JPBlog

Federal spending on scientific research has plummeted since George Bush became president. As a result scientists are leaving the field and young scientists are finding other things to do. Bright foreign students are no longer remaining in the U.S.

This is insane. The strength of the U.S. rests on its scientific and technological superiority, which is directly linked to government support of basic research.

As research funds stagnate, science in state of 'crisis'

If you are one of those unfortunate souls infected with hepatitis-C, there is a cure: a form of interferon produced by Hoffman-La Roche and Schering Plough the surface of whose molecule is covered with a polyethylene glycol (PEG) molecule that causes the drug to persist in the body. The only hitch is that, in the profit-maximizing spirit of capitalism, the manufacturers have set the price of the drug at approximately #13,500.00/year, more than $1,000 per month. Most of the victims of hepatitis-C live in the poorest nations of the world, and $1,000 amounts to more than their entire annual income. Since Hoffman-La Roche and Schering Plough hold patents on the medication, manufacturing it inexpensively is all but out of the question for the poorer countries, so the victims must simply do without treatment and die from the virus.

Charging what the traffic will bear is a long-honored principle of capitalism. There is no doubt that Hoffman-La Roche and Schering Plough have set their price and output at the point of maximum profit, balancing supply and demand by the monopoly power given to them by the intellectual property laws. That millions may suffer and die from being unable to afford the drug may be an unfortunate result of corporate profit decisions, but corporations owe no duty towards anyone but their stockholders and that duty is to maximize the value of their investment. The fact that people need the medicine is only important to the corporation when that need becomes demand, that is, the willingness to purchase the product coupled with the ability to pay for it. The market itself, as described by economists, is perfectly happy to let millions perish as long as it "clears," I.e., supply and demand are balanced by the free wheeling and dealing of buyers and sellers.

Clearly, this is an amoral, if not evil, system, even though the managers and executives (and even stockholders) of Hoffman-La Roche and Schering Plough may be persons of the highest integrity, generosity and compassion. They cannot escape the corporate imperative of profit-maximizing, whose outcome is both impeccably logical but at the same time insane. The health of millions is sacrificed so that the makers of health-giving medicines can make as much money as possible from their monopolies.

Occasionally there is good news. British researchers have discovered a PEG-interferon as effective as the current product but which does not infringe on Hoffman-La Roche and Schering Plough's patents and which will be made available to patients at very low cost. Instead of placing the PEG molecule on the outside of the interferon protein, the researches have discovered how to place it inside the molecule. The British publication New Scientist has the details.

So the good guys will probably win this round and millions will have access to treatment they would otherwise not be able to afford. But this single happy ending does not solve the ethical, moral and political problems presented by an industry that exists ostensibly to save lives and at the same time exists to maximize its profits, interests that are almost diametrically opposed. The fabulous profits the pharmaceutical corporations have raked in over the past twenty or thirty years have enabled them to purchase disproportionate influence over legislators and regulators to the detriment of the public. This is a problem that will have to be faced before long.

The Associated Press ran a story this morning on the planned launch of the space shuttle Discovery in spite of insulation having fallen off one of the solid fuel boosters.

According to the article:

[NASA Administrator] Griffin decided two weeks ago that the shuttle should go into orbit as planned, despite the concerns of two top agency managers - the top safety officer and chief engineer - who wanted additional repairs to the foam insulation.

But the two agency officials said the foam loss will not threaten the crew because NASA has a plan for the astronauts to move into the international space station if in-orbit inspections find serious damage to the spacecraft. The crew would await rescue 81 days later by a second space shuttle.

With insulation having recently fallen off a booster rocket, and the fact that the Columbia met disaster from a large piece of insulation in the past, it seems idiotic to this writer to launch the shuttle without making damn sure the insulation stays put. It's looking more and more that the initial decision to use solid-fuel booster rockets was an economic decision, rather than a scientific or engineering decision. Space flight on the cheap. We've already lost two crews of some of our finest people; it would not just be a tragedy if we lost this crew. It would be an outrage.

