On Leadership - Leading Scientists Speak Out

The Washington Post has a series called "On Leadership." Recently they included a video of three top scientists who have been named by US News & World Report as three of America's Best Leaders.

The video is here:

These three, Anthony Fauci, David Baltimore and Maria Zuber, give some incredible insight into both the thinking of scientists and how scientists intersect with policy development and politics. Have a look at their insights.

Politicians as "Scientists" - Is This a Good or a Bad Thing?

This past week, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore urged scientists to exert their influence on global climate change. In short, he said that scientists must play a more active role in how their science is used to make policy. "For those of you who haven't communicated, there is no time to sit back," Gore says.

Which, of course, begs the question of how this can be accomplished? Should scientists become "Issue Advocates" as described in Roger A. Pielke Jr.'s book "The Honest Broker," or should they be the "Science Arbiter?"

But it also begs the question, what role should politicians play in advocating science? Gore himself has been a highly visible icon communicating the science of global warming to the public and to the legislators with whom he once worked. In one sense, he has been far better at communicating the issue than have the scientists themselves. But in another sense, he has become a foil for those who say that global warming is merely a liberal political movement and scientists are only claiming there is a crisis to get funding. And we all remember the Terry Schiavo case when then Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist took the Senate floor and challenged the diagnosis of Schiavo's physicians that she was in a persistent vegetative state: "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office." While Frist was a medical doctor prior to entering politics, many medical scientists took offense to him making a diagnosis based solely on an edited video tape.

Both Gore and Frist's advocacy have provided fodder for discussion about the relative roles of politicians in science and scientists in politics. Are they communicating from knowledge, or are they using the science to further their political ideologies? Many arguments have been offered for both sides of the discussion.

In his speech last week to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Gore encouraged the "world of science" and "the world of politics" to work together to respond to the climate crisis. He called for the scientist to deliver the sense of emergency to their colleagues, networks, and policy makers. In essence, he called on scientists to be issue advocates.

Stimulating Science - Science Funding in the $787 Billion Economic Stimulus Bill

Science actually came out with a significant increase in new funding as part of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed by Congress this week and expected to be signed by President Obama early next week. Key provisions related to science include:

National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH will get an additional $10 billion spread over two years, ironically, in large part due to lobbying by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who as one of only three Republican Senators to vote for the bill had a bit of influence. Specter is a cancer survivor.

Department of Energy Office of Science: The Energy Department will get $1.6 billion for its office of science, which funds research in areas such as biofuels, nuclear physics, fusion energy, high-energy physics, and also climate change, which is expected to become a priority issue for the new administration as well as Secretary Chu.

National Science Foundation (NSF): NSF is the largest government funder of basic research in science and engineering, and will get an additonal $3 billion to provide in grants. ResearchAmerica, an advocacy group, has said the money could create up to 70,000 jobs, many in laboratories at college campuses.

NASA: The space agency received just over $2 billion, with $400 million to be used for its Earth science climate research missions, as well as to increase its supercomputing abilities.

High-speed and inner-city rail: The final version of the bill included $8 billion for improvements in railway capacity and existing infrastructure, key facets of a sustainable future. Another $6.9 billion is alloacated to improve and maintain public transit. On top of that, Amtrak received $1.3 billion for its operations, though there is a stipulation that no more than 60 percent can go to the Northeast Corridor (essentially Washington DC to Boston).

Russia, The Arctic, and the New Oil Rush - Global Warming Opens Up New Cold War

It seems thar's oil in that there ice. And also gas. And Russia wants it.

News reports indicate that Russia is working hard to stake a claim in the Arctic seabed. One of its most famous polar scientists, Artur Chilingarov, noted in a recent news conference "the Arctic has a special geopolitical importance for Russia." It also, apparently, may contain as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. So Russia is planning to build a new Arctic research ship to add to its existing icebreaker fleet and allow it to better exploit these energy resources. Already, in 2007, they conducted an expedition in which Russian mini-submarines "planted the Russian flag" (actually, a capsule containing the Russian flag) on the Arctic seabed. In time, according to Chilingarov, the goal for the Arctic is "expanding the Russian presence there, intensifying research and rebuilding a network of polar stations."

