Mooney points out that science and scientists make regular appearances on popular Comedy Central shows, and that’s a good thing.

Good riddance to the lies, the deception, the White House-edited pseudoscience reports. Good riddance to the stacked science advisory committees, the faux peer-review of proposed regulations, the junkyard claims of “junk science.”

Good riddance to the scientist manqué at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency who big-footed actual evidence for political convenience. Good riddance to the leadership at the Office of Science and Technology Policy that supported President Bush’s skepticism about the need to address climate change aggressively.

Good riddance to the vice-president who thought the telecom revolution was about better bugging of innocent citizens’ phone calls. Good riddance to the president who cared more about human embryos than he did about children living in the lower Ninth Ward.

Now, however, comes the difficult task of looking forward—of finding the place for progressive voices in an administration refreshingly committed to treating science fairly, but burdened by an inheritance of underfunded agencies and dispirited federal scientists. And all this comes in the midst of an economic crisis that precludes the cash infusion that our emaciated science agencies and their surviving public servants need and so richly deserve.

But there are two aspects of the current predicament that give me hope. First, of course, is that when it comes to science, Obama really does get it. Back in October 2008, he sent via the government employees union several letters to federal workers in the science-based agencies, stating in no uncertain terms his commitment to evidence. “In an Obama administration, the principle of scientific integrity will be an absolute, and I will never sanction any attempt to subvert the work of scientists,” he wrote.

By my reading, those missives could be reduced to about seven words—two-sevenths exhortation—“Hang on!”—and five-sevenths supplication—“I’m going to need you!”

The supplication gets me to my second reason for hope, which is that despite all the failings at

• the Food and Drug Administration: the Plan B debacle, the parade of contaminated foods, and the failure to follow up on serious side effects of drugs
• the EPA, with its repeated overruling of science on pesticide approvals, chemical contamination standards, air and water pollution
• the Interior Department, which, according to The New York Times, is “riddled with incompetence and corruption, captive to industries it is supposed to regulate and far more interested in exploiting public resources than conserving them.”
• the Department of Agriculture, which has been repeatedly scolded by federal courts for its failed science policies and which, according to a just-released Inspector General report, “does not have a strategy for monitoring new transgenic plants and animals that may be developed and imported into the United States”
• the National Institutes of Health, which has not paid sufficient attention to conflicts of interest among its grantees and provided too much cover for the morally corrupt Bush stem cell plan
• the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—consider the Columbia disaster and the pending loss of the shuttle fleet with no other means of reaching the space station
• the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which failed in “almost every respect” to protect Hurricane Katrina victims from the well-understood risks of formaldehyde fumes, according to a congressional investigation, and which has alienated scientists around the world for failing to share important public health data

…Despite all these failings and more, the amazing thing is that every time I talk to the men and women who are actually doing the science in these agencies, I find them almost without exception to be hugely talented and dedicated professionals. Most of them are working on shoestrings but virtually all of them are squeezing all the integrity they can into the process, wanting nothing more (and nothing less) than to get the best answers to the smartest questions so the United States can be a leader among nations and help save the world. Who can’t relate to that?

In short, I am heartened that the nation is endowed with a huge corps of public-servant scientists devoted to going where the evidence takes them and who, as of Wednesday, will for the first time in years be respected by the highest officials in the land for what they do. What’s more, one of the silver linings of our recent eight-year nightmare is that scientists have awakened to the political context within which they work, and more of them than ever seem willing to speak their minds when it comes to how their studies are to be integrated into the world of public policy.

Now is the time for progressives inside and outside of science to solidify these gains for the common good—to avoid overreaching in these days of our political ascendance and instead prove that science can bring economic as well as environmental benefit, prove that scientists can be responsive to social, ethical, and cultural concerns, and prove that evidence is a better source of ideas than ideology.

Rick Weiss is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Science Progress.

Science, Cultured

Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture from Los Angeles, California. He is author of two previous books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs at The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum. (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)

When I started writing for Science Progress a year ago, I wasn’t sure what kind of publication would materialize. True, I had some idea of the kinds of arguments I myself would contribute—being known, among other matters, for discussing political interference with science and the problem of science communication—but it wasn’t clear where the broader experiment would go.

At its one year anniversary, however, I can honestly say that in my opinion, this site—regularly featuring the work of Rick Weiss, Jonathan Moreno, and numerous other insightful contributors—ranks among the very best sources of timely, rigorous, and intellectually serious science policy thinking on the web.

To see that, let’s peruse some of the important threads that have been pursued here over the last year, to give a sense both of the extensive scope and of the quality of analysis. I want to talk about five themes in particular that have recurred at Science Progress: how to restore science advice to the next president and next administration, including revitalizing the role of science in the federal government; the parallel importance of science in Congress; the challenges facing young scientists in America today, especially in the context of concerns about preserving our scientific competitiveness; the knotty but crucial problem of science communication; and the future of the life sciences.

