Anecdotal evidence, including several high-profile cases of scientists under criminal investigation, has led to the impression that many in the scientific community hold a negative view of law enforcement [1, 2, 3]. While justified in some cases, this divide is a serious liability to law enforcement, since cooperation and consultation with scientists aids in threat assessment, investigation, intelligence gathering, and the recruitment of personnel with specialized skills. But before the two communities can solve this problem with training for law enforcement personnel and through outreach to the scientific community, it is necessary to get a sense of the types and range of views of law enforcement within the scientific community.

Here we present the results of a survey of the scientific community conducted in conjunction with the FBI to evaluate the working relationship between FBI field agents and scientists. The survey was sent to 10,969 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science between January 23 and February 18 of this year. 1,332 surveys were completed, and the resulting data produced an average margin of error associated with the total data set of +/- 2.7 percent. A complete version of the survey questions is available in the supplemental material (Table 1).

The attitudes of scientists toward law enforcement personnel are not vastly different from those of the general public (4) (Figure A, below). However, a larger percentage of scientists indicated cooler feelings towards the FBI than the general public, suggesting that these reservations are particular to the scientific community and require specific solutions with the scientific community in mind.

Figure A

The results show that scientists hold more favorable feelings towards state and local law enforcement than federal law enforcement. However, when confronted with specific issues or concerns, the responses reveal no significant distinction between interacting with the FBI or with law enforcement in general. Generally speaking, working in a specific scientific discipline has less effect on an individual’s view of law enforcement than demographic factors. Instead, trends suggested that male scientists and those over 50 years of age have a more positive attitude towards the FBI (Figure A, above). It should be noted that those scientists holding high or medium security clearances—and therefore arguably more likely to have firsthand contact with federal agents—had the highest level of warm views (47 percent) and the lowest level of cool views (23 percent) toward the FBI of any cohort covered in the survey. The survey also revealed that scientists are receptive to the idea of discussing their research with other scientists (93 percent), interested members of the public (87 percent), and journalists (72 percent), but are markedly unreceptive to sharing their work with law enforcement (federal 36 percent, state 34 percent, local 33 percent) (Figure B, below).

Figure B

Perhaps the most striking of the results is the indication that scientists are suspicious of the FBI and feel that they do not work well with the scientific community. Some scientists who had professional interactions with law enforcement reported that they had been questioned about the purpose of their international travel, asked to “spy” on their foreign colleagues, and in one case had a computer confiscated and searched. Specific concerns include the belief that law enforcement does not understand their work (76 percent), the belief that law enforcement is more interested in restricting research for security purposes than they are in the scientific value of the work (71 percent), that law enforcement has an overzealous approach to security issues and an interest in censorship (63 percent), and the fear that law enforcement will restrict the publication of some research (55 percent).

Figure C

Scientists expressed a clear preference to leave the monitoring of science to familiar authorities rather than law enforcement. Figure C illustrates that most scientists find it acceptable for a familiar authority such as an institutional biosafety committee (64 percent), institutional review board (63 percent), the head of the department (70 percent), or a government funding agency (60 percent) to play a role in monitoring research. In contrast, there is resistance to FBI (14 percent favorable), state law enforcement (13 percent favorable), local law enforcement (11 percent favorable), private security (11 percent favorable), or campus police (11 percent favorable) playing any role. Despite this reluctance to be monitored by law enforcement, scientists were not completely unwilling to interact with authorities in certain circumstances. The survey asked scientists to consider different circumstances where they might be asked to interact with the FBI and evaluate whether they felt the reasons for contact were good or bad (Figure D, below).

Figure D

(View a larger version of this figure.)

Almost all respondents (93 percent) felt that requesting technical expertise in a particular area of science was an excellent or good reason to be contacted, and 80 percent agreed that aiding in an ongoing criminal investigation was an excellent or good reason to work with law enforcement. However, the survey revealed that scientists are generally concerned that they would be asked to monitor the activities of a colleague, which 67 percent felt is not a legitimate reason to be contacted by the FBI. Understandably, scientists looked unfavorably on any role that law enforcement might have which interferes with research (57 percent); funding (52 percent); that invades privacy, such as reading personal emails (62 percent); or provides any role for law enforcement to interpret legitimate research as a potential public safety risk (61 percent).

Although some level of suspicion or distrust toward the FBI exists within the scientific community, it is interesting to note that only 15 percent of the surveyed scientists indicated any personal past contact with law enforcement agents in a professional capacity. The general view of these scientists towards the FBI was not significantly different from the views of scientists overall (Figure A, above), however they are more comfortable reporting suspicious activity to the authorities. Seventy-one percent of those who had previous interaction with law enforcement indicated that being contacted as a reference for a foreign student or researcher was a good or excellent reason, as opposed to 58 percent of those who had not. It is likely that this is a result of previous experience, since 30 percent of survey respondents reported that their past interaction with law enforcement was in regard to a visa or security clearance for themselves or a colleague. Nonetheless, the low percentage of scientists with previous law enforcement contact suggests that many of the attitudes of distrust are based upon stereotypes rather than actual experiences and that these perceptions have led to an elevated level of suspiciousness that law enforcement will have to overcome in the future. Together the results show that despite expressed suspicions of the FBI and opposition to law enforcement monitoring research, scientists are willing to aid law enforcement in certain situations. When asked in an open-ended context about what the FBI could do to improve relations with the scientific community, no single solution emerged (Figure E, below). A common suggestion from the respondents was to set up an appointment and approach the scientist in a professional manner. Respondents also stated that it would be beneficial for authorities to first contact the individual’s department head or supervisor and initiate contact through an institution’s official channels.

