Science Progress Blog
- How Much Science Could $135.4 Billion Buy?
- More Money, Sure. What About Better Science Advice?
- Science and Tech Policy Events Next Week
- Revisiting the RFS, Part 3: Biofuels and Food Prices
- Revisiting the RFS, Part 2: Land Use and Gas Prices
- Revisiting the RFS, Part 1: It’s Good, Now Here’s How to Improve It
- Alternative Cellulosic Biomass By the Numbers
- Is There a Liberal “War on Equality”?
- Lack of Basic Healthcare Kills 10 Million Children Annually
- Gene Therapy: Vision Restored
- Scientists to Congress: Boost Research Funding With Wartime Supplemental Bill
- Measles on the Rise?
- “Father of Pharmacogenomics” Cautiously Optimistic About the Future of Genetics
- GINA Passes House and is Ready for Signing
- Science and Tech Policy Events Next Week
How Much Science Could $135.4 Billion Buy?
President Bush’s latest request for war funding totals $178 billion dollars, approximately $135.4 billion of which will go to fund operations in Iraq. The remainder is for operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorist networks. Because the supplemental bill providing this money is “must pass legislation,” members of Congress are weighing the possibility of boosting domestic spending with amendments to the bill, and there has been talk of money for scientific agencies to make up for funds unallocated in the FY2008 budget.
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.
More Money, Sure. What About Better Science Advice?
Dr. John Marburger is the longest-serving Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology policy. Consequently, he is the only person to give a keynote at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual Science & Technology Policy Forum for seven consecutive years. In his final address of the Bush administration for that event, he explained that future science advisors should “say yes” to challenging and sometimes undervalued positions throughout the federal government. But deflecting criticisms of his own role in public service, he drew a sharp line around the purpose of his job, saying it was “not a position to bargain with senior members of the administration about policy,” saying “there’s just not enough time for that.”
He went on to emphasize the importance of identifying capable individuals who can fill science policy positions in advance of the next administration, and ensuring a smooth transition. “There is often a great mutual incomprehension between people who run the machinery before,” and those who subsequently assume those roles, he said.
Despite the fact that new advisors and administrators will assume roles as science policy makers, Marburger said that the landscape of science policy will not change. “The future is likely to be very similar to the past, regardless of who the President is, who the administration is,” he said. Broad changes in science policy values take substantial effort by many people over time, he said. To support this, he referred to stability of non-defense R&D as a total percentage of non-defense discretionary spending over the past several decades:
(Source: “Does Science Policy Really Matter?,” Daniel Sarewitz; AAAS, based on Budget of the U.S. Government FY 2007 Historical Tables.)
Marburger went on to discuss the increases in R&D funding during his tenure. “There’s a much greater amount of research money on the table than there was at the beginning of this administration,” he said.
The Bush Administration has indeed supported important areas of science funding. His slides showed the upward incline of funding since 2001. According to the AAAS, “overall federal investment in R&D would increase $4.9 billion or 3.5 percent to $147.4 billion” in the administration’s FY2009 budget. But AAAS and Science Progress advisor John Irons point out what Marburger failed to mention: despite these increases in dollar amounts, boosts to federal research funding have not kept pace with inflation for years.
Funding decisions are ultimately up to Congress, but questions of “how much” are simply one element of science policy. Another is the responsibility to provide clear and accurate scientific advice to the President and to Congress so that they can make informed decisions on public policy. Marburger is absolutely right that we need to start thinking now about who the capable individuals are that will fill science policy positions within the next administration, because the first job of those people won’t be ensuring more funding for R&D, it will be restoring scientific integrity to executive decision making. From inaction and delay on addressing climate change, to short-sighted policies on stem cell research, to the obliteration the EPA’s ability to protect citizens from environmental contaminates, the current administration’s assault on scientific integrity is well-documented and wearying.
