Science Progress Blog
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- Science Education Progress
- Why Spies Should Team Up With Environmental Scientists
- More Cells are Good, More Diverse Cells are Better
- More Stem Cells Lines Approved, Process Proves Smart
- Research Parks and Job Creation: Innovation Through Cooperation
- How the Global Warming Story Changed—Disastrously
- Reason is a Casualty in the Ongoing War on Climate Science
- Line Up for the New Lines
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
“A wait-and-see policy,” on climate change, observed Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Dr. Joseph Romm on Wednesday, “may mean waiting until it’s too late.” Romm was speaking at a CAP event on “The Science of Climate Change,” and was joined by Dr. Chris Field, the director of the department of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science and the Working Group II Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Michael MacCracken, Ph.D., the chief scientist for climate change programs at the Climate Institute.
Human activity generates heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide that are warming the planet and changing the climate. In framing the conversation, Romm summarized an MIT study concluding that on our current emissions path, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will more than double from pre-industrial levels and the median temperature increase at the Earth’s surface in the 2090s could be 5.2˚C, or nearly 10˚F. “We’re talking about a completely different planet,” he said.
MacCracken emphasized during his panel presentation that our understanding of the fundamental physical science behind climate change is sound and has been for decades. In fact, the idea that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide could warm the planet is more than a century old—the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius explained the concept in 1896. The first official report submitted to a U.S. president on the impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide arrived on Lyndon B. Johnson’s desk in 1965.
Human-generated emissions enhance the natural greenhouse effect and disrupt the planet’s carbon cycle, MacCracken explained. Observations of carbon dioxide levels since the middle of the 20th century show a clear annual oscillation: concentrations of the gas go up and down with the “seasonal breathing” of the biosphere. Part of that cycle is plants absorbing carbon from the air during spring and summer and releasing it during the fall and winter; part of it is ocean absorption. But increasing human emissions mean that the cycle is no longer balanced, and the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere is climbing steadily. “We’ve had a huge subsidy for our carbon,” Field said, because so much of it absorbed by “sinks” on land and in the water.
When sunlight strikes the atmosphere, MacCracken explained, some of its energy is reflected back into space, and some of it passes through, warming the surface of the planet. A small portion of that surface heat radiates back into space again, but greenhouses gases absorb most of it, recirculating the energy back to land and the lower atmosphere. As concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases increase, more of that heat stays within the atmosphere, leading to a warmer and warmer planet.
Moreover, the warming effects of carbon dioxide in particular are long lasting and the increased concentrations already in the air would continue to warm the Earth for decades to come, even if emissions were immediately reduced to zero. That’s why it is the most important emissions product under consideration by governments around the world.
Surface temperatures and ocean temperatures are rising, MacCracken said, summarizing multiple lines of evidence that confirm the climate is changing now. Sea ice is shrinking, glacier and permafrost are melting, and snow lines are creeping toward mountain peaks. Consequently, sea levels are rising, and increased amounts of evaporated water in the air lead to more intense precipitation where rain falls. And plant and animal species are retreating toward the poles as their original habitats get warmer.
Field reemphasized the importance of focusing on carbon dioxide as the leading cause of these changes because it is intimately linked to human prosperity. “We haven’t figured out how to make people rich without associating that with a high-carbon lifestyle,” he said. Historical data indicates that there is a linear relationship between national wealth and carbon emissions. The question, he said, is how to move from an environment where this relationship is strong to one that breaks that link, creating the “opportunity for more economic activity with lower carbon emissions.”
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that the global “warming is unequivocal,” and Field emphasized that analyses cannot look selectively at merely a few years or even a single decade within the climate record to see this trend. It requires a longer view, but multiple independent temperature records confirm the fact that the planet is getting warmer.
In explaining the process that generates these massive reports on climate science, Field said that, “The IPCC is the most ambitious, thorough, and successful assessment of anything that I think has ever been done.” The process is designed to keep errors to a minimum, but he spoke from personal experience in describing the particular frame it creates for presenting information.
Author teams draw scientists from a variety of disciplinary perspectives and from countries all over the world; they then absorb and synthesize a huge amount of information. For the chapter Field worked on for the last IPCC report, two rounds of expert review each produced 250 pages of notes.
Representatives from all of the United Nations countries later approve, line by line, the IPCC summary chapters for policymakers that synthesize the scientific reports. Field described displaying sentences on a board for a room of participants and being unable to proceed before there was total consensus on the characterization of the science. This produces a “very tight boundary” around what appears in the final summaries, and the characterizations of the science are therefore very measured, not extreme.
MacCracken said that some critics of the process have suggested that scientists simply give policymakers the original research and leave the interpretation up to them. He compared the folly of that approach to giving a cancer patient all of the available medical research on his or her condition, expecting them to make a decision independent of a doctor’s advice. The IPCC summaries are the record of a conversation in clear terms, he said, between scientists and government policymakers.
Most recently, the IPCC came under fire for erroneous projections published in a scientific chapter on the rate at which the Himalayan glaciers are melting. The dubious information originated from a piece of “gray literature,” that is, a report that did not come from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Addressing the use of gray literature in the IPCC process, Field explained the value of this information in understanding the impact and implications of climate change. These sources include insurance company research, unpublished scientific work, observations of impacts in various publications, and industrial and corporate reports. It is hard to imagine how the IPCC could tackle the range of subjects it is tasked with understanding without access to this gray literature, he said.
Video: “The Science of Climate Change” (Download presentations)
Video: Interview with Christopher Field, Ph.D. “Climate Change Is a Clear and Present Danger”
Video: Interview with Michael MacCracken, Ph.D. “How We Know Humans Are Changing the Climate”
They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
In his final column for Science Progress, Rick Weiss responded to critics of stem cell research who argue that injections of stem cells will never serve as treatments for certain chronic diseases. True enough, Weiss wrote, injections of stem cells are unlikely to serve as a treatment for conditions like Alzheimer’s:
Alzheimer’s, after all, affects such a large part of the brain that treating it with injections of cells would almost certainly be futile. (Parkinson’s disease, by contrast, involves a very small area in the brain so has real of hope of being helped by injections of replacement cells there.)
But that doesn’t mean that research involving human embryonic stem cells might never play a crucial role in developing treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s. The reason: because stem cells can develop into any kind of cell in the body, scientists can potentially use them to grow model tissue samples and test drugs without the need to experiment on a human subject.
Stem cells are powerful tools for developing treatments not just because they can regenerate damaged tissue, but because as they grow, scientists can use them to understand the basic biology of a disease.
