get current url php get url php tutorial php get page url.
get your current web url.
php theblogosfer
php tutorials
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Thursday, 26 March 2009
dummy blog
apa yang dimaksud dengan dummy blog? temukan jawabannya di dummy blog.
anda bisa menaikkan peringkat anda di google dengan dummy blog.
semakin banyak dummy blog semakin bagus cuy!!!!!
aku punya bbrp dummy blog
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
FDA seeks rapid test for salmonella
Send plans and specifications to Uncle Sam, care of the Food and Drug Administration.
Frustrated that conventional lab methods can now take as long as nine days to identify the most common of food bugs, the FDA is searching for a rapid test for salmonella.
Two recent outbreaks — one involving peanut butter, the other blamed on tomatoes and hot peppers — have put the agency on the spot.
Each time the FDA had pieces of the puzzle, but it took a while to fill in the complete picture. The uncertainty made consumers nervous about eating everyday foods. Food producers lost millions in forgone sales and recalled products. Lawmakers fumed. One congressman likened the government's disease detectives to the Keystone Kops.
Since other outbreaks are likely to happen, FDA officials are desperately seeking anything that would make their response more efficient.
"The goal here isn't to design some sort of 'Star Trek' gizmo," said Dr. David Acheson, assistant commissioner for food safety. "We're looking for something that can save us 12 hours here, 12 hours there. If we can shave it to five days, that would be a step forward."
Michael Doyle, head of the food safety program at the University of Georgia, said the FDA should aim high. "To identify an outbreak can take two to three weeks, if they can get that down to three days, it would be a major step forward."
The FDA has asked the Pentagon, the Homeland Security and Agriculture departments, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lend their expertise. The Agriculture Department and the CDC also contend with salmonella outbreaks. Homeland Security has responsibility for combatting bioterrorism. And the Pentagon is skilled at evaluating all kinds of technology.
"We approached these guys, and they're interested in working jointly," said Acheson.
The first step is to see whether any private companies or academic research centers are working on a rapid test. Then Acheson wants to select two or three methods to evaluate more closely. Finally he'd compare specific techniques and devices in head-to-head lab tests.
One of the reasons it can take so long to identify salmonella is that samples submitted to the lab may not have enough of the bacteria. More bacteria have to be cultured in a nutrient-rich broth to make an identification.
"I can't make the bugs divide any quicker," said Acheson. "But what if we had tools that could work off a smaller number of organisms? I think there is time to be shaved there."
If the initial screening finds salmonella, more testing is needed to match its particular genetic fingerprint to the outbreak strain.
The easiest thing would be to have a portable device that inspectors could carry with them. They could take a tomato, pulverize it, inject the juice into the device, and get an answer in a matter of hours.
"That would be the Holy Grail," said Acheson.
___
On the Net:
CDC salmonella page: http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/
Frustrated that conventional lab methods can now take as long as nine days to identify the most common of food bugs, the FDA is searching for a rapid test for salmonella.
Two recent outbreaks — one involving peanut butter, the other blamed on tomatoes and hot peppers — have put the agency on the spot.
Each time the FDA had pieces of the puzzle, but it took a while to fill in the complete picture. The uncertainty made consumers nervous about eating everyday foods. Food producers lost millions in forgone sales and recalled products. Lawmakers fumed. One congressman likened the government's disease detectives to the Keystone Kops.
Since other outbreaks are likely to happen, FDA officials are desperately seeking anything that would make their response more efficient.
"The goal here isn't to design some sort of 'Star Trek' gizmo," said Dr. David Acheson, assistant commissioner for food safety. "We're looking for something that can save us 12 hours here, 12 hours there. If we can shave it to five days, that would be a step forward."
Michael Doyle, head of the food safety program at the University of Georgia, said the FDA should aim high. "To identify an outbreak can take two to three weeks, if they can get that down to three days, it would be a major step forward."
The FDA has asked the Pentagon, the Homeland Security and Agriculture departments, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lend their expertise. The Agriculture Department and the CDC also contend with salmonella outbreaks. Homeland Security has responsibility for combatting bioterrorism. And the Pentagon is skilled at evaluating all kinds of technology.
