Friday, August 13, 2004
A Pathetic Defense for Bush
The Washington Post reports that two GOP senators--Trent Lott and Gordon Smith--are defending Bush on the stem cell issue. There's just one problem: They themselves want Bush's policy changed, even though they want Bush to receive credit for allowing at least a modicum of research. Some defense.
The two senators--or at least Smith--also want to tag Kerry on the issue of "therapeutic cloning." But thank goodness that Smith, unlike many on the right, is unwilling to demagogue this issue by falsely claiming that Kerry supports "human cloning":
As part of the counterattack, Republicans are trying to shift the focus to Kerry's support of therapeutic cloning. Although he distinguishes between a living embryo in a woman's womb and cells in a laboratory, Smith said he nevertheless opposes cloning for research purposes because there is "little way to stop us from going down the path of creating laboratory body farms."
I'm glad to hear that Smith appreciates the difference between a cloned embryo in a lab and a cloned embryo in a womb. As for the slippery slope argument he advances: If senators like Smith don't want "laboratory body farms," why don't they, like, pass a law or something?
The Post piece, by Ceci Connolly (who now appears to be on this beat full time), also contains a quote I haven't heard before from Laura Bush:
"We don't even know that stem cell research will provide cures for anything -- much less that it's very close" to providing cures, she said, chastising Kerry's criticism of her husband's policy as "ridiculous."
Again, that's questionable spin. Scientists have already used embryonic stem cells in mice to cure diabetes and Parkinson's. Humans aren't exactly the same as mice, but that's still a fairly strong hint that something like this can work in people too.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:39 AM Eastern | Comments
Mooney Radio
A few weeks back I did a pre-recorded radio interview with a Kansas station called KJHK about the politics of science. The other interview participant was Dr. Kurt Gottfried of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Now I'm informed that the interview airs tonight, should you be interested in listening in. As you can see here, the show, "Politics with Rachel Robson," airs at 7 pm Kansas (Central) time. That's 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. Eastern, 6:00-7:00 Mountain and 5:00-6:00 on the West Coast. To listen, go to the station's website homepage and click for the live feed......
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:19 AM Eastern | Comments
Bring on Michael Reagan
Apparently he's going to refute his half-brother on the topic of embryonic stem cell research at the Republican National Convention. If this piece--in which Reagan dubs the idea that ES cell research could advance the treatment of Alzheimer's "junk science" even as he himself hypes adult stem cell research--is any indication, we can look forward to yet more Bush-Cheney science abuse, although of a very different sort. This isn't about quashing scientists at federal agencies. This is about broadcasting a false picture of the science of embryonic stem cell research to the entire nation.
Granted, maybe Michael Reagan will be more cautious in his speech than in the column I just linked to. But the column certainly provides a very troubling indication of how he thinks about this isue. And the repeated use of the phrase "junk science" suggests a real inclination towards demagoguery.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:04 AM Eastern | Comments
Crop Circle Artists
Not that there was any doubt, but this is the best proof yet that human beings, and not aliens, make crop circles. Some artist-entrepreneurs are even making a fortune for their work. "Crop circle artist" has got to be the weirdest career I've ever heard of, but hey, if it pays the bills....
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:57 AM Eastern | Comments
Feature on Stem Cell Research
I've got a big piece in the latest issue of The American Prospect about the California stem cell ballot initiative, and how the mobilization of our largest state on this issue demonstrates the utter failure of the Bush policy. You can read the PDF here. An excerpt:
Regardless of its ultimate fate, California's movement toward what The Wall Street Journal memorably dubbed "scientific secession" underscores the dramatic failure
of President Bush's restrictive policy on embryonic-stem cell research. In 2001, the president claimed that he supported exploring "the promise and potential of stem-cell research" within moral limits. Yet scientists and disease activists have experienced such dramatic constraints under his policy that they've taken a radical step to circumvent it. What they're attempting is unprecedented: relieving the federal government of its responsibility for funding a major area of scientific research,
and bestowing that duty on a state.
There should be an online version as well soon; I'll provide a link. For now, though, it's here.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:41 AM Eastern | Comments
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Distorting the Science of "Dolphin-Safe" Tuna
It seems we have another case study in science abuse by the Bush administration. A federal judge in San Francisco has rebuked the Department of Commerce for ignoring science in determining which tuna could be labeled "dolphin-safe":
"The record is replete with evidence that the secretary was influenced by policy concerns unrelated to the best available scientific evidence," Henderson wrote in a strongly worded 51-page opinion. "This court has never, in its 24 years, reviewed a record of agency action that contained such a compelling portrait of political meddling."
I wonder if the specific agency that's to blame in this matter is the Commerce Department's National Marine Fisheries Service, also known as NOAA Fisheries. There's been a lot of science politicization at NOAA Fisheries over issues like Klamath River flow levels and Pacific salmon, and this would add another case study to the list.
UPDATE: The judge's ruling can be read here.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 11:44 AM Eastern | Comments
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Tim Lambert has a good post examining who's willing to change their opinion on the climate change question when new evidence presents itself. The answer is, not many people. And certainly not our friend Iain Murray. As Lambert puts it: "It's tough being a climate scientist. Get a result that Iain Murray doesn't like, and he'll accuse you of dishonest practices." Read the whole post.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:33 AM Eastern | Comments
Stem Cell Contrarianism
The latest piece from Slate's William Saletan, on embryonic stem cell research, really gets my goat. I know Saletan (vaguely at least) and have nothing against him, but I'm afraid he's gone overboard in searching for something contrary to say on the question of embryonic stem cell research. Saletan doesn't seem particularly well versed in the scientific issues involved; nevertheless, he's happy to instruct John Kerry, "if you want to preserve trust in science, stick to the evidence."
