Review: The Omnivore's Dilemma

The Omnivore’s Dilemma is a brilliant, biting muckraker of a book that uses the conceit of following food from soil to plate in order to expose the atrocities and absurdities of the modern industrial food system. Without explicitly dictating the choices consumers should make, Michael Pollan provides us with a great deal of information that can inform our ethics regarding decisions about which foods to buy. He explains the production and distribution methods that permit us the cheap food that comes with a huge hidden price tag: environmental poisoning and degradation, animal cruelty, petroleum consumption, obesity. Perhaps most relevant to our course, he reveals how government policies dictate price-based consumer choice, for example by subsidizing industrial overproduction of cheap corn and discriminating against small independent farmers by means of regulations tailored to large agribusinesses.

I was dismayed to learn that “industrial organic” is very nearly an oxymoron, given the prevalence of monocultures and CAFOs, centralized distribution methods, ultrapasteurization and synthetic additives to increase shelf life, etc., in nearly complete disregard for the revolutionary philosophy underlying the original organic food movement. Pollan mocks the myths of “supermarket pastoral” labels – that name brand organic milk comes from happy cows ruminating on grassy fields, not eating organic grain in factory farms, and “free range” chickens actually spend their days outdoors instead of cooped up in a crowded shed with doors kept shut for fear of infection (p. 140). Buying organic from Whole Foods may allow us to assuage our guilt by paying several times the average price, but it does not mean that the animals were treated more humanely, or that the produce is more nutritious, or that the agricultural methods were more sustainable, or that less fossil fuel was used for processing and transport. On the other hand, buying organic does reduce the amount of pesticide contaminating our soil, water, and produce, as well as the antibiotics and exogenous hormones in our meat. It just can’t be regarded as a panacea for the market-driven evils of modern agriculture.

Pollan’s discussion of fertilizers offers a powerful critique of scientific reductionism, which has been used to identify key elements necessary for a process and then to justify regarding them as entirely sufficient. As he says, “once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else,” ultimately giving way “to the hubris that we can treat nature as a machine” (p. 147-8). But evolved biological systems are extremely complex, and many things are connected in ways that we are only beginning to appreciate. I was fascinated by the descriptions of Polyface farm, where deep knowledge of the different species of grasses and of the animals that are nourished by them permit much higher, and sustainable, food production that draws almost all of its energy from renewable, pollution-free solar power.

This is critical because, as Pollan observes, the food industry uses about a fifth of all the petroleum consumed in the US (p. 183), and “as much as a third of all the greenhouse gases that human activity has added to the atmosphere can be attributed to the saw and the plow” (p. 198). This makes a lot of sense given that anthropogenic climate change began with ancient agriculture, long before fossil fuels were harnessed in its service. There is a further, interesting parallel that Pollan does not explicitly articulate: the “blind-man’s accounting” that ignores the true costs of industrial food production – from government subsidies to health and environmental impacts – often also operates in discussions about the economic effects of limiting greenhouse gas emissions that ignore the indirect costs of global warming. Finally, I was intrigued to learn that grasslands naturally evolved the original method of underground carbon sequestration (p. 197)!

My main criticism of The Omnivore’s Dilemma is that Pollan occasionally throws in interesting scientific hypotheses without providing supporting references. For example, when he speculates that a particular cow “has also chosen exactly which grasses to eat first depending on whatever minerals her body craves that day,” I suspect that he may be giving too much credit to bovine instincts. I am aware of some studies suggesting that chimpanzees self-medicate by swallowing rough leaves to eliminate intestinal parasites, but Pollan offers no source for his claim that “grazing cattle instinctively use the diversity of the salad bar to medicate themselves” (p. 195). I also wondered how much evidence we have that the ancestors of our food grains were perennial grasses that evolved into annuals in order to nourish humans directly (p. 129). Still, these are fairly minor points that did not detract significantly from my enjoyment of the work or the validity of its major themes.

The World Is Flat, Part II

Overall, I liked the second half of The World Is Flat much better than the first. Having established the factors flattening the world, Friedman turns his attention to America’s chances for success and what we can do to improve them. He also examines how the same technological innovations can empower individuals who want to create a better future via political activism or entrepreneurship and those who want to destroy the modern institutions they envy and fear in order to pull the world back into a simpler, more glorious past. More importantly for me, he describes the downsides of at least some of the great flatteners and their likely impacts on society.

