Public Schools Ill-Equipped to Handle Anti-Science
by Tim D'Emilio

    While “intelligent design”* advocates have received some political setbacks recently, public education is in a weak position to provide solid scientific substitute; weak, that it, in explaining the diversity among species, how nature undergoes changes and how organisms develop.
   When tested against the AAAS science standards, state standards guiding science taught in America’s classrooms 1) vary enormously among the states in how well they cover the topic of evolution, 2) with some either ignoring or giving scant treatment to the core principles of that established scientific theory, according to an analysis by Education Week.
   Specifically, ED Week reports that "...only 21 states describe how random mutation or other changes in DNA and cells can affect evolution, and just 22 describe how the various mechanisms of evolution work. And only six states describe how long evolution has been producing diversity in organisms [3.5 billion years of the Earth's history, most scientists say].” "...four states-Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, and Oklahoma do not mention the term "evolution," as it pertains to biological changes in species, anywhere in the body of their science standards.”
   DC Public School’s biology standards claims alignment to “NCEE New Standards” and makes multiple references to common evolutionary origins, natural selection, and investigation-skills demonstrating how “earth’s present-day species developed from earlier distinctly different species.” Accessible at: http://www.k12.dc.us/DCPS/curriculum/content/Scien ce/s-sc-bio.pdf *Intelligent design (ID) is the theory that asserts that the properties of atoms and of molecules are determined by an intelligent cause, not by undirected bonding and molecular interactions. A judge in Pennsylvania has determined that, despite arguments to the contrary, ID is a thinly veiled effort to teach creation as a substitute for science. (see link below)
--> NYAS article on teaching evolution