Researchers at the University of California San Deigo have recently taken just such a step forward in their ability to understand the development of genetic diseases. The scientists substituted an altered cancer-causing gene and a gene for a rare movement disorder in the genomes of embryonic stem cells. Since embryonic stem cells perpetually renew themselves and can differentiate into any type of cell in the human body, this afforded them the opportunity to study the development and behavior of the diseases. Future research can test new drugs and therapies on these human cell models before moving to a clinical trial, making it possible to develop safe and effective drugs in a cheaper and faster manner.
The researchers note specifically in their article in Cell Stem Cell that these two hESC disease models “will become valuable resources to study human tumorigenesis and develop more effective therapeutic interventions for human cancer.”
For years, scientists have studied human genetic diseases with what are known as “knock-out” mice. In this process, scientists “knock-out” or disrupt a gene of interest in mice so that they can observe the effect of the disease on its cells. Since mouse biology is different from human biology, these models present limitations.
Scientists have also tried to use induced pluripotent stem, or iPS, cells. In this process, a mature body cell, for instance from the skin, that carries a genetic disease is converted into a stem cell by adding a combination of genetic and chemical factors. The problem with these cells is that since they are diseased to begin with, they usually have other genetic defects that complicate the study of the disease in question.
The study was funded by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and utilized cells from the lab of Dr. Doug Melton at Harvard. Some of the Harvard lines have recently been approved for NIH funding so we should all stay tuned for more of these revolutionary breakthroughs with hESCs.
Genomic Medicine on the March
On Thursday, the Secretary’s Advisory Committee for Genetics, Health, and Society at the Department of Health and Human Services will meet to discuss a set of reports on the future of genomic medicine. The meeting will cover a range of important issues such as the impact of affordable whole-genome sequencing; comparative effectiveness research; genetics education for healthcare providers, patients, and public health workers; and the sharing of genomic data across multiple sectors including research, industry, and healthcare services. This is the kind of federal-level dialogue and coordination promoted in the Science Progress report, “Paving the Way for Personalized Medicine.”
SACGHS has formed a task force to address the clinical utility of genetic testing—that is,.the usefulness of genetic tests for helping doctors choose more effective interventions for their patients. Assessing clinical utility is an important component of both personalized medicine and comparative effectiveness research, which analyzes interventions head-to-head to see which work better for different patients. The goal is to improve comparative effectiveness research by incorporating genetic tests, which would allow physicians to tailor treatments to individual patients based on their own DNA.
The Personalized Medicine Coalition held a conference last fall to promote the alignment of comparative effectiveness research with personalized medicine. This alignment is also a crucial aspect of the recommendations issued by the Institute of Medicine, which promoted research on both “diseases and conditions with the greatest aggregate effect on the health of the U.S. population, but also less common conditions that severely affect individuals in vulnerable subgroups of the population.”
The Center for American Progress has also recognized the importance of ensuring that CER can “accelerate the discovery of approaches to individualized medicine and help providers cater to the specific needs of patients.” This will move medicine beyond the “one size fits all” therapies that result from the research provided by pharmaceutical companies to the FDA. SACGHS is taking an important step forward by identifying ways to assess the clinical utility of genetic tests. This was one of several recommendations CAP has made not just for advancing personalized medicine but also for improving the quality of genetic testing in the report, “Genetic Information Non-Discrimination.”
Genetics education and training will also be a major part of the SACGHS meeting agenda. The task force outlined its action plan in July of 2008 and has since set out to identify the needs of healthcare providers, the public health workforce, and the general public for genetic education. The task force also identified various types of case studies that it will use to analyze the current information gaps in genetic testing. This will require exploring the best way to gather and disseminate information about pharmacogenomic testing, newborn screening, diagnosis of single gene disorders, direct-to-consumer testing, and population genetics. The task force plans to release their report in the coming months. This is an important step, as the public must be “informed and educated about personalized medicine through outreach efforts, opportunities for public comment or input, and most importantly through transparency.”
Data sharing is also a major component of the agenda. Representatives from government, academia, health care systems, industry, and consumer groups will present different models for sharing genomic information. This will be followed by a discussion of health information technologies that aim to efficiently connect the data among these multiple sectors. In “Paving the Way for Personalized Medicine,” my co-author and I addressed both the positive developments as well as the missed opportunities on this front. In particular, we noted that HHS’s Health IT Standards Committee has not properly collaborated with outside networks that are working to devise consistent nomenclature so that genomic data can be utilized through health IT. We recommended this kind of collaboration so that HHS can leverage the expert resources available for combining cutting-edge genomic science with health IT.
The face of medicine is changing at a breakneck pace and a forum like the SACGHS meeting allows scientists, policymakers, innovators, service providers, and patients to work together to ensure that this new era of medical innovation serves the common good by being safe, effective, efficient, and equitable.
President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
Investing in innovation is a critical component of long-term economic prosperity, and the president’s FY2011 budget request includes two notable provisions that will support regional science and technology clusters.
The administration is asking for $75 million “to support the creation of regional innovation clusters that leverage regions’ competitive strengths to boost job creation and economic growth,” a goal Jonathan Sallet, Ed Paisley, and Justin Masterman championed in the Science Progress report, “The Geography of Innovation.” Part of the key to this approach is that is allows policymakers to pay close attention to regional strengths. As the report authors explain: “Geographic regions that are bound together by a network of shared advantages create virtuous cycles of innovation that succeed by emphasizing the key strengths of the local businesses, universities and other research and development institutions, and non-profit organizations.”
As well, the Department of Energy budget includes substantial investments in research and development to spur clean energy innovation. That includes $107 million for three existing and one proposed Energy Innovation Hub. The Hubs, as the full DOE request says, “establish larger, highly integrated teams working to solve priority technology challenges that span work from basic research to engineering development to commercialization readiness.” These hubs, write the “Geography of Innovation” authors, are forward-thinking centers that will “spur the development of the innovation clusters that will help solve our national energy challenges, create jobs, and promote widespread economic growth.”
Event: The Science of Climate Change
Next Wednesday, Science Progress will co-host an event at the Center for American Progress. The guest list for The Science of Climate Change is already at capacity, but the live webstream will be available here. Full event info:
The Science of Climate Change
February 3, 2010, 12:00pm – 1:30pm
An overwhelming quantity of direct observations and analyses published by scientists in various disciplines around the world demonstrates that human activity has warmed the planet and altered the climate. The severity of the projected impacts of continuing on our current greenhouse gas emissions path has only increased in recent years.