Saletan's contention is that the Democrats, in adopting this cause, have basically become spinmeisters and charlatans, irresponsibly peddling unlikely cures and relying on a kind of religious faith while twisting the real facts of the issue. And it's true that there's a danger of over-hyping embryonic stem cell research by promising the moon. However, some of the "hype" is quite reasonable--this is a highly promising medical field and scientists think it's really going to deliver.
The person whose wisdom really sticks out for me on the "hype" issue is Nobel Laureate David Baltimore, who spoke at a 2004 Biotech Industry Organization conference I attended last June in San Francisco. "Hype is only a matter of time" when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, Baltimore explained. In other words, we're at the point now where scientists known enough about embryonic stem cells to know that if they just continue with basic research, the cures are going to come. How long that's going to take is unclear; there may be many unexpected challenges along the way; and some projected cures might not materialize. But scientists wouldn't be so committed to this field if they didn't have strong grounds for that commitment. Saletan thinks he's being wise in denouncing the Democrats' "religious" commitment to the idea of cures, and calling John Kerry a "faith healer," yet the promise of embryonic stem cell research has a firm scientific basis.
When it comes to the Democrats' spinning this issue, meanwhile, pretty much the only point Saletan gets right is the fact that Bush didn't "ban" embryonic stem cell research. But even here he goes astray. In arguing that Bush did not ban this work, Saletan points out something totally irrelevant: The amount of money spent by the NIH on uncontroversial adult stem cell research. As if that matters. Indeed, throwing in this meaningless detail suggests to me that Saletan may not be entirely clear on what's at stake on the question of embryonic stem cell research. He also claims that last year the NIH spent $ 25 million on "on research involving the roughly 20 approved embryonic lines," yet a large number of these lines have only come online this year. How could 2003 research money have been spent on them?
Saletan goes on to claim that, in speaking of a "ban," the Kerry campaign has been "scientifically inaccurate in four egregious ways." Huh? What's scientific or unscientific about whether the research was banned or not? It's a factual question, plain and simple. The Democrats have distorted this one fact, but it's not really a scientific question.
Discussing how the pro-embryonic stem cell research campaign has become "ideological," Saletan makes another misstep, writing:
The research must be insulated from comparative cost-benefit analysis by asking voters, through ballot measures, to designate billions of dollars exclusively for stem-cell work instead of other medical studies.
Is Saletan suggesting that the economics don't support investing in embryonic stem cell research? If so, that's just nuts. If you do a cost benefit analysis of embryonic stem cell research, as the California ballot initiative has done, you find that the research could easily pay for itself in terms of reduce healthcare costs down the road. Bring on the cost benefit analysis! Bring on the economics!
Then Saletan makes the predictable Alzheimer's point--denouncing the "fairy tale" that embryonic stem cell transplant therapies could be used to treat Alzheimer's. Again, Saletan just doesn't get it. As I have explained with respect to Alzheimer's, embryonic stem cell research isn't just about therapies. From the standpoint of basic research and learning more about the disease--knowledge that could eventually lead to cures of a non-transplant nature--embryonic stem cell research does have significant promise in the Alzheimer's area. That's why proponents keep on bringing up Alzheimer's; that's why the Alzheimer's Association, California Council, supports the California stem cell ballot initiative.
So once you dismantle everything, it turns out that Saletan is right to fault Democrats on the question of whether Bush banned embryonic stem cell research, and perhaps right to chide them not to over-hype the science. But none of his other arguments really stand up.
Now, I agree that the Democrats have engaged in some dishonesty on this issue. But what annoys me about Saletan's piece is that the distortions coming from the right massively dwarf those from the left any day of the week on the question of embryonic stem cell research. The only reason I can see to slam the Democrats is because it's "unpredictable"--but it's also the equivalent of stomping out smoldering cigarettes while ignoring a wildfire.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:18 AM Eastern | Comments
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Stem Cell Rookies
The two reporters that the Los Angeles Times has covering this beat don't seem very well versed in the issue. How else can you explain this passage:
Ann Kiessling of Harvard Medical School, a leading researcher in the field, said Bush deserved credit for providing the first federal funds to promote stem cell research in 2001.
But the president's insistence that the work be limited to cells derived before August 2001 meant that there were only about eight cell lines available to publicly funded researchers in the United States, she said.
"If you are going to spend just on those cell lines and not on the other stem cell lines, that is very limiting. That's still a big problem," Kiessling said in an interview.
As written, this just isn't right. There are currently 21 lines available for funding. The Times reporters didn't bother to go get the correct number from NIH, though. Instead, they rely on Kiessling. I'm sure that she knows the correct number as well, but I imagine that when she said "only about eight cell lines," she was referring to the ones that researchers actually feel comfortable with and use--not to the total number.
In any case, the result is a blatant misstatement of the number of available lines.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 11:42 AM Eastern | Comments
A Great Argument
Ellen Goodman's recent column on embryonic stem cell research contained the following passage:
As bioethicist George Annas puts it, "The antiabortionist will say that the embryo has the same status as a child and taking an embryo apart for harvesting the stem cells is the equivalent of taking a child apart for its organs. That's the most antiscience argument I've ever heard." Imagine instead, he adds, if an IVF clinic were on fire. Is there anyone who would save the fertilized eggs in the freezer instead of a child?