Figure E

By taking steps to address suspicions early in any interaction and by treating scientists respectfully and professionally, law enforcement representatives are more likely to build a foundation of respect with their interaction and displace existing hostility. Perhaps the single most important step would be to adopt simple procedures for an introductory phone call, email, or letter that clarifies the specific purpose for the meeting and details what the agent hopes to gain from the interaction. To ease the concerns expressed by scientists regarding their collaborators or their privacy, it is imperative that an agent establish clear boundaries about what they plan to do and plan not to do in any interaction. Being clear about the purpose of the meeting should alleviate suspicions and increase the likelihood of full cooperation.

Many scientists indicate that an understanding of science by an agent would ease their suspicions and therefore it may be helpful to increase the scientific literacy of law enforcement agents. Among researchers who felt that an official from law enforcement understood their work, 81 percent were receptive to helping in a criminal investigation, while only 63 percent of researchers who felt that a law enforcement official did not understand their work were receptive to helping. From this we conclude that scientists are most comfortable talking about their work to others that demonstrate familiarity with scientific concepts, possibly because they are less concerned that their work will be misunderstood.

Our survey shows that scientists share many of the common stereotypes held of law enforcement by the general public. More interestingly, it elucidates some issues that are specific to the science community, such as a general expressed reluctance to discuss research with law enforcement, despite an expressed willingness to share expertise to aid in criminal investigations. Increasing scientific literacy among law enforcement personnel who work with scientists may be one important avenue to ensure a strong relationship and clear communication between the law enforcement and science communities. The consequences of allowing discord between law enforcement and scientists to linger affect public safety as criminal, terrorist, and national security challenges become increasingly technical, and close collaboration with the scientific community becomes even more essential. We hope to apply the lessons learned in this survey towards improving the training and awareness of the law enforcement community in their interaction with scientists.

Nathaniel Hafer, Cheryl J. Vos, and Michael Stebbins are with the Federation of American Scientists; Karen McAllister and Gretchen Lorenzi are with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Christopher Moore is with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research; Kavita M. Berger is with the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Nathaniel Hafer and Cheryl J. Vos contributed equally to this work.

Michael Stebbins is the corresponding author, mstebbins@fas.org

References

1) D. Malakoff, Science. 297, 751-752 (2002).

2) M. Enserink, D. Malakoff, Science. 302, 2054-2063 (2003).

3) J. Couzin, Science. 305, 159 (2004).

4) NBC news/Wall Street Journal Survey, June 12, 2006.

Methods

The survey – The Federation of American Scientists, in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, developed a survey to gather baseline data on the prevailing points of view of scientists towards the law enforcement community. The survey contained a mix of multiple choice and open-ended questions. In collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science the survey was distributed to 10,969 AAAS member scientists over a four-week period between January 23 and February 18, 2008. AAAS members were selected if they had a functional email address and had identified their primary field of study as biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, or engineering. Emails contained a link to a secure website where members could answer the survey questions. At the end of the time period 1,332 surveys were completed, and the resulting data were analyzed. The data were statistically weighted to be proportionally representative of the scientific disciplines of the AAAS membership. The margin of error associated with the total data set is +/- 2.7 percent.

Thermometer rating system – Two survey questions asked respondents to indicate their feelings towards a particular person, organization, or situation using a thermometer system. In this type of question, respondents give their response as any number between 0 and 100, with 100 being a very warm, favorable feeling, and 0 being a very cold, unfavorable feeling, and 50 meaning not particularly warm or cold.

Table 1

Complete list of questions asked in the survey.

Question 1. Please indicate your feelings toward the following people and organizations with 100 meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; 0 meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and 50 meaning not particularly warm or cold. You can use any number from 0 to 100, where the higher the number the more favorable your feelings are toward that person or organization.

Local law enforcement Institutional Review Board (IRB)

State level law enforcement Campus police

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Head of your department

Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) Private grantmaking organizations

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Government grantmaking organizations

Private security, such as those found at private research centers

Question 2. The following people and organizations might have some role in monitoring scientific research under certain circumstances. Please indicate your feelings about each one having some role in monitoring scientific research under certain circumstances, with 100 meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; 0 meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and 50 meaning not particularly warm or cold. You can use any number from 0 to 100, where the higher the number the more favorable your feelings are toward that person or organization having some role in monitoring scientific research under certain circumstances.

Local law enforcement Institutional Review Board (IRB)

State level law enforcement Campus police

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Head of your department

Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) Private grantmaking organizations

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Government grantmaking organizations

Private security, such as those found at private research centers

Question 3. From time to time, individuals other than your immediate colleagues might be interested in the work you do. Please indicate how receptive you would be to sharing details of your work for each of the following:

Federal law enforcement agent State level politician

State law enforcement officer Federal level politician

Local law enforcement Private sector scientist

An official from a regulatory agency Public sector scientist

An agent from an intelligence agency Academic/non-profit scientist

Corporate executive in a related industry A journalist

Private citizen with an interest in science

Question 4. There are many reasons that an outside authority might want to talk to you in your role as a scientist. For each of the following, please indicate whether you believe it is an excellent, good, fair, or poor reason for an outside authority want to talk to you. 1 = Excellent, 2 = Good, 3 = Fair, 4 = Poor

Intellectual curiosity about your area of research

To evaluate a research grant you have applied for

To assess issues surrounding an intellectual property case

To be evaluated by an Institutional Review Board (IRB)