I thought that Friedman did a great job of identifying the gaps in America’s education, infrastructure, and ambitions that threaten our future success in a flattening world, although his proposed solutions are not as clearly laid out. For example, he describes how our system of funding public education via local property taxes might have made sense when our society needed a combination of unskilled laborers and educated professionals, but no longer works when decent wages require a very high standard of education (p. 360). Friedman advocates making benefits and education as flexible as possible to encourage upward employment mobility (p. 383) and suggests that compulsory and/or subsidized tertiary education may be required (p. 387), although it is unclear how this would be funded given that pesky problem with public education mentioned above. He also points out the relative success of many immigrants’ children and the importance of high expectations and two-parent homes (p. 396). What he fails to acknowledge is that having one parent or other caregiving relative at home to supervise and encourage children is much more difficult in our mobile modern society, in which both parents often work to make ends meet and there is much less support from the extended family. Friedman criticizes the welfare system (p. 391) without acknowledging that parenting one’s children is as important to a society as performing paid work, and hardly mentions the critical issues of flextime, parental leave, and the costs (financial and emotional) of “outsourcing” childcare.

I appreciated Friedman’s discussion about the importance of the internet in shaping society as well as its potential pitfalls. He suggests that for all China’s resources, its government’s use of censorship impedes the imagination, idea sharing, and (presumably) achievement that accompany the world of information potentially accessible online (p. 449). On the other hand, Friedman makes the important point that the transparency allowed by the internet means fewer second chances, so young people had best take care of their reputations now that prospective admissions committees and employers can get to know them through their MySpace accounts and other online records (p. 529). (I myself have tried hard to keep my personal information from becoming publicly available, but recently was shocked to discover that my name, employer, and home address were listed on a Huffington Post website along with the amount I donated to a presidential campaign.) Friedman also describes the danger of the “echo effect” that can occur when like-minded individuals self-associate online, reinforcing each other’s ideas without dissenting (perhaps saner and/or better informed) voices (p. 526).

I liked Friedman’s point that participation in a global supply chain provides a strong incentive for peaceful relations and political stability, a.k.a. the Dell theory (p. 587). He could have elaborated further on the idea that since financial dependence on the exchange of goods, ideas, and services with other nations provides such incentives more generally, the US and other democratic world powers should try to engage rogue nations through trade, diplomacy, and media. Imposing embargoes only serves to isolate those nations further, allowing despots to cultivate fear of the unknown Other to retain popularity/power and impeding the filtration of modernizing influences and inspirational counterexamples that could help those they rule to envision and demand alternatives. He does acknowledge that outsiders should collaborate with progressive forces of the Arab-Muslim world by, for example, signing free trade agreements, to foster a war of ideas within their civilization that could result in true empowerment (p. 569).

Finally, Friedman finally acknowledges the devastating impact that population growth coupled with increased standards of living will have on the environment (p. 570). However, for an expert in the Middle East, Friedman seems quite unrealistic regarding the important issue of oil, particularly with respect to its abundance and its ecological impacts. I did appreciate his point that China’s foreign policy focuses on access to oil, causing them to collaborate with, for example, the Sudanese government despite the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur (p. 574). As Friedman states much later, despotic leaders will not reform as long as they can use oil revenue to fund their regimes. But rather than criticizing the US for cozying up to the fundamentalist Saudi Arabians, who supply the madrassas that created the Taliban as well as zealous al-Qaeda recruits, Friedman advises us to work with our allies to bring down the cost of crude oil (p. 628). A fine idea, but how exactly is that to be accomplished given the ever-growing demand from developing nations like China in combination with a finite, perhaps dwindling, supply? He states that “one thing we will not be able to do is tell young Indians, Russians, Poles, or Chinese that… they have to hold back and consume less for the greater global good” (p. 575). But that is precisely what we must do if we are to have any hope of preventing global warming catastrophe, albeit in combination with the willingness to lead by example ourselves.

Caucuses and Effects

The results are in from Super Tuesday, and apparently the Democrats have a winner - maybe even two - but not yet a nominee. Looks like our Washington caucuses this weekend aren't too late to make a difference after all! I plan to participate, but I'm still not sure exactly what position to take. I may end up caucusing for Edwards, then switching my allegiance to Obama if we can't make the required 15%. I don't know how effective a strategy this generally is, but I would like to help make sure that Edwards' populist and environmentally progressive themes remain prominent in the eventual nominee's campaign.

Green Building

Last week, my university hosted a day-long teach-in on climate change. It was open to the public, with workshops and panels and a town hall meeting at night with our mayor Greg Nickels and my favorite politician of our time, King County Executive Ron Sims. I felt really proud to be part of an institution that was reaching out to the public on this critical issue. I also felt compelled to attend a lot of the day's events because I'm co-teaching a course on climate change next quarter ;).