The idea that in case of damage to the space shuttle the crew could hang out in the space station for 81 days reeks of political motivation. There are plenty of things that could go wrong with the space shuttle during its flight over which we have no control, but insulation falling off is a hazard that we already know about and the fact that the piece in question weighed less than one-tenth of an ounce, while it might not affect the safety of the shuttle, is a sure indication that the insulation is susceptible to coming off the tanks during the flight.

Given the expertise of the NASA personnel involved, there is undoubtedly a high probability that the flight will go as planned. There was, however, a high probability that Challenger and Columbia would have successful flights, also.

Let us pray for the safety of the crew.

6/6/2006 Comment: The space shuttle made a successful takeoff and it appears that there is no damage to the spacecraft from falling insulation. That still does not alter the fact that NASA was rolling the dice with the lives of the crew at stake.

The George C. Marshall Institute, one of the proliferating cadre of right-wing scientific disinformation organizations devoted to the short-term interests of the military-industrial complex, is hosting its annual awards dinner on June 13, 2006.

The honoree this year is President George W. Bush, who is being honored for his contributions to "science, public policy, and public service."

Our own Haley Barbour will deliver the keynote address.

I didn't make this up, honest. My imagination isn't that wild.

Turning from farce to tragedy, Dr. Stephen Schneider has an excellent article here on the problems scientists encounter when speaking out on subjects with political and economic implications.

The Department of Agriculture has announced that a cow on an Alabama farm has been diagnosed with BSE - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.

Other news: The U. S. Department of Agriculture plans to cut back drastically on testing cattle for BSE. We always knew they had our welfare in mind, didn't we?

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has some sage advice: become a vegetarian:

“This disturbing discovery should alert consumers to the many problems with meat-heavy diets,” says PCRM president Neal Barnard, M.D. “Mad cow disease is terrifying, but the truth is that all animal products are a health risk because they’re loaded with artery-clogging saturated fat and cholesterol.”

PCRM offers consumers a Vegetarian Starter Kit, which can be downloaded as a PDF file or ordered in printed form.

A real possibility.

I promised a few weeks ago that I wouldn't mention the intelligent design controversy again, but this is too good an article not to pass it on:

Eden and Evolution from the Washington Post 1/6/2006

This month's Orion Magazine contained a particularly interesting article on whether we can inherit from our parents the effects of pollution and other environmental insults through epigenomes, methyl molecules attached to various parts of the DNA molecule that have the ability to activate genes in response to environmental changes.

It is must faster to turn on a gene than to come up with a new one. Epigenomes can enable an organism to adapt to new circumstances far faster than by mutation, but they can also do some nasty things to human beings, like turn off cancer suppressors. According the the article, abnormal methylation patterns have also been linked to such conditions as diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and psychiatric diseases.

The real eye-popper in the article, however, is that epigenomes can be inherited, meaning that rapid adaptations to a changing environment can be passed on from one generation to another, even though DNA is not changed. Methyl molecule groups that activate one gene as opposed to another are inherited, surprisingly bolstering Lamarck's theory that organisms acquire useful traits during their lifetimes and pass it on to their children.

These discoveries aren't going to turn biology upside down, but they will likely force some significant revisions, particularly in evolutionary theory. In particular, they would explain how some organisms are able to change more quickly than is predicted by traditional selection theory.

For the first time, I used an automated checkout machine at I-55 Kroger this evening. Only if I'm starving and there are no checkout clerks available will I think about using them again. The procedure should have been a breeze, as I was purchasing four TV dinners, all of which were bar-coded. Almost immediately I became irritated at the woman's voice that told me what to do. It was neither commanding nor soothing, just harsh and loud, like the voices that blare out over the PA system calling somebody to the front of the store or the battle-ax of a principal at Boyd School yelling at us in the cafeteria.

