[T]he threat of AIDS is so great it overwhelms other considerations.

[heidi]

My grandfather was a Republican, but first and foremost, he was a doctor and a scientist. His groundbreaking work in transplants and in gall bladder matters, among other things, caused his colleague, C. Everett Koop, to accuse him of going against God in his research and experiments, and eventually his successful transplants and removal of organs - work that provided the grounding for what probably saved folk's life last August. urged the TV networks to air condom ads.

But the Bush administration's attack on science isn't limited to AIDS. Or to stem cell research. Or to global warming issues. HHS has left the decisionmaking process as to US Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) international scientific appointments in the hands of William Steiger, who has a doctorate in Latin American history and has participated in international health negotiations for the HHS. Steiger was HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson's education policy person in Wisconsin when Thompson was governor there.

On the stem-cell context, here's what Newsday reported this week:

"We cannot predict when breakthroughs will come, but they will come faster if the federal government is more engaged in a vigorous way," said Dr. George Daley of the Children's Hospital/Harvard Medical School.

"It's always a challenge to balance the promise against the reality," he said. "But the current policy does not allow for the optimal pursuit of science. We, as scientists, feel like we're being held back."

Dr. Tauseef Ahmed, chief of oncology and hematology at the Westchester Medical Center, said researchers who found cures for dreaded diseases like tuberculosis also were accused of hyping hope. "I could care less about her politics, but as far as ...stem-cell research is concerned, we in the United States will be way behind if we don't do it," Ahmed said.

"The problem with not doing the research is we will not know what we missed," Ahmed added. "They said there would never be a cure for tuberculosis. All those treatments came out because of research."

The Union of Concerned Scientists stated last February that the administration was manipulating “the process through which science enters into its decisions.” The statement claimed, in part, that the administration had done so by “placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; [and] by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists.” Last month, the UCSUSA updated their position, and added,

Since the release of the UCS report in February, the administration has continued to undermine the integrity of science in policy making seemingly unchecked. Many scientists have spoken out about their frustration with an administration that has undermined the quality of the science that informs policy making by suppressing, distorting, or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies and on scientific advisory panels. For instance, Michael Kelly, a biologist who had served at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service for nine years, recently resigned his position and issued an indictment of Bush administration practices. As Kelly wrote, "I speak for many of my fellow biologists who are embarrassed and disgusted by the agency’s apparent misuse of science."1

Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: Further investigation of the Bush administration's abuse of science investigates several new incidents that have surfaced since the February 2004 UCS report. These new incidents have been corroborated through in-depth interviews and internal government documents, including some documents released through the Freedom of Information Act. The cases that follow include:

egregious disregard of scientific study, across several agencies, regarding the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining;
censorship and distortion of scientific analysis, and manipulation of the scientific process, across several issues and agencies in regard to the Endangered Species Act;
distortion of scientific knowledge in decisions about emergency contraception;
new evidence about the use of political litmus tests for scientific advisory panel appointees. These new revelations put to rest any arguments offered by the administration that the cases to date have been isolated incidents involving a few bad actors.
Concern in the scientific community has continued to grow. In the months since the original UCS report, more than 4,000 scientists have signed onto the scientists’ statement. Signers include 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

You cannot be pro-human, pro-life and anti-science. You cannot be pro-human, pro-life and anti-condom. You cannot be in favour of life, and in favor of the ability of doctors to save lives and improve lives, and against lifesaving research and lifesaving medicine.

My grandfather was a scientist, a doctor and a Republican.

In his memory, I will work against any administration that dares suggest that science and medicine are things to be manipulated in favor of religious beliefs. Politics must not be allowed to stifle or distort the integrity of the scientific process in governmental policy making.

If it does, we're all as good as dead.

Comments

[virginia-bell.livejournal.com]

*applauds* That was a beautiful post. Both of my parents hold medical degrees and carry out research at Merck, and to have the leader of our country misuse and distort scientific data is just shameful and embarrassing.

Signing off, V.M. Bell

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Kudos to your parents! I flunked chemestry (more or less) in high school and had to give up any thoughts of anything scientific, but I really admire those who do it!

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

Did you catch Laura Bush and her promoting of her husband's position on SC research??? Seems that GWB isn't the only ignorant person in the family.....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040809/ap_on_el_pr/stem_cell_politics_4

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

I read that this morning and about spit out my coffee. I'd always thought she was a better person than to simply spout the party line. There's no evidence stem cell research will do all they claim it might? Well, if they don't proceed with it, they'll never know, will they?