Anyway, I took notes on one of the panels for FOSEP, so I'm just going to post them here to share with you while I wait for my boyfriend to call and tell me how his caucus went.

Focus the Nation Panel:
Green Building and the Urban Landscape in the 21st Century
1:30 – 3 pm on Jan 31, 2008 in HUB209A, University of Washington Campus

Moderator: Daniel Friedman, Dean, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, UW
Nancy Rottle, Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Landscape Architecture, UW
Tom Paladino, Paladino and Co., US Green Building Council (USGB) Board of Directors
Jason McLennan, CEO of Cascadia Region Green Building Council
David Miller, Professor, Dept. of Architecture, UW and Co-founder, Miller/Hull Partnership

Moderator Daniel Friedman began with a brief introduction of the panelists. He reminded the audience that over 60% of greenhouse gas emissions are produced by construction/buildings, and that 70% of electricity is used by buildings. Therefore, green building has the potential to make a huge contribution to mitigating climate change.

Tom Palladino gave a short presentation suggesting that the problem of scarcity in green building should be reframed as one of abundance – in other words, what things specific to the function and context of a site can we use to best advantage? Examples included consistent daylight allowing for natural lighting and energy-efficiency (PNC Bank in the mid-Atlantic) and dry heat and high visitor count providing recycled toilet water for green landscaping and moister, cooler air (visitor center in Las Vegas). He also noted that 70% of US building stock would need to meet the LEED silver rating just to comply with the Kyoto protocol (the city of Seattle now requires all new city buildings to achieve this rating).

David Miller’s award-winning architecture firm Miller/Hull designed Merrill Hall (the first LEED silver building on campus) and the Conibear Shellhouse (athletic village) at UW, both of which employ natural ventilation. He stressed that it will take a long time to redo all of UW in order to create an integrated, ecologically sustainable campus – we need a new master plan!

Nancy Rottle spoke about designing for climate change protection and adaptation. By 2050, it will be 2 – 4 °F warmer in the Pacific Northwest, resulting in less snowpack, stronger winter storms, and reduced water supply despite greater demand due to our anticipated population growth. To minimize the impacts of climate change, we need 1) urban greening to mitigate heat island effects by providing shade and transpiration, 2) stormwater filtration to reduce pollution and intensity, 3) water harvesting and reuse, and 4) preservation of healthy forests to sequester CO2. She stressed that the urban form is more compact/efficient and should be made more attractive for residents, with bike & pedestrian access and mass transit as well as access to amenities including open spaces. Eating locally grown foods reduces the need for transport fuels and refrigeration. We can also generate more low impact energy (e.g, by harnessing power of vertically dropped water).

Jason McLennan reminded us that cities adapted from horse to car very quickly and now must adapt dramatically once more despite a building industry that is slow-changing and risk-averse. He described the Living Building Challenge: Carbon- and water-neutral projects built from nontoxic materials on previously developed sites. There are 50 – 60 projects planned in North America, 2 or 3 of them in Seattle.

Q & A Session:
Define “nontoxic” buildings.
About 80% of toxic caulks, sealants, glues, etc. can be eliminated by identifying and offering alternatives. Ductwork should be kept sealed during construction. Filtration should be increased.

How can we apply these principles to existing buildings, especially for individual homeowners?
There are many resources out there including the Environmental News Network website, the West Coast Green expo in San Francisco, the Environmental Home Center in Seattle, the King County website, and Venolia and Lerner’s book Natural Remodeling for the Not-So-Green House. David Miller reminded us that we should preserve our best building stock – older buildings made from simple materials, designed to work well without A/C, with high ceilings for better daylighting, etc.

What about disposing of old materials when you remodel?
Often the vast majority of materials can be reused/recycled rather than landfilled. However, a lot of modern materials were never meant to be reused, which is a problem.

What financial incentives are out there for green building?
We need to be more creative rather than asking for “extra” money, which will never be there because developers seek to maximize profits. But the LEED certification system is also a great motivator because of publicity and because most developers are still men who want to win/look better than the next guy.

Concluding remarks:
Moderator: The Mithun/Russell Family Foundation is underwriting a professorship for alternative building production models.
Jason: We need to integrate more empirical data into our regulations.
David: Nature has been experimenting with energy efficiency for many millions of years – we should take advantage of her innovations!

Announcement: The Living Future Conference is April 17-18, in Vancouver.

Reminder: WALKING TO WORK is one of the best ways to reduce your carbon footprint!

Conventional Wisdom

Since tomorrow is Super Tuesday, it seemed like an appropriate time to figure out just how the heck my current state of residence selects its delegates to the National Convention. This has never been an issue before: prior to moving here, I spent all but one year of my adult life in California, which had a presidential primary and required nothing more than walking over to the nearest polling place and filling in a scantron. Washington, on the other hand, has a nominating process that borders on the bizarre.