"We approached these guys, and they're interested in working jointly," said Acheson.
The first step is to see whether any private companies or academic research centers are working on a rapid test. Then Acheson wants to select two or three methods to evaluate more closely. Finally he'd compare specific techniques and devices in head-to-head lab tests.
One of the reasons it can take so long to identify salmonella is that samples submitted to the lab may not have enough of the bacteria. More bacteria have to be cultured in a nutrient-rich broth to make an identification.
"I can't make the bugs divide any quicker," said Acheson. "But what if we had tools that could work off a smaller number of organisms? I think there is time to be shaved there."
If the initial screening finds salmonella, more testing is needed to match its particular genetic fingerprint to the outbreak strain.
The easiest thing would be to have a portable device that inspectors could carry with them. They could take a tomato, pulverize it, inject the juice into the device, and get an answer in a matter of hours.
"That would be the Holy Grail," said Acheson.
___
On the Net:
CDC salmonella page: http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/
Less body armor might be the answer in Afghanistan
Heavy layers of body armor, a proven lifesaver of U.S. troops, also may be an impediment to winning the fight in Afghanistan, where 17,000 additional American forces are being sent to quell rising violence.
Weighing as much as 34 pounds each, the protective vests hinder American forces hunting down more agile insurgents who use the country's rugged peaks and valleys to their advantage, according to military officials.
The proper balance between troop safety and mobility will be examined this week during a series of oversight hearings by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Beginning Tuesday, senior Army and Marine Corps leaders are scheduled to testify on a wide range of subjects, including force protection, readiness levels and ergonomic injuries.
When body armor is added to the assault rifles, ammunition, water and other essential gear troops are required to carry, they can be lugging as much as 80 pounds into combat. Besides moving more slowly, overburdened troops tire more quickly and are prone to orthopedic injuries that can take them out of action, the officials say.
But convincing a war-weary public of a less-is-more approach won't be easy, they acknowledge. If a commander decides the gear shouldn't be used for a particular mission and a service member is killed, there could be a backlash, said Jean Malone, deputy director of experiment plans at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Quantico, Va.
"We've got to have the internal fortitude to come back and say: 'We have the data. We made the right decision. We can't guarantee you that nobody will die in this war,'" he said.
Paring down the amount of armor could actually make troops safer on the battlefield, officials say. Speed and maneuverability give them the best chance of killing or capturing the Taliban and other militants before they can set roadside bombs or get in position for an ambush.
"Being able to maneuver and fight and chase down a fleeing enemy; that's actually where your protection is (versus) armoring up and being more static," said Brig. Gen. Tim Hanifen, deputy commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico.
The loads carried by modern American troops are equivalent to those "the medieval knight wore into and out of battle back in the year 1000 until about the 16th century," he said.
Bomb-resistant vehicles that are light and nimble enough to handle Afghanistan's primitive roads are also needed, according to Hanifen. Trucks that worked well in Iraq, which has a comparatively sophisticated transportation network, may be less suitable in harsher terrains.
As troop levels are surging in Afghanistan, so are roadside bomb attacks, according to the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.
In January and February, 52 IED attacks in Afghanistan killed 32 coalition troops and wounded 96 more, according to preliminary figures from the organization. During the same two months in 2008, 21 IED attacks killed 10 troops and wounded 39.
Body armor has become a focus of Marine Corps efforts to lighten troop loads because it weighs so much more than the other gear. The standard kit consists of hardened composite plates inserted into a ballistic vest. The vest and plates protect the upper body from armor-piercing bullets and shrapnel.
Personal armor made of substantially lighter composite materials that are more effective than current models won't be available for several years. So the Marine Corps is looking for near-term solutions.
The Marine Corps is buying 65,000 vests called "scalable plate carriers" that weigh under 20 pounds. The carrier, which uses the same plates as the standard vest, doesn't cover as much of the torso. About 14,000 of the plate carriers have been fielded and the feedback has been positive, according to Marine Corps officials.