Please join the Center for American Progress for an educational event featuring two respected scientists who have both helped author reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Michael MacCracken and Dr. Christopher Field will explain the IPCC’s assessment process, how we know what we know about human-caused climate change, what we have learned since the 2007 IPCC report, and why the science must inform public policy in the United States.
Featured Speakers:
Christopher Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, and Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford University, and a coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment
Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute, and co-author/contributing author for various chapters in the IPCC assessment reports
Moderated by:
Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
Click here to get more information.
Watch a live stream of the event.
Progress in Bioethics
The 2005 culmination of the legal battle over Terri Schiavo’s life-sustaining treatment was as a flash point for public discussions about bioethics. While the field encompasses a wide range of complex and controversial subjects, debates over these issues often remain within the realms of academia, the scientific community, and the health professions. But in 2005, conservative political leaders insisted upon using the tragic situation of Schiavo and her family to push a right-wing agenda for end-of-life care decisions. They captured an enormous amount of media attention and made headlines around the county.
But in the current economic downturn, the primary bioethical issue on newspaper front pages is health care reform. Bioethics issues like end-of-life care, cloning, and other “culture war” matters are on the back burner. But at a Center for American Progress event yesterday on “Progress in Bioethics,” Michael Tomansky, panelist and editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, argued that once the economy improves and is no longer taking up all of the nation’s “anxiety oxygen,” Americans will “have to find other things to argue about.” And those other things are likely to include bioethics. The rest of the panel generally agreed: Something—perhaps a decision from the Obama administration, a court ruling, or a controversial clinical case like Schiavo’s—will eventually capture the media’s eye and bring debates over bioethics and public policy back to fore. It’s not a matter of “if,” but “when,” Tomansky argued, and progressives need to be ready.
The event highlighted the release of Progress in Bioethics, a new book co-edited by CAP Senior Fellow Jonathan Moreno and Sam Berger. The volume maps the current landscape of bioethics and public policy, where progressive ideas are ascendant after more than a decade of conservative dominance. As a panelist, Berger explained that “progressive bioethics” is best understood as the application of the scientific method to policymaking, emphasizing data-driven decision making and transparent methodologies. He also outlined the four central values of a progressive bioethics.
The first is “critical optimism,” which Berger explained means that while progressives tend to view change as a positive thing, their support for innovation and the advent of new technologies must come with a dose of skepticism and an awareness of potential problems. The key to safeguarding against potential harms lies in careful policymaking.
The second principle is “human dignity.” Berger said that while this important, resonant phrase has been co-opted by conservative bioethicists in recent years, progressives should not cede the term to the right. Instead, they should work to redefine it for the public to indicate the respect we afford to moral equals in our society.
“Moral transparency” was the next value Berger explained. The role of bioethicists is not to dictate morality to the public, he said. Instead, the purpose of public debate over bioethics is to inform citizens about the complexities and nuances involved in these issues, and to in turn better inform citizens about how we can formulate policies that reflect cultural values.
Finally, he explained what he called “ethical practicality.” Not all issues in bioethics get equal attention from the mainstream media. Often, it is those issues that are most pressing, such as access to quality health care, vaccinations, and adequate nutrition—particularly on the global scale—that remain on the sidelines of media’s attention. However, because of their importance and immediacy, these issues must remain a primary focus of progressive bioethics.
While progressives have historically dominated academic bioethics, said panelist Clay Risen, managing editor of Democracy, that there has been a lack of substantive, contemplative articles from the left intended for mainstream audiences. Changing that has been one of the goals of the publication, he said.
In contrast, the past decade has been a period of great success for right-wing bioethics. Conservative dominance, Berger argued, is not simply attributable to the political power wielded under the Bush administration, which gave prominence to the bio-conservative philosophical positions of the President’s Council on Bioethics. Panelist Kathryn Hinsch, Founder and Board President of the Women’s Bioethics Project and a contributor to Progress in Bioethics, said that in recent years conservatives have gained considerable ground in framing many of the public debates within bioethics. A major success has been to define the vocabulary of debates with phrases like “designer babies” and “death panels.” Moreover, Tomasky said, conservatives project their ideas with clarity and have a passionate, unified position that appeals to both the religious and secular right.
What progressives need to do, Hinsch argued, is to present to the public an “alternate world view” that contrasts with the conservative position. In agreement, Risen argued that the left’s frequent absence from the public debate has resulted in the mischaracterization of the progressive position as merely being the opposite of the right’s stance. The assumption is then that the left holds a libertarian, “no holds barred” approach to bioethics issues, particularly when it comes to the use of emerging biomedical technologies.
But by no means do progressive approaches to bioethics necessarily align with libertarian principles, said Marcy Darnovsky, the Associate Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society, also contributor to Progress in Bioethics. Instead, she said that progressives ought to move forward with a careful eye towards how to best balance considerations of the common good with individual liberty. A clearly articulated precautionary principle must keep enthusiasm for emerging biomedical technologies in check, she said, echoing Progress in Bioethics’s call for to proceed with “critical optimism.”
Hannah Zale is an intern with the Progressive Bioethics Initiative at the Center for American Progress.
The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
In 2009, we saw a renewed engagement with ethical questions about how we regulate biotechnology, watched the conservative war on science continue on new fronts, and witnessed renewed commitments to grow U.S. prosperity with investments in science and technology.
Timeline: A Brief History of Stem Cell Research
One of our most popular features ever, this interactive timeline marked key moments, beginning the in the 1970s, from the interrelated stories of human embryonic stem cell research and the policy governing that work. The piece collects research featured in the Center for American Progress report, “A Life Sciences Crucible: Stem Cell Research and Innovation Done Responsibly and Ethically.” The Obama administration’s final stem cell policy closely resembled the one recommended in the paper.
Dude, Where’s My War on Science?
By Chris Mooney
Conservatives tried to expose what they claim was a case of science suppression by the Obama administration—and in the process demonstrated how little they know about science in the first place. The attack on EPA’s policy process, Mooney explained, fails peer review.
The George Will Scandal
By Chris Mooney
When The Washington Post ran a column by Will rife with errors on climate science, Mooney asked: If a major media outlet can’t even correct facts about global warming, is it still socially relevant?
What Does This Generation Think it Means to be a “Scientist”?
By Chris Mooney
Many students don’t see a life of academic specialization as the best way to employ their scientific talents. They want to do something more to bring science to the rest of America. Changing definitions could entail a changing relationship between science and society, wrote Mooney.