The next President will need a team of science advisors who can help direct the billions of dollars the federal government spends on scientific research and development into efforts that build a low-carbon economy enhanced by innovation and opportunity for all workers, and a healthcare system that serves everyone who in the country. And they’ll have to push back hard against those who continue to wage war on science.
Science and Tech Policy Events Next Week
A roundup of some of the science and technology policy events happening around Washington D.C. from May 12 to May 16.
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.
Revisiting the RFS, Part 3: Biofuels and Food Prices
Part 3 of coverage of Tuesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the Renewable Fuel Standard, with the perspectives of witnesses on biofuel production and rising food prices. For an overview of the issues surrounding global food, see “Food Price Crisis 101″ at the Center for American Progress. For info on how the U.S. can create biofuels from materials that do not compete with food crops, see “Alternative Cellulosic Biomass By the Numbers.”
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.”
Revisiting the RFS, Part 2: Land Use and Gas Prices
Part 2 of coverage of Tuesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the Renewable Fuel Standard, with a look at what witnesses had to say about the economic and environmental issue.
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.
Revisiting the RFS, Part 1: It’s Good, Now Here’s How to Improve It
Tuesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing pitted environmentalists, corn producers, oil refiners, grocery manufacturers, and renewable fuel advocates against one another in a contentious debate over the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard. The RFS—a legislative mandate which requires a certain amount of renewable fuels (mostly corn-based ethanol at present) be blended into the U.S. motor-vehicle fuel supply—is facing new attacks from critics who contend that growing corn for fuel instead of food is partly to blame for the recent spike in food prices both in the U.S and abroad, raising concerns about increased poverty, food storage, and security. Things came to a head on April 25 when the Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a proposal to the Environmental Protection Agency, which runs the RFS program, to waive half of the nine-billion-gallon mandate for this year.
Amid growing controversy, Subcommittee On Energy and Air Quality Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA) called the hearing to revisit the RFS just five months after Congress increased the mandate as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which passed at the end of last year. The polarized hearing left committee members with a wide array of considerations to mull over as they decide the fate of the RFS in the coming months. To make sense of it all, Science Progress breaks down the hearing to discuss its varying themes. First up, what’s right with the RFS and ways to make it better.
The hearing opened up with testimony from Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) who introduced her bill, H.R. 5236, better known as the Renewable Biomass Facilitation Act. The bill intends to expand the RFS to allow woody biomass collected from both federal and private forests to be used in the production of biofuel that would count towards the RFS. Woody biomass—the byproducts of forest management practices—are usually burned or left to rot, releasing carbon and methane into the atmosphere and could be put to better use as feedstock for biofuels, she argued. Most committee members used their allotted time to heap congratulations on Rep. Sandlin and pledge support for her bill. Using residual agricultural and forestry biomass as biofuel feedstock would avoid competition with food crops.
Committee members then heard from Robert Meyers, associate assistant administrator at the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation who touted the President’s proposed Alternative Fuel Standard, which would replace the RFS in 2010. The AFS would include alternative, but non-renewable fuels such as natural gas and coal-to-liquid (which is a boondoggle), hydrogen, and plug-in hybrids, in addition to those renewable fuels already included in the RFS. While the AFS ups the required amount of alternative fuels in the country’s fuel supply, it gives the EPA discretion to adjust or waive requirements to protect the economy or environment from any detrimental impacts of biofuel production. He also revealed that the EPA’s report on the environmental and health impacts of biofuels—requested by Congress in 2005—will be released in the coming weeks.
Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the National Resources Defense Council, praised the RFS for its forward-looking approach, but pressed Congress to ensure proper safeguards are in place to protect the environment and food prices. He commended the RFS for properly defining lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for biofuels to include the entire production process, as well as land use changes, which can severely alter the effectiveness of biofuels in reducing GHG emissions. He noted how the RFS requires the vast majority of new biofuels derived from cellulosic biomass to reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by 60 percent, a step away from a “more is better” policy to a “better is better” policy.