Over the next two weeks, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab is conducting an experiment at Camp Pendleton, Calif., to assess the risks of using less armor. The results of the trials will help guide battlefield commanders who make the final call on what gear troops should use.
Weighing as much as 34 pounds each, the protective vests hinder American forces hunting down more agile insurgents who use the country's rugged peaks and valleys to their advantage, according to military officials.
The proper balance between troop safety and mobility will be examined this week during a series of oversight hearings by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Beginning Tuesday, senior Army and Marine Corps leaders are scheduled to testify on a wide range of subjects, including force protection, readiness levels and ergonomic injuries.
When body armor is added to the assault rifles, ammunition, water and other essential gear troops are required to carry, they can be lugging as much as 80 pounds into combat. Besides moving more slowly, overburdened troops tire more quickly and are prone to orthopedic injuries that can take them out of action, the officials say.
But convincing a war-weary public of a less-is-more approach won't be easy, they acknowledge. If a commander decides the gear shouldn't be used for a particular mission and a service member is killed, there could be a backlash, said Jean Malone, deputy director of experiment plans at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Quantico, Va.
"We've got to have the internal fortitude to come back and say: 'We have the data. We made the right decision. We can't guarantee you that nobody will die in this war,'" he said.
Paring down the amount of armor could actually make troops safer on the battlefield, officials say. Speed and maneuverability give them the best chance of killing or capturing the Taliban and other militants before they can set roadside bombs or get in position for an ambush.
"Being able to maneuver and fight and chase down a fleeing enemy; that's actually where your protection is (versus) armoring up and being more static," said Brig. Gen. Tim Hanifen, deputy commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico.
The loads carried by modern American troops are equivalent to those "the medieval knight wore into and out of battle back in the year 1000 until about the 16th century," he said.
Bomb-resistant vehicles that are light and nimble enough to handle Afghanistan's primitive roads are also needed, according to Hanifen. Trucks that worked well in Iraq, which has a comparatively sophisticated transportation network, may be less suitable in harsher terrains.
As troop levels are surging in Afghanistan, so are roadside bomb attacks, according to the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.
In January and February, 52 IED attacks in Afghanistan killed 32 coalition troops and wounded 96 more, according to preliminary figures from the organization. During the same two months in 2008, 21 IED attacks killed 10 troops and wounded 39.
Body armor has become a focus of Marine Corps efforts to lighten troop loads because it weighs so much more than the other gear. The standard kit consists of hardened composite plates inserted into a ballistic vest. The vest and plates protect the upper body from armor-piercing bullets and shrapnel.
Personal armor made of substantially lighter composite materials that are more effective than current models won't be available for several years. So the Marine Corps is looking for near-term solutions.
The Marine Corps is buying 65,000 vests called "scalable plate carriers" that weigh under 20 pounds. The carrier, which uses the same plates as the standard vest, doesn't cover as much of the torso. About 14,000 of the plate carriers have been fielded and the feedback has been positive, according to Marine Corps officials.
Over the next two weeks, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab is conducting an experiment at Camp Pendleton, Calif., to assess the risks of using less armor. The results of the trials will help guide battlefield commanders who make the final call on what gear troops should use.
Runway safety improvements lag at busy airports
Six-year-old Joshua Woods was singing Christmas songs on Dec. 8, 2005, when a runaway plane at Chicago's Midway Airport crashed through a fence and collided with his family's car, killing the boy. The tragedy underscores what the government says is an urgent safety problem.
Eleven major airports are struggling to meet federal requirements that runways be surrounded by safety areas that give runaway planes extra room to stop, according to a new report from the Transportation Department's inspector general. The airports account for nearly one quarter of the nation's air passenger travel.
All the airports have been working for years to come up with solutions, but often there's no place to send runaway planes because the airports are hemmed in by highways, water, buildings or other obstructions.
The airports are located in Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, N.C., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington. Midway made safety improvements two years after Woods' death.