How the Global Warming Story Changed—Disastrously
By Chris Mooney
Skeptics didn’t need good science to make another attack on climate change research. Their strength has always been in communication tactics anyway, and not scientific exactitude or rigor, wrote Mooney, examining the fallout from the “ClimateGate” scandal. And the U.S. public, never overwhelmingly sure about climate change, has long been susceptible to their smokescreens and misinformation campaigns.
Throwing the Baby Out With the Amniotic Fluid
By Michelle N. Meyer
One important distinction that is not made often or clearly enough by either ethicists or lawyers is that between decisions to procreate and decisions not to procreate. Witness, for instance, the reaction to Nadya OctoMom™ Suleman.
Hold Off On Holdren (Again)
By Chris Mooney
Conservatives found another ludicrous charge to hurl against the president’s science adviser. It was just the latest attempt to distract from actual science policy.
Autonomous Contraception
By Lisa Campo-Engelstein
A recent discovery, wrote Campo-Engelstein, might open the door to an effective male contraceptive drug, a technology that could have been developed decades ago, were it not for social factors that enable women but not men to effectively regulate their fertility outside of sexual activity and without their partner’s participation or knowledge.
Regional Centers of Innovation 101
Regional centers such as Silicon Valley and Boston cultivate technology-based economic development through a dynamic mix of researchers, entrepreneurs, investors, and infrastructure. Drawing lessons from their success can help revitalize the U.S. economy. This feature marked the beginning of our ongoing project developing policies that support innovation clusters around the country.
Science Education Progress
Yesterday, President Obama led some much needed pomp and circumstance over STEM education. In a speech at the White House, he emphasized the critical importance of an aggressive commitment to improving our nation’s education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the so-called STEM fields. “Make no mistake,” he said, “Our future is on the line. The nation that out-educates us today is going to out-compete us tomorrow. To continue to cede our leadership in education is to cede our position in the world.” The president noted that in comparison to other high school students around the world, U.S. students currently rank 21st in science and 25th in math.
This address was part of an awards ceremony for over 100 science teachers and mentors from across the country who have demonstrated outstanding work. President Obama also announced the creation of five new public-private partnerships aimed at raising U.S. students to the top of international math and science rankings in ten years.
These initiatives are the newest component of the administration’s “Educate to Innovate” campaign, which kicked off in November with an initial commitment of $260 million from philanthropic organizations and individuals. The initiative is designed to unite and engage citizens, institutions of higher education, non-profits, and businesses alike in the effort to propel STEM education in the United States. Obama has outlined three goals for the campaign: increasing students’ STEM literacy and critical thinking, improving math and science teaching, and expanding opportunities for groups underrepresented in STEM fields like women and minorities.
The new initiatives total an additional $250 million and include efforts by companies like Intel, Texas Instruments, PBS, and a coalition of 75 presidents of public universities, which has committed to train 10,000 science and math teachers annually by 2015.
As further evidence of the federal government’s commitment to improving STEM education in the United States, the president also cited the “the largest investment in education by the federal government in history” in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as well as specific initiatives such as the Department of Education’s $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” fund, and the Department’s plan to provide $10 million in grants to support innovative teaching and $43 million in grants for 28 Teacher Quality Partnership programs at colleges of education and in high-need school districts.
While the president recognized the government’s responsibility to provide greater support for the recruitment, preparation, and retention of quality teachers to improve the nation’s education in the sciences, he also reaffirmed his challenge to the scientific community to “to think of new and creative ways to engage young people in their fields.” In response to this, the scientists at NASA will organize a multi-year “Summer of Innovation” enrichment program in which NASA scientists and engineers will work with thousands of teachers and students to work on cutting-edge STEM learning opportunities.
Other companies and organizations involved include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which are recruiting private sector leaders to advocate for STEM education in the states; Time Warner Cable, which is running a public service campaign; Sony Computer Entertainment America, which is launching a contest to design the best STEM-related video games for children; and the grassroots “National Lab Day” effort which is committed to working with 10,000 teachers and 1 million students this year.
Why Spies Should Team Up With Environmental Scientists
From 1992 until 2001, a special group of scientists collaborated with the U.S. intelligence community to use reconnaissance satellite imagery to study environmental change around the planet. Known as Medea, Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis, the project came to an abrupt end at the beginning of the Bush administration. The detailed pictures snapped by spy satellites are powerful tools for researchers studying the impacts of climate change, including accelerations in polar ice melt. Fortunately, the Obama administration has quietly revived the project and The New York Times reports that a gang of 60 scientists with secret clearances are working with the National Academy of Sciences to analyze the new information, some of which is unavailable through any other source.
The restoration of the program is an apt example of the scientific and intelligence communities working together. Not only can the tools for satellite reconnaissance support critical scientific Earth observations, officials recognize that climate change and national security are interrelated policy issues. As Dr. Christopher Tucker argued here at Science Progress, an effective Earth observation strategy is crucial to confronting issues in both arenas:
A comprehensive approach to developing, deploying, and utilizing our eyes in the sky can ensure more effective and efficient use of precious intellectual and financial resources as we struggle to address traditional national security challenges, the array of transnational threats that plague us, as well as the complex, looming menace posed by global climate change. But this will require significant attention paid to national security reform, the governance of Earth science, a fundamental rethinking of the programming and budgeting process, and—not least of all—leadership.
Reviving the Medea program is a low-cost step in the right direction, as it merely re-purposes images already gathered for intelligence purposes. The pictures are degraded before they are released in order to mask the capabilities of the satellites.
More Cells are Good, More Diverse Cells are Better
Eleven of the Bush-era human embryonic stem cell lines are of European origin. Of the 40 lines newly approved by the National Institutes of Health, at least 22 are of European origin. Five of the Bush lines are from two gamete donors, and six of the new Harvard University lines are from three donors.
A team of researchers at the University of Michigan analyzed this limited genetic diversity in a paper published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine. They investigated 47 lines including 13 of the 21 Bush-era lines and 22 of the 27 newly approved Harvard lines.
The research team estimates that there are about 700 hESC lines available in the world, but that the 47 they investigated are the most widely used. The authors conducted a genotype analysis for the stem cells, looking at 500,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms along each line’s genome. Each of these represents a point in the DNA sequence where notable variations occur. They then compared the cell line genotypes to those of 2,001 subjects from the HapMap Project and Human Genome Diversity Project, which map human genetic diversity around the world. Two of the Bush-era lines, which came from labs in Singapore, are of East Asian origin, and three others were of mixed Middle Eastern and European origin. According to a University of Michigan press release, “none of the lines were derived from individuals of recent African ancestry, from Pacific Islanders, or from populations indigenous to the Americas.”