Greene recommended that Congress push the EPA to study environmental consequences of biofuels to ensure that science drives policy, not politics. He asked Congress to adopt a cap-and-trade program as part of a comprehensive approach to reduce GHG emissions and to reform the current ethanol tax credit to be technology-neutral and performance-based. Such an approach would incentivize biofuel innovation and keep Congress from picking the winners and losers in the biofuel marketplace, he argued.
Alternative Cellulosic Biomass By the Numbers
The Wall Street Journal editorial page today sided with a the group of senators who are asking EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to eliminate federal mandates for biofuel production. The Center for American Progress has a fact-check on “Biofuels Done Right” demonstrating why the Journal and the senators are wrong to place blame for the global food crisis on biofuels. But the Journal contends that “there’s no getting around the fact that biofuels require vegetation to make fuel,” going on to mock next-generation cellulosic ethanol: “Perhaps some future technology will efficiently extract energy from useless corn stalks and fallen trees.”
But the facts are again not on their side. While cellulosic ethanol is not a silver bullet for solving the country’s need for sustainable transportation fuel, there is a sufficient supply of biofuel feedstocks that do not compete with food crops. David Tilman, of the University of Minnesota, explained at a briefing on capitol hill last month that there are good alternative feedstock sources (pdf) that are not dedicated biofuels crops grown on fertile land:
Biofuels from Residual Agricultural and Forestry Biomass: corn stover (the “useless corn stalks” the Journal refers to), straw, slash, bark, manure, and municipal waste. Ethanol derived from these materials has life cycle carbon emissions that are lower than gasoline, and none are in competition with food crops.
Biofuels Grown on Degraded Land Set Aside from Agriculture. Ethanol derived from these materials also has life cycle carbon emissions that are lower than gasoline, and none are in competition with food crops.
Tilman went on to offer these estimates for how much biofuel feedstock we could derive from waste products and vegetation grown on degraded land:
80 to 100 million tons per year: Dedicated perennial energy crops grown on the least productive or least sensitive abandoned lands.
100 to 150 million tons per year: Sustainable supplies of corn and wheat residues.
70 to 140 million tons per year globally: Forestry slash, thinnings, urban waste wood, mill residues, etc.
20 to 40 millions tons per year: Reclaimed paper and board waste.
This comes to a total of 270 to 430 million tons of biomass per year without competing with food for fertile land, which Tilman calculates would yield 20 to 32 billion gallons per year of ethanol, which can meet or exceed current 2007 Energy Bill goals for Advanced Fuels, and with ethanol that provides greenhouse gas reductions of at least 50 percent.
Is There a Liberal “War on Equality”?
In a Washington Post column, former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson takes on claims that the administration has engaged in a “war on science.” He asserts that, “for the most part, these accusations are a political ploy.” Considering his qualifying phrase it seems that some of them are not ploys. Disappointingly, Gerson does not tell us which ones. Instead, he makes a careless historical argument to support his claim that liberalism threatens human equality.
Gerson’s only example to this effect is the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Gerson is right that important progressives of that era favored eugenic theory, and he is correct that sterilization was an important and shameful part of eugenic social policy. Having established a paradigm case of misguided liberalism, Gerson identifies the “new eugenics” of genetic screening, in vitro fertilization and abortion. In this paradigm, the real war is not conservatism versus science but the continuing war of liberalism versus human equality.
The old eugenics movement has become a favorite of conservative commentary, but the commentators in question seem not to know more than the bumper sticker history. In fact, both progressives and conservatives favored eugenics; the most vigorous critics of eugenics were themselves progressives; and after World War II conservatives (who detested FDR and the New Deal) were distressed at the bad odor their movement had come under in the wake of Hitler’s murderous racism and longed for the day that eugenics would be restored. Perhaps the most important source of support of eugenics research for more than 70 years has been the Pioneer Fund, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified as a hate group.