In the wake of an administration that failed to make science a priority, Science Progress writers have worked to outline a better, healthier course for next president to take. Ranging from my own parsing of the National Academies’ advice for the next administration—most notably, that it must quickly appoint a presidential science adviser who can restore the prominence of this role—to bioethicist Art Caplan’s attempt to put six pressing science policy concerns on the administration’s radar (hint: we have to do far more than simply resolve the stem cell issue), you might say Science Progress has provided a cheat sheet concerning what to do, and what to pay attention to, should you happen to be running a government that actually wants to heed the “reality-based community.” Of foremost importance to that government will be having scientists on hand and allowing them easy access to the president and other top policymakers, not only to advise on the issues of the moment but also to provide foresight—so that the issues of the future, like synthetic biology or geoengineering, won’t take anyone by surprise.

And as with the administration, so with Congress—the House and Senate haven’t exactly been science-friendly places of late, but that can and must change. First, there’s the needed but long-delayed solution of bringing back the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, discussed in this column by Darlene Cavalier. But there’s also the imperative to get more science-friendly members of Congress elected to begin with, so as to improve the scientific literacy of the body from within. We must pursue multiple strategies simultaneously to increase the resonance of science for the average legislator, so that he or she can see that science underlies many or even most important issues handled in Congress and, indeed, directly affects voters back home.

The advancement of scientific research isn’t the same as progress in scientific outreach and communication, and the science community has traditionally privileged the former and given short shrift to the latter.

Science Progress has also been an important outlet for analysis on what is arguably the most visible issue in science policy today: How to ensure ongoing U.S. competitiveness in the face of challenges from emerging science superpowers like India and China. But while authors writing here certainly wouldn’t argue that such competitiveness concerns should be ignored, they have brought out an important sub-theme that has all too frequently been neglected: Namely, that if we want to compete in the broadest sense of the term, simply producing more scientists isn’t enough. For after all, note Science Progress contributors Sheril Kirshenbaum and Beryl Lieff Benderly, we already have staggering numbers of talented young postdocs stuck in holding patterns, without nearly enough academic jobs awaiting them. There is a constriction of opportunity for the youngest scientists in America, and if we want to remain competitive, that’s just as serious an issue as the total number of scientists and engineers we’re producing.

Another important, related wrinkle has been the argument that international scientific competitiveness, alone, may not be enough. For while the United States must continue to excel in research (and let us not forget that our nation still leads the world in science), it’s entirely possible for laboratory science to thrive even as the influence and relevance of science, in policy and to the average citizen, decline. In other words, the advancement of scientific research isn’t the same as progress in scientific outreach and communication, and the science community has traditionally privileged the former and given short shrift to the latter. And so a recurring theme here has been that scientists must study the modern media, and engage in outreach to other important sectors of society. Moreover, such outreach must go beyond simply lecturing about the facts, and come to include broad public engagement on equal footing with non-scientists—as Rick Borchelt and Kathy Hudson argue—which is the only way to break down the walls between the experts and everybody else, rather than reinforcing them.

Such rapprochement will be particularly critical going forward as we watch science generate a deeper and deeper understanding of ourselves. Today genetic research is bringing us ever closer to a world in which being able to sample each individual’s DNA will trigger personalized medical solutions tailored to a given arrangement of base-pairs; even as burgeoning neuroscience work is explaining more and more about how we actually come to be the creatures we are, from the brain up. Ongoing, rapid progress in such fields will raise a host of new ethical concerns and has great potential to alarm the public by calling into question traditional concepts of identity, free will, morality, and obligations between generations. Once again, Science Progress has become a leader in analyzing the bioethical challenges implicit in these unstoppable new discoveries.

We live in a paradoxical time. One the one hand, it’s one in which science is changing our world more than ever before, and matters to policy and individual lives more than ever. Yet at the same time, it has become increasingly difficult to get science on the radar of politicians, the media, and the public, and to make it resonate. In this context, Science Progress plays a unique role as a connector between scientific research and the policy and public process—a task that’s now more vital than ever, and that will only grow more so in 2008 and beyond.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

SOURCE: AP

The Bush administration has been criticized for downgrading the White House science advisor’s role and that of OSTP.

The Bush administration has been criticized for downgrading the White House science advisor’s role and that of OSTP. Unlike previous administrations, the current science advisor, for example, does not sit in on cabinet meetings and the OSTP has been relegated to a location outside the White House complex. Further, there are only two associate directors, even though the office is authorized to have four.

In its report, the Wilson Center group makes a number of critical observations and recommendations. For example, they urge that the science advisor be appointed along with members of the president’s cabinet, that he or she participate in cabinet-level activities, that a full complement of associate directors be nominated for Senate approval, and that the main offices of the director and associate directors be in the Old Executive Office Building to enable them to interact with senior White House officials. Although the report does not direct these recommendations at the Bush administration, these actions would not be needed had it not been for the neglect of science advice by this White House. Similarly, the report finds that OSTP should be able to play a more active role in ensuring that government science and technology advisory committees have sufficient independence to ensure the integrity of interpretations of the relevant science. They also suggest that OSTP have its own communications staff to help the White House ensure the accuracy of administration statements.