This unfortunate reality underscores the need for not only expanded hESC research, but also for more diverse research. The Bush-era policy was clearly inadequate and the new policy fortunately allows for much more freedom in conducting research. But if we really want to realize the promise of stem cells, scientists will need to work with lines from diverse genetic origins. That is the only way to design treatments and therapies that work for all populations. Diseases manifest themselves differently in different populations, whether because of genetics or environment. There are also the problems of side effects and treatment effectiveness that scientists can only properly assess when treatments are tailored to specific populations.
Jonathan Moreno and I recently wrote about this very issue as it concerns the Latino community at the Lationvations website.
Michigan’s new Consortium for Stem Cell Therapies plans to attack this issue of limited genetic diversity in the cells head-on by deriving lines that carry the genes responsible for inherited diseases and by also deriving lines from underrepresented groups like African-Americans.
More Stem Cells Lines Approved, Process Proves Smart
The National Institutes of Health have added 27 more human embryonic stem cell lines to the 13 approved two weeks ago. These new lines come from Harvard University and have some interesting stipulations attached to them that illustrate the diligence and ethical seriousness that the NIH has brought to the approval process.
Harvard submitted 28 lines for review, but one was rejected, as it was derived with a consent form that came during a lapse of the university’s institutional review board. Researchers at the university had been using the lines for various projects without federal dollars, but the consent forms for the lines specifically state that the lines support diabetes research:
These cells will be used to study the embryonic development of endoderm with a focus on pancreatic formation. The long-term goal is to create human pancreatic islets that contain ß cells, the cells that produce insulin, for transplantation into diabetics.
The NIH prudently chose to abide by the consent forms, so researchers will only receive federal funds to work on the lines if they follow those rules. NIH Director Francis Collins made this decision after the Advisory Committee to the Director recommended the rules to him following its December 4th meeting. The Committee also requested that the NIH issue guidelines regarding the broader use of embryos derived for a specific purpose, but according to Jef Akst at The Scientist, “the NIH has not responded.”
The NIH did however update its FAQ page, explaining to researchers that the NIH stem cell guidelines require informed consent from embryo donors, which is different from the provisions in the “Common Rule” governing most federally funded biomedical research—the Common Rule does not require consent for de-identified human cells. The NIH has also decided to honor any restrictive language in the informed consent forms regarding the scope of the allowed research.
We should commend the NIH for dealing with these nuances and complexities in an ethically consistent manner that respects the wishes of the embryo donors. This process embodies a genuine understanding of how scientific necessity, administrative transparency, and ethical clarity can lead to sound policies.
Eighty-three more lines are pending review, and we look forward to seeing them receive the same level of serious ethical scrutiny.
Research Parks and Job Creation: Innovation Through Cooperation
Jonathan Sallet, co-author of the report, “The Geography of Innovation: The Federal Government and the Growth of Regional Innovation Clusters,” testifies today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. He explains in his written testimony that Congress should support the Economic Development Administration, which can build effective collaborations between businesses, universities, and local governments that create jobs and invest in an innovate future:
I believe that the federal government can maximize the benefits of science and research parks, an integral part of sparking innovation and creating jobs in the US, by supporting regional innovation clusters to promote a comprehensive, long-term economic growth and development plans across regions in the United States.
My recommendation is that regional innovation clusters should become the centerpiece of a reauthorized Economic Development Administration (EDA), empowering the agency to work with businesses, universities, community colleges, state and local governments and community leaders to foster regional competitiveness strategies. This will help boost job creation and business growth by spurring the creation and growth of successful regional ecosystems, striking exactly the right balance between federal leadership and local responsibility and between the private and public sectors. Science parks and regional innovation clusters are two vital parts to a long-term solution – science parks will drive the clusters forward while the regional innovation cluster will strengthen and support the local framework in which the park can thrive. This broader effort will be the most effective and sustainable.
Read Sallet’s full testimony (pdf).
How the Global Warming Story Changed—Disastrously
By Chris Mooney
Back in 2006, the year of the release of An Inconvenient Truth, it felt as though serious and irreversible progress had finally been made on the climate issue. The feeling continued in 2007, when Al Gore won the Nobel and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced that global warming was “unequivocal” and “very likely” human caused. Mega-companies like General Electric were burnishing new green identities, and the Prius was an icon. The Bush administration was widely suspected of having deceived the public about the urgency of the climate issue, and journalists were backing away from their previous penchant for writing “on the one hand, on the other hand” stories about the increasingly indisputable science.
Then came the election of Barack Obama, boasting a forward-looking policy agenda to address global warming and a stellar team of scientists and environmentalists in his cabinet and circle of advisers, including climate and energy expert John Holdren and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu. The United States, it seemed, would finally deal with global warming—and just in the nick of time.
Who could have known, at the time, that the climate deniers and contrarians had not yet launched their greatest and most devastating attack? Certainly, it was hard to imagine how they might pull off such a strike: They had virtually nothing going for them, no raw scientific materials to work with. All the science pointed to a greater-than-ever urgency of addressing the climate issue and a quickly closing window of opportunity for action. Within scientific circles, it was even becoming commonplace to discuss planetary modification, or geoengineering, as an alternative last ditch solution if we couldn’t stop runaway greenhouse warming in time.
But the skeptics were lying in wait. They didn’t need good science to make another sally: Their strength has always been in communication tactics anyway, and not scientific exactitude or rigor. And the U.S. public, never overwhelmingly sure about climate change, has long been susceptible to their smokescreens and misinformation campaigns.
The new skeptic strategy began with a ploy that initially seemed so foolish, so petty, that it was unworthy of dignifying with a response. The contrarians seized upon the hottest year in some temperature records, 1998—which happens to have been an El Nino year, hence its striking warmth—and began to hammer the message that there had been “no warming in a decade” since then.
It was, in truth, little more than a damn lie with statistics. Those in the science community eventually pointed out that global warming doesn’t mean every successive year will be hotter than the last one—global temperatures be on the rise without a new record being set every year. All climate theory predicts is that we will see a warming trend, and we certainly have. Or as the U.S. EPA recently put it, “Eight of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.” But none of them beat 1998; and so the statistical liars, like George Will of the Washington Post, continued their charade.