Apart from these curious historical omissions, Gerson’s careless reference to genetic screening seems calculated to associate it with abortion and even Nazism. Perhaps Gerson has not, as I have, spent many hours in neonatal intensive care units with doctors and nurses who care for infants with severe genetic anomalies and who are destined to live short, painful lives. He is entitled to believe that the aggressive and successful efforts by the Jewish community to eliminate Tay-Sachs disease through genetic counseling and screening are misguided, but he is not entitled arbitrarily to associate those efforts with a moral taint, much less Nazism. I have also seen courageous parents take their babies born with Trisomy 13 home to die. Those who moralize about such matters adopt a perilous course.
Gerson’s selective history might be ascribed to a bad case of amnesia. Concluding his piece with a dire warning to liberals who are blinded by their “war on equality,” he proves not only to be a bad historian of the turn of the last century but a miserable one about the past 60 years. Unless, as a movement committed to a war on equality, liberals simply lost their way when they championed civil rights for African-Americans, women, and gays.
Pardon me, sir, but conservatives are in no position to lecture liberals about human equality.
Lack of Basic Healthcare Kills 10 Million Children Annually
The Associated Press reports that over 200 million children worldwide do not have access to basic health care. As a result, about 10 million children, most from the developing world, die each year from treatable illnesses.
An alarming number of countries are failing to provide the most basic health services that would save lives, with 30 percent of children in developing countries not getting basic health intervention such as prenatal care, skilled assistance during birth, immunizations and treatment for diarrhea and pneumonia.
Wide disparities in health care for the poorest and best-off children are seen even in the highest-ranked countries, the report said.
…
Use of existing, low-cost tools and knowledge could save more than 6 million of the 9.7 million children who die yearly from easily preventable or curable causes, the report [by Save the Children] said.
They include antibiotics that cost less than $0.30 to treat pneumonia, the top killer of children under 5, and oral rehydration therapy—a simple solution of salt, sugar and potassium—for diarrhea, the second top killer.
This is as much a failure on the part of the rich developed world as it is one on the part of governments in the developing world. In addition to financial aid, there needs to be a focused effort to help developing countries set up sustainable primary care networks in socially and economically disadvantaged areas.
Gene Therapy: Vision Restored
A landmark for the most celebrated, and in some ways the most disappointing, late 20th century arena of medical research should not go without comment.
Last week, at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania researchers announced that they had used a genetically engineered virus to introduce a gene into the retinas of young adults with a form of congenital blindness that has no treatment, Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA). Within a few weeks all three patients had significant improvement in the treated eye, with no apparent side effects.
The only other successful gene transfer therapy trial took place in France, where children without functioning immune systems (”bubble-boy disease”) did achieve results, but several were diagnosed with leukemia thereafter. Following the success at CHOP, geneticists may now turn increasingly to single-gene disorders as the first therapeutic targets.
Katherine A. High, M.D, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and one of the CHOP study leaders, has been investigating LCA for years. For a field that has been racked by disappointment and controversy (the death of a gene therapy subject in 1998 at Penn shocked the scientific community), the good news from CHOP is both a source of encouragement and a reminder of the patience that is required to translate theoretical principles in genetics into practical treatments.
Scientists to Congress: Boost Research Funding With Wartime Supplemental Bill
Thousands of scientists, engineers, corporate executives, and college presidents across the country have mobilized in an effort to convince Congress to set aside a small piece of this year’s wartime supplemental funding bill to boost science research funding. According to Politico, the science community is seeking $500 million in hopes of preventing detrimental layoffs at the Department of Energy’s Office of Science and restoring programs at the National Science Foundation–two agencies which lost out on funding during the budget battle between the Administration and Congress at the end of last year.
Concerned the U.S. is losing its technological edge and falling behind in measures of national competitiveness, the science community has been out in full force calling for new funds. These concerns are real, argues Science Progress Advisor Tom Kalil, citing reports published by the National Science Board showing that U.S. scientific output is stumbling. Looking at the funding numbers, Science Progress Advisor John Irons finds that the Administration has done little to stop the bleeding. He noted in January that even “the slight increase in the dollars for non-defense R&D was more than surpassed by projected inflation.”