Other constructive recommendations concern the OSTP’s relationship to other executive branch entities and nongovernmental organizations. A particularly timely suggestion recognizes the increased role of states in funding science by encouraging development of mechanisms to “engage with leaders at the regional and state levels.”

Interview with David Michaels on Doubt Is Their Product

Tobacco companies perfected the manufacture of scientific uncertainty, setting the example for numerous U.S. industries to follow. Realizing that studies demonstrating the fact that cigarettes cause cancer posed an immanent threat to their business model, tobacco executives hired public relations experts to attack the science behind the research. Their basic tactic, according to David Michaels, was to argue that the studies “weren’t correct enough.” Despite the wide acceptance of the link between smoking and cancer in the scientific community and the public at large, the strategy worked, and the controversy over the carcinogens in cigarette smoke bought the industry decades of time to continue profiting off a deadly product.

Michaels, an epidemiologist and the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at the George Washington School of Public Health, is an expert on how U.S. industries have hired mercenary scientists to use the same tactics to create scientific controversy where it did not previously exist. He spoke yesterday at the Center for American Progress about his new book, Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, which chronicles the “tricks of the trade” employed by scientists-for-hire to systematically delay government action to curb the health risks of asbestos, beryllium, pharmaceuticals, diacetyl (which causes “popcorn lung”), and man-made climate change.

Digging through the documents made public in the multistate settlements against the tobacco industry, Michaels noticed that Hill & Knowlton, the PR firm leading the charge against science on behalf of the cigarette makers, was not a single-issue uncertainty shop. Hill & Knowlton, Michaels discovered, reached out over the years to many industries that exposed workers or the public to dangerous chemicals. Among their clients was DuPont, and the firm boasted about their success fending off regulation long enough for the chemical giant to develop an alternative to the chlorofluorocarbons that were tearing a hole in the ozone layer.

“Most scientists who work for industry are honest,” Michaels points out. Companies interested in delaying regulation will therefore hire consultants Michaels calls “sleazy.” After the success of groups like Hill & Knowlton, these scientists got into the lucrative “product defense” industry (now referred to by the friendlier “product support” moniker). These firms, Michaels explains, use methods “similar to the accounting done by Arthur Anderson for Enron.” They conduct “literature reviews” that include studies of good and poor quality, diluting the results of research identifying hazards to public health. They also take advantage of the uneven playing field by accessing and reanalyzing raw data from government studies. Aside from the Food and Drug Administration, which has access to raw data from drug makers’ clinical trials, most regulatory industries do not have access to the raw data from industry-funded studies. When corporations fight regulation with the results of industry-funded research, as well as with jerry-rigged reanalysises of government data that make health risks evaporate in statistical smoke, the public loses and industry profits.

But Michaels proposes a slate of reforms that can curb the manufacture of uncertainty and protect citizens and workers. He is a strong advocate for strict rules barring scientists with financial conflicts of interest from participating in government advisory panels, as they cannot be expected to provide unbiased interpretations of research. “We need transparency and full disclosure,” he says, explaining that “the interpretation has to be done by scientists who don’t have a financial interest.” With multibillion dollar issues like drug regulation at stake, and with public health a central question in industry regulation, Michaels argues that the government can afford to hire scientists without conflicts.

He also proposes a “Sarbanes-Oxley” for science—a legal framework similar to the one enacted after the accounting scandals that led to the fall of Enron. It would hold corporate executives responsible for the nefarious accounting that goes into product defense research for products that harm the public.

In addition, Michaels proposes equal treatment of public and private science: a level playing field that allows for bi-directional access to raw data. “Industry has the right to do its own studies,” he says, “That’s important.” But if the research will have an effect on public policy, data and methods have to be public information.

Ultimately, the key step to defending public health from underhanded industry tactics may be to follow the money. Prestigious medical journals, Michaels points out, require statements indicating who paid for a study, but smaller publications (sometimes set up by product defense firms themselves) and regulatory agencies don’t always have such rules. Scientists, journalists, and policy makers must always ask where the money comes from when there are controversies over research on public health. “Sunlight,” in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

View full event video (CAP site)

Interview with David Michaels on Doubt Is Their Product

During his testimony, John Stephenson, director of the Government Accountability Office’s Natural Resources & Environment department, criticized the thirty-two-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act for being “outdated” and “cumbersome.” TSCA requires the EPA to secure information on all new and old chemical substances and to regulate those chemicals found to cause unreasonable risk to the public or environment. This means the EPA, and not the chemical manufacturers, must prove the safety of chemicals. As history would suggest, this is a Sisyphean task for an already resource-strapped agency. According to senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), of the 80,000 or so chemicals currently used by industry, the Agency has only tested 200.

Is there a solution to this appalling situation? Stephenson believes the answer may lie in the Europe Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals program, also known as REACH. In 2006, the EU passed REACH, a 849-page piece of legislation requiring that all chemicals produced or imported in the EU of one ton or more in volume be tested for health and safety risks and registered with a central chemical authority. What makes the policy unique is that chemical manufacturers and importers must prove to federal authorities their chemicals are safe, not vice versa. (For a more in-depth analysis of REACH, see the BBC’s Q&A report on the program).