Worse, nothing on the machine was intuitive. At first, I couldn't even figure out how to start the process until I searched diligently, trying not to look completely inept and clueless, and eventually found the correct button on the touchscreen. There were no instructions on where to hold the bar code, so I had to hold it in a variety of positions until it beeped. I couldn't find the receipt until the customer behind me pointed it out. By the time I left, I was really aggravated. Ideally, you should be able to check out by pushing your grocery cart past a sensor, or at a minimum placing your groceries on a conveyor belt. Even the current contraption could be modified to make it much easier to use by such simple measures as shining a beam of light where the customer is to hold the bar code and posting written instructions on a sign that can be readily seen by a customer inexperienced at using the machines.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a geek machine, designed by and for geeks. I'm something of a geek myself, but when I shop at a grocery store I have no desire to encounter an obstacle course, technical or otherwise. Next time I shop I'll stand in line to be checked out by a human being.

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and The Cancer Project recently released the results of a study assessing the carcinogenic properties of grilled meats. To everyone's surprise grilled chicken contained the highest amounts of heterocyclic amines (HCAs), cancer-causing substances produced during cooking from the creatine, amino acids, and sugars found naturally in chicken and other meats.

“The riskiest aspect of chicken is not grease or salmonella,” says Cancer Project managing director Jennifer Reilly, R.D. “Few people are aware that chicken is the single biggest contributor of carcinogenic HCAs in the American diet.” In addition to high HCA levels, chicken contains about the same amount of cholesterol as beef and is also typically high in fat. Even when the skin is removed, dark meat is thrown away, and a non-fat cooking method is used, chicken still derives 23 percent of its calories from fat.

Below are the amounts of HCAs in common foods. The only safe foods to grill are veggie foods like veggie burgers, veggie brochettes and portabello mushrooms, which can be cooked at high temperatures without producing HCAs. PCRM furnishes a number of healthy recipes on its web site for grilling and picnics.

The Five Worst Foods to Grill (by HCA levels)

Food	HCAs ng/100g*
Chicken breast, skinless, boneless, grilled, welldone	14,300 ng/100g
Steak, grilled, well done	810 ng/100g
Pork, barbecued	470 ng/100g
Salmon, grilled with skin	166 ng/100g
Hamburger, grilled, well done	130 ng/100g
*100g portion equals about 3.5 ounces grilled

There are few things this writer enjoys more than a plate of ribs or a half chicken barbecued over a smoky fire. Looks like those meals are going to be far apart in the future.

Addendum: Readers might wonder why a health article appears on this blog. I apologize for not connecting the two, assuming that the average reader of the JP would understand that meat is highly political. Industrial farming creates serious environmental and public health problems and must be highly regulated to minimize damage. In addition, we are learning that eating too much meat is causing health problems in the entire population. The meat industry has spent money and energy attempting to kill environmental regulation designed to protect the public. It has spent money on advertising that tries to convince people to eat more meat. These are public issues and therefore political.

This will be my first and last comment on the great ID controversy.

Science cannot explain singularities; it depends upon repetition and falsification. Something that happens only once can't be replicated or falsified.

The biggest singularity of all is the universe. Science, for all its miraculous achievements, cannot create big bangs in a laboratory, nor would we wish it to do so. We can look at the universe as it exists now and, by applying our knowledge of how matter and energy currently behave, make some educated guesses about how it all started, but there won't be any replication or falsification anytime soon. Scientific hypotheses regarding the origin of the Universe will remain hypotheses and nothing more.

Science is discovering, however, that matter possesses amazing self-organizing properties, properties that could explain the origin of life and its evolution. We can study those properties and we can design laboratory experiments that, while they cannot replicate the evolutionary process, can test exemplars that mimic to some degree the historical course of evolution. We can learn how chaotic systems can spontaneously organize themselves, not through the workings of an external force or intelligence, but through the channeling of random events among self-organizing entities.

Intelligent design, as I see it, teaches that God created the Big Bang and while doing so invested matter with all those seemingly magical self-organizing properties described above, so that life can be said to have arisen through the initial design of the Universe itself and not through "accident". I see no contradiction of this with any kind of science. Science has no way of determining how matter acquired its properties. As I explained above, it has no way of applying its usual methods to determining how the Universe began because the Universe is a singularity.