Voters here have our pick: we can participate in either the precinct caucuses (next Saturday) or the primary on the 19th. In fact, we can choose to participate in both, and even select two different candidates (although not from two different parties). The catch is that the Democratic party pulls all of its delegates from the caucuses, not the primary, while the Republican party goes about half and half. And the primary election is costing us $10 million, roughly $526,000 for each of the 19 delegates we will be sending to the Republican convention. Confused? I know I am.

Also, I recently learned that only 80% of the Democratic National Convention delegates are actually chosen by voters in caucuses or primaries. As explained in this article by Ari Berman at The Nation, the other 20% are the so-called "superdelegates" - a group which includes all Democratic members of Congress and governors as well as various party operatives and local officials. So even if Barack manages to win over a majority of voters, the Clintons' longstanding political ties and influence could tip the nomination in Hillary's favor.

Review: The World Is Flat, Part I

I'm currently auditing a very interesting course on science policy and turned in this reaction paper on the first seven chapters of The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman:

In the first half of his bestselling book The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman describes the technological innovations and historical events that have “flattened” the world, putting individuals from all nations on a more equal footing as more and more jobs can be done by anyone, anywhere. I agree with his main thesis, and was glad to have a handy historical outline of the development of the World Wide Web, open source software, and so forth. Friedman has an engaging style and a knack for interweaving personal interviews and simple analogies to explain technological concepts to the average reader. However, he seems to repeat himself a great deal – all right already, globalization is good, it’s here, and we need to adapt! – while simultaneously glossing over a lot of associated issues that I consider to be of great importance.

For example, fresh from our class discussions of the IPCC assessment reports, I find Friedman to be too much the uncritical cheerleader for the rapid rise of the developing world, without enough concern for the environmental impacts of dramatically increasing demands for natural resources as well as waste produced. In general, Friedman writes as though our modern energy needs were unproblematic rather than heavily dependent on finite and polluting fossil fuels, e.g., “transportation seems to grow easier and cheaper over time” (p. 281). He praises Ratan Tata for the innovative and affordable Indian car created by trimming cutting-edge safety and emissions technologies (p. 274) – just what we need, a billion more people burning gasoline in private vehicles! He does mention briefly that “if we don’t learn how to do more things with less energy and lower emissions, we are going to create an environmental disaster and make our planet unlivable for our children” (p. 297), thus providing the incentive to develop renewable energies and environmentally sustainable systems. But the shortness of this section and paucity of specifics or real-life examples speak to a lack of real interest in these issues.

I also think that Friedman gives capitalism too much credit for improving people’s quality of life. He proclaims that while “Communism was a great system for making people equally poor… Capitalism made people unequally rich” (p. 52), a slick set of phrases that gloss over the fact that capitalism made plenty of people unequally poor as well. Even worse, Friedman criticizes the Soviet Empire for propping up “autocratic regimes” around the world, claiming that capitalism in contrast allows economies to be governed “by the interests, demands, and aspirations of the people, rather than from the top down, by the interests of some narrow ruling clique” (p. 52). I think that this would come as a big surprise to the citizens of countries like Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Indonesia (to name only a few) whose democratically elected leaders have been overthrown by dictators with the help of the United States in order to serve our military and corporate interests. Friedman also makes a big deal of India’s transition to capitalism in the 1990s without recognizing that Nehru’s initial socialistic model served to protect the country in its economic infancy, preventing its exploitation by the West (p. 53).

In my opinion, the biggest weakness of the first half of The World Is Flat is that Friedman does not express sufficient concern over the darker side of globalization. He uses the example of the state of Indiana attempting to hire an Indian consulting firm in order to deride those who worry that outsourcing and offshoring can result in exploitation (p. 242). But it’s a straw man, only created to be easily dismissed. Educated, skilled workers may be getting the opportunities of their dreams as a result of globalization, but that doesn’t allow us to ignore the environmental degradation and worker exploitation that do take place as corporations seek to evade US regulations by moving their operations to the desperate developing world.

And so far, Friedman has failed to inspire my trust that we can protect ourselves from the excesses of capitalism gone global. Wal-Mart is the obvious example of “too much of a good thing” – the quest for economic efficiency taken to egregious extremes. His solution to the ruthlessness of “the China of companies” that somehow has been isolated from “the currents of global debate on labor and human rights” even as it has become the biggest and most profitable retailer on the planet? “One can only hope that all the bad publicity Wal-Mart has received in the last few years will force it to understand that there is a fine line…” (p. 163). Call me a cynic, but I don’t think that we should bet the farm on hope: only regulation or consumer pressure will change the unfair practices of corporations with this much leverage.