Stephenson went on to praise REACH, believing its model fosters a fruitful partnership between industry and government because authorities can better protect the public and chemical companies can avoid litigation if hazardous chemicals are identified upfront rather than down the road. Critics argue such approaches could hamstring the chemical industry’s ability to innovate; force companies to move off-shore, costing U.S. jobs; and forcing many small businesses under. Minority witness V.M. Delisi of Fanwood Chemical Inc. echoed these concerns, suggesting it was a “myth” to believe chemical companies have unlimited sources to deal with the onus of proving the safety of their products. Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) countered such fears, saying companies that have created safer alternatives to toxic chemicals have seen their products kept out of the market because weak regulation favors cheaper, more hazardous chemicals. Stronger regulation would foster innovation and safer options, she argued. Annette Gellert, co-founder of the WELL Network, a nonprofit focused on the environment and its connection to the health of children and families, noted that if the U.S. maintains weak chemical regulation it could become a dumping ground for toxic products that cannot be sold in Europe and other stricter countries.

As Chris Mooney explained in his recent column, the EPA is in the midst of a complete meltdown. After censoring its own scientists, demonstrating disdain for scientific integrity, and failing to prevent mercury pollution, repairing the damage done to the EPA by the Bush Administration will require the upmost attention of the next President. But some are left to wonder why it even came to this stage. As Tuesday’s hearing wrapped up, Chairman Boxer’s (D-CA) said simply: “No one can explain to me where there is room for politics when you are looking at the health and safety of the American people.”

Manufactroversy (măn’yə-făk’-trə-vûr’sē)
N., pl. -sies.

1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

With all the sophisticated sophistry besieging mass audiences today, there is a need for the study of rhetoric now more than ever before. This is especially the case when it comes to the contemporary assault on science known as manufactured controversy: when significant disagreement doesn’t exist inside the scientific community, but is successfully invented for a public audience to achieve specific political ends.

Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa, and the intelligent design movement’s “teach the controversy” campaign. The first of these has been called an “epistemological filibuster” because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay the adoption of a policy that is warranted by that science. Languaging expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged Republican congressional and executive leaders “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.” ExxonMobil was doing this when it published its “Unsettled Science” advertisement about climate science on the editorial pages of the New York Times in March 2000. A more recent guest editorial by a reader made the same claim in the pages of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in January 2008. All three seemed to be following the playbook of the tobacco industry when scientists discovered that their products cause cancer; when a threat to their interests arises from the scientific community, they declare “there are always two sides to a case” and then call for more study of the matter before action is taken.

I think it’s shortsighted to cede the public stage to the anti-science forces in the naive hope that no one will pay attention to them.

South African President Thabo Mbeki’s support for AIDS dissent eight years ago is a similar case. Like global warming skepticism, this assault on the science of HIV/AIDS research ingeniously turned the scientific community’s values against it by drawing on the importance of rational open debate, a skeptical attitude, and the need for continued research. Mbeki alleged that the mainstream scientific community branded scientists who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS as “‘dangerous and discredited’ with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate or interact.” Claiming the successful dissident’s authority in post-apartheid South Africa, Mbeki condemned the mainstream scientific community for occupying “the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths.”

A parallel case is being made by the intelligent design movement in conjunction with its “teach the controversy” campaign against evolutionary biology. Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled, portrays scientists as participating in a vast conspiracy to silence anyone who questions the Darwinian orthodoxy. This movie promises to be the most extreme application yet of the intelligent design movement’s “wedge” strategy to break the supremacy of evolutionary theory in contemporary science. Just as a wedge can be set into a chink in a solid structure and, with the careful application of some concentrated force, will split that structure to pieces, so too do the producers of this movie hope that it can break the scientific community and allow for a change in how science is taught in America. Of course, any claim by biologists that there is no scientific controversy to teach merely feeds the conspiracy theory.

In light of this difficulty, some have suggested that the best response to manufactured controversy is no response at all. They say that countering such nonsense merely gives these modern-day sophists publicity and enables their continued efforts to reopen debate on settled science. I understand this impulse to remain silent in the face of foolishness, but as a professor of rhetoric, I think it’s shortsighted to cede the public stage to the anti-science forces in the naive hope that no one will pay attention to them. Ever since the field of rhetoric was born, there have been those who misuse the power of persuasion to mislead public audiences, and it has been only through vigilant counter-persuasion that such deception has been overcome.

The ancient sophists, or “wise men” (wise guys?) who taught the new art of rhetoric to those who would pay their fee in the 5^th century BCE, included Gorgias, who was said to have boasted that he could persuade the multitude to ignore the expert and listen to him instead, and Protagoras, who claimed that there are always two sides to a case and it’s the sophist’s job to make the worse case appear the stronger. It was to oppose this kind of deception that Aristotle codified the art of Rhetoric in his treatise by that title. He recognized that before lay audiences “not even the possession of the exactest knowledge” ensures that a speaker will be persuasive, so Aristotle promoted the study of rhetoric so that experts could confute those who try to mislead public audiences.

