[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

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.