Recently in Recycling The News Category

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 Fear of the Internet Manifests as a Desire to Throw Cheerios?

In Time magazine's "When the Patient is a Googler", Dr. Scott Haig constructs a straw lady for our entertainment. His female patient "brandish[es]" information during an office visit and her unruly child spews chocolate milk and Cheerios about his office. Haig holds up his caricature of a harried mom and compares her to his ideal patient, the engineer who is "accustomed to the concept of consultation". The engineer's kids are no doubt being cared for somewhere else, and his Mr. or Ms. "Logical" probably sports a pocket protector to prevent ink from the Pilot Extra Fine Point permanent marker from accidentally marring the doctor's fine upholstery. Kudos to engineers for knowing their rightful place.

To be fair, Haig likes nurses too. They're his "favorites", because "they know our language and they're used to putting their trust in doctors. And they laugh at my jokes."

The doctor holds a seemingly exalted position in New York's medical circles. He teaches, runs a private practice, and "punts" his undesirable patient, her "mispronounced words and half-baked ideas", after only one short visit. Such skill! Such fortune! Hospitalists, emergency docs, managed care docs, brilliant and dedicated private practice doctors, nurses, lab techs, physical therapists, administrators and medical workers are often stuck with their clients -- even when said individuals taunt outrageous anti-medical ideas like "yin-yang", or "nutrition"! But imagine Haig's scenario. Imagine if after a mere twenty minutes of your insufferable patient, co-worker, doctor, or boss, you could simply opt out? You could just bid that arrogant pill adieu and never have to endure whatever blah, blah, blah, blah...again? Without sacrificing your (let's say) $500,000K+ salary? Oh, should such a world be mine! To hell with compassion.

For a man of his stature, Haig's stereotyped "brainsucker" female protagonist with her wayward toddler provokes a strong reaction -- "I soon felt like throwing Cheerios at her too", "I couldn't dance with this one". Why such indignation? In Haig's telling she knows his address, but it's hard to imagine any real rage or paranoia built around that. It's easy enough to keep an address private, and she's obviously harmless.

Haig did not write 'Googler Patient' for Acronym Required's rhetorical amusement. If we were to hazard a guess, we'd suspect there's something more, and the doctor didn't diagnose his problem correctly. We'd suggest that it's psychological. That he's upset, unsettled perhaps, thinking about how the internet might further disrupt the cozy information asymmetry implicit in doctor patient relationships. Does Google masquerade in Haig's tale as some pushy female, "rude" and "too personal"? Does "she" jostle the power structure? Does "she" psychophysiologically unnerve the doctor?

An Apple a Day....More Pablum For Busy, Distracted Minds

When patients visit the doctor they generally get one 10-30 minute office visit with the "expert". Doctors are pricey, even if insurance buffers the $200-$500 bill. "Personalized" medicine? Patients are often lucky if the doctor gets their name and age right. Stressed by whatever ails them, patients don't see doctors for a living, as doctors do patients, so they could be forgiven their unpracticed manner. Think of your dear grandmother, born in a time not too long after the town doctor made patient rounds with his horse-drawn carriage. Does she have to ape the behavior of a dispassionate engineer in order to avoid the scorn?

Many doctors agree that patients should be as informed as possible for their own health. We all acknowledge that American medicine is often a broken system. Sure "experts" abound, but complacent doctors are easy to find too. Medical errors occur in "44,000 to 98,000" patients a year according to the FDA (via Google). Patients, being human, aren't all equally subtle or adept at integrating their new found internet information with the doctor's expertise. But doctors should be able to adjust to this. They should be able to relate to inevitable unevenness in "bedside manners", and the variable ability of patients to see the body in the same way that the well-trained and indoctrinated doctor does.

There's a phenomenon at work here concerning the internet, medical information, and doctor/patient relationships. Unfortunately this Time column doesn't get around to exploring the more subtle and interesting aspects of the story.

'Fessing Up For Health

In a related piece, Tom Delbanco, M.D., and Sigall K. Bell, M.D write in "Guilty, Afraid, and Alone - Struggling with Medical Error", (New England Journal of Medicine NEJM Volume 357:1682-1683, October 25, 2007), about mutual fear on the part of patients and doctors that exacerbates suffering due to medical mistakes. They note that "because of the power dynamics between physicians and patients, questioning the expertise or skill of an authority figure is particularly fraught for the least empowered members of society". The authors have made a film for third year medical students and suggest that in the case of medical errors, there should be a forum for some sort of reconciliation: "patients and families will bring ideas to the table that expand the horizons of health care professionals".

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", bigoted remarks, racial slurs, were published in a piece in the London Sunday Times. This time he noted that although "social policies are based" on Africa's intelligence being "the same as ours", this assumption is "not really" true. The London's Science Museum canceled an appearance by Watson for Friday, because his comments had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate". October, for the Science Museum, is Black History month.