Today’s sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data.

As a scholar of rhetoric, I have studied some modern cases of manufactured controversy to discover how to best confute these contemporary sophists, and I have come up with some preliminary hypotheses about what makes their arguments so persuasive to a public audience. First, they skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the American public alike, like free speech, skeptical inquiry, and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who invokes these values without seeming unscientific or un-American. Second, they exploit a tension between the technical and public spheres in postmodern American life; highly specialized scientific experts can’t spare the time to engage in careful public communication, and are then surprised when the public distrusts, fears, or opposes them. Third, today’s sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data; any dissent by any scientist is then seen as evidence that there’s no consensus, and thus truth must not have been discovered yet. A more accurate portrayal of science sees it as a process of debate among a community of experts in which one side outweighs the other in the balance of the argument, and that side is declared the winner; a few skeptics might remain, but they’re vastly outnumbered by the rest, and the democratic process of science moves forward with the collective weight of the majority of expert opinion. Scientists buy into this democratic process when they enter the profession, so that a call for the winning side to share power in the science classroom with the losers, or to continue debating an issue that has already been settled for the vast majority of scientists so that policy makers can delay taking action on their findings, seems particularly undemocratic to most of them.

Aristotle believed that things that are true “have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites,” but that it takes a good rhetor to ensure that this happens when sophisticated sophistry is on the loose. I concur; only by exposing manufactured controversy for what it is, recognizing its rhetorical power and countering those who are skilled at getting the multitude to ignore the experts while imagining a scientific debate where none exists, can scientists and their allies use my field to achieve what Aristotle envisioned for it—a study that helps the argument that is in reality stronger also appear stronger before an audience of nonexperts.

Leah Ceccarelli is an associate professor in the Communication Department at the University of Washington. She teaches rhetoric and is the author of the award-winning book Shaping Science with Rhetoric.

The incident simply points to a larger problem: Federal policy regarding comprehensive reproductive health care is inadequate.

Last week, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, uncovered this ironic situation while trying to “connect” to “reproductive health literature.” Health care providers, researchers, and advocates around the country were alarmed to learn that POPLINE (POPulation information onLINE), had rendered the search term “abortion” a stopword—which directs the database to ignore the term when used in a search. UCSF librarians discovered this deliberate restriction when they were unable to find a single document containing the word “abortion” in POPLINE’s database, and contacted the administrators at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to ask them why. Simply put, the UCSF librarians were told that “abortion” was eliminated as a search term by the POPLINE administrators so that the latter could examine the database for information “that might not have been consistent” with guidelines from a government agency that funds the project. And our UCSF colleagues were then given some mystifying, convoluted search term suggestions for finding medical literature on the subject, including “fertility control, post-conception” and “pregnancy, unwanted.”

By Friday morning, news of the self-censorship had spread like a virus. Countless members of the medical, scientific, and advocacy communities responded and by early Friday evening, Hopkins Dean Michael J. Klag issued a statement unequivocally denouncing the administrators’ decision to censor the word abortion and promising to get to the bottom of it. By Tuesday, he issued a follow up statement citing his opposition to the decision and his speedy response, while blaming “an overreaction on the part of POPLINE staff” to a search by USAID [United States Agency for International Development] officials who “found two items in the POPLINE database that advocated for abortion.”

So let’s pause for a moment and review what happened: a vigilant literature search on the word “abortion” by unidentified Federal employees at USAID resulted in finding two abortion articles in the POPLINE database that they deemed to feature inappropriate advocacy. Once notified by the Feds, Hopkins administrators immediately made abortion a stopword—an additional step not requested by USAID, but implemented to allow administrators to search for other material that might have been inconsistent with the agency’s guidelines—effectively ending access to abortion research to health professionals and the public on their 30-year-old database.

While giving credit to Dean Klag for his quick response to an untenable situation, there are two important questions that remain: Why are Federal employees at USAID so attentively monitoring scientific research articles on the POPLINE database for the word “abortion”? And why are Hopkins administrators so afraid of them? The Dean states that USAID is prohibited by law from funding any abortion activities or supplies. This is all the more reason for concern by researchers, civil libertarians, health care providers, and patients who deserve the best possible care. But the incident simply points to a larger problem: Federal policy regarding comprehensive reproductive health care is inadequate.

The Real Impact of Limiting Access to Information

The medical and scientific needs of the reproductive health professional community were impeded by POPLINE’s decision to remove abortion as a search term on its publicly funded database. If this action had gone unchecked, the decision would have limited the medical and scientific community’s ability to access information on a range of patient care scenarios, including women experiencing both wanted and unintended pregnancies.

A clinician seeking information while providing abortion care services would have been unsuccessful in accessing key medical and scientific literature on the topic—potentially endangering the patient. Women with wanted pregnancies and their health care providers looking for information on spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), inevitable abortion, incomplete abortions, missed abortions, and related medical information would have also been denied this key data.

Unsafe abortion practices claim thousands of lives worldwide every year and any public health student, policy maker, or provider seeking vital information on the topic of unsafe abortion would have also come up empty-handed.