To have government regulators evaluate the research as a potential public safety risk

To have law enforcement evaluate the research as a potential public safety risk

To be shared with law enforcement to aid in an ongoing criminal investigation

To be shared with law enforcement to aid in an ongoing terrorism investigation

To be evaluated by an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC)

To have law enforcement evaluate if the research is a potential target of theft of foreign intelligence agencies

Question 5. Now you are going to see some pairs of statements about working with (SPLIT A – Law enforcement officers, SPLIT B – FBI Agents) who sometimes need to talk with scientists in the course of their duties. After reading each pair of statements, please indicate whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right. 1 = FIRST statement STRONGLY, 2 = FIRST statement NOT SO STRONGLY, 3 = SECOND statement NOT SO STRONGLY, 4 = SECOND statement STRONGLY I trust them OR I am suspicious of them

I believe that they are on my side OR I believe they are working against me

They understand my work OR They don’t understand my work

They work well with the science community OR They do not work well with the science community

They are primarily interested in the scientific value of my work OR They are primarily interested in restricting my work for security purposes

Scientists working closely with law enforcement agents is good for the scientific community OR Scientists working closely with law enforcement agents is bad for the scientific community

Some science needs to be kept under tight security and not released to the public for safety or security reasons OR All science should be made open to the public once it is ready for publication

More security equals more censorship OR More security does not equal more censorship

Question 6. There are many reasons that (SPLIT A – a law enforcement officer, SPLIT B- an FBI agent) might want to talk with a scientist. For each of the following, please indicate whether you believe it is an excellent, good, fair, or poor reason for (SPLIT A – a law enforcement officer, SPLIT B- an FBI agent) to approach a scientist. 1 = Excellent, 2 = Good, 3 = Fair, 4 = Poor

To clarify the nature of the scientist’s research

For the evaluation of the scientist’s research as a potential public health risk

To assess intellectual property rights issues related to the scientist’s research

To aid in an ongoing criminal investigation

To aid in an ongoing terrorism investigation

To request technical expertise in a particular area of science or technology

To interview the scientist because they are listed as the sponsor of a foreign student or researcher

To evaluate if a scientist’s work has possible alternate applications that might constitute a security risk, sometimes called “dual-use” research

To help safeguard it from theft by potential terrorists

To inquire about the activities of one of your colleagues that is an American citizen

To inquire about the activities of one of your colleagues that is not an American citizen

For the evaluation of the scientist’s research as a potential national security risk

Question 7. Suppose you received a message that a (SPLIT A- Law enforcement officer, SPLIT B- FBI agent) wanted to speak with you in your capacity as a scientist. For many people, this might raise some concerns about why the (LE officer/Agent) would want to contact them. Please indicate how concerned would you be that the (LE officer/Agent) would… 1 = Very concerned, 2 = Somewhat concerned, 3 = Not too concerned, 4 = Not at all concerned.

Read your personal emails

Ask you to monitor the activities of one of your colleagues

Investigate immigration issues related to you or one of your colleagues

Interfere with you conducting your research

Misinterpret your research as a potential public safety risk

Misinterpret your international travel as evidence of illegal activities

Stop you from publishing your research

Interfere with your research funding

Embarrass you in the eyes of your colleagues

Question 8. If you saw something suspicious happening in your workplace that made you concerned about a potential threat to public safety, who would you feel comfortable reporting to?

Your department head A federal law enforcement officer

Your immediate supervisor A local law enforcement officer

An institutional safety committee A state law enforcement officer

Public safety/security officer affiliated with your institution

An institutional review board

Other (Specify)

Question 9. Have you or any of your colleagues ever been approached by (SPLIT A – a member of law enforcement, SPLIT B – an FBI agent) to discuss something related to your work as a scientist? If yes, Please describe the circumstances under which you were approached by (SPLIT A – a member of law enforcement, SPLIT B – an FBI agent) to discuss something related to your work as a scientist.

Question 10. What is the best way for (SPLIT A – Law enforcement officers, SPLIT B – FBI Agents) to contact a scientist?

Question 11. What could (SPLIT A – a member of law enforcement, SPLIT B – an FBI agent) do to improve relations with the scientific community?

Question 12. What could scientists do to improve relations with the (SPLIT A – law enforcement community, SPLIT B – the FBI )?

Question 13. What is your gender?

Male Female

Question 14. In what year were you born?

Question 15. Which of the following best describes the current stage of your career?

Undergraduate Laboratory technician

Graduate student Academic staff scientist

Post doctorate Lab manager

Primary investigator Retired

Industry scientist

Question 16. Please indicate how often you work with foreign nationals in you capacity as a scientist.

Often Never

Sometimes I am a foreign national

Rarely

Question 17. Please indicate the highest biosafety level (BSL) work environment you have worked in.

BSL1 BSL4

BSL2 I have never worked in a facility with biosafety levels

BSL3 I don’t know

Question 18. Please indicate which of the following materials you work with in your capacity as a scientist:

Animals Explosive, corrosive, or otherwise toxic chemicals

Viruses Radioactive isotopes

Bacteria Select agents

Fungi Nuclear material

Human subjects None of the above

Question 19. Please mark the category that best describes the sector you are employed in as a scientist.

Academic Military

Government, but not military Private sector

Question 20. Please indicate the level of security in your current workplace.