That's a powerful argument, in my view. I've never heard it before, but it certainly gives the lie to pro-life rhetoric.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 11:20 AM Eastern | Comments
Adult Stem Cells in the UK
Seems like the story is pretty much the same as here. Check out this passage from a BBC story on the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority giving permission for the country's first "therapeutic cloning" experiment:
Professor Jack Scarisbrick of the pro-life charity Life, called the HFEA's decision "deplorable".
"We are all in favour of conquering terrible diseases. But we do not need cloning to do so. Stem cells taken from adults are likely to be just as good, if not better."
I guess no matter what side of the Atlantic you're on, pro-lifers dig adult stem cells. It's like clockwork. What I would really like to see, though, is a pro-lifer who opposes embryonic stem cell research but also opposes the scientifically questionable adult stem cell boosterism of the pro-life movement. Do any such people exist?
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:56 AM Eastern | Comments
Congressional Smackdown
Want to know a weird feeling? Try being criticized by two members of Congress and never even knowing it happened.
A little bird just sent me this link. Apparently sometime earlier this year Republican Congressmen Chris Cannon and Jim Gibbons, both Western "sound science"-type conservatives, critiqued a February Washington Post outlook piece of mine. Somehow, I had never seen their commentary before or even knew that it existed.
Reading over what Cannon and Gibbons had to say, I didn't find much to sink my teeth into. The piece doesn't really engage the arguments advanced in my original article. It contains quips like, "We fail to see what objection Mr. Mooney can have to [the scientific] method, unless it is that he just doesn't like the outcome and doesn't want policy to be subjected to open public scrutiny." For the record (as if there was any doubt), I do support the scientific method.
Throughout their piece, Cannon and Gibbons simply assert that their side does use science properly, and that I just don't get it. They don't really answer any of my specific criticisms, however, or refute my claim that "sound science" proponents are in fact misusing science.
A bit startlingly, Cannon and Gibbons really twist the knife in the opening of their critique:
Recently, a freelance journalist named Chris Mooney, an English graduate with no background in science....
Ouch. How do you respond to a low blow like that?
Posted by Chris Mooney at 1:13 AM Eastern | Comments
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
New Column on Intelligent Design Theory
My latest Skeptical Inquirer online column just went up. It compares "Intelligent Design" theory to the historic "Creation Science" movement and find both similarities and dissimilarities. An excerpt:
As it turns out, ID is more or less like young earth creationism--and especially like "creation science"--depending on whether you choose to focus on its actual assertions or its strategic behavior. In substantive terms, ID differs quite significantly from the "creation science" movement that preceded it, and in ways that generally make its arguments stronger, or at least less risible. ID doesn't, for instance, deny the validity of radioisotope dating and assert the existence of a young Earth. Neither does it rely on the feverish nonsense of Flood Geology, claiming that a single Noachian deluge laid down the entire fossil record. More generally, whether out of strategic wariness or otherwise, ID proponents tend to shy away from espousing biblically literalist views in their literature and publications (though the religious motivations of many of ID's All Stars are well documented).
So substantively, we have to admit that ID differs significantly from "creation science." Since young earth creationists themselves frequently made arguments about the presence of design in living things, we might even say that ID represents "creation science" stripped of everything but design arguments (as well as various critiques of evolutionary theory). In fact, it has often been noted that ID verges on intellectual vacuity: At least young earth creationists had their own detailed account of how life on earth came into being.
Yet as far as its strategic behavior goes, ID actually appears to represent a kind of natural culmination of the "creation science" movement, which originated in the 1960s and 1970s for specific legal and educational reasons. When compared to "creation science" on a strategic level, it turns out that ID proceeds still further in the direction of PR-oriented pseudoscience and the denial of religious intentions in argument. In fact, we can detect many rudimentary elements of the current ID approach among earlier advocates of "creation science"--though ID has improved and perfected them.
Again, you can read the rest of the column here.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 3:33 PM Eastern | Comments
Descent into Hell
Less than two months away from my 27th birthday, and with a soon-to-expire driver's license from Massachusetts (where I haven't lived since 2001), today I must brave the foul depths of the Washington, D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles. Wish me luck, say a prayer for me--whatever it is that you do. I'm going to need it. And if I don't blog for the rest of the day, you'll know why.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:29 AM Eastern | Comments
Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research "Preliminary"?
Laura Bush yesterday apparently argued that the field of embryonic stem cell research isn't very far along, calling the work "very preliminary." What gall. If the research isn't far along, there's no doubt that the Bush policy itself shares at least part of the blame. Time was lost, scientists were scared away from entering a politicized area, and arbitrary limitations on research funding were created. For conservatives to then criticize a lack of progress represents true chutzpah.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 8:45 AM Eastern | Comments
A New Policy
When he wasn't making dumb claims about Bush "banning" embryonic stem cell research, John Edwards actually outlined a promising new policy to deal with this contentious area. Here are the basics:
The system of "strict ethical regulations" described by Edwards closely resembles the framework that the Clinton administration devised in its final two years but never put into effect.
Scientists would be able to use federal funds to isolate and study stem cells from fertility clinic embryos no longer wanted by parents -- embryos, Edwards said, "that would otherwise be discarded or frozen indefinitely." Consent would be required of the parents. And proposed experiments would have to pass muster with an ethics committee at the academic or research institution where the work would be done.