But the real controversy is Russia's plan to send about 50 polar scientists to Spitsbergen, an island to which Norway claims exclusive rights. It seems Russia, the United States, Canada and other northern countries are all in a race to assert jurisdiction over the Arctic, whose oil, gas and minerals until recently have been considered too difficult to recover. However, there is growing evidence that global warming is shrinking polar ice, opening up new shipping lanes and thus new resource development possibilities.

In 2001, Russia submitted a claim to the United Nations that an underwater mountain range crossing the polar region is part of Russia's continental shelf. The UN rejected that claim for lack of evidence. But Russia seems intent on establishing both a scientific and military presence in the Arctic as the major powers all seek to lay claim to its newly lucrative energy reserves.

"We aren't going to wage a new Cold War in the Arctic," Chilingarov said, though he also added that "Russia will look to protect its interests."

Darwin and Lincoln - Science and Politics

Today marks the 200th birthdays of two incredibly influential men in history. Charles Darwin, the man who used science to give a more rational answer to the origin of life than `divine creation', the celebration has taken on a new meaning. The concept of evolution has become ingrained in our understanding of the world. And yet, to this day there are many who seek to interject the idea of creationism, or the versions into which it has evolved, "creation science" or "intelligent design" into science class (and yes, the pun is intended).

Interestingly, the idea of "evolution" has crept into virtually every aspect of modern life. There are the obvious connections, like genetics, in which we essentially speed up evolution (or perhaps create our own version of evolution) through genetic engineering in pharmaceuticals, crops, and other applications. But evolution is understood as we talk about first and second (and third) generation innovations, where first generations are often unwieldy and later generations are more user friendly. Think iPhones, iPods, computers, and everything from communication to transportation. Essentially, Darwin changed forever the way scientists, ecologists, sociologists and political thinkers view the world.

Abraham Lincoln, who also would have turned 200 today, was another thinker who made his mark on the US and the world. As the first of his new political party to become President, Lincoln presided over both the splitting, and the reunification, of the United States. The additional powers that he brought to the federal level set the stage for many of the national regulations that we have today. By keeping the United States united, he positioned us to grow into a leader of the free world, and perhaps the entire world. Of course, what we do with that power and leadership is another matter.

Lincoln's influence stretches forward through many President's hence, and takes on special significance in the current administration. Besides being elected from Lincoln's adopted home state, President Obama clearly was influenced by Lincoln's history and Lincoln's struggles. Obama admitted to reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals, about Lincoln's ability to pull together his archest rivals for the presidency, all to lead the country through its most troubling period. Even the Lincoln bible was used in the swearing in ceremony for the new president.

Born on the same day in very different parts of the world, Darwin and Lincoln never met, and perhaps never even knew about each other. Darwin spent five years traveling the world on The Beagle and eventually defined how we think about life. Lincoln spent four years staying pretty much in Washington DC and eventually came to define how we think of leadership.

Our Stolen Informed Future - A New Database of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

The organization run by Dr. Theo Colburn, famous for her book "Our Stolen Future" has launched a new web page called "Critical Windows of Development." The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) is sponsoring the site, which provides a interactive bar graph that allows the user to track stages of fetal development versus scientific studies that show the endocrine (hormone) disrupting effects of three major chemicals - bisphenol-A (sometimes known as BPA), phthalates and dioxin - in rats and mice. Needless to say, these three chemicals have been the subject of quite a bit of controversy and many advocacy groups are seeking to have them banned or regulated severely.

The first two are commonly used in plastics and so have widespread use in consumer goods, which is part of the concern. Some studies suggest both BPA and phthalates can affect critical stages of fetal and young children's development even at very low exposures. The third chemical, dioxin, is not actually commercialized but rather a common by-product of combustion.

In her statement at the web site launch, TEDX president Theo Colburn notes “The unprecedented global increases in endocrine-related disorders such as autism, other learning and developmental disabilities, reproductive problems, diabetes, obesity, thyroid problems, breast, prostate, and testicular cancer and more, signal the need for a crash program in ‘inner-space’ research...The roles of contaminants in the womb must be addressed before it is too late.”

According to Colburn, the site will expand from the initial three chemicals. TEDX expects to add bioaccumulative polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants and the pesticide DDT by the end of this year.

The site represents a growing trend - online publishing of databases that contain the summary results of many studies over many years. This follows on the heels of the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical databases that have resulted from the voluntary HPV Challenges in the US, Europe and Japan. The new REACH law in Europe will also put data on the web, as will the new US Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP).