Some news agencies tend to 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." In the science circles I run in, this doesn't qualify as "debate", but as racism. The New York Times said: "Famed Scientist Apologizes for Quoted Racial Remarks". "Quoted", they say, imbuing the account with unlikeliness. 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, pulls itself away from lurid movie star stories long enough to fill in some more background:

"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 cited 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 very once in a while, which is fortunate 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 a 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, as they all do. A couple of writers quickly leapt to his defense. Admirers who warn that they're canceling their visit to that science museum -- severe economic threat indeed. 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 can separate 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 no two-bit celebrity, as entertaining in the public's denunciation for racism as on some lucrative talk show -- 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, George Bushs, professors, and presidents to pursue whatever agenda they coyly reveal? Sure. Not that Watson needs to be coy anymore than George Bush does. 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 noble 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". Women, that's one thing. But now my dear Watson, you've really crossed the line. A confusing delineation.

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. For instance 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. He may be "mortified" by his comments, but he is unscathed. The damage, the deadening of spirit and hope will manifest for his targets, young scientists who are compelled once more to double check the science literature of on IQ, blacks who endure century after century of the same numbing tirades, 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 15 million dollars by Stuart Pivar for Myers' critical review of his book. Myer's 2005 review of the book is here, and an updated review from last month is here. 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 be quiet?? Tell me it's not so. If it weren't Seed, and a famous blogger, would there be any point of a suit? We were left to ponder what the suit was really all about.

When I first tried to search for "Pivar" and "science" it was slim pickings. Did I mean "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's name is often associated with famous people, sometimes deceased -- Andy Warhol, Diana Vreeland, and recently Stephen Jay Gould. He has been featured in popular magazines, in the New York Times "Public Lives" section, and in New York tabloids' "celebrities" sections for over 30 years.

His media coverage has always been impressive. In 1975 Newsweek profiled Pivar curating a show on "Schlock Art" (not an insult in art, apparently). In 1979 he was featured in Time magazine's profile on artists. Then he paid $223,250 for a rare sabre-tooth tiger skull to add to his collection of skeletons and bones. 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.

Pivar is often the highest bidder, as the Boston Globe reported from one elephant art auction in 2000: "'This is an excellent painting,'" Pivar exclaimed. "'It's what we call a W.C.M. - a world-class masterpiece.'" (Boston Globe, March 22). He referred to art painted by elephants and a foundation that teaches Asian elephants to paint and sells the proceeds, thereby extending the boundaries of art. 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".

Writing for the New York Times Claudia Steinberg once interviewed Pivar about his home, his decorating, and collecting (September 9, 2004). '''You need 300 objects to furnish an apartment, just for the record'", Pivar said. Steinberg noted his "'grand tone"', reminiscent of a friend who had "'taught him the effectiveness of pontification.'" He continued the pontification:

"'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.'''

Pivar frequently targets various parties to sue and was once called "'an institutional stalker"', by the president of the New York Academy of Art. (The New York Post, June 20, 1998). He's apparently not afraid of provoking a scene. After suing the Academy (which he had founded), one night he showed up at their "Take Home a Nude fundraiser", which the Post explained was "where flesh-filled works donated by students and supportive artists are auctioned off." Unwelcome because of his lawsuit, he was "barred at the door, then thrown down into a puddle", according to the Post article. "'Ass over teakettle'", he said, and his effort landed him in the New York Post. He slapped the Academy with another suit for assault. Then he dropped the suit.

Your 15 Minutes? Again?

Perhaps the decorum he's accustomed to in New York art society differs from that on the internet among scientists? Somehow PZ and Pharyngula figured into Pivar's marketing plan, but beyond trying to attain some vague name recognition, Pivar's efforts are confusing. For someone who pursues fame so relentlessly, who has so many well-connected friends, can't he simply get himself listed on Wikipedia? It seems that this sort of internet play, while surely a low ball bid, might have been easier.

Did he not understand the internet? He certainly must not have looked too closely at the articulate, analytical, opinionated and more than occasionally biting Pharyngula blog. I would certainly think twice before submitting a book for review there. But that's just gauging the landscape. 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 certain things either; like the design-sense of my blog or my attitudes towards pursuing fame, for starters.

But then again perhaps he was coveting a more cordial reception, like the one Pharyngula gave to Lynn Margulis when Myers hosted her earlier this year. True, 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 this:

"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."

You can imagine a simple schematic that suggests the relationship.

"Don't Worry What They Write About You...."

Of course all fame, whether it's in science, art or blogging, demands selective use of charm. When granted the opportunity by Pharyngula for an on-line chat forum, Margulis gamely mastered the medium, tutoring the likes of a participants with handles like "Hairhead" on her theories. But at the same time, being that she's so well-established and somewhat revered, Margulis didn't hesitate to use the opportunity to put forward her harebrained and definitely controversial ideas.