Edwards also reiterated the Democratic ticket's support for "therapeutic" cloning, which involves the creation of cloned human embryos as a source of stem cells. He rejected the notion that embryo cloning was synonymous with human cloning, which he said he and Kerry oppose. Edwards promised an increase in funding for embryonic stem cell research to at least four times the $25 million spent by the federal government in fiscal 2003.
That's exactly right. Monitor the research and hold it to high ethical standards, but don't arbitrarily limit it.
I suppose I'm glad that Edwards is being honest and admitting that the Democratic ticket supports "therapeutic" cloning. But the Kerry campaign will needs to conduct massive communications assault if they're to prevent the Republicans from successfully labeling this stance pro-"human cloning." People aren't going to know the difference between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning, but they're damn scared of "human cloning." This issue could really hurt Democrats.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 8:36 AM Eastern | Comments
Cut the "Ban" Crap
Here's the Washington Post on yesterday's trading of barbs about embryonic stem cell research:
In a conference call with reporters from Chicago yesterday, Edwards called Aug. 9 "a sad anniversary." It was on that date in 2001 that Bush announced his "ban" on federal funding for the research, the Democratic vice presidential nominee said.
In fact, Bush agreed on that date to allow, for the first time, the use of federal funds for studies of human embryonic stem cells, which reside inside five-day-old embryos and have the biological potential to turn into every kind of replacement tissue a body could need. But he limited support to research on colonies from embryos already destroyed by that date.
Is there any excuse for Edwards' making a mistake like this, one so egregious that even the Washington Post reporter has to correct him? Bush didn't ban embryonic stem cell research, and that isn't the issue. Period. Accusing Bush of enacting a ban is just going to fire up conservatives with righteous fury, and put journalists on their side as well. It's an unfair, stupid characterization. The Democratic ticket needs to knock it off immediately.
My recommended language: Democrats should say that Bush "imposed arbitrary funding limits" on embryonic stem cell research. Or something like that.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 8:31 AM Eastern | Comments
Monday, August 09, 2004
Tommy Thompson, Spinmeister
I was pretty stunned by this statement on embyonic stem cell research, attributed to HHS secretary Thompson by CNN:
"Let's take advantage of the great opportunity that exists before arguing that more is needed," Thompson added in a statement released yesterday. "Before anyone can successfully argue that the existing federal stem-cell policy needs to be broadened, we must first exhaust the potential of the stem-cell lines made available within the policy, as well as the ability of the private sector to go beyond the policy."
Let me get this straight: We have to do research for years under the current regime and only then see whether we should have opened the funding spigots more? Nuts. Think about the time and lives that could potentially be lost by pursuing such a strategy.
All the top stem cell scientists are already saying that federal funding is too limited, and California is on the verge of open revolt against the Bush policy. Plus, the idea that the Bush policy deserves some kind of deference is hard to swallow. It was built on misinformation from the start. Why should we kowtow to it?
Posted by Chris Mooney at 2:52 PM Eastern | Comments
Good Reporting...
Are journalists suddenly getting more interested in providing the actual facts, rather than providing "both sides" on a question no matter who's telling the truth? This rather remarkable passage from an AP story on stem cell research suggest that perhaps they are:
Kerry, Edwards and his campaign aides frequently refer to Bush's ban on stem cell research. While Bush's policy dramatically restricts potential research, it does not ban it. Bush has allowed research on existing lines.
"The president's policy makes it possible for researchers to explore the potential of stem-cell (research) while respecting the ethical and moral implications associated with this research," Laura Bush said.
The administration said Bush is the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research, which is true but only because the science has only come to maturity during Bush's tenure. President Clinton's policy would have paid for research using stem cell lines created at any time.
How about that. Both sides get their spin taken apart. I really like it. So should the guys at Spinsanity.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 2:37 PM Eastern | Comments
JDRF on August 9, 2004
The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, one of the nation's leading enthusiasts for embryonic stem cell research, has also taken the opportunity to make something out of today's date. Though it's not online yet as far as I can see, JDRF has released a new white paper making the case for the expansion of the Bush stem cell policy. The paper, which I'll link to when I can, basically makes 8 arguments:
1. There aren't nearly as many Bush ES cell lines as promised.
2. Those lines represent "old science" anyway, since they were developed using dated techniques.
3. The lines aren't genetically diverse enough.
4. Some ES cell lines may be more effective at treating different diseases than others, because some may be more inclined to turn into particular tissue types. But there aren't enough Bush lines to really find out.
5. No "disease specific" cell lines are available for federal funds even though these are now being derived and have major biomedical research potential.
6. Because all of the Bush lines were developed on "mouse feeders," they present a major regulatory hurdle if anyone ever wanted to develop transplant tissue from them.
7. All of these limitations dissuade/prevent scientists from entering this field of research.
8. Adult stem cells can't rival embryonic stem cells.
All of this represents the scientific mainstream view as far as I can tell, given my interviews with scientists in this field. One interesting point arises with # 5, as I found out when discussing this topic with JDRF's chief scientific officer Robert Goldstein on a recent conference call. It turns out that while some disease specific ES cell lines can be identified through genetic prescreening of IVF embryos, such a process only catches simple genetic diseases. To derive disease specific cell lines with the attributes of complex, multi-cause diseases, scientists would need a different process--namely, "therapeutic cloning" or somatic cell nuclear transfer.