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

I really wonder when Carl Rove lost his mind??? They could have sent out just about anyone... Tommy Thompson comes to mind... to attack the Ron Reagan movement on Stem Cell research. Plus, they didn't even give the woman accurate information. They had a great segment on PBS tonight explaining the pros and cons of stem cell research. An interesting moment occurred when the reporter asked an NIH researcher if the President would have to increase funding before the research could move forward. He replied that the research would lead the way. In other words, improvements and findings found through the 21 (of the 60 promised and only 1 in 2002) cell lines will lead to developments so that even the rednecks in Congress will be forced to recognize the potential of the science. I find it amusing (different subject, same idea) that these are the same people that claim that we will all be saved from foreign oil if we just drill in Alaska. They have no clue if there is enough oil up there to do anything, but hey...let's drill. With stem cell research...we'll pretend to support it, but not give them any money or cell lines to do anything until...someone in Japan...or England...or...heaven forbid...France comes up with a treatment or a drug that it can sell here at any price it wants....then the Bush/GOP campaign contributing pharmaceutical companies (see Abbott Labs) will be clamoring to get in on it. See where they stand 'morally' then...

[morganmalfoy.livejournal.com]

A year ago I really didn't know much about stem cell research, so I didn't know what all the fuss was about. But this past year I have learned quite a bit, especially in my job, which is basically as an assistant to a healthcare lobbyist. As such, I read every article I can find about healthcare, especially about issues concerning Catholic teaching. Both condoms and embryonic stem cell research fall into this category.

On stem cell research:

In February, a group of Korean scientists, funded by the Raelians, managed to take an IVF embryo and create a stem cell line. To do this, they paid women to undergo agressive fertility treatment to produce many eggs, fertilized them, and out of 234, one created a stem cell line. This, versus adult stem cells, which, being taken from the patient's own bone marrow or other tissue, will never be rejected by the patient's immune system, are easier to come by, and are not exploiting embryos. There needs to be a much clearer distinction in the media about the difference between ASCR and ESCR. ASCR has the benefit of being more well-researched, currently more feasible and promising, perfectly legal, and has far less pro-life opposition. I agree that their is great promise from the use of stem cells, but they can come from umbilical cords, placentas, the human brain, bone marrow, muscle tissue, and many other human tissues with no cost to human life. I agree that lifesaving research should be done, but I also think their are more ethical and equally promising ways to do it. For every scientist claiming adult cells will never yeild the same promise as embryonic, their is another scientist saying they will.

As for contraception, whether barrier or chemical, their are risks. Condoms are known to not be 100% effective in preventing pregnency, and are only something like 85% effective in stopping the transmitting of HIV--and that's when they are being used properly, not counting condom slippage, or those that were not kept in proper storage. Condoms also transmit HPV, which causes cervical cancer, more easily than regular sexual intercourse. In the United States, most sexually active users of condoms use them correctly and understand the risks involved, but in other areas, esp. where you seem to be suggesting we mass export contraceptives, most people aren't aware or told the proper usage or risks of contraception.

You have said that science and medicine are being manipulated for religious beliefs. Perhaps they are being stalled to weigh out the risk of going against basic human rights and human integrity. The role of the government is the protection of it's citizens. We take an active role by proclaiming how much of their protection we want, and how much should be left up to ourselves. But in a country where people have tried to say the government is at fault for not warning and protecting citizens from the dangers of something as simple as cigerettes, how much more does the government have the responsability to make the citizenry aware of the risks of highly hazardous medicine and scientific research?

-Morgan

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

Aren't the Raelians the group that claimed to have cloned a human a while back, but never did produce the child? The ones that believe in aliens?

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Yep. I am sure that they were looking for something specific in the generics of whatever it was they were doing, and that's why they rejected the rest, but that's just a hunch based on their reputation.

[morganmalfoy.livejournal.com]

yes. That's why they're giving so much money to this sort of research, in the hope that human cloning will be a reality. I don't think the scientists are actually part of the group, but accept their money for research.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I'd been working on a reply, and was about 1/2 done, when my computer froze up. So... starting again...

RE: Raelins - I am sure that they were looking for something specific in the generics of whatever it was they were doing, and that's why they rejected the rest, but that's just a hunch based on their reputation.

Now, onto the other issues.

I'm concerned that your stats on condom failure come from Wideman's Focus on the Family, and not from actual CDC numbers.

