(transcript, YouTube, mp4)

For more information, see:

• Event information: The Science of Climate Change
• Video interview: How We Know Humans Are Changing the Climate: Joe Romm Interviews Michael MacCracken

Share This

(transcript, YouTube, mp4)

For more information, see:

• Event information: The Science of Climate Change
• Video interview: Climate Change Is a Clear and Present Danger: Joe Romm Interviews Christopher Field

Share This

Share This

He joined CAP senior fellow Jonathan Moreno to discuss his new book, Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic. The short text aims to help anyone interested in science—lay readers and experts alike—understand the nature of experimentation and what science looks like on a daily basis. According to Grinnell, there’s a lot more to think about than most people might assume at first. To listen to the podcast of the conversation, see the audio player above, download the mp3, or subscribe via iTunes.

Many practitioners, for instance, do not realize that their scientific research may have ethical ramifications, Grinnell said. When scientists repeat their experiments, they accumulate ten to fifteen notebooks with many sets of data that eventually become a paper. Since this is a typical process in research, “Data selection has to occur. It’s inevitable,” he explained. However, because there are responsible and irresponsible ways to select data, scientists need to establish a “transparent” and “reasonable” method. Since “golden data for one person may look like nonsense to another,” leading to accusations of “dishonest data selection,” students must learn about and always be aware of this very thin line, Grinnell said.

It is also important for people interested in U.S. research to understand how science is funded and supported, as grant awards often dictate a scientist’s professional life for years at a time, Grinnell said. These funding cycles can create a “soft money lifestyle” for some scientists, where “faculty have become responsible for raising some or all of their own salaries as part of their research grants,” a process, he explains, which “creates all sorts of conflicts of interest.”

“There’s a certain degree of tension that’s created in that system and a certain degree of uncertainty because from year to year, depending upon what Congress does, there may be more money or less money,” he said. This year, the Recovery Act provides additional research dollars, but many scientists are already worrying about what will happen several years down the road when the additional funding stops, yet these additional projects are underway. “Does that mean that they’re all going to be competing at the same time for money and then the success rates will go down?” he asked.

Grinnell himself recently won funding to extend his own research grant for the next four years, which will take him “beyond the end of the stimulus package.” From a practical point of view, he is happy, but he acknowledges many other researchers may not be as lucky. The system is inherently chancy, he said, since the success of an application is affected by nonscientific factors such as the time at which you submit your proposal.

Grant proposals, like research papers, are dependent upon peer review. In the peer review process for funding, other scientists help read proposals and determine whether the research is worthy of support. This is a valuable process for the science community, but it may have unintended consequences, Grinnell said.

“The people who are the peer reviewers are the ones who often understand the work the best, but they’re also the ones who have the best opportunity to potentially utilize or at least be influenced by this advanced knowledge.” The result, he said, is that peer review “is an advantage for the peer reviewer that people who are not peer reviewers don’t have.” Moreno, a reviewer himself, agreed, noting that he learns a lot about what is happening in his field by reading other people’s grant applications.

The National Academies’ definition of conflicts of interest has two parts, Grinnell noted: one covers financial conflicts, and the other indicates that anyone with a personal advantage is in conflict. Paradoxically, he said, peer reviewers gain a personal advantage  because they read about cutting-edge research before their colleagues, and that inevitably influences their behavior.

In the last chapter of his book Grinnell explores a different apparent conflict between faith and science. On the issue of whether intelligent design should be taught in science classes, he offers a clear “no,” since “it’s just not science.” However, science and religion are not necessarily in opposition, Grinnell said. To explain, he draws an analogy from the quantum physics model of of complementarity. “You can have two things that are complementary in such a strong sense that they are both right. And because they are separate, however, you can’t judge one against the other,” he said. On the one hand, he said, a claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old doesn’t make any sense. But if religion makes the claim that “life has meaning,” that’s just not a claim that science can judge very well.

Share This

So what’s the appropriate progressive response to the recent under-the-radar attempts from conservatives to ban the creation of animal-human hybrids? “Strategically,” suggests SP Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Moreno, “the answer is caricature. Because the silliness is outrageous.”

In 2005, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced the “Human Chimera Prohibition Act of 2005.” The bill never left committee, but White House speechwriters inserted a clause into President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union speech calling for legislation that banned the creation of “human-animal hybrids“—a change of terms Moreno suggested at the time might have been a result of scientific confusion on the part of the president’s advisers.

A chimera is an animal carrying cells that are genetically distinct from those of the host. Thousands of model animals used for important medical research on debilitating human diseases fall into this biological definition. But so do women who’ve ever been pregnant, as they continue to carry some fetal cells in their body afterward. Heart patients who have had a faulty heart valve replaced with one transplanted from a pig are also technically chimeras. A hybrid, on the other hand, is a special kind of chimera, the result of inter-species genetic mixing in reproductive cells, and carries traits from the two different species. Mules, for instance, are the sterile product of a male donkey and a female horse. The mythological minotaur from the isle of Crete would also presumably fit this definition.

This year, Brownback has apparently brushed up on the difference and introduced the a new bill to ban human-animal hybrids.* But legislators in Louisiana rushed ahead, and on July 13 Governor Bobby Jindal (R) signed a bill that outlaws the creation human-animal hybrids in his state. One wonders if residents would agree that the threat of monsters is of more concern than continued recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Louisiana scientists take notice: the law spells out punishments that can include up to 10 years of hard labor.

Moreno sat down with CAP colleague John Neurohr to talk about this bizarre strategy that weaves together pieces of arguments about abortion, stem cell research, and even the Terri Schiavo case. “There is a systematic attempt to create a narrative around conservatives as the protectors of the species,” says Moreno. The historical irony being that they’ve tried repeatedly to pin that eugenic label on progressives.

To listen to the podcast of the conversation, see the audio player in the sidebar, download the mp3, or subscribe via iTunes.

More from Jonathan Moreno on legislative efforts to ban animal-human hybrid: “Manimal Planet“

* An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to the new bill as the “Human-Animal Chimera Prohibition Act.”

Share This

Embryonic stem cells can develop into any kind of cell in the body and can replicate themselves indefinitely. Investigating how they work helps life scientists to create new disease therapies, test new drugs, and understand the human development process and how it can go wrong. As therapeutic tools they have the potential to replace, reconstruct, or regenerate failing tissues and organs.

James Thompson and a team of colleagues at the University of Wisconsin first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998, and since then scientists around the world have cultivated thousands of stem cell lines.

Why is it important to the United States?

Embryonic stem cell research is an important new area of science and must be part of our federally funded biomedical research enterprise if the United States is to retain its status as a global scientific leader. But embryonic stem cell research must be conducted responsibly and ethically.

Stem cell research is an important component of the new field of regenerative medicine, the goal of which is to develop new therapies. A small sample of a patient’s own cells are cultivated, reprogrammed, and used to treat the patient without the risk of rejection or severe side effects that often result from introducing for­eign materials.

What therapies are stem cell researchers working on, and what are they learning?

The potential therapies range from transforming the pancreatic cells of diabetics so they can produce insulin to reconnecting the nerves in severed spinal cords. Indeed, there have already been some modest clinical applications where heart muscles and cartilage have been repaired with stem cells derived from bone marrow.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The greatest potential for regenerative medicine lies in scientists’ ability to tap into the process of cell differentiation and development. This is only possible by tracing the development of human cells from the very beginning. To do so, scientists need to conduct research on embryonic stem cells so that they can dis­cover how these all-purpose cells can change into any one of the more than 200 different cell types in the human body.

Why do some groups oppose human embryonic stem cell research?

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that there have been many scientific advances made using stem cells that do not come from embryos, such as bone marrow-derived stem cells, which are a type of adult stem cell. Opponents also point to so-called induced pluripotent stem cells, which are created when adult cells-say, skin cells-are reprogrammed to become all-purpose “pluripotent” cells. These arguments are valid, but only up to a point. The reason: embryonic stem cells are both the original “master cells” capable of turning into any cell in the body as well as the “gold standard” against which all other stem cells must be compared.

In September of 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funding would be available only for research on the lines of embryonic stem cells that were derived before August 9, 2001, only 21 of which turned out to be viable. But it is likely that the inability of the National Institutes of Health to fund research on a variety of human embryonic stem cell lines from 2001 to 2008 impaired biologists’ understanding of the properties that mark pluripotency.

Science and ethics: the new federal embryonic stem cell research agenda

President Barack Obama lifted the Bush administration’s arbitrary limit on March 9, 2009 and directed NIH to develop guidelines for scientists who wish to research embryonic stem cells in accordance with rules for ethically derived human embryonic cells. The final guidelines, released July 6 and effective July 7, 2009, make certain that scientists conduct stem cell research with the highest ethical standards. They will also ensure that U.S. public and private biomedical research laboratories live up to the highest scientific standards.

Those rules are similar to those proposed in the Center for American Progress/Science Progress report, “A Life Sciences Crucible: Stem Cell Research and Innovation Done Responsibly and Ethically,” published in January. They include:

• Funding only for cell lines from excess embryos remaining after fertility procedures, including lines from other countries
• Full informed consent from the donors
• No financial inducements to donate
• A demonstrated understanding by the donors that the research will not confer benefits upon them personally
• A strict separation of the privately funded cell-derivation process from the publicly funded cell research
• A new working group in the federally chartered Advisory Committee to the NIH Director composed of scientists and ethicists to review the donation process of cell lines derived prior to implementation of the new guidelines for their eligibility for federal funding
• A registry of cell lines that have been found eligible for federal funding.

The Executive Order also instructs NIH to review and update these guidelines periodically, as appropriate. Acting Director Raynard Kington, explaining the new rules, said that they are “the right policy for where we are scientifically” at this moment in time.

It is important to note that these rules are in accordance with existing federal law, including the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment, which prohibits federal funding of research that creates, harms, or destroys embryos. The rules likewise support the rapid advances in induced pluripotent cell research, which still relies on access to embryonic stem cells so that scientists can understand the hallmarks of pluripotency.

Why did the National Institutes of Health develop these rules?

Experts at NIH have deep knowledge with research ethics, biomedical distributive justice, and other fields of social science that focus on the fair integration of pluralistic American values with the intellectual and humanistic imperative to explore science and reduce suffering. NIH received and analyzed more than 49,000 comments submitted during the public review period for the draft guidelines.

The president’s Executive Order also charged NIH with reviewing “existing NIH guidance and other widely recognized guidelines.” This refers to the guidelines put out by organizations such as the National Academies of Science and the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which both include ethical safeguards that ensure responsible conduct of embryonic stem cell research. As the president noted, the point is not to assume that science and ethics are opposed, but to view ethics as inherent in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

For more from Science Progress and the Center for American Progress on stem cells:

Column: Back to the Future: Final Stem Cell Rules Support Ethics and Innovation (SP)

Report: A Life Sciences Crucible: Stem Cell Research and Innovation Done Responsibly and Ethically (CAP)

Timeline: A Brief History of Stem Cell Research (SP)

Top Eight: Eight Reasons to Applaud Action on Stem Cells (CAP)

Share This

Jonathan Moreno, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and David and Lyn Silfen University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, applauds President Barack Obama’s announcement that he intends to nominate Dr. Francis Collins as director of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Collins is a world-renowned leader in biomedical research who led the government’s Human Genome Project, which decoded the DNA sequence that forms the basis of human life and opened pathways to understanding how we develop, how genes influence illness, and how medicine can harness genetics to diagnose and cure disease.