SUMMARY: Attempts of governments to control scientific research have reached new levels in the U.S. While evident in many fields, the heavy-handed efforts of the Bush administration to stonewall the increasing cncerns about global warming are unprecedented.
    Once upon a time scientists and science enjoyed a privileged position in public discourse. Science as a profession was accorded unquestioned public respect. Science had brought us victory in war, space travel, wonder drugs and conveniences in the home. At last it had escaped from the control of religion and superstition and was there to bring progress to all. The world of commerce had long since learned to say "scientifically designed", "scientific research proves", "scientists find". Soon even whole fields of scholarly study were being created or reborn with new names - political Science, social Science, not to mention "Creation Science". Science ruled.
The U.S. government's involvement in scientific research grew rapidly with the arrival of world-renowned figures fleeing from the Nazi regime before WW II, engaged as it was not only in persecuting Jewish scientists, and conducting monstrous experiments, but also in suppressing math and physics (25% of Germany's physicists fled) to maintain ideological control. The flood of scientists continued, helping to create the mega-projects connected with the war and with the cold war and space race that followed. Well-equipped laboratories in and out of universities attracted still more talent. A large part of the work was applied research, with definite government-specified goals. However, basic research was also generously funded. The government was not exactly a passive observer in deciding which fields and projects and scientists were to get the funding, but such umbrella organizations as the NSF allowed scientists considerable freedom to explore basic research and to publish their results. During this period of rapid growth in research, there was always an undercurrent of political involvement both in government use of science, and among the scientists themselves , revolving around major issues such as the pre-war race for the A-bomb and then the postwar rush for the H-bomb. There were accusations of disloyalty aimed at scientists who raised questions about the uses to which their work would be put. However, even in 1959, when the Eisenhower White House invented the position of Science Adviser, this post was still seen as a way of providing objective scientific input to the President. In the Vietnam war years, there was a new surge of political involvement on the part of scientists and engineers. One of the many organizations born during that time, by the way) was Science for the People.
   Now, fast foward to 2006. Progress has been made: government policy is now trying to control science. It is the White House that is advising the advisors. Not just science policy, but scientific FACTS must be cleared for ideological purity. Are you sure this isn't 30's Germany? No, this is the U.S. in the 21st century. And, you no longer have to read obscure leftist journals and websites to find out; it's out there in the mainstream press. An excellent article in the Mar 13, 2005 New Yorker by staff writer Michael Specter provides a hair-raising catalogue of White House-directed acts of removal of scientific content from government web sites, forced resignations, intimidation or firings of high-level government scientists - to be replaced with people that are more likely to do a "heck of a job" for Republican interests when the next crisis comes. The areas that are involved in these interventions are wide-ranging, including religion - the teaching of creationism in the schools; sex and family - abortion, sexually-transmitted diseases and birth control; industrial pollution due to mercury, arsenic; the existence of WMD in Iraq. This ideological interference was the subject of a petition signed by thousands of scientists, published by The Union of Concerned Scientists in 2004, on restoring scientific integrity in policymaking - see    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific _integrity/interference/scientists-signon- statement.html )
All of these issues have been in and out of the news, but usually not attracted global attention. However, regarding the issue that dwarfs all the others, global warming, the dismissive attitude of the present administration toward the findings of science has been particularly blatant. For decades, fossil fuel interests had been buying access to the mass media and high levels of government to oppose fuel economy and anti-pollution legislation and alternative energy sources. As the reality of global warming began to get increasing notice in the press and consensus started to form among the world's climatologists, the industry was always able to create a public platform for a few scientists (usually on their payroll) to present the other side of the "controversy". Now in control of the White House and a large part of Congress, Big Oil has not been shy about flexing its muscles. The withdrawal of the U.S. government from the Kyoto treaty was just one among many indications. The most recent, shown in March on CBS' 60 Minutes
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minu tes/main1415985.shtml), exposed just how the final report of the latest findings by the federal Climate Change Science Program had been heavily edited to minimize the seriousness of the warming and its probable impact on human activities. Who did the editing? The presidentially-appointed head of the Council on Enviromental Quality, fomer oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney. (as it turns out, this is just the latest in a series of environmental editing jobs that have been the work of Mr. Cooney's diligent office).
    Also featured on the program was 30-year veteran NSA scientist James Hansen, a world-class expert on global warming. Hansen has warned that record warm temperatures and the rapid melting of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic indicate that the progress of warming may be approaching a "tipping point" beyond which warming will further accelerate and human efforts to reverse or even halt the changes may be useless. Hansen also told of continuing government efforts to dilute his message or silence him. A recent National Public Radio request to NASA for an interview with Hansen was turned down; NPR was told that they would have to interview an official at NASA headquarters instead.
Another tactic that the oil industry lobbyists have been using is to create its own "public interest" groups to drum up grassroots support for its policies. A nasty example is the group called "Public Interest Watch", 95 % Exxon-Mobil funded, that pressured the IRS to do time-consuming audits of Greenpeace and other environmental organizations. (see http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? sid=06/03/24/150203 ).
    But, the earth has its allies also. A new group called Climate Science Watch is operating an excellent web site (see below).Take a look - and do check out the other links in this article. And join us - Science for the People needs your help! '.
--> Climate Science Watch website