Finally, while Friedman claims that flattening is frightening but will ultimately create more satisfying kinds of jobs that reward innovative thinking, passion, collaboration, and so forth, he also baldly states that advances in communications technology will make it possible (and eventually expected) for us to work those jobs at all times: “You are always in. Therefore, you are always on” (p. 249). For those of us who don’t think that one’s entire waking life should be defined by one’s paid labor, this sounds like a kind of hell. What about having the “leisure” time to develop and nurture personal (as opposed to commercial) relationships with family and friends, to serve one’s community, to stay informed about the world - not to mention to keep learning the new skills that will be essential to staying afloat in the brave new world that Friedman describes?

Electoral Compass

My apologies that I've been MIA for just about one year now. I was busy breaking up with my boyfriend, finding a wonderful new one, exploring my career options, and getting an actual job in academia. But now I'm back, just in time for the presidential primaries (and SO glad that they are here at last).

My new boyfriend sent me this link to a website that offers you a short questionnaire and then maps your position in the US political landscape relative to the current presidential candidates, with regard to both social and economic issues. The results may surprise you! I ended up far to the left of my favorite (former) candidate, Edwards, on both axes.

The best feature allows you to see how the candidates might have answered the questionnaire and offers selected quotes from their campaign websites and public remarks as evidence. I was very disturbed to see that McCain, whom I'd naively considered to be a sort of maverick moderate Republican, strongly opposes abortion rights and gay marriage AND advocates teaching creationism in science classes. (I already knew that he takes a hard line on immigration, thinks it would be reasonable to stay in Iraq for a century, and believes that we should bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran.)

The Lone Star State

I just read in the NY Times that Texas has become the first state in the union to require vaccination against HPV for preteen girls enrolled in the 6th grade. This will protect them from the sexually transmitted virus, long known to cause cervical cancer. It's critical that the vaccine be given to girls before they have a chance to be exposed to the virus through sexual abuse or experimentation, although the deadly consequences of infection will not be evident for decades.

Frankly, I'm amazed that conservative Texas has gotten past the religious right's outrage over a vaccine that could (gasp) make sex safer for women and thus (in their nonsensical view) promote promiscuity in their teenage daughters. The state will even provide free vaccinations for all girls and young women eligible for public assistance. Hooray for Governor Perry and a huge step in preventative healthcare for women!

Almost Famous

Thanks to one of our long-active and soon-to-be-missed members, the UW Postdoctoral Association has been written up in the UW Weekly. We used our recent self-organized 2nd Annual Postdoctoral Research Symposium as an excuse to try to make the campus more aware of our hidden, underserved, yet vital population. Given that only a few dozen people attended, perhaps next time we should aim for a press release PRIOR to the event...

Secret agents, causing cancer

You've probably heard that former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko died last month of acute radiation poisoning from polonium 210, possibly courtesy of the Kremlin. But while most people are aware that getting yourself on the hitlist of Russian intelligence services has to be hazardous to your health, not everyone may know about a much more ubiquitous and insidious source of polonium 210: cigarettes.

As Robert Proctor explains in today's NY Times, the tobacco industry has known since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant amounts of polonium, perhaps increased by the use of phosphate fertilizers in tobacco cultivation. Along with tar, nicotine, and cyanide, pack-and-a-half smokers receive the radioactive equivalent of about 300 chest X-rays every year. So, like the unfortunate recent associates of the late Mr. Litvinenko, smokers are at significant risk of radiation-induced cancer over their lifetimes.

According to Dr. Proctor, cigarettes claimed about 10 million lives in the 20th century. But with the aggressive infiltration of huge global markets like China, this number could reach a billion in the 21st.

You've come a long way, baby.

Mixed Thoughts on Muslims

This started on Sunday, when I was snowed in at my boyfriend's across the water and we watched "Mangal Pandey," got to talking about the first War for Indian Independence and later Gandhi's successful nonviolent revolt, and then stayed up half the night discussing religion. He (born and raised in South India) took the position (grossly paraphrased) that Hinduism is superior to Islam because it has successfully absorbed many gods and practices, is tolerant of other faiths, and has shown itself to be capable of changing with the times (at least under duress). In contrast, Islam is rigid, intolerant, and resistant to progress, remaining stuck in feudal society while the rest of the world modernized. He blames the Koran for allowing too much flexibility in interpretation and thus too much power and influence to individual Imams.