“I’ve known Francis for many years and have observed close up his deep understanding that American science needs to be informed by our values,” said Moreno. “No one else possesses the remarkable combination of qualities he brings to this important position.

“His tenure as director of National Human Genome Research Institute was remarkable for its inclusivity and for how as director he went out of his way to make sure that all points of view were represented around the table on important points of science and medicine,” Moreno added. “He was always mindful that his strong personal convictions and faith remained just that—personal—and that science and medical policy reflected the best interests of the public well-being, not a political or religious ideology. I’m confident these same qualities will garner him the goodwill and support of Congress and the confidence of the American people, and will mark his leadership at NIH.”

At the National Human Genome Research Institute, Dr. Collins demonstrated a progressive dedication to our nation’s continued investment in the scientific research and innovation that powers our economy, improves our quality of life and well-being, and expands our knowledge of the natural world. His expertise in genomics will be a key asset as we move into an era of personalized medicine.

Dr. Collins is an outspoken man of science and an outspoken man of faith. His commitment to each framework of human understanding is emblematic of the pluralistic ethos of the United States. Indeed, a recent survey released by the Pew Center for People and the Press indicates that 61 percent of Americans see no conflict between science and their religious beliefs. As a researcher, his work has revealed the genetic basis of ailments ranging from cystic fibrosis to Huntington’s disease. As a citizen, he has worked to educate others about the fact that science and religion are not in opposition.

If confirmed by the Senate, Dr. Collins will no doubt support progressive approaches to research and innovation that embrace both science and ethics.

Share This

“Growing Innovation Clusters for American Prosperity” will convene academics, business leaders, policymakers, and government officials to discuss and consider how to promote the growth of innovation clusters across the country. Attendees will hear from: Karen Mills, administrator of the Small Business Administration; Susan Crawford, Special Assistant to the President for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy; Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University; and many other leaders in their respective fields. As General Motors and Chrysler move through bankruptcy, unemployment climbs higher, and global competition gets fiercer, the time is ripe to chart a path forward that has innovation cluster development at the center of American economic strategy.

The event will be held on June 3rd, from 8:45am to 5:00pm, in the Lecture Room at the National Academies, 2100 C Street NW, Washington D.C.

Please contact Adam Gertz (agertz@nas.edu) if you are interested in attending.

To learn more about innovation clusters, see our “Regional Centers of Innovation 101.”

Share This

During the Obama-Biden transition, Swire was an attorney for the New Media team that operated the transition website, change.gov, and developed the current whitehouse.gov. In a set of new reports from CAP, he introduces the Web 2.0 challenges in the Obama administration, outlines legal and policy considerations for new media concerns, and explains issues with federal technology procurement.

Swire joined Science Progress Managing Editor Andrew Plemmons Pratt in a podcast discussion to talk about how these issues affect federal web managers, business, and citizens. To listen, see the audio player in the sidebar, download the mp3, or subscribe via iTunes.

There are a few key differences between the Obama campaign and Administration, Swire said. One is scale: many more people are eager to send the White House comments, but there are few interns to respond. Second is the issue of clearance. While working in the Clinton administration as chief counselor for privacy, Swire learned that multiple agencies must weigh in before an official statement can appear on the Internet. “Doing a quick and dirty Web 2.0,” he said, “doesn’t cut it in the White House.”

These changes are why some Web 2.0 tools are lacking from administration websites. The fact that the campaign’s New Media team was condensed from 170 members to only about 10 in the White House is another reason. According to Swire, the size of this team “is an unbelievable victory,” as these staff positions came at the expense of others, perhaps in areas like health care or the economy. However, Swire said, attempting to do the same job on a larger scale with much less manpower has the New Media team thinking, “Wow man this is a lot harder than it was.”

The administration met technology challenges the moment they stepped into the White House this January, when some desks did not even have working computers. Security concerns about various web tools are real, but so are federal employees’ needs for tools like and social networking sites that help mobilize people behind issues, Swire said. Many federal agencies have closed down access to Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace, but they need to recognize that these are “tools of business for the federal government” and not just “weird things that leftover teenagers are using.” Still, “if there’s a sloppy person who is using a Blackberry and they’re letting hackers into the White House, then that’s a major deal,” he explained.

Looking at Web 2.0 tools can also help address accessibility issues, as the federal government is bound to accessibility rules outlined in the Rehabilitation Act. For example, federal websites cannot place the colors red and green together so colorblind people can understand the content and government videos must provide closed captioning for those who auditorily impaired. Web 2.0 technologies used by the government have to meet those same standards, Swire said.

Swire believes companies that build Web 2.0 software will start thinking ahead on accessibility issues even though it can be a financial burden, as many hope the feds will use their products. “The government here plays an educational function to show what’s possible and what’s the right thing to do,” he said.

Despite the obstacles to Web 2.0 technology, Swire is confident that it will continue to grow in this administration. Weekly video addresses are up, and so are the White House Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter accounts. “A lot is happening but there’s still less happening than there will be when we figure out how to solve some of these problems,” Swire said.

Share This

These new studies will also allow health care providers to make the best decisions about the range of available options for treating patients. Without them, providers may have to rely on information from a drug maker or medical device company that has a financial interest in promoting a particular remedy. Comparative effectiveness research, Ruth Faden explains, “Is a very simple concept with a very fancy term.”

Professor Faden is the executive director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and a Philip Franklin Wagley Professor in Biomedical Ethics at Johns Hopkins University, and she discusses the issue—its basic goals, benefits, and how the United Kingdom uses it in its country’s health system—with CAP senior fellow Jonathan D. Moreno in this new Science Progress podcast. To listen, see the audio player in the sidebar, download the mp3, or subscribe via iTunes.

The basic idea behind the research is to form a direct comparison of existing interventions for one illness—which could include different diagnostic techniques, courses of therapy, medications, and surgeries, as Faden said in her discussion with Moreno. The comparison helps researchers determine which treatments produce the best outcomes for different groups of patients. “Part of the trick is trying to figure out what works for whom. Clearly medicine doesn’t work in a one-size-fits-all frame of mind,” Faden said.

She also points out that comparative effectiveness is distinct from cost effectiveness. Cost effectiveness research attempts to determine the value derived from money invested in an intervention and is not necessarily coupled with comparative effectiveness research. While cost effectiveness aims solely to reduce costs, comparative effectiveness aims to decrease the number of mistreated patients as well as the number of patients who take longer to rehabilitate with treatment A when they could have recovered sooner with treatment B, Faden explained.

“We have to acknowledge that sometimes people go into the hospital and they get set back rather than improved in terms of their health. In some cases that’s because of accidents or errors; in other cases that’s because we just don’t know that something’s going to be harmful for a particular kind of patient. We expect fewer people to be harmed by the medical care they receive,” Faden said. In a broader sense, using this research will improve the quality of health care and decrease costs, as fewer patients will require multiple treatments for the same illness.

One example of how comparative effectiveness research has already proven useful is in the case of the common blood thinner drug, warfarin. Research indicated that depending on a heart patient’s age, one approach to treatment with the drug was more effective than another. This was important because improper dosing of the blood thinner poses serious risks. “If you didn’t aggregate by age or even by gender, then you wouldn’t know which approach would be best for which patient,” Faden said, referring to the warfarin dosing studies.

She also hopes that the information from comparative effectiveness research will be available to patients, especially as they get more involved in their medical decisions. Moreno and Faden co-authored an op-ed on the issue last month in the Baltimore Sun. They highlighted the power of the research: “Comparative effectiveness would allow patients and doctors to make decisions together based on the best possible scientific evidence, giving patients real choices based on solid information. An uninformed choice is like no choice at all.”

Researchers may take two different approaches to investigating evidence-based medicine. They can generate new data to create the direct comparisons, or they could synthesize groups of existing data on intervention use, Faden said. Both options are expensive, but designing new studies is especially costly. Although the $1 billion set aside in the ARRA may seem like a large amount of money, the research is necessary since “the payoff is tremendous,” Faden said. She continued: “Right now it’s sort of the orphan of clinical and biomedical research because it is so practical.”

While the United States is getting its bearings in comparative effectiveness research, the approach is already in motion in the U.K.’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE is connected to the National Health Service, the U.K.’s health care system. The goal of NICE is to establish values for investments made to maximize health outcomes, Faden explained. The institute strives to unify practice patterns that vary between England and Wales, and its research identifies the most effective treatments to help determine which drugs should be covered by the NHS’s universal entitlement program. Faden pointed out that despite the appeal of reducing health costs with comparative effectiveness research, NICE was partly established to help increase the access to more expensive treatments that were not necessarily available to all citizens and improve overall health and clinical practices in the U.K. One aspect of the NICE programs that people do not appreciate, she explained, “is that it was expressly set up to increase the uptake of certain expensive interventions in the U.K., particularly cancer drugs.”

Faden and Moreno forecast that the United States will be see an increase in comparative effectiveness research within the next couple of years, and that we should expect to know more about the efficacy of interventions we currently use in about five years.

Jonathan Moreno hosts this podcast; Science Progress intern Vivian Cheng produced it for the web.

Share This

(Transcript)

Share This

Flanked by a beaming collection of Nobel laureates, biomedical researchers, stem cell advocates, and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, Obama signed an executive order that undid Bush’s August 9, 2001, stem cell directive. The directive banned federal funding for all but the oldest 20 or so stem cell colonies out of the hundreds that have been cultivated and studied by others worldwide.

By removing Bush’s arbitrary restrictions and calling instead for new guidelines that will promote legal and ethical stem cell research, Obama ensured that the United States will live up to its potential to be a worldwide leader in the fast-moving and promising field of regenerative medicine.

At the same White House ceremony, the president signed an executive memorandum that makes exceedingly clear the public’s right to expect and get a fair presentation of the scientific facts from government agencies without political overlays, misleading nuances, or redactions of uncomfortable truths.

“Today American science policy takes an important step on a more constructive path,” said Jonathan Moreno, a professor of medical history and bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Both the order and the memorandum carry 120-day implementation deadlines for federal officials. In the case of stem cells, the secretary of health and human services, with input from the director of the National Institutes of Health, is to create a set of guidelines to govern the funding of research on embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells. Experts within NIH and other scientific bodies have been working on such plans in anticipation of today’s announcement, and federal officials are expected within weeks to release a draft document that will be made available for public comment before being finalized.

Congress, meanwhile, is also moving apace to codify the essential elements of ethical embryonic stem cell research—something legislators did twice during the Bush administration, only to see the president veto the law both times. Legislation would help prevent future presidents from obstructing this important work.

Basic research in stem cell science promises to offer revolutionary new ways of treating diseases, but the process of getting these technologies out of the labs and into clinical trials will no doubt be gradual. Only recently, after more than a decade of basic research, did the Food and Drug Administration approve the first clinical trial for a stem-cell based therapy.

“The new U.S. policy will let more scientists get to work on the basic studies that will serve as the foundation for tomorrow’s new medical treatments,” Moreno said.

Obama’s memorandum on scientific integrity calls upon the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in collaboration with other agencies including the Office of Management and Budget, to develop a set of recommendations for presidential action to assure honesty and openness in science policymaking. The recommendations are to include beefed-up protections for whistle blowers.