In other words, scientists can't identify which IVF embryos might have a genetic propensity to develop, say, Alzheimer's. The disease is too genetically complicated. Instead, they'd have to find an actual person with Alzheimer's and then take a nucleus from one of that person's cells. What this appears to suggest, then, is that to achieve the full potential of embryonic stem cell research, there's going to have to be at least some embryo "cloning" involved. If we don't do it, other countries will.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:34 AM Eastern | Comments
Kerry Marks August 9
Now that I've dumped on the Kerry campaign a bit, let me also applaud it. Not only did Kerry visit Flagstaff, Arizona, one of my favorite places on earth, yesterday. He's also planning to make a stink about embryonic stem cell research this week, to mark the third anniversary of Bush's crumbling policy. Smart move. Truly symbolic moments aren't all that frequent in a campaign, and with less than three months to go, this is not one to be missed.
Here are some things I found interesting about the Post's report from yesterday on Kerry's decision to highlight this issue. First, reporter Ceci Connolly calls supporting increased ES cell research "an issue with overwhelming bipartisan support." I guess there's no more doubt about that, then. It seems the conventional political wisdom now thoroughly recognizes the Democratic ticket's cleverness in exploiting this "wedge" issue.
Second, Connolly notes that the Democratic campaign is once again using the stem cell issue to get at the broader theme: that Kerry will "stand up for science." Groups like Doctors for Kerry and Scientists and Engineers for Kerry are deploying to battleground states to help make this argument credible. Meanwhile, the Bush administration's "scientists" still seem to be AWOL (for more on that check out this thread). Can't they at least trot out a few climate change "skeptics" or something?
The Post piece contains some more goodies. According to Connolly, the Bush campaign now advances a new argument on embryonic stem cell research:
Bush allies point out that there are no limits on privately funded embryonic stem cell research and say an expansion of the federal program would probably mean taking money from other scientific work.
I don't buy it. The president and Congress decide how much money to pump into different areas of scientific research. There's no reason they can't increase funding for one area without borrowing from another area--provided they want to. Indeed, we're probably not talking about much more than a few hundred million dollars per year here, relatively small potatoes for the federal government. This is not going to break the bank. Even the stunningly generous California ballot initiative would only pump $ 300 million into stem cell research per year, and it's explicitly designed to outdistance spending by Washington.
Jay Lefkowitz, a former Bush adviser who's one of the chief people responsible for the president's failed policy on ES cell research, has a rather maddening quotation in the Post story:
"The president isn't just taking a look at the science. If all we did was focus on the science, we would harvest the organs of people who are terminally ill or people on death row."
Sure we would. Yeah, right. Is Lefkowitz claiming that scientists have no moral compass of their own, and can't draw distinctions about what kind of research should and shouldn't be done? It seems to me he's equating "science" with a radical utilitarian moral philosophy that few people, if any, actually espouse. And you wonder why people think the Bush administration is anti-science.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 1:37 AM Eastern | Comments
John Kerry, the "Sound Science" Candidate
The annoyances continue. Check out this PDF from the Kerry campaign. It outlines the Kerry-Edwards plan to "Support Sound Science and Reinvigorate American Innovation." Judging from the language used here, I would not be at all surprised if the Democratic agenda is to raise the burden of proof before government can take action to protect public health and the environment. Certainly that's something many conservative Democrats of the Zell Miller/John Breaux ilk would probably support; and whether Kerry and Edwards know it or not, that's what they're actually saying.
My advice to the Kerry campaign: If you want to speak in code, you should actually learn the code first.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 1:02 AM Eastern | Comments
Friday, August 06, 2004
Science on Stem Cells in the Campaign
David Malakoff has a piece in the current issue entitled "The Calculus of Making Stem Cells a Campaign Issue." "Last week, the Kerry campaign took the unusual step of elevating a complicated bit of science policy to a top-tier election issue," Malakoff notes. He goes on to explain that
there are pluses and minuses in this development:
Many science and patient groups welcomed Kerry's remarks, saying they signaled success in attracting attention to their key concerns. "For science and stem cells to make it [into Kerry's speech] shows that these issues have made it to the political major leagues," says Kevin Wilson, public policy director of the American Society for Cell Biology in Bethesda, Maryland. But, Wilson and others warned, the high-profile embrace could also create problems, from unrealistic public expectations for quick stem cell cures to strained relationships with Republican allies. "I had hoped that we could keep stem cell research separate from election-year politics. ... Politicization of this critical issue will only serve to alienate more potential supporters," predicted Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who has led efforts to reverse the White House policy.
I'm not that worried about Orrin Hatch's concern. Frankly, if the polling figures suggested in this Science story are correct--with 62 percent of conservatives supporting easing Bush's stem cell research restrictions and much higher numbers for other groups--then Republicans would be foolish to make a stand on the issue.
Malakoff ends on an intriguing note: "Analysts on both sides expect the candidates to be asked questions about their stem cell policies in the upcoming debates." That should be a lot of fun, especially if somebody asks George W. Bush to define "blastocyst" or something. Not that I'm sure Kerry would do much better with that question, actually...
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:59 AM Eastern | Comments
Janet Reno for Stem Cell Research
She's one of the people who will be speaking out on Monday, at an event held by the Genetics Policy Institute. Reno may not be quite as high profile as Nancy Reagan, perhaps, but given that she has Parkinson's disease, she seems like a pretty good spokeswoman to have on this issue. Maybe the Kerry campaign should make use of her.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:11 AM Eastern | Comments
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Can Scientists Deliver Florida?