High (Military level security)

Medium (Secure facility, picture ID required for access, armed guards)

Low (Restricted access to facility, some security personnel presence)

Minimal (Basic locks on doors, no restricted access to facility)

Scientists and Engineers for America just released the results of a poll of over 1,000 Americans on how likely they would be to support candidates based upon their positions on key science and technology issues. SEA anticipated a positive reaction to the questions, but was stunned by the overwhelmingly affirmative response. Eighty-six percent of those polled, for example, say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education.

Similarly, 84 percent said they would be more likely to support a candidate who is committed to reducing the cost and improving the quality of healthcare through public investments in science and technology. And 52 percent indicated they would be much more likely to support candidates who expressed that science and technology is a priority for them.

Equally impressive was the party breakdown. While there remained a divide between Democrats and Republicans on all of the issues, members of both parties clearly viewed science as important. The largest divide came on climate change, where only 56 percent of Republican respondents said that they would be more likely to vote for someone committed to addressing global climate change through public investments in science and technology. This compared to 84 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of independent voters in favor of candidates who would devote public science and technology funds to fight climate change. Add up those majorities in favor of S&T spending to fight global warming and its clear it would be foolish for any campaign not to at least address the issue and support science.

Naturally, in Congress and in a political campaign, science will play second fiddle to a mismanaged war, eroding civil rights and what appears to be the start of a nasty recession. But if SEA’s polling numbers are correct, then giving science short-shrift or ignoring it completely is a strategic mistake. The poll doesn’t tell us why people valued science or how science ranked against other issues, but those details seems unimportant with such overwhelmingly positive support.

Ask And Ye Shall Receive

There are, of course, two science-related issues that most campaigns have addressed, embryonic stem cells and global warming. But that is largely due to the intense pressure put on them by the press. For the most part, campaigns have not been specific about their stance on global warming, just that it needs to be addressed. This is clearly insufficient.

The efforts to get candidates to answer basic questions on major issues is a direct response to the desire and need for change, for increased transparency and accountability by those who serve the public.

To address this critical issue directly, a coalition of organizations led by SEA and SD2008 have come up with a series of 7 questions for congressional candidates, and 14 questions for the presidential candidates on critical science and technology issues. SEA has also set up a system for the public to look up their local candidates and send the questions to them directly through the website. Candidates can then log into the website and post their responses.

As of today 18 congressional campaigns have logged in and started to answer the questions, which appear on SEA’s SHARP Network, a Wikipedia-like webpage detailing the health and science stances of all members of Congress and all candidates for office. This is, of course, not the only effort to get candidates for office to answer questions on essential issues. For example, Research America launched a campaign to get candidates to answer questions on health issues.

These web based initiatives are excellent examples of how basic Web 2.0 principles have spread into campaign and advocacy arenas. They embody a new sense of urgency that our government be truly of the people and for the people. Take the poll as an example. It tells a much larger story than the mere fact that science is important to the public. It shows that presumptions about what the public cares about ought to be challenged by advocacy groups and citizens who want their voice heard and represented by their candidates.

The efforts to get candidates to answer basic questions on major issues is a direct response to the desire and need for change, for increased transparency and accountability by those who serve the public. Indeed, the Internet has changed the way we consume information, but it has also fundamentally changed how we communicate and has empowered the people to organize and demand respect on a level that has not been seen in our time. Candidates have a choice today. They can tell their constituents where they stand on the issues. Or they can ignore them, and continue with business as usual. But the public also has a choice if their candidates fail to address their concerns. They can return the favor in the voting booth in November.

Michael Stebbins is the Director of Biology Policy for the Federation of American Scientists, President of the Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund and author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted.

The problem is that we (myself included) have not taken the long-view on this issue.

Dual-use research has been the subject of much discussion in the biosecurity community since the 2003 release of the National Research Council report, Biotechnology Research in the Age of Terrorism, which suggested that, “Adequately addressing the potential risks that research in advanced biotechnology could be misused by hostile parties will require educating the community of life scientists, both about the nature of these risks and about the responsibilities of scientists to address and manage them.” But convincing scientists that they should add dual-use research awareness and evaluations to their already long list of idiosyncratic worries turned out to be far harder than anyone imagined.

Enter the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. In June of last year, the NSABB released their Proposed Framework for the Oversight of Dual Use Life Sciences Research, in which the board recommend that life scientists receive “mandatory education about dual-use research issues and policies,” with the goal of “ensure(ing) that all individuals engaged in life sciences research are aware of the concerns and issues regarding dual use research and their roles and responsibilities in the oversight of such research.”

In addition to mandatory training, both the National Research Council and the NSABB have advocated for the creation of codes of conduct for life sciences researchers that includes dual-use awareness. Now, research societies are preparing and implementing their codes of conduct, infusing another layer of awareness into the research community.

Indeed, it will not be long before it is mandatory that all federal grantees in the life sciences receive such training, and that all biologists sign codes of conduct. Awareness will spread like happy little dandelions. That is until someone points out that they are weeds.

Don’t get me wrong. I am an advocate of mandatory training and think codes of conduct are a good tool for increasing awareness. Not least of the reasons for my support being that the Federation of American Scientists arguably has the most extensive dual-use training materials available to date in the form of our multimedia Case Studies in Dual-Use Research. Wide distribution of these case studies and materials created by other groups has been a goal of ours from the time we started the project.

The problem is that we (myself included) have not taken the long-view on this issue. If we dramatically increase awareness, then we also increase the chances that scientists will have concerns about dual-use research or worse—suspicions that a colleague is up to no good. What the NSABB, National Research Council and the biosecurity community on the whole have failed to fully address is how those researchers should attend to their concerns. Government-issued guidelines for researchers will only get them so far.