Read the latest from the Center for American Progress and Science Progress on stem cell research policy:

Report: A Life Sciences Crucible: Stem Cell Research and Innovation Done Responsibly and Ethically

Column: Eight Reasons to Applaud Action on Stem Cells

News: New Era for Stem Cell Research

News: Stem Cell Science Takes an Ambitious Step Forward

Timeline: A Brief History of Stem Cell Research

Share This

Charles Darwin, and the legacy of his work describing evolution and natural selection, is often distorted for political ends. But as Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Susan Thistlethwaite explained yesterday, the spheres of science and religion are not in conflict, and a look at Darwin’s own life can help untangle the thorny cultural history of evolution. “Few people seem to remember that Darwin graduated from seminary,” she said. Thistlethwaite spoke as a panelist at the Center yesterday, “Evolution, Transcendence, and the Nature of Faith,” which considered Darwin’s legacy for both science and religion, and the impact of evolution on public policy.

She and was joined by Arthur Caplan, the Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, David Sloan Wilson, the co-founder of the Evolution Institute and a professor of evolutionary biology at Binghamton University, with CAP Senior Fellow Rick Weiss moderating the discussion. Sally Steenland, a senior policy adviser to CAP’s Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative, noted in her opening remarks that over half of the U.S. and British populations reject Darwin’s theory of evolution, which has serious consequences for education global competitiveness.

Addressing the place of evolution in education, Caplan explained that religion and “Intelligent Design” do not belong in science classes. But he also said that progressives often carry the prohibition too far, implying that discussions of religion belong nowhere at all in public schools, a proposition he disagreed with.

Building on the fact that Darwin was a religious man early in life, Thistlethwaite explained that the naturalist arrived at agnosticism after watching one of his young children suffer and die. She stressed that it was this personal experience and not merely his scientific discoveries that changed his beliefs.

To this, Caplan noted that the field of bioethics, which is closely allied with science, actually has its roots in religious thought. When the discipline took shape in the 1960s and 70s, “the overwhelming majority of the people who got interested in bioethical questions were from religious traditions,” he said.

He went on to say that theologians identified two problems with science. First, it does not generate values. “Science,” he said, “does not speak a language that can tell us where to go.” Second, it can be misused for horrific purposes—he noted the influence of Nazi experiments on early bioethical thinkers: “science might be perverted into social goals they would have to oppose.”

“It’s hard to speak religion in public,” Caplan said, noting the challenges of addressing issues of public policy. Bioethics, now thought of as a secular discipline, handles these challenges to science by injecting values into the discussion, but is useful for thinking about public policy because it is able to speak in public without setting off fights.

But one of the most challenging issues raised by evolutionary science is the question of what it means to be human. Several panelists noted research on the capacity of apes and other animals to show sympathy and emotional characteristics associated with humans. “Are human beings special?” asked Caplan.

In response, Thistlethwaite explained that Darwin’s experience with slavery and the bestiality of slaveholders, as well as his scientific research, led him to discount the unique distinctiveness of human beings.

Wilson noted that, “There is more to evolution to than genetic evolution.” For him, questions about the evolution of humans are not purely biological. “When we think of managing our genes and altering our genetic destiny, we also need to think about altering our cultural evolutionary destiny.” He went on to add that evolutionary theory can inform public policy by offering insight into how to manage large-scale social interactions.

“The common conception of evolution is that it explains selfishness well and altruism poorly,” he said. But he argued that it is possible to take lessons from evolution and tilt the playing field towards altruism.

Yet scientific knowledge also allows for humans to tilt biology in their favor in radical new ways, Weiss said. “We are starting to take a greater hand in our own evolution. We are gaining the capability of changing ourselves, improving ourselves.”

Caplan took up the issue, noting that parents who might choose to tweak the genomes of their children are merely trying to give them an advantage in a competitive world. Their intentions, he said, are no different from parents who send their kids to expensive private schools in an attempt to give them an educational leg up in the world.

Weiss opened the discussion by reading from a satirical Onion article about “evolutionists” who flock to a Darwin-shaped wall stain in Dayton, Tennessee. The joke was readily apparent to the audience, as some anti-religious Darwin advocates plead their case with religious fervor. Thistlethwaite pointed out that despite questions that frame the issue as “Do you believe in evolution,” evolution is not, in fact, a belief system. “It’s happening to you whether you like it or not,” she said.

Weiss closed he event by quoting Darwin’s own writing on evolution, which can take on a transcendent tone: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Share This

Science Progress Contributing Editor Chris Mooney will be on the the Colbert Report.

ITIF: “Crafting an Effective Broadband Stimulus Package”
Russell Senate Building, Room 485, 12 noon

AMS: “Coming to Grips with Sustainable Practices: Where Do We Go from Here?”
Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253, 12 noon

Brookings: “Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century”
1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, 1 pm

Tuesday

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: “Energy Reduction and Environmental Sustainability”
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, 10 am

Senate Judiciary Committee: “Health IT: Protecting American’s Privacy in the Digital Age”
226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 10 am

CSIS: “Neglected Tropical Diseases and U.S. Health Policy”
1800 K Street NW, 3 pm

Wedneday

Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Addressing Global Climate Change: The Road to Copenhagen”
Witnesses: Former Vice President Al Gore
419 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 10 am

Share This

The Center for American Progress has a new plan—outlined in the report, “A Life Sciences Crucible“—for lifting the existing temporal restriction on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and establishing clear ethical guidelines for oversight of future research.

Share This

For Immediate Release – January 14, 2009

Author Chris Mooney Honored by American Meteorological Society

Chris Mooney, author of Storm World:  Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming, has won the 2009 Louis J. Battan Author’s Award by the American Meteorological Society, the nation’s leading professional society for those working in the atmospheric and related sciences.

Mooney’s book is being honored as “an accurate and comprehensive overview of the evolving debate on the impacts of global warming on hurricanes that illustrates the complexities of this significant scientific problem.”  The award, named for Louis J. Battan who contributed outstanding research efforts in radar meteorology and wrote several books aimed at nonscientists, was presented on January 14 at the 89th AMS Annual Meeting in Phoenix.

Mooney is journalist who focuses on science in politics. He is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, a contributing editor to Science Progress, and an occasional contributor to many other scientific and news magazines.  Additionally, he maintains a weblog, “The Intersection,” with Sheril Kirshenbaum, and gives public lectures.  He is the author of The Republican War on Science (2005). His second book, Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming, was released in 2007.

Mooney graduated from Yale University in 1999, where he wrote a column for the Yale Daily News. Before becoming a freelance writer, Chris worked for two years at The American Prospect as a writing fellow, then staff writer, then online editor, where he helped to create the popular blog Tapped.

The AMS, founded in 1919, is a scientific and professional organization that promotes the development and dissemination of information on atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic sciences.  The Society publishes nine well-respected scientific journals, sponsors scientific conferences, and supports public education programs across the country.  Additional information on the AMS, the Annual Meeting, and other award winners is available on the Internet at http://www.ametsoc.org

Contact:
Stephanie Kenitzer
(425) 432-2192
kenitzer@ametsoc.org

Share This

A key way for the United States to improve productivity, create jobs, and grow the domestic economy over the long term is for the government to support the growth of regional centers of innovation. Yesterday morning, the Center for American Progress hosted an event, “Enabling Economic Recovery Through Innovation,” that explored policies for place-specific, technology-based economic development. But investment alone will not enable the next Silicon Valley—as panelist and former Chief Democratic Council to the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology Jim Turner noted, “If we’re not organized, we’re going to fail.”

Joining Turner on the panel were CAP Senior Fellow Tom Kalil, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation President Rob Atkinson, University of Chapel Hill Public Policy Professor Maryann P. Feldman, and Richard Seline, CEO and Principal of New Economy Strategies.

Innovation is not distributed, noted Feldman, saying that “what makes the world interesting are spikes,” or areas with technological corridors and communities that serve as hubs of innovation. Speaking specifically about case studies assessing Silicon Valley, San Diego, and Route 128 in Massachusetts, Feldman said it was the creation of good infrastructure and the support for small and medium enterprises that helped the flow of innovative ideas. But even for less glitzy innovation outside of computer software and biotech, she explained the importance of place: Toledo, Ohio is in fact a world leader in photovoltaic technology.

Atkinson explained the comparative inadequacy of U.S. investment in innovation support, noting that to match the per-capita government contributions of Finland, the government would need to spend $34 billion a year. State and regional economies underinvest in innovation, he said, and his proposed solution is the creation of a National Innovation Foundation that would coordinate efforts across the country. Kalil also said that, “The capacity of the federal government to promote various kinds of innovation is not even distributed,”which was a coordination problem that Seline echoed.

While policymakers work to remove those federal barriers, Kalil explained that universities—often hubs of regional innovation—can shift priorities to enhance the innovation process by funding students and faculty with novel ideas and incorporating entrepreneurial principles across the curriculum. Young students, Seline explained, are excited about starting innovative projects not just to make money, but also to find solutions to societal problems.

UPDATE: Full video of the Regional Centers panel is available:

The second panel of the day tackled patent reform:

To learn more, read the reports from the Taskforce on Regional Centers of Innovation:

Place Matters
Innovation Springs from Many Seeds, But Soil Is Equally Important
By Maryann Feldman

The Federal Role in Catalyzing Innovation
Beyond the Beltway and Through the Networked Economy
By Richard Seline and Steven Miller

Pittsburgh’s Targeted Incubator
Taking Innovation to the Next Level
By James F. Jordan and Paul L. Kornblith

Creating a National Innovation Foundation
Economic Prosperity Rests on Diverse Technology
By Robert Atkinson and Howard Wial

Benchmarking Foreign Innovation
The United States Needs to Learn from Other Industrialized Democracies
By Stephen Ezell

British Innovation Policy
Lessons for the United States
By Will Straw

Regional Centers of Innovation 101

Share This

Patents are issued in the United States by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a part of the Commerce Department, and by similar offices in other countries around the world. They assure inventors a period of time, generally 20 years, to exclude others from using their invention unless those others pay a royalty or work out another arrangement.

Investors are more likely to put capital into new work and novel ideas—and so stimulate the inventive process and the economy—if there is some assurance that others will not be able to freely profit from that work and ingenuity. At the same time, patents foster innovation by those who have been excluded from the initial invention. That’s because inventors, in return for their assurance of exclusivity, must provide a full explication of their creation. That provides a publicly accessible knowledge platform upon which others can make improvements.

To quote the Supreme Court, a patent may be granted for “anything under the sun that is made by the hand of man,” provided that the invention fulfills the three basic requirements of being novel, useful, and non-obvious. Among the immense variety of inventions that have been patented are new materials or devices; methods for making those materials or devices; novel life forms created through the manipulation DNA; mathematical algorithms used to analyze data, organize information, or predict human behavior.

Problems With the Current System

America’s scientific and engineering enterprises are proven engines of innovation and long-term economic growth. The current economic downturn and the prospect of a long and deep U.S. recession demand a reinvigoration of that sector. But private-sector investment in science and technology—and the jobs that can come from those investments—will be limited if the patent system is not working well.

It has been 50 years since Congress made substantive updates to patent law, and more than 30 years since the Patent Office, referred to as the PTO, thoroughly updated its rules governing the examination of patent applications. Meanwhile, inventions are being created at an ever increasing pace and have grown increasingly complex. As a result, the patent system has become bogged down. Among the major problems today:

Backlog: The PTO has a backlog of about 1 million patent applications, and it takes, on average, almost 33 months for a patent application to get approved or rejected. For fast-moving technologies in sectors like communications, that time is 44 months. The resulting uncertainty about which inventions will ultimately be protected and which will not inhibits innovation and investment in new products, since those new products risk eventually being found to infringe on a patent the PTO eventually issues for an older invention.