I finally got my hands on that Nature editorial that I mentioned below. It calls upon scientists to use the attention to science in the campaign to further their own goals--i.e., to basically behave like any other interest group:
For the time being, Kerry is making the running on scientific issues. But if his advisers are correct in their judgement that the public is receptive to a pro-science message, it won't be long before the Bush campaign is
seeking to build bridges with the scientific community.
Scientists, regardless of their political affiliation, should take advantage of this course of events. Whoever wins or loses, scientists
have an opportunity to raise the profile of research nationwide. And they may cause whoever triumphs in November to think more deeply about how they will use science in their administration.
Above all, researchers should remember that the last election was decided by just 537 votes in Florida — less than one-eighth of the number of scientists who have so far signed the statement backing the UCS report. Both Bush and Kerry should be reminded that, in a close-run poll, science-friendly policies could help swing the balance between defeat and victory.
I don't really think scientists are going to deliver Florida. Still, many have argued that the science community needs to become more politically aware and demand that politicians not only fund science adequately (which they already do) but respect it (which they often don't). I can see this election as potentially giving scientists an opportunity to make such a demand, so I'm pretty much in agreement with the Nature editorial.
The thing is, though, that demand's really only being made of Kerry. I think Bush is too far gone at this point. The current administration is more likely to see scientists as enemies than as a group they have to get back on the right side of. Yeah, they may go out in search of their own scientists. But I would imagine that they've already tried that and come up pretty much empty handed.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 1:05 PM Eastern | Comments
Biotech Trees
The New York Times says they're coming. They've been on the way for a long time, actually, but people are only now beginning to take notice. It seems as though with trees even more than with biotech crops, the goal of the genetic engineers is to actually solve environmental problems. So they're thinking of creating trees to sequester carbon, trees to remove mercury from the soil, and trees that the timber industry guys can chop up so that they'll leave pristine forests alone.
You might think all of this would be appealing to the greenies, and to some extent it is. Still, there are some enviros who are pretty worried about it, including the Sierra Club. Frankly, I wish they would settle down a bit. The Times story ends on a very wise note:
Said Dr. Linhart of the University of Colorado: "One always needs to put into the equation biological caution and common sense. It's a case-by-case basis. One has to not make sweeping judgments that say this particular type of activity is all good or all bad."
A lot of environmentalists missed out on taking this moderate approach to genetically modified foods. They should rethink their strategy on genetically modified trees.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:13 AM Eastern | Comments
From Nature
I see the following two headlines this week:
Nobel laureates spearhead effort to put Kerry in the White House
Researchers hit the campaign trail for the US presidential election
On the campaign trail
The use and abuse of science is emerging as an issue in the US presidential election. Researchers should seize an opportunity to make their voices heard, whatever their political persuasion.
I don't have a Nature subscription, and I haven't seen the latest issue of Science yet, but I think these headlines give a good sense of how the science journalism community views what's happened politically of late. In short, they're gaga. Science to play a role in a presidential campaign? Unheard of!
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:59 AM Eastern | Comments
Tim Noah on Stem Cells
He's good enough to credit me in this piece about how the Democrats have found their wedge issue. Somehow, Noah managed to count how often the phrase "stem cell" was uttered at the Democratic National Convention, and the result is an astonishing 20 times. Given how popular the issue has become for the Democrats, Noah thinks the GOP would be foolish to have Michael Reagan rebut his own brother by speaking at the Republican National Convention. He also analyzes why the Democrats see such promise in talking about stem cells:
As a "wedge" issue, Democrats covet stem-cell research because it lures industry—in this case, the biotech industry—away from the GOP. (Might it help explain why the pharmaceutical industry's political contributions to Democrats jumped from 26 percent to 34 percent of their total giving between 2002 and 2004?) Moreover, Republicans are as much in favor of advancing medical science as Democrats are; we all have friends and family members suffering from Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, cancer, or any of the various other diseases for which stem cells may one day provide a cure. In addition, stem-cell research has evolved into a political synecdoche for "concern about Bush's handling of science in general," according to Varmus, now president of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and chairman of a group called Scientists and Engineers for Kerry.
I've never seen the GOP as very good friends of the biotech industry--they're too busy moralizing about all the things biotechs are constantly trying to do. Noah is right about the appeal to cure diseases crossing party lines, and definitely--as I've said here so often--about the "political synecdoche." (Well put.) In short, he's right about everything. My only question is not addressed to him: When are Scientists and Engineers for Kerry going to get a website?
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:49 AM Eastern | Comments
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Anne Applebaum on Stem Cell Research
She's got a pretty interesting column today. Some of it's Bush spin, some of it's valid.
Applebaum wants to set the record straight: Bush didn't "ban" embryonic stem cell research, he was actually the first president to fund it, yada yada. This is technically true but verging on GOP spin. Applebaum's actually in favor of liberalizing the Bush "compromise" policy, but she adds that:
Although this compromise will soon become a real obstacle to research, for the moment the irritant is largely philosophical. "What hampers people is the concept that there is a lack of freedom to operate," one scientist told me.
That's not fair. From the start, it could be seen that the Bush policy was a house of cards and going to collapse. Granted, it's true that we're just beginning to see the rest of the world and the private sector jump ahead of federally funded U.S. research. But it's also true that had the Bush administration approached this field with enthusiasm and unrestricted funding from the get-go, rather than hesitancy, discomfort, and confused policy, we might be much further ahead.