With an economy on egg shells, a recommitment to federal funding of research is crucial in maintaining U.S. global leadership in the science and technology, major drivers of economic productivity. In their report, “A National Innovation Agenda,” both Kalil and Irons outline policy recommendations which would ensure that the U.S. continues to lead the way in innovation, reaping the economic benefits along the way.
Measles on the Rise?
The New York Times and Washington Post report that U.S. measles rates are now at their highest point since 2001. On a related note, Science Progress just posted an interview with Dr. Saad B. Omer on vaccine policy.
One wonders how much of a public health crisis we need before we rethink our vaccine exemption policies—particularly given that misconceptions floating around about a connection between vaccines and autism are driving more parents to opt against MMR.
“Father of Pharmacogenomics” Cautiously Optimistic About the Future of Genetics
Dr. Arno Motulsky, who is now 87, essentially launched the field of pharmacogenomics, which studies how an individual’s genetic makeup affects his or her response to medication, in 1957. On Tuesday, the New York Times Science section featured an interview with Dr. Motulsky, whose life story is incredibly moving—he made his way from Nazi Germany to internment camps in France and finally to the US, eventually to become known as “the father of pharmacogenomics.”
When asked whether health insurance would pay for genetic testing and custom pharmaceuticals, Dr. Motulsky had this to say:
That’s a problem. On the hopeful side, people say it may soon be possible to sequence a person’s genome for $1,000. Once they figure out low-cost ways to sequence the genome, the price of personalized medicine will come down.
Still, one shouldn’t be misled. What we know about the genome today is not enough for all the miracles many expect from this field. There’s a lot about what regulates the genes and how they interact that we still need to understand. We won’t have the answers by tomorrow.
This hopeful but cautionary attitude seems to be widespread among genetics experts. For example, it is reflected in comments made by Nancy B. Spinner and Barbara Bernhardt in interviews with Science Progress.
Dr. Motulsky remains very active and is currently working on a project related to human color-blindness, which he thinks has useful implications for the study of higher brain functions: “It’s exciting to learn that because of heredity, different people can see the same thing differently. I think this may prove useful in studying more complex brain functions. If this were 20 years ago, I’d focus on neurogenetics. What’s going on in the brain, that’s the last frontier.”
Any eager young minds out there looking for a cutting-edge Ph.D. project?
GINA Passes House and is Ready for Signing
The Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (H.R. 493) moved another step closer to becoming law yesterday. Although the House passed the bill last year, a reconciled version had go through again, as the Senate added an amendment when it passed the bill last week. CQ also reports that the House and Senate passed a small technical resolution yesterday (H. Con. Res. 340) inserting a provision that allows the military to collect genetic information for the purpose of identifying human remains. This provision was inserted at the request of the White House and was sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-CA). GINA now awaits the President’s approval, but it is not yet clear when the signing will take place.
Science and Tech Policy Events Next Week
A roundup of some of the science and technology policy events happening around Washington D.C. from May 5 to May 9.
Tuesday
Challenges and Promise of Cell-Based Therapies
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Natcher Conference Center, NIH Campus
8:00 a.m. (registration required)
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee
Oversight of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
253 Russell Senate Office Building
10:00 a.m.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
“Perchlorate and TCE (Trichloroethylene) in Water.”
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10:00 a.m.
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee
“The Renewable Fuels Standard: Issues, Implementation, and Opportunities.”
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
10:30 a.m.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Aviation Subcommittee hearing
“Aviation and the Environment: Emissions.”
2167 Rayburn House Office Building
2:00 p.m.
Wednesday
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
Space, Aeronautics, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
“Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Exploration.”
253 Russell Senate Office Building
9:30 a.m.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children’s Health Protection Subcommittee
“Oversight Hearing on Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions.”
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
9:30 a.m.
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
“Fuel Subsidies: Is There an Impact on Food Supply and Prices?”