Since part of the duty of a responsible researcher will certainly be reporting unsafe experiments or suspicious behavior, instituting codes of conduct and training all scientists makes potential whistleblowers out of every working biologist. This creates an immediate need for protocols and methods for scientists to get advice and report their concerns.

There is currently no reliable independent system in place for these researchers to report or receive advice on how to handle their concerns.

It is well recognized that a major barrier to reporting such incidents to law enforcement, supervisors, biosafety officers, or institutional review boards, is the fear of reprisal. This might also be compounded by some members of the scientific community not trusting government officials and law enforcement in particular. This extends from laboratory technicians and support staff to primary investigators. Even if there is no indication of foul play, scientists may feel that there are experiments being conducted at their institution that have serious dual-use implications, or that are dangerous to those conducting them and their colleagues.

There is currently no reliable independent system in place for these researchers to report or receive advice on how to handle their concerns. Such a system would be a valuable contribution to strengthening biosecurity awareness and participation within the biological research community. It should be pointed out that such a system is a good way to get across the idea that official whistle-blowing is not the first and only resort.

I and others have suggested that we need to build a secure Internet-based system where scientists will be able to report their concerns and receive advice and recommendations on the steps that they should or should not take. Concerns will naturally run the range of how to fill out dual-use reporting forms on grants to reporting potentially illegal situations in the lab. It is important that the government not operate the system to ensure buy in. Rather, an ombudsman network should be run by a non-government organization that will allow partial anonymity.

In the event that a clear cause of action is required, such as when a law is being broken, a non-government organization would be well-placed to help facilitate conversations with law enforcement, make queries on the behalf of the scientist to government, or alleviate concerns without endangering their status at the institute.

The system will have to be backed by a large group of advisors, including experts from multiple science disciplines, ethicists, legal and law enforcement representatives to ensure that users are receiving timely and accurate advice. The system administrator will have to be available at all times and have constant access to advisors in the case of a serious problem.

One major concern of scientists will be the preservation of anonymity. This issue can be simply handled by having staff farm out the query to advisors without revealing the identity of the scientist. Total anonymity, however, cannot be completely preserved in such a system.

In principle, users will turn to this system when they feel uncomfortable reporting concerns within their institution or when they are unsure of who to turn to. Responses will either ask for further information, clarification, or report back advice on the appropriate course of action.

Users must also feel comfortable that the information they divulge will not be released to anyone unless they approve it. This can be accomplished by making users agree to simple terms before sending their query. Those terms will detail operation standards and will inform users under which conditions the managers have a legal responsibility to inform appropriate authorities, and that they may be contacted by such authorities directly in the event that a law has been or is about to be broken.

Detailed records of responses and customizable electronic form letters will allow us to provide useful assistance and inform users of their rights and the laws that might apply to them in a timely manner. It should be stressed that in the event a user reports an imminent threat, they will automatically receive instructions on who they should contact. There are several important issues that will have to be addressed while developing a biosecurity reporting system, among them:

Whistleblower Laws. The United States has a well-established set of “whistleblower” laws that protect people from reprisals for reporting. There are several excellent non-profit groups that specialize in this area and it will be important to bring them in for legal advice and possibly to present a series of Frequently Asked Questions on the site for scientists to learn about their options.

Legal Advice. We will need legal advice on a broad range of issues, including the liability associated with giving advice, maintaining anonymity, the situations under which those with knowledge of possible crimes are legally obligated to contact law enforcement, and applicable laws for users.

Advisory Boards. An advisory board consisting of scientists, ethicists, biosecurity experts, and legal advisors will have to be brought in for the design and implementation. A second advisory board will have to be available for advice on individual cases. It will be important to have a wide array of expertise and knowledge on hand to address any reports that come in.

Law Enforcement Guidelines. A clear relationship with law enforcement will need to be established so that in the event that there is a user who is uncomfortable going to law enforcement themselves, we would be able to report an incident on their behalf.

Testing. It will be necessary to test the system through a series of table-top scenarios that provide challenges to our response times and content.

It is a virtual certainty that this type of system would eventually be abused maliciously against other scientists trying to slow down a competitor, or exact revenge. In that sense, the system itself would have dual-use potential and like science, safeguards and awareness will reduce, but might not eliminate, unfortunate incidences.

It is also hard to predict how often such a system would be used and what percentage of the time it would receive cranks. But it is equally unclear to what degree dual-use research is a threat to national security. If we are going to require scientists to learn about the potential for misuse, then it is essential that they have a place to turn if they recognize potential misuse or have questions about complying with legal and ethical requirements.

Michael Stebbins is the Director of Biology Policy for the Federation of American Scientists, President of the SEA Action Fund and author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted.

But, this year, and indeed, this week have delivered plenty of remarkable news that put the astounding science that surrounds the double helix in a special context that probably can’t be adequately resolved in a science classroom in a day and don’t begin to treat the sickness of scientific ignorance in the U.S.

For example, yesterday the U.S. Senate passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, after Senator Coburn (R-OK) lifted his curious block on the bill (he voted in favor of it twice before deciding to block it from even being considered). As much as I would like to pump my fist in victory, we shouldn’t pop the champagne (or Freedom Suds for the jingoistic sect) yet, as the bill is slightly different from the one that passed the House twice this Congress, leaving wiggle-room for more Coburnesque obstructionism. The blocks on GINA were not a science issue, but are at least in part the result of a lack of understanding and appreciation of the fact that genetic predisposition to disease is not a diagnosis. The opposition was mainly about greed and business interests.