The public was quite vulnerable to such messages: Americans don’t know climate science very well, and the notion that temperatures aren’t actually “rising” after all must have spurred many doubts. Indeed, I suspect the “no warming since 1998” line of attack helped contribute to an alarming finding released in October by the Pew Research Center: the proportion of Americans agreeing there is “solid evidence the earth is warming” had declined to 57 percent, from 71 percent a year and a half earlier. And those attributing warming to human activities—the robust scientific consensus view—had dwindled from 47 percent to 36 percent over the same time period.
This blow, however, was nothing compared to the “ClimateGate” saga of November, in which a bevy of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom were illegally obtained and exposed, thus generating a dramatic scandal over the climate scientists’ alleged attempts to silence skeptics and thwart freedom of information requests. The truth is that, analyzed in their proper context, there isn’t very much that’s damning about the emails (though some of the scientists may have some things to answer for). But even taken at their worst, the emails do not change one whit the urgency of addressing global warming.
Scientists have pointed this out repeatedly, but to no avail: “ClimateGate” generated a massive wave of media attention, blending together the skeptics’ longstanding focus on undercutting climate science with a new overwhelming message of scandal and wrongdoing on the part of the climate research establishment. This story was not going to go away, and even as scientists put out statements (most of them several days late) explaining that the science of climate remains unchanged and unaffected by whatever went on at East Anglia, the case for human-caused global warming was dealt a blow the likes of which we have perhaps never before seen.
Whether we will recover some necessary momentum in Copenhagen—a formal United Nations venue for deliberation where scientific expertise is respected, and where misinformation will likely have less power—is up in the air. Nevertheless, there’s an important lesson here, for the climate issue and beyond.
In our mass media age, on any politicized scientific topic, there is no reason to assume a correlation between increasing scientific certainty about a problem and increasing public awareness, acceptance, or willingness to take action to address that problem. If anything, the two might well become anti-correlated, as in the global warming case. And that is because—to speak in a language that scientists will certainly understand all too well—the state of the science is only one variable affecting public opinion. And in the global warming debate, there has been an utter failure to control for any of the others.
If scientists, their allies, and their supporters want to better ensure the translation of scientific knowledge into action than we’ve seen in the global warming case, there is simply no choice but to work much, much harder to influence public opinion, and anticipate and thwart the skeptics before they can bring about another “ClimateGate.”
[Clarification: This post originally indicated that climate contrarians seized upon 1998 as the "hottest year in the global temperature record"; it has been changed to indicate that this is the hottest year in some temperature records.]
Chris Mooney is the author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”
Reason is a Casualty in the Ongoing War on Climate Science
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal editorial section, Daniel Henninger took exaggeration of the scandal over emails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia to new heights, arguing that the incident undermines the entire centuries-old scientific enterprise. But the column ignores both the current observable impact of climate change and scientific history, and is a merely the latest volley in the ongoing conservative war on science.
Speaking today with reporters during a press call organized by the Center for American progress, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Director of the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, emphasized that despite the uproar, nothing changes about the scientific conclusions on climate change:
From my point of view, the most important issue is whether anything has been added to or subtracted from the scientific picture of global warming that’s emerged gradually over several decades of careful analysis by thousands of experts. The answer is simple. From a scientific point of view, nothing has changed. It remains true that Earth has warmed more than 1 degree Fahrenheit over last century largely due to the buildup of human-made greenhouse gases…it remains the case that the projections of future climate change are every bit as discouraging as they were before the recent flap began. [Full audio and a transcript of the call are available here.]
Denialist arguments like the one offered in the WSJ are remarkable in that they ignore basic measurable facts about how climate change is altering the planet at this very moment. Global warming is currently melting 18,000 Himalayan glaciers. Wildfires stoked by increased temperatures are burning 7 million acres of the American west every year. Changes in precipitation patterns in the continental United States caused up to $8 billion in agricultural loses last year.
Simply put, we don’t need to wait and see if our planet’s climate will change as a result of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. The change is already happening. As Chris Mooney put it in June, when the United States Global Change Research Program released its updated assessment of the impact of climate change on the country: “We have every reason to expect that these regionally variable changes will steadily worsen, with resulting severe threats to coastal communities, water supplies, agriculture, human health, and more.”
Henninger’s claim that “science is dying” is merely the latest iteration in the continuing conservative war on science, in which naysayers trash the research enterprise without engaging the scientific facts or mounting any credible response to the avalanche of evidence from multiple fields that underpins the work on climate change. As the editors of the journal Nature wrote yesterday:
Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.
As for other facts of recent and distant history, Henninger dismisses the significance of 2007 Nobel Prize writing that it “was bestowed (on a politician),” neglecting to mention that the other half of the prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body comprising 2,000 scientists from around the world. He goes on to compare the exchanges in the hacked emails to the Catholic church’s attempt to silence Galileo. Alas, as Mooney points out, the comparison is off-base: “The people who dissented in the history of science, but were overwhelmingly wrong, tend to be forgotten. Galileo dissented and he happened to be overwhelmingly right.” Moreover, like today’s climate change deniers, it was the Catholic church that rejected scientific facts that didn’t fit into its worldview.
The WSJ editorial section would like you to believe that “science is dying,” but the claim proves only one thing: that in the face of climate change science, some conservatives will continue their efforts to ensure the death of reason itself.
Line Up for the New Lines
Yesterday, the National Institutes of Health approved 13 new embryonic stem cell lines according to the rigorous ethical guidelines that went into effect July 7th. The lines will now be eligible for use in federally funded research. The 15-point rules include requirements that cells must be derived with private funds from embryos created solely for fertility treatment purposes, but which are left over from IVF clinics. Also, the couples donating the embryos must give their informed consent, must not be offered any financial inducement, must be told that they will not derive any personal benefits from the research, and they must be presented with other options including putting the embryos up for adoption before they are asked to donate the embryos for research. All of these requirements reflect the recommendations put forth in the CAP report, “A Life Sciences Crucible.”
These new policies implemented President Obama’s March 9th Executive Order, which marked a much-needed departure from President George W. Bush’s policy. The former president’s ethical guidelines for federally funded human embryonic stem cell research were limited simply to a declaration that no government money could support work on lines derived before August 9, 2001. This left scientists with only 21 lines of low scientific quality and ethically questionable origins.