342 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10:00 a.m.
Thursday
Senate Appropriations Committee
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
Hearing on the Energy Department’s restructuring of the FutureGen program.
192 Dirksen Senate Office Building
9:30 a.m.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
“EPA’s New Ozone Standards.”
2154 Rayburn House Office Building
10:00 a.m.
House Science and Technology Committee
Research and Science Education Subcommittee
“Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act of 2008.”
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
10:00 a.m.
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
“Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century.”
106 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10:00 a.m.
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
Hearing on improving the capacity of United States climate modeling for decision-makers and end-users.
253 Russell Senate Office Building
2:30 p.m.
Thursday through Friday
AAAS Forum on Science & Technology Policy
Washington DC International Trade Center
9:00 a.m. (on-site registration begins at 7:30 a.m.)
Friday
Public Safety Wireless Broadband
John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Parsons Auditorium
2:00 p.m.
Does Europe Hold a Solution to the EPA’s Chemical Policy Problem?
The Environmental Protection Agency continued its fall from grace at a Senate hearing earlier this week that investigated political meddling with the Agency’s toxic chemical policies. The Wonk Room reports how under administrator Stephen Johnson’s leadership, the White House Office of Management and Budget would be allowed to oversee the EPA’s previously transparent scientific risk assessment system for chemicals, known as IRIS. Under the new process, federal agencies can interfere with chemical assessments in complete secrecy, delaying action on toxic chemicals. But in the midst of a rain of criticism, there were suggestions of future policy that could better allow the EPA to protect citizens from hazardous materials.
During his testimony, John Stephenson, director of the Government Accountability Office’s Natural Resources & Environment department, criticized the thirty-two-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act for being “outdated” and “cumbersome.” TSCA requires the EPA to secure information on all new and old chemical substances and to regulate those chemicals found to cause unreasonable risk to the public or environment. This means the EPA, and not the chemical manufacturers, must prove the safety of chemicals. As history would suggest, this is a Sisyphean task for an already resource-strapped agency. According to senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), of the 80,000 or so chemicals currently used by industry, the Agency has only tested 200.
Is there a solution to this appalling situation? Stephenson believes the answer may lie in the Europe Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals program, also known as REACH. In 2006, the EU passed REACH, a 849-page piece of legislation requiring that all chemicals produced or imported in the EU of one ton or more in volume be tested for health and safety risks and registered with a central chemical authority. What makes the policy unique is that chemical manufacturers and importers must prove to federal authorities their chemicals are safe, not vice versa. (For a more in-depth analysis of REACH, see the BBC’s Q&A report on the program).
Stephenson went on to praise REACH, believing its model fosters a fruitful partnership between industry and government because authorities can better protect the public and chemical companies can avoid litigation if hazardous chemicals are identified upfront rather than down the road. Critics argue such approaches could hamstring the chemical industry’s ability to innovate; force companies to move off-shore, costing U.S. jobs; and forcing many small businesses under. Minority witness V.M. Delisi of Fanwood Chemical Inc. echoed these concerns, suggesting it was a “myth” to believe chemical companies have unlimited sources to deal with the onus of proving the safety of their products. Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) countered such fears, saying companies that have created safer alternatives to toxic chemicals have seen their products kept out of the market because weak regulation favors cheaper, more hazardous chemicals. Stronger regulation would foster innovation and safer options, she argued. Annette Gellert, co-founder of the WELL Network, a nonprofit focused on the environment and its connection to the health of children and families, noted that if the U.S. maintains weak chemical regulation it could become a dumping ground for toxic products that cannot be sold in Europe and other stricter countries.
As Chris Mooney explained in his recent column, the EPA is in the midst of a complete meltdown. After censoring its own scientists, demonstrating disdain for scientific integrity, and failing to prevent mercury pollution, repairing the damage done to the EPA by the Bush Administration will require the upmost attention of the next President. But some are left to wonder why it even came to this stage. As Tuesday’s hearing wrapped up, Chairman Boxer’s (D-CA) said simply: “No one can explain to me where there is room for politics when you are looking at the health and safety of the American people.”