On the other hand, believing that God created the Big Bang and made matter self-organizing is neither useful nor detrimental to evolutionary science. Once you state such a belief, there is nothing more to be said from a scientific standpoint. It doesn't lead to anything beyond theological speculation. As such, while it might be constitutional in a public school to mention in science class that some people believe that God created the Big Bang, etc., much like a history teacher might explain the Reformation or the Enlightenment, it obviously cannot be taught as a significant scientific alternative to evolution, because it is a religious proposition, forbidden to be taught as literal truth by the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution. It might be true but it really doesn't matter to scientific enquiry or the theory of evolution.

In the end, it all comes back to how it's presented.

Addendum: Physicist Brian Swimme, Priest/Theologian Thomas Berry, Jesuit/Palentologist Teilhard de Chardin and Priest Matthew Fox have been studying and writing about the spiritual dimensions of the Universe for many years, but somehow I don't believe that the proponents of I.D. would take to their works.

I played in an out-of-town community symphony orchestra last night. We drove up Saturday morning, rehearsed all afternoon, and in the evening played works by Mozart, Bizet, Ponchielli and Tchaikovsky, all of them well-known and well-worn chestnuts, or warhorses, as they are called in the music world. Although most of us had played these works over and over again, one rehearsal was horribly inadequate. A conductor must have the time to shape the music and the 50-60 musicians that comprise a modern symphony orchestra must have time to become familiar with the conductor's individual conducting (including his weaknesses), as well as the playing of the other musicians.

The result was nothing to be proud of.

An aging audience of about 200 showed their appreciation by attempting to clap like an audience of a thousand. These civic-minded citizens who love good music are the remnant of what once was a substantial constituency that contributed generously to all the arts and encouraged their own children to learn music. That contingent is disappearing, even in the large cities, and we are all the poorer for it. Money spent on the arts is as least as effective in reducing juvenile delinquency as money spent on law enforcement, and the pride a community can take in the artistic work of its citizens is far more justified that any pride it may take in the size of its prisons.

Not long ago the mainstays of art in the community were prominent merchants, who could always be depended upon to contribute to worthy causes. The few industrialists in Mississippi were also generous. Now, when so many of our merchants have been superseded by the box retailers like Walmart and Best Buy and the local civic-minded industrialists have either sold their factories to multinational corporations or moved their factories to Mexico and points further east, there are fewer and fewer potential donors with deep pockets that feel any moral obligation to nurture and improve the communities and cities where they do business.

This is not a Mississippi phenomenon; symphony orchestras and other arts organizations are shutting their doors in droves. Hardly a month goes by without news of another orchestra biting the dust.

Archeologists have discovered in the ruins of ancient civilizations fine ceramic pottery followed only a few years later by crude clay vessels, as one generation, for whatever reason, ceased to pass on its highly-developed skills to the next. Those declines mark the decline not just of art but of an entire civilization. It is true that only one generation often separates civilization from barbarity. The soul of a civilization is its art and when art goes, so does civilization.

From the Daily Kos comes a first-class article on avian flu.

With the possibility of an avian flu epidemic the thoughts of reasonable men and women naturally turn to both prevention and treatment. That presents us today with a big problem: the most, and in this case, the only effective medicines for influenza virus are protected by patents. The patent holders, all of them giant pharmaceutical firms, are not inclined to license the manufacturing of generics to meet the emergency and therefore if there is a pandemic of a swine flu-like virus millions will die because there will not be enough of the anti-viral treatment to go around.

Why should they license their patents, anyway? In the event of a pandemic, they would stand to reap enormous profits from these very expensive drugs, whose price is grossly inflated by the scarcity created by their monopoly. One must keep in mind that corporations, even pharmaceutical corporations, are not in the business of saving lives or helping people, but only in profits and the creation of wealth for the shareholders.

Dean Baker of The Center for Economic and Policy Research writes an excellent post everyone should read, Bird flu, Bird Brains and Economists on Max Sawicky's blog, which I also recommend.