From the People for the American Way website:

In early 1993, Focus on the Family released a video called "Sex, Lies...and the Truth." Dobson, who is featured in the video, claims that condoms fail 15 percent of the time when preventing pregnancy, and states (erroneously) that failure rates in HIV/AIDS prevention would be even higher, since women can only get pregnant on one day a month and diseases can be contracted 31 days per month. His allegations are directly refuted by studies issued by the Centers for Disease Control, which show that when used consistently and correctly, intact condoms can protect against HIV with a failure rate of only one percent.

But so as not to trust what they reported, I went on a hunt for the CDC numbers, at least to find some from the 90s, before the Bush administration started impacting CDC's scientific determinations, and I found the CDC's Condoms and STD/HIV Prevention pamphlet from July 30, 1993 at TheBody.com (although it's been reprinted elsewhere)

Several studies clearly show that condom breakage rates in this country are less than 2 percent.
[L]atex condoms are highly effective for pregnancy prevention, but only when they are used properly.

The protection that proper use of latex condoms provides against HIV transmission is most evident from studies of couples in which one member is infected with HIV and the other is not, i.e., "discordant couples." In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.

You also mention the problem of HPV - the thing is, HPV can manifest on the genitals other than on the penis - it can be on the scrotum, for example, and that is never covered by a condom. Accordingly, of course a condom won't protect against catching HPV in that way - it's like saying a condom should be able to prevent someone from catching TB while having sex; it won't, because it doesn't cover the mouth.

And at this moment, the CDC's website says "While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease." So I'm not sure where you're getting the contention that "Condoms also transmit HPV, which causes cervical cancer, more easily than regular sexual intercourse..." from.

Part two

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

You wrote:

In the United States, most sexually active users of condoms use them correctly and understand the risks involved, but in other areas, esp. where you seem to be suggesting we mass export contraceptives, most people aren't aware or told the proper usage or risks of contraception.

Actually, I don't know the stats on current condom-users, but in 1993, the CDC stats said, "Research indicates that only 30-60% of men who claim to use condoms for contraception actually use them for every act of intercourse..." which I think implies that people don't necessarily know about the importance of consistency.

I'm also not sure where you see me saying that we should mass-export contraception. Where did I say that? I'm talking about the US here, not other countries. If there's something I wrote which could be misconstrued, please point it out to me.


You wrote:

Perhaps they are being stalled to weigh out the risk of going against basic human rights and human integrity.

I'm not sure which scientific research aspects you're refering to here, but for the sake of replying, I'm going to assume you mean stem cell research.

If you say that the fertilized eggs and blastocysts that the stem cells are taken from are humans with human integrity, you are already putting your religion's spin on it.

My religion does not believe that a blastocyst is a human being - not even the most religious Jews think that. My religion believes that there is no life to be protected - there is no human there - until birth, and more than that, not until 40 days after conception is there any potential life to be protected. My religion mandates abortion to save the life of the mother at any time prior to birth.

As I understand it, Muslims adopted the Jewish law standard and, in 1591, Pope Gregory XIV also supported this view of delayed animation and ensoulment. Barely 110 years ago, Pope Pius IX changed the Church standard on this - a little fact that means, very clearly, that the framers of the constitution could not have believed that life begins at conception... but we'll put that aside for a moment.

Judaism does not see the artificial growth of human cells on a laboratory dish as a human life. In my religion, in my world, this is an absolute fact - it's just as ordinary and normal and obvious to me as your view that life begins at conception clearly is to you. Hold fast to it - make your decisions in your life based on it - but if someone tries to make that belief law, then we have a church/state problem.

Lawrence Tribe once wrote that "when government needlessly uses means that are inherently religious, a message of endorsement is virtually unavoidable. By adopting the language and precepts of a religion as its own, government implies that non-adherents are outsiders." Obviously, I'm an outsider in the United States - I am a member of a minority. But as a matter of law, including the laws that govern things like funding for stem cell research, putting religious beliefs into the decisionmaking mix calls the Constitution into question.

I really don't know what you mean by hazardous medicine and scientific reasearch - there are always risks involved in beta reading beta testing scientific developments - people have died from chemo, or gene therapy, or from trying new drug combinations. Hospital errors cause 195,000 deaths each year - errors that are reportedly easily preventable. Now that is hazardous medicine, to me - people dying because they were given the wrong medications, as the article says. I don't see the same kind of hazard in petri dish research.

Re: Part two

[morganmalfoy.livejournal.com]

According to the report published in Science the scientists themselves were not Raelians, but rather simply using their funding, thus would have no reason to throw them out. My understanding from the article was that their success rate was simply 1/234.