Between 1997 and 2007, 75 aircraft overran or veered off runways, resulting in nearly 200 injuries and 12 deaths, the report said. In just three of the accidents cited in the report, 80 injuries and Woods' death could have been prevented if safety improvements to runways made after the accidents had been in place beforehand, report said.
Safety areas typically are 1,000 feet long and 500 feet wide at each end of a runway, plus 250 feet along both sides of the runway.
The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed some airports that don't have enough room for full-size safety areas to install crunchable concrete beds called "engineered material arresting systems" at the ends of runways. The beds are designed to stop or slow planes, not unlike the way gravel-covered ramps on highways stop runaway trucks.
The beds are typically about 600 feet long instead of 1,000 feet, saving space. Beds at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport have already halted three runaway planes. But even that requires more room than is feasible at some airports.
The report said some of the 11 airports may not be able to meet a congressional deadline of 2015 to put runway safety areas in place. Putting safety areas in place can require filling in wetlands, requiring environmental reviews that can take as long as 12 years to complete. Community opposition to airport expansion because of noise concerns has also been a factor.
"Until these challenges and problems are addressed, aircraft will remain vulnerable to damage and, what is more important, their passengers remain at risk of potential injury from flights that undershoot, overrun or veer off a runway lacking a standard (runway safety area)," the report said. "Improvements need to be made at the 11 large airports sooner rather than later."
The FAA has already spent $2 billion helping hundreds of airports put runway safety areas in place, said Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the agency. In addition to the roughly $300 million budgeted annually for the program, the economic stimulus plan pushed by President Barack Obama contains millions of extra dollars, she said.
"We're working with all these airports to see if we can do all these things as quickly as possible," Brown said.
Chris Oswald, vice president for safety and technical operations at the Airports Council International-North America, which represents airports in the United States and Canada, said runway safety areas are one of the most difficult problems facing urban airports.
"You are talking about very significant geographic impediments to expanding runway safety areas," Oswald said.
Reagan National Airport outside Washington, for example, is sandwiched between the Potomac River and the George Washington Parkway. The airport has been reluctant to install a crunchable concrete bed because periodic flooding could damage the system, the report said.
__
On the Net:
Transportation Department's inspector general: http://www.oig.dot.gov/
Federal Aviation Administration: http://www.faa.gov/
Eleven major airports are struggling to meet federal requirements that runways be surrounded by safety areas that give runaway planes extra room to stop, according to a new report from the Transportation Department's inspector general. The airports account for nearly one quarter of the nation's air passenger travel.
All the airports have been working for years to come up with solutions, but often there's no place to send runaway planes because the airports are hemmed in by highways, water, buildings or other obstructions.
The airports are located in Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, N.C., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington. Midway made safety improvements two years after Woods' death.
Between 1997 and 2007, 75 aircraft overran or veered off runways, resulting in nearly 200 injuries and 12 deaths, the report said. In just three of the accidents cited in the report, 80 injuries and Woods' death could have been prevented if safety improvements to runways made after the accidents had been in place beforehand, report said.
Safety areas typically are 1,000 feet long and 500 feet wide at each end of a runway, plus 250 feet along both sides of the runway.
The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed some airports that don't have enough room for full-size safety areas to install crunchable concrete beds called "engineered material arresting systems" at the ends of runways. The beds are designed to stop or slow planes, not unlike the way gravel-covered ramps on highways stop runaway trucks.
The beds are typically about 600 feet long instead of 1,000 feet, saving space. Beds at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport have already halted three runaway planes. But even that requires more room than is feasible at some airports.
The report said some of the 11 airports may not be able to meet a congressional deadline of 2015 to put runway safety areas in place. Putting safety areas in place can require filling in wetlands, requiring environmental reviews that can take as long as 12 years to complete. Community opposition to airport expansion because of noise concerns has also been a factor.
"Until these challenges and problems are addressed, aircraft will remain vulnerable to damage and, what is more important, their passengers remain at risk of potential injury from flights that undershoot, overrun or veer off a runway lacking a standard (runway safety area)," the report said. "Improvements need to be made at the 11 large airports sooner rather than later."