by Jane Zara

SUMMARY: Depleted uranium (DU) is a low-cost radioactive material used for military armor and anti-armor munitions. The US military used DU ammunition on the battlefield for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991 to destroy light armored vehicles and bunkers. Hundreds of metric tons were released in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, where many vehicles were hit by friendly fire, or deliberately destroyed to avoid capture. DU ammunition was also used in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, and in Yugoslavia in 1999, where over 1500 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched, but its use was not publicly disclosed by the US government at the time. The US is currently using DU in the second war on Iraq, but will not disclose the quantities used. Many sites of widespread contamination have now been generated by the US world wide and here in the US., but regulations, treaties and international laws are unclear about the enforcement of remediation efforts against the US. Cancer is the expected long-term consequence of both radiological and toxic effects of DU exposure, especially on the vulnerable populations inhabiting the war zones generated by the US.
    What is DU? History: DU is formed when highly radioactive, enriched uranium (for example, 234U used for nuclear energy), is depleted to a lower radioactive form, 238U. DU is preferred over tungsten for military use due to its availability and pyrophoricity, for it is a by-product of the US nuclear industry and so is provided to arms manufacturers at relatively low cost. It is desirable as a munition because it produces burning fragments upon impact and so can ignite flammable materials. It also can cause poisoning to humans through inhalation, ingestion and shrapnel wounds. Its half-life is 4.5 billion years.
    During the Gulf War in 1991 it was used to destroy light armored vehicles and bunkers (over 1400 Iraqi tanks were reportedly hit by DU rounds). DU munitions include automatic cannon 30 mm rounds, MK149-4 Phalanx rounds, M919 rounds for Bradley fighting vehicles, Tomahawk land attack cruise missile tips, and land mines. An estimated 14,670 lbs of DU burned as result of fires in ammunition storage areas at the US army base at Doha, Kuwait. An estimated 305-340 metric tons of DU was released in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, where many vehicles were hit by friendly fire, or deliberately destroyed to avoid capture. These radioactive vehicles were buried in Saudi Arabia, shipped to decontamination facilities, and buried in low level radioactive waste dumps in the US. DU ammunition was also used in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, and in Yugoslavia in 1999, where over 1500 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched. DU is currently used in the second US war on Iraq, but the US government will not disclose the quantities used.
    The use of DU was not publicly disclosed by the US government at its time of use, but finally revealed by a German scientist in 1992. US military officials have lied and misled the public about the scope and severity of exposures to veterans. The army failed to test Iraq I vets wounded by DU fragments until over one year after the first war in Iraq. Serious health and environmental studies did not begin until around 1994. It is estimated that between several hundred and several thousand US service members may have inhaled, been wounded by or otherwise been exposed to DU in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the first US war on Iraq. The extent of the contamination due to the current US war on Iraq has not been revealed. The mainstream press and Congress are virtually silent regarding the rampant use and proliferation of this toxic material.
    After the US began its scale up of DU munitions, other countries have taken up the practice. They now include Britain, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan and others that the Pentagon will not disclose. NRC export licenses reveal the US to be a major supplier of DU for military systems. Regulations, treaties and international laws are unclear about the ability to enforce remediation efforts against the US for causing widespread radioactive contamination. Cancer is the expected long-term consequence of both radiological and toxic effects of DU exposure, especially on the vulnerable populations inhabiting the war zones generated by the US.
    DU Contamination DU contamination has been reported in water, soil, air, gas, plant and in animal life forms in war areas, manufacturing and testing sites throughout the U.S., as well as places distant from the war. Radiation detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere after the shock and awe bombing campaign against Iraq in March 2003. This coincided with consistent air flow from Iraq northwards.
    Field studies were made in Kosovo in November of 2000 to evaluate environmental contamination from DU ammunition during the 1999 conflict. Eleven out of 112 sites identified as places where DU ammunition had been fired were tested. Samples were collected by the Italian National Environmental Protection Agency in Kosovo in November of 2000 to evaluate the level of DU released into the environment. Soil samples showed uranium concentrations above environmental levels due to DU. Tree bark and lichen indicated its presence, and so are useful as sensitive qualitative bio-indicators for the presence of DU dusts or aerosols formed at times when DU ammunition had hit a hard target.
    Soil and water at and around DU manufacturing and test sites have become contaminated throughout the US, generating Superfund contamination sites that will require massive funds for cleanup. In addition, insects, lizards and herbivorous mammals are showing DU accumulation.
    Health Effects of DU DU has been shown to transform non-cancerous human cells to a cancerous state. It poses its greatest danger to human health when inhaled or ingested. It can be internalized as a result of breathing smoke containing DU particles, by hand to mouth transfer, as result of contact with contaminated surfaces, by inhalation or ingestion of contaminated food or water, and by contamination of wounds by contaminated dust or shrapnel. DU oxide aerosols formed during impact generate respirable size particles (less than 10 microns in diameter), generating water soluble forms of DU. Chronic exposure or long term ingestion of uranium by humans may produce interference with kidney function.
    Elevated levels of uranium persist in the urine of DU-exposed Gulf War veterans seven years after exposure. Excretion is not significantly lowering the body burden of uranium. Five out of 22 samples from exposed veterans have detectable levels of uranium in their semen, and neurocognitive examinations demonstrated a lowered performance efficiency in contaminated veterans.
    Concerns grow regarding the declining health of war participants and war victims. These include the non-specific health problems reported among Gulf War veterans, increased leukemia incidence among former peacekeeping soldiers in the Balkans, and increases in mortality and in leukemias in Iraqi. Childhood hematological malignancies increased in Croatia as result of war related events. Mortality rates among Iraqi children have increased sharply. The death rate per 1000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased by at almost 800% after US invasions of Iraq. Cases of lymphoblastic leukemia have more than quadrupled. Malignancies in children below 15 years of age in Basrah have increased by 300%, with leukemias among children in Basrah rising 350%. And, not surprisingly, congenital malformations in Basrah have increased by more than 500%.
    DU Resources Support Network for an Armed Forces Union (SNAFU): Depleted Uranium/Gulf War Syndrome www.join-snafu.org (212-633-6646). National Gulf Resource Center www.gulfwar.org National Veterans Legal Services Project NVLSP@aol.com (202-265-8305). DoD GulfLink www.dtic.dla.mil/gulflink
·  VietnamVeterans of America 202-628-5881 Military Toxics Project www.miltoproj.org Center for Women Veterans www.1.va.gov/womenvet Association of Birth Defect Children www.birthdefects.org 800-313-ABDC www.iacenter.ofg/depleted/du_balk1.htm. An audit of war and occupation, New Scientist, Vol. 183, Issue 2454, 7-3-04, avail. at http://weblinks2epnet.com/citation.asp? tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bt+TD www.bandepleteduranium.org