I maintained that he was comparing apples and oranges. In my view, Hinduism belongs in the same league as Judaism, with its large number of dietary and other ritualized everyday practices, its wide range of degrees of belief/observance compatible with membership, and especially its acquisition by chance at birth, with a comcomitant complete lack of interest in converting outsiders. Islam is much more appropriately compared to Christianity, and perhaps particularly Catholicism (my own religious background), although any paternalistic and sexually repressive fundamentalist evangelical Protestant sect will serve.

Yesterday my boyfriend followed up our discussion with a link to this column, which basically complains that, unlike the previous waves of Europeans who have become part of the great American melting pot despite historical anti-immigrant hysteria, "the Muslim immigrants of today are showing absolutely no signs of even wanting to integrate." Is this a fair characterization? Surely many Muslims are attempting to do so, although without sacrificing their own religious and cultural practices. And ethnic enclaves are a long-standing tradition in America, tending to last at least as long as the initial wave of first generation elders. Heck, there are still places in Pennsylvania where English is a foreign language, ja?

The writer continues, "Worst of all, some of them are now trying to insist that the host nations adjust to their desires rather than the other way round, the taxi drivers of Minneapolis [who declined to transport passengers carrying alcohol] being a perfect example." But is this any different from Christian pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B? It seems to me that fundamentalists of any faith will have rigid beliefs and practices that are likely to come into conflict with a wider secular or pluralistic society.

Perhaps Muslims on average currently tend more towards paternalistic, fundamentalist beliefs and practices than the world's Christians (or Hindus). But I bet that if you controlled for income and education, these populations would not be significantly different. It's a chicken-and-egg kind of problem, though, I admit. How do you separate religion from cultural practices dictated by other factors including historical political structures?

A letter published in this week's issue of Nature had this to say about the current lack of capacity for science in Islamic countries: "...Paternalistic cultures in the Islamic countries can more reasonably be blamed. Under these cultures, inquiry and freedom of expression are actively discouraged in the home, at school, at work and in response to government policies. The capacity for critical analysis is a fundamental requirement for science, but where it has no chance of developing under lifelong suppression, how can science and research be expected to flourish?"

Islamic societies certainly were not always incompatible with science - during Europe's Dark Age, Muslims preserved a great deal of ancient wisdom and developed important innovations, particularly in mathematics. But the replacement of a more rational school of theology by Sunni orthodoxy in the tenth through thirteenth centuries may have created a cultural climate in which science failed to flourish as before.

Finally (and I think coincidentally), I've been enjoying this book on world myths/religions and their origins, and pondering the debt that Western Civilization owes the great Greek innovations of secular humanism: ethics and law. Was it chance or fate that allowed a bunch of barbarian tribes to build on the achievements of the Greeks and Romans, leading to an avalanche of technological innovations? And if some other civilization had beaten Christian Europe to the punch, would we be sulking in a corner, constructing ideological walls against the foreign powers that threatened our ways of life and thought?

Drug Pushers

On Thursday, the NY Times ran this scary article on the increasing use of multiple psychotropic drugs by children. Over 3.5 million kids in the US are being medicated with stimulants (mainly for A.D.H.D.), which can cause stunted growth and sleeping problems. Nearly 2 million are given antidepressants, which have been shown to trigger suicidal thoughts and behaviors in some children. Others receive anticonvulsants, which can cause liver and pancreas damage and fatal skin rashes, or antipsychotics, which can cause rapid weight gain, diabetes, and irreversible tics. And fully 1.6 million are given at least two drugs in combination, either because a single drug is not effective enough or in order to treat its side effects, even though there is virtually no scientific evidence showing that such combinations are helpful in young patients.

Coincidentally, on Friday night the Wallingford Neighbors for Peace and Justice hosted a film/discussion on "Big Bucks, Big Pharma," an expose of the pharmaceutical industry. If you've ever wondered why health care in America costs so much and yet ranks only 37th in effectiveness worldwide, alongside impoverished Cuba, consider the fact that 100,000 Americans die each year of adverse effects from prescription drugs administered at recommended doses. How much more morbidity is being created by the ubiquitous use of costly and often unneeded drugs instead of more effective - but far less profitable - healthy lifestyle changes and preventative care?

How has legal drug pushing become so prevalent in our society? Relaxation of laws in recent years have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to market their products directly to consumers in magazine and television ads, creating consumer curiosity and even brand loyalty for products that may not even be appropriate, much less necessary. Add to this the $8 billion spent each year on medical journal ads and promotional gifts and trips for physicians under the rubric of "education," the effectiveness of which has prompted the American Medical Student Association to promote a Pharm Free Pledge to its members stating they will "accept no money, gifts, or hospitality from the pharmaceutical industry" and "seek unbiased sources of information."