Applebaum also notes the following:
Stem cell research is not, in fact, either illegal or unfunded: The federal budget in 2003 included $24.8 million for human embryonic stem cell research -- up from zero in 2000. Private funding of stem cell research, which is unlimited, runs into the tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars.
This, too, is revealing, although not in the way Applebaum seems to think. First, note that she can't put a figure on the amount of private funding that embryonic stem cell research is receiving. Neither could I when I tried to research the question recently. Nobody seemed to know. And that's precisely the point: We pay for science with taxpayer money so that we can have standards, accountability, fixed and transparent budgets, ethical regulations, and so on. That's why you can't leave research to the private sector. You won't know what the hell is going on.
Note also that Applebaum estimates that private funding is probably higher than federal funding in the U.S. That's striking: I'm told that in most biomedical fields NIH is the real go-to source for money, not the private sector. So this essentially shows just how differently embryonic stem cell research is being treated.
Anyway, let's face it, Anne: John Kerry has a campaign issue. If the Bush policy is only now verging on true collapse, so much the better for the Democrats. That's how politics works: If you're dumb enough do something that will bite you in the ass in three years, then you have to pay for it.
This is a good point from Applebaum, though not exactly original:
At some point we also need to make some distinction between science and "magic." It is true that funneling more money into biological research will produce more breakthroughs and more cures. It is also true that even with unlimited funding, Reeve might never walk again. This is research, not abracadabra. Talk of "magic" doesn't do much to reverse widespread scientific illiteracy either, which remains a far greater obstacle to scientific progress than the president.
Actually, I'm not sure that's an either/or, given that our president himself doesn't seem particularly science literate.....
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:18 AM Eastern | Comments
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Climate TV
I've been meaning to blog about this. The Weather Channel is undertaking an initiative called "Forecast Earth," which will cover climate change for a mass audience. The station has added an on-staff climate expert and updated its position statement on global warming, which had previously been wishy-washy but now strongly embraces the notion that anthropogenic warming is underway. Of course, the "skeptics" don't like this development one little bit.
The key question is, what will this new attention do for public perceptions of the issue? My guess is that it can't hurt, and climate change writer Ross Gelbspan (quoted in the story linked above) calls "Forecast Earth" "a major step forward in terms of the media." But we'll have to see what happens. Since I don't have a TV myself, coverage of climate change on The Weather Channel it isn't going to impact my views....
Posted by Chris Mooney at 1:12 PM Eastern | Comments
More on August 9
Come to think of it, it's a safe bet that we can probably expect some political activity (and not just heavy drinking) on the anniversary of Bush's stem cell decision. So far I've only heard a little bit about what may be in the works, but I would bet that more's on the way. If I were John Kerry and wanted to make embryonic stem cell research a campaign issue, for example, I highly doubt that I'd allow this date to go by unnoticed and un-remarked upon.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 12:57 PM Eastern | Comments
Mark Your Calendars
Next Monday--August 9--will mark the 3 year anniversary of Bush's embryonic stem cell decision. The restriction on federal funding of "new" lines came at 9 pm eastern, to be precise--although Bush announced his decision from the central time zone because he was slumming in Texas. In any case, even though it's a Monday night, I'll be sure to raise a glass, and drink to arbitrariness.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:26 AM Eastern | Comments
Stem Cells and Pinkie Toes
Roger Pielke, Jr., says the stem cell debate is like pitting people who would sell their pinkie toe for enough moolah against those who would never sell it no matter the payoff. He calls the two camps "Dealers" and "Stalwarts." Here's the thing, though. I'm not so sure I would part with my pinkie toe, but I'm definitely willing to part with IVF-discarded embryos for medical research. The toe is mine, part of my body. The embryos will never even have bodies.
In other words, I think that the "pinkie toe" analogy is deeply personal to people, and strikes very close to home, whereas the stem cell debate is deeply ideological and often abstract. So I'd spin things another way. The people in this debate who actually have something bodily at stake are those waiting for disease cures. They and their sympathizers are pitted against those whose stake is an idea or moral belief system.
So when I think about whether I'd like to keep my pinkie toe, and decide that I would, that actually in some sense puts me in the same camp as those who want to preserve their bodies against degenerative diseases, and thus seek stem cell cures.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:14 AM Eastern | Comments
Stem Cells and the "Soul"
I really enjoyed this commentary piece on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, published in the Chicago Tribune by a theologian and her organ transplant surgeon husband. Not only did the article contain this great line: "Limiting research to adult stem cells is like asking the government to develop an Air Force only using prop airplanes and ignoring the existence of jets." It also contained what I considered pretty powerful moral reasoning:
While people hold a wide variety of conflicting views on when a human being receives a soul or becomes alive, as a society we can perhaps arrive at agreement that, in the absence of brain activity and with no potential to develop brain activity, embryos that are left over from the in-vitro fertilization process fulfill criteria for absence of life and, therefore, can be used to accomplish a good end in healing.
Ah, good old fashioned pluralism. Too bad that's the last thing that religious conservatives--who believe that life begins even before implantation--want.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 8:50 AM Eastern | Comments
Monday, August 02, 2004
Climate Change Impacts
If this article from the Independent (via Grist) is really right in its reporting, and scientists do convincingly link a Scottish seabird wipeout catastrophe to climate change's impact on ocean temperatures, it's going to attract a lot of attention. Here's the gist:
In what could be a sub-plot from the recent disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow, a rise in sea temperature is believed to have led to the mysterious disappearance of a key part of the marine food chain - the sandeel, the small fish whose great teeming shoals have hitherto sustained larger fish, marine mammals and seabirds in their millions.