The FAA has already spent $2 billion helping hundreds of airports put runway safety areas in place, said Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the agency. In addition to the roughly $300 million budgeted annually for the program, the economic stimulus plan pushed by President Barack Obama contains millions of extra dollars, she said.
"We're working with all these airports to see if we can do all these things as quickly as possible," Brown said.
Chris Oswald, vice president for safety and technical operations at the Airports Council International-North America, which represents airports in the United States and Canada, said runway safety areas are one of the most difficult problems facing urban airports.
"You are talking about very significant geographic impediments to expanding runway safety areas," Oswald said.
Reagan National Airport outside Washington, for example, is sandwiched between the Potomac River and the George Washington Parkway. The airport has been reluctant to install a crunchable concrete bed because periodic flooding could damage the system, the report said.
__
On the Net:
Transportation Department's inspector general: http://www.oig.dot.gov/
Federal Aviation Administration: http://www.faa.gov/
House considers money for border, Mexico drug war
House subcommittees are considering spending requests for security along the U.S.-Mexico border and ways to help curb Mexican drug violence.
An appropriations panel is holding hearings Tuesday for Homeland Security Department officials to talk about staffing to secure the Mexican border and the 670-mile fence there. The lawmakers also are looking at what role Homeland Security might play in combatting border violence.
About the same time, a separate subcommittee will hear testimony on the Merida Initiative. That's the U.S. program to help Mexico pay for equipment to combat drug trafficking and improve its police and judicial institutions.
An appropriations panel is holding hearings Tuesday for Homeland Security Department officials to talk about staffing to secure the Mexican border and the 670-mile fence there. The lawmakers also are looking at what role Homeland Security might play in combatting border violence.
About the same time, a separate subcommittee will hear testimony on the Merida Initiative. That's the U.S. program to help Mexico pay for equipment to combat drug trafficking and improve its police and judicial institutions.
Obama decision on stem cells cheers scientists
President Barack Obama's decision to lift the contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research came with a larger message for all scientists: Follow the data, not political ideology.
"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.
Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death.
"The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.
In a crowded East Room, there were more scientists in the White House than Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, had seen in his 30 years in Washington. "More happy scientists than I've seen," he added.
The most immediate effect of the order will be to allow federally funded researchers to use hundreds of new embryonic stem cell lines for promising but long-range research in hopes of creating better treatments, possibly even cures, for conditions ranging from diabetes to paralysis. Until now, those researchers had to limit themselves to just 21 stem cell lines created before August 2001, when President George W. Bush limited funding because of "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science."
Science, politics and religion have long intertwined and conflicted. In his actions Monday, especially with the stem cell decision, Obama is emphasizing more the science than the religion, when compared with his predecessor, science policy experts say. But they acknowledged that politics is still involved.
Don't expect stem cell cures or treatments anytime soon. One company this summer will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered spinal cord injuries. Research institutions on Monday were gearing up to ask for more freely flowing federal money, and the National Institutes of Health was creating guidelines on how to hand it out and include ethical constraints. It will be months before the stem cell money flows; the average NIH stem cell grant is $1.5 million spread out over four years.
Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom.
"I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments," said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes who could possibly be treated with stem cells. "On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. ... Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government."
Opponents framed their opposition mostly, but not exclusively, on moral grounds and the scientifically contested claims that adult stem cells work just as well.
Said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: "President Obama's order places the worst kind of politics above ethics. Politics driven by hype makes overblown promises, fuels the desperation of the suffering, and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science. It is politics at its worst."
In Congress, Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del., said they would seek a quick vote on legislation to codify Obama's order, having failed twice in the past to overturn Bush's restrictions. DeGette said she doesn't want stem cell research to become "a pingpong ball going back and forth between administrations."
But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative lawmakers, said the president's new policy would "force taxpayers to subsidize research that will destroy human embryos." DeGette and Castle said their legislation tries to minimize destruction of embryos.