I am not trying to downplay the existence of serious illness and suffering that could be helped by medication. But it seems clear to me that pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with creating demand for their products, charging all that the market will bear, and keeping sick people alive but dependent on their drugs, than they are with providing safe, effective, affordable healthcare. And it doesn't surprise or upset me - it's just as any big business would behave in a capitalistic society. It is our responsibility to reign them in, to raise our voices against their huge lobbying forces in Washington and our state capitals and demand more rigorous regulation, to ask for fewer and less expensive drugs from our doctors, and to refuse the medicalization of natural human variation in our society - particularly in our schools, where our most vulnerable citizens are paying the price.

Bush's Bipartisanship

In a gracious extension of the olive branch to the incoming Democratic majority, President Bush is renominating a bunch of previously rejected candidates for appellate court judgeships, including William "mining lobbyist" Myers, Michael "ABA unqualified" Wallace, Terrence "civil rights, snivel rights" Boyle, and William "legalize torture" Haynes. He is also pushing the Senate again to confirm John "Bully" Bolton as permanent ambassador to the United Nations.

In an even more conciliatory gesture, Bush is also appointing OB-GYN Eric Keroack to head family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a bit like putting the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in charge of the Armed Forces, except with less inspiring speeches. Keroack is the medical director for A Woman's Concern, a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception, and does not distribute information promoting birth control. This experience should serve him exceedingly well in advising Secretary Mike Leavitt on reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy and in controlling $283 million in annual family-planning grants designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to low income persons.

And to think I voted for her once

The Democrats took Congress earlier this month in large part due to voters' frustration over Republican corruption and incompetence. But it already looks as though the fervent promises of housecleaning and election reform will turn out to be no more than lip service on the campaign trail.

For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, has said she is opposed to an independent Congressional ethics watchdog. “If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it. As to whether we need to create a new federal bureaucracy to enforce the rules, I would hope not.” Could it be that Democrats have a skeleton or two hiding in their closets, or is this part of a backroom deal with frightened Republicans that will leave the American people with the short end of the stick?

Meanwhile, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois is preparing a proposal to provide public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates in order to reduce dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 90 Democrats have signed a pledge endorsing the idea.

But how far will it get when incumbents by definition have no incentive to change the system that has served them so well in the past? As Ms. Feinstein puts it, “You use taxpayer dollars to finance people who may not only be fringe candidates but — I was going to use the term ‘nut’— may be mentally incompetent." That would be "worthy opponent" to you, witch.

Reluctant reinvigoration

I have to admit that I'd been pretty down on the idea of pursuing a career in academic science of late. I'm almost two years into my postdoc without so much as a manuscript in sight. One of my key experiments, which takes at least a month to conduct, had failed four out of five times due to equipment breakdown. I'd developed an ulcer. I'd been spending less time at the bench, putting more time into volunteering for my local Postdoc Association and other more immediately gratifying activities.

Fortunately, I was forced to do two things this week that initially didn't strike me as fun. Yesterday I had to write and submit an abstract on one of my projects and a statement about my research interests for an upcoming meeting. And once that was done, I had to reread the background material for one of the aims of my other project in order to present a journal article for my PI's class. I was so depressed about my science and my chances of ever getting results/a paper/a job that I naturally put both tasks off until the last minute.

But you know what? Both experiences helped enormously. First, of course, I LIKE writing (hence this blog), and it felt good just to put words together in a satisfying way and for a useful purpose (plus, unlike this blog, the abstract will almost certainly get read and result in feedback). And more importantly, articulating my long term scientific interests and reminding myself of just how nicely my current projects serve those interests really rekindled my enthusiasm for them.

This still doesn't mean that I'll master my system, work out the bugs in our equipment, and get data worth publishing in a timely manner. But I've regained my faith that if I do, the results will be interesting and important and will lead to even more interesting and important things - more than enough on which to build a career. I think I really did pick the right lab for my postdoctoral work. Now if I can just manage to take greater advantage of it...

Two Triumphs

The South African Parliament just voted overwhelmingly to join the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada in legalizing same-sex marriages. If President Thabo Mbeki signs the bill into law, South Africa will stand alone among African nations, many of which still treat homosexuality as a crime as serious as rape or murder. The African National Congress has been criticized for pressuring its legislators to support the bill, regardless of their personal beliefs. But as the party's caucus chairman put it, “How do you allow for someone to vote against the Constitution and the policies of the A.N.C., which is antidiscrimination?” Word.