With PZ Myer's moderation, Margulis reiterated her idea that HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, citing in the comments during her online exchange at Pharyngula that a convincing case against HIV viral causality of AIDS was given in a thoroughly refuted and completely infuriating article that Harper's published last year. This article was roundly dismissed by scientists, public health and policy experts, as well as AIDS patients and activists around the world.

If HIV virus did cause AIDS, Margulis persists, than why didn't the CDC respond to her written demand for proof? This feigned helplessness from someone whose tenacity and research skills led her to unearth useful obscure microbiology references from 19th century Russian publications and to question prevailing theories of evolution year after year as she pursued acceptance of her symbiosis theory. This assertion despite CDC's explanation of HIV virus causing AIDS here, and NIH's explanation here.

Reading the Margulis' post on the Myers blog, as well as the chat 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, especially after a hundred or so comments, and not just because of trolls. With such a wide audience, some people don't know the basic background science, while others get distracted. Following both the thread of comments and the on-line forum transcript sometimes reminded me of trying to watch a parade while a posse of kids fights over some gumdrops that rolled on the ground in front of me. That being the level of the enterprise, Margulis got off lightly on her anti-science AIDS ideas.

It all seemed boring, with a civility that bordered on intellectual stupor. While the subject was promising, Margulis ably chose what she presented and answered. It was certainly not the kind of place where an open exchange could take place, but it was a place where she could get coverage for her particular ideas. Margulis is savvy and used PZ Myers forum well. Pivar, obviously, played his unique hand with Myers differently, with different results.

....Just Measure it in Inches." -- Warhol

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, which is only partially true. We generally don't sue fellow scientists -- historically it just didn't make sense because there was nothing to gain -- "I'll confiscate all your test tubes!" It's about intelligence or at the very least creating that image. Equally powerful tools are words, wit, aplomb, and most of all, renown from previous accomplishments -- all of which Margulis employs with rigor.

On balance Margulis seems to relish controversy and certainly slings mud far better than most, a well-honed and essential skill. Years ago she would malign molecular biologists for (generally but not excluded to) being reductionist. Margulis has 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 which she says always distort her theories. 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 as they can make or break careers and hold scientists and lay audiences in hypnotized sway. Clearly Pivar's background hasn't given him the chance to cultivate these unique science combat skills, I mean if you make a living by being the highest bidder on modern art, and promote art made by elephants with their trunks with a cute acronym like "W.C.M.", for "world class masterpiece", if your highest publicity bid takes the form of a lawsuit, well there's a very different recipe for fame in the science world.

Eccentricity however, is one trait that seems to be leveraged both by art world and the science world. Once you accept how common eccentricity is, cranks and crackpots are just one step removed. When scientists mutter poetry or mismatch socks it merely adds to their aura of mystique. Eccentric? Or crank? Einstein was famously "eccentric". Margulis herself observes how "'it's easy to be dismissed as a "crank" or "on the fringe"'.

Yet unlike the artist who is new to the party, her past publications give her the leeway to remind us of this fact all the time, and so the ghost of Thomas Kuhn lingers in the background, throwing an inkling of doubt on all our rock solid reality-based paradigms. The technique of reminding people how often paradigms are shattered to reveal new truths seems especially effective when used by someone of the slimmest fame like Margulis on non-scientists.

"It may not be Raining. They may be Spitting on Us." -- attributed to Warhol

So if one is a lay-person, how should one tell if the famous scientist knows what they're speaking of? It's tricky. Obviously, if the person doesn't have an established biography in science, it's easy to doubt their credibility. If you're a scientist, should you call out scientists who are more famous than you on tenuous or disproved theories? How does one deal with cranks? PZ might say the Margulis exchange was an open forum, and indeed some people asked very pointed questions. But does the rather warm reception send a mixed message to those who don't know, those who swoon before fame rather than examining each new proposal anew, with equal analysis or skepticism?

It used to be that scientists rarely entered the public forum. They didn't blog, and if they were very famous they only occasionally emerged into the light of day from their labs, personas confused with public awe. In 2000, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote "Geniuses, Crackpots and a Grand Unified Theory", which recounts the rare interactions between scientists and the public, generally when well meaning fans contact scientists to insist that their wacky ideas are worth a Nobel hearing. Margulis herself contends that new-age Gaia people usually misinterpret the science behind her's and Lovelock's ideas.

The NYT article details some funny incidences of "nimble circumlocutions on the parts of legitimate scientists". Some scientists are diplomatic, hoping to encourage people to like science, others tend to be wary, for good reason. There was no internet forum at the time, so most of these interactions took place in person. One former physicist told of a "frightening experience"...