Patent Quality: Patent examiners are working under old rules and with outdated information technology systems that greatly limit the time and resources they have to review applications. This workload, along with salaries that are not competitive with private-sector jobs requiring similar skills, drives examiners away after an average of three years, the amount of time it takes to become a proficient examiner. These and other administrative and budgetary problems within the PTO have led to a widely perceived decline in the quality of the patents allowed by the office. Adding to the patent-quality problem are overreaching patent applicants who seek to take advantage of the strained system by claiming a larger array of uses for their invention than they have actually proven. That in turn triggers more challenges, including expensive and time-consuming court cases, which inject even more uncertainty into the patent landscape while they get resolved.

Patent “Trolls”: The patent system was created by the nation’s founding fathers not so much to protect individual ownership rights but to foster investment and technological advancement. Some individuals and companies, however, have opted to use the system for a different purpose: They acquire the rights to certain inventions that are crucial for the proper operation of other, larger inventions,, then essentially hold that intellectual property for ransom to be paid by those who need it. These so-called trolls typically do not make any product and, rather than inspiring innovation, tend to have a chilling effect. For a full discussion of the troll issue and how to resolve it, see Daniel P. McCurdy’s article, “Patent Trolls Erode the Foundation of the U.S. Patent System.”

How to Fix the System

The first step is for President-elect Obama to select a PTO director with great organizational skills who is committed to instituting reforms, including changes that would direct greater resources to examiners; increase transparency and communication with applicants; and make fuller use of modern capabilities to share workloads internationally.

Some needed changes can only be accomplished with legislation. Congress could not reach consensus on patent reform in 2008 and will try again in 2009. Among the elements that the Center for American Progress believes are important to address are the formulas by which damages are awarded in patent infringement suits; the rules that govern applicants’ responsibility to tell the patent office everything they know about previous inventions similar to their own; and the need to harmonize certain aspects of the U.S. system with others around the world. For a full discussion of CAP’s recommendations, see Rick Weiss’s article, “Tackling the Challenge of Patent Reform.” Some specifics include:

Budget Control: PTO supports itself entirely through fees collected for patent applications, but Congress has diverted hundreds of millions of dollars away from the office for other government expenses. The office must have more control over its budget and expenses in order to upgrade information technology and make other internal improvements.

Hire and Retain the Best Staff: Better control over its own budget would allow PTO to pay examiners more and reduce their burdensome workload. Some 70 percent of examiners recently told the Government Accountability Office that they had worked unpaid overtime in the past year to meet the extraordinary goals set for reviewing applications. At the same time, the metrics of examiner success must be updated to ensure quality.

Improve Communication with Stakeholders: PTO should seek from stakeholders early and extensive input on rules packages, and provide public access to economic data and guidance on important court decisions, among other reforms.

Improve Information Available to Examiners: The first priority is an upgrade for the office’s information systems. PTO should also avail itself of third-party experts, like those who have participated in experimental systems that allow outsiders to comment on applications and provide information to examiners.

Reduce the Time It Takes to Secure a Patent: The above reforms can all help speed the process and reduce the current backlog, but other measures can further reduce the time between filing and the awarding (or rejection) of a patent. Worksharing among international patent authorities could reduce the enormous redundancies that now occur as multiple offices around the world review the same patent applications in their respective countries. Also, allowing applicants with multiple patents under review to rank their applications in order of importance would also let examiners prioritize work. For more recommendations on how to improve the efficiency of the PTO, see the article by Gerald J. Mossinghoff and Stephen G. Kunin, “Improving the Effectiveness of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.” For an in-depth discussion of the international patent system, see Bruce A. Lehman’s article, “Global Patent Protection.”

First to File: The United States is the only country in the world that operates under a “first-to-invent” system. This rewards a person who, after another has filed a patent claim, provides evidence for having created that invention earlier. Although the current U.S. system has some advantages, harmonization with the rest of the world—along with other reforms that would lessen the impact of such a change—would improve the predictability of the system and reduce controversy around patents filed elsewhere around the world.

Reforms for Innovators: Patent applicants have responsibilities for making the system work better as well. Sobered by the economic challenges now facing the nation, cognizant of the tolls imposed by deficient-quality patents, and perhaps encouraged by the clarification of PTO guidelines we hope soon to see, patent applicants can and should do their share by recommitting themselves to the highest and fairest standards as they craft their claims and defend their intellectual property.

Courts: Finally, the courts will continue to weigh in on important issues of patent law. It is to be hoped that they will tread fairly but assertively into the legal frontier that remains unaddressed by the PTO and the Congress.

To learn more, read the reports from the Center for American Progress/Science Progress task force on patent reform:

Tackling the Challenge of Patent Reform (.pdf)
Recommendations for the Obama administration and Congress
By Rick Weiss

Improving the Effectiveness of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (.pdf)
By Gerald J. Mossinghoff and Stephen G. Kunin

Patent Trolls Erode the Foundations of the U.S. Patent System (.pdf)
By Daniel P. McCurdy

Global Patent Protection (.pdf)
The International Patent System and the New Administration
By Bruce A. Lehman

Share This

Even before the inaugural edition of Science Progress appeared in print this past spring, we at the journal and our companion website already had our eyes set on the inauguration this month of the next president of the United States. At the time, we had no idea who would win the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations, but what we did know was this—whoever became the 44th president would need thoughtful guidance on the complex public policy questions we present to you today in this biannual edition of the journal Science Progress.

That’s why Science Progress and our parent organization, the Center for American Progress, in early 2008 began preparing to convene two roundtable task forces, bringing together experts from both sides of the political aisle and from an array of different private- and public-sector perspectives, to discuss parent reform and innovation. One taskforce set out to identify the ingredients needed to incubate regional centers of innovation so that university-based scientific research can result in broad-based economic prosperity. The second sought to delineate the parameters of the possible in patent reform—one of the key issues the incoming Obama administration and the 111th Congress will have to tackle this year after the effort fell short in 2008. This issue of Science Progress presents their recommendations:

From Many Inventors, One Nation (.pdf)
By Jonathan Moreno

Tackling Complex Issues for New Policymakers (.pdf)
By Ed Paisley

Innovation

Place Matters (.pdf)
Innovation Springs from Many Seeds, But Soil Is Equally Important
By Maryann Feldman

The Federal Role in Catalyzing Innovation (.pdf)
Beyond the Beltway and Through the Networked Economy
By Richard Seline and Steven Miller

Pittsburgh’s Targeted Incubator (.pdf)
Taking Innovation to the Next Level
By James F. Jordan and Paul L. Kornblith

Creating a National Innovation Foundation (.pdf)
Economic Prosperity Rests on Diverse Technology
By Robert Atkinson and Howard Wial

Benchmarking Foreign Innovation (.pdf)
The United States Needs to Learn from Other Industrialized Democracies
By Stephen Ezell

British Innovation Policy (.pdf) (online exclusive)
Lessons for the United States
By Will Straw

Regional Centers of Innovation Task Force Participants

Government Contracting

Science’s Troubled Legacy (.pdf)
Time for a 21st-Century Re-envisioning of 20th-Century Government Contracting Rules Designed to Boost Scientific Innovation
By Dan Guttman

Patent Reform

Tackling the Challenge of Patent Reform (.pdf)
Recommendations for the Obama administration and Congress
By Rick Weiss

Improving the Effectiveness of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (.pdf)
By Gerald J. Mossinghoff and Stephen G. Kunin

Patent Trolls Erode the Foundations of the U.S. Patent System (.pdf)
By Daniel P. McCurdy

Global Patent Protection (.pdf)
The International Patent System and the New Administration
By Bruce A. Lehman

Online Supporting Material

Regional Centers of Innovation 101

Patent Reform 101

Innovation Policies for the 21st Century
Patent Reform and Support for Regional Centers of Innovation Are Critical
By Will Straw

Share This

Innovation Clusters (full archive of innovation clusters work on Science Progress)

Science Progress Editorial Director Ed Paisley provides a brief overview in this Ask the Expert video:

What are regional centers of innovation?

A regional center of innovation is a geographic area that supports technology-based economic development through a dynamic mix of researchers, entrepreneurs, investors, and infrastructure, with support from universities and local, state, and federal government policies.

In the United States, the two best examples are Silicon Valley, the hotbed of computer technology in northern California, and the metropolitan Boston area connected by Route 128, which is a nexus of biotechnology research and development. Each is centered around key research institutes: Stanford University in California and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Massachusetts. Both areas excel because they are regions where exciting work happens and where high-tech workers socialize, sparking unexpected and unexplored ideas. Innovation springs from these interactions as individuals connect with capital, business and marketing talent, and ideas evolve into successful products, services and businesses.

Prosperous regional centers provide dividends to the domestic and world economies—advanced IT in the case of Silicon Valley and life-saving medical advances in the case of Boston. They also benefit local communities by attracting a talented and high-paid workforce, cultural organizations, and start-up businesses that generate tax revenue and support the cycle of growth.

What factors encourage the formation of a regional center?

Because economic growth is complex, local, and ultimately beyond anyone’s control, there is no one-size-fits-all formula for creating a regional center. Many areas have failed despite valiant efforts. But examining those that have succeeded reveals a set of principles that provide a framework for what works and what doesn’t. To paraphrase the innovation experts writing in Science Progress: policymakers can’t always predict how regional factors will contribute to innovation, but they can till the soil that will allow them to flourish. At the state level, these elements are key:

Comparative Advantages

Regions must identify advantages in science, technology, and innovation that sustain and drive a state economy. These can include life sciences, information technology, manufacturing, or agriculture. A regional center takes advantage of existing resources and talent.

Capital

Groups aiming to cultivate a regional center must find the sources of seed capital and venture capital needed to invest in research, business incubation, and people.

Networking: Capital and Ideas

Policymakers, entrepreneurs, and researchers must work to align research interests in the region with opportunities for commercialization—the complex process of turning new discoveries into marketable products—that will spark investor interest. This requires utilizing sources of innovation that include universities, entrepreneurs, and dormant intellectual property housed in private industry. In some instances, this necessitates importing innovation from outside the region.

Networking: People with Capital and Ideas

Innovation policy should attract the best researchers to develop regional centers of excellence. To complement research capabilities, it’s also necessary to attract industry-specific business talent to provide key commercialization skills, access to venture capital investment, and mergers-and-acquisitions experience.

Space

Innovators and entrepreneurs need space to do high-quality work. Development groups, often working with local universities, must provide the physical space necessary for innovation and commercialization to thrive. This involves creating the best research space to draw the best talent and building cost-effective incubation space and services. Quality housing, transport facilities and schools will also help attract the best people to the region.

How can regional centers support economic recovery and growth?

The United States, now ranks seventh among the 30 most developed countries in the amount of gross domestic product devoted to research and development, falling most recently behind Japan and South Korea.

The main reason: Since the late 1960s federal government spending on research and development has declined as a share of both total R&D spending and GDP. This has contributed to an alarming decline in the number of researchers as a proportion of the labor force. Boosting government funding of basic R&D in a number of economically innovative ways must be part of the new administration’s economic stimulus program.

Science Progress Advisory Board member Thomas Kalil, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, outlined a variety of ways in which the federal government can work with universities and state and local governments to foster regional centers of innovation in his report, “A National Innovation Agenda: Progressive Policies for Economic Growth and Opportunity Through Science and Innovation.” And Rob Atkinson, a member of Science Progress’ Taskforce on Regional Centers of Innovation and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, presents his proposal for a National Innovation Foundation as one fruitful approach to distributing these funds in the latest edition of Science Progress.