And in a smaller but still significant step, the Pakistan National Assembly passed the Protection of Women Bill, which includes amendments to the 1979 law known as the Hudood Ordinance. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, judges will gain the option of trying rape cases in a civil court, whereas previously women would have had to use an Islamic court, produce four male witnesses, and risk conviction for adultery. In addition, the current penalty for consensual sex outside of marriage, flogging or even death, would be reduced to five years in jail or a substantial fine. It's not the full repeal of the Hudood Ordinance that human rights activists hoped for, but at least rape victims should have more of an incentive to bring their attackers to justice.

How am I happy? Let me count the ways...

1. Don Rumsfeld finally got the boot, and I'm glad they were dumb enough to wait until AFTER the elections because

2. We gained 6 seats, winning a majority in the Senate AND

3. We gained 28 seats, winning a majority in the House, meaning

4. Nancy Pelosi will be the first female Speaker of the House

5. Rick Santorum and George Allen are outta here

6. South Dakota voters overturned their state's abortion ban

7. Oregon and California voters defeated parental notification laws

8. Missouri voters endorsed stem cell research

9. Arizona voters rejected a ban on gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships

10. Property rights measures failed to pass in California, Idaho, and Washington

11. Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, Nevada and Ohio voters raised the minimum wage

12. The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has promised to reestablish the subcommittee on oversight and investigations

If you can think of any more big progressive victories, add them to the Comments!

Too Close NOT to Call

You've already voted, of course. If you're like me, you requested an absentee ballot months ago but are mailing it at the very last minute (as usual). What's left to do but wait and watch the exit polls?

Simple: Volunteer to call other registered voters and remind them to get to the polls. Even if you can only give half an hour of your time, it could make a difference in one of the incredibly close races taking place today.

The Republicans are throwing money at sophisticated automated telephone services like this one. Progressives rely on dedicated volunteers like you. Can you help call for change today? Just click on the image below.





And now a few choice words from Lazarus Long:

"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures that you want to vote for... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against." - Time Enough for Love, copyright 1973 by Robert A. Heinlein.

NIH family fellowship

Have you heard about the new NIH family fellowship that will allow postdoctoral researchers either to take extended paid parental leave for up to 12 months or work parttime for up to 5 years?

No? Well, that might be because it doesn't exist - yet. But check out the proposal and discussion board here, add your name in support, and publicize it to your department/university. This could make a huge difference to the retention of talented female scientists currently forced to choose between career and family, given the extremely limited opportunities for postdoctoral maternity leave at most universities.

The (Science) World Is Flat

I just saw a lecture hosted by one of my favorite Pacific NW organizations, the Forum on Science Ethics and Policy. Dr. Neal Lane, former NSF Director and science advisor to President Clinton, outlined the post-WWII history of U.S. government investment in science and explained how our cutting edge is being lost to rising stars in Asia.

Borrowing from The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman, Dr. Lane listed the major reasons for America's ongoing scientific decline:

(1) Too little government investment in science
$63 billion may sound like a lot, but it's less than 2.5% of our federal budget, the vast majority of which goes to interest on the national debt, defense, social security, medicare, and medicaid. Private industry spends twice as much on research and development.

(2) Too few people in science
Although practically everyone I know at the postdoc level is deeply skeptical about future job prospects, Dr. Lane insisted that we will not be able to recruit enough talent as time goes on, mostly because

(3) Too few U.S. citizens understand science
That's right, our science and math education sucks here relative to the rest of the developed world - our kids may feel good, but they know almost nothing. For example, only 50% of Americans know that it takes the Earth one year to go around the sun. And Asia is really building up its own academic infrastructure these days, so we're not going to be such a coveted destination for foreign talent pretty soon.

(4) Too much ideology
Dr. Lane didn't need to go into too much detail here - from teaching creationism in science classes to prohibiting stem cell research on embryos that would otherwise be tossed out by fertility clinics, I think we all know what he meant.

(5) Too much politics
Even when the vast majority of scientists agree, special interests can drum up "controversy" to cast doubt on our findings or impede citizens and government from taking action. Prime example: manmade climate change.

(6) Public confidence in science is fragile
The good news is, Americans generally approve of government spending on scientific research. The bad news is, they don't understand it, they don't necessarily appreciate the return on their investment, and it's not a high priority on the federal budget when push comes to shove. And that's OUR FAULT for failing to educate and connect with the public.

George Brown (CA) urged us to become "civic scientists" and get involved in the political process. This is all the more important at a time when the basic liberties of inquiry are threatened. As Einstein said in 1950, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." That freedom, born of relative wealth and the Constitution, is the one advantage we have over Asia Rising... for now.