While not from the Center for Disease Control, I wouldn’t say these statistics are biased either. Another study from 1995 from the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows an average condom failure rate of 14%, with higher or lower rates broken down by race, age, and income, with women in their early twenties having a 31% failure rate versus a 7% failure rate among older women. The Food and Drug Administration also reports similar, though slightly lower numbers on their testing of contraceptives.
I’m at work, on my lunch break, so I don’t have full access to the stuff saved on my home computer, but looking in our files on contraceptive, I found a huge discrepancy in statistics on AIDS transmission, ranging from the World Health Organization’s estimate of 10% likelihood of getting AIDS while using a condom, which is what you found, to some figures estimating 20-25% likelihood. I can’t remember their source, but I’ll look it up at home.


As far as the HPV, a 2001 report entitled "Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention," prepared by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health in consultation with FDA, CDC and the U.S. Agency for International Development, evaluated the published data on latex condoms and STD prevention and "concluded that there was no evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection." Because of this, President Clinton signed Public Law 106-554, which mandated that condom packages warn users about the dangers of HPV..

The Catholic Church’s stances have changed as medical technology has improved, and as we now know that all DNA is present from the moment of conception, that has become that Catholic idea of the beginning of life, because the embryo then has everything it needs to become a human being…although it needs the help of a mom to get there, as you pointed out.

Perhaps you’re right that my bringing my religion into this is blurring the lines of church and state, but Justice Cantero once told me that as a voting citizen it is my responsibility to make sure what I believe becomes law, and its his job to enforce the law, whatever it currently is. Therefore, just because the law is there doesn’t mean (as I’m sure you feel also, seeing you disagree with many laws passed by the current administration) I have to agree with it. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want treatment that comes at the cost of what I see as life.

I suppose my biggest problem with ESCR is that I really don’t see why it deserves funding over ASCR, where the ethical issue is null because the donors have the chance to give their informed consent.

On the topic of hospital error, I find it a grievous problem, which hopefully can be alleviated. I read articles about this everyday, and it is more and more distressing to see the state of hospitals, their everyday problems, and the problems coming from funding, lawsuit stress, the burden of the ER, etc.

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised when I read that Laura Bush had come out and backed her husband's position on stem cell research, saying there's no proof that stem cell research will cure diseases and the like. Well, but if they don't pursue it, they will never know, will they? Gah. *strangles the Bush administration* I am a physical anthropology major. I go with the evidence. Religion has no place in determining the rate at which scientific progress is to proceed. I wonder what would have happened had Bush been president at the time of the Manhattan Project...

[(Anonymous)]

"You cannot be pro-human, pro-life and anti-condom."

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't understand your reasoning behind the above statement. If a person is anti-abortion (pro-life), then why can't they be anti-condom? It makes a world more of sense that prevention of conception be linked with prevention of birth (contraception & abortion). Don't get me wrong, I personally have nothing against that method of contraception, but in consentual intercourse has not the woman already made her choice?

And how can the prevention of conception be more pro-human than the propagation of it? There are situations in which pregnancy could potentially be detrimental to the health of the mother (and possibly the child as well if the mother has some illness--such as AIDS--that could be passed onto the child) and her quality of living, which is why I am not saying contraception is inhuman, but how is it more human than allowing the conception of a child that one is able to support? Is it pro-human to see children as not blessings, but after a certain number, inconveniences (FYI I'm not talking about women with a house overflowing with children, but more along the lines of parents who are abhorrent of conceiving such a thing as a third child)?

I know this is an incredibly stubborn subject that generally goes neither here nor there, and I am well aware that no two situations are alike and that I don't have the right to pass judgement, but I wanted you to see the other side of the arguement.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

It's hard discussing things with an anonymouse, because I don't know where you're coming from - are you in the US? What's your background? WHy are you reading things in certain ways. Etc., etc.

But I'll try.

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't understand your reasoning behind the above statement. If a person is anti-abortion (pro-life), then why can't they be anti-condom?

You're using a limited reading of pro-life. I personally also don't understand how people can claim to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, or pro-life and unbothered by reports of civillian deaths in war zones. But that's just me - I use pro-life in a more expansive, yet probably more "limiting" way than you do - I don't use it in the abortion debate at all, because I don't believe that life exists before the fetus is viable (ie able to survive outside the womb) - that's my religion's take on it, and it has been for over 3000 years. It was also the Catholic position, as I underdstand it, until around 1890. I use it to apply to anyone who think that life shouldn't be unnecessarily risked or ended.