A long-term sustainable increase in U.S. economic growth depends upon a continual stream of new ideas, products, and processes. It is these innovations that will fuel improvements in productivity across the entire economy and raise living standards for all.

To learn more, read the reports from the Taskforce on Regional Centers of Innovation:

Place Matters (.pdf)
Innovation Springs from Many Seeds, But Soil Is Equally Important
By Maryann Feldman

The Federal Role in Catalyzing Innovation (.pdf)
Beyond the Beltway and Through the Networked Economy
By Richard Seline and Steven Miller

Pittsburgh’s Targeted Incubator (.pdf)
Taking Innovation to the Next Level
By James F. Jordan and Paul L. Kornblith

Creating a National Innovation Foundation (.pdf)
Economic Prosperity Rests on Diverse Technology
By Robert Atkinson and Howard Wial

Benchmarking Foreign Innovation (.pdf)
The United States Needs to Learn from Other Industrialized Democracies
By Stephen Ezell

British Innovation Policy (.pdf) (online exclusive)
Lessons for the United States
By Will Straw

Share This

Monday, January 12

Enabling Economic Recovery Through Innovation
Live stream will be available here.
Center for American Progress
9:30am – 1:00pm

Tuesday, January 13

State of the Net Conference
Tuesday and Wednesday
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill

ITIF Breakfast Forum Globalization and Technology Standards: The Case for Expanded U.S. Leadership
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
9:00am – 10:30am

Screening: The Accidental Advocate
E Street Cinema (tix)
7:00pm

Wednesday, January 14

AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition Launch
Wednesday – Friday
AAAS Headquarters

Discussion of Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
3:00pm – 5:00pm

Briefing: Public Health, Climate Change, and Federal Transportation Policy
485 Russell Senate Office Building
1:30pm – 3:00pm

Thursday, January 15

Green Economic Stimulus
House (Select) Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee
Location: TBA
2:00 pm

Health IT Investment
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
430 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10:00am

Briefing: Electric Transmission 101: How the Grid Works
210 Cannon House Office Building
2:00pm – 3:30pm

Friday, January 16

A Life Sciences Crucible: Stem Cell Science and Innovation Done Responsibly and Ethically
Center for American Progress
12:00pm – 1:30pm

Share This

AP

Here’s a roundup of some of the science and technology policy events happening around Washington, D.C. from October 6 to October 10. Things are light this week. Feel free to leave other events you know of in the comments.

Monday

Science and Society: Global Challenges Series, Merging Climate and Transportation Policy
American Association for the Advancement of Science
AAAS Headquarters, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, D.C
6 p.m.

Tuesday

Environment, Conflict, and Peacebuilding: Sharing Lessons and Building Networks (Panel 610)
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Woodrow Wilson Center
11:30 a.m.

Friday

Impacts of Recent Climate Change: Current Responses and Future Projections for Wild Ecosystems
American Meteorological Society Environmental Science Seminar Series
Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253
10 a.m.

Share This

Tuesday

Digital Television Transition
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
253 Russell Senate Office Building
2:30 p.m.

Regulation of Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

Reducing the Undercount in the 2010 Census
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security Subcommittee
342 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10:30 a.m.

Wednesday

Hazardous Substance Release Reporting
House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Bush Administration Environmental Record
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
2:30 p.m.

Thursday

Getting the Most Out of a Career Fair
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The auditorium at AAAS Headquarters, 1200 New York Ave, NW.
8 a.m.

Responding to Climate Change: A Role for Ecosystems
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Room 3111, Smithsonian Institution Ripley Center
9:30 a.m.

Energy’s National Labs Security
House Energy and Commerce Committee, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Broadband Providers and Consumer Privacy
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
253 Russell Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

“The Carbon Age: From Crisis to Stability”
Carnegie Institute for Science
Carnegie Institution, 1530 P Street, NW
6:30 p.m.

Share This

Tuesday

Climate Change Legislation and Revenue Recycling
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
B369 Rayburn House Office Building
8 a.m.

Electric Vehicle Development/Outlook
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
366 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

Domestic HIV Prevention
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
2154 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

EPA Children’s Health Protection
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

Why Broadband Matters
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
253 Russell Senate Office Building
10:30 a.m.

Cybersecurity Recommendations for the Next Administration
House Homeland Security Committee; Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology Subcommittee
311 Cannon House Office Building
2 p.m.

CISTP Seminar Series on Science, Technology, and Innovation
The George Washington University, Center for International Science and Technology Policy
The Commons, 1957 E Street, NW, Suite 403, Washington, DC 20052
5 p.m.

Wednesday

Exporting Electronic Waste
House Foreign Affairs Committee
2172 Rayburn House Office Building
2 p.m.

Thursday

Antibiotics: Is a strong offense the best defense?
Koshland Science Museum
500 5th St NW, Washington, DC
6:30 p.m.

Preventing Climate Change
House Ways and Means Committee
1100 Longworth House Office Building
10:30 a.m.

EPA Scientific Integrity
House Energy and Commerce Committee
2322 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Social Sciences’ Public Health Role
House Science and Technology Committee
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Emerging U.S. Water Contaminants
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
2167 Rayburn House Office Building
2 p.m.

Panel Discussion on Role of Science in Presidential Policy
Featuring Science Progress Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Moreno and Contributing Editor Chris Mooney
University of Mississippi
Live Web cast
4 p.m.

Share This

Tuesday

NIH Reform Act of 2006: Progress, Challenges and Next Steps
House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Strengthening the Ability of Public Transportation to Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil
Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
538 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

Improving Health Care Quality: An Integral Step Toward Health Reform
Senate Finance Committee
215 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

It’s Time to End the Broadband Policy Wars
The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation
ITIF, 1250 Eye Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20005
2 p.m.

Wednesday

San Francisco Bay Refuge/Chesapeake Bay Oyster Status
House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
1334 Longworth House Office Building
10 a.m.

The Foundation for Developing New Energy Technologies: Basic Energy Research in the DOE Office of Science
House Science and Technology Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
2 p.m.

ITIF Forum: Is the US Falling Behind in Science & Technology or Not?
The Information & Technology Innovation Foundation
1250 Eye Street, NW, Suite 200, Room 2 Washington, DC 20005
2 p.m.

Quality and Environmental Impacts of Bottled Water
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
3 p.m.

Thursday

The Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues
House Science and Technology Committee
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Saturday

Antibiotics: Is a Strong Offense the Best Defense?
Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences
500 5th St NW, Washington, DC
6:30 p.m.

Share This

The Bush Administration has proposed new rules that allow federal agencies to assess on their own threats to endangered species, side-stepping scientific review of environmental impacts for regulatory decisions. With the new rules, decisions will not require consultation with other federal agencies, and environmental concerns will be secondary to the independent concerns of the agencies. The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, requires that federal agencies consult with independent wildlife specialists, but experts suggest that the administration seeks to undermine the authority of the ESA by preventing scientists from using it to justify reduced carbon emissions. These new rules, set to go into effect immediately, directly contradict that law which has helped save countless endangered species from extinction.

Here’s what some experts have been saying in the mainstream media and blogosphere over the past few days about the proposed rule change:

“This is the fox guarding the hen house. The interests of agencies will outweigh species protection interests…What they are talking about doing is eviscerating the Endangered Species Act.”
— Eric Glitzenstein, attorney representing environmental groups in a lawsuit over wildfire prevention regulations, August 11, 2008

“Informally known as ’self-consultation,’ this policy is designed to vitiate the checks-and-balances that have made the Endangered Species Act so successful… The insidiousness of self-consultation is especially plain once you consider that many federal agencies are deeply committed to either certain kinds of projects or are entirely sympathetic to particular industries.”
— Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project, Chicago, Natural Resource Defense Council, August 11, 2008

“This proposed regulation is another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door… If this proposed regulation had been in place, it would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the gray whale.”
— Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D-CA), August 12, 2008

“It’s ridiculous to admit that something is endangered because of climate change, and then say the [ESA] doesn’t apply to climate change.”
— Noah Greenwald, science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, August 12, 2008

“[The new regulations] would, in effect, greatly reduce the impact of the independent reviews government scientists have been carrying out over the last 35 years.”
— Jeremy Jacquot, graduate student in marine environmental biology, University of Southern California, August 11, 2008

“[This rule change] gives those agencies carte blanche to do what they want…The Bush Administration is trying to do by regulation what they can’t do by legislation.”
— Karla Raettig, legislative representative for wildlife conservation at the National Wildlife Federation, August 12, 2008

“History will judge this Administration as the most anti-environmental Administration in the history of the U.S.”
— Bob Irvin, Defenders of Wildlife, August 12, 2008

Image source: AP.

Share This

Among other things, Stebbins recommends an independent and Internet-based reporting system which supplements dual-use awareness programs and allows researchers to report suspicious activity. He points out that if scientists are going to learn about the misuse of dangerous agents, then they need an outlet to report potential problems. In his suggested system, scientists would be able to report their concerns and receive advice and recommendations on the steps that they should or should not take.

The scientific community also has to improve its oversight over who has access to lethal substances. Following the 2001 attacks, there was a huge rise in biodefense research. Current estimations reveal that around 14,000 people at over 400 laboratories have access to chemicals that that can be used in the construction of bioweapons. The current federal oversight procedures are not expansive enough to ensure that all of these users are following security rules and reporting events—including the suspicious activity of co-workers—which could threaten fellow workers or the public.

On the other hand, our country is now more prepared to handle bioterrorist attacks. Research has led to vaccines which could potentially treat smallpox or the Ebola virus, and has also increased stockpiles of antibiotics that treat infectious agents.

Share This

In 1998, about 32% of NIH competing Research Project Grant applications were successful; by 2007 the comparable success rate had declined to 21%. The percentage of NIH awardees aged 40 or under, already less than 23% in 1998, declined to just over 15% by 2005. Some of the reasons are well understood: First, adjusting for inflation, the value of the NIH budget has declined by about 13% from its peak in 2003. Second, the rapid annual increases from 1998 to 2003 were followed by 5 years of small annual decreases.

But Teitelbaum points out that the number of applications each year for grants has nearly doubled in the last ten years, due to the strengthening of the scientific research core as a whole between 1998 to 2003, when NIH funding was increased by 6 percent annually. He also argues that “when the increases from 2003 onward proved to be smaller than 6%,” the government undercut the benefits of the original increases. “In financial terms,” he writes, “one might say that the system became more highly leveraged, rendering it more vulnerable to unanticipated downward deflection of the increase in federal research funds.”

The article points out that this vulnerability may be due to the unique characteristics of the scientific job market: In many fields, when the demand or salary for a particular job decreases, so does the number of graduates seeking the job. Biomedical research does not follow this ebb-and-flow pattern, in part because international scientists can fill the slots. Moreover, some instability in funding streams results from use of NIH grant funds to pay for medical research facilities built on credit, as well as use of grant funds to pay for professor salaries.

Therefore, Teitelbaum argues that the problems at the NIH face are fundamentally “structural in nature” and “can be addressed only at the level of policy and administrative practice by the Congress and NIH itself.” He suggests that the NIH’s Office of Extramural Research could convene a panel to craft policies that would smooth out funding policies to counteract this vulnerability to boom-and-bust cycles.

He also acknowledges that “it may be possible to create broad political support for large annual NIH funding increases into the indefinite future.” CAP Senior Fellow and Science Progress adviser Tom Kalil has argued that Congress should again double the NIH budget by increasing funding 10 percent each year for ten years. Better oversight of internal funding decisions to counteract these “structural disequilibria” would only make that funding work harder for scientists and the American people.