...a man claimed that he had invented bulletproof paint. Sitting in Dr. Moyer's office and clutching a paper bag, the man said ominously that the paint was also resistant to intercontinental ballistic missiles and suggested that Dr. Moyer would want to arrange a test.

The awkward exchanges the author depicts range from dealing with "cosmic theorizers", to engaging "superannuated, formerly fine scientists who late in their careers get bored doing bread-and-butter stuff". The scientists uniformly treated these people 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.' "

But science bloggers now have unique challenges. They need to do credible publishable science, maintain labs, and teach. Furthermore, we're in a political climate when fear dominates politics, driving people to faith and speculative pie in the sky theories. Don't bloggers have to be somewhat "blunt", just to get an audience? A good many science bloggers want to expose readers to solid science and give them some sort of arsenal to distinguish good from bad. But yet to attract an audience, the medium demands that the blog be frequently entertaining.

Conflict is entertaining, as those who seek fame know. Margulis has mastered this. Pivar also seems to cultivate a combative image in the art world. And certainly PZ is skilled at the use of rhetorical obliteration. It's essentially PZ's PR talk show, therefore, using measures of entertainment value and popular appeal, it all makes perfect sense. Naturally Pharyngula invites Lynn Margulis, a famous scientist who has been more or less spent her career trailed by diaphanous veil of conflict, and he allows questions but warns no "trolls". And Pharyngula agrees to review the self-published book of Stuart Pivar, a famous art collector, and does so in a frank and comedic way. Blog readers will certainly get some bang for their buck.

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. Politicians may also be oily, but they're human, weak. Therefore they're more susceptible to family stressing repercussions. 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. Most people can't even figure out whether they actually have babies or not (squab, if you prefer).

So a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to oust them and suggests "netting to block holes and surfaces, spikes to keep them from landing, and sometimes poisoning, shooting or trapping the birds".

This is what they 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."

This statement was perhaps a rhetorical flourish in "Fat Comes in on Little Cat Feet", which was an amusing editorial in the NYT about a widely publicized obesity study that was also the subject of our own airy post, "Fat Cooties", last week. It may have been no more than a blithe segue within lighthearted commentary about a light-weight study. So in that sense, aptly amused, we should maybe just move on to the next thing. But wait. Outside of the context of this editorial and this study, too many people understand science exactly this way. They would take the author's statement as a 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 -- another FOX worthy story. But the title was also apropos of Carl Sandburg's poem "Fog": "The fog creeps in on little cat feet..." The media (as in major news outlets like CNN and FOX, and hundreds of small town local newspapers) create a fog around science so that no one can 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.

There's Vapid Vamping Vacant Science

On top of the difficulty assessing research, the media often focuses attention on research studies that don't necessarily merit attention but insist on it via slick advertising. The research serves as publicity, as a bright accessory to a certain institution or researcher.

Real science competes badly with banal reports of young actresses, wobbly dolls who perhaps aren't really humans at all but media concoctions confected to reflect back our own collective wisdom and will, qualities that seem to be disconcertingly drifting downhill. The media needs eyes on all stories for advertising dollars though, so scientists obligingly drum up science that competes. But science that is published because it slips down gullets easily and requires nothing of society except lurid, fleeting fascination, may not really be 'science that is science' at all.

The actresses paraded before us may just be apparitions, helpless malnourished lushes wafting about on clouds of narcotic narcissism, money like confetti, fluttering about their skinny legs, forever vamping, vacant, well-mascara'd eyes. Scientists, however, are probably not yet the passive actors that the author of "Fat Comes in on Little Cat Feet" represents. They are protagonists whose actions culminate in "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: Health and the Environment

It reads like the classic story of the fox guarding the hen house. Sciences International, (SI), 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 without listing company's conflicts of interest, an arrangement that seems ripe for abuse. Acronym Required looked into the details of the story, which do little to allay those concerns. Had SI, working for the FDA, the NIH, and now CERHR, as well as significant numbers of chemical companies perhaps 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 SI 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's potent at very small doses and 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 critics, 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 SI 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, SI 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 wrote clearly about the work they performed:

"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, SI 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 SI'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 SI 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 SI'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."

SI's statements seem clearly intended to sway a corporate audience. SI 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.

SI 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. SI's old website revealed SI'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, SI'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 illustrate their theory in 67 pages of analysis and findings, and 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]

Scientists may question the ambiguous conclusion, but should they actually take heed? Maybe the researchers are right. Moreover, 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 possibilty" was "ignored" by researchers.

The methods may seem unconventional by science standards, but by simply ignoring the time intensive processes we habitually undertake, these authors stride forward with unprecedented speed to reach conclusions, proposals for future research, and policy recommendations. 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 conditiondifficult 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 variablility". This allows comparisons between areas of low precipitation and high preciptation 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 couty-level age-spec