Ideology Trumping Science Is About More Than Just Abortion

The specter of ideology trumping science goes way beyond POPLINE and abortion. There is more visible political opposition to important health classifications like family planning, sexuality, and reproductive health than we have seen in years. Political posturing can get in the way of science, public health, and patient care—even POPLINE’s reputation is potentially at risk.

Even self-censorship of a specific term like “abortion” in a scientific setting—especially as a result of Federal government monitoring—sets a dangerous precedent.

Over the last seven years, we have witnessed an intentional blurring of the lines between opposition to abortion and a more general objection to contraception. For example, many of President Bush’s anti-choice family planning political appointees have been openly anti-contraception as well. Bush’s 2002 appointment to a key FDA panel, Dr. Joseph B. Stanford, complained about contraceptive use even among married couples. And more recently Bush appointed Susan Orr as the acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs to oversee family planning funding for clinics serving poor women, even though she previously worked to limit access to contraception as the senior director for marriage and family care at the Family Research Council, an organization well-known for its anti-contraception stance.

And now the term “reproductive health” is being targeted. At the United Nations, there are unbelievably rancorous debates about whether or not to include the terms “sexuality” and “reproductive health” in treaties because many politicians view them as faux terms for abortion.

It may have been that POPLINE staff made the decision based on fear of losing their USAID funding. USAID does have a history of basing reproductive care funding decisions at least partly on ideology and politics. For example, they have withheld funding from developing countries if potential grantees provide abortion services or give abortion referrals to women.

It’s also possible the suggestion came from above. With the Bush administration’s history of attempting to (and often succeeding in) restricting access to abortion services and information at every possible turn, it’s not so unlikely they’d attempt to scrap the word altogether.

The bottom line is that even self-censorship of a specific term like “abortion” in a scientific setting—especially as a result of Federal government monitoring—sets a dangerous precedent. We must follow the example of our UCSF colleagues and make preserving access to reproductive health science a part of our own work plans. It’s scary enough to consider the possibility that ideological searches are being performed by anonymous government employees who troll our scientific databases for the word “abortion.” “Contraception,” “sexuality,” and “reproductive health” are the next stopwords, unless we remain vigilant and protest loudly.

Pablo Rodriguez, MD, is the Board Chair of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. Wayne C. Shields is the President and CEO of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. Jennifer Aulwes is the Media and Policy Manager for the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.

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

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

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

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

For more backstory:

Scientist: CDC Bosses Ignored Warning (AP)

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

Avery Palmer at CQ Today reports that Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) is looking to subpoena the Environmental Protection Agency for documents related to carbon emission regulation. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must regulate carbon emissions, but the agency has yet to provide a draft regulation proposal it agreed to have ready by the end of last year.

Russell Dinnage of Greenwire profiles Christopher De Rosa, a toxicologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who recently accused his CDC bosses of censoring (subscription) two studies on chemicals that were making people sick.

The Mercury News reports that business leaders from leading tech companies called for an increase in H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers at a recent briefing hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Oracle Vice President Robert Hoffman hopes Congress can provide “short-term relief” by doubling the current H-1B visa cap.

Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection has launched a three-year, $300 million advocacy campaign to raise awareness about global climate change and methods to reduce emissions in the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

When it comes to the relationship between a changing climate and specific disasters, “cause” is a word we really ought to retire.

When it comes to the relationship between a changing climate and specific disasters, “cause” is a word we really ought to retire. Consider: Disasters arise from specific local conditions; in the California case, drought, Santa Ana winds, and a few execrable arsonists. Global warming may make particular conditions more likely to occur (or recur) in a statistical sense, but it never creates the first spark, if you will.

And so global warming is not the reason that a few fires, once ignited, exploded into deadly infernos and caused so much damage in late October. Neither is it the reason that a particular atmospheric disturbance—once known as Tropical Depression 12—later developed into Hurricane Katrina and took a particular course that led to an explosive intensification once the storm crossed the deep, warm Gulf of Mexico “Loop Current.”

That’s the first caveat to get out of the way here, but there are others. For even if global warming is indeed changing the average wildfire risk to human populations, it may not be the only factor doing so. One of the major messages to emerge following the California fires is that, in some sense, we did this, not through greenhouse gas emission but rather through urban sprawl and through building valuable homes in fire-prone regions.

A similar narrative arises with respect to hurricanes. The main reason we’ve been experiencing so much hurricane damage in the U.S. lately has more to do with societal trends—the ever increasing concentration of population and wealth in vulnerable coastal areas—than with global warming. Almost 50 percent of the U.S. public now lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Even if global warming isn’t changing storms, these people are setting themselves up for disaster.

All of which leads to an important generalization about climate change and disasters: Even as we must be cautious not to attribute any single disaster to climate change, and even as we must acknowledge the societal factors that make us more vulnerable, we still have every right to fear the double whammy of a societal trend superimposed atop a climatic trend. In both the hurricane and the wildfire cases, there are reasons for thinking that’s precisely what’s happening.

