Chemical Control, Bobby Rush, and Hearings Start on Thursday

Just a few days ago I reported that it was likely that the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection was planning to hold hearings soon on reform of the current chemical control law in the United States. Well, seems that "soon" is now Thursday, as in this Thursday, February 26th in the Rayburn House Office Building.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been in place virtually unchanged since 1976, and there have been increasing calls to make changes to the law over the last few years. The current Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, of which this Subcommittee is a part, is Henry Waxman, who introduced the House version of the Kid Safe Chemical Act (KSCA) back in 2005 and cosponsored the 2008 version introduced by Representative Hilda Solis.

The subcommittee in charge of running hearings on TSCA reform is chaired by Representative Bobby Rush, of the 1st Congressional District in Illinois. Some may remember Rush from his rather controversial speech at the news conference in which now-impeached Governor Blagojevich announced he had appointed the now-embattled Roland Burris to fill now-President Barack Obama's Senate seat.

It is expected that this will be the first of several hearings that take place in both the House and the Senate prior to the reintroduction of the Kid Safe Chemical Act. While the KSCA seems likely to be introduced, there is also pressure to come up with a more workable reform of TSCA, perhaps one that incorporates the current and proposed enhancements to the EPA ChAMP program.

Past Director of Health Institutes Lauds Stimulus Funding for Science

A week or so ago I posted some of the new funding for science added to the stimulus package passed by Congress. Well, now the immediate past director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Elias A. Zerhouni, says that "the timing and amount of this stimulus could not have been more opportune." He notes that not only have science budgets fallen steadily since 2003, philanthropic foundations and private gifts that helped lessen the shortfall have been severely cut back as well due to the current economic downturn.

While some complain that funding for science isn't "stimulus," Zerhouni says that he has "testified in Congress that for every $1 billion shortfall in the NIH base budget, an estimated 6000 to 9000 scientific jobs are lost, with an equal number of jobs lost in indirect support activities." Add to that all the other jobs lost as industry lays off scientific staff.

So while the economic stimulus funds will help in the short term, Zerhouni cautions that this is only a partial answer. To be successful in staving "off the loss of talented scientists" it must be "coupled with a longer-term increase in the base budgets of the research agencies." This will be hard to do in tough economic times, but "it may well be attainable given the clear and welcome commitment to science just shown by the new U.S. administration and Congress."

Finally, Zerhouni notes that "A nation's most strategic resource is the strength of its scientific workforce. It is imperative that the entire scientific community coalesce around a quantifiable and shared rationale for rebalancing the base domestic federal research budget beyond the one-time stimulus package." I think most scientists would agree that funding has been severely limiting the ability to make new discoveries and understand the critical issues that face our future. This is a priority that must be kept in mind even as we deal collectively with economic uncertainties.

[Mr. Zerhouni made these comments as an editorial in the current issue of Science magazine (February 20, 2009), which is accessible by subscription (www.sciencemag.org). Photo credit, National Institutes of Health.]

Climate Change Taking Shape for Major Global Activity in 2009

To coin a relevant phrase, the world appears to have reached a tipping point when it comes to taking action on climate change. After many years of debate and non-action, a threshold seems to have been attained in which governments worldwide are acknowledging that action is necessary.

While the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC isn't due until 2014 (the 4th report was released in 2007), the organization has already begun the outlining process, which involves climate change experts from all relevant disciplines and users of IPCC reports, in particular representatives from governments. Input from governments and organizations is expected at the 30th Session of the IPCC to be held April 21-23, 2009, in Turkey. The scoping meeting of experts to define the outline is scheduled for mid July 2009.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) just published its 2009 yearbook, in which it calls for "an intensified sense of urgency for responsible governance in the face of approaching critical thresholds and tipping points" related to climate change and five other major developments in the changing environment. Facts like the breaking up of ice caps, retreating of glaciers, and melting of permafrost in Sweden, Alaska, Canada, and northern Russia only heighten the concern.

In the US, President Obama's filling of key environmental positions has had a distinctly "climate change" based feel to it. New EPA administrator Jackson, several White House advisors, and other key people in the administration all have atmospheric and climate experience and an avowed interest in dealing with the problem. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gotten into the act, agreeing today to begin high-level talks with China relative to combating both the global economic crisis and climate change. With her on this first official state visit is Climate Change Special Envoy Todd Stern, the point person for the U.S. in climate treaty negotiations.