FDA Believes Blood Thinner Contamination Deliberate
The Health Section of the New York Times yesterday covered the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on a contaminant in blood thinner heparin that caused 81 deaths. Federal regulators now believe the contamination was deliberate. In addition to testimony from scientists and federal investigators, the Oversight Subcommittee heard testimony from family members of those who died.
The NYT reports:
David G. Strunce, chief executive of Scientific Protein Laboratories, the company that supplied contaminated heparin material to Baxter International, which manufactured and distributed the finished drug, described the contamination as “an insidious act” that “seems to us an intentional act upstream in the supply chain.”
The F.D.A. has identified Changzhou SPL, a Chinese subsidiary of Scientific Protein Laboratories, as the source of the contaminated heparin. A Congressional investigator said the contaminant, oversulfated chondroitin sulfate, cost $9 a pound compared with $900 a pound for heparin.
Mr. Strunce said that his company tried to find the original source of the contamination but was stopped by the Chinese authorities.
It is no longer realistic to expect the FDA to make informed decisions if it does not have the resources to undertake foreign inspections. Yet, despite what the NYT describes as “a growing bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that the F.D.A. needs a rapid increase in its budget to ensure the safety of the nation’s drugs, medical devices and food,” the Bush Administration’s proposed budget increase for next year is “not enough to cover even its expected cost increases.” (The Bush Administration is proposing a 3% increase.)
The FDA regulates products accounting for 25 cents of every dollar spent by consumers. It plays a hugely important role, and we are rightly outraged when contaminated blood thinner (or toxic plastic) is missed. We are also rightly outraged by reports of corruption and big pharma influence. But how much of this is an internal FDA problem, and how much is a larger symptom of the Bush Administration? How can the FDA do its job properly if it is laboring under an administration that encourages political interference in its affairs (remember the Plan B contraception debacle?) and does not give it the financial means to do its job?
Sirine Shebaya, Ph.D. is a Greenwall Fellow in Bioethics and Health Policy at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.
Reauthorizing the NNI: Do We Know What We Need to Know?
The environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology and potential regulation were the only points of contention at an otherwise congratulatory Senate hearing held to discuss the reauthorization of the $1.5 billion National Nanotechnology Initiative last Thursday. Both witnesses and senators praised the NNI during the hearing before the Science, Technology, and Innovation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, calling it a “model” program for its effective use of taxpayer money and for its coordination of twenty-five federal agencies in conducting research. Witnesses and committee members did acknowledge both that consumers need to have an accurate understanding of the EHS impacts in order to know they’re getting sound products made with nanomaterials, and companies would also like to know whether they might face future federal regulation or intervention of those products.
Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Natural Resources and Environment Team expressed concern that the funding set aside for EHS research is not enough to fill “information gaps” when it comes to the potential human risks of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. According to a GAO report released in conjunction with the hearing, only $38 million—or three percent of the NNI budget—went towards EHS, but that figure is likely overstated because of ambiguous reporting standards used by researchers. Robinson called for a better system to keep track of EHS spending. Committee members said they will revisit the EHS budget during the authorization process.
The subcommittee also invited outside experts from industry and the health sectors to explain their respective concerns about the NNI.
David Rejeski, Director of the Foresight and Governance Project and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, used a tube of Korean toothpaste laden with silver nanoparticles as a prop during his testimony, highlighting the fact that little is known about health risks associated with nanotechnology. Rejeski believes the U.S. oversight system is failing to test for possible risks just as more nanoproducts are hitting the market. He said that many nanotech companies are asking for federal guidance or regulations on EHS issues so they can press ahead with commercialization without fear of retroactive federal intervention. For the NNI reauthorization bill, Rejeski recommended an external advisory board for better transparency; a comprehensive strategy for the Initiative; and efforts to improve public awareness, so as not to hinder commercialization.