Share This

Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) knows that scientific research, along with science and math education, are long-term investments in our future. A physicist and businessman, Foster made his way from the 14th district of Illinois to the House of Representatives in March, after a special election to replace former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. He joined Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), the two other physicists who bring their scientific knowledge to the House. In this video message, Foster outlines what he sees as the three largest challenges facing federal science policy: rational decision making, balancing basic research and commercialization, and ramping up STEM education.

Share This

The technology is undeniably impressive. For as little as $1,000, anybody who can drool into a mailing tube can now find out his or her genetic odds of getting any of 20 or more potentially debilitating diseases, including cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Most of these tests will not lead to a frank diagnosis, as happened with Gulcher. But discovering an inherited propensity toward a particular illness can motivate consumers — or, as they used to be known, patients — to get more frequent checkups, take preventive medicines or make lifestyle changes to try to ward off the specter of disease. At last, we seem to be on the cusp of the long-promised personalized-medicine revolution in which gene tests allow physicians to craft far more individualized and effective ways of keeping us well.

While the top officials from all of the major competing gene testing companies agreed that regulations over the industry must be standardized, Weiss does not believe this measure is enough. He calls upon the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration take the lead on crafting smart policy. Genetic testing companies should also be more transparent about their technology, test results, privacy, and security systems, and the potential use of client specimens for experimental purposes, he argues.

Weiss will discuss the article online this morning on the Washington Post website at 11 a.m. EST.

UPDATE: Weiss discusses the challenges of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in CAP’s latest installment of the Ask the Expert videos.

Share This

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the number of ID checks in American life has climbed sharply. Some advocate more intrusive identification systems to fight terrorism and limit immigration, while others are skeptical of new procedures for verifying identity because of the impact they may have on costs, computer security, privacy, and civil liberties. The growing “ID Divide” presents significant policy question as technological advances outpace the government’s ability to protect its citizens.

Bruce Schneier, a leading security technologist, addresses these technical limitations. According to Schneier, the databases connected to identification cards are the source of the problem, not the cards themselves, as no ID can be more secure than the procedures used to operate the underlying database. Even individuals authorized to access these systems have queried the databases for unauthorized purposes, so we know that the threats to individual personal information are significant. Schneier also suggests that IDs cannot distinguish “evildoers” from other citizens; therefore, we must find ways to close security gaps and simultaneously protect individual privacy.

Video transcript.

Share This

Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) has served in the House of Representatives since 1998, but prior to that he was assistant director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. With Representatives Bill Foster (D-IL) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), he is one of the three physicists in Congress. In commemoration of the release of the first printed edition of Science Progress, Rep. Holt sent us his thoughts on the critical role that respect for open scientific inquiry plays in making policy that improves the lives of all Americans.

Share This

Dr. Neal Lane, Malcolm Gillis University Professor and senior fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and former science advisor to President Bill Clinton, offered a keynote address highlighting three significant challenges for the United States that will require technical solutions: climate change and rising global demands for energy; the competitiveness of American business and industry; and affordable and effective health care.

“Looking forward, the quality of our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren in the 21^st century will depend on the U.S. continuing to be a leader in science and technology,” he said, adding that he believes that leadership is well within the grasp of the United States, but it is not a given. “Our success will depend on America making many of the new discoveries and new inventions,” he said, “but it will also depend on how we use that technology to deal with a host of serious problems that threaten Americans, and in some cases billions of people around the globe.”

The room erupted in applause when Lane said that the federal government must restore the public’s trust in the integrity of science. Scientific information cannot be used to spread dogma, he said. He stressed that government websites and publications must provide accurate information, government scientists must be able to speak openly, and only qualified individuals should serve on advisory committees. “I never thought I would put those down as bullets in a talk,” he lamented. “It seemed very obvious to me.”

The “science fair” presenters gathered after the keynote for a panel discussion moderated by R. Alta Charo, Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law & Bioethics, University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. Baden spoke about the need to direct federal funding not just to support research, but to the laboratory infrastructure at public universities that cannot otherwise keep up with the more lavish facilities of private schools. Without good labs, he said, these schools lose talent to the wealthier schools. Building on ideas in Lane’s keynote, Kalil talked about the need to increase funding high-risk, transformative research, early-career researchers, and long-term projects.

Addressing the issue of ethical approaches to scientific research, Hudson argued that the United States must rethink the structure of clinical drug trials. In her opinion, drug researchers are too focused on “protecting” their subjects from the science, rather than communicating with them and addressing their concerns. Batten also emphasized the necessity of effective science communication, this time between scientists and policymakers, citing as a prime concern the Bush administration’s regressive policies regarding climate change.

Charo identified a common thread running through the concerns of all the participants: the dilemma of basing policy on “truth,” when politicians can manipulate the concept into something that no longer resembles the truth of scientists. “Scientists talk in terms of hypotheses and probabilities,” she pointed out, whereas “politics and law tends to move on the assumption that the case is ‘X’ and we need to base a policy on it.” But troubles arise over who gets to own that truth, she said. In light of the inherent uncertainly of science, she explained, the United States has seen the difference in the treatment of truth used to delay necessary policies, as in the case of global warming. She also pointed to political manipulations of truth that have been used to “justify absolute falsehoods” as in the case of the Terri Schiavo controversy and battles over reproductive rights. She added that “nationally, we’ve seen it blurring the definition of science in the continued attempts to introduce creationism and so-called ‘Intelligent Design’ into the school system.”

Rick Weiss, CAP Senior Fellow and former science reporter for the Washington Post, closed the event, arguing that science must trump the superstitions that lead to uninformed policies on issues like contraception, sex education, and drug abuse. “Imagine what the world would be like if reason and evidence were really the currency of the day.” Science, he reemphasized, is crucial to solving the most pressing issues in environmental protection, health care, food security, and climate change, but equally important is the effective communication of science that will drive sound policymaking.

To watch video of the entire event, visit the CAP events page.

Share This

The subject of the hearing before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law on Thursday is no substitute for a comprehensive solution to our country’s broken immigration system. But the subcommittee members will explore a critical issue—the need to create “Highly Skilled Worker Green Cards,” alongside timely legislative proposals to reform our immigration visa program so that the productivity of our scientific research can be maximized with a stronger investment in the intellectual capital of immigrant students in the United States.

As Bill Gates detailed in his testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology’s 50th anniversary earlier this year, the U.S. government is essentially losing money by funding high-quality research and then forgoing the talent that produced the research when foreign students on expiring visas can no longer stay in the country.

SOURCE: AP/Dennis Cook

Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft, testifies before the House Science and Technology Committee in March about the need for increasing H1-B visas for high-tech workers.

Current law governing highly educated foreign workers does not allow the country to meet its demand for them. High-tech employers desire the expansion of the H-1B visa program that governs these overseas workers, but the number of permanent visas available must be increased first.

An expanded higher-educated workers program, however, must also not create incentives for companies to seek foreign workers before looking for qualified U.S. workers. Any new program should protect against abuses of the existing program, which allows companies to use temporary workers as a strategy to train overseas workers and then offshore existing U.S. jobs.

Granting permanent resident status to highly educated workers, for example, would prevent companies from taking away jobs from U.S. citizens. It would also preserve the freedom of job mobility for highly educated immigrants essential to maintaining appropriate labor conditions across the board in industries affected by highly educated immigrants.

Another idea would be to “fast-track” employment-based visas for foreign students who receive advanced technical degrees from U.S. universities. Such a fast-track system is currently under debate through revisions to current implementation of immigration policy and legislation on Capitol Hill.

Then there’s the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership (SKIL) Act of 2007 (HR 1930), proposed by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), which was referred to the House immigration subcommittee on June 4. The SKIL Act would enact the steps needed to ensure the continuance of scientific growth and innovation in the United States by highly skilled foreign students. Having gone through revisions over the past couple years, the SKIL Act of 2007 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act by exempting from the annual H-1B visa cap all foreign students who have earned a master’s degree or higher from an accredited U.S. university, or who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training in the United States.

The SKIL Act has tailored the previous H-1B cap to allow for a yearly 20 percent growth in the cap so long as the previous year’s quota is filled. If the quota is filled in a particular year, then the act allows for a foreign student with an approved labor certification to still apply for permanent resident status. In order to speed up the process, SKIL directs the Department of Homeland Security to establish a pre-certification procedure for companies who file multiple employment petitions.

As the subcommittee members (and eventually the entire Congress) consider these types of proposals, they should not pit “high-skilled” immigration and family-based forms of immigration against one another. A combination of education and employment-based immigration and more traditional forms of family-based immigration are in line with our American values. Well-crafted immigration reform would also capitalize on the ability of these varied forms of immigration to be sources of economic growth.

Clearly there’s a need for congressional action soon. Case in point: Last year’s Department of State fiasco of allowing and then subsequently rejecting requested visa applications from highly educated immigrants. Even the Department of Homeland Security now recognizes this emergency—it recently extended by 17 months the time that foreign students in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics are allowed to remain in the United States without a work visa after their graduation.

This allows more time for foreign students to obtain employment in the United States. Nor does this move threaten U.S. students seeking science and tech jobs here at home. The reason: U.S. students will have to compete with these foreign students anyway since companies are increasingly opening offices abroad. If we do not develop the new products and services from innovation and higher productivity here at home, then our standards of living and quality of life will stagnate, and our economy will become less and less competitive.

We must continue to improve our economy and quality of life by investing in innovation, which means we need to build the workforce that includes the foreign students we have trained at our universities in order to keep up with our increasingly scientifically advancing world.

For more on the Center’s policies on Economic Growth through Science and Technology, please see: A National Innovation Agenda: Progressive Policies for Economic Growth and Opportunity Through Science and Technology

Share This

Tuesday

“Safety of Phthalates and Bisphenol-A in Everyday Consumer Products.”
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee
2322 Rayburn House Office Building.
10 a.m.

“How Should the Federal Government Address the Health and Environmental Risks of Coal Combustion Waste?”
House Natural Resources Committee
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
1334 Longworth House Office Building.
10 a.m.

“Hybrid Technologies for Medium- to Heavy-Duty Commercial Trucks.”
House Science and Technology Committee
Energy and Environment Subcommittee
2318 Rayburn House Office Building.
10 a.m.

Wednesday

“Second Generation Biofuels: The New Frontier for Small Businesses,” focusing on the role of small businesses and family farmers in developing and producing biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol.
House Small Business Committee
Rural and Urban Entrepreneurship Subcommittee
1539 Longworth House Office Building.
10 a.m.

Wednesday to Thursday

Plug-In Electric Vehicles 2008: What Role for Washington? (Register Online)
Brookings Institution
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill

Thursday

H.R.5533, the “Chemical Facilities Act of 2008″; and H.R.5577, the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008.”
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee
2322 Rayburn House Office Building.
10 a.m.

“American Lives Still at Risk: When Will FDA’s Food Protection Plan Be Fully Funded and Implemented?”
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
10 a.m.

“Spinning Straw Into Black Gold: Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Carbon Dioxide,” focusing on the underground injection of carbon dioxide as a method for increasing production from domestic oil and gas fields while decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.
House Natural Resources Committee
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
1334 Longworth House Office Building.
10 a.m.

“Hydropower: Providing 75% of America’s Current Renewable Energy. Exploring its role as a continued source of Clean, Renewable Energy for the Future.”
House Natural Resources Committee
Water and Power Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building.
2 p.m.

“Toxic Communities: How EPA’s IRIS (Inegrated Risk Management System) Program Fails the Public.” IRIS is a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects.
House Science and Technology Committee
Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee
2318 Rayburn House Office Building.
10 a.m.