When Scientists Go Bad - The Ramifications of Ethical Lapses

A doctor in the UK "changed and misreported results" in his research, "creating the appearance of a possible link" between the MMR vaccine and autism, according to an investigation by The Sunday Times . In 1998 the results are published in a well-respected medical journal, The Lancet. After publication the rates of MMR (Mumps Measles, Rubella) inoculation fall from 92% to below 80%. And last week official figures show that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared to only 56 in 1998. Two children have died from the disease.

Scientific integrity is occasionally called into question, and cases like this, while rare, can make the public reconsider the trust they put in us. In this particular case, the data published in the Lancet did not reflect the actual data collected during the research. According to the Times investigation, there were clear cases of data being manipulated to create false conclusions. Worse, there appears to be significant conflicts of interest and litigation bias that influenced the findings. None of these conflicts were reported by the doctor. And the fraudulent data led to a mass scare and distrust of the MMR vaccine, leading to the very epidemic that many years of the vaccine's use had held off. Fear of the cure caused the disease to rise for not only the individuals refusing the vaccine but the population as a whole since the diseases are so contagious.

Cases like this demonstrate why scientific fraud is rare. True, the peer-review process of journal publication missed this one, largely because the data presented were not the data collected. Without external review of the original files, it is hard to determine that someone has "fixed" the numbers. But another tenet of science, repeatability, helped flush out the deceit. Other scientists attempting to replicate the findings were not able to reach similar results. Samples that were reported to show signs of disease were reanalyzed at other laboratories and found to show no signs of those diseases at all. Digging into the raw data, which by law is kept confidential, especially when it involves children as did this study, was made possible by permission given by the parents for outside review.

In the end, the ramifications of deceit can be catastrophic. Which is why scientists work so hard to keep high ethical standards. But while that is true as a group, sometimes individual scientists lose their way.

Click here and here for a full account of the Sunday Times investigation. For a timeline of key dates in the crisis, click here.

Funding Science - From Whence the Money Comes?

Science is expensive. And basic science in particular has no immediate connection to making a profit. So where do scientists get the money needed to pay for laboratory equipment, research vessels, online surveys, attendance at scientific meetings, page costs, and even the occasional ramen noodle brick cooked over a bunsen burner in those late night sessions staring at a gas chromatograph? Does the source of the funds matter? All very interesting questions for scientists and funding agencies alike.

There are a variety of possible sources of science funding, depending on whether the money is for basic research (e.g., pure science) or applied research (e.g., finding a cure for pancreatic cancer).

• Government: Government used to be the biggest source of funding for science. But whereas 40 years ago the federal government financed more than 60% of all Research & Development in the United States, that trend has been reversed where now about 65% of R&D is being funded by private interests. The main source of government funds is the National Science Foundation, which provides almost a quarter of the funding to academics for basic research. When it comes to applied medical research, the National Institutes for Health takes over that role.


• Industry: Industry provides much of the funding for applied scientific research, where the research is targeted at find practical (and profitable) uses of the basic scientific knowledge that has been gained.


• Military/NASA: Quite a bit of applied scientific funding has come out of military applications and space exploration. Technically this is government, but its specialized nature warrants its own category.


• Foundations: Private foundations are a good source of funds for both basic and applied science. Two examples are the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation ("advance the science of chemistry, chemical engineering and related sciences as a means of improving human relations and circumstances") and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ("combat disease, hunger and poverty in developing countries").


• Professional Organizations: Some scientific organizations provide funding to its members. These include the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society's Grants-in-Aid of Research (GIAR) program, the Society for Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, and others.


• Advocacy Groups: To some extent, environmental and health advocacy groups may provide funds for analysis of scientific research, though largely they obtain their own funding from the sources above.


• Self-Funding: The age of the "gentleman scientist" and the "science benefactors" are sadly long gone, but those scientists who have become financially independent are free to study science without hindrance.

Whether the source of funding influences the science is the subject for a future post.

Calls for More Science in Policy-Making and Regulation

A recent study published in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (see full citation at end) calls for greater efforts to enhance the use of scientific evidence in environmental policy decisions. The study was conducted by the Environment Research Funders' Forum, which brings together the main UK governmental funders of environmental research. As a result of a series of detailed interviews with both researchers and policy-makers, the authors recommended a means of increasing the integration of science with policy. While there is guidance for incorporation of science into policy-making, the study concluded that the current practice has not yet caught up, and they identify several actions that can be undertaken by the Forum and its members to narrow the gap.