Scientifically speaking, it’s hard not to be struck by the similarities. In 2005, amidst a dramatic Atlantic hurricane season, two scientific papers came out stating that hurricanes had measurably intensified on average over the past several decades and implicating global warming as the culprit. Similarly, in 2006, a paper in Science came out finding that a marked increase in western U.S. wildfires reflected a climate trend towards warmer springs and summers, and earlier snowmelt.

Following the Southern California wildfires, then, we discover yet another science scandal.

We must bear in mind, though, that these were early attempts to examine exceedingly complicated scientific problems—which in turn leads to a second important generalization. After scientists identify a plausible linkage between a changing climate and the increased incidence of a particular type of disaster, the story hardly ends there. Rather, we as a society must then concentrate our scientific energies–and government resources—on developing the aforementioned research (often presented at first without regard to the implications for specific communities) into a form that is of most use to human populations.

That means regional studies. That means going to governors and mayors in western states, or coastal states, and having something to tell them.

This task–which can only be considered a critical public service in our new era of climate instability–inevitably falls to our federal government, and more specifically, to its climate science research apparatus. And sure enough, in the late 1990s the Clinton administration inaugurated a “national assessment” process to study the regional impacts of climate change and their implications for the United States. But as I have written in many places—including the latest issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, currently on news stands—the Bush administration quashed that effort, and was in fact recently rebuked in federal court for doing so.

Following the Southern California wildfires, then, we discover yet another science scandal. Global warming is probably changing wildfire risks, and western states (and their citizens) have a need to know more precisely how that will affect them. But they don’t–because of the Bush administration’s continual suppression and misuse of science, and because of the tragic politicization of the climate issue.

Chris Mooney is the Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

Scientific evidence supports the view that the earth’s climate is changing. A broad array of organizations (federal, state, local, multilateral, faith-based, private and nongovernmental) is working to address climate change. Despite this extensive activity, the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed. CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.

Science Progress has prepared a redacted version of the testimony highlighting the portions removed, which cover extreme weather events, air-pollution-related health effects, water- and food-borne infectious diseases, vector-borne diseases, food scarcity, and the differential burden of climate change health effects on certain populations.

Introduction
Good morning Madam Chairwoman, Senator Inhofe, and other distinguished embers of the Committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Nation’s leading public health protection agency located within the Department of Health and Human Services. Thank you for the opportunity to present on climate change and human health and to highlight the role of CDC in preparing for and responding to the health effects of climate change.

Background
The health of all individuals is influenced by the health of people, animals, and the environment around us. Many trends within this larger, interdependent ecologic system influence public health on a global scale, including climate change. The public health response to such trends requires a holistic understanding of disease and the various external factors influencing public health. It is within this larger context where the greatest challenges and opportunities for protecting and promoting public health occur.

Public Health Preparedness for Climate Change
Climate change is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans and the nation’s public health infrastructure. As the nation’s public health agency, CDC is uniquely poised to lead efforts to anticipate and respond to the health effects of climate change. Preparedness for the health consequences of climate change aligns with traditional public health contributions, and – like preparedness for terrorism and pandemic influenza –reinforces the importance of a strong public health infrastructure. CDC’s expertise and programs in the following areas provide the strong platform needed