Eleven of the 13 new cell lines came from Children’s Hospital in Boston and the other two came from Rockefeller University in New York and were approved through the NIH’s normal administrative review process. There are 96 more lines awaiting approval either through the same process or by an alternative process for cell lines derived before the new guidelines went into effect. As part of that alternative process, approximately 20 lines will be reviewed tomorrow by the NIH Advisory Committee to the Director. Now that these 13 lines have been added to the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, research can begin on the 30 hESC research projects that have received over $20 million in NIH grants for 2009. According to the NIH press release:
This group of grants includes research using hESCs for the therapeutic regeneration of diseased or damaged heart muscle cells, developing systems for the production of neural stem cells and different types of neurons from hESCs in culture, and developing a cell culture system for the large scale production and self-renewal of hESCs.
The approval of the lines could not come at a better time. As Ali H. Brivanlou, a researcher at Rockefeller University who had to segregate privately and federally funded research activities under the Bush regime, told The New York Times, “You can imagine what it meant not to be able to carry a pipette from one room to another.…They even had to repaint the walls to ensure no contamination by federal funds.”
Indeed, Science Progress is glad to see that scientists can now do their work uncontaminated by bad bioethics policy.
Not so Swift, Hackers: Why the scandal sometimes called “ClimateGate” is overblown
Chris Mooney contributes this post.
And now, the climate change deniers will claim a scalp.
Yesterday, climate researcher Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the UK—which is responsible for one of three important datasets tracking global temperature trends—announced he would be stepping aside pending an independent review of allegations that have emerged in the scandal variously referred to as “ClimateGate” and the “SwiftHack.” It’s just the latest development in a saga that began when a boatload of CRU emails and documents, obtained through an illegal computer hacking, made their way into the public arena last month. The files were instantly seized upon by climate change skeptics and deniers, who touted them—with a combination of glee and histrionic outrage—as evidence of mainline scientists conspiring to quash legitimate dissent, and to conceal problems with the data and analyses used to demonstrate human-caused global warming.
The truth, however, is that while the CRU emails don’t always look very good—and not all of them can necessarily be defended—in the end this saga amounts to little more than a distraction from the real and burning issues in climate science and climate policy. Moreover, its suspicious timing—coming just weeks before the U.N. Copenhagen climate conference—suggests a strategic attempt to undermine those international deliberations by once again casting doubt on the scientific basis for concern about climate change—a tried, true, and seemingly unending political strategy.
Unfortunately for climate skeptics, the CRU hacking incident fails to support the burden that they have placed upon it. Whatever behavior was revealed in these emails, even its most salacious interpretation can scarcely undermine the global edifice of knowledge about the causes of ongoing climate change—which may be bolstered by, but certainly does not rely solely upon, CRU’s research and analyses. Mainline scientists fully recognize this; thus, following the CRU hacking, the American Meteorological Society reaffirmed its longstanding statement on the human causation of climate change, remarking that “Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true—which is not yet clearly the case—the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.”
In truth, of course, few if any of the CRU emails could legitimately be called scandalous. True, the files show scientists carrying on in a far less guarded fashion than they would in public, and some of them do appear suspicious—but in each individual case, we must also understand the context. Typically, the email-zipping scientists now under massive scrutiny are reacting in the communications to various controversies and scandals in the field—most of which are, in turn, the result of systematic attacks on climate research by conservative think tanks, politicians, and a small group of “skeptic” scientists.
Take, for instance, a rather innocent email from the year 2003 that has been made much hay of, in which climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University opines that “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” This has been depicted as evidence of some systematic attempt to suppress dissent or manipulate the scientific process, but the conclusion is unwarranted. Mann is referring to an episode in which this little-known journal published a wildly controversial paper on historic temperature trends that was widely attacked and picked apart by mainstream researchers; in the wake of its publication, several editors at the journal actually resigned. No wonder scientists like Mann were upset with Climate Research. That’s especially so given that, despite its flaws, the controversial Soon & Baliunas paper was instantly and inappropriately thrust into political debate at the highest level via a Senate hearing convened by Oklahoma global warming denier James Inhofe, who claimed that the paper “shifts the paradigm” away from the conclusion that global warming is human caused. (Not.)
Or take another email that has been much touted, one in which Phil Jones writes, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The word “trick,” and the phrase “hide the decline,” have been treated as smoking guns by climate skeptics, but once again, the conclusion is unwarranted. As the bloggers at RealClimate.org (including Mann) note, “trick” here is simply a methodological device or innovation, in this case for merging and presenting data. “Hide the decline” might seem more problematic when taken out of context, but what this actually means is the exclusion of one set of climate records (based on tree rings) that do not show warming after 1960, and are known to be problematic for this reason and not considered reliable. Far from being scandalous, then, this is good scientific practice.
Perhaps the most troubling document in the CRU cache is one that shows Phil Jones actively emailing other climate researchers, telling them to “delete any emails” subject to a Freedom of Information request. Jones now claims he didn’t actually delete any; Mann, who received the email in question, says likewise; and CRU itself says that “No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information.” It is understandable that climate scientists under such intense and often politically driven scrutiny would bristle at the prospect of having skeptics selectively reanalyze their data with an ax to grind (indeed, such a qualm about selective interpretation is fully borne out by responses to the CRU emails). Still, such an email is troubling, and the inquiry just launched will understandably probe how CRU has responded to a “deluge of Freedom of Information requests.”
But whatever that inquiry shows, this core fact remains: Just because a group of scientists were found to have behaved like imperfect human beings in emails they thought would remain private does not mean that we don’t have to worry about global warming. Anyone arguing otherwise is making a stunning leap based on the most scanty and inappropriate of evidence—and the willingness of climate skeptics to do this has always been, and will remain, the real scandal.
Chris Mooney is the author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”
Your Commission, Should You Choose to Accept It (And We Do!)
Yesterday President Obama issued an Executive Order establishing the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. The Commission’s Chair will be Amy Gutmann, President of the University of Pennsylvania and a political theorist. Its Vice Chair will be James W. Wagner, President of Emory University and an engineer. Over her career, Dr. Gutmann has authored over 15 books on ethics, politics, and public policy in a pluralist democracy; she also led the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Dr. Wagner has been a leader in the field by incorporating ethics as one of the six pillars of Emory’s strategic vision, and he worked at the Food and Drug Administration for almost a decade ensuring the quality of medical devices.
President Obama said this in the White House press release:
As our nation invests in science and innovation and pursues advances in biomedical research and health care, it’s imperative that we do so in a responsible manner. This new Commission will develop its recommendations through practical and policy-related analyses. I am confident that Amy and Jim will use their decades of experience in both ethics and science to guide the new Commission in this work, and I look forward to listening to their recommendations in the coming months and years.