Stem cells are typically derived from fertility clinic surplus that is destined for destruction.
Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."
In addition to the stem cell order, Obama issued a memo designed to ensure openness about scientific research and give whistle-blower protection to scientists.
Promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient," Obama said.
Many scientists and environmental activists complained that the Bush administration had censored and marginalized science. That's a perception that Bush science adviser John Marburger repeatedly called untrue and unfair.
In 2006, the White House edited out congressional testimony about public health effects of global warming by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. A 2003 EPA global warming document was edited by nonscientists at the White House. A NASA political appointee tried — and failed — to silence the agency's top climate scientist.
When Surgeon General Richard Carmona resigned in 2006, he complained about White House interference on global health issues. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," he said.
Obama advisers contend that all has changed. The government has already put on hold rules about scientific input on endangered species, reinstating advice that had been excised during the Bush administration.
Public policy must "be guided by sound scientific advice," said Dr. Harold Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The memo Obama signed is "mainly a way of trying to prevent tampering with any advice," Varmus told MSNBC.
___
Associated Press writers Lauran Neergaard, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.
"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.
Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death.
"The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.
In a crowded East Room, there were more scientists in the White House than Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, had seen in his 30 years in Washington. "More happy scientists than I've seen," he added.
The most immediate effect of the order will be to allow federally funded researchers to use hundreds of new embryonic stem cell lines for promising but long-range research in hopes of creating better treatments, possibly even cures, for conditions ranging from diabetes to paralysis. Until now, those researchers had to limit themselves to just 21 stem cell lines created before August 2001, when President George W. Bush limited funding because of "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science."
Science, politics and religion have long intertwined and conflicted. In his actions Monday, especially with the stem cell decision, Obama is emphasizing more the science than the religion, when compared with his predecessor, science policy experts say. But they acknowledged that politics is still involved.
Don't expect stem cell cures or treatments anytime soon. One company this summer will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered spinal cord injuries. Research institutions on Monday were gearing up to ask for more freely flowing federal money, and the National Institutes of Health was creating guidelines on how to hand it out and include ethical constraints. It will be months before the stem cell money flows; the average NIH stem cell grant is $1.5 million spread out over four years.
Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom.
"I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments," said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes who could possibly be treated with stem cells. "On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. ... Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government."
Opponents framed their opposition mostly, but not exclusively, on moral grounds and the scientifically contested claims that adult stem cells work just as well.
Said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: "President Obama's order places the worst kind of politics above ethics. Politics driven by hype makes overblown promises, fuels the desperation of the suffering, and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science. It is politics at its worst."
In Congress, Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del., said they would seek a quick vote on legislation to codify Obama's order, having failed twice in the past to overturn Bush's restrictions. DeGette said she doesn't want stem cell research to become "a pingpong ball going back and forth between administrations."
But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative lawmakers, said the president's new policy would "force taxpayers to subsidize research that will destroy human embryos." DeGette and Castle said their legislation tries to minimize destruction of embryos.
Stem cells are typically derived from fertility clinic surplus that is destined for destruction.
Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."
In addition to the stem cell order, Obama issued a memo designed to ensure openness about scientific research and give whistle-blower protection to scientists.
Promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient," Obama said.
Many scientists and environmental activists complained that the Bush administration had censored and marginalized science. That's a perception that Bush science adviser John Marburger repeatedly called untrue and unfair.
In 2006, the White House edited out congressional testimony about public health effects of global warming by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. A 2003 EPA global warming document was edited by nonscientists at the White House. A NASA political appointee tried — and failed — to silence the agency's top climate scientist.
When Surgeon General Richard Carmona resigned in 2006, he complained about White House interference on global health issues. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," he said.
Obama advisers contend that all has changed. The government has already put on hold rules about scientific input on endangered species, reinstating advice that had been excised during the Bush administration.
Public policy must "be guided by sound scientific advice," said Dr. Harold Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The memo Obama signed is "mainly a way of trying to prevent tampering with any advice," Varmus told MSNBC.
___
Associated Press writers Lauran Neergaard, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)