blocks of previous studies are often ignored and the complexity of trying to fit the pieces together is sacrificed for the eye-catching title.

On the front page today, (Thursday April 14, 2005) the New York Times (subscription) reports that "Study Cautions Runners to Limit Intake of Water" [Article now available here.] The research study; "Hyponatremia among Runners in the Boston Marathon", was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Hyponatremia is low sodium concentration in the blood (about <135mmol/L).

The original study title is appropriately specific about the results, in short: hyponatremia is a risk for a very small percentage of athletes who are generally less well trained and who overconsume water and symptomatically gain weight while running. The study significantly adds to 40 years of studies on hydration. Importantly, it supports various recent studies showing that overhydration CAN BE dangerous. This is important. Runners shouldn't drown themselves in water (this study says that over 3 liters across 26.2 miles is excessive). One symptom that one is drinking too much is gaining weight from excessive water intake during a marathon.

Despite the credibility of the health concern, New York Times coverage of the study reads like a sensational press release for Harvard. As with most scientific studies, the article by itself is NOT revelatory.

The evidence has been in for a while. Medical colleges have been setting up tents at the ends of marathons and publishing the same results for years. Baylor medical college published a study in January, 2003 in the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine (Hew et al) that found hyponatremia to be a concern. Indeed the current Harvard study liberally references other studies. This fact doesn't diminish the report it's important to be able to repeat results. But it shows this New York Times paragraph to be misleading:

"Before this study, we suspected there was a problem," said Dr. Marvin Adner, the medical director of the Boston maraton, which is next Monday, "but this proves it."

This study adds to the growing body of research, but doesn't "prove" it. However there is something about the increasing number of slow runners that is new -- though the dire emphasis is a bit over the top:

"As more slow runners entered long races, doctors began seeing athletes stumbling into medical tents, nauseated, groggy, barely coherent and with their blood severely diluted. Some died on the spot."

This study diagnosed the condition in extremely high numbers:

"NEW research involved 488 runners in the 2002 marathon. The runners gave blood samples before and after the race. While most were fine, 13 percent of them - or 62 - drank so much that they had hyponatremia, or abnormally low blood sodium levels. Three [added in late edition] were in danger of dying."

Unlike the New York Times, New England Journal of Medicine study's authors didn't explictly mention dying. Although several deaths have (infrequently) though tragically occured in marathons, fewer then 1:50,000 runners die in marathons, and most of these deaths are due to cardiovascular failure. None of the racers in this study died, though coincidentally and tragically one person did die that year. No one has died in the Boston Marathon since.

Who was in danger of "dying" as the Times so dramatically reported? The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 3 runners had "critical hyponatremia". The NEJM study does not associate any specific permanent perils or death rates with any sodium concentration, so it's unclear which levels of hyponatremia are how dangerous, but "critical hyponatremia" is a medical term used for sodium concentrations of below 120mmol/L, which are potentially fatal. Different investigators can use slightly different terms but higher (more normal) levels of sodium are commonly referred to as "low" and "moderate" or "severe" hyponatremia. Apparently the other 59 of 62 runners who had hyponatremia were in less serious though unspecified states of hydration.

The New York Times indicates that ALL runners with hyponatremia will recover if they recieve prompt medical intervention of intravenous sodium infusions:

"Hyponatremia can be treated, Dr. Noakes said. A small volume of a highly concentrated salt solution is given intravenously and can save a patient's life by pulling water out of swollen brain cells."

So then did 62 of 488, or 12.7% ("13%") of the racers require intervenous therapy? Extrapolated to the population of Boston Marathon runners in 2004, that would be 2159 of 17,000 who ran then required intravenous therapy. This seems misleading. That many people couldn't be so severely sick without the hospitals being well aware of the problem.

Perhaps only the 3 most seriously affected hyponatremic runners required intervenous therapy. Yet this still seems high. In 2004 only 11 of 17,000 runners self reported and were diagnosed with hyponatremia. It is unknown how serious these self-reported cases were but this is ten times less (11 of 17,000 = .06%) then the .6% reported in the study. None of the 2004 Boston Marathon racers died.

It is clear then, that the "critical" status of the cohort of 3 identified in the original study can not be extended to the entire cohort of 62 who had clinically identifiable but less serious conditions, but it is not clear how many athletes are affected in races since the percentage of affected runners in the NEJM study didn't seem to be reflected at actual marathons.

The New York Times article could give many athletes the wrong idea about the dangers of over-hydration. While it is certainly a condition to guard against, dehydration is a more common occurence. Most racers who self-report at medical stations do so for dehydration. Dehydration leads to decreased blood flow which limits the prespiration process that dissipates heat and prevents heatstroke. Dehydration loss of more then 2% of the body weight can be problematic and lead to performance detriments. While the doctor cited in the Times article knows no case of death in marathon runners due to dehydration, this does not hold for military training and sports camps.

Appropriate hydration is highly individualistic and depends on physiology, level of training, outside temperature and diet among other things. The NYT article concludes that slower runners should not over-drink;

"Elite athletes are not drinking much, and they never have." Dr. Noakes said. The lead female marathon runner in the Athens Olympics, running in 97-degree heat drank just 30 seconds of the entire race."

While is true, the statement underemphasizes the physiological changes that occur during training that lead to the elite athlete being able to run with with less water.

The most news worthy result of the Harvard study in New England Journal of Medicine is that hyponatremia happens. This is important for both runners and doctors who are treating distressed runners because it alerts both to the potential of this condition. However the emphasis of the New York Times article on the high prevalence of the condition and the danger of dying exagerates the results of the study to provide an article that is shocking enough to appear on the front page of the paper.

The New York Times misconstrues the significance and results of the study. It's not clear whether this is entirely the New York Times' doing or whether the studies authors are complicit in overstating the problem and leading us to believe that this is new research, perhaps for self-promotion.

Inaccurate media portrayal of research leads to the perception that science itself is wishy-washy. Although we always need to be attentive to new research, the media exageration of research studies only undermines the aims of research to improve public health. The actual results aim at correcting an imbalance in *popular* though not *expert* advice. Doctors, exercise physiologists and trainers have long advocated balanced hydration.

As the big picture is lost, science itself is obscured rather than elucidated. The public should insist the media not dilute, distort, or sensationalize the results of research studies.