Teachers might not be equipped with the knowledge to explain where Watson was wrong, or Ben Stein, or what a genetic predisposition is, or how it could be used to discriminate against someone.

We can drop Ben Stein’s magnum crapus, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in the same category of non-science issues, but for different reasons. Now widely discredited as manufactured controversy in the name of creationist activism, Mr. Stein managed to make a fool of himself by displaying a lack of knowledge and intellectual honesty that will likely spell the end of his unusual career (and might be equally indicative that he should seek some professional help for his case of the crazies). That Mr. Stein is attacking scientists does not make his movie or his aggressively ignorant point of view part of science. But that isn’t going to stop it from coming up in classrooms today.

The unfortunate fall of Jim Watson last October will probably stick in my mind for many years to come. Patently racist comments made in a scientific context effectively ended the career of the world’s most famous living scientist, and we are not better off for it. I am still baffled by Watson’s comments and torn on the fate of one of my science heroes. For sure, students are looking at his Wikipedia entry today and learning that he was forced into retirement for falsely linking race and intelligence.

I worry that teachers might not be equipped with the knowledge to explain where Watson was wrong, or Ben Stein, or what a genetic predisposition is, or how it could be used to discriminate against someone.

The truth is that scientific advances have always brought controversy, most often because of a lack of appreciation and understanding of actual achievements or their implications, coupled with fear of change. Expelled and the opposition to progressive legislation like GINA are symptoms of an ignorance of science and a fear of change, not vice versa. Such misunderstanding is certainly not limited to evolution and human genomics either. The only way to combat that fear is to eliminate it, and the only way to do that is to dedicate a serious effort to revamping science education in the U.S. starting with minimum standards for science education, radically improving science teacher literacy and retention, and making a solid science education compulsory for all students. Let’s not beat around the bush; that is going to cost a lot of money and effort. But there are few measures that the next President and Congress could take that would be more worthwhile for securing our future.

We are in the unfortunate position of having to discuss controversy in classrooms because we have done an inadequate job of creating a scientifically literate public. We lie in this bed because of inaction on creating national science education standards, because of decades of educational decay, and an unwillingness to address the roots of fear and ignorance.

The National Human Genome Research Institute deserves a lot of credit for successfully using DNA Day as a tool to have genomics and basic genetics taught in schools, and there seems little doubt that other groups should expand upon their efforts. But let’s not mistake DNA Day as any kind of solution to the kind of societal and education changes we will need to remain competitive. Each of the Presidential candidates and every candidate for Congress should put their cards on the table for revamping science education. Anyone who doesn’t think that is a prerequisite for their jobs is probably not prepared for them.

Michael Stebbins is the Director of Biology Policy for the Federation of American Scientists, President of the SEA Action Fund and author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted.

I didn’t start writing this column about my friend’s father’s cancer or my addiction. I set out to write about legislation that could finally bring parasitic tobacco companies under the control of the Food and Drug Administration and the astonishingly shortsighted opposition to placing basic health and safety regulations on products that have been proven dangerous.

Currently the FDA can regulate my mouthwash, but not the cigarettes that made my breath stink.

In 1996, the FDA actually tried to assert regulatory power over tobacco products, but the tobacco companies fought back and ultimately the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2001 that Congress had not granted the FDA the power to do so. Enter the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, introduced last year by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John Cornyn (R-TX) in the Senate, and Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Thomas Davis (R-VA) in the House. The bill would reinstate the 1996 rule and expand the FDA’s power to restrict the marketing of cigarettes, to children in particular.

A superficial glance at the bill reveals that it fails the logic test by requiring an agency charged with protecting the health of Americans with regulating a deadly product without the authority to ban it outright. But the alternative, of leaving Big Tobacco to freely manipulate their product to keep me and the rest of my stinky-fingered brethren addicted, is unacceptable.

Indeed, a 2007 study by the Harvard School of Public Health [1] confirmed a previous study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health showing cigarette companies deliberately increased the amount of nicotine in the average cigarette by 11.6 percent between 1997 and 2005. So during the time period that I and many other Americans were trying to quit smoking, Big Tobacco was bumping up nicotine levels to make it even more challenging.

Since cigarette ingredients are unregulated, they were neither required to seek approval before increasing the amount of an addictive chemical nor to inform their customers. That’s the kind of regulatory oversight the FDA could bring to this drug-peddling industry.

Cigarettes are unregulated drug delivery systems.

It’s common knowledge that cigarettes are far more than dried tobacco leaves, and that the companies that produce them have misled the public for years. But somehow we don’t think of cigarettes as highly engineered nicotine delivery systems. It is the nicotine-induced blast of dopamine and other neurotransmitters that keeps me coming back for more, so, naturally, improving the drug delivery mechanism will increase addiction. And that is the key. Cigarettes are unregulated drug delivery systems.

A recent report by several respected health organizations, including the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association, details many of the clever advances that make the modern cigarette an engineering marvel. Case in point: Philip Morris, which manufactures my brand of cigarettes, discovered that adding ammonia-based compounds to cigarettes increased the absorption of nicotine. That’s the same principle as crack cocaine. Genius!

