Government Panels Skewed Towards Industry

The nonprofit health advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) released an investigative report this week showing that a number of government science panels are skewed towards industry.

Advisory committees that develop policy recommendations are supposed to be made up of a range of individuals to spread out conflicts of interest. Advisory committees that advise on scientific issues are supposed to be scientists from the field that have no financial interests in the information or industry, enforcing objective advice. Both types now have issues that could harm the public interest.

The National Coal Council has a number of members who benefit financially from the committee's recommendations, Wind Turbines Guidelines Advisory Committee is stacked with corporate stakeholders instead of scientists, the National Organic Standards Board included a stakeholder from General Mills, the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee had several members tied to the industry that were misclassified as scientists and allowed to support programs outside their legal bounds, and the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee is almost exclusively comprised of industry members.

The lead CSPI investigator confirmed that it has only worsened over the course of the Bush administration. This is just one more indictment of the pro-industry stance taken by the outgoing administration. Scientists working at their own agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, have reported political interference in data and reports (889 of the 1,586 EPA staff scientists).

The problems with classification and conflicts of interest have been addressed many times. The Government Accountability Office criticized some committees and departments in 2004 and 2008, but additional legislation failed in 2008. The current legality covering advisory panels is the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Critics hope it will be addressed in the coming year.

Health Affairs Analyzes Presidential Healthcare Proposals

Health Affairs has published two analyses of the health care programs proposed by the presidential candidates. Neither equal universal health care, but McCain's would result in an even worse insurance system.
For the analysis of Obama's plan read here
For the analysis of McCain's plan read here

Science Debate 2008

The presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, have responded to the 14 questions posed by ScienceDebate2008. Obama responded first, then McCain a week later. A synopsis follows, but click the link above to read the answers in full. Obama follows the Democratic platform to double federal funding of basic research, which would fund the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute, as well as looking to increase ways to support women in math and science and to invest in higher education with a $4,000 tax credit for incoming college students.

They also pledged to lift the ban on funding embryonic stem cell research, which is important now that the previously approved lines have been found to be contaminated or unusable. They will also make the research and development (R&D) tax credit permanent, making it more financially rewarding to make new medical treatments and research forms of alternative energy.

He addresses the need to combat the amount of importation from China by increasing science and technology education and research in the United States, which would also address employment issues. This includes exposing all school children to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) teaching and education, not just those destined for those careers.

He laid out a plan to reduce carbon emissions with a market-based cap-and-trade system and to work with utilities to establish alternative forms of energy, worth $150 billion over the next 10 years. And, not ignoring national security, he wants to increase research spending for the Department of Defense to better equip the United States with up-to-date technology. He also proposes to launch the Shared Security Partnership that will invest $5 billion over 3 years to protect against bio-attacks and pandemics.

He plans on fixing the public health infrastructure and helping hospitals cope with greater numbers of patients. He also wants to look at ways to use water more efficiently and to explore both space and the oceans.

Most importantly, he plans to appoint those with appropriate backgrounds to scientific posts. He plans to strengthen protection for whistleblowers to increase the integrity of science. And he proposes to form the office of Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for the first time in American history.

McCain's more specific responses regarding his plans for office include the appointment of a Science and Technology Advisor to the White House, and that he will base his policies on sound science, in order to restore the scientific integrity of federal research. He also wants to promote entrepreneurship to increase innovation and technology in the current U.S. technology infrastructure. He also plans to fund nanotechnology research.

A surprising find in the responses McCain provided is an acceptance, and recognition, of global warming, which his party has avoided for the past decade. His policy to reduce carbon emissions is the same as Senator Obama’s – a cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions by 2050 and permanent R&D tax credit.

McCain also wants to commit money to clean coal technology research and $5000 tax credit to anyone who buys a zero emissions car, but there’s no discussion to changing the current law that makes it illegal to sell these cars in some states. McCain’s other plans also include contests with prize money, rather than funding basic research.

McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2050, rather than support alternative energy sources.

Similar to Obama, McCain support STEM education, but prefers to support individual businesses that can help guide students from college into the workforce rather than support the schools themselves.

McCain supports all forms of stem cell research, as long as an embryo was not used for the line’s creation. He also supports oceanic research, but does not discuss how or to what extent. His policies on water safety extend to water rights disputes, rather than the actual safety of the water.