• Depleted Uranium/Gulf War Syndrome, www.join-snafu.org (212-633-6646
• National Gulf Resource Center www.gulfwar.org
• Resource_Center National Veterans Legal Services Project NVLSP@aol.com (202-265- 8305)
• DoD GulfLink www.dtic.dla.mil/gulflink VietnamVeterans of America 202-628-5881
• Military Toxics Project www.miltoproj.org
• Center for Women Veterans www.1.va.gov/womenvet
• Association of Birth Defect Children www.birthdefects.org 800-313-ABDC
• www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_balk1.htm
• www.danfahey.com

Podcasts

by Tracy Vivlemore

   Podcasts, a word combining Apple’s iPod and broadcast, have since early 2005 been doing for audio what the VCR did for video 25 years ago. With an iPod or other media device and a type of software known as an aggregator anyone can download and listen to a podcast. But what exactly is a podcast? Podcasts are digital audio files that are downloaded to your media player for listening at your leisure. Some podcasts are simply replays of radio programs while others are produced by people who have a particular passion for things ranging from cooking to photography to music to politics to science fiction and fantasy television.
    Podcasts have the potential of attracting a world-wide audience and are enduring. Someone who misses a radio program has missed it and the message of the program is lost. A podcast, however, is available 24/7 to the entire world and is truly radio on demand.
    The scientific and academic communities are well-represented in the podcast world. NPR’s weekly radio program Science Friday provides its programs as a podcast. Also, the Center for Inquiry, a Buffalo, NY based think tank devoted to combatting pseudoscience, has a podcast called Point of Inquiry. Another popular podcast is Skepticality, which is also devoted to a scientific and rational view of the world. Below are some FAQS for people who are intrigued about this new media world.
    Is an iPod necessary? No, not at all. A portable media player such as an iPod helps for maximum portability but you can download a podcast and listen to it on your computer. In fact, I have been listening to a podcast while writing this article.
    Are podcasts free? Yes, they are downloaded free of charge from a variety of sources. One easy way to subscribe to and download podcasts is from iTunes, available for both Mac and Windows.
    How do I find podcasts? There are several podcast directories Podcast Alley, Podcast Pickle and iTunes are probably the most well-known. Are podcasts “clean”? Maybe. A podcast that was originally a radio program will likely be suitable for all ages. Privately produced podcasts, however, are not sent over public airwaves and thus are not subject to FCC regulation. Profanity and/or sexually explicit material might be found in any podcast.