Committee members were mostly receptive to the recommendations of witnesses. They echoed many of the same concerns, calling for improved EHS spending and tracking; increased spending in nanotechnology research for renewable energy and fuel production; improving federal standards; and highlighting the need for a positive public awareness campaign to avoid a backlash similar to that suffered by genetically modified foods.
Image: NASA
Conflicts of Interest Under Scrutiny
Attention in the news to conflicts of interest within the medical profession seems to be on the rise. This is an issue that deserves serious scrutiny, particularly given how permissive the attitude of the medical community has been so far.
The Scientist NewsBlog reports on conflicts of interest within the HHS Stem Cell Council (free registration):
The Center for Science in the Public Interest polled the 25 voting members of HHS’s Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (ACBSCT) and found that 11 reported having financial ties to stem cell and umbilical cord blood banking companies, drug makers, and the transplantation industry.
Apparently, none of the original applicants to the Council were screened for such conflicts.
Science Progress recently covered a report in The Chronicle on a study (subscription) from the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that many academic scientists are adding their names to reports and papers written by corporations.
In any other context, both of these revelations would have been shocking. But within the medical profession, this is apparently not unusual.
The Health Section of the NYT yesterday reported that the Association of American Medical Colleges is proposing a ban on medical giveaways:
Drug and medical device companies should be banned from offering free food, gifts, travel and ghost-writing services to doctors, staff members and students in all 129 of the nation’s medical colleges, an influential college association has concluded.
The NYT also recently profiled a small group of scientists who decided to cease all paid services or consulting appointments with the food, drug, and medical device industries:
No longer will they be paid for speaking at meetings or for sitting on advisory boards. They may still work with companies. It is important, they say, for knowledgeable scientists to help companies draw up and interpret studies. But the work will be pro bono.
…
They are part of a group responding to accusations of ethical conflicts inherent in these arrangements, and their decisions repudiate decades of industry influence, says Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer, a professor at the Tufts School of Medicine, who has written a book on conflicts of interest.
Well it’s high time, too. Just because a practice is pervasive within a profession does not mean it passes ethical muster. And just because somebody is a well-intentioned doctor does not mean she’s immune to bias. That is why we institute ethical regulations. So far, the medical and scientific community has been surprisingly lax about conflicts of interest. One would hope that the personal decision of a few scientists and the ban by the Association of American Medical Colleges indicate the beginning of a trend in the opposite direction.
Sirine Shebaya, Ph.D. is a Greenwall Fellow in Bioethics and Health Policy at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.
Evolution and God Not Mutually Exclusive
The Science Times section in the NYT today has a short profile on Francisco J. Ayala, author of Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion. Dr. Ayala is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Irvine. He spends much of his time lecturing on evolution and its compatibility with belief in God. The Times reports:
Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.”
…
[He] dismisses the argument that it is only fair to teach both sides of the evolution/creationism controversy. “We don’t teach alchemy along with chemistry,” he said. “We don’t teach witchcraft along with medicine. We don’t teach astrology with astronomy.”
He said he was saddened when he saw the embrace of evolution identified with, as he put it, “explicit atheism,” as in the books of the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins or other writers on science and faith.
Neither the existence nor nonexistence of God is susceptible to scientific proof, Dr. Ayala said, and equating science with the abandonment of religion “fits the prejudices” of advocates of intelligent design and other creationist ideas.
Sound bites proclaiming the opposition of science and religion tend to drown out more moderate voices calling attention to the compatibility of belief in evolution with belief in God. However, many religious institutions, including the Catholic Church, already support or explicitly endorse the latter view. With the brouhaha over recent creationist movie Expelled, and ongoing disputes about teaching “intelligent design” in the classroom, scientists and religious believers alike have a strong interest in making sure that voices like Dr. Ayala’s come through loud and clear. Failing to do so does a disservice to science and religion alike.
Sirine Shebaya, Ph.D. is a Greenwall Fellow in Bioethics and Health Policy at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.