His discussion on NASA and space exploration is a history lesson rather than an outline of his policies, though he has stated that space exploration will be a top priority, which would indicate that going to the moon again is more important than starving, uninsured citizens. Though McCain says he is committed to continue funding the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, he doesn’t say by how much, how often, or even how.

McCain’s plan to solve the healthcare crisis is to promote better technology.

A Congressional Response

I was surprised to log into my email this morning and find I had been written to by a congressman. It was actually in response to a petition I had signed asking for my local representative to support Barney Frank's Personal Use of Marijuana Act H.R. 5843. This is actually a bill that will allow those who use medical marijuana to no longer be persecuted for being sick. Unfortunately, the congressman that responded is the one from Northern Indiana, where I am from originally, but not my current district in New Hampshire - a big difference in ideals! But I wanted to dissect the form response to point out where they are wrong.

I am strongly opposed to efforts to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is addictive, it adversely affects the immune system, and leads to the use of other drugs, such as cocaine.

There is no evidence that marijuana is addictive. If it's being used to treat the pain associated with terminal cancer, then the person is not going to be around very long anyway. What are they scared of? The brain has receptors for cannabis because the body produces its own naturally occurring cannabis. They're called endocannabinoids, and they are involved in pain, memory, and anxiety. I want to quote a research article on cannabinoid addiction from 2002. "The use of cannabis sativa preparations as recreational drugs can be traced back to the earliest civilizations. However, animal models of cannabinoid addiction allowing the exploration of neural correlates of cannabinoid abuse have been developed only recently." Why is there NOW such a problem when the plant has been used for so long without interference. Could it be that the illegality has pushed it into overuse and misuse? Marijuana only leads to other drugs by socially connecting users with those who sell those other drugs. How? Because it's illegal. If it weren't, the patients would never come into contact with such dealers. Plus, there's a psychological line that's crossed. Also, how come just NOW they are looking into the neural mechanisms yet have been screaming for 35 years how addictive and bad it is. Someone didn't do their homework!

Marijuana also causes cancer, including cancer of the lungs, mouth, throat, lips, and tongue; respiratory diseases and mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and other psychoses, depression, panic attacks, hallucinations, paranoia, hostility, depersonalization, flashbacks, decreased cognitive performance, disconnected thought, delusions and impaired memory. Since marijuana impairs coordination and judgment, it is a major cause of accidents. Babies born to women who smoke marijuana during pregnancy have an increased incidence of leukemia, low birth weight, and other abnormalities.

Replace "marijuana" with "tobacco" and it's true. Yet the tobacco companies have a large lobby in Congress. Money = power I guess. Also, the schizophrenia research was biased government funded research from decades ago. Marijuana actually relieves anxiety, depression, and psychoses in those suffering from them when talking to the patient. From the researcher's point of view the jury is still out according to the most recent research. So why make such conclusive statements other than to scare me? A link has been found that shows that cannabis use predicts psychoses, but does not cause them. They are independent events, though whether they are self-medicating is still open for debate. A person would have to be vulnerable to the development of schizophrenia before cannabis would cause it.

Despite these effects, legalization advocates often promote medical use as a legitimate reason for the legalization of marijuana. This argument, however, is simply a red herring for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Studies have continually rejected the notion that marijuana is suitable for medical use because it adversely impacts concentration and memory, the lungs, motor coordination and the immune system. Even though some states have passed measures to legalize marijuana for medical use following multimillion dollar campaigns financed entirely by special interests, such legalization generally has overwhelming opposition.

What special interests? There are no marijuana companies! There are grassroots campaigns by patients, doctors, educated individuals, and others who believe that scientific and medical evidence should be taken into consideration. And how dare he tell me about medical issues...he even addressed me as Dr. Prater and my letter included information about the medical aspects. I KNOW the research. Representative Souder obviously does not. Tobacco and alcohol are legal while their brother is not...I continuously wonder why. If the states have passed the measures then obviously some people somewhere are for it and the will of the people is what is supposed to guide this country.