The addition of ventilation holes in the filter paper is another brilliant bit of engineering designed to dilute the smoke so the machines that test for tar levels register lower amounts, and the cigarettes can be marketed as “light.” The problem is, smokers functionally draw on cigarettes differently than the machines to maintain nicotine levels, and there is no net health benefit, just smooth smoky goodness [2]. The best part about these companies is that they continue to innovate. A recent Wall Street Journal article detailed the many wonderful products that Phillip Morris has developed, including a high-tar, high-nicotine cigarette and shorter cigarettes for those who just need a quick fix [3].

Fear Itself

Like cigarettes marketed to minorities and children, opposition to the FDA regulating tobacco comes in a variety of flavors. Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, the Commissioner of the FDA, told the Associated Press last year that the FDA “approve(s) products that enhance health, not destroy it,” and that if regulated the FDA could unintentionally make a decision on cigarettes that could make “the public health radically worse.” In a Senate hearing last year, von Eschenbach also expressed concern that “the public will believe that products ‘approved’ by the Agency are safe and that this will actually encourage individuals to smoke more rather than less.”

Yet the bill now in Congress does not mean the FDA will be approving cigarettes. And the public, while foolish enough to start smoking, is not so foolish as to believe that smoking is okay because the FDA regulates it.

The fear that the FDA could make things worse scares the hell out of me. Are we to believe that the FDA is incapable of making rational decisions about cigarettes, but rational ones about all other consumer products they regulate? It is also irrational to think that forcing companies to lower the amount of nicotine in cigarettes or to remove the ammonia compounds that help deliver it to the brain faster could cause people to smoke more cigarettes, especially in light of a study by the National Cancer Institute that found that gradually lowering the level of nicotine in cigarettes does not cause smokers to smoke more or inhale more.

Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) is perhaps the most outspoken opponent of the bill in Congress, and along with eight Republican colleagues on the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, he voted against it. Enzi has referred to the bill as a “public health disaster” because it does not allow the FDA to kill the tobacco industry completely.

He also claims that the bill is a peace offering to Big Tobacco because Philip Morris has expressed support. But the support by one of the biggest offenders is not an indication that the bill is a public health disaster and does not preclude passing additional laws that aim directly at stopping people from smoking or putting Big Tobacco out of business.

To that end, Enzi introduced the Help End Addiction to Lethal Tobacco Habits Act, which he touts as an alternative to having the FDA regulate tobacco. At its heart, the bill is a kind of cap-and-trade program that allows companies to divest from the tobacco industry over a period of 20 years. Keep in mind that Enzi’s bill is not mutually exclusive from the Kennedy-Cornyn, Waxman-Davis Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which has 55 cosponsors and has passed the Senate twice before—virtually guaranteeing that it will pass when brought to a vote.

This brings up the second and perhaps more important point regarding Enzi’s alternative bill; he has failed to convince a single Senator that it is worthwhile enough to co-sponsor.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will be considered by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health this week, and the full committee is likely to consider it in the next couple of weeks. But ranking subcommittee member Joe Barton (R-TX) now claims that part of the bill might be out of their jurisdiction because the user fees charged to tobacco companies are adjusted for inflation over time and thus, in his view, constitute a new tax. The House parliamentarian will surly resolve this minor jurisdictional issue before next week. Then we may hear much of the same hollow and often embarrassing opposition from many in Congress, including Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), who invoked the slippery slope argument at a House hearing on the bill last fall, stating “What are we going to do? Outlaw Halloween, Valentine’s Day, the Easter bunny?…That gets pretty ridiculous when you think about all that.” I have and it is.

What is clear is that this brand of specious opposition will be far less decisive than the over 600 public advocacy groups that support it. With over 430,000 Americans dying of tobacco-related deaths each year, one would suppose that in most districts, more constituents have died from cigarettes over the years than would oppose the bill today.

I hate the fact that I am at the mercy of a tobacco company that has engineered their product to keep me addicted. And I hate the fact that my friend has to bring his father to chemotherapy because of cigarettes. But the fact that cowardice has prevented our government from protecting us from such manipulation makes me physically queasy.

Sen. Enzi is correct—having the FDA regulate tobacco will not get rid of cigarettes. But it sure will make it a lot harder for more dangerous products in development and currently sold abroad to make it to the United States. And if Big Tobacco has to stop developing their products for and advertising them to children, then please explain to me again how this bill is worse for us than a pack of Luckys.

Michael Stebbins is the Director of Biology Policy for the Federation of American Scientists, President of the SEA Action Fund and author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted. He quit smoking as of the publication of this piece and will donate $1000 to the American Heart Association for every cigarette he smokes from now until the end of the year. You can track his progress at SexDrugsandDNA.com.

Notes

[1] Connolly, GN, et al., Trends in Smoke Nicotine Yield and Relationship to Design Characteristics Among Popular U.S. Cigarette Brands, 1997-2005, A Report of the Tobacco Research Program Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, January 2007.

[2] National Institutes of Health, Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Yields of Tar and Nicotine; Report of the NCI Expert Committee, National Cancer Institute, Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 13, October 2001.

[3] “Philip Morris Readies Aggressive Global Push,” The Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2008.

“I expected the press to write a lot of stories about the effects of climate change on human health and what CDC was doing about it,” said Dr. Gerberding at an Atlanta Press Club luncheon. “But instead I had to read that someone had edited my testimony. I mean this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.”

In fact, the kerfuffle over the edits is likely to keep the issue in the news far longer than if the version of her testimony submitted to OMB had not been leaked to the press.