All of this leads up to an international meeting scheduled for December in Copenhagen, Denmark, in which a new global climate treaty is expected to be adopted.

House Subcommittee to Hold TSCA Reform Hearings Soon

Seems the US House of Representatives may begin hearings shortly on the US Toxic Substances Control Act. As I've reported here in the past, there has been much pressure to "reform" TSCA. To some this means a complete rewriting of the legislation in the form of the Kid-Safe Chemical Act (KSCA), which was introduced originally in 2005 and again in 2008. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has said he plans to reintroduce the KSCA into this Congress within the next few weeks.

In conjunction with the planned reintroduction of the KSCA in the Senate (and an identical companion bill in the House), the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade & Consumer Protection is expected to hold the first oversight hearings on the Hill as early as next week. This particular subcommittee gained the authority for oversight only after newly installed Chair of the House Environment and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman completely reorganized how the committee works.

The news of the subcommittee hearings comes on the heels of a letter sent by the advocacy organization, Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG's letter, addressed to new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, strongly supports the KSCA (which they now refer to as "Kid-Safe") and offers a series of suggestions for EPA to take while they are waiting for KSCA - or some other version of TSCA reform- to be passed. The suggestions are:

1) Make children's environmental health a top EPA priority

2) Test umbilical cord blood for industrial chemicals

3) Improve public access to chemical toxicity data

4) Revamp voluntary programs under which industry has submitted data

5) Enforce TSCA

6) Challenge dubious or unsubstantiated Confidential Business Information

7) Keep persistent, bioaccumulative toxins off the market

Jasanoff's "Essential Parallel Between Science and Democracy"

I came across a very interesting article in Seed Magazine call "The Essential Parallel Between Science and Democracy" by Sheila Jasanoff. Jasanoff is Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a very well respected researcher on the role of science and technology in the law, politics, and public policy of modern democracies.

Making note of US President Obama's nod to science, Jasanoff queries: "So the question for thoughtful Americans, interested in the future of science and technology and reflecting on President Barack Obama's historic inaugural address, is not, What is science's rightful place?, but rather, What do the president and his administration see as science's rightful place? And, as critical consumers of both science and democracy, is it a vision that we, the people, can comfortably embrace?"

Jasanoff notes that Obama routinely indicates in his speeches that "science and technology will feature in his administration as both instruments and objects of public policy." And many prominent scientists and engineers have been named to key posts, including Nobel Laureate Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. But she also observes that we must also understand the link between science and democracy. "The very virtues that make democracy work are also those that make science work: a commitment to reason and transparency, an openness to critical scrutiny, a skepticism toward claims that too neatly support reigning values, a willingness to listen to countervailing opinions, a readiness to admit uncertainty and ignorance, and a respect for evidence gathered according to the sanctioned best practices of the moment," says Jasanoff.

This short blog can't do the article justice and I highly recommend people read the entire article here.

And while you're there, check out Seed's The Right Place Project to see how you can contribute to linking science and democracy.

International Calls for Global Database on Toxins in Products

I've mentioned information systems and databases previously. This past week in Geneva, Switzerland there was a call from an international body for a broader database of chemicals in products such as clothes, toys, jewelry, and electronics. The idea would be to have a uniform information system to help governments, businesses, and consumers reduce the risks to hazardous substances.

These calls came out of a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) workshop designed to set a framework for the second International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM2). And ICCM2, which occurs in May, will review the status of the UN Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). I haven't mentioned SAICM much in this blog, but will likely be doing so more in the future. After many years of discussions by most of the world's nations, SAICM was officially established in 2006 as a framework to "achieve sound management of chemicals" worldwide.

Opening the workshop, the director general of the Swedish Chemicals Agency, Ethel Forsberg, said "As a consumer I want to buy products anywhere in the world that will not pose a risk to my family or be a problem to dispose of, but information on the chemical content of products very rarely exists - even if they contain hazardous substances."

As internet technology has advanced, scientists have contributed substantial data on chemicals and related issues to information systems and databases that are available online. Having access to the information is a good first step. However, most scientific data are not readily understood by the general public, and thus it seems necessary to also look at ways to digest and communicate the information in more meaningful ways. In my opinion, making this jump to the next level in a transparent and unbiased way is needed to avoid having the now accessible data misused by those advocating one position or another.

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.