One of the big issues seems to be when science is brought into the policy-making process; they conclude that it usually isn't early enough and that this delay can result in a mismatch between the objectives of policy and those of research. Essentially, scientists may be working on a particular line of research, but that research may then not always address the questions for which policy-makers need answers in order to make decisions. The study concludes that there are some practical steps that can be taken to improve the use of science in policy decisions, including:

• a stronger role for policy makers and their advisers in developing research questions and agendas;


• making it easier to find and access relevant experts and previous research and advice;


• strengthening interpretation capacity across the science-policy interface, systematically developing skills and providing an attractive career path; and


• developing the policy community as more discerning customers for science - providing more "policy pull."

The study can be found at: Holmes, J. and Clark, R. 2008. Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science & Policy 11:702-711.

Scientists and Policy Making - The Honest Broker?

Scientists have a love/hate relationship with policy makers. We want to "do our science" but not necessarily get all into the whole political rangling thing. On the other hand, it displeases us (I'm being nice) to have our science abused by politicians or advocacy groups, who twist it to fit their predisposed ideological view. But it displeases us even moreso (still being nice) to have fellow scientists who forget their ethics. Luckily, they are the rare exception.

But as Roger A. Pielke, Jr. demonstrates in his book "The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics," sometimes the lines get blurred. Over the next few weeks I'll periodically come back to different parts of Pielke's book. To begin with, he defines four idealized roles of science in policy and politics (the roles are Pielke's; any misinterpretation of them are my own):

The Pure Scientist: Provides data and lets the policy maker (or decider?) make their own decisions. The pure scientist really doesn't have an interest in the decision-making process. ["Let me do my science. Get out of my lab now, please."]

The Science Arbiter: Serves as a resource to the decision-maker, and stands ready to answer factual questions that the decision-maker feels is relevant. The science arbiter does not tell the decision-maker what he or she ought to prefer. [Yes, the acid put in that paper cup will eat right through it. Next question.]

The Issue Advocate: The issue advocate seeks to limit choices, and will likely tell the decision-maker what choice he or she ought to prefer, based on the science. [Sir, you really ought to advocate for the cap-and-trade system.]

The Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives: The Honest Broker, as you might imagine, tries to broaden the choices. He or she will provide a range of options to the decision-maker, generally including advantages and disadvantages. Then it is up to the decision-maker to, well, decide. [Okay, everything is on the table. Any questions? Okay, debate.]

The problem comes from what Pielke calls "stealth issue advocacy." More on that at a later date.

Lautenberg Vows Chemical Control Reform Despite Efforts to Block It

Reform of Chemical Control laws has been a hot topic worldwide for the last few years. Europe passed a new law called REACH that requires registration, evaluation, and authorization of all chemicals - both new ones and all the ones already existing on the European inventory. Canada is in the middle of a prioritization review of all the chemicals on its inventory of existing substances. And the US has been using the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and voluntary programs to evaluate at least the highest volume chemicals produced in the US.

In addition, last year Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Represenatives Hilda Solis (D-CA)and Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced the Kid Safe Chemical Act (KSCA), which quickly died in committee. But even with a Democratic President and Congress, there has been some question of whether the KSCA or some other form of TSCA chemical control law reform will get any priority in this Congress either. The economic crisis and other urgent issues will take up all their time, many say.

Senator Lautenberg, however, wants to assure stakeholders that he still expects to introduce legislation in the coming weeks. “The senator intends to push for and hold hearings on the need for TSCA reform, as well as reintroduce the Kid Safe Chemicals Act (KSCA). He also intends to move KSCA through [the Senate environment committee] and the Congress this session,” Lautenberg’s office said in a Jan. 30 statement. While other issues may take center stage in the press, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) late last month added EPA’s chemical assessment program to its list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse. The GAO’s listing prompted calls from environmentalists for Congress to pass TSCA reform legislation. But efforts by Lautenberg and environmentalists to quickly move the bill may not be enough, as the chemical industry is lobbying key congressional Democrats not to introduce the bill. The complaints are two-fold: first, that there is also the likelihood of climate change legislation being introduced, which would give industry too much to handle at once; and second, that the KSCA as currently written would not be an effective mechanism by which to reform TSCA. Many argue that TSCA is fine as is, but that EPA just has not used their current authority effectively.