Indeed, Dr. Gerberding is correct. The stories should have been about the potential for diseases spreading to new regions, the likely health implications of heat waves and drought as well as discussion of our most vulnerable citizens. And it is probably true that, as she put it, many in the press probably “don’t really understand how written testimony occurs.” OMB, of course, has every right to “try to coordinate the testimony from the administration and try to make sure that enthusiastic program directors are not trying to advocate for more money coming to their agency,” she explained.

But Puh-Lease, Dr. Gerberding, that doesn’t make the edits made by OMB any less interesting or make them any less a news story. In fact, the kerfuffle over the edits is likely to keep the issue in the news far longer than if the version of her testimony submitted to OMB had not been leaked to the press.

Dr. Gerberding is well aware of the fact that this administration has engaged in systematic denial, redaction, stalling, and obfuscation of science findings when they don’t support their ideologically driven policies, for global warming science in particular. Further, it was White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino’s laughable response to questions posed by the press that chummed the waters.

My dog ate it

After initially denying that the White House had watered down Dr. Gerberding’s testimony, they changed tact and attacked the science. Employing classic obfuscation techniques, Perino implied that the sections of Dr. Gerberding’s testimony that were removed “didn’t align with the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]” findings—you know, the people who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

After a ladle full of those wacky science findings, Perino had almost sealed it for those supposedly lazy reporters. But then she stumbled on her punch-line. “And so the decision on behalf of CDC was to focus that testimony on public health benefits—there are public health benefits to climate change.”

Public health benefits of climate change?

To her credit, Dr. Gerberding did not focus on the “health benefits” of global warming in her oral testimony. And not surprisingly, reporters looked at the latest IPCC report and called Dr. Jonathan Patz from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who was the lead author on three separate IPCC reports, to figure out if such discrepancies exist. Dr. Patz’s response to the edits was in direct conflict with the White House’s take, stating to the Washington Post, “That’s nonsense…Dr. Gerberding’s testimony was scientifically accurate and absolutely in line with the findings of the IPCC.”

Other equally qualified scientists, including Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health had a similar take. Dr Rosenstock clearly understands how public testimony occurs: “In the politicization of this topic—the science wasn’t changed, it was deleted.”

So who were the scientists that told the administration that Dr. Gerberding’s testimony was at odds with the IPCC report? The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, led by Dr. John Marburger, piped up yesterday to take some of the credit.

“In the politicization of this topic—the science wasn’t changed, it was deleted.”

Spokeswoman Kristin Scuderi told the Washington Post in an e-mail that Dr. Marburger brought up the “inconsistencies in the use of language between the [IPCC] report and the testimony” and that “the OMB editor decided to transmit a version that simply struck the first eight pages.” Consequently, a description of the current activities of the CDC focused on the most severe health consequences of global warming fell victim to the delete key of an OMB staffer who was likely unable to sift through the testimony and the IPCC report and make a determination.

My bad?

The White House owes the public (and Senator Boxer (D-CA)) an explanation, and not just for this incident. The nation is in sore need of a mea culpa for the systematic censorship of climate science that has fueled the politicalization of this issue and slowed true reform of U.S. energy policy. But such contrition has not been a hallmark of this administration and to our detriment there is little evidence that it will ever back progressive climate preservation legislation.

The current incident has not occurred in a bubble. It is news because of a pattern of behavior, not because of a single incident of heavy handed editing of congressional testimony. There are just too many incidents to ignore, among them:

• A political lackey who neglected to graduate from college censoring NASA scientists

• The harassing reins put on NASA scientist Dr James Hansen

• The subtle but significant removal of “to understand and protect our home planet” from NASA’s mission statement

• The failure of the Environmental Protection Agency to rule on California’s request of a waiver from the Clean Air Act so they can enact a law passed two years ago to decrease greenhouse gas emissions

• The revision of news releases from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to downplay the impact of climate change

• The litmus tests for critical climate science advisory panels

• Barring U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials from speaking on or responding to issues relating to climate change, polar bears, or sea ice when traveling abroad.

In each of these cases, there is considerable question of whether the best interests of the country were the first priority.

In the case of Dr. Gerberding’s testimony, it is at least possible that there just wasn’t enough time for OSTP and OMB to figure it out. As it turns out, they probably made a mistake. In the end, Dr. Gerberding did a fine job testifying and stated that she did not feel encumbered in her oral testimony, but her satisfaction isn’t what is in question.

What is in question is whether Congress is being given the full story by the administration. Removing significant details on the full impact of global climate change is not acceptable if it was done for the wrong reason.

Congress is currently considering over half a dozen bills for curbing greenhouse gases, including reducing emissions by raising CAFE auto emission standards. And don’t forget that the Committee hearing with Dr. Gerberding was in prelude to a committee vote on a carbon cap-and-trade bill that Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) introduced that is controversial but would also be the largest step towards controlling greenhouse gas emissions that the U.S. has taken to date. That bill and others before Congress are directly at odds with the Bush administration’s voluntary greenhouse gas reduction policies.

Blaming the press for not covering the climate change issue well enough would have been fair five years ago, but the reporting has improved and is more focused than ever on measures to slow the consequences of global climate change. If the administration takes a few hits in the media for over-zealous editing so the message stays in the public view a little longer, then maybe in some small way it will make up for some of the inaction on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

The Bush administration made its bed by censoring Dr. Gerberding’s testimony and continually undermining efforts to understand, potentially slow, and prepare for the consequences of global climate change. The press is just fluffing up the pillows.

Michael Stebbins is with the Federation of American Scientists and Scientists and Engineers for America. He is the author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted. The opinions expressed in this column are his own.