At Science Progress, we are glad that the president has chosen such distinguished scholars and leaders as Drs. Gutmann and Wagner to chair this commission. The Executive Order provides for a commission comprised of 13 members who will be appointed by the president for renewable periods of two years. We look forward to the announcement of the remaining 11 members.
The commission has been charged with not only identifying and examining important bioethical issues, but also with recommending laws, policies, or regulations. Finally, the EO encourages the commission to engage diverse viewpoints and explore opportunities for international collaboration.
Additionally, the commission is designed so that is will draw members from multiple disciplines ranging from science and bioethics to theology and law. At least one and not more than three of the members will be scientists or bioethicists from the executive branch. Finally, the EO lays out a list of timely, critical issues and ideas that will no doubt change our lives, and many of which staff and contributors have explored in Science Progress:
…the creation of stem cells by novel means; intellectual property issues involving genetic sequencing, biomarkers, and other screening tests used for risk assessment; and the application of neuro- and robotic sciences…the protection of human research participants; scientific integrity and conflicts of interest in research; and the intersection of science and human rights.
Update: The Executive Order establishing the commission is now available in the Federal Register.
United States Takes a Step Towards Isotope Independence
Earlier this month, the House passed a bill that will protect as many as 50,000 nuclear medical procedures a day in the United States. That’s how many procedures rely on nuclear isotopes produced by foreign reactors. The United States has been at risk of experiencing a shortage of these isotopes since the Chalk River Reactor in Ontario, Canada shut down this summer—and the shortage could get worse with the closure of the High Flux Reactor in Petten, the Netherlands. Those reactors supply 60 percent and 40 percent, respectively, of the medical isotopes used in this country.
But thanks to H.R. 3276, introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) with seven co-sponsors, the federal government will now begin to support isotope production here at home. The bill appropriates $163 million for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to the Department of Energy so that it can support industry and universities in the production of the isotope known as molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), which decays into the medically usable isotope technetium-99m (Tc-99m). Tc-99m is used in tests for cancer, cardiac disease, and kidney function. Some tests determine whether a patient with a coronary blockage needs an angioplasty or a stent. Without it, patients might receive unnecessary surgery. These isotopes also identify the location of tumors in breast and bone cancers.
Medical isotopes can be produced using highly enriched uranium, referred to as HEU, or low-enriched uranium, called LEU. But transportation of HEU represents a national security risk, as it is “weapons-grade” material. Markey noted this in his floor statement: “Shockingly, the United States still allows for nuclear weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to be exported to other countries for medical isotope production. This 1950s-era policy simply does not work in a post-9/11 world.”
Wisely, the bill attempts to curtail the production and export of HEU while also allowing for the usage of HEU for isotope production if it is a feasible and expedient short-term alternative. For the long term, the bill promotes the development of LEU Mo-99 production. Hence, provisions for LEU and HEU Mo-99 production are contained in both the licensing and appropriation sections of the bill.
A National Academies of Science report from January found that eliminating HEU is both technically and economically feasible. Other organizations such as the Society for Nuclear Medicine and the Radiological Society of North America support the elimination of HEU in the long-term but stress the need for short-term solutions to the isotope shortage since the United States cannot get any LEU production sites up and running for approximately five to ten years due to the technical and regulatory hurdles.
Markey emphasized that the bill is technology neutral on his floor statement. “Neither this provision nor the bill as a whole give any preference whatsoever to any technology type,” he said, “The purpose of this provision is to give the Department of Energy the greatest number of options for dealing with the medical isotope crisis while also maintaining the incentive for reactors to convert to low enriched uranium fuel.”
The bill now goes to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Good for Civil Rights, Good for Science
This weekend, federal rules enforcing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act go into effect. From then on, there will be stiff legal penalties for hiring or employment discrimination based on genetic data, or for companies that request their employees submit to genetic testing. Rules governing genetic discrimination in group health insurance plan coverage take effect December 7. The forward-looking law was a major progressive victory for civil rights when it passed last year, but there significant gaps in the legislation, as Susannah Baruch explained in June:
What GINA does not do is require insurers to pay for care that a genetic test indicates would clearly be beneficial. Thus, there are no guarantees that patients will be able to access or afford therapies and screenings that could reduce their risks. Without further reform efforts to ensure that preventive strategies are within reach, GINA’s protections from discrimination will ring hollow.
This is a gap that health reform legislation can close, she argues. But not only can genetic testing help individuals make important health care decisions, she explains, it can help those patients and their families understand and plan for financial risks that might arise from devastating illnesses. In these instances, people may be particularly interested in buying long-term care, disability, or life insurance—three markets that are not covered by GINA’s protections.
Ideally, GINA will also help advance biomedical science. Prior to the law, Rick Weiss explained, “people were likely to balk at requests to participate in genetic research, which depends on large-scale participation by diverse populations to make new biomedical discoveries about propensities to diseases and other aspects of inheritance.” As Steven Greenhouse reports at the New York Times: “In a nationwide survey, 63 percent of respondents said they would not have genetic testing if employers could see the results.” Whether the protections will encourage more participation in research remains to be seen, but in this instance, what’s good for civil rights may also be good for science.
Federal Agencies and Research Universities Pledge to Speed Medical Advances to Developing Nations
Earlier this week, six research universities announced a set of shared principles for increasing access to new medicines in poor countries. Boston University, Brown, Harvard, the Oregon Health and Science University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Yale joined the Association of University Technology Managers Monday in releasing the statement, which aims to guide licensing decisions for medical technology patents developed by academics at the institutions.
In a press release, AUTM recognized that the institutions “have relatively little influence over companies’ decisions about the pricing and distribution of drugs, vaccines, devices, and other medical technologies in developing countries. However, they are committed to make every effort to ensure that their intellectual property does not become a barrier to access.”
The statement of principles commits the signatories to “make vigorous efforts to develop creative and effective licensing strategies that help to promote global access to health-related technologies,” affirming that “intellectual property should not become a barrier to essential health-related technologies needed by patients in developing countries.” It goes on to say that the institutions should negotiate agreements that promote access through, for instance, non-exclusive licensing or tiered pricing. It also outlines a commitment to investing in research and development on diseases that affect poor countries.
The document also contains a commitment to developing metrics on the impact of the policies and to revisiting the statement biennially.
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, a student group backed by the Ford Foundation, has been pressuring the schools to change their technology transfer rules since 2001. In its press release, the group heralded the victory, but said it “sees this document as a floor for future policies rather than a ceiling and we hope that other universities will go further still.”
Since Monday, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Illinois Chicago, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also endorsed the principles.