So questions remain about whether chemical control in the US will be reformed or not this session of Congress. Some congressional staffers suggest that the bill is “a non-starter” and that it is “not doable.” They say that industry has made its point and that the proponents of the Lautenberg bill “clearly understand that it’s not a viable option.” So we may get some hearings and statements being made this year, but no substantive movement on the congressional agenda until 2010. Or maybe we will all be surprised.

CRS Studies Science and Technology Policy Office

Congress should examine the role and responsibilities of the White House Office of Science and Techonology Policy and question whether the office is effective, says a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

Some in the science community have called for the office director to be elevated to a Cabinet-level post, but also warms that if the adviser is too close to the President then certain stakeholders may question the potential for politicization of science. On the other hand, CRS suggests that if the office becomes a completely independent agency it might be viewed as "inappropriately distancing" the President and the office.

The report points out the delicate balancing act between scientists and policy makers. Too distant could mean the appropriate questions could not be asked; too close could mean the policy makers have too much control over what scientists are allowed to say.

Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. The act states that “The primary function of the OSTP Director is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President [EOP], advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest level of Government.” Further, “The Office shall serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.”

Seeking a new global deal on climate change

The European Commission (EC) has released a paper outlining its position on climate change ahead of international climate talks. According to the paper, they foresee a major role for carbon trading in efforts to tackle climate change. The commission says the costs of containing global warming are likely to increase rapidly in years to come – adding 175 billion Euro to the cost the world must assume by 2020. More than half that amount, they say, will be needed in developing countries like China and India. The paper presents various options for increasing international funding – including requiring countries to contribute according to their income and level of emissions. Another option would be to auction some emission allowances on a carbon market.

The paper also says that the European Union and other economic powers should help defray the costs of reducing greenhouse gases emitted by developing nations. All developing nations, except the very poorest, would be required to limit growth in emissions by adopting development strategies that produce fewer greenhouse gases. These strategies should include stopping (or at least slowing) tropical deforestation, as trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide.

The EU is also keen to build on the steps it has already taken to stimulate others at talks in Copenhagen scheduled for December of this year. The United Nations is organising the conference for the purpose of securing a new and more ambitious global commitment to tackling climate change. The current treaty – the Kyoto Protocol – expires at the end of 2012. And so the EU will urge developed countries to commit to an overall 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). The contribution would vary by country, depending on income, population, level of emissions and past efforts to reduce emissions. Compliance should be monitored and enforced.

The commission also foresees a major role for emissions trading, and seeks to build a global carbon market. And they already have a head start, after introducing the EU carbon market (called the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme) back in 2005. A growing number of countries are looking to follow suit, including the US, New Zealand and Australia. The scheme caps overall CO2 emissions, but allows businesses to buy and sell credits amongst themselves.

The paper notes that as some climate change is inevitable, it hopes the Copenhagen agreement will also provide a framework to help countries adapt. For example, they state that it should ensure support for poor nations vulnerable to extreme weather such as drought, storms and floods.

Much will be happening in the months between now and December, but the hope is that there will be a plan that moves the debate a large step forward. What role the US plays in this discussion remains to be seen.

Economic Stimulus Includes Whistleblowing Protections for Scientists

All eyes in the United States have been on the $813 billion economic stimulus package passed last week by the US House of Representatives. One line item that many may have missed is an amendment that provides for strong protection from retaliation for scientists who "blow the whistle when they report distortions, changes or delays in their research."

The amendment essentially attaches a whistleblower protection bill that was passed by both the House and Senate in 2007, but stalled after the Bush administration issued a veto threat. The amendment would add to the definition of abuse of authority "any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis; the dissemination of false or misleading scientific, medical or technical information; any section that restricts or prevents an employee or any person performing federally-funded research or analysis from publishing in peer-reviewed journals or other scientific publications or making oral presentations at professional society meetings or other meetings of their peers..."

Clearly this is an attempt to protect scientists from what had been perceived as a science-unfriendly environment in the past administration. While so far there is no comment, it seems likely that the current administration would support the measure, given that President Obama and EPA Administrator Jackson have both stressed the important role of science and scientists as we move forward.

However, this was only an amendment in the House version of the stimulus bill. The Senate has yet to vote on a stimulus bill and it may or may not include the whistleblowing provisions. Furthermore, once the Senate passes a bill the two versions will have to go to conference to negotiate a final bill that would then be sent on to the President for signature or veto.