While some argue that marijuana may help to relieve some of the pain associated with some chronic illnesses, there is only one ingredient, THC, in the drug that has any reported medical use. Furthermore, there are safer and more effective medications that are preferred by physicians. Scientists at the National Institute of Health have declared that there is no evidence to suggest that smoking marijuana is superior to any currently available therapy for glaucoma, weight loss associated with AIDS, nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, or muscle spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis or intractable pain. In addition, the American Cancer Society, the American Glaucoma Society, and the American Medical Association, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society all oppose using marijuana for medical purposes.

THC alone does NOT have the same effect as the full plant. It does not even have to be smoked, or used in large quantities - a tea or brownie is suitable for many patients. This is true of many medicines. In the context of its natural environment it is effective, extracted, isolated, and purified it is not. Something is lost in the processing. There are still ongoing studies to determine if this is true in multiple sclerosis that are funded by the NIH nonetheless! There are also ongoing clinical trials for HIV pain, general analgesic effects, and whether cannabis treatment will interact with the painkillers given for cancer. Painkillers which are opiates - highly addictive and commonly abused pills derived from opium and a brother to heroin. Yet those are legal!

Some argue that by decriminalizing marijuana, we would be actually taking the profit out of production and sales. However, I believe that legalizing this drug would lessen the stigma of the dangers of its use. We also would most certainly attract new first time "experimenters
who otherwise might not have even had thoughts about trying marijuana. The side effects of this drug, which include those mentioned above, are reasons enough for keeping marijuana illegal. In addition, those who currently make outrageous profits from marijuana will merely move to possibly even more dangerous drugs.

New pharmaceuticals are introduced all the time that have harsh side effects - yet they go to market and kill people before a lightbulb goes off. Why pick on marijuana? It's only been illegal since 1970, yet they act like it's the worst killer ever.

The war against drugs has been, and continues to be, a very difficult one. Statistics show that drug use is up an alarming amount-especially among teenagers-and Fort Wayne and Northeast Indiana are not immune to this increasing trend. As you may know, I have worked hard to fight against this trend. In addition, I have worked to bring a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) office to downtown Fort Wayne to help with both local and national drug enforcement efforts. I will continue to fight to keep marijuana illegal and combat the abuse of other drugs.

In Indiana the drug of choice is actually Meth. Which is really really bad. But the so-called war on drugs has locked up millions of noncombative marijuana users and spent billions of dollars in attempts to control the cash crop. Let's focus on the major offenders, shall we? And let the sick have a little peace.

I hate the tone of 'well I know better than you, trust me', when our representatives are supposed to listen to what we want and execute those plans. If he had said 'a majority of my constituents feel differently'. Ok, that's how government works. But to lecture me!? I'm insulted. Also, this idea that medical use is just a smokescreen. No, sorry, some of us really do want patients to be allowed access. The bill I support explicitly names patients, it can even be a conditional clause, make marijuana a prescription drug! Go for it! I would be ecstatic! Recreational use is off my radar, what I'm concerned about is the patients. If a few hippies or underclassmen are now able to get access because of the bill I don't think that will hurt much. Everyone smoked in the 60s and 70s and the world didn't end. They just wouldn't have to travel to Amsterdam anymore. By the way, they have had decreased crime and heroin use since decriminalizing.

Oh, and I was provided no links to the supposed research supporting the other side...nice huh?

The third world in the U.S. - it's real

Rural regions of Virginia have a lot in common with other regions of the United States - distance between neighbors, questionable economy from plant shut downs or company withdrawals (think GM and Flint, Michigan; the gold rush ghost towns of the West; and the New England papermill towns), and a lack of health insurance. But the region also has a lot in common with Guyana and East Africa - thousands of people show up to get treated at a free medical and dental expedition. So many, in fact, that hundreds are turned away.

What does this say about the country in which these individuals live? It says that healthcare is not a priority, people really don't matter, and the state of things is worse than we think. Recent figures released by the CDC showed that 15% of all Americans are uninsured. That means that in a room of 100 people, 15 have no way to care for their teeth, eyes, diabetes, high blood pressure, pregnancies, infections, migraines, cancer, flu, whooping cough (it's coming back!), or anything else they may contract, present with, or suffer from. And how many more only have basic coverage without dental, eye, or both?

These numbers, sadly, include the government programs. They are not covering everyone, which they are supposed to do. Changes are needed to prevent many areas of the U.S. from becoming the third world.