...the astonishing scale of what has taken place is already clear - and the link to climate change is being openly made by scientists. It is believed that the microscopic plankton on which tiny sandeel larvae feed are moving northwards as the sea water warms, leaving the baby fish with nothing to feed on....
Granted, the U.S. media will probably take a pass on this story. But it certainly seems possible that a similar wildlife disaster will soon arise in the U.S. that can be clearly linked to climate change. I might just be ignorant, but I'm unaware of any comparable cases at this point.....
Posted by Chris Mooney at 4:32 PM Eastern | Comments
Ehlers Keeps It Up
It's not clear why Michigan Republican Vernon Ehlers has now taken up the task of battling back against scientific critics of the administration. Maybe he was tapped for the job; maybe he was simply inspired. Certainly he's well qualified for the charge, being a physicist himself and chairing a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science.
Ehlers just phoned in to the Kojo Nnamdi show, and made some strong counter arguments against the Union of Concerned Scientists and other administration critics. He observed that Bill Clinton "appointed to my knowledge almost entirely Democrats [to scientific advisory committees]; no one raised a fuss about it." He stated that he had never experienced any pressure from the Bush administration in his role as a subcommittee chair. He asserted that the UCS had released their report "just a few months before the election...that certainly strikes me as being political." Most importantly, he reiterated his previous controversial position on the politicization of scientific advisory committees, adding, "I think you can't expect anyone in charge of an organization to appoint people who from the beginning disagree with the appointing person philosophically."
I disagree with basically all of this. I don't know if Clinton appointed exclusively Democrats or not, but that's the wrong test. The question is whether Clinton's administration applied a scientific litmus test in making scientific advisory appointments, and I'm unaware of any charge that it did so.
On Ehlers' second point, I'm hardly surprised that he has collegial relations with the Bush administration, being a well respected Republican and no doubt perceived as part of the "team." But that hardly shows that no problem exists when it comes to advisory committee appointments. Ehlers' observation simply wasn't germane.
On the third point, the original UCS report was issued in February, 2004. That's not "just a few months before the election." Granted, it's in the same year as the election. Does that mean that everything that happens in an election year is automatically deemed exclusively political, and should be disregarded on that basis?
Ehlers' final point bugs me the most. I think you can expect someone in charge of an organization to appoint people who, from the beginning, disagree with the appointing person--provided that the person doing the appointing is broad minded enough to listen to and accept criticism. And in fact, I think that one prerequisite for leadership of any large and important organization--whether a business or a government--is such broadmindedness. I wouldn't feel very comfortable buying stock in a major corporation if I knew its CEO didn't listen to criticism.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 1:11 PM Eastern | Comments
Science on the Kojo Show
You folks might want to listen:
1:06 - Science and Public Policy
A look at how scientific advisory panels and reports are used - and misused - by government agencies and Congress to make public policy decisions.
Michael Levi, Science and Technology Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Dr. David Michaels, Research Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tx), Member of the House Committee on Science
Posted by Chris Mooney at 11:08 AM Eastern | Comments
A Steamroller in California
The state ballot initiative to pump unprecedented billions into stem cell research has raised more $ 7 million. The opposition has
(so far) raised zero. The founder of eBay and his wife have donated a million on their own. It's still early, but it looks like the embryonic stem cell research backers may simply squash the opposition. If so, governor Schwarzenegger might think about hitching himself to the campaign--and then basking in the glory of being a beneficent science patron come November.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 10:44 AM Eastern | Comments
Hyping Adult Stem Cells
The following quotation from Carrie Gordon Earll, "bioethicist" for Focus on the Family, appeared in a Chicago Tribune story on embryonic stem cell research that ran yesterday:
"The blind are seeing and the lame are walking because of adult stem cells."
Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the story--which I originally retrieved on Lexis-Nexis--because the Tribune's search engine is down. But in any case: Is there any possibility that Earll's statement is remotely accurate? I don't know all the details on cures that have thus far been achieved through adult stem cell research, but somehow I rather doubt that the "blind are seeing" again. This story suggests a possibility of such cures from adult stem cells down the road--the same situation as with many proposed embryonic stem cell cures--but certainly doesn't say that anyone has regained their eyesight.
As far as the "lame walking," at the recent adult stem cell research hearing I attended, both of the women claiming cures for their spinal cord injuries were still in wheelchairs as far as I could see. This story says that the two patients--Laura Dominguez and Susan Fajt--can walk with braces, but it also notes that the doctor who allegedly delivered their miracle cure has not yet published his results in a peer reviewed journal.
In short, my hunch is that Earll's quotation is way over the top. And if so, then let's not hear any more about how scientists and advocates are hyping embryonic stem cell research, because it would appear that "adult stem cell only" fans are guilty of the same thing.
Posted by Chris Mooney at 9:04 AM Eastern | Comments
|
|
|
Featured Articles
|
From The American Prospect:
Cell Block:
Bush's politicized stem-cell decision puts California on the verge of a "scientific secession."
From Skeptical Inquirer Online:
IDing ID:
Is "Intelligent Design" theory really "Creation Science" version 2.0? Not exactly, but the parallels are certainly suggestive.
|
|