It makes a world more of sense that prevention of conception be linked with prevention of birth (contraception & abortion). ...but in consentual intercourse has not the woman already made her choice?
What, so every time consentuam intercourse takes place, the woman should believe that if she gets pregnant, that's groovy? I think Judaism 101 explains it well:

In Jewish law, sex is not considered shameful, sinful or obscene. Sex is not a necessary evil for the sole purpose of procreation. Like hunger, thirst or other basic instincts, sexual desire must be controlled and channeled, satisfied at the proper time, place and manner. But when sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah. Sex between husband and wife is permitted (even recommended) at times when conception is impossible, such as when the woman is pregnant, after menopause, or when the woman is using a permissible form of contraception (including birth control pills).

But the thing is, condoms do more than prevent conception - they prevent the transmission of disesase. When I was in law school, I had a friend whose parents were both dying of AIDS - her father contracted it from a blood transfusion, and passed it on to her mother. Of course, this happened before the blood supply was tested, but had they known, her mother's life could have been saved by the use of condoms. So that's an example from a monogomous, heterosexual, committed relationship - but we all know that sexual intercourse occurs in other circumstances. Should each act of intercourse inherently be a death sentence?

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

And how can the prevention of conception be more pro-human than the propagation of it? ... Is it pro-human to see children as not blessings, but after a certain number, inconveniences (FYI I'm not talking about women with a house overflowing with children, but more along the lines of parents who are abhorrent of conceiving such a thing as a third child)?

Well, I don't want to conceive a third child. If it happens, I'll have another baby, but at the moment, I am personally very satisfied with Boy 1 and Boy 2 - if I had a third child, it would be physically draining on me, and on the amount of time I could spend with my boys - if you want to look back at my LJ posts from the fall of 2002, you'll see just how ill I was in my last pregnancy - I could barely eat for four months, and was ill enough that I was unable to eat most things for the six months after that. I was unable to take my son to the circus, to go on rides with him at Disney World, to go hiking or climbing or play in the sandbox with him, because I was pregnant.

And now, with two children, I already have to make decisions about who I spend time with - my older son has class schedules that I have to bring him to, and my younger son needs to be put to sleep in quiet each night. DO you really think I am anti-child for recognizing that having a third child at this point in time would be inconvenient for my two boys, who I love more than I can breathe?

Or am I misunderstanding you? Do you have children? Have you been pregnant? Have you nursed a child for fifteen months? I have, and thus, I think that I am a little better judge of things like the reasonableness of *my* having another child than anyone else, other than my husband.


... I wanted you to see the other side of the arguement.
I actually cannot figure out what your side of the argument is. I've been puzzling about it for hours, too. Are you trying to say that sex should only be for procreation? That's a religious view that should not be imposed on people of different religions, and deffinitely should not be legislated. Are you trying to say that condoms are only useful or purposed as contraception? Again, that's a view derived from religious beliefs.

Or is there something else you're trying to say? Because if there is, I don't get it.

[twigkris.livejournal.com]

As a up and coming scientist with a huge interest in scientific policy and legislation, I just wanted to say "Hear hear!" Your original post was very well thought out and I have learned quite a bit from your replies to many of the comments that you've gotten.

I was reading some comments yesterday that Alan Keyes made made about Barack Obama and his pro-choice stance. He was equating a vote that Obama made against an anti-abortion law as denying the unborn children their equal rights as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and that by doing this, he was taking the "slaveholders position". I find this absolutely atrocious. All I could think after reading this was, "So equal rights for unborn children is more important than equal rights for women? Got it. And what about them gays, Alan? What about them gays?"

It blows my mind that some people (and definitely not all, but a good number) can be so obviously two-faced when it comes to legislation and religion. And I almost take it as a personal insult when someone uses their religious beliefs to deny me the rights to do the work in the lab that I know could someday be saving lives.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Kudos and props to you for going into the sciences. It's an amazing thing to be able to do. And thanks so much for your compliments - I'm utterly flattered!

[ashesofautumn.livejournal.com]

Wonderful entry. My father tells me that my mother was a scientist and then became a high school physics teacher in 2000. If the year is coincidental or not, I don't know. I can't exactly ask. Anyway, she left behind many, many pages of research and writing and it appears that she supported various scientific research over making sure not to offend religious groups.

I don't know. I can't really see the problem with stem cell research. Growing something in a dish isn't creating a human life. But it's not like there is someone who can decide "yes" or "no" when it comes to bioethics.

Bush needs to know that bad science is a goddamn shame, presidential administration or not.