• Environmental Public Health Tracking: CDC has a long history of tracking occurrence and trends in diseases and health outcomes. CDC is pioneering new ways to understand the impacts of environmental hazards on people’s health. For example, CDC’s Environmental Public Health Tracking Program has funded several states to build a health surveillance system that integrates environmental exposures and human health outcomes. This system, the Tracking Network, will go live in 2008, providing information on how health is affected by environmental hazards. The Tracking Network will contain critical data on the incidence, trends, and potential outbreaks of diseases, including those affected by climate change
• Surveillance of Water-borne, Food-borne, Vector-borne, and Zoonotic Diseases: CDC also has a long history of surveillance of infectious, zoonotic, and vector-borne diseases. Preparing for climate change will involve working closely with state and local partners to document whether potential changes in climate have an impact on infectious and other diseases and to use this information to help protect Americans from the potential change in of a variety of dangerous water-borne, food-borne, vector-borne, and zoonotic diseases. CDC has developed ArboNet, the national arthropod-borne viral disease tracking system. Currently, this system supports the nationwide West Nile virus surveillance system that links all 50 states and four large metropolitan areas to a central database that records and maps cases in humans and animals and would detect changes in real-time in the distribution and prevalence of cases of arthropod-borne viral diseases. CDC also supports the major foodborne surveillance and investigative networks of FoodNet and PulseNet which rapidly identify and provide detailed data on cases of foodborne illnesses, on the organisms that cause them, and on the foods that are the sources of infection. Altered weather patterns resulting from climate change are likely to affect the distribution and incidence of food- and waterborne diseases, and these changes can be identified and tracked through PulseNet.
• Geographic Information System (GIS): At the CDC, GIS technology has been applied in unique and powerful ways to a variety of public health issues. It has been used in data collection, mapping, and communication to respond to issues as wide-ranging and varied as the World Trade Center collapse, avian flu, SARS, and Rift Valley fever. In addition, GIS technology was used to map issues of importance during the CDC response to Hurricane Katrina. This technology represents an additional tool for the public health response to climate change.
• Modeling: Currently sophisticated models to predict climate and heat exist. For example, CDC has conducted heat stroke modeling for the city of Philadelphia to predict the most vulnerable populations at risk for hyperthermia. In light of these projections, CDC has initiated efforts to model the impact of heat waves on urban populations to identify those people most vulnerable to hyperthermia. Modeling and forecasting represent an important preparedness strategy, in that it can help predict and respond to the most pressing health vulnerabilities at the state and local level. Armed with modeling data, we can target response plans for heat and other extreme weather events to the most vulnerable communities and populations. In light of these projections, CDC has initiated efforts to model the impact of heat waves on urban populations to identify those people most vulnerable to hyperthermia.
• Preparedness Planning: Just as we prepare for terrorism and pandemic influenza, we should use these principles and prepare for health impacts fro climate change. For example, to respond to the multiple threats posed by heat waves, the urban environment, and climate change, CDC scientists have focused prevention efforts on developing tools that local emergency planners and decision-makers can use to prepare for and respond to heat waves. In collaboration with other Federal partners, CDC participated in the development of an Excessive Heat Events Guidebook, which provides a comprehensive set of guiding principle and a menu of options for cities and localities to use in the development of Heat Response Plans. These plans clearly define specific roles and responsibilities of government and nongovernmental organizations during heat waves. They identify local populations at increased high risk for heat-related illness and death and determine which strategies will be used to reach them during heat emergencies.
• Training and Education of Public Health Professionals – Preparing for the health consequences of climate change requires that professionals have the skills required to conceptualize the impending threats, integrate a wide variety of public health and other data in surveillance activities, work closely with other agencies and sectors, and provide effective health communication for vulnerable populations regarding the evolving threat of climate change. CDC is holding a series of five workshops to further explore key dimensions of climate change and public health, including drinking water, heat waves, health communication, vector-borne illness, and vulnerable populations.
• Health Protection Research: CDC can promote research to further elucidate the specific relationships between climate change and various health outcomes, including predictive models and evaluations of interventions. Research efforts can also identify the magnitude of health effects and populations at greatest risk. For example, CDC has conducted research on the relationship between hantavirus pulmonary syndrome and rainfall, as well as research assessing the impact of climate variability and climate change on temperature-related morbidity and mortality. This information will help enable public health action to be targeted and will help determine the best methods of communicating risk. CDC can serve as a credible source of information on health risks and actions that individuals can take to reduce their risk. In addition, CDC has several state-of-the-art laboratories conducting research on such issues as chemicals and human exposure, radiological testing, and infectious diseases. This research capacity is an asset in working to more fully understand the health consequences of climate change.
• Communication: CDC has expertise in health and risk communication, and has deployed this expertise in areas as diverse as smoking, HIV infection, and cancer screening. Effective communication can alert the public to health risks associated with climate change, avoid inappropriate responses, and encourage constructive protective behaviors.

While CDC can offer technical support and expertise in these and other activities, much of this work needs to be carried out at the state and local level. For example, CDC can support climate change preparedness activities in public health agencies, and climate change and health research in universities, as is currently practiced for a variety of other health challenges.

Conclusion
An effective public health response to climate change can prevent injuries, illnesses, and death and enhance overall public health preparedness. Protecting Americans from the health effects of climate change directly correlates to CDC’s four overarching Health Protection Goals of Healthy People in Every Stage of Life, Healthy People in Healthy Places, People Prepared for Emerging Health Threats, and Healthy People in a Healthy World.

While we still need more focus and emphasis on public health preparedness for climate change, many of our existing programs and scientific expertise provide a solid foundation to move forward. Many of the activities needed to protect Americans from the health effects of climate change are mutually beneficial for overall public health. In addition, health and the environment are closely linked, as strongly demonstrated by the issue of climate change. Because of this linkage it is also important that potential health effects of environmental solutions be fully considered.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony on the potential health effects of global climate change and for your continued support of CDC’s essential public health work.

The Bush Administration continues to censor scientists. The AP has the latest on revisions made to the testimony of CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding, who testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday on the health impacts of climate change. The original testimony was 14 pages; the White House hacked it down to four; six made it to the Senate. The Knight Science Tracker, ThinkProgress, and Wired Science have more.

“More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government.” Selections from the results of a 463 Communications/Zogby International poll on U.S. attitudes on the Internet.

The Bayh-Dole Act grants intellectual property rights to universities for projects developed with federal funds. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today to consider changes to the legislation. At issue: limitations on the earnings from licensing royalties that labs can keep; and the need to consider that the exclusive patent model may work for drug development, but not for telecommunications or forthcoming energy technologies.

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies has been holding an online conference the past two days on the impact of nanotechnology on consumer products. Yesterday conferees discussed the possible applications of nanotechnologies; today they have been looking at regulation and oversight strategies.

Major research libraries are falling into two camps: those that allow Google and Microsoft to digitize their book collections, and those that place their knowledge stores in the hands of the Open Content Alliance.