The relationship between U.S. renewable fuels policy and food prices.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Full committee
366 Dirksen Senate Office Building.
2:15 p.m.

Friday

Science is the Stuff of Progress (RSVP Online)
Science Progress
Center for American Progress
2 p.m.

Share This

According to a recent National Science Foundation survey, state agencies poured nearly $1.1 billion (current dollars) into research and development in 2006, the most recent year for which the agency has numbers. What might come as a surprise is that 49 percent of this spending comes from just six states: Pennsylvania, California, New York, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida. The Federal government allocated $142,409,000,000 in total R&D funding in 2006 and $142,456,000,000 in 2008 (in constant dollars). To see the distribution of state-agency R&D dollars, we’ve mapped the data across the country:

As Maine’s $50 million technology initiative has shown, investing state funds in R&D can play a crucial role in creating jobs and bolstering regional economies. For further analysis of the NSF survey check out the Chronicle and SSTI.

Share This

Share This

The Center for American Progress has proposed doubling the research and development funding for key federal agencies to bolster work that improves our country’s health, grows our economy, fuels the development of renewable energy technologies, and supports basic research. This doubling would take place over a 10 year period, with 10 percent annual increases. The FY2008 budget passed by Congress and signed by the President fell short of those 10 percent increases. So how does the money for the Iraq war compare with spending on R&D at these key offices, and how much of that war funding would we need to reallocate to set those offices on a doubling path?

$28,700,000,000: National Institutes of Health R&D budget for 2008, a 0.9 percent increase over 2007.
$2,586,000,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 NIH R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
4.7: The numbers of years the NIH R&D could be funded at its current 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$4,500,000,000: National Science Foundation R&D budget for 2008, a 1.1 percent increase over 2007.
$399,000,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 NSF R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
30: The number of years the NSF R&D could be funded at 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$4,000,000,000: Department of Energy Office of Science budget for 2008, 4.6 percent increase over 2007.
$166,000,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 DOE Office of Science R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
33.9: The number of years the DOE Office of Science could be funded at 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$514,000,000: National Institute of Standards and Technology R&D 2008 budget, 4.7 percent increase over 2007.
$23,400,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 NIST R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
263.5: The numbers of years the NIST R&D could be funded at 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$6,476,400,000: Department of Defense R&D 2008 budget, 0.9 percent increase over 2007.
$72,380,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 DOD R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
21.9: The number of years the DOD R&D could be funded at 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$3,246,780,000: Total supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 funding for these five key agencies to 10 percent increases.
2.4: Percentage of the $135,421,191,000 supplemental request this boost would require.

Funding Medical Research

Funding for the NIH has been flat for four years; accounting for inflation, the Institutes have lost 6 percent of their purchasing power during that time.

37,275: Total number of NIH research grants in 2007.

$403,528: Average size of each NIH research grant in 2007.

335,593: Number of additional average-sized NIH grants that Iraq war funding in the supplemental could finance.

Energy

The Center for American Progress has more information how the $600 billion spent since the start of the Iraq war could fund critical energy research.

Share This

Monday

Energy Challenges for the Next President
The Brookings Institution
10:15 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Tuesday

Climate Change and Energy Infrastructure in Coastal Areas
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
366 Dirksen Building
10:00 a.m.

Mercury Legislation
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
406 Dirksen Building
10:00 a.m.

Building a Bridge Between Science and Religion
A Lecture by Dr. Stuart Kauffman
National Academy of Sciences
7:00 p.m. (tickets required)

Wednesday

Water Supply Challenges
House Science and Technology Committee
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
10:00 a.m.

Green Buildings and Smart Growth
House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee
Location TBA
2:00 p.m.

Global Food Crisis
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
419 Dirksen Building
9:30 a.m.

Health and Safety Concerns over Plastic Additives in Consumer Products
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation; Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and Automotive Safety
253 Russell Building
10:00 a.m.

Thursday

Resilience of Transportation System and National Infrastructure
House Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection
311 Cannon Building
Time TBA

Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?
American Enterprise Institute
12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. (registration required)

Friday

Climate & Health Effects of Carbon Dioxide, Black Carbon, & Other Air-borne Particles
American Meteorological Society
Russell Senate Office Building Room 253
10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Share This

Bob Dinneen, CEO and President of of the Renewable Fuels Association testified that ethanol production has a very small effect on food prices, and may actual be keeping them down. He told committee members that corn growers heeded the market signal sent by the RFS mandate last year, producing an additional 2.5 billion bushels of corn over the previous year’s yield, of which only 600 million bushels went towards producing ethanol. Thus, he argued, there was actually an increase in available corn.

Dinneen followed up by citing research which shows that only two percent of the world supply of corn is used goes into ethanol production and that only three percent of food price increases was attributable to that production. He said the main driver of increased food prices was the price of oil. Removing the RFS, he said, would only increase the price of energy, driving up food prices even further.

Rick Tolman, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association backed up Dinneen’s claim, explaining that the main culprit of increased food prices is the price of oil, which plays a significant role in each part of the food production chain. Tolman cited a recent study suggesting that a $1-per-gallon increase in the price of gas has three times the impact on food prices than a $1-per-bushel increase in the price of corn. He also testified that only 19 cents of each consumer dollar in the United States can be attributed to farm products such as grain, oil seeds, and meat. Labor costs 38 cents, and transportation, packaging, energy, and other costs make up the remaining 43 cents. He cited USDA economist Ephraim Liebtag, who calculates that a 50 percent increase in corn prices would translate to an increase in retail food prices of less than one percent.

Don’t remove the mandates, but don’t increase them either was the recommendation from Scott Faber, Vice President of Federal Affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. He acknowledged that many factors are involved in the recent spike, “including increasing global food demand, export and other restrictions, adverse weather in some countries, commodity speculation, and higher energy prices.” He said that the one factor that is under the control of Congress is the package of “mandates and subsidies diverting food into fuel production.” Congress should be mindful, he said, that rising food prices are a significant challenge to the poorest twenty percent of Americans who spend about one-third of their after-tax income on food.

The food price spike has also pushed millions of people around the world in to poverty, he said, forcing food aid programs to ration their supplies. He asked Congress to revisit the mandate schedule; to push harder for second- and third- generation biofuels; and to increase support of international food programs and agricultural development.

Fortunately, there is a sufficient supply of biofuel feedstocks that do not compete with food crops: see “Alternative Cellulosic Biomass By the Numbers.”

Share This

Bob Dinneen, CEO and President of the Renewable Fuels Association, defended the RFS, saying that it “makes more sense today then when it was passed.” He argued that the RFS plays a major role in reducing the price of gasoline and U.S. dependence on foreign oil; curtailing greenhouse gas emissions; creating new jobs; and revitalizing rural America.

He claimed that this year’s mandate, if met, will bring GHG emission reductions equivalent to taking 2.5 million cars off the road. He also addressed the recent Searchinger report arguing that biofuel production may actually cause increased GHG emissions. Dinneen cited a response to the study questioning its underlying model and said that more research is needed to address the issue. Searchinger himself has countered such critiques of the study, saying that its conclusions hold regardless of adjustments to the model.

Dinneen also testified that biofuels are also lowering oil prices, citing a recent Merrill Lynch report suggesting world oil prices would be 15 percent higher without the current expansion of biofuel production. He called for greater investment in delivery methods and transportation infrastructure to bring ethanol to where its needed quickly and cheaply.

Charles Drevna, President of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association offered an opposing view, asking Congress to do away with the RFS and instead let the market dictate the integration of alternative (note: not “renewable”) fuels into the transportation fuel mix. He told the hearing audience that the mandates not only distort the market, but stifle competition and innovation.

He took issue with Dinneen’s claim of lower gas prices from the introduction of biofuels, saying that adding ethanol to fuel does not actually translate into cost savings at the pump. Because current biofuels have less energy content then gasoline, cars end up requiring more fuel, which offsets lower prices he said. To solidify his claim, Drevna cited a report which found that E85 ethanol cost eighty cents more per gallon then gasoline when its price was adjusted for its lower combustion efficiency.

Drevna also disagreed with Dinneen that biofuels are reducing the cost of gasoline because ethanol production is subsidized, offering the appearance of lower prices. But he failed to note that the government has been very generous in supporting oil production in recent years. As Sam Davis and Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress point out, in 2004 and 2005, big oil companies received tax breaks worth over $17 billion over the next decade. This assistance, they also say, “continues even as BP, ConocoPhillips, and Shell just posted record first quarter 2008 profits—a combined total of $20.8 billion.”

If the ethanol subsidy is removed, Drevna argued, ethanol would be uneconomical in comparison to gasoline on a thermal energy scale. He also claimed that the U.S. lacks the necessary infrastructure to meet the mandates, leaving refiners to unfairly pay the price of penalties imposed by Congress. He asked committee members to do away with the current tariff on imported ethanol to afford flexibility to refiners trying to meet these increased RFS mandates.

Share This

Controversy arose when it became known the ATSDR’s report, “Health Consultation on Formaldehyde Sampling of FEMA Temporary-Housing Trailers,” contained scientifically unsound information as a result of what Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) called, “not following typical protocol you teach in basic science classes.” Dr. Christopher De Rosa, the CDC’s chief toxicologist testified at the hearing that the report was, “possibly misleading, and a threat to public health.” Subcommittee members were flummoxed to learn how mismanagement at the CDC, the ATSDR, and FEMA stalled revision of the report, delaying measures that would protect thousands of hurricane survivors from exposure to unhealthy levels of formaldehyde.

The hearing also highlighted the collapse of management among the different federal agencies. Dr. Christopher De Rosa, the whistleblower at the CDC who questioned the soundness of the ATSDR report, revealed his troubles in getting the attention of his superiors–he even had a letter he sent to FEMA expressing his concerns quietly filed away. De Rosa was eventually put on a 90-day work improvement plan and relocated to another department for making noise about the flawed ATSDR report, a claim his superiors deny. De Rosa’s superiors, Dr. Howard Frumpkin and Dr. Thomas Sinks, Director and Deputy Director at the ATSDR respectively, acknowledged the bad science in the report and the delayed response of ATSDR in fixing their report, promising that steps were being taken to address the shortcomings. Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC), with email records on hand, grilled the two ATSDR officials on how such a mistake could happen.

Formaldehyde is strong-smelling gas used in the production of particle board and urea-foam insulation, major material components in most trailer homes. It is considered a carcinogen and is absorbed into the body through the respiratory tract, and through eye and skin contact. Symptoms of formaldehyde exposure include skin rashes, sinus problems, headaches, depression, insomnia, nausea, eye irritation, nose-bleeds, and recurrent colds. Long-term effects include changes to the immune system, possible development of some cancers, and the risk of damage to DNA. Nevertheless, after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA provided such trailers leeching unhealthy levels of the gas to over 100,000 families who lost their homes until more permanent alternatives became available.

Subcommittee members agreed this was only the beginning of a greater investigation and possible litigation if these agencies are found guilty of gross negligence or wrong-doing.

For more backstory:

Scientist: CDC Bosses Ignored Warning (AP)

CDC officials admit failings on FEMA trailers, will not fire whistleblower (E&E Daily, subscription)

Share This

Monday through Tuesday

F2C: Freedom to Connect
The NetHeads Come to Washington
AFI Silver Theatre

Tuesday

House Energy and Commerce Committee
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
“Online Virtual Worlds: Applications and Avatars in a User-Generated Medium.”
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
9:30 a.m.