Science Alliance

by Tracy Vivlemore

   Capital area residents meet to discuss formation of DC area citizens for science.
   On Thursday March 30th more than a dozen scientists and other concerned citizens met to discuss the formation of a group devoted to improved communication between scientists and the general public and fostering support for scientific endeavors in the Washington area.
   The new group is an offshoot of the Alliance for Science, a group of scientists and clergy focused on fighting the dilution of science standards in schools and the encroachment of creationism into the science classroom. Recently, some members of this group have successfully fought the introduction of a bill in the MD state legislature that would have brought intelligent design to MD schools in the guise of ”academic freedom”.
   The March 30 meeting was an organizational meeting to discuss the need for a group apart from the Alliance for Science devoted to the promotion of science. As initial projects, the group will focus on the threat to the teaching of evolution. In the future, the group will consider expansion into other topics such as stem cell research. Another meeting will be held to further organize and decide on a target audience, most probably church organizations, universities and public school teachers

Struggles for Affordable Medicine

by Jane Zara

    Escalating drug costs are of great concern to the states. Prescription drug costs have risen faster for the states than the overall costs of medical care. All of this is accompanied by a steady erosion of any national commitment to provide the funding necessary for obtaining adequate health care or affordable pharmaceuticals in the US. The Health and Human Services chronicled price abuses recently. It found prices varying tremendously between states, ranging between a 12% and a 4073% price mark-up for various drugs! In 2002, combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the profits for all other 490 businesses combined.
    Where are these profits going? The drug industry assures the public that these profits are justified to ensure that innovation continues. Exorbitant salaries are routinely provided to corporate CEOs (e.g., Bristol-Myers Squibb CEO, Charles Heimbold, Jr., made over $150 million in combined stock options and salary in 2001). And profits and marketing costs grow in the pharmaceutical industry as expenditures on research and development dwindle. In the past ten years, pharmaceutical industry spending on consumer directed ads has increased over tenfold while research and development has declined significantly. Brand name drug makers in the U.S. now employ 81% more people in marketing than in research and development. What’s more, spending figures that are reported for research and development are inflated by the pharmaceutical industry and do not account for the many benefits reaped by the industry, including tax deductibility of research, value or tax credits for orphan drugs, and grant support. And fewer new drugs are actually being developed.
    In addition to soaring marketing costs, the pharmaceutical industry has spent nearly $600 million on federal lobbying efforts in Washington between 1997 and 2003. Passage of the new Medicare bill, for instance, was preceded by intense lobbying by the drug industry: Drug companies, HMOs and industry-funded advocacy groups deployed more than 950 lobbyists toward this endeavor. An estimated 61% of Medicare dollars that will be spent for prescriptions will remain with drug makers as added profit – providing an estimated $139 billion in increased profits for the drug industry over eight years. How is this possible? This incredibly complicated, user-unfriendly Medicare program prohibits the Medicare administration from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to obtain the lowest possible cost for drugs. The law also shifts coverage of prescription drugs for dual eligibles (the disabled and elderly population) from Medicaid to Medicare, preventing states bulk purchasing power that they previously had. So states are now required to pay for drugs for dual eligibles without being able to negotiate any reduced drug prices for them, offsetting much of the Medicaid fiscal relief that should accompany the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. What’s more, this new law also requires states to continue to pay for much of the prescription drug costs through clawback payments to the federal government (Phased-Down State Contribution).
    States are attempting various strategies for reducing drug costs, including regulating drug ads and encouraging generic drug use. Unfortunately, states also target Medicaid programs for huge cuts as they deal with budget shortfalls. A very innovative approach for controlling drug costs is being attempted in some states and DC, however, that essentially asks the pharmaceutical industry to price certain patented medicines more reasonably by invoking compulsory licensing schemes. This approach utilizes an eminent domain approach (as a temporary taking of intellectual property rights for the public good) and utilizes an anti-trust approach (as a remedy to the excessive pricing of various medicines by the drug industry). Historically, compulsory licenses were authorized in times of public need and to correct anti-competitive behaviors by brand name manufacturers. Not surprisingly, these current compulsory licensing approaches are being met with great resistance as they face legal battles against the all powerful drug industry.
    State legislators and civic groups are working to overcome the power abuse exhibited by this powerful industry, hoping to turn their large profits into affordable medicines for the sick and the vulnerable. Here are some useful resources to follow this struggle:

• http://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/hs/ushealthreform.htm
• http://www.CRBestBuyDrugs.org
• http://www.cepr.net1
• http://kff.org; http://nlarx.org
• http://www.citizen.org
• http://www.patientsnotpatents.org
• see also Marcia Angell, The Truth About the Drug Companies, ISBN0-375-50846-5 (2004).

Katrina and Environmental Justice

by John Tharakan

The horrifying images that flashed across the globe after Hurricane Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast of the United States - images of communities devastated by the inability of the most industrially and technologically advanced nation on earth to cope with fundamental community needs and care - simply underscored decades-old observations and abundant evidence of persistent environmental injustice. We all as citizens this earth presume a right to live and work in a clean and safe environment. The extent to which we all, regardless of race, ethnicity or nationality , exercise this right and obtain this kind of environment is the measure of environmental justice that prevails. Within the United States, it has long been known that communities of color and lower income communities live and work in environments that adversely affect their health and well-being to a much larger extent than white, middle class and affluent communities. That race is a bigger determinant than income-level of increased risk from compromised environments has been statistically documented and speaks to environmental racism and environmental injustice. And the injustice does not stop at our borders. Lesser-developed and developing nations are accepting hazardous waste streams from industrialized nations and becoming dumping grounds for waste from the energy- and capital-intensive infrastructures and ways of living of the industrialized nations of the global North. Environmental inequity continues to be, observed on a global scale.
Katrina caused extensive, widespread and catastrophic environmental damage. There were more than 500 sewage treatment plants damaged in Louisiana, over 170 sources of leaking hydrocarbons were created and hundreds of hazardous waste sites were compromised. As one looks at the distribution of these sites and examines the recovery efforts thus far, it is clear that environmental damage will be experienced more by lower-income communities and communities of color, who happened to disproportionately occupy neighborhoods around these types of facilities. The government inadvertently assisted in the destruction of the wetlands that protected New Orleans – as over one million acres of wetlands have gradually disappeared over the past fifty or so years, making NO and the Gulf Coast all the more vulnerable. The government’s inattention to local issues – focused at the Federal level on illegitimate wars and phantom internal enemies – has contributed to a crumbling infrastructure, with inadequate levees, inoperable pumps and non-existent evacuation systems, all a direct consequence of the dismantling and privatization of government.
Congress should conduct an independent, Kerner Commission-style investigation of Katrina and its aftermath. The corporate relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, should be held accountable for fair and equitable relief distribution. Send an email or a letter a week to keep the pressure on. There are many places to get your e-advocacy on including www.katrinaaction.org and www.colorofchange.org, both web portals with great ideas for actions. Community organizers and concerned people have come together under the auspices of the NO-based coalition – Community Labor United – to form the People’s Hurricane Relief Fund & Oversight Coalition [PHRF – www.communitylaborunited.net]. The PHRF is participating in organizing for the first ever US Social Forum in Atlanta, GA planned for the summer of 2007 (www.ussocialforum.org). This is a 5-year global process of gathering of civil society to vision and create another world. The US federal government’s miserable response to Katrina is greatly contrasted with the efforts of other countries to take care of their people, see the link below:
--> Oxfam article on Cuba