House Science and Technology Committee
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
“Toxic Trailers: Have the Centers for Disease Control Failed to Protect Public Health?”
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
9:30 a.m.

Wednesday

House Science and Technology Committee
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
“International Science and Technology Cooperation.”
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
“Oversight on the Listing Decision for the Polar Bear Under the Endangered Species Act.”
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

Mobilizing Talent for Global Development
Brookings Institution
3:00 pm

Thursday

Linking Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development
National Academy of Sciences
8:30 a.m.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
“Examining Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions at U.S. Colleges and Universities.”
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

House Science and Technology Committee
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
“NASA’s Exploration Initiative: Status and Issues.”
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Saturday through Sunday

Science & Technology in Society: An International, Interdisciplinary Graduate Student Conference
AAAS Headquarters, 2nd Floor

Share This

Judith Tabron, director of faculty computing services at Hofstra University, describes the challenges of encouraging the most effective uses of information and communication technologies in colleges and universities in a recent commentary (subscription) in The Chronicle of High Education:

All too many tools facilitate less-desirable teaching methods. My IT colleagues often observe that what course-management systems like Blackboard do well is deliver material. Here’s your stuff: Read it, absorb it, review it. What the systems do not do well is facilitate interaction. Here are your peers and teachers: Listen, talk, challenge, answer, try, fail, try again. Both the true liberal-arts curriculum and the online world are examples of revolutions in communication. We have to figure out how to use the latter in service to the former.

Tabron continues by explaining the benefits of allowing faculty to experiment without being judged prematurely by their peers, and of investing technology budgets in long-term academic outcomes, rather than only short-term needs, like equipment repairs.

She also points to the need to invest time and resources into determining new and effective ways to harness technology in the classroom–an avenue that can benefit university education and secondary education alike. Last month, the House authorized funding for a new learning center dedicated to researching and developing innovative digital learning and information technologies for the nation’s education system. And Federation of American Scientists President Henry Kelly explained some of the untapped possibilities for educational technology (including video games) in his recent column for Science Progress.

Share This

Jonah Lehrer at the Frontal Cortex argues that we need more science critics and an open public atmosphere for critiquing science. His suggestion to science bloggers: Don’t post anonymously.

Eric Berger over at SciGuy discovered that the Federal government spends 200 times more on bioterrorism preparedness than on hurricane research. This discrepancy is even more significant, he suggests, because bioterrorism might happen while hurricane disasters will happen.

Jacob Goldstein at the Wall Street Journal Health blog covers several stories on the growing number of parents refusing to vaccinate their children over fears that the injections may be linked to autism or neurological disorders, despite the fact that no solid evidence exists suggesting vaccines pose any such danger.

The Chronicle’s Wired Campus covered the news that Intel and Microsoft have teamed to open research centers at top universities to enlist them in a new initiative to harness the power of parallel computing for the next generation of computing systems. It’s worth noting the long-haul five-year commitment to the research.

Share This

SEED’s Science and Society blog has posted video of its Science and Society Series with Drew Endy and Annie-Marie Mazaa of the Committee on Science, Technology and Law at the National Academies. The two discuss synthetic biology: the technology behind it, the current state of research, and the legal and regulatory dilemmas it faces.

Expect only one minute of science and environment coverage in five hours of cable news programming, writes Matthew Nisbet at Framing Science. Taking a hard look at the recently released Pew “State of the Media” report, he explores the lack of science coverage on cable news networks.

How to combat the rise of drug-resistant antibiotics? In the wake of a new study indicating that U.S. citizens often fail to complete prescribed courses of antibiotics or use them to treat the wrong kind of infection, 60 Second Science suggests “education, education, education.”

Derek Lowe at In the Pipeline critiques a proposal from MIT professors Stan Finkelstein and Peter Temin for rethinking the drug development process. In their new book, “Resonable Rx: Solving the Drug Price Crisis,” they suggest breaking up the pharmaceutical business into drug discovery firms and drug marketing firms.

Share This

Hill Heat glosses the past few tumultuous weeks for EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson, who was hit with a tidal wave of criticism for denying California’s Clean Air Act waiver request and is now failing to cooperate with congressional investigations into the matter.

Ed Silverman at Pharmalot asks if publicly financed clinical trials would better protect the public and lower the cost of new drug testing.

Defense Tech reports that U.S. military officials are concerned about the national security threat of adversaries tapping into online mapping services like Google Maps to obtain vital intelligence.

Liz Borkowski at The Pump Handle offers a nuanced assessment of this week’s news about testing that revealed trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking-water supplies and the rationales for disclosing and not disclosing the information.

Respectful Insolence responds to the recent “Broken Pipeline” report on NIH funding problems by arguing that universities share a part of the blame for the troubles of young scientists.

Share This

As Tom Kalil points out in a recent Science Progress article on the topic, the U.S. high-tech trade deficit jumped to $132 billion in 2005 from $32 billion in 2000; federal government support for academic research and development began falling in 2005 for the first time in a quarter-century; and private industry support for basic research has also been stagnant or declining.

The United States may be falling behind on innovation, but bold, decisive action can restore our scientific and technological leadership. Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google Vinton Cerf, writing in Science Progress on the Sputnik anniversary said:

As we look to solve global problems we need to take a more imaginative, less adversarial approach to generating the products and arrangements that will make for a more livable planet … it is time for scientists, technology leaders, financiers and public policymakers to take the same kind of concrete, swift steps embraced by our country 50 years ago—steps that can result in a new flourishing of creativity and ingenuity emblematic of great scientific endeavors.

Tom Kalil and John Irons have put forth a detailed set of policy recommendations that would do just that. As part of the Center for American Progress’ economic plan for the next administration, they call for “A National Innovation Agenda” that includes:

• Doubling the research budgets of key science agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and providing even larger increases (10 percent per year) for the National Science Foundation and the Defense Department.

• Maximizing the effect of this investment by increasing support for university-industry collaborations and high-risk, high-return research. This would help replace the void left by the decline of industrial basic research documented by the National Science Board.

• Harnessing science and technology to address some of the “grand challenges” of the 21st century, such as the transition to a low-carbon economy that will reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases while creating millions of “green collar jobs,” or the development of new learning technologies that are as effective as a personal tutor and compelling as the best video game.

• Spurring private sector investment in innovation by making the research and experimentation tax credit permanent and providing tax incentives for investment in next generation broadband networks.

• Ensuring that America’s workforce has world-class skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This will require upgrading the STEM skills of the existing workforce, improving K-12 math and science education, encouraging more students to receive undergraduate and graduate degrees in STEM fields, and creating a “fast track” employment-based visa for foreign students that receive an advanced technical degree from U.S. universities.

As Bill Gates will no doubt reiterate in his testimony tomorrow, it is time to invest in innovation. America’s future economic prosperity depends on it.

Share This

At the most basic level, net neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet; all content on the Internet is equally accessible, and once a person pays for access to the Internet, they alone get to choose how they use it. This means that providers should not be allowed to block access to certain sites or applications, or charge different customers different amounts for services.

Net neutrality proponents argue that without regulation that prevents Internet providers from regulating their services, telecom companies could control Internet traffic to serve their vested interests. Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist.org, explains this position, saying, “Imagine if you tried to order a pizza and the phone company said AT&T’s preferred pizza vendor is Domino’s. Press one to connect to Domino’s now. If you would still like to order from your neighborhood pizzeria, please hold for three minutes while Domino’s guaranteed orders are placed.”

Net neutrality was brought to public attention recently when it was reported that Comcast, a large Internet service provider, was blocking file-sharing traffic to ensure quality of service to its consumers. Although Comcast suffered widespread condemnation and is currently under investigation by the Federal Communication Commission, sides began to form among the various stakeholders, each formulating its own perspective on the ramifications of regulating net neutrality.

To understand the net neutrality debate, it is helpful to be familiar with some of the stakeholders who have a variety of interests in any regulatory deliberations on net neutrality. Internet users and their advocates generally favor net neutrality, while telecom companies see it as a threat to their use of their own property. Pressure is mounting for Congress to decide how it will or will not regulate the industry.

The Government

The key government players in the net neutrality debate are the Federal Communications Commission, which is charged with regulating all non-governmental use of the radio spectrum, including the Internet; and the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, which enforce antitrust law.

The FTC urged policymakers in June 2007 to “proceed with caution in evaluating proposals to enact regulation in the area of broadband Internet access” because of possible unintended consequences to consumers. But then in February, 2008, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said that he is “ready, willing and able” to prevent broadband internet service providers from interfering with access to any specific content. The FTC and DOJ could conceivably prosecute telecom companies under any net neutrality laws, if enacted.

Internet Users, Websites, and Big Media Companies

Big media and entertainment companies, which controlled information, knowledge, and culture for much of the twentieth century, are not happy that the Internet enables a wider variety of people to participate in cultural production. Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, an influential spokesperson for Internet users and creativity, argues that net neutrality policies are important for empowering users. Net neutrality policies could prevent telecom companies from restricting access to blogs, wikis, and independent podcasts, for example. CAP fellow Mark Lloyd has also suggested that net neutrality policies would benefit public education, health, and safety because it ensures that everyone has equal access to the Internet’s contents.

Telecom Companies

Companies that own the physical pipes of the Internet argue that they have the right to control the use of those pipes in such a way that is most profitable to them. David Farber, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University, has also argued that giving telecom companies the freedom to experiment, without the restrictions of net neutrality policies, could encourage unanticipated innovations on their part, which might benefit other stakeholders. The telecom companies also complain that government regulation may hinder return on investments, deterring them from expanding the broadband infrastructure.

Congress will have to address these competing views as the net neutrality debate begins to intensify in the coming months. The new net neutrality bill, which is backed by Internet giants such as Google and Amazon, is garnering more attention in the public sphere than previous legislation attempts, and could signal a new battle between net neutrality advocates and detractors.

Share This

In the past, electricity generation by natural gas eclipsed solar thermal power because it offered a much lower price per unit of power, as The New York Times explains. The price of natural gas has risen, though, and demand for solar thermal power (which even now carries a high cost of about 15 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour) has boomed. As economies of scale promise to reduce the price of solar thermal to around 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, it is becoming an attractive component of emerging low-carbon energy portfolios. Ten thermal solar power plants are now planned for construction in Arizona, California, and Nevada, including Solana, the largest one in the world near Phoenix, Arizona. Their output would equal that of three nuclear reactors, but they could be built in two years, instead of the decade or longer required for nuclear plants–a crucial consideration, given the urgency of carbon emissions reductions. However, solar thermal plants, because of their sheer size, can have a tremendous impact on desert ecosystems, and they often require long transmission lines for their connections to the grid.

Today, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming heard from Barbara Lockwood, manager of renewable energy at Arizona Public Service Company, about the Solana solar power project in Arizona. The hearing focused on the need for greater investment in renewable energy technologies to help jump start a sputtering economy and foster domestic job creation. According to Ms. Lockwood, the Solana project will create 1,500 construction jobs and 85 permanent operations jobs and is estimated to bring one billion dollars to the Arizona economy as well as 300 to 400 million dollars of tax revenue over the thirty year life of the plant.

She encouraged Congress to renew the Investment Tax Credit, which is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Without a long term extension of the ITC, she said, the Solana project is not only unaffordable, but unlikely to be completed. She asked for an eight-year extension and a revision of the ITC rules to make it available to public utilities. Current restrictions on the credit force a third-party owner to use the ITC, bringing unneeded risk and cost to the system.

Image: flickr.